Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Maranan V Perez

    Uploaded by

    LenyBarroga
    1. A passenger in a taxicab was stabbed and killed by the taxi driver. The driver was found guilty of homicide. The passenger's mother then filed a case against the taxi owner to recover damages. 2. The taxi owner claimed he was not liable as the death was a fortuitous event. However, the court ruled that common carriers are absolutely liable for injuries caused to passengers by employees, even if they acted beyond their authority or orders. 3. The court held the taxi owner liable, distinguishing this case from an earlier case where the employee's actions were outside the scope of duty. As between the carrier and passenger, the carrier must bear the risk of wrongful acts

    Copyright:

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

    Maranan V Perez

    Uploaded by

    LenyBarroga
    23 views2 pages
    1. A passenger in a taxicab was stabbed and killed by the taxi driver. The driver was found guilty of homicide. The passenger's mother then filed a case against the taxi owner to recover damages. 2. The taxi owner claimed he was not liable as the death was a fortuitous event. However, the court ruled that common carriers are absolutely liable for injuries caused to passengers by employees, even if they acted beyond their authority or orders. 3. The court held the taxi owner liable, distinguishing this case from an earlier case where the employee's actions were outside the scope of duty. As between the carrier and passenger, the carrier must bear the risk of wrongful acts

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Maranan v Perez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. A passenger in a taxicab was stabbed and killed by the taxi driver. The driver was found guilty of homicide. The passenger's mother then filed a case against the taxi owner to recover damages. 2. The taxi owner claimed he was not liable as the death was a fortuitous event. However, the court ruled that common carriers are absolutely liable for injuries caused to passengers by employees, even if they acted beyond their authority or orders. 3. The court held the taxi owner liable, distinguishing this case from an earlier case where the employee's actions were outside the scope of duty. As between the carrier and passenger, the carrier must bear the risk of wrongful acts

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    23 views2 pages

    Maranan V Perez

    Uploaded by

    LenyBarroga
    1. A passenger in a taxicab was stabbed and killed by the taxi driver. The driver was found guilty of homicide. The passenger's mother then filed a case against the taxi owner to recover damages. 2. The taxi owner claimed he was not liable as the death was a fortuitous event. However, the court ruled that common carriers are absolutely liable for injuries caused to passengers by employees, even if they acted beyond their authority or orders. 3. The court held the taxi owner liable, distinguishing this case from an earlier case where the employee's actions were outside the scope of duty. As between the carrier and passenger, the carrier must bear the risk of wrongful acts

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Maranan v perez them.

    Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to


    passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s
    Facts:
    employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the
    Rogelio Corachea, a passenger in a taxicab owned and operated by scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common
    Pascual Perez, was stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon carriers.
    Valenzuela. Valenzuela was found guilty for homicide by the Court of
    First Instance and was sentenced to suffer Imprisonment and to
    indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6000. The liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that
    they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the
    While pending appeal, mother of deceased filed an action in the
    selection and supervision of their employees. (Art. 1759)
    Court of First Instance of Batangas to recover damages from Perez
    and Valenzuela. Defendant Perez claimed that the death was a caso The attendant facts and controlling law of that case and the one at
    fortuito for which the carrier was not liable. bar were very different. In the Gillaco case, the passenger was killed
    outside the scope and the course of duty of the guilty employee. The
    The court a quo, after trial, found for the plaintiff and awarded her
    Gillaco case was decided under the provisions of the Civil Code of
    P3,000 as damages against defendant Perez. The claim against
    1889 which, unlike the present Civil Code, did not impose upon
    defendant Valenzuela was dismissed. From this ruling, both plaintiff
    common carriers absolute liability for the safety of passengers
    and defendant Perez appealed to this Court, the former asking for
    against willfull assaults or negligent acts committed by their
    more damages and the latter insisting on non-liability. Defendant-
    employees.
    appellant relied solely on the ruling enunciated in Gillaco vs. Manila
    Railroad Co. that the carrier is under no absolute liability for assaults The death of the passenger in the Gillaco case was truly a fortuitous
    of its employees upon the passengers. event which exempted the carrier from liability. It is true that Art.
    1105 of the old Civil Code on fortuitous events has been substantially
    Issue: Whether or not Perez should be held liable for the death of the
    reproduced in Art. 1174 of the Civil Code of the Philippines but both
    passenger?
    articles clearly remove from their exempting effect the case where
    Held: Yes. the law expressly provides for liability in spite of the occurrence of
    force majeure. The Civil Code provisions on the subject of Common
    The basis of the carrier's liability for assaults on passengers Carriers are new and were taken from Anglo-American Law. The basis
    committed by its drivers rests on the principle that it is the carrier's of the carrier's liability for assaults on passengers committed by its
    implied duty to transport the passenger safely. As between the drivers rested either on the doctrine of respondent superior or the
    carrier and the passenger, the former must bear the risk of wrongful principle that it was the carrier's implied duty to transport the
    acts or negligence of the carrier's employees against passengers, passenger safely. Under the second view, upheld by the majority and
    since it, and not the passengers, has power to select and remove also by the later cases, it was enough that the assault happens within
    the course of the employee's duty. It was no defense for the carrier
    that the act was done in excess of authority or in disobedience of the
    carrier's orders. The carrier's liability here was absolute in the sense
    that it practically secured the passengers from assaults committed by
    its own employees

    You might also like