G.R. No.

145804   February 6, 2003

Lessons Applicable: Actionable Document (transportation)
Laws Cited: Art. 1755,Art. 1756,Art. 1759,Art. 1763

FACTS:
October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor) entered the EDSA LRT
station after purchasing a “token”. 

While Nicanor was standing at the platform near the LRT tracks, the guard Junelito
Escartin approached him.

Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight.

Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed instantaneously upon being hit by a moving train
operated by Rodolfo Roman

December 8, 1994: The widow of Nicanor, along with her children, filed a complaint for
damages against Escartin, Roman, LRTA, Metro Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent (agency
of security guards) for the death of her husband. 

LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and a cross-claim against
Escartin and Prudent

Prudent: denied liability – averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection
and surpervision of its security guards

LRTA and Roman: presented evidence

Prudent and Escartin: demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that
Escartin was negligent in his assigned task

RTC: In favor of widow and against Prudent and Escartin, complaint against LRT and
Roman were dismissed for lack of merit

CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and Roman liable

ISSUE: Whether or not LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the contract of
carriage
HELD: NO.  Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages is DELETED (CANNOT co-
exist w/ compensatory damages) (b) Roman is absolved.

Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its
business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty off exercising
utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers
Civil Code:
 Art. 1755.  A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances
 Art. 1756.  In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that
they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755
 Art. 1759.  Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers
through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees, although such
employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the
orders of the common carriers
This 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 selection and supervision of their
employees.

 Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on

account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the
common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father
of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.
 Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple proof of injury, the
passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the
carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the
injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure
 Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an
independent firm to undertake the task, the common carrier is NOT relieved of its
responsibilities under the contract of carriage

 GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and related provisions in
conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. (Tort may arise even under a contract,
where tort [quasi-delict liability] is that which breaches the contract)
 EX: if employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee,
employer  can be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the
employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and
supervision of its employees. 
 EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee 
 Factual finding of the CA: NO link between Prudent and the death of Nicanor for the
reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOT proven
 NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must
also be absolved from liability
 Contractual tie between LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relation between
Nicanor and Roman
 Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence

Facts:
On 14 October 1993, about half an hour past seven o'clock in the evening, 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. A misunderstanding or an altercation between the two apparently ensued that led
to a fist fight. No evidence, however, was adduced to indicate how the fight started or who,
between the two, delivered the first blow or... how 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 08 December 1994, the widow of Nicanor, herein respondent Marjorie Navidad, along
with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman,
the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent for the death of
her... husband.
The LRTA and Roman presented their evidence while Prudent and Escartin, instead of
presenting evidence, filed a demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that
Escartin was negligent in his assigned task.
In exempting Prudent from liability, the court stressed that there was nothing to link the
security agency to the death of Navidad. It said that Navidad failed to show that Escartin
inflicted fist blows upon the victim and the evidence merely... established the fact of death of
Navidad by reason of his having been hit by the train owned and managed by the LRTA and
operated at the time by Roman.
Petitioners would 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.
Petitioners would... 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.
The LRTA would add that the appellate court's conclusion on the existence of an employer-
employee relationship... between Roman and LRTA lacked basis because Roman himself
had testified being an employee of Metro Transit and not of the LRTA.
Respondents, supporting the decision of the appellate court, 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.
Issues:
Whether or not LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the contract of carriage
Ruling:
No. 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.
Regrettably for LRT, as well as perhaps the surviving spouse and heirs of the late Nicanor
Navidad, this Court is concluded by the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that "there is
nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason that the...
negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly proven x x x." This finding of the
appellate court is not without substantial justification in our own review of the records of the
case.
There being, similarly, no showing that petitioner Rodolfo Roman himself is guilty of any
culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability. Needless to say, the
contractual tie between the LRT and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation between the
latter and Roman; thus, Roman can be made liable only for his own fault or negligence.
Principles:
Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business
and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence in
ensuring the safety of passengers.
The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of
very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances.[5] 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.[6] The statutory provisions render a common carrier
liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the... negligence or wilful acts of its
employees or b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers
if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of due diligence could have
prevented or stopped the act or omission.[7] In case of such death or injury, a carrier is
presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and [8] by simple proof of injury, the
passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of
its... employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an
unforeseen event or to force majeure.[9] In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the
carrier on how the accident occurred, which petitioners, according to the... appellate court,
have failed to show, the presumption would be that it has been at fault,[10] an exception
from the general rule that negligence must be proved.
A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes
the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual... and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article
2194[14] of the Civil Code can well apply.[15] In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under
a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract.[16]
Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself
constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the
parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules
on tort... to apply.