Civil Law; Contracts; Torts and damages; Doctrine of last clear chance applies

in a suit between the owners and drivers of two colliding vehicles, not where the
passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce contractual obligations.
We reiterate that [t]he principle about the last clear chance would call for
application in a suit between the owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles. It
does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce
its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver
of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty
of negligence. This was Our ruling in Anuran, et al. v. Buo, et al., G.R. Nos. L21353 and L-21354, May 20, 1966, 17 SCRA 224. Thus, the respondent court erred
in applying said doctrine.
Same; Same; Same; Carrier, presumed at fault or negligent, the moment a
passenger dies or is injured.In culpa contractual,the moment a passenger dies or is
injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
and this disputable presumption may only be overcome by evidence that he had
observed extra-ordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of
the New Civil Code or that the death or injury of the passenger was due to a
forfuitous event.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Accident caused either by defects in the automobile or
negligence of driver, not a caso fortuito.In any event, [i]n an action for damages
against the carrier for his failure to safely carry his passenger to his destination, an
accident caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its
driver, is not a caso fortuito which would avoid the carriers liability for damages.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Driver,not jointly and severally liable with carrier
in case of breach of contract of carriage.The trial court was therefore right in
finding that Manalo and spouses Mangune and Carreon were negligent. However, its
ruling that spouses Mangune and Carreon are jointly and severally liable with

Manalo is erroneous. The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with
the carrier in case of breach of the contract of carriage. The rationale behind this
is readily discernible. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between the carrier and
the passenger, and in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is exclusively
responsible therefor to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the
negligence of his driver (see Viluan v. The Court of Appeals, et al.,G.R. Nos. L21477-81, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 742). In other words, the carrier can neither
shift his liability on the contract to his driver nor share it with him, for his
drivers negligence is his. Secondly, if We make the driver jointly and severally
liable with the carrier, that would make the carriers liability personal instead of
merely vicarious and consequently, entitled to recover only the share which

corresponds to the driver, contradictory to the explicit provision of Article 2181 of

the New Civil Code.

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the then Intermediate

Appellate Court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Santiago & Santiago for petitioner.
Federico R. Vinluan for private respondents.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the
Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) dated July 29, 1983
in AC-G.R. Nos. CV-65885, CV-65886 and CV-65887 which reversed the
decision of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of
Pangasinan dated December 27, 1978; and its resolution dated November
28, 1983 denying the motion for reconsideration.
It is an established principle that the factual findings of the Court of
Appeals are final and may not be reviewed by this Court on appeal.
However, this principle is subject to certain exceptions. One of these is
when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to those of the trial
court (seeSabinosa v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L47981, July 24, 1989) in which case, a re-examination of the facts and
evidence may be undertaken. This is Our task now.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
About 11:00 oclock in the morning on December 24, 1966, Catalina
Pascua, Caridad Pascua, Adelaida Estomo, Erlinda Meriales, Mercedes
Lorenzo, Alejandro Morales and Zenaida Parejas boarded the jeepney
owned by spouses Isidro Mangune and Guillerma Carreon and driven by
Tranquilino Manalo at Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga bound for Carmen,
Rosales, Pangasinan to spend Christmas at their respective homes.
Although they usually ride in buses, they had to ride in a jeepney that day
because the buses were full. Their contract with Manalo was for them to
pay P24.00 for the trip. The private respondents testimonial evidence on

this contractual relationship was not controverted by Mangune, Carreon

and Manalo, nor by Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc., the
insurer of the jeepney, with contrary evidence. Purportedly riding on the
front seat with Manalo was Mercedes Lorenzo. On the left rear passenger
seat were Caridad Pascua, Alejandro Morales and Zenaida Parejas. On the
right rear passenger seat were Catalina Pascua, Adelaida Estomo, and
Erlinda Meriales. After a brief stopover at Moncada, Tarlac for
refreshment, the jeepney proceeded towards Carmen, Rosales,
Pangasinan.
Upon reaching barrio Sinayoan, San Manuel, Tarlac, the right rear wheel
of the jeepney was detached, so it was running in an unbalanced position.
Manalo stepped on the brake, as a result of which, the jeepney which was
then running on the eastern lane (its right of way) made a U-turn,
invading and eventually stopping on the western lane of the road in such a
manner that the jeepneys front faced the south (from where it came) and
its rear faced the north (towards where it was going). The jeepney
practically occupied and blocked the greater portion of the western lane,
which is the right of way of vehicles coming from the north, among which
was Bus No. 753 of petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (Rabbit)
driven by Tomas delos Reyes. Almost at the time when the jeepney made a
sudden U-turn and encroached on the western lane of the highway as
claimed by Rabbit and delos Reyes, or after stopping for a couple of
minutes as claimed by Mangune, Carreon and Manalo, the bus bumped
from behind the right rear portion of the jeepney. As a result of the
collision, three passengers of the jeepney (Catalina Pascua, Erlinda
Meriales and Adelaida Estomo) died while the other jeepney passengers
sustained physical injuries. What could have been a festive Christmas
turned out to be tragic.
The causes of the death of the three jeepney passengers were as follows
(p. 101, Record on Appeal):
At the time and in the vicinity of the accident, there were no vehicles
following the jeepney, neither were there oncoming vehicles except the bus.
The weather condition of that day was fair.
After conducting the investigation, the police filed with the Municipal
Court of San Manuel, Tarlac, a criminal complaint against the two drivers

