Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    5 LRTA V Navidad

    Uploaded by

    Paula Vallestero
    1) Nicanor Navidad was drunk when he entered an LRT station after purchasing a token. He got into an altercation with a security guard and fell onto the train tracks where he was struck and killed by an oncoming train. 2) The widow of Nicanor filed a lawsuit against the security company, train operator, and LRTA. The RTC found the security company and guard liable but the CA found the LRTA and train operator liable. 3) The LRTA argued it was not liable as the guard's assault was unforeseeable, while the widow argued LRTA was liable under contract of carriage once the fare was paid. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    5 LRTA V Navidad

    Uploaded by

    Paula Vallestero
    55 views2 pages
    1) Nicanor Navidad was drunk when he entered an LRT station after purchasing a token. He got into an altercation with a security guard and fell onto the train tracks where he was struck and killed by an oncoming train. 2) The widow of Nicanor filed a lawsuit against the security company, train operator, and LRTA. The RTC found the security company and guard liable but the CA found the LRTA and train operator liable. 3) The LRTA argued it was not liable as the guard's assault was unforeseeable, while the widow argued LRTA was liable under contract of carriage once the fare was paid. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that the

    Original Title

    5 LRTA v Navidad

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Nicanor Navidad was drunk when he entered an LRT station after purchasing a token. He got into an altercation with a security guard and fell onto the train tracks where he was struck and killed by an oncoming train. 2) The widow of Nicanor filed a lawsuit against the security company, train operator, and LRTA. The RTC found the security company and guard liable but the CA found the LRTA and train operator liable. 3) The LRTA argued it was not liable as the guard's assault was unforeseeable, while the widow argued LRTA was liable under contract of carriage once the fare was paid. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    55 views2 pages

    5 LRTA V Navidad

    Uploaded by

    Paula Vallestero
    1) Nicanor Navidad was drunk when he entered an LRT station after purchasing a token. He got into an altercation with a security guard and fell onto the train tracks where he was struck and killed by an oncoming train. 2) The widow of Nicanor filed a lawsuit against the security company, train operator, and LRTA. The RTC found the security company and guard liable but the CA found the LRTA and train operator liable. 3) The LRTA argued it was not liable as the guard's assault was unforeseeable, while the widow argued LRTA was liable under contract of carriage once the fare was paid. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 2

    LRTA v Navidad (Torts)

    LRTA v Navidad G.R. No. 145804 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO
    ROMAN, petitioners, vs. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD &
    PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents.

    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.
    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.

    DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:


    1. RTC-Pasig: ordered defendants Prudent Security and Junelito Escartin to pay actual,
    compensatory, and moral damages including attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
    2. CA: exonerated Prudent Security Agency (Prudent) from liability and finding Light Rail Transit
    Authority (LRTA) and Rodolfo Roman liable for damages on account of the death of Nicanor
    Navidad. While the deceased might not have then as yet boarded the train, a contract of carriage
    theretofore had already existed when the victim 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 

    ARGUMENTS

    LRTA
    : 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.

    Respondent Navidad and PRudent


    : 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 

    ISSUE:
    Whether LRTA is liable

    RULING: Yes.
    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 Civil Code, governing the liability of a common carrier for death of
    or injury to its passengers, provides:
    "Article 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.
    "Article 1756. In case of death of 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."
    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.

    Should Prudent be made likewise liable? If at all, that liability could only be for tort under the
    provisions of Article 2176 and related provisions, in conjunction with Article 2180, of the Civil
    Code.
    The premise, however, for the employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the
    employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then 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.
    The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and
    supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been shown. Absent such a showing,
    one might ask further, how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an
    independent contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary. 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 of the Civil Code can
    well apply.
    In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the
    contract. 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. 

    You might also like