TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua,
Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
VDA. DE NUECA v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.
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.
- Nueca’s widow and children bring this claim for
damages, alleging that the Nueca was a
passenger and his death was caused by MRC’s
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.
- MRC presented evidence showing there was no
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 MRC’s 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.
1
TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua,
Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²

Even disregarding the matter of tickets, and assuming 4. No.

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.
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.
Note: Our law on common carriers is lifted from Anglo-
American statutes.

While railroad companies are not bound to the same

degree of care in regard to strangers who are unlawfully
upon the 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, MRC’s stations are not enclosed, and is
easily accessible to the public.

3. 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.

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.