for Multiple Homicide. At the preliminary investigation, a probable cause

was found with respect to the case of Manalo, thus, his case was elevated
to the Court of First Instance. However, finding no sufficiency of evidence
as regards the case of delos Reyes, the Court dismissed it. Manalo was
convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. Not having appealed, he
served his sentence.
Complaints for recovery of damages were then filed before the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan. In Civil Case No. 1136, spouses Casiano
Pascua and Juana Valdez sued as heirs of Catalina Pascua while Caridad
Pascua sued in her behalf. In Civil Case No. 1139, spouses Manuel
Millares and Fidencia Arcica sued as heirs of Erlinda Meriales. In Civil
Case No. 1140, spouses Mariano Estomo and Dionisia Sarmiento also sued
as heirs of Adelaida Estomo.,
In all three cases, spouses Mangune and Carreon, Manalo, Rabbit and
delos Reyes were all impleaded as defendants. Plaintiffs anchored their
suits against spouses Mangune and Carreon and Manalo on their
contractual liability. As against Rabbit and delos Reyes, plaintiffs based
their suits on their culpability for a quasi-delict. Filriters Guaranty
Assurance Corporation, Inc. was also impleaded as additional defendant
in Civil Case No. 1136only.
For the death of Catalina Pascua, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1136
sought to collect the aggregate amount of P70,060.00 in damages, itemized
as follows: P500.00 for burial expenses; P12,000.00 for loss of wages for 24
years; P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; P10,000.00 for moral damages;
and P3,000.00 for attorneys fees. In the same case, plaintiff Caridad
Pascua claimed P550.00 for medical expenses; P240.00 for loss of wages for
two months; P2,000.00 for disfigurement of her face; P3,000.00 for physical
pain and suffering; P2,500.00 as exemplary damages and P2,000.00 for
attorneys fees and expenses of litigation.
In Civil Case No. 1139, plaintiffs demanded P500.00 for burial
expenses; P6,000.00 for the death of Erlinda, P63,000.00 for loss of income;
P10,000.00 for moral damages and P3,000.00 for attorneys fees or total of
P80,000.00.
In Civil Case No. 1140, plaintiffs claimed P500.00 for burial expenses;
P6,000.00 for the death of Adelaida, P56,160.00 for loss of her income or

earning capacity; P10,000.00 for moral damages; and P3,000.00 for

attorneys fees.
Rabbit filed a cross-claim in the amount of P15,000.00 for attorneys
fees and expenses of litigation. On the other hand, spouses Mangune and
Carreon filed a cross-claim in the amount of P6,168.00 for the repair of the
jeepney and P3,000.00 for its non-use during the period of repairs.
On December 27, 1978, the trial court rendered its decision finding
Manalo negligent, the dispositive portion of which reads (pp. 113-114,
Record on Appeal):
PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court is of the opinion and so holds:
YOBIDO v. CA

Common Carriers; When a passenger boards a common carrier, he takes the

risks incidental to the mode of travel he has takenafter all, a carrier is not an
insurer of the safety of its passengers and is not bound absolutely and at all events to
carry them safely and without injury.As a rule, when a passenger boards a
common carrier, he takes the risks incidental to the mode of travel he has taken.
After all, a carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers and is not bound
absolutely and at all events to carry them safely and without injury. However, when
a passengers is injured or dies while travelling, the law presumes that the common
carrier is negligent. Thus, the Civil Code provides: Art. 1756. In case of death or
injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to
have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755.
Same; Fortuitous Events; Words and Phrases; Characteristics of a Fortuitous
Event.In view of the foregoing, petitioners contention that they should be exempt
from liability because the tire blowout was no more than a fortuitous event that
could not have been foreseen, must fail. A fortuitous event is possessed of the
following characteristics: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence,
or the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligations, must be independent of
human will; (b) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso
fortuito,or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence
must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner; and (d) the obligor must be free from any participation in the
aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. As Article 1174 provides, no
person shall be responsible for a fortuitous event which could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, was inevitable. In other words, there must be an entire
exclusion of human agency from the cause of injury or loss.

Same; Same; Under the circumstances of the present case, the explosion of the
new tire may not be considered a fortuitous event.Under the circumstances of this
case, the explosion of the new tire may not be considered a fortuitous event. There
are human factors involved in the situation. The fact that the tire was new did not
imply that it was entirely free from manufacturing defects or that it was properly
mounted on the vehicle. Neither may the fact that the tire bought and used in the
vehicle is of a brand name noted for quality, resulting in the conclusion that it could
not explode within five days use. Be that as it may, it is settled that an accident
caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver is
not a caso fortuito that would exempt the carrier from liability for damages.
A common carrier may not be absolved from liability in case of force majeure or
fortuitous event alonethe common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent
in causing the death or injury resulting from an accident.Moreover, a common
carrier may not be absolved from liability in case of force majeure or fortuitous event
alone. The common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the
death or injury resulting from an accident. This Court has had occasion to state:
While it may be true that the tire that blew-up was still good because the grooves of
the tire were still visible, this fact alone does not make the explosion of the tire a
fortuitous event. No evidence was presented to show that the accident was due to
adverse road conditions or that precautions were taken by the jeepney driver to
compensate for any conditions liable to cause accidents. The sudden blowing-up,
therefore, could have been caused by too much air pressure injected into the tire
coupled by the fact that the jeepney was overloaded and speeding at the time of the
accident.
Same; Same; Damages; Where a common carrier failed to exercise the
extraordinary diligence required of it, which resulted in the death of a passenger, it is
deemed to have acted recklessly, and the heirs of the passenger shall be entitled to
exemplary damages.Moral damages are generally not recoverable in culpa
contractual except when bad faith had been proven. However, the same damages may
be recovered when breach of contract of carriage results in the death of a passenger,
as in this case. Exemplary damages, awarded by way of example or correction for the
public good when moral damages are awarded, may likewise be recovered in
contractual obligations if the defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent manner. Because petitioners failed to exercise the
extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier, which resulted in the death of
Tito Tumboy, it is deemed to have acted recklessly. As such, private respondents
shall be entitled to exemplary damages.