Merhcan vs.

Mendoza
G.R. No. L-24471, August 30, 1968
FACTS:
Respondents Arsenio Mendoza, Leonarda Ilaya and Zenaida Mendoza boarded a bus
owned and operated by Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines driven by Silverio Marchan. While
travelling on its way to Manila, it fell into a ditch causing the passengers inside the bus to
be thrown out to the ground resulting in their multiple injuries. Thereafter, Marchan was
convicted for serious, less serious and slight physical injuries through reckless
imprudence.
As such, respondents filed to recover damages from herein petitioners. Petitioners, on
the other hand, contends there is can be no implied contract of carriage between them
and the passengers, hence, there can be no basis for the recovery of damages from
breach of contract.
ISSUE:
Whether there is a contract of carriage between the bus company and the passengers
and consequently, whether Article 1759 is applicable in the present case.
HELD:
YES, there is a contract of carriage between the parties and Article 1759 is applicable in
the case at bar. Respondents were waiting for a passenger bus and the moment they
boarded the bus being driven by Marchan, they were treated as passengers thereto, for
they paid their corresponding fees. The riding public is not expected to inquire from time
to time before hey board the passenger bus whether or not the driver who is at the
steering wheel of said bus was authorized to drive said vehicle or that said driver is acting
within the scope of his authority and observing the existing rules and regulations required
of him by the management.
Common carriers cannot escape liability “for the death of or injuries to passengers
through the negligence and willful acts of the former’s employees, although such
employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of orders”.
Clearly, the applicability of Article 1759 is indisputable.