Not an insurer against all risks

JAPAN AIRLINES vs CA

Facts:

 Private respondents boarded a Japan Airlines (JAL) flight in San Francisco, California bound for
Manila with an overnight stopover at Narita, Japan at JAL's expense.
 Due to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, private respondents' trip to Manila was cancelled. JAL rebooked
all the Manila-bound passengers and paid for the hotel expenses for their unexpected overnight
stay.
 The flight of private respondents was again cancelled due to NAIA's indefinite closure.
 Since JAL did not defray their hotel accommodation expenses during their stay in Narita, Japan,
private respondents were forced to pay for their accommodations and meal expenses from their
personal funds.
 The private respondents then filed an action for damages against JAL before the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of private respondent holding
JAL liable for damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but lowered the amount of
the damages. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not common carriers are liable to injuries or damages caused by a fortuitous event.

Held: NO.

 Accordingly, there is no question that when a party is unable to fulfil his obligation because of
"force majeure," the general rule is that he cannot be held liable for damages for non-
performance.
 Corollarily, when JAL was prevented from resuming its flight to Manila due to the effects of Mt.
Pinatubo eruption, whatever losses or damages in the form of hotel and meal expenses the
stranded passengers incurred, cannot be charged to JAL.
 Yet it is undeniable that JAL assumed the hotel expenses of respondents for their unexpected
overnight stay on June 15, 1991.
 Admittedly, to be stranded for almost a week in a foreign land was an exasperating experience
for the private respondents.
 To be sure, they underwent distress and anxiety during their unanticipated stay in Narita, but
their predicament was not due to the fault or negligence of JAL but the closure of NAIA to
international flights.
 Indeed, to hold JAL, in the absence of bad faith or negligence, liable for the amenities of its
stranded passengers by reason of a fortuitous event is too much of a burden to assume.
 It has been held that airline passengers must take such risks incident to the mode of travel. In
this regard, adverse weather conditions or extreme climatic changes are some of the perils
involved in air travel, the consequences of which the passengers must assume or expect. After
all, common carriers are not the insurer of all risks.
 Not an insurer against all risks

YOBIDO vs CA

Facts:

 Spouses Tito and Leny Tumboy and their minor children, Ardee and Jasmin, boarded at
Mangagoy, Surigao del Sur, a Yobido bus bound for Davao City.
 Along Picop road in Km. 17, Sta. Maria, Agusan del Sur, the left front tire of the bus suddenly
exploded.
 The bus fell into a ravine around three (3) feet from the road and struck a tree which resulted in
the death of Tito Tumboy and physical injuries to other passengers.
 Thereafter, a complaint for breach of contract of carriage, damages and attorney's fees was filed
by Leny and her children against Alberta Yobido, the owner of the bus, and Cresencio Yobido, its
driver in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City.
 After trial, the lower court rendered a decision dismissing the action for lack of merit.
 Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals.
 On August 23, 1993, respondent court rendered a decision reversing that of the lower court.
 In this instant petition, petitioners assert that the tire blowout that caused the death of Tito
Tumboy was a caso fortuito and herein respondent court misapprehended the facts of the case,
therefore, its findings cannot be considered final which shall bind the Court.

Issue: Whether or not the common carrier is liable for damages.

Held: YES.

 Petitioners' contention that they are exempted from liability because the tire blowout was a
fortuitous event that could not have been foreseen, must fail. It is settled that an accident
caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver is not a caso
fortuito that would exempt the carrier from liability for damages.
 When a passenger boards a common carrier, he takes the risks incidental to the mode of travel
he has taken. After all, a carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers and is not bound
absolutely and at all events to carry them safely and without injury.
 However, when a passenger is injured or dies while travelling, the law presumes that the
common carrier is negligent. . . . Article 1 755 provides that "(a) common carrier is bound to
carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances."
 Accordingly, the culpa contractual, once a passenger dies or is injured the carrier is presumed to
have been at fault or to have acted negligently. This disputable presumption may only be
overcome by evidence that the carrier had observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed by
Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the Civil Code or that the death or injury of the passenger was
due to a fortuitous event.
 Not an insurer against all risks

NECISITO vs PARAS

Facts:

 In the morning of January 28, 1 954, Severina Garces and her one- year old son, Precillano
Necesito, carrying vegetables, boarded passenger auto truck or bus No. 199 of the Philippine
Rabbit Bus Lines at Agno, Pangasinan.

 The passenger truck, driven by Francisco Bandonell, then proceeded on its regular run from
Agno to Manila.

 After passing Mangatarem, Pangasinan, truck No. 199 entered a wooden bridge, but the front
wheels swerved to the right; the driver lost control, and after wrecking the bridge's wooden rails,
the truck fell on its right side into a creek where water was breast deep.

 The mother, Severina Garces, was drowned; the son, Precillano Necesito, was injured, suffering
abrasions and fracture of the left femur. He was brought to the Provincial Hospital at Dagupan,
where the fracture was set but with fragments one centimeter out of line. The money, wrist
watch and cargo of vegetables were lost.

 Two actions for damages and attorney's fees totalling over P85,000 having been filed in the
Court of First Instance of Tarlac (Cases Nos. 908 and 909) against the carrier, the latter pleaded
that the accident was due to "engine or mechanical trouble" independent or beyond the control
of the defendants or of the driver Bandonell.

Issue: Whether or not the common carrier is liable for the damages caused by mechanical defects.

Held: YES

 A carrier is liable to its passengers for damages caused by mechanical defects of the conveyance.

 It is clear that the carrier is not an insurer of the passengers' safety. His liability rests upon
negligence, his failure to exercise the "utmost" degree of diligence that the law requires, and by
Art. 1756, in case of a passenger's death or injury the carrier bears the burden of satisfying the
court that he has duly discharged the duty of prudence required.

 While the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of the passengers, it should nevertheless be held
to answer for the laws its equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable. In this connection, the
manufacturer of the defective appliance is considered in law the agent of the carrier, and the
good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from liability. The rationale of the
carrier's liability is the fact that the passenger has no privity with the manufacturer of the
defective equipment; hence, he has no remedy against him, while the carrier usually has.