3. Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v.
CA public utility bus, once it stops, is in effect making a
Bus company - Dangwa Transportation Co ; Driver of the bus -
Theodore Malecdan ; Heirs of Pedrito Cudiamata - private
respondents
1. May 13, 1985: Theodore M. Lardizabal was driving a
passenger bus belonging to Dangwa Transportation Co. Inc.
(Dangwa)
2. The bus was at full stop bet. Bunkhouses 53 and 54 when
Pedro alighted
3. Pedro Cudiamat fell from the platform of the bus when it
suddenly accelerated forward
4. Pedro was ran over by the rear right tires of the vehicle
5. Theodore first brought his other passengers and cargo to
their respective destinations before bringing Pedro to
Lepanto Hospital where he expired
6. Private respondents filed a complaint for damages against
Dangwa for the death of Pedro Cudiamat
7. Dangwa contends that it 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 and that the
driver and the conductor had no knowledge that the victim
would ride on the bus since the victim did not manifest his
intention to board the bus.
RTC: Victim was negligent and found that victim was negligent in
trying to board a moving vehicle with one of his hands holding an
umbrella and WITHOUT giving ANY INDICATION that he wishes to
board the bus.
CA: Petitioner was negligent. The bus was at full stop when Pedro
boarded, the victim indicated his intention to board the bus since
Pedro was no longer walking and made a sign to board the bus
when the bus was still at a distance from him. When Pedro was
closing his umbrella at the platform of the bus when the driver of
the bus prematurely stepped on the accelerator and did not wait for
Pedro to first secure his seat considering also that the platform was
at that time, slippery and wet due to the drizzle.
ISSUE: Whether the bus is liable as a common carrier to the
deceased who was still attempting to board
HELD:
When the bus is not in motion there is no necessity for a person
who wants to ride the same to signal his intention to board. A
continuous offer to bus riders. Hence, it becomes the duty
of the driver and the conductor, every time the bus stops,
to do no act that would have the effect of increasing the
peril to a passenger while he was attempting to board the
same. The premature acceleration of the bus in this case
was a breach of such duty.
It is the duty of common carriers of passengers, including
common carriers by railroad train, streetcar, or motorbus, to
stop their conveyances a reasonable length of time in order
to afford passengers an opportunity to board and enter, and
they are liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers
resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking of their
conveyances while they are doing so.
Assuming the bus was moving, the act of the victim in boarding
cant be considered negligence. The bus had just started and was
still in slow motion at the point where the victim had boarded and
was on the platform.
It is not negligence per se for one attempt to board a train
or streetcar which is moving slowly. An ordinarily prudent
person would have made the attempt board the moving
conveyance under the same or similar circumstances. The
fact that passengers board and alight from slowly moving
vehicle is a matter of common experience both the driver
and conductor in this case could not have been unaware of
such an ordinary practice.
The victim herein, by stepping and standing on the platform
of the bus, is already considered a passenger and is
entitled all the rights and protection pertaining to such a
contractual relation.
Hence, it has been held that the duty which the carrier
passengers owes to its patrons extends to persons boarding
cars as well as to those alighting therefrom. Common
carriers, from the nature of their business and reasons of
public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence
for the safety of the passengers transported by the
according to all the circumstances of each case.
In an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not
make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the
carrier in order to hold it responsible to pay the damages sought by
the passenger.
 By contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the
express obligation to transport the passenger to his
destination safely and observe extraordinary
diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances,
and any injury that might be suffered by the
passenger is right away attributable to the fault or
negligence of the carrier.
o This is an exception to the general rule that
negligence must be proved, and it is therefore
incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has
exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in
Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.
Notes (just in case he asks): The hospital was in Bunk 56 but the bus first proceeded to
There was failure to immediately bring Pedrito to the Bunk 70 to allow a passenger (who later called the family of
hospital despite his serious condition is considered as patent Pedrito on his own will) to alight and deliver a refrigerator
and incontrovertible proof of their negligence In tort, actual damages is based on net earnings