Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs.

The Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court and Casiano Pascua,

et al. G.R. Nos. 66102-04 August 30, 1990

FACTS:

About 11 o’clock in the morning on December 24, 1966, Catalina Pascua, Caridad Pascua,
Adelaida Estomo, Erlinda Meriales, Mercedes Lorenzo, Alejandro Morales and Zenaida Parejas boarded
the jeepney owned by spouses Isidro Mangune and Guillerma Carreon and driven by Tranquilino Manalo
at Daut, Mabalacat, Pampanga bound for Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan to spend Christmas at their
homes. Although they usually ride buses, they had to ride in a jeepney that day because the buses were
full. Their contract with Manalo was for them to pay P24.00 for the trip.

After a brief stopover at Moncada, Tarlac for refreshment, the jeepney proceeded towards
Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan. Upon reaching barrio Sinayoan, San Manuel, Tarlac, the right rear wheel
of the jeepney was detached, and was running in an unbalance position. Manalo stepped on the brake,
as a result, the jeepney which was running on the eastern lane made a U-turn, invading and stopped on
the western lane of the road in such a manner that the jeepney’s front faced south (from where it came
from) and its rear faced the north (towards where it was going). The jeepney practically occupied and
blocked the greater portion of the western lane, which is the right way of vehicles coming from the
north, among which was Bus No. 753 of petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. driven by Tomas
delos Reyes. As a result, a collision happened, where three passengers of the jeepney died while the
other jeepney passengers sustained physical injuries.

At the time and in vicinity of the accident, there was no vehicles following the jeepney, neither
were there oncoming vehicles except the bus. The weather condition of that day was fair. After
conducting the investigation, the police filed with the Municipal Court of San Manuel, Tarlac, a criminal
complaint against the two drivers for Multiple Homicide.

At the preliminary investigation, a probable cause was found with respect to the case of Manalo
thus, his case was elevated to the Court of First Instance and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment. Not having appealed, he served his sentence. However, finding no sufficiency of evidence
as regards the case of delos Reyes, the Court dismissed it.

Three complaints (Civil Case No. 1136; Civil Case No. 1139; Civil Case No. 1140) for recovery of
damages were then filed before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. And in all three cases, spouses
Mangune and Carreon, Manalo, Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and delos Reyes were all impleaded as
defendants. Plaintiffs anchored their suits against spouses Mangune and Carreon and Manalo on their
contractual liability. As against Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and delos Reyes, plaintiffs based their
suits on their culpability for a quasi-delict. Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc. was also
impleaded as additional defendant in Civil Case No. 1136 only.
 The trial court rendered its decision finding Mangune negligent and having breached the
contract of carriage with their passengers, and ordering Mangune and his co-defendants to jointly and
severally pay the plaintiffs damages.

The Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the decision by finding delos Reyes negligent. They
had a contrary opinion. Applying primarily (1) the doctrine of last clear chance (2) the presumption that
drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle guilty and the cause of the accident unless contradicted by
other evidence, and (3) the substantial factor test, concluded that delos Reyes was negligent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and delos Reyes were liable for the death
and physical injuries suffered by the passengers of the jeepney.

RULING:

NO. The Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and delos Reyes were not liable for the death and
physical injuries suffered by the passengers of the jeepney.

The doctrine of last clear chance is applicable in a suit between the owners and drivers of the
two colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to
enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the
jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence. This was
the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Anuran, et al. vs. Buño, et al., G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-
21354 May 20, 1966 17 SCRA 224. Thus, the respondent court erred in applying the said doctrine. The U-
turn made by the jeepney was abrupt. The jeepney which was then travelling on the eastern shoulder,
making a straight skid mark of approximately 35 meters, crossed the eastern lane at a sharp angle,
making a skid mark approximately 15 meters from the eastern shoulder to the point of impact. Hence,
delos Reyes could not have anticipated the sudden U-turn executed by Manalo. The respondent court
did not realize that the presumption was rebutted by this piece of evidence.

With regard to the substantial factor test, it was the opinion of the respondent court that the
bus was running at a fast speed when the accident occurred and did not even make the slightest effort
to avoid the accident. The bus driver’s conduct is thus a substantial factor in bringing about harm to the
passengers of the jeepney, because the bus was the physical force which brought about the injury and
death of the passengers of the jeepney. Still, the Supreme Court is not convinced. It cannot be said that
the bus was running at a fast speed because the speed of 80 to 90 kilometers per hour, assuming the
calculation to be correct, is yet within the speed limit allowed in highways.

After a minute of scrutiny of the factual matters and duly proven evidence, the Supreme Court
find that the proximate cause of the accident was negligence of Manalo and spouses Mangune and
Carreon. They all failed to exercise the precautions that are needed precisely pro hac vice. In culpa
contractual, the moment a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at fault or
to have acted negligently, and this disputable presumption may only be overcome by evidence that he
had observed extra-ordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the New Civil
Code or that the death or injury of the passenger was due to a fortuitous event.

The trial court was therefore right in finding Manalo and spouse Mangune and Carreon were
negligent. However, its ruling that spouses Mangune and Carreon are jointly and severally liable is
erroneous. The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the carrier in case of breach of the
contract of carriage.

The Supreme Court affirmed the amount of damages adjudged by the trial court, except with
respect to the indemnity for loss of life. Under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the New Civil
Code, the amount of damages for the death of a passenger is at least three thousand pesos (P3,000.00).
The prevailing jurisprudence has increased the amount of P3,000.00 to P30,000.00.

Accordingly, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court
and its resolution are SET ASIDE. The decision of the Court of First Instance is REINSTATED WITH
MODIFICATION that only Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Filriters Guaranty Assurance
Corporation, Inc. are liable to the victims or their heirs and that the amount of indemnity for loss of life
is increased to thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00).