CHAPTER 2 (PART 2)
alone with only a student’s license.
ROADWORTHINESS
Common carrier that offer transportation by land are
similarly required to make sure that the vehicles that they
are using are in good order and condition. Thus, the carrier
will not be excused from liability on the ground that the
tire blowout was due to fortuitous event when it was
shown that the passengers were injured because the floor
of the bus gave way. Even assuming for the sake of
argument that a tire blowout its fortuitous, the carrier
would still be liable for not keeping the floor safe. In the
above-cited case, while the bus was running, a rear tire
exploded, blasting a hole in the very place where a child
was standing with her mother. As a result, the child fell
through the hole, and died that the same morning from
injuries sustained in the fall.
TRAFFIC RULES
The carrier fails to exercise extraordinary diligence if it will
not comply with basic traffic rules. It should be recalled
that Article 2185 of the Civil Code even provides for a
presumption of negligence in case the accident occurs
while the operator of the motor vehicle is violating traffic
rules.
• Nevertheless, in cases involving breach of
contract of carriage, proof of violation of traffic
rules confirms that the carrier failed to exercise
extraordinary diligence. The carrier will be
usually made liable and will not overcome the
presumption of negligence if there is violation of
traffic rules because extraordinary diligence on
the part of the common carrier requires
compliance with traffic rules and regulation.
• The basic traffic rules that must be complied
with include those provided for under the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code.
• The following cases are instances when the
Court found traffic rules and regulations were
violated:
o Violation of Section 37 thereof
requiring motorist to drive on the right
side of the road and providing rules on
overtaking.
o Speeding in violation of law providing
for restriction on speed.
o Speeding in an intersection
o A vehicle’s failure to signal while
making the U-Turn.
o The driver escaped and abandoned the
victims of his truck
Stephen Michael Ben
AUSL
o Driving without the license or driving
o A motorcycle driver was not wearing a
protective headgear at the time of the
accident.
o Overtaking in a “no-overtaking zone”
particularly the place where there are
two continuous yellow lines at the
center of the highway which is part of
internationally recognized pavement
regulation known as the “double
yellow center lines” regulation.
o Violating of the Metro Manila
Development Authority Ordinance
prohibiting a vehicle coming from a
particular street from crossing another
specified street or avenue.
DILIGENC E IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION
In quasi-delict cases under Article 2176 in relation to
Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, the employer can
invoke the defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of the employee in order to escape liability.
Such defense is not available if the case against the carrier
is based on contract – culpa contractual. Article 1759 of
the New Civil Code, which applies to all types of common
carriers, provides:
Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or
injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of
the former's employees, although such employees may have
acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the
orders of the common carriers.
This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon
proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of their employees.
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(1902a)
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.(n)
Article 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also
applicable to a quasi-delict. (n)
Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory,
1
 the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded. (n)
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also
for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother,
are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children
who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live
in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter
are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged
in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a
special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by
the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which
case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students
or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
a. Nevertheless, the duty of the common carrier to
exercise extraordinary diligence includes due
diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee.
b. It was likewise observed that in the discharge of
the common carrier’s commitment to ensure
safety passengers, a carrier my choose to hire its
own employees or to avail itself of the services
of an outsider or an independent firm to
undertake the task. In either case, the common
carrier is not relieved of its responsibility under
the contract of carriage.
c. In this connection it is well to note that the
conditions for the issuance of a Certificate of
Public Convenience for Public Utility Vehicle
imposed by the LTFRB include the following:
1) The PUV operator shall employ drivers,
conductors, inspectors, and other
personnel who are courteous and of
good moral character.
Stephen Michael Ben
AUSL
2) In no case shall the PUV operator
employ any person who has been
convicted by a competent court of
homicide and/or serious physical
injuries, theft, estafa, robbery, and
crimes against chastity, unless with
prior written approval by the LTFRB.
3) PUV operators are prohibited from
employing drivers who do not have a
valid professional driver’s license and
appropriate restriction code.
4) The PUV operator and their drivers
shall attend trainings/seminars on
transport management, road safety,
and good driving habits to be
conducted/accredited by the LTFRB.
5) Before accepting or hiring drivers and
conductors, the PUV operator shall
subject them to orientation and rigid
examinations pursuant to existing
laws, policies, rules, and regulations.
d. Common carriers are also now required under
RA 10586 otherwise known as the “Anti-Drunk
and Drugged Driving Act of 2013” to make sure
that their drivers will no drive under the
influence of alcohol or of dangerous drugs and
other similar substances.
