G.R. No. 157917 August 29, 2012 SPOUSES TEODORO and NANETTE PERENA vs.

SPOUSES TERESITA PHILIPPINE

NICOLAS and L. ZARATE, NATIONAL RAILWAYS, and the COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
The Pereñas were engaged in the business of transporting students from their respective residences in Parañaque City
to Don Bosco in Pasong Tamo, Makati City, and back. In their business, the Pereñas used a KIA Ceres Van (van) with
Plate No. PYA 896, which had the capacity to transport 14 students at a time, two of whom would be seated in the
front beside the driver, and the others in the rear, with six students on either side. They employed Clemente Alfaro
(Alfaro) as driver of the van. In June 1996, the Zarates contracted the Pereñas to transport Aaron to and from Don
Bosco. On August 22, 1996, as on previous school days, the van picked Aaron up around 6:00 a.m. from the Zarates’
residence. Aaron took his place on the left side of the van near the rear door. The van, with its air-conditioning unit
turned on and the stereo playing loudly, ultimately carried all the 14 student riders on their way to Don Bosco.
Considering that the students were due at Don Bosco by 7:15 a.m., and that they were already running late because
of the heavy vehicular traffic on the South Superhighway, Alfaro took the van to an alternate route at about 6:45 a.m.
by traversing the narrow path underneath the Magallanes Interchange that was then commonly used by Makati-bound
vehicles as a short cut into Makati. At the time, the narrow path was marked by piles of construction materials and
parked passenger jeepneys, and the railroad crossing in the narrow path had no railroad warning signs, or watchmen,
or other responsible persons manning the crossing. In fact, the bamboo barandilla was up, leaving the railroad crossing
open to traversing motorists. At about the time the van was to traverse the railroad crossing, PNR Commuter No. 302
(train), operated by Jhonny Alano (Alano), was in the vicinity of the Magallanes Interchange travelling northbound. As
the train neared the railroad crossing, Alfaro drove the van eastward across the railroad tracks, closely tailing a large
passenger bus. His view of the oncoming train was blocked because he overtook the passenger bus on its left side. The
train blew its horn to warn motorists of its approach. When the train was about 50 meters away from the passenger
bus and the van, Alano applied the ordinary brakes of the train. He applied the emergency brakes only when he saw
that a collision was imminent. The passenger bus successfully crossed the railroad tracks, but the van driven by Alfaro
did not. The train hit the rear end of the van, and the impact threw nine of the 12 students in the rear, including Aaron,
out of the van. Aaron landed in the path of the train, which dragged his body and severed his head, instantaneously
killing him. Alano fled the scene on board the train, and did not wait for the police investigator to arrive. Devastated
by the early and unexpected death of Aaron, the Zarates commenced this action for damages against Alfaro, the
Pereñas, PNR and Alano.
RTC: held spouses Spouses Perenas jointly and severally liable with Philippine National Railways (PNR), to Spouses
Zarates for the death of their 15-year old son, Aaron John L. Zarate, then a high school student of Don Bosco Technical
Institute.
CA: affirmed the decision of RTC
Defense: Pereñas’ defense was that they exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and
supervision of Alfaro, the van driver, by seeing to it that Alfaro had a driver’s license and that he had not been involved
in any vehicular accident prior to the fatal collision with the train
Issue/s:
Were the Pereñas and PNR jointly and severally liable for damages?
Held:
The Pereñas operated as a common carrier; and that their standard of care was extraordinary diligence, not the
ordinary diligence of a good father of a family.
Applying these considerations to the case before us, there is no question that the Pereñas as the operators of a school
bus service were: (a) engaged in transporting passengers generally as a business, not just as a casual occupation; (b)
undertaking to carry passengers over established roads by the method by which the business was conducted; and (c)
transporting students for a fee. Despite catering to a limited clientèle, the Pereñas operated as a common carrier
because they held themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to the students of a particular school living
within or near where they operated the service and for a fee. The common carrier’s standard of care and vigilance as
to the safety of the passengers is defined by law. Given the nature of the business and for reasons of public policy,
the common carrier is bound "to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of
the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case."
There is no question that the Pereñas did not overturn the presumption of their negligence by credible evidence. Their
defense of having observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their driver
was not legally sufficient. According to Article 1759 of the Civil Code, their liability as a common carrier did not cease
upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their
employee. This was the reason why the RTC treated this defense of the Pereñas as inappropriate in this action for
breach of contract of carriage. The Pereñas were liable for the death of Aaron despite the fact that their driver might
have acted beyond the scope of his authority or even in violation of the orders of the common carrier.27 In this
connection, the records showed their driver’s actual negligence. There was a showing, to begin with, that their driver
traversed the railroad tracks at a point at which the PNR did not permit motorists going into the Makati area to cross
the railroad tracks. Although that point had been used by motorists as a shortcut into the Makati area, that fact alone
did not excuse their driver into taking that route. On the other hand, with his familiarity with that shortcut, their driver
was fully aware of the risks to his passengers but he still disregarded the risks. Compounding his lack of care was that
loud music was playing inside the air-conditioned van at the time of the accident. The loudness most probably reduced
his ability to hear the warning horns of the oncoming train to allow him to correctly appreciate the lurking dangers on
the railroad tracks. Also, he sought to overtake a passenger bus on the left side as both vehicles traversed the railroad
tracks. In so doing, he lost his view of the train that was then coming from the opposite side of the passenger bus,
leading him to miscalculate his chances of beating the bus in their race, and of getting clear of the train. As a result,
the bus avoided a collision with the train but the van got slammed at its rear, causing the fatality. Lastly, he did not
slow down or go to a full stop before traversing the railroad tracks despite knowing that his slackening of speed and
going to a full stop were in observance of the right of way at railroad tracks as defined by the traffic laws and
regulations.28 He thereby violated a specific traffic regulation on right of way, by virtue of which he was immediately
presumed to be negligent.
At any rate, the lower courts correctly held both the Pereñas and the PNR "jointly and severally" liable for damages
arising from the death of Aaron. They had been impleaded in the same complaint as defendants against whom the
Zarates had the right to relief, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect to or arising out of the accident,
and questions of fact and of law were common as to the Zarates.36 Although the basis of the right to relief of the
Zarates (i.e., breach of contract of carriage) against the Pereñas was distinct from the basis of the Zarates’ right to
relief against the PNR (i.e., quasi-delict under Article 2176, Civil Code), they nonetheless could be held jointly and
severally liable by virtue of their respective negligence combining to cause the death of Aaron. As to the PNR, the RTC
rightly found the PNR also guilty of negligence despite the school van of the Pereñas traversing the railroad tracks at
a point not dedicated by the PNR as a railroad crossing for pedestrians and motorists, because the PNR did not ensure
the safety of others through the placing of crossbars, signal lights, warning signs, and other permanent safety barriers
to prevent vehicles or pedestrians from crossing there. The RTC observed that the fact that a crossing guard had been
assigned to man that point from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. was a good indicium that the PNR was aware of the risks to others as
well as the need to control the vehicular and other traffic there. Verily, the Pereñas and the PNR were joint tortfeasors.