218 To FT se wihout which the injury woug eppered he inlury may be ato SNe anya he causes ahd recovery med © against any oF all of the responsitys had Sfpougn one th cumstances fet fay aoa tha one ofthe was man geet Sd tat he diy owed by them "a poe person was nat he same. No actor oy ed zone nbn a prouat cuse meray IO Toes. not exceed the negigonea 2 aor. Each wrongdoo is reapers et entre result and table as though his soa fhe sole cause of he injury . There is no contbution between pny tontfeasors whose liablity & solitary singe fo of them are liable for the total damage, the concurrent or successive negligent ase omissions. of two or more persons, alt ‘acting independently, are in combination tte direct and proximate cause of a single injury tw third person, its impossible to determine in wha proportion each contributed to. the iy andeither of them is responsible for the whole injury. Where their concurring negligence resulted in injury or damage to a third party, they become joint tortfeasors. and are soldariy lable for the resulting damage under Article 2194 of the Chil Code. (Loadmasters Customs Serves, In. v. Glodel Brokerage Corp. et al, GR. No 179446, January 10, 2011). CHAPTER Ill NEGLIGENCE Concept of negligence The foundation of all quasidelicts is “negligence? Negligence is the failure to observe that degree of ‘are, precaution and vigilance that circumstances justly demand whereby another person suffers injury. (U.S. vs, Barnas, 23 Phil 434). Ibis the want of care required by the circumstances. It is relative or comparative, not an absolute term, and its application depends upon the situation of the parties. and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require, Where the danger is great, a higher degree of care. is necessary, and the failure to observe itis a want of ordinary care under the circumstances. (U.S. vs. Juanillo, 23 Phil. 212 Cotiss vs. Mla. Railroad, 27 SCRA 674). Thus, in the case of ‘common carriers, the degree of dligence required of the carrier in the transport of persons is utmost diligence or goods is extraordinary, (Art. 17333, 1756, NCC), This is because of the very nature of the business of the carrier, where the shipper of the goods or passenger is always at the mercy of the carer. In ase of loss of goods or deterioration of the same or death or injury to persons, the carrer is presumed to be negligent in the lransport of goods or passengers. (Art. 1735, NCC) In fact the degree of diligence in the transport of persons cannot be 29220 Torts, 80 Bay, reauced as 2 rue, exCopt when the passenger guest batt cannot be less than Ordinary 2 yg. Beet CC. prondes tat whoever By oat yy any BON, ere bag tector care srnage dove. Such faut or noses geet Pay rusting contractual elation betwose ree ha maa uadedelct In colpa-contacal” ye 22a Y Sligorce rogues is extracéinery whan gupl', Seo § date ef tat of the dligence of 8 gooa taney ula once, under Article 1178, NCC. i the law or eo tite tho cigence which ist be observed nine act that which is expected of good father of a Yami required a Negligence of railroad company. ee es msc tr me eee ae ain a merece al In the early afternoon of April 27, 1992, Jose Areas was traversing the railroad tracks in’ Kahiium Il shox Pandacan, Manila. Before crossing the railroad track m stopped for a while then proceeded accordingly. Untoruratey just as Amores was at the intersection, a Philippine Natcnt Railways’ (PNR) train tured up and collided with the car At the time of the mishap, there was neither a signal ‘a crossing bar at the intersection to warn motorists of a ‘approaching train. Aside from the railroad track, the only vise ‘warning sign at that time was the defective standard signones “STOP, LOOK and LISTEN’ wherein the sign ‘Listen’ wis lacking while that of "Look’ was bent. No whistle blow from train was likewise heard before it finally bumped the ca! ¢ ‘Amores. After impact, the car was dragged about ten meters beyond the center of the crossing. Amores ded ® consequence thereof nce 2 In their compli, respondents ave soodometor was dtectve, aha tat he poe $5 oat cn i manos rae cen 28 tons 10 Prevent jury to perwora any eae BoCtanso popuaton inthe veiny They nes pen, ate ‘and moral damages, a8 well as attomey's fees ed that the train's In their Answer, the petitioners denied the allegations stating that the train was railroad-worthy and without any defect, ‘According to them, the proximate cause of the death of Amores (was pis own carelessness and negligence, and Amores ‘wantonly disregarded traffic rules and regulations in crossing the railroad