Republic of the Philippines and in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is exclusively responsible therefor

SUPREME COURT to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the negligence of his driver (see Viluan
Manila v. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. L-21477-81, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 742).
In other words, the carrier can neither shift his liability on the contract to his driver nor
FIRST DIVISION share it with him, for his driver’s negligence is his. Secondly, if We make the driver
jointly and severally liable with the carrier, that would make the carrier’s liability
personal instead of merely vicarious and consequently, entitled to recover only the
G.R. Nos. 66102-04 August 30, 1990
share which corresponds to the driver, contradictory to the explicit provision of Article
2181 of the New Civil Code.
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND
CASIANO PASCUA, ET AL., respondents.
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate
Court (now Court of Appeals) dated July 29, 1983 in AC-G.R. Nos. CV-65885, CV-
Civil Law; Contracts; Torts and damages; Doctrine of last clear chance applies in a
65886 and CV-65887 which reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance (now
suit between the owners and drivers of two colliding vehicles, not where the
Regional Trial Court) of Pangasinan dated December 27, 1978; and its resolution dated
passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce contractual
November 28, 1983 denying the motion for reconsideration.
obligations.—We reiterate that “[t]he principle about the ‘last clear chance’ would call
for application in a suit between the owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles.
It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce It is an established principle that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final
its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver and may not be reviewed by this Court on appeal. However, this principle is subject to
of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty certain exceptions. One of these is when the findings of the appellate court are contrary
of negligence.” This was Our ruling in Anuran, et al. v. Buño, et al., G.R. Nos. L- to those of the trial court (see Sabinosa v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R.
21353 and L-21354, May 20, 1966, 17 SCRA 224. Thus, the respondent court erred in No. L-47981, July 24, 1989) in which case, a re-examination of the facts and evidence
applying said doctrine. may be undertaken. This is Our task now.

