Fabre vs. Court of Appeals

A common carrier and its driver are jointly and severally liable for injuries to a passenger caused by the driver's gross negligence. The employer's liability arises from the presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of employees under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, and from the carrier's contractual duty to exercise extraordinary diligence under Articles 1733, 1755, and 1759.

Private respondent The Word for the World Christian Fellowship, Inc. (WWCF) contracted with petitioners Engracio Fabre, Jr. and his wife for the transportation of its members from Manila to La Union using their minibus. On November 2, 1984, the bus, driven by petitioner Porfirio Cabil, met an accident along a sharp curve in Baay, Lingayen, Pangasinan. The accident resulted in serious physical injuries to private respondent Amyline Antonio, who was rendered a paraplegic. A criminal complaint was filed against the driver, and a separate civil action for damages was instituted by the injured passengers.

• Nature of the Action: This is a civil action for damages based on quasi-delict and/or breach of contract of carriage arising from a vehicular accident.
• The Contract and Trip: Petitioners Fabre, owners of a 1982 Mazda minibus used for a school service, contracted with private respondent WWCF to transport 33 of its members to La Union for P3,000.00. The bus, driven by petitioner Cabil, departed Manila late on the evening of November 2, 1984.
• The Accident: Due to a bridge repair, Cabil took an unfamiliar detour through Baay, Lingayen, Pangasinan. At approximately 11:30 PM, while it was raining and the road was slippery, Cabil approached a sharp curve at a speed of 50 kilometers per hour. The bus skidded, hit a road brace and a fence, and overturned. A coconut tree fell on the bus.
• Injuries Sustained: Private respondent Amyline Antonio was pinned under a dislodged seat. She suffered severe spinal injuries, resulting in paraplegia. She underwent multiple surgeries and incurred significant medical expenses.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC found the driver negligent for failing to exercise due care given the road, weather, and darkness, and found the owners presumptively negligent in the selection and supervision of their employee. The CA affirmed these factual findings.

• Lack of Negligence: Petitioners argued that the accident was caused by the delayed departure of the group, for which the WWCF was responsible, and by the unforeseeable condition of the road (the unmarked sharp curve).
• Contractual Stipulation: Petitioners maintained that under the contract, the WWCF was directly responsible for the conduct of the trip, thereby absolving them of liability.
• Challenge to Damages: Petitioners contended that the award of P600,000.00 as compensatory damages was unconscionable and speculative, given that private respondent Antonio was a casual employee with no security of tenure.

• Established Negligence: Respondents countered that the driver's negligence was proven by his excessive speed (50 kph) under rainy, dark, and unfamiliar conditions, contrary to the safe speed of 20 kph for that road.
• Employer Liability: Respondents argued that the Fabres, as employers, failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising Cabil, as he was hired after only a two-week apprenticeship for city driving and was not properly assessed for long-distance travel.
• Common Carrier Liability: Respondents asserted that the petitioners were common carriers under Article 1732 of the Civil Code and were thus bound to exercise extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers.

• Negligence: Whether the driver, Porfirio Cabil, was negligent in operating the minibus at the time of the accident.
• Employer Liability: Whether the Fabres, as employers, are liable for the injuries caused by their employee's negligence.
• Nature of Liability and Damages: Whether the petitioners are liable under quasi-delict, breach of contract of carriage, or both, and whether the award of damages by the Court of Appeals was proper.

• Negligence: The driver was grossly negligent. Driving at 50 kph on a dark, rainy night on a slippery, unfamiliar road with a sharp curve, when the safe speed was 20 kph, constituted a failure to exercise the required diligence. The delay in departure did not constitute a force majeure or supervening event that would excuse this negligence.
• Employer Liability: The Fabres are presumptively negligent in the selection and supervision of their employee under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. They failed to rebut this presumption, as their hiring process (a two-week apprenticeship for city school service) was inadequate to assess Cabil's fitness for a first-time, long-distance, night trip.
• Nature of Liability and Damages: The petitioners are liable under both quasi-delict and breach of a contract of carriage, as they are common carriers under Article 1732. The contract of carriage was between the Fabres (as carriers) and the passengers. The driver's gross negligence constituted bad faith, justifying moral damages under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2220. The award of damages was modified: the Court of Appeals erred in increasing the compensatory and moral damages and reducing the attorney's fees because the private respondent did not appeal the RTC's award. The RTC's original award was reinstated as reasonable.

• Common Carrier Liability — Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, any person engaged in the business of carrying passengers for compensation, offering services to the public, is a common carrier, regardless of whether it is a primary or ancillary activity and regardless of the regularity of service. Such carriers are required to exercise extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers (Articles 1733, 1755) and are liable for injuries caused by the negligence of their employees (Article 1759).
• Presumption of Employer's Negligence (Culpa Aquiliana) — Under Article 2180, employers are liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The employer's liability is direct and primary, based on a presumption of negligence in the selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of the employee. This presumption is overcome only by proof that the employer exercised the diligence of a good father of a family.
• Joint and Several Liability of Carrier and Driver — When the negligence of a common carrier's driver concurs with the carrier's breach of its contractual duty to a passenger, causing injury, the carrier and driver may be held jointly and severally liable. This is especially true when the plaintiff alleges alternative causes of action (quasi-delict and breach of contract) against multiple parties.

• "Article 1732 carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the 'general public,' i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population." — This passage establishes the broad definition of a common carrier.
• "The existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies cannot be casually invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence on the part of an employer." — This emphasizes the high burden on employers to prove concrete, effective diligence.
• "[T]he act that breaks the contract may be also a tort." — This affirms the principle that a single act can give rise to liability under both culpa contractual and culpa aquiliana.

• De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 612 (1988) — Cited for the broad definition of common carriers under Article 1732.
• Viluan v. Court of Appeals, 16 SCRA 742 (1966) — Cited to explain the rationale for holding the bus owner and driver jointly and severally liable, noting that their separate acts concurred to produce the same injury.
• Dangwa Trans. Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 202 SCRA 574 (1991) and Bachelor Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA 216 (1990) — Cited as authorities on the joint and several liability of a bus company and its negligent driver.
• Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 158 (1988) — Distinguished because in that case, the claim was pursued exclusively on the theory of culpa contractual, leading to the exoneration of the driver. In the present case, alternative causes of action were alleged.

• Articles 2176 & 2180, Civil Code — Establish liability for quasi-delict and the employer's vicarious liability for the negligent acts of employees.
• Articles 1732, 1733, 1755, & 1759, Civil Code — Define common carriers and impose upon them the duty of extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers, making them liable for the negligent acts of their employees.
• Articles 2219(2) & 2220, Civil Code — Authorize the award of moral damages in cases of quasi-delict and breach of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
• Article 1764, Civil Code — Makes the common carrier's liability for breach of contract subject to Articles 2205, 2208, and 2209, which relate to damages.

• Justice Regalado
• Justice Romero
• Justice Puno
• Justice Torres, Jr.