Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA

3. Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v.
CA public utility bus, once it stops, is in effect making a

Bus company - Dangwa Transportation Co ; Driver of the bus - continuous offer to bus riders. Hence, it becomes the duty
Theodore Malecdan ; Heirs of Pedrito Cudiamata - private of the driver and the conductor, every time the bus stops,
respondents to do no act that would have the effect of increasing the
peril to a passenger while he was attempting to board the
1. May 13, 1985: Theodore M. Lardizabal was driving a same. The premature acceleration of the bus in this case
passenger bus belonging to Dangwa Transportation Co. Inc. was a breach of such duty.
(Dangwa) It is the duty of common carriers of passengers, including
2. The bus was at full stop bet. Bunkhouses 53 and 54 when common carriers by railroad train, streetcar, or motorbus, to
Pedro alighted stop their conveyances a reasonable length of time in order
3. Pedro Cudiamat fell from the platform of the bus when it to afford passengers an opportunity to board and enter, and
suddenly accelerated forward they are liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers
4. Pedro was ran over by the rear right tires of the vehicle resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking of their
5. Theodore first brought his other passengers and cargo to conveyances while they are doing so.
their respective destinations before bringing Pedro to
Lepanto Hospital where he expired Assuming the bus was moving, the act of the victim in boarding
6. Private respondents filed a complaint for damages against cant be considered negligence. The bus had just started and was
Dangwa for the death of Pedro Cudiamat still in slow motion at the point where the victim had boarded and
7. Dangwa contends that it observed and continued to observe was on the platform.
the extraordinary diligence required in the operation of the It is not negligence per se for one attempt to board a train
co. and the supervision of the employees even as they are or streetcar which is moving slowly. An ordinarily prudent
not absolute insurers of the public at large and that the person would have made the attempt board the moving
driver and the conductor had no knowledge that the victim conveyance under the same or similar circumstances. The
would ride on the bus since the victim did not manifest his fact that passengers board and alight from slowly moving
intention to board the bus. vehicle is a matter of common experience both the driver
and conductor in this case could not have been unaware of
RTC: Victim was negligent and found that victim was negligent in such an ordinary practice.
trying to board a moving vehicle with one of his hands holding an
umbrella and WITHOUT giving ANY INDICATION that he wishes to The victim herein, by stepping and standing on the platform
board the bus. of the bus, is already considered a passenger and is
entitled all the rights and protection pertaining to such a
CA: Petitioner was negligent. The bus was at full stop when Pedro contractual relation.
boarded, the victim indicated his intention to board the bus since Hence, it has been held that the duty which the carrier
Pedro was no longer walking and made a sign to board the bus passengers owes to its patrons extends to persons boarding
when the bus was still at a distance from him. When Pedro was cars as well as to those alighting therefrom. Common
closing his umbrella at the platform of the bus when the driver of carriers, from the nature of their business and reasons of
the bus prematurely stepped on the accelerator and did not wait for public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence
Pedro to first secure his seat considering also that the platform was for the safety of the passengers transported by the
at that time, slippery and wet due to the drizzle. according to all the circumstances of each case.
ISSUE: Whether the bus is liable as a common carrier to the In an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not
deceased who was still attempting to board make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the
carrier in order to hold it responsible to pay the damages sought by
HELD: the passenger.
When the bus is not in motion there is no necessity for a person
who wants to ride the same to signal his intention to board. A
By contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the
express obligation to transport the passenger to his
destination safely and observe extraordinary
diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances,
and any injury that might be suffered by the
passenger is right away attributable to the fault or
negligence of the carrier.
o This is an exception to the general rule that
negligence must be proved, and it is therefore
incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has
exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in
Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.
Notes (just in case he asks): The hospital was in Bunk 56 but the bus first proceeded to
There was failure to immediately bring Pedrito to the Bunk 70 to allow a passenger (who later called the family of
hospital despite his serious condition is considered as patent Pedrito on his own will) to alight and deliver a refrigerator
and incontrovertible proof of their negligence In tort, actual damages is based on net earnings

Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3. Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v.

CA public utility bus, once it stops, is in effect making a

You might also like