Case # 15

Spouses Fabre, Cabil vs CA

G.R. 111127
July 26, 1996

Facts

Spouses Fabre owned a mini-bus used for business as a school service for children in Manila.
They hired Cabil as driver in 1981. On November 1984, World Christian Fellowship Inc arranged with
petitioners for the transportation of 33 members of its Young Adults Ministry from Manila to La
Union. Cabil drove for them and this was his first trip outside Manila.
The usual route through Carmen, Pangasinan was unavailable because the bridge was under
repair so Cabil was forced to take a detour through Lingayen. At 11:30 pm, Cabil came upon a sharp
curve on the highway which he described as a “siete”. It was raining and the road was slippery.
Running at 50 kph, the bus skid to the left shoulder road then hit a left traffic steel brace and sign
along the road and rammed a fence.
Several passengers were injured. Respondent Amyline Antonio was pinned down by a
wooden seat and as a result of this became paralyzed from the waist down. Cabil claimed he did not
see the curve until it was too late and said he saw the curve when he was already within 15 to 30
meters of it. He allegedly slowed down to 30 kph but it was too late. Antonio filed a case before the
RTC for damages. The trial court awarded her compensatory and actual damages.

Issue

WoN petitioners were negligent and were liable for injuries suffered by respondents

Ruling

The petition is without merit.

The finding that Cabil drove his bus negligently, while his employer, the Fabres, who owned
the bus, failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision
of their employee is fully supported by the evidence on record. It was admitted by Cabil that on the
night in question, it was raining, and, as a consequence, the road was slippery, and it was dark. He
averred these facts to justify his failure to see that there lay a sharp curve ahead. However, it is
undisputed that Cabil drove his bus at the speed of 50 kph and only slowed down when he noticed
the curve some 15 to 30 meters ahead. By then it was too late for him to avoid falling off the road.
Given the conditions of the road and considering that the trip was Cabil’s first one outside of Manila,
Cabil should have driven his vehicle at a moderate speed. Cabil was grossly negligent and should be
held liable for the injuries suffered by private respondent Amyline Antonio. Pursuant to Arts. 2176
and 2180 for quasi-delicts of the Civil Code, his negligence gave rise to the presumption that his
employers, the Fabres, were themselves negligent in the selection and supervision of their employee.
Due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied by finding that the applicant possessed
a professional driver’s license. The employer should also examine the applicant for his qualifications,
experience and record of service. Due diligence in supervision, on the other hand, requires the
formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper
instructions as well as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the
rules.
 The Fabres, in allowing Cabil to drive the bus to La Union, apparently did not consider the
fact that Cabil had been driving for school children only, from their homes to the St. Scholastica’s
College in Metro Manila. They had hired him only after a two-week apprenticeship. They had tested
him for certain matters, such as whether he could remember the names of the children he would be
taking to school, which were irrelevant to his qualification to drive on a long distance travel. The
existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies cannot be casually invoked to overturn the
presumption of negligence on the part of an employer.
Petitioners did not have to be engaged in the business of public transportation for the
provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers to apply to them.
As common carriers, the Fabres were bound to exercise "extraordinary diligence" for the safe
transportation of the passengers to their destination. This duty of care is not excused by proof that
they exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their
employee.

Case # 29

Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping

Vs
Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc

Facts

CMC Trading A.G. shipped coils of Prime Cold Rolled Steel sheets on board the ship M/V
‘Anangel Sky’ at Germany for transportation to Manila consigned to Philippine Steel Trading
Corporation. When the ship arrived in Manila and discharged the cargo, four coils were found to be
in bad order. The consignee Philippine Steel Trading Corp declared the coils as total loss.
Respondent Philippine First Insurance Co. paid the consignee 506,086.50 and was
subrogated to the latter’s rights and causes of action against petitioners.
Impugning the propriety of the suit, petitioners imputed that the damage and loss was due to
pre-shipment damage.

Issue
WoN petitioners have overcome the presumption of negligence of a common carrier

Ruling
No.
Well-settled is the rule that common carriers, from the nature of their business and for
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence and vigilance with respect to
the safety of the goods and the passengers they transport.
Owing to this high degree of diligence required of them, common carriers, as a general rule,
are presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost
or destroyed. That is, unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting
the goods. In order to avoid responsibility for any
loss or damage, therefore, they have the burden of proving that they observed such diligence.
As stated in the Bill of Lading, petitioners received the subject shipment in good order and
condition in Hamburg, Germany. A certificate of analysis stated that, based on the sample submitted
and tested, the steel sheets found in bad order were wet with fresh water.
Prior to the unloading of the cargo, an Inspection Report prepared and signed by
representatives of both parties showed the steel bands broken, the metal envelopes rust-stained and
heavily buckled, and the contents thereof exposed and rusty.
Petitioners failed to prove that they observed the extraordinary diligence and precaution
which the law requires a common carrier to know and to follow to avoid damage to or destruction of
the goods entrusted to it for safe carriage and delivery. The words "metal envelopes rust stained and
slightly dented" were noted on the Bill of Lading; however, there is no showing that petitioners
exercised due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss. Having been in the service for several years, the
master of the vessel should have known at the outset that metal envelopes in the said state would
eventually deteriorate when not properly stored while in transit.