tracks and trying to beat the approaching tain ‘They admitted that there was no crossing bar at the site of the ‘accident because it was merely a barangay road. PNR stressed. that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the locomotive driver and train tengineer. Borja, and that the latter likewise used extraordinary dligence and caution to avoid the accident. Petitioners further asserted that respondents had the last clear chance to avoid the accident but recklessly failed to do so. The RTC dismissed the complaint ruling that the proximate cause of the collision was Amores’ fatal misjudgment ‘and the reckless course of action he took in crossing the railroad track even after seeing or hearing the oncoming train. ‘The CA reversed the RTC decision and found the petitioners negligent. The coun based the petitioners’ negligence on the failure of the PNR to install a semaphore or at the very least, to post @ flagman, considering that the crossing is located in a thickly populated area, Moreover, the signboard “Stop, Look and Listen’ was found insufficient because of its defective condition as described above. Lastly, No negligence could be attributed to Amores as he exercised reasonable diligence in crossing the railroad track, hence, a Petition for review on certiorari was filed with the SC. in holding the PNR liable for damages, the SCTor, 2a Ste 4 Pattioners re Hable for damages HeNgence. Whoever by act or omission aunt, ty snater, there being feu or negligence, is obiged to"as Samage dre. Such fault ornesigence fee P8) ah estingcoraectal ton avec he pare “= Goi and © governed by the Provisions of thie a ne 2176, NCC). Her ing Nogigence has been defined as “the fa tote proecion of he interest of another por, ‘of care, precaution, and vigilance which the ircur am Ist demand, whereby such other person suers un the aforementioned philosophy, it may be reliably «Lita that tore ono hard are fat rule whereby such seg and viglance 18 caliraled, iis dependent oo ercumstances in which a person finds himself pot reqs i thats perpetvay competing upon a pat that care and ligence expected of sensi nar lt comparable circumstances, The petttoners were negligent when the colision iy place. The train was. running at a. fast speed rotwrhstanding the application ofthe ordinary and eneges, brakes, the train stil ragged the car some distance ansying the point of impact. Evidence likewise unveiled the inadeyan precautions taken by petitioner PNR to forewarn the puble the impending danger. Aside from not having any crossing tw no flagman or guard to man the intersection at al tines as posted on the day of the incident. A reliable signaling devs r 00d condition, not just a dilapidated "Stop, Look and Lit signage because of many years of neglect, is needed to gie notice to the public. itis the responsibilty of the raea! company to use reasonable care to keep the signal devs working order. Failure to do so would be an indication o negligence. ‘AS held in the case of Philippine National Railay 8 Brunty, 90 SCRA 367 ([1979)), it may broadly be stated ‘allroad companies owe to the public a duty of xe"08"9 neuen as semsonabie degree Of cae 10 avid sagt oon Ss wen ety aortas and tothe iene of vars ao ena wesrae end cruel a gene wenn at ‘crosses any PUbIIC 8d, Good. sucent, and safe cossinae, oes eect a such pom, a sufigert savas SOR, So imtoo paseo of vente sem ah uch tise and tne laters placa harry ea ‘roy ofthe alway” and warm pronto eee Btn tu frtrans Ye fare arene ees 2 ScSgnal igh tgman or amitchnon sree Sieongence and dsregad of te satay oP es fares o law of orinencnrequrng cause pubic safe demands that said device or equipment be instalog : Right-of-way in a railroad crossing. ‘The petitioners insisted that a train has a right-o.way in a railroad crossing under the existing laws. They derive ther theory from Section 42(4), Article Il of RA. No. 4136, otherwise: known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, which states that: ‘The driver of vehicle upon a highway shall bring to a full stop such vehicle before, traversing any “through highway" or raikoad crossing: Provided, That when itis apparent that ‘no hazard exists, the vehicle may be slowed down to five miles per hour instead of bringing t to afull stop, They claimed that motorists are enjoined by law to stop, look and listen before crossing railroad tracks and that a heavier ‘esponsibility rests upon the motorists in avoiding accidents at level crossings, |i is true that one driving an automobile must use his faculties of seeing and hearing when nearing a rairoad