DUTY TO INSPECT
There is no unbending duty to inspect each and every
package or baggage that is being brought inside the bus or
jeepney. The duty of the carrier to conduct an inspection
depends on the circumstances.
INSURANCE
The Insurance Code as amended requires all motor
vehicles to be covered by compulsory motor vehicle
liability insurance that compensates, among others,
passengers who died or who suffered bodily injuries as a
result of the operation of the motor vehicle.
CARRIAGE BY TRAIN
COMPETENT EMPLOYEES
The carrier must hire competent engineers and
employees. These employees must be properly trained in
the operation of the trains including in the manufacturer’s
operations instructions and other safety rules. The hiring
of competent and well-trained personnel necessarily
includes the hiring of competent security personnel (or
security agency) not only for the trains but for the facilities
as well.
2
THE PLATFORM MUST BE SAFE
As explained earlier, the duty is present even at the time
the passenger as at the platform. In Light Rail Transit
Authority (LRTA) vs Marjorie Navidad, the train operator
(LRTA) was made liable although the death of the victim
was sustained while the victim was still waiting for a coach
on the platform of the LRT station. The liability was
imposed although the inebriated victim’s death resulted
because he fought with a security guard.
In another case, Cangco vs Manila Railroad Company the
employees of the railroad company were guilty of
negligence in piling sacks of melon in the platform. The
sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct passengers
passing to and from the cars. The presence of the sacks of
melons cause the plaintiff to fall as he alighted from the
train; and that they therefore constituted an effective legal
cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
MAINTENANCE OF TRAIN AND TRACKS
No matter what mode of transportation is the common
carrier operating, the common carrier has the duty to
make sure that the vehicle or the mans of transportation is
in good and safe working condition. Thus, the train
operator is liable if the injuries were sustained because of
the defects in the breaks or because of any mechanical
defect in the trains.
• The train operator must likewise exercise
extraordinary diligence in the maintenance of its
tracks. Thus, the operator is liable if the train
was derailed because of the defective railroad
tracks causing injury to its passengers. The
maintenance of the rails is the responsibility of
the operator and prudent steps must be taken to
prevent accidents “instead of waiting until a life
was finally lost because of its negligence”
EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING PASSENGERS
Due care must be exercised when train passengers ware
embarking or disembarking. The exercise of extraordinary
diligence is required in the transportation of passengers
while in the rain, and also in giving intended passengers
reasonable opportunity to enter or disembark from it.
NEGLIGENCE IN THE OPERATION OF THE TRAIN
Extraordinary diligence should be exercised in the
operation of the train. Thus, the railroad company may be
held liable if the accident occurred because the train was
running at an excessive speed.
Stephen Michael Ben
AUSL
PASSENGERS WHO FELL FROM THE TRAIN
The civil case allowed to prosper against the respondent
PNR in Malong vs Philippine National Railways although
the respondent is a government instrumentality. The
Malong spouses initiated the case because their son, Jaime
Aquino, a paying passenger, was killed when he from a
PNR train while it was between Tarlac and Capas. The
tragedy occurred because Jaime had to sit near the door of
a coach. The train was overloaded with passengers and
baggage in view of the proximity of All Saints Day.
Although the case was not yet decided on the merits by
the Court, it is believed that negligence on the part of the
carrier is presumed.
PERSONS AND PROPERTIES RAN OVER BY TRAINS
It is not the duty of the engineer to stop the train every
time that he sees a person on or near the tracks.
The United States vs Bonifacio
But there is no obligation on an engine driver to stop, or even
to slow down his engine, when he sees an adult pedestrian
standing or walking on or near the track, unless there is
something in the appearance or conduct of the person on foot
which would cause a prudent man to anticipate the possibility
that such person could not, or would not avoid the possibility
of danger by stepping aside. Ordinarily, all that may properly
be required of an engine driver under such circumstances is
that he give warning of his approach, by blowing his whistle or
ringing his bell until he is assured that the attention of the
pedestrian has been attracted to the oncoming train.
Of course it is the duty of an engine driver to adopt every
measure in his power to avoid the infliction of injury upon any
person who may happen to be on the track in front of his
engine, and to slow down, or stop altogether if that be
necessary, should he have reason to believe that only by doing
so can an accident be averted.
