Maranan vs. Perez

A common carrier is absolutely liable for the death of or injuries to passengers caused by the willful acts of its employees, even if such acts are beyond the scope of authority or in violation of the carrier’s orders, pursuant to Article 1759 of the Civil Code; in an action for breach of contract of carriage resulting in death, the minimum recoverable compensatory damages under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 is P6,000, and moral damages are also recoverable by the parents.

Rogelio Corachea was a passenger in a taxicab owned and operated by Pascual Perez on October 18, 1960. During the trip, the driver, Simeon Valenzuela, stabbed and killed him. Valenzuela was prosecuted and convicted of homicide. The decedent’s mother, Antonia Maranan, filed a separate civil action for damages against the carrier and the driver based on breach of contract of carriage.

• Nature: Civil action for damages grounded on breach of contract of carriage, filed by Antonia Maranan, mother of the deceased passenger Rogelio Corachea, against taxicab owner-operator Pascual Perez and driver Simeon Valenzuela.
• The Incident: On October 18, 1960, Rogelio Corachea was a passenger in a taxicab owned and operated by Pascual Perez. The driver, Simeon Valenzuela, stabbed and killed Corachea during the trip.
• Defendants’ Contentions: Valenzuela claimed self-defense, alleging the deceased first assaulted him by stabbing him from behind. Perez additionally asserted that the death was a caso fortuito exempting the carrier from liability.
• Trial Court’s Resolution: The Court of First Instance found for the plaintiff and awarded her P3,000 as damages against defendant Perez, dismissing the claim against Valenzuela on the ground that the latter was not a party to the contract of carriage. The amount equaled the then statutory minimum compensatory damages.

• Increase of Compensatory Damages and Moral Damages: Plaintiff-appellant Antonia Maranan maintained that the award of P3,000 compensatory damages was insufficient and should be increased in line with prevailing jurisprudence. She further argued that, as the mother of the deceased, she was entitled to moral damages for mental anguish and prayed for an award of P5,000.

• Carrier’s Non-Liability under Fortuitous Event: Defendant-appellant Pascual Perez relied on Gillaco v. Manila Railroad Co., 97 Phil. 884, contending that a common carrier is not absolutely liable for assaults committed by its employees upon passengers because the killing constituted a fortuitous event. He argued that the driver’s act fell outside the scope of his authority, and therefore the carrier should not be held liable.

• Liability of Common Carrier: Whether a common carrier is liable for the death of a passenger resulting from the willful act of the driver, under Article 1759 of the Civil Code.
• Damages: Whether the award of compensatory damages should be increased and whether moral damages may be recovered.

• Liability of Common Carrier: The common carrier was liable. Gillaco v. Manila Railroad Co. was distinguished. In Gillaco, the employee who killed the passenger was a guard not assigned to the train the passenger was riding; the assault occurred outside the course of his duty. Here, the killing was perpetrated by the very driver entrusted with executing the contract of carriage, and the act took place in the course of his duty. Moreover, Gillaco was decided under the old Civil Code, which lacked a provision equivalent to Article 1759. Article 1759 expressly states that common carriers are liable for death or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of their employees, even if the employees acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the carrier’s orders. The provision adopts the majority Anglo-American view: the carrier’s implied duty to transport the passenger safely renders it liable for assaults occurring in the course of the employee’s duty, without requiring proof that the act was within the scope of authority. The carrier’s duty includes the strict obligation to select drivers with due regard to their total personality—behavior patterns, moral fiber, and social attitude—because the carrier, not the passenger, has the power to select and remove them. The dismissal of the claim against the driver Valenzuela was likewise correct, as the action sounded in breach of contract and Valenzuela was not a party to that contract; his civil liability was adjudged in the final criminal conviction.

• Damages: The award of compensatory damages was increased from P3,000 to P6,000. The trial court’s sum was the minimum under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil Code; however, consistent with the Court’s policy, the minimum was raised to P6,000. The finding that plaintiff failed to convincingly prove other actual damages was not disturbed. Moral damages were additionally awarded. Under Articles 2206 and 1764, the parents of a deceased passenger are entitled to moral damages in addition to compensatory damages for mental anguish, provided a proper claim is made. An award of P3,000 moral damages was deemed sufficient. Interest at the legal rate on both sums from the filing of the complaint on December 6, 1961 until full payment was ordered pursuant to Article 2210.

