LRTA V. NAVIDAD, G.R. No. 145804

LRTA V. NAVIDAD, G.R. No.
145804, February 6, 2003
Doctrine: The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons with due regards for all circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so
obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where
they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.
Facts:
On October 14, 1993, Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a “token”
(representing payment of the fare). While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito
Escartin, the security guard assigned to the area approached Navidad and a misunderstanding or an altercation
between the two apparently ensued that led to a fist fight. Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment
that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the
moving train, and he was killed instantaneously.
On December 8, 1994, the widow of Nicanor, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Escartin,
Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization Inc. and Prudent for the death of Navidad. The RTC then held that
Prudent and Escartin were liable and it ordered them to pay jointly and severally the damages for the death of
Navidad.
On appeal, the CA exonerated Prudent and Escartin from any liability for the death of Navidad and held that LRTA
and Roman jointly and severally liable. It ruled that while the deceased might not have then as yet boarded the train,
a contract of carriage had already existed when Navidad entered the place where passengers were supposed to be
after paying the fare and getting the corresponding token therefor. In exempting Prudent from liability, the court
stressed that there was nothing to link the security agency to the death of Navidad.
Petitioner’s argument: The petitioner contend that the appellate court ignored the evidence and the factual findings
of the trial court by holding them liable on the basis of a sweeping conclusion that the presumption of negligence on
the part of a common carrier was not overcome. The petitioner further insist that Escartin’s assault upon Navidad,
which caused the latter to fall on the tracks, was an act of a stranger that could not have been foreseen or prevented.
Respondent’s Argument: contended that a contract of carriage was deemed created from the moment Navidad
paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection
under a contractual relation, and that the appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Roman liable for the death of
Navidad in failing to exercise extraordinary diligence imposed upon a common carrier.
Issue: Whether or not LRTA and Roman should be held liable according to the contract of carriage.
Ruling:
The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons
with due regards for all circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so
obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where
they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.
Thus, in this case, the foundation of LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the
victim arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of the
common carrier. In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire
its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task. In either
case, the common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage.
For Rodolfo Roman, there is no showing that he is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must be absolved from
liability. Needless to say, the contractual tie between the LRT and Navidad is not itself juridical relation between the
latter and Roman; thus, Roman can be made liable only for his own fault or negligence.

LRTA V. NAVIDAD, G.R. No. 145804

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LRTA V. NAVIDAD, G.R. No. 145804

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

LRTA V. NAVIDAD, G.R. No. 145804

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LRTA V. NAVIDAD, G.R. No.

145804, February 6, 2003

You might also like