ANTONIA MARANAN PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. PASCUAL PEREZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, PASCUAL PEREZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Maranan versus Perez

The Case

This is an action for damages arising from a contract of carriage, brought by Antonia Maranan, the mother of a passenger who was stabbed and killed by the driver of the taxicab in which he was riding, against Pascual Perez, the owner and operator of that taxicab, and against the driver himself. The case matters because it draws the dividing line between the old and the new law on the liability of a common carrier for the willful assaults of its own employees upon its passengers, and it teaches that under the present Civil Code that liability is practically absolute.

Procedural History

The driver, Simeon Valenzuela, was prosecuted for homicide in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, found guilty, sentenced to imprisonment, and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. While that appeal was pending, Antonia Maranan filed a separate civil action for damages in the Court of First Instance of Batangas against Perez