Mariano, Jr. vs. Callejas

A common carrier is not an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers; the presumption of fault or negligence under Article 1756 of the Civil Code is rebuttable and is overcome by proof that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence or that the injury was caused by a fortuitous event or by causes created by strangers over which it had no control.

Petitioner Herminio Mariano, Jr. is the surviving spouse of Dr. Frelinda Mariano, who was a passenger of a Celyrosa Express bus owned by respondent Ildefonso C. Callejas and driven by respondent Edgar de Borja. The carriage was governed by the Civil Code’s common-carrier provisions, which require extraordinary diligence for passenger safety and create a rebuttable presumption of fault or negligence when a passenger dies or is injured. The case concerns the extent of a common carrier’s liability for a passenger’s death during transport.

Petitioner Herminio Mariano, Jr. is the surviving spouse of Dr. Frelinda Mariano, who was a passenger of a Celyrosa Express bus bound for Tagaytay. Respondent Ildefonso C. Callejas was the registered owner of Celyrosa Express, while respondent Edgar de Borja was the driver of the bus on which Dr. Mariano was a passenger. At around 6:30 p.m. on November 12, 1991, along Aguinaldo Highway, San Agustin, Dasmariñas, Cavite, the Celyrosa Express bus collided with an Isuzu truck with trailer bearing plate numbers PJH 906 and TRH 531. The bus was bound for Tagaytay while the trailer truck came from the opposite direction, bound for Manila. The trailer truck bumped the passenger bus on its left middle portion. Due to the impact, the passenger bus fell on its right side on the right shoulder of the highway, causing the death of Dr. Mariano and physical injuries to four other passengers. Dr. Mariano was 36 years old at the time of her death and left behind three minor children, aged four, three, and two years.

Petitioner filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages against respondents for their failure to transport his wife and mother of his three minor children safely to her destination. Respondents denied liability for the death of Dr. Mariano. They claimed that the proximate cause of the accident was the recklessness of the driver of the trailer truck, which bumped their bus while allegedly at a halt on the shoulder of the road in its rightful lane. Respondent Callejas thus filed a third-party complaint against Liong Chio Chang, doing business under the name and style of La Perla Sugar Supply, the owner of the trailer truck, for indemnity in the event that he would be held liable for damages to petitioner.

Other cases arose from the same incident. Callejas filed a complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. NC-397 before the RTC of Naic, Cavite, against La Perla Sugar Supply and Arcadio Arcilla, the truck driver, for damages he incurred due to the vehicular accident. On September 24, 1992, that court dismissed the complaint against La Perla Sugar Supply for lack of evidence, but found Arcilla liable to pay Callejas the cost of repairs of his passenger bus, his lost earnings, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. A criminal case, Criminal Case No. 2223-92, was also filed against truck driver Arcilla in the RTC of Imus, Cavite; on May 3, 1994, that court convicted Arcadio Arcilla of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, multiple slight physical injuries, and damage to property.

The evidence before the trial court included the sketch prepared by PO3 Magno S. de Villa, who investigated the accident. The sketch showed the passenger bus facing the direction of Tagaytay City and lying on its right side on the shoulder of the road, about five meters away from the point of impact, while the trailer truck was on the opposite direction, about 500 meters away from the point of impact. PO3 De Villa stated that he interviewed De Borja, the respondent driver of the passenger bus, who said that he was about to unload some passengers when his bus was bumped by the driver of the trailer truck that lost its brakes. PO3 De Villa checked the trailer truck and found that its brakes really failed. His police report stated that the passenger bus was running from Manila toward the south when it was hit and bumped by the trailer truck running fast from the opposite direction, causing the bus to fall on its side on the road shoulder, and that after the collision the trailer truck continuously ran and stopped at approximately 500 meters away from the point of impact.