Same; Same; Same; Carrier, presumed at fault or negligent, the moment a The antecedent facts are as follows:
passenger dies or is injured.—In culpa contractual, the moment a passenger dies or is
injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, and About 11:00 o'clock in the morning on December 24, 1966, Catalina Pascua, Caridad
this disputable presumption may only be overcome by evidence that he had observed Pascua, Adelaida Estomo, Erlinda Meriales, Mercedes Lorenzo, Alejandro Morales
extra-ordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the New and Zenaida Parejas boarded the jeepney owned by spouses Isidro Mangune and
Civil Code or that the death or injury of the passenger was due to a forfuitous event. Guillerma Carreon and driven by Tranquilino Manalo at Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga
bound for Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan to spend Christmas at their respective homes.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Accident caused either by defects in the automobile or Although they usually ride in buses, they had to ride in a jeepney that day because the
negligence of driver, not a caso fortuito.—In any event, “[i]n an action for damages buses were full. Their contract with Manalo was for them to pay P24.00 for the trip.
against the carrier for his failure to safely carry his passenger to his destination, an The private respondents' testimonial evidence on this contractual relationship was not
accident caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its controverted by Mangune, Carreon and Manalo, nor by Filriters Guaranty Assurance
driver, is not a caso fortuito which would avoid the carrier’s liability for damages. Corporation, Inc., the insurer of the jeepney, with contrary evidence. Purportedly
riding on the front seat with Manalo was Mercedes Lorenzo. On the left rear passenger
seat were Caridad Pascua, Alejandro Morales and Zenaida Parejas. On the right rear
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Driver,not jointly and severally liable with carrier
passenger seat were Catalina Pascua, Adelaida Estomo, and Erlinda Meriales. After a
in case of breach of contract of carriage.—The trial court was therefore right in
brief stopover at Moncada, Tarlac for refreshment, the jeepney proceeded towards
finding that Manalo and spouses Mangune and Carreon were negligent. However, its
Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan.
ruling that spouses Mangune and Carreon are jointly and severally liable with Manalo
is erroneous. The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the carrier in
case of breach of the contract of carriage. The rationale behind this is readily Upon reaching barrio Sinayoan, San Manuel, Tarlac, the right rear wheel of the
discernible. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between the carrier and the passenger, jeepney was detached, so it was running in an unbalanced position. Manalo stepped
on the brake, as a result of which, the jeepney which was then running on the eastern . . . lacerated wound on the forehead and occipital region, hematoma
lane (its right of way) made a U-turn, invading and eventually stopping on the western on the forehead, multiple abrasions on the forearm, right upper arm,
lane of the road in such a manner that the jeepney's front faced the south (from where back and right leg. . . .
it came) and its rear faced the north (towards where it was going). The jeepney
practically occupied and blocked the greater portion of the western lane, which is the The police investigators of Tacpal and policemen of San Manuel, Tarlac, Tarlac, upon
right of way of vehicles coming from the north, among which was Bus No. 753 of arrival at the scene of the mishap, prepared a sketch (common exhibit "K" for private
petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (Rabbit) driven by Tomas delos Reyes. respondents "19" for Rabbit) showing the relative positions of the two vehicles as well
Almost at the time when the jeepney made a sudden U-turn and encroached on the as the alleged point of impact (p. 100, Record on Appeal):
western lane of the highway as claimed by Rabbit and delos Reyes, or after stopping
for a couple of minutes as claimed by Mangune, Carreon and Manalo, the bus bumped
. . . The point of collision was a cement pave-portion of the
from behind the right rear portion of the jeepney. As a result of the collision, three
Highway, about six (6) meters wide, with narrow shoulders with
passengers of the jeepney (Catalina Pascua, Erlinda Meriales and Adelaida Estomo)
grasses beyond which are canals on both sides. The road was straight
died while the other jeepney passengers sustained physical injuries. What could have
and points 200 meters north and south of the point of collision are
been a festive Christmas turned out to be tragic. visible and unobstructed. Purportedly, the point of impact or
collision (Exh. "K-4", Pascua on the sketch Exh. "K"-Pascua) was
The causes of the death of the three jeepney passengers were as follows (p. 101, Record on the western lane of the highway about 3 feet (or one yard) from
on Appeal): the center line as shown by the bedris (sic), dirt and soil (obviously
from the undercarriage of both vehicles) as well as paint, marron
The deceased Catalina Pascua suffered the following injuries, to wit: (sic) from the Rabbit bus and greenish from the jeepney. The point
fracture of the left parietal and temporal regions of the skull; fracture of impact encircled and marked with the letter "X" in Exh. "K"-4
of the left mandible; fracture of the right humenous; compound Pascua, had a diameter of two meters, the center of which was about
fracture of the left radious and ullma middle third and lower third; two meters from the western edge of cement pavement of the
fracture of the upper third of the right tibia and fillnea; avulsion of roadway. Pictures taken by witness Bisquera in the course of the
the head, left internal; and multiple abrasions. The cause of her death investigation showed the relative positions of the point of impact
was shock, secondary to fracture and multiple hemorrhage. The and center line (Exh. "P"-Pascua) the back of the Rabbit bus (Exh.
fractures were produced as a result of the hitting of the victim by a "P"-1-Pascua"), the lifeless body of Catalina Pascua (Exh. "P-2
strong force. The abrasions could be produced when a person falls Pascua"), and the damaged front part of the Rabbit bus (Exh. "P-3
from a moving vehicles (sic) and rubs parts of her body against a Pascua"). No skid marks of the Rabbit bus was found in the vicinity
cement road pavement. . . . of the collision, before or after the point of impact. On the other
hand, there was a skid mark about 45 meters long purportedly of the
Erlinda Mariles (sic) sustained external lesions such as contusion on jeepney from the eastern shoulder of the road south of, and
the left parietal region of the skull; hematoma on the right upper lid; extending up to the point of impact.
and abrasions (sic) on the left knee. Her internal lesions were:
hematoma on the left thorax; multiple lacerations of the left lower At the time and in the vicinity of the accident, there were no vehicles following the
lobe of the lungs; contusions on the left lower lobe of the lungs; and jeepney, neither were there oncoming vehicles except the bus. The weather condition
simple fractures of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th ribs, left. of that day was fair.
The forcible impact of the jeep caused the above injuries which
resulted in her death. . . . After conducting the investigation, the police filed with the Municipal Court of San
Manuel, Tarlac, a criminal complaint against the two drivers for Multiple Homicide.
The cause of death of Erlinda or Florida Estomo (also called as per At the preliminary investigation, a probable cause was found with respect to the case
autopsy of Dr. Panlasiqui was due to shock due to internal of Manalo, thus, his case was elevated to the Court of First Instance. However, finding
hemorrhage, ruptured spleen and trauma. . . . no sufficiency of evidence as regards the case of delos Reyes, the Court dismissed it.
Manalo was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. Not having appealed, he
Caridad Pascua suffered physical injuries as follows (p. 101, Record on Appeal): served his sentence.
Complaints for recovery of damages were then filed before the Court of First Instance this Court renders judgment ordering said defendants, jointly and
of Pangasinan. In Civil Case No. 1136, spouses Casiano Pascua and Juana Valdez sued severally, to pay the plaintiffs —
as heirs of Catalina Pascua while Caridad Pascua sued in her behalf. In Civil Case No.
1139, spouses Manuel Millares and Fidencia Arcica sued as heirs of Erlinda Meriales. a) In Civil Case No. 1136, for the death of Catalina Pascua, to pay
In Civil Case No. 1140, spouses Mariano Estomo and Dionisia Sarmiento also sued as her heirs the amounts of P12,000.00 for indemnity for loss of her
heirs of Adelaida Estomo. life; P41,760.00 for loss of earnings; P324.40 for actual expenses
and P2,000.00 for moral damages;
In all three cases, spouses Mangune and Carreon, Manalo, Rabbit and delos Reyes
were all impleaded as defendants. Plaintiffs anchored their suits against spouses b) In the same Civil Case No.1136 for the injuries of Caridad Pascua,
Mangune and Carreon and Manalo on their contractual liability. As against Rabbit and to pay her the amounts of P240.00 for loss of wages, P328.20 for
delos Reyes, plaintiffs based their suits on their culpability for a quasi-delict. Filriters actual expenses and P500.00 for moral damages;
Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc. was also impleaded as additional defendant in
Civil Case No. 1136 only. c) In Civil Case No.1139 for the death of Erlinda Meriales, to pay
her heirs (the plaintiffs) the amount of P12,000.00 — for indemnity
For the death of Catalina Pascua, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1136 sought to collect for loss of her life; P622.00 for actual expenses, P60,480.00 for loss
the aggregate amount of P70,060.00 in damages, itemized as follows: P500.00 for of wages or income and P2,000.00 for moral damages;
burial expenses; P12,000.00 for loss of wages for 24 years; P10,000.00 for exemplary
damages; P10,000.00 for moral damages; and P3,000.00 for attorney's fees. In the d) In Civil Case No. 1140, for the death of Erlinda (also called
same case, plaintiff Caridad Pascua claimed P550.00 for medical expenses; P240.00 Florida or Adelaida Estomo), to pay her heirs (the plaintiff the
for loss of wages for two months; P2,000.00 for disfigurement of her face; P3,000.00
amount of P12,000.00 for indemnity for the loss of her life; P580.00
for physical pain and suffering; P2,500.00 as exemplary damages and P2,000.00 for
for actual expenses; P53,160.00 for loss of wages or income and
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.
P2,000.00 for moral damages.