But an engine driver may fairly assume that all persons walking
or standing on or near the railroad track, except children of
tender years, are aware of the danger to which they are
exposed; and that they will take reasonable precautions to
avoid accident, by looking and listening for the approach of
trains, and stepping out of the way of danger when their
attention is directed to an oncoming train.
Any other rule would render it impracticable to operate
railroads so as to secure the expeditious transportation of
passengers and freight which the public interest demands. If
engine drivers were required to slow down or stop their trains
every time they see a pedestrian on or near the track of the
railroad it might well become impossible for them to maintain
a reasonable rate of speed. As a result the general traveling
public would be exposed to great inconvenience and delay
which may be, and is readily avoided by requiring all persons
approaching a railroad track, to take reasonable precautions
against danger from trains running at high speed.
3
Indeed, a person who is walking on the tracks must
exercise due care in avoiding his own death or injury.
The United States vs Azajar
We believe that it is a rule well established that any person
walking or being upon a railroad track is bound to be diligent
and to keep a lookout for approaching trains. This rule, it
would seem, is especially applicable to employees of a railroad
company, who are working on the track. The engineer
managing the train has a right to assume that adult persons
who are upon the track and especially the workmen regularly
employed thereon, will exercise reasonable care and will be on
the lookout for approaching trains, that they will take due
notice of signals properly given, and will leave the track in
ample time to avoid injury.
In Jahara vs The Mindanao Lumber Company an employee
who was about to go to the place where he was engaged
in cutting timber, through the train operating in the place,
was run over by the last car of the train as it was moving
backwards. The employee died instantly. It was explained
however that the proximate cause of the death of a
worker was his own negligence because evidence shows
that the deceased tried to board the rear platform if the
car as it was moving backwards; that he succeeded in
getting a foothold but failing to obtain a gold of the car, he
fell to the ground and was run over by the train.
DAMAGES TO PROPERTIES AND PERSONS NEAR
RAILROAD TRACKS
The railroad company must exercise due care in
preventing damage to the properties near the tracks. The
railroad company may be liable if, for instance, its
negligence cause the destruction of neighboring properties
through fire.
RAILROAD CROSSING
Due diligence on the part of the train operator includes
due diligence in traversing railroad crossing and in
maintaining the same. There are substantial number of
cases decided by the Supreme Court involving collision
between a train and a motor vehicle. The cases decided by
the SC involving accidents in railroad crossings include
quasi-delict cases and cases against the operator or owner
of the vehicle that collided with the trains as well as the
duty of the train companies to the public. However, the
same may also be the reason why the Court may rule that
there is culpa contractual; the same negligent act or
omission may give rise to liability to passengers who may
be injured as a consequence.
• In some of the cases, the motor vehicles that
collided with the trains were being operated as
common carriers. Negligence of these operators
Stephen Michael Ben
AUSL
was presumed and the operators of these
common carriers were made liable to their
passengers or the latter’s heirs when they failed
to exercise due diligence in crossing the railway.
• It may broadly be stated that railroad companies
owe to the public a duty of exercising a
reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to
persons and property at railroad crossings, which
duties pertain both in the operation of trains and
in the maintenance of the crossings. Moreover,
every corporation constructing or operating a
railway shall make and construct at all points
where such railway crosses any public road,
good, sufficient, and safe crossings and erect at
such points, at a sufficient elevation from such
road as to admit a free passage of vehicles of
every kind, a sign with large and distinct letters
placed thereon, to give notice of the proximity of
the railway, and warn persons of the necessity of
looking out for trains.
ABSENCE OF SAFETY DEVICES AND SIGNS
The train operator may be held liable if it did not ensure
safety of others through placing of crossbars, signal lights,
warning signs and other permanent safety barriers to
prevent vehicles or pedestrians from crossing there.
SPEEDING
Running the train at an excessive speed can be proof of
negligence. In Philippine National Railways Corporation
and Borja vs Court of Appeals the train that collided with a
car was running at fast speed because notwithstanding the
application of the ordinary and emergency brakes, the
train still dragged the car some distance away from the
point of impact.
• The engineer must also take into consideration
the prevailing condition in fixing the speed of the
train. In Philippine National Railways vs
Intermediate Appellate Court there was an
intermittent rain at the time of the collision; the
condition of the weather was such that even if
for this reason alone, the train engineer should
have foreseen that danger of collision lurked
because of poor visibility of slippery road; he
should have taken extra precaution by
considerably slackening its speed.
