LA MALLORCA Vs

LA MALLORCA vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARIANO BELTRAN
Facts:
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, together with their minor daughters, boarded the Pambusco Bus
owned and operated by the defendant. At the time, they were carrying with them four pieces of
baggages containing their personal belongings. The conductor of the bus who happened to be a half-
brother of plaintiff Mariano Beltran, issued three ticketscovering the full fares of the plaintiff and their
eldest child, Milagros. No fare was charged on Raquel and Fe, since both were below the height at which
fare is charged in accordance with the appellant's rules and regulations.
After about an hour's trip, the bus reached Anao, whereat it stopped to allow the passengers
bound therefor, among whom were the plaintiffs and their children to get off. With respect to the group
of the plaintiffs, Mariano Beltran, then carrying some of their baggages, was the first to get down the
bus, followed by his wife and his children. Mariano led his companions to a shaded spot on the left
pedestrians’ side of the road about four or five meters away from the vehicle. Afterwards, he returned
to the bus to get his other bayong, which he had left behind, but in so doing, his daughter Raquel
followed him unnoticed by her father. While said Mariano Beltran was on the running board of the bus
waiting for the conductor to hand him his bayong which he left under one of its seats near the door; the
bus, whose motor was not shut off while unloading, suddenly started moving forward, evidently to
resume its trip, notwithstanding the fact that the conductor has not given the driver the customary
signal to start, since said conductor was still attending to the baggage left behind by Mariano Beltran.
Incidentally, when the bus was again placed into a complete stop, it had travelled about ten meters
from the point where the plaintiffs had gotten off.
Sensing that the bus was again in motion, Mariano Beltran immediately jumped from the
running board without getting his bayong from the conductor. He landed on the side of the road almost
in front of the shaded place where he left his wife and children. At that precise time, he saw people
beginning to gather around the body of the child lying prostrate on the ground, her skull, crushed, and
without life. The child was none other than his daughter Raquel, who was run over by the bus in which
she rode earlier together with her parents.
For the death of their said child, the plaintiffs commenced the present suit against the
defendant.
The trial court found defendant liable for breach of contract of carriage.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, La Mallorca claimed that there could not be a breach of
contract in the case, for the reason that when the child met her death, she was no longer a passenger of
the bus involved in the incident and, therefore, the contract of carriage had already terminated.
Although the Court of Appeals sustained this theory, it nevertheless found the defendant-appellant
guilty of quasi- delict and held the latter liable for damages, for the negligence of its driver, in
accordance with Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
Issue: Whether the liability of the carrier as to the child, Raquel, had already ceased.
Held: NO.
It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the
moment the passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of
destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to
leave the carrier's premises. And, what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to
be determined from all the circumstances.
In the present case, the father returned to the bus to get one of his baggages which was not
unloaded when they alighted from the bus. Raquel, the child that she was, must have followed the
father. However, although the father was still on the running board of the bus awaiting for the
conductor to hand him the bag or bayong, the bus started to run, so that even he (the father) had to
jump down from the moving vehicle. It was at this instance that the child, who must be near the bus,
was run over and killed. In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the carrier's agent had exercised
the "utmost diligence" of a "very cautious person" required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be
observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers.
In the first place, the driver, although stopping the bus, nevertheless did not put off the engine.
Secondly, he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal to go and while
the latter was still unloading part of the baggages of the passengers Mariano Beltran and family. The
presence of said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are, therefore, to be
considered still as passengers of the carrier, entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage.

LA MALLORCA Vs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LA MALLORCA Vs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

LA MALLORCA Vs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LA MALLORCA vs.

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARIANO BELTRAN

You might also like