In Civil Case No. 1139, plaintiffs demanded P500.00 for burial expenses; P6,000.00 2) The defendant Filriters Guaranty Insurance Co., having
for the death of Erlinda, P63,000.00 for loss of income; P10,000.00 for moral damages
contracted to ensure and answer for the obligations of defendants
and P3,000.00 for attorney's fees or total of P80,000.00.
Mangune and Carreon for damages due their passengers, this Court
renders judgment against the said defendants Filriters Guaranty
In Civil Case No. 1140, plaintiffs claimed P500.00 for burial expenses; P6,000.00 for Insurance Co., jointly and severally with said defendants (Mangune
the death of Adelaide, P56,160.00 for loss of her income or earning capacity; and Carreon) to pay the plaintiffs the amount herein above
P10,000.00 for moral damages; and P3,000.00 for attorney's fees. adjudicated in their favor in Civil Case No. 1136 only. All the
amounts awarded said plaintiff, as set forth in paragraph one (1)
Rabbit filed a cross-claim in the amount of P15,000.00 for attorney's fees and expenses hereinabove;
of litigation. On the other hand, spouses Mangune and Carreon filed a cross-claim in
the amount of P6,168.00 for the repair of the jeepney and P3,000.00 for its non-use 3) On the cross claim of Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. ordering the
during the period of repairs. defendant, Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Tranquilino
Manalo, to pay jointly and severally, cross-claimant Phil. Rabbit
On December 27, 1978, the trial court rendered its decision finding Manalo negligent, Bus Lines, Inc., the amounts of P216.27 as actual damages to its Bus
the dispositive portion of which reads (pp. 113-114, Record on Appeal): No. 753 and P2,173.60 for loss of its earning.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court is of the opinion and so holds: All of the above amount, shall bear legal interest from the filing of
the complaints.
1) That defendants Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and
Tranquilino Manalo thru their negligence, breached contract of Costs are adjudged against defendants Mangune, Carreon and
carriage with their passengers the plaintiffs' and/or their heirs, and Manalo and Filriters Guaranty.
 SO ORDERED For the physical injuries suffered by Caridad Pascua:

On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the above-quoted decision by Civil Case No. 1136
finding delos Reyes negligent, the dispositive portion of which reads (pp. 55-
57, Rollo): a) Actual damages (hospitalization expenses) — P550.00

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the lower court's b) Moral damages (disfigurement of the
decision is hereby REVERSED as to item No. 3 of the decision
which reads:
face and physical suffering — 8,000.00

3) On the cross claim of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. ordering c) Exemplary damages — 2,000.00
the defendants Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Tranquilino
Manalo, to pay jointly and severally, the amounts of P216.27 as
actual damages to its Bus No. 753 and P2,173.60 for loss of its —————
earnings.
Total — P10,550.00
and another judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs-
appellants Casiana Pascua, Juan Valdez and Caridad Pascua, For the death of Erlinda Arcega Meriales. the parents and/or heirs:
ordering the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and its driver Tomas
delos Reyes to pay the former jointly and severally damages in Civil Case No. 1139
amounts awarded as follows:
a) Indemnity for loss of life — P12,000.00
For the death of Catalina Pascua, the parents and/or heirs are
awarded b) Loss of Salary or Earning Capacity — 20,000.00

Civil Case No. 1136 — c) Actual damages (burial expenses) — 500.00

a) Indemnity for the loss of life — P12,000.00 d) Moral damages — 15,000.00

b) Loss of Salaries or earning capacity — 14,000.00 e) Exemplary damages — 15,000.00

c) Actual damages (burial expenses) — 800.00 f) Attorney's fees — 3,000.00

d) For moral damages — 10,000.00 —————

e) Exemplary damages — 3,000.00 Total — P65,500.00

f) For attorney's fees — 3,000.00 For the death of Florida Sarmiento Estomo:

————— Civil Case No. 1140

Total — P38,200.00 (sic) a) Indemnity for loss of life — P12,000.00

 b) Loss of Salary or Earning capacity — 20,000.00 angle, crossing the Eastern lane and the (imaginary) center line and
encroaching fully into the western lane where the collision took
c) Actual damages (burial expenses) — 500.00 place as evidenced by the point of impact;

d) Moral damages — 3,000.00 (3) The observation of witness Police Corporal Cacalda also of the
San Manuel Police that the path of the jeepney they found on the
e) Exemplary damages — 3,000.00 road and indicated in the sketch (Exh. K-Pascua) was shown by skid
marks which he described as "scratches on the road caused by the
iron of the jeep, after its wheel was removed;"
f) Attorney's fees — 3,000.00
(4) His conviction for the crime of Multiple Homicide and Multiple
————— Serious Physical Injuries with Damage to Property thru Reckless
Imprudence by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac (Exh. 24-
Total — P41,500.00 Rabbit) upon the criminal Information by the Provincial Fiscal of
Tarlac (Exh. 23-Rabbit), as a result of the collision, and his
With costs against the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. commitment to prison and service of his sentence (Exh. 25-Rabbit)
upon the finality of the decision and his failure to appeal therefrom;
SO ORDERED. and

The motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present petition. (5) The application of the doctrine of res-ipsa loquitar (sic) attesting
to the circumstance that the collision occured (sic) on the right of
way of the Phil. Rabbit Bus.
The issue is who is liable for the death and physical injuries suffered by the passengers
of the jeepney?
The respondent court had a contrary opinion. Applying primarily (1) the doctrine of
last clear chance, (2) the presumption that drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle
The trial court, in declaring that Manalo was negligent, considered the following (p.
guilty and the cause of the accident unless contradicted by other evidence, and (3) the
106, Record on Appeal):
substantial factor test. concluded that delos Reyes was negligent.