OBLIGATIONS OF THIRDS PERSONS APPROACHING
CROSSINGS
The general rule is that “the rights and obligations
between the public and a railroad company at a public
crossing are mutual and reciprocal. Both are under mutual
4
obligation to exercise due care to avoid causing or
receiving injury. Each is in duty bound to exercise
reasonable or ordinary care commensurate with the risk
and danger involved.
• A railroad track is in itself a notice of waring of
danger, and that it is the duty of all persons
approaching a railroad track or a railroad
crossing to look and listen and to take every
precaution before venturing upon it.
• A person crossing a railroad track, either at a
regular crossing or elsewhere, should do so
cautiously and carefully. He should look and
listen, and do everything that a reasonable
prudent man would do, before he attempts to
crass the track. If he fails to use his sense he is
negligent and others who have acted legally
should not be punished.
NO IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
The negligence of driver of a car that collided with a train
as well as the negligence of the engineer of the train
cannot be imputed to the passengers of each vehicle.
The passenger of the car can still recover from the railroad
company despite the negligence of the driver of the car,
whose liability is solidary as joint-tortfeasor.
PASSENGER’S BAGGAGES
Article 1754. The provisions of articles 1733 to 1753 shall
apply to the passenger's baggage which is not in his personal
custody or in that of his employee. As to other baggage, the
rules in articles 1998 and 2000 to 2003 concerning the
responsibility of hotel-keepers shall be applicable.
BAGGAGE DEFINED
The term baggage has been defined to include whatever
articles a passenger usually takes with him for his own
personal use, comfort, and convenience according to the
habits or wants of the particular class to which he belongs,
either with reference to his immediate necessities or to
the ultimate purpose of his journey.
• LTFRB RULES. In land transportation, the
conditions for the issuance of a Certificate of
Public Convenience for PUV imposed by the
LTFRB include the following rules
1) Every passenger is entitled to a free
carriage of 10 kilograms of baggage
and shall pay the corresponding
freightage for excess weight.
2) When the PUV operator’s unit/carry
both passengers and freight, the
freight shall be placed in a separate
Stephen Michael Ben
AUSL
compartment, except packages or
bundles the size of which will allow
placement under the seats without
causing inconvenience to, and
compromising the safety of, the other
passengers.
3) In case freight is carried on top of
Public Utility Buses, it shall not exceed
20 kilos per square meter of roof area,
distributed so that it shall not
endanger the lives of passengers or
stability of the bus unit.
4) The PUV operator shall not load
animals of any kind, except fowls. In
the carriage of such fowls and other
animals, the convenience, comfort and
safety of the passengers shall not in
any way be sacrificed. Any cargo that
emit foul odor shall be covered with
canvass or any other suitable material
so that it will not be offensive to
passengers.
CHECKED-IN BAGGAGE
The rules that are applicable to goods that are being
shipped are applicable to baggage delivered to the custody
of the carrier as in incident of a contract of carriage of
passenger.
HAND CARRIED LUGGAGE
Article 1998. The deposit of effects made by travelers in hotels
or inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The keepers of
hotels or inns shall be responsible for them as depositaries,
provided that notice was given to them, or to their employees,
of the effects brought by the guests and that, on the part of
the latter, they take the precautions which said hotel-keepers
or their substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of
their effects. (1783)
Article 2000. The responsibility referred to in the two
preceding articles shall include the loss of, or injury to the
personal property of the guests caused by the servants or
employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as
strangers; but not that which may proceed from any force
majeure. The fact that travellers are constrained to rely on the
vigilance of the keeper of the hotels or inns shall be
considered in determining the degree of care required of him.
(1784a)
Article 2001. The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the
hotel is not deemed force majeure, unless it is done with the
use of arms or through an irresistible force. (n)
Article 2002. The hotel-keeper is not liable for compensation if
the loss is due to the acts of the guest, his family, servants or
5
 visitors, or if the loss arises from the character of the things
brought into the hotel. (n)

Article 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from

responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not
liable for the articles brought by the guest. Any stipulation
between the hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the
responsibility of the former as set forth in articles 1998 to
2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void. (n)

6
Stephen Michael Ben
AUSL