• Absolute Liability of Common Carrier for Willful Acts of Employees under Article 1759 — Article 1759 of the Civil Code renders common carriers liable for the death of or injuries to passengers caused by the negligence or willful acts of the carrier’s employees, even if the employees acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the carrier’s orders. The liability is absolute in character: it secures passengers from assaults committed by the carrier’s own servants. The rationale rests on three grounds: (1) the carrier’s special undertaking requires it to furnish passengers full protection from violence, especially from its own employees charged with their safety; (2) the carrier delegates to its servant the performance of the contract to transport safely, and thus the carrier must answer for the servant’s violation of that duty; and (3) as between the carrier and the passenger, the carrier bears the risk of its employees’ wrongful acts because it alone possesses the power to select and remove them. Consistent with this strict duty, the carrier must exercise the highest degree of care in selecting drivers and similar employees, considering their technical competence, physical ability, and total personality—including patterns of behavior, moral fiber, and social attitude. The doctrine in Gillaco v. Manila Railroad Co. is superseded under the new Civil Code where the employee’s assault occurs in the course of his duty.

• Minimum Compensatory Damages for Death of Passenger — Under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the minimum indemnity for death caused by a breach of the contract of carriage is P3,000; however, the Supreme Court’s consistent policy raises the minimum to P6,000. In addition to compensatory damages, the parents of the deceased passenger are entitled to recover moral damages for the mental anguish they suffered, provided the claim is properly pleaded. Legal interest on the sums awarded runs from the date of filing of the complaint until full satisfaction.

• “Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.” — Article 1759, Civil Code, quoted as the foundation of the carrier’s strict liability.
• “The carrier's liability here is absolute in the sense that it practically secures the passengers from assaults committed by its own employees.” — Characterizing the nature of the liability imposed by Article 1759.
• “it is the carrier's strict obligation to select its drivers and similar employees with due regard not only to their technical competence and physical ability, but also, no less important, to their total personality, including their patterns of behavior, moral fibers, and social attitude.” — The Court’s prescription of the standard of care in employee selection.
• “as between the carrier and the passenger, the former must bear the risk of wrongful acts or negligence of the carrier's employees against passengers, since it, and not the passengers, has power to select and remove them.” — Policy justification grounding the carrier’s absolute responsibility.

• Gillaco v. Manila Railroad Co., 97 Phil. 884 — Distinguished. In that case, the employee who killed the passenger was not assigned to the train on which the passenger was riding, and the act occurred outside the course of his duty; it was decided under the old Civil Code, which contained no provision analogous to Article 1759. Held inapplicable where the assault is committed by the driver in the course of duty under the new Civil Code.
• Texas Midland R.R. v. Monroe, 110 Tex. 97, 216 S.W. 388; Haver v. Central Railroad Co., 43 LRA 84 — Cited as Anglo-American authorities supporting the carrier’s unqualified liability for its servant’s assaults on passengers and for the rationale that the carrier’s protective duty and its power over employee selection justify holding it liable.

• Article 1759, Civil Code of the Philippines — Imposes liability on common carriers for death or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of their employees, even if those acts exceed the employees’ authority or contravene the carrier’s orders. Applied to hold the taxicab operator liable for the driver’s fatal assault on the passenger.
• Article 1764, Civil Code — Directs that damages for the death of a passenger be governed by Articles 2206 and related provisions. Served as the statutory bridge to the measure of compensatory damages.
• Article 2206, Civil Code — Prescribes the minimum indemnity for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict, which Article 1764 imports into actions for breach of contract of carriage resulting in death. The Court applied its policy of increasing the minimum award to P6,000.
• Article 2210, Civil Code — Authorizes the imposition of legal interest on damages awarded; used to order interest from the filing of the complaint.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Castro, JJ., concurred.