VDA. DE NUECA v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.
- MRC presented evidence showing there was no
Facts:
- At 3 p.m. on Dec. 22, 1958, Fermin Nueca brought 7
sacks of palay to Manila Railroad Co. (MRC) at its
station in Barrio del Rosario, Camarines Sur, to be
shipped to the municipality of Libmanan of the same
province.
- He paid P 0.70 as freight charge and was issued Way
Bill No. 56515.
- The cargo was loaded on the freight wagon of Train
537. Passengers boarded the train and shunting
operations started to hook a wagon thereto.
- Before the train reached the turnoff switch, its
passenger coach fell on its side some 40 m from the
station. The wagon pinned Nueca, killing him
instantly.
- Nuecas widow and children bring this claim for
damages, alleging that the Nueca was a passenger
and his death was caused by MRCs negligence.
- MRC disclaimed liability stating: (1) it exercised due
care in safeguarding the passengers during the
shunting operation, (2) Nueca was not a passenger
but a trespasser, (3) even if Nueca were a passenger,
he illegally boarded the train without permission by
not paying the fare, (4) the mishap was not
attributable to any defect in MRC equipment, (5)
that the accident happened due to force majeur.
mechanical defect, but it did not explain why the
accident occurred or show that force majeur caused
the mishap.
- The lower court absolved MRC of liability and held
that Nueca was a trespasser since he did not buy any
ticket, and in any case, was not in a proper place for
passengers.
Issue:
1. W/N Nueca was a passenger?
2. W/N MRC is liable?
3. Was the accident due to MRCs negligence or force
majeur?
4. Is Nueca liable for contributory negligence?
Held:
1. No, Nueca was not a passenger thus, MRC did not
owe him extraordinary diligence.
A passenger is one who travels in a public conveyance by
virtue of a contract, express or implied, with the carrier as
to the payment of the fare, or that which is accepted as an
equivalent.
The relation of passenger and carrier commences when one
puts himself in the care of the carrier, or directly under its
control, with the bona fide intention of becoming a
passenger, and is accepted as such by the carrier as where
he makes a contract for trasportation and presents himself
at the proper place and in a proper manner to be
transported.
Even disregarding the matter of tickets, and assuming
Nueca intended to be a passenger, he was never accepted as
such by MRC as he did not present himself at the proper
place and in a proper manner to be transported.
2. Yes, the liability of railroad companies to persons
upon the premises is determined by the general
rules of negligence relating to duties of
owners/occupiers of property.
Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence peculiar to the law of
negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence
may be established without direct proof and furnishes a
substitute for specific proof of negligence.
4. No.
An invitation to stay in the premises is implied from the
lack of prohibition to outsiders to keep off the premises,
hence, a stranger who is injured by a derailed train while
staying beside a railroad track is not guilty of contributory
negligence.

While railroad companies are not bound to the same degree Note: Our law on common carriers is lifted from Anglo-
of care in regard to strangers who are unlawfully upon the American statutes.
premises of its passengers, it may still be liable to such
strangers for negligent or tortious acts.

Here, Nueca was not on the track, but either unlawfully

inside the baggage car or beside the track.
It is normal for people to walk on the track or roadbed
when there is no oncoming train and to walk beside the
track when a train passes. This practice is tolerated by
MRC. Generally, MRCs stations are not enclosed, and is
easily accessible to the public.

1. MRC is negligent; doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

applied.

The train was under the complete control of the railroad

company at the time of the accident. The baggage car would
not have been derailed if the train had been properly
operated.