The Court found that before the collision, the passenger bus was cruising on its rightful lane along Aguinaldo Highway when the trailer truck coming from the opposite direction, on full speed, suddenly swerved and encroached on its lane and bumped the passenger bus on its left middle portion. Respondent driver De Borja had every right to expect that the trailer truck coming from the opposite direction would stay on its proper lane, and he was not expected to know that the trailer truck had lost its brakes. The swerving of the trailer truck was abrupt and it was running at a fast speed, as it was found 500 meters away from the point of collision. Any doubt as to the culpability of the driver of the trailer truck was further removed when he pleaded guilty to the charge of reckless imprudence resulting to multiple slight physical injuries and damage to property in Criminal Case No. 2223-92, involving the same incident.

• Failure to Rebut Presumption: Petitioner contended that respondents failed to overcome the presumption of negligence against them and that the Court of Appeals’ decision was not in accord with the factual basis of the case.
• Breach of Contract of Carriage: Petitioner’s complaint asserted that respondents, as common carrier and driver, failed to transport his wife safely to her destination, for which they should be liable in damages.

• Proximate Cause: Respondents denied liability, claiming that the proximate cause of the accident was the recklessness of the driver of the trailer truck, which bumped their bus while allegedly at a halt on the shoulder of the road in its rightful lane.
• Error in Holding Them Guilty: Respondents Callejas and De Borja appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the trial court erred in holding them guilty of breach of contract of carriage.

• Presumption of Negligence: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondents overcame the presumption of fault or negligence of a common carrier under Article 1756 of the Civil Code.
• Liability for Breach of Contract of Carriage: Whether respondents may be held liable for damages for the death of Dr. Mariano despite evidence that the collision was caused by the reckless negligence of the driver of the Isuzu trailer truck.

• Presumption of Negligence: No. The presumption was rebutted; the evidence showed the death was caused by the reckless negligence of the trailer truck driver whose brakes failed and who bumped the bus, a cause beyond respondents’ control.
• Liability for Breach of Contract of Carriage: No. A common carrier is not an insurer of absolute passenger safety, and liability rests on negligence or failure to exercise extraordinary diligence; respondents were absolved because the injury arose from a cause created by strangers over which they had no control.

• Presumption of Negligence: Articles 1733, 1755, and 1756 of the Civil Code impose on common carriers the duty to observe extraordinary diligence for passenger safety and create a presumption of fault or negligence when a passenger dies or is injured. The presumption is not absolute; it is rebuttable by proof that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence or that the injury was solely due to a fortuitous event. The Court, quoting Pilapil vs. Court of Appeals, explained that the law does not make the carrier an insurer of absolute safety and that liability rests on negligence or failure to exercise the required diligence. Applying these rules, the totality of evidence showed that Dr. Mariano’s death was caused by the reckless negligence of the driver of the Isuzu trailer truck, which lost its brakes and bumped the Celyrosa Express bus. The police sketch by PO3 Magno S. de Villa showed the bus on its right side on the shoulder about five meters from the point of impact and the trailer truck about 500 meters away; PO3 De Villa testified that he interviewed De Borja, who said the bus was bumped by the trailer truck that lost its brakes, and that he checked the truck and found its brakes had failed. The police report likewise stated that the bus was running from Manila toward the south when it was hit by the truck running fast from the opposite direction and that the truck continued and stopped about 500 meters from the point of impact. The evidence thus showed the bus was cruising on its rightful lane when the trailer truck suddenly swerved, encroached on its lane, and bumped it; De Borja had the right to expect the truck to stay on its proper lane and was not expected to know its brakes had failed. The truck driver’s guilty plea to reckless imprudence resulting to multiple slight physical injuries and damage to property in Criminal Case No. 2223-92, involving the same incident, removed any doubt as to his culpability. The presumption of negligence against respondents was therefore rebutted.
• Liability for Breach of Contract of Carriage: A common carrier is not an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers; its liability for personal injuries or death rests on its negligence or failure to exercise the degree of diligence required by law. Since the injury arose from causes created by strangers over which the carrier had no control, and the evidence established that the proximate cause was the trailer truck driver’s reckless negligence, respondents could not be held liable for breach of contract of carriage. The Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s award of damages was accordingly affirmed.

