FACTS SUMMARY 1:

o On May 13, 1985, private respondents filed a complaint

for damages against Dangwa Transportation Co. for the
death of Pedrito Cudiamat as a result of a vehicular
accident which occurred on March 25, 1985 at Marivic,
Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet.
o Among others, it was alleged that on said date, while
petitioner Theodore M. Lardizabal was driving a passenger
bus belonging to petitioner corporation in a reckless and
imprudent manner and without due regard to traffic rules
and regulations and safety to persons and property, it ran
over its passenger, Pedrito Cudiamat.
o However, instead of bringing Pedrito immediately to the
nearest hospital, the said driver, in utter bad faith and
without regard to the welfare of the victim, first brought
his other passengers and cargo to their respective
destinations before banging said victim to the Lepanto
Hospital where he expired.
o On the other hand, petitioners alleged that they had
observed and continued to observe the extraordinary
diligence required in the operation of the transportation
company and the supervision of the employees, even as
they add that they are not absolute insurers of the safety
of the public at large.
o Further, it was alleged that it was the victim's own
carelessness and negligence which gave rise to the
subject incident, hence they prayed for the dismissal of
the complaint plus an award of damages in their favor by
way of a counterclaim.
o Dangwa: observed and continued to observe the
extraordinary diligence required in the operation of the co.
and the supervision of the employees even as they are
not absolute insurers of the public at large

o RTC: in favour of Dangwa holding Pedrito as negligent and

his negligence was the cause of his death but still ordered
to pay in equity P 10,000 to the heirs of Pedrito
o CA: reversed and ordered to pay Pedrito indemnity, moral
damages, actual and compensatory damages and cost of
the suit
FACTS SUMMARY 2:
The petitioners insist that Amores must have heard the
trains whistle and heeded the warning but, noting that the
train was still a distance away and moving slowly, he must
have calculated that he could beat it to the other side of the
track before the train would arrive at the intersection. The
petitioners likewise add that the train was railroad-worthy
and that its defective speedometer did not affect the trains
operation. Lastly, they insist that evidence showed sufficient
warning signs strategically installed at the crossing to alert
both motorists and pedestrians.
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that the cause of the
accident was petitioners carelessness, imprudence and
laxity in failing to provide a crossing bar and keeper at the
Kahilum II railway intersection. Considering that Kahilum II
Street is in the middle of a thickly populated squatters area,
and
many
pedestrians
cross
the
railroad
track,
notwithstanding the fact that it is a public street and a main
thoroughfare utilized in going to Herran Street, the presence
of adequate warning signals would have prevented the
untimely death of Amores. Another crucial point raised by
the respondents is the manner in which Borja applied the
brakes of the train only when the locomotive was already
very near Amores car, as admitted by witness Querimit.
Finally, respondents claim that Borjas failure to blow the
locomotives horn, pursuant to the usual practice of doing
the same 100 meters before reaching the Kahilum II crossing
point is an earmark of recklessness on the part of the
petitioners.