(1) That the unrebutted testimony of his passenger plaintiff Caridad

The misappreciation of the facts and evidence and the misapplication of the laws by
Pascua that a long ways (sic) before reaching the point of collision,
the respondent court warrant a reversal of its questioned decision and resolution.
the Mangune jeepney was "running fast" that his passengers
cautioned driver Manalo to slow down but did not heed the warning:
that the right rear wheel was detached causing the jeepney to run to We reiterate that "[t]he principle about "the last clear" chance, would call for
the eastern shoulder of the road then back to the concrete pavement; application in a suit between the owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles. It
that driver Manalo applied the brakes after which the jeepney made does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
a U-turn (half-turn) in such a manner that it inverted its direction contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of
making it face South instead of north; that the jeepney stopped on the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of
the western lane of the road on the right of way of the oncoming negligence." This was Our ruling in Anuran, et al. v. Buño et al., G.R. Nos. L-21353
Phil. Rabbit Bus where it was bumped by the latter; and L-21354, May 20, 1966, 17 SCRA 224. 1 Thus, the respondent court erred in
applying said doctrine.
(2) The likewise unrebutted testimony of Police Investigator Tacpal
of the San Manuel (Tarlac) Police who, upon responding to the On the presumption that drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle guilty and the
reported collission, found the real evidence thereat indicate in his cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence, the respondent court said
sketch (Exh. K, Pascua ), the tracks of the jeepney of defendant (p. 49, Rollo):
Mangune and Carreon running on the Eastern shoulder (outside the
concrete paved road) until it returned to the concrete road at a sharp
 . . . the jeepney had already executed a complete turnabout and at hours and 30 minutes. Deduct from this the actual stopover time of
the time of impact was already facing the western side of the road. two Hours (computed from the testimony of the driver that he made
Thus the jeepney assumed a new frontal position vis a vis, the bus, three 40-minute stop-overs), We will have an actual travelling time
and the bus assumed a new role of defensive driving. The spirit of 6 hours and 30 minutes.
behind the presumption of guilt on one who bumps the rear end of
another vehicle is for the driver following a vehicle to be at all times Under the circumstances, We calculate that the Laoag-Tarlac route
prepared of a pending accident should the driver in front suddenly (365 kms.) driving at an average of 56 km. per hour would take 6
come to a full stop, or change its course either through change of hours and 30 minutes. Therefore, the average speed of the bus, give
mind of the front driver, mechanical trouble, or to avoid an accident. and take 10 minutes, from the point of impact on the highway with
The rear vehicle is given the responsibility of avoiding a collision excellent visibility factor would be 80 to 90 kms. per hour, as this is
with the front vehicle for it is the rear vehicle who has full control the place where buses would make up for lost time in traversing busy
of the situation as it is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of city streets.
it.
Still, We are not convinced. It cannot be said that the bus was travelling at a fast speed
The above discussion would have been correct were it not for the undisputed fact that when the accident occurred because the speed of 80 to 90 kilometers per hour,
the U-turn made by the jeepney was abrupt (Exhibit "K," Pascua). The jeepney, which assuming such calculation to be correct, is yet within the speed limit allowed in
was then traveling on the eastern shoulder, making a straight, skid mark of highways. We cannot even fault delos Reyes for not having avoided the collision. As
approximately 35 meters, crossed the eastern lane at a sharp angle, making a skid mark aforestated, the jeepney left a skid mark of about 45 meters, measured from the time
of approximately 15 meters from the eastern shoulder to the point of impact (Exhibit its right rear wheel was detached up to the point of collision. Delos Reyes must have
"K" Pascua). Hence, delos Reyes could not have anticipated the sudden U-turn noticed the perilous condition of the jeepney from the time its right rear wheel was
executed by Manalo. The respondent court did not realize that the presumption was detached or some 90 meters away, considering that the road was straight and points
rebutted by this piece of evidence. 200 meters north and south of the point of collision, visible and unobstructed. Delos
Reyes admitted that he was running more or less 50 kilometers per hour at the time of
With regard to the substantial factor test, it was the opinion of the respondent court the accident. Using this speed, delos Reyes covered the distance of 45 meters in 3.24
that (p. 52, Rollo): seconds. If We adopt the speed of 80 kilometers per hour, delos Reyes would have
covered that distance in only 2.025 seconds. Verily, he had little time to react to the
. . . It is the rule under the substantial factor test that if the actor's situation. To require delos Reyes to avoid the collision is to ask too much from him.
conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another, the Aside from the time element involved, there were no options available to him. As the
fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the trial court remarked (pp. 107-108, Record on Appeal):
extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred does not
prevent him from being liable (Restatement, Torts, 2d). Here, We . . . They (plaintiffs) tried to impress this Court that defendant de los
find defendant bus running at a fast speed when the accident Reyes, could have taken either of two options: (1) to swerve to its
occurred and did not even make the slightest effort to avoid the right (western shoulder) or (2) to swerve to its left (eastern lane),
accident, . . . . The bus driver's conduct is thus a substantial factor in and thus steer clear of the Mangune jeepney. This Court does not so
bringing about harm to the passengers of the jeepney, not only believe, considering the existing exigencies of space and time.
because he was driving fast and did not even attempt to avoid the
mishap but also because it was the bus which was the physical force As to the first option, Phil. Rabbit's evidence is convincing and
which brought about the injury and death to the passengers of the unrebutted that the Western shoulder of the road was narrow and had