• Common Carrier’s Extraordinary Diligence and Rebuttable Presumption of Negligence — Under Articles 1733, 1755, and 1756 of the Civil Code, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers, and in case of death or injury, they are presumed to have been at fault or negligent. The presumption is rebuttable by proof that the carrier observed extraordinary diligence or that the injury was solely due to a fortuitous event. The Court applied this by examining the totality of evidence and finding that respondents overcame the presumption.
• Common Carrier Not Insurer of Absolute Safety — The law does not make a common carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers; its liability rests on negligence or failure to exercise the degree of diligence required by law. The Court applied this by holding that respondents could not be held liable where the injury arose from causes created by strangers over which the carrier had no control.
• Fortuitous Event or Causes Created by Strangers — A common carrier may rebut the presumption of negligence by showing that the passenger’s injury or death was solely due to a fortuitous event or causes created by strangers over which it had no control or knowledge and could not have prevented. The Court applied this by finding that the trailer truck lost its brakes, swerved, encroached on the bus’s lane, and bumped the bus, and that the truck driver pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence for the same incident.
• Proximate Cause — Liability for the accident was determined by proximate cause; the reckless negligence of the trailer truck driver was the proximate cause of the collision and Dr. Mariano’s death, not any negligence of the bus driver or carrier. The Court relied on the police sketch, investigator’s testimony, police report, and the truck driver’s guilty plea.
• Evidentiary Effect of a Guilty Plea in a Related Criminal Case — The trailer truck driver’s plea of guilty to reckless imprudence resulting to multiple slight physical injuries and damage to property in the same incident removed any doubt as to his culpability. The Court used this to reinforce that the proximate cause was the truck driver’s negligence.

• "While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers." — This passage states the limited nature of common-carrier liability and rejects absolute insurer liability.
• "Being a mere presumption, however, the same is rebuttable by proof that the common carrier had exercised extraordinary diligence as required by law in the performance of its contractual obligation, or that the injury suffered by the passenger was solely due to a fortuitous event." — This defines the rebuttable character of the statutory presumption of negligence.
• "In the case at bar, petitioner cannot succeed in his contention that respondents failed to overcome the presumption of negligence against them. The totality of evidence shows that the death of petitioner’s spouse was caused by the reckless negligence of the driver of the Isuzu trailer truck which lost its brakes and bumped the Celyrosa Express bus, owned and operated by respondents." — This is the ratio decidendi: the carrier rebutted the presumption by showing the accident was caused by the trailer truck driver’s reckless negligence.
• "In fine, the evidence shows that before the collision, the passenger bus was cruising on its rightful lane along the Aguinaldo Highway when the trailer truck coming from the opposite direction, on full speed, suddenly swerved and encroached on its lane, and bumped the passenger bus on its left middle portion." — This is the Court’s central factual finding on how the collision occurred and why the bus driver was not negligent.

• Pilapil vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 52159, December 22, 1989, 180 SCRA 546, 551-552 — The Court cited this precedent for the rule that while common carriers are required to exercise the highest degree of diligence and are presumed negligent when a passenger is injured, the law does not make them insurers of absolute safety; the presumption is rebuttable by proof of extraordinary diligence or that the injury was solely due to a fortuitous event.

• Article 1733, Civil Code — Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in vigilance over goods and for the safety of passengers according to all circumstances. The Court used this as the source of respondents’ duty as a common carrier.
• Article 1755, Civil Code — A common carrier is bound to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all circumstances. The Court applied this to qualify the carrier’s duty and reject absolute insurer liability.
• Article 1756, Civil Code — In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or negligent unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755. The Court applied this presumption and found it rebutted by the evidence.

• Antonio T. Carpio
• Renato C. Corona
• Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
• Lucas P. Bersamin