Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Philippine National Railways (PNR) vs. CA (GR L-55347, 4 October 1985) Facts: Issue: WON There Was Contributory Negligence On The Part of Tupang. Held

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Patricia Pedriña
    1) Philippine National Railways (PNR) appealed a decision holding it liable for damages resulting from a passenger, Winifredo Tupang, falling from an overcrowded train and dying. 2) The Supreme Court upheld PNR's liability, finding it failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required as a common carrier, but reduced the damages awarded by eliminating moral and exemplary damages. 3) While PNR was negligent, the deceased was also partially at fault for choosing to sit on the open platform between train cars instead of holding onto available handrails, constituting contributory negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Philippine National Railways (PNR) vs. CA (GR L-55347, 4 October 1985) Facts: Issue: WON There Was Contributory Negligence On The Part of Tupang. Held

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Patricia Pedriña
    36 views1 page
    1) Philippine National Railways (PNR) appealed a decision holding it liable for damages resulting from a passenger, Winifredo Tupang, falling from an overcrowded train and dying. 2) The Supreme Court upheld PNR's liability, finding it failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required as a common carrier, but reduced the damages awarded by eliminating moral and exemplary damages. 3) While PNR was negligent, the deceased was also partially at fault for choosing to sit on the open platform between train cars instead of holding onto available handrails, constituting contributory negligence.

    Original Description:

    ];[poigufhbjkn;l'

    Original Title

    BB

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Philippine National Railways (PNR) appealed a decision holding it liable for damages resulting from a passenger, Winifredo Tupang, falling from an overcrowded train and dying. 2) The Supreme Court upheld PNR's liability, finding it failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required as a common carrier, but reduced the damages awarded by eliminating moral and exemplary damages. 3) While PNR was negligent, the deceased was also partially at fault for choosing to sit on the open platform between train cars instead of holding onto available handrails, constituting contributory negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    Philippine National Railways (PNR) vs. CA (GR L-55347, 4 October 1985) Facts: Issue: WON There Was Contributory Negligence On The Part of Tupang. Held

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Patricia Pedriña
    1) Philippine National Railways (PNR) appealed a decision holding it liable for damages resulting from a passenger, Winifredo Tupang, falling from an overcrowded train and dying. 2) The Supreme Court upheld PNR's liability, finding it failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required as a common carrier, but reduced the damages awarded by eliminating moral and exemplary damages. 3) While PNR was negligent, the deceased was also partially at fault for choosing to sit on the open platform between train cars instead of holding onto available handrails, constituting contributory negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Philippine National Railways (PNR) vs.

    CA (GR L-55347, 4 October 1985) PNR raised for the first time, as a defense, the doctrine of state immunity
    from suit. The motion was denied. Hence the petition for review.
    Facts:
    On 10 September 1972, at about 9:00 p.m., Winifredo Tupang, husband of Issue: WON there was contributory negligence on the part of Tupang.
    Rosario Tupang, boarded Train 516 of the Philippine National Railways at
    Libmanan, Camarines Sur, as a paying passenger bound for Manila. Due to Held:
    some mechanical defect, the train stopped at Sipocot, Camarines Sur, for PNR has the obligation to transport its passengers to their destinations and
    repairs, taking some two hours before the train could resume its trip to to observe extraordinary diligence in doing so. Death or any injury suffered
    Manila. Unfortunately, upon passing Iyam Bridge at Lucena, Quezon, by any of its passengers gives rise to the presumption that it was negligent in
    Winifredo Tupang fell off the train resulting in his death. The train did not the performance of its obligation under the contract of carriage. PNR failed
    stop despite the alarm raised by the other passengers that somebody fell to overthrow such presumption of negligence with clear and convincing
    from the train. Instead, the train conductor, Perfecto Abrazado, called the evidence, inasmuch as PNR does not deny, (1) that the train boarded by the
    station agent at Candelaria, Quezon, and requested for verification of the deceased Winifredo Tupang was so overcrowded that he and many other
    information. Police authorities of Lucena City were dispatched to the Iyam passengers had no choice but to sit on the open platforms between the
    Bridge where they found the lifeless body of Winifredo Tupang. As shown by coaches of the train, (2) that the train did not even slow down when it
    the autopsy report, Winifredo Tupang died of cardio-respiratory failure due approached the Iyam Bridge which was under repair at the time, and (3)
    to massive cerebral hemorrhage due to traumatic injury. Tupang was later that neither did the train stop, despite the alarm raised by other passengers
    buried in the public cemetery of Lucena City by the local police authorities. that a person had fallen off the train at Iyam Bridge.

    Upon complaint filed by the deceased’s widow, Rosario Tupang, the then CFI While PNR failed to exercise extraordinary diligence as required by law, it
    Rizal, after trial, held the PNR liable for damages for breach of contract of appears that the deceased was chargeable with contributory negligence.
    carriage and ordered it to pay Rosario Tupang the sum of P12,000.00 for the Since he opted to sit on the open platform between the coaches of the train,
    death of Winifredo Tupang, plus P20,000.00 for loss of his earning capacity, he should have held tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal bar found
    and the further sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P2,000.00 as at the side of said platform to avoid falling off from the speeding train. Such
    attorney’s fees, and cost. contributory negligence, while not exempting the PNR from liability,
    On appeal, the Appellate Court sustained the holding of the trial court that nevertheless justified the deletion of the amount adjudicated as moral
    the PNR did not exercise the utmost diligence required by law of a common damages.
    carrier. It further increased the amount adjudicated by the trial court by The Supreme Court modified the decision of the appellate court by
    ordering PNR to pay the Rosario Tupang an additional sum of P5,000,00 as eliminating therefrom the amounts of P10,000.00 and P5,000.00
    exemplary damages. Moving for reconsideration of the above decision, the adjudicated as moral and exemplary damages, respectively; without
    costs.

    You might also like