jeepney. tall grasses which would indicate that it was not passable. Even
plaintiffs own evidence, the pictures (Exhs. P and P-2, Pascua) are
The speed of the bus was calculated by respondent court as follows (pp. 54-55, Rollo): mute confirmation of such fact. Indeed, it can be noticed in the
picture (Exh. P-2, Pascua) after the Rabbit bus came to a full stop, it
According to the record of the case, the bus departed from Laoag, was tilted to right front side, its front wheels resting most probably
Ilocos Norte, at 4:00 o'clock A.M. and the accident took place at on a canal on a much lower elevation that of the shoulder or paved
approximately around 12:30 P.M., after travelling roughly for 8 road. It too shows that all of the wheels of the Rabbit bus were clear
of the roadway except the outer left rear wheel. These observation
 appearing in said picture (Exh P-2, Pascua) clearly shows coupled tightening of the bolts. This notwithstanding the right rear wheel of
with the finding the Rabbit bus came to a full stop only five meters the vehicle was detached while in transit. As to the cause thereof no
from the point of impact (see sketch, Exh. K-Pascua) clearly show evidence was offered. Said defendant did not even attempt to
that driver de los Reyes veered his Rabbit bus to the right attempt to explain, much less establish, it to be one caused by a caso fortuito. .
avoid hitting the Mangune's jeepney. That it was not successful in ..
fully clearing the Mangune jeepney as its (Rabbit's) left front hit said
jeepney (see picture Exh. 10-A-Rabbit) must have been due to In any event, "[i]n an action for damages against the carrier for his failure to
limitations of space and time. safely carry his passenger to his destination, an accident caused either by
defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver, is not a caso
Plaintiffs alternatively claim that defendant delos Reyes of the fortuito which would avoid the carriers liability for damages (Son v. Cebu
Rabbit bus could also have swerved to its left (eastern lane) to avoid Autobus Company, 94 Phil. 892 citing Lasam, et al. v. Smith, Jr., 45 Phil.
bumping the Mangune jeepney which was then on the western lane. 657; Necesito, etc. v. Paras, et al., 104 Phil. 75).
Such a claim is premised on the hypothesis (sic) that the eastern lane
was then empty. This claim would appear to be good copy of it were The trial court was therefore right in finding that Manalo and spouses Mangune and
based alone on the sketch made after the collision. Nonetheless, it Carreon were negligent. However, its ruling that spouses Mangune and Carreon are
loses force it one were to consider the time element involved, for jointly and severally liable with Manalo is erroneous The driver cannot be held jointly
moments before that, the Mangune jeepney was crossing that very and severally liable with the carrier in case of breach of the contract of carriage. The
eastern lane at a sharp angle. Under such a situation then, for driver rationale behind this is readily discernible. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between
delos Reyes to swerve to the eastern lane, he would run the greater the carrier and the passenger, and in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is
risk of running smack in the Mangune jeepney either head on or exclusively responsible therefore to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the
broadside. negligence of his driver (see Viluan v. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. L-
21477-81, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 742). In other words, the carrier can neither shift
After a minute scrutiny of the factual matters and duly proven evidence, We find that his liability on the contract to his driver nor share it with him, for his driver's
the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Manalo and spouses negligence is his. 4 Secondly, if We make the driver jointly and severally liable with
Mangune and Carreon. They all failed to exercise the precautions that are needed the carrier, that would make the carrier's liability personal instead of merely vicarious
precisely pro hac vice. and consequently, entitled to recover only the share which corresponds to the
driver, 5 contradictory to the explicit provision of Article 2181 of the New Civil
In culpa contractual, the moment a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed Code. 6
to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, and this disputable presumption may
only be overcome by evidence that he had observed extra-ordinary diligence as We affirm the amount of damages adjudged by the trial court, except with respect to
prescribed in Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the New Civil Code 2 or that the death the indemnity for loss of life. Under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the
or injury of the passenger was due to a fortuitous event 3 (Lasam v. Smith, Jr., 45 Phil. New Civil Code, the amount of damages for the death of a passenger is at least three
657). thousand pesos (P3,000.00). The prevailing jurisprudence has increased the amount of
P3,000.00 to P30,000.00 (see Heirs of Amparo delos Santos, et al. v. Honorable Court
The negligence of Manalo was proven during the trial by the unrebutted testimonies of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 51165, June 21, 1990 citing De Lima v. Laguna Tayabas
of Caridad Pascua, Police Investigator Tacpal, Police Corporal Cacalda, his (Manalo's) Co., G.R. Nos. L-35697-99, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 70).
conviction for the crime of Multiple Homicide and Multiple Serious Injuries with
Damage to Property thru Reckless Imprudence, and the application of the doctrine ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Intermediate
of res ipsa loquitur supra. The negligence of spouses Mangune and Carreon was Appellate Court dated July 29, 1983 and its resolution dated November 28, 1983 are
likewise proven during the trial (p. 110, Record on Appeal): SET ASIDE. The decision of the Court of First Instance dated December 27, 1978 is
REINSTATED MODIFICATION that only Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and
To escape liability, defendants Mangune and Carreon offered to Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc. are liable to the victims or their heirs
show thru their witness Natalio Navarro, an alleged mechanic, that and that the amount of indemnity for loss of life is increased to thirty thousand pesos
he periodically checks and maintains the jeepney of said defendants, (P30,000.00).
the last on Dec. 23, the day before the collision, which included the
SO ORDERED. negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.
Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino JJ., concur.
3 Article 1174 of the New Civil Code provides:

ART. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when

Footnotes it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which,
1 In this case, an improperly parked passenger jeepney was bumped
though foreseen, were inevitable.
from behind by a speeding truck with such violence that three of its
passengers died whereas two other passengers suffered injuries. The
representatives of the dead and of the injured passengers filed suits 4 Article 1759 of the New Civil Code provides:
to recover damages against the driver and the owners of the truck
and also against the driver and the owners of the jeepney. The trial ART. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries
court rendered judgment absolving the driver and the owners of the to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former's
jeepney but required the driver and the owners of the truck to employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the
compensate the victims. The Plaintiffs appealed insisting that the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common
driver and the owners of the jeepney should also be made liable. The carriers.
appellate court, relying on the doctrine of last clear chance, affirmed
the trial court's decision. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that
review on certiorari before this Court. We modified the questioned they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the
decision by making all the defendants solidarity liable. selection and supervision of their employees.

2 Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the New Civil Code, respectively 5 Article 1217 of the New Civil Code provides:
provides:
ART. 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary debtors
ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and extinguishes the obligation. If two or more solidary debtors offer to
for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary pay, the creditor may choose which offer to accept.
diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the
passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances
He who made the payment may claim from his codebtors only the
of each case. share which corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment
already made. If the payment is made before the debt is due, no
Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is interest for the intervening period may de demanded.
further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1746. Nos. 5, 6, and 7,
while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is
When one of the solidary debtors cannot, because of his insolvency,
further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756. reimburse his share to the debtor paying the obligation, such share
shall be borne by all his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each.
ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers
safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
6 Article 2181 of the New Civil Code provides:
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all
the circumstances.
ART. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents
or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or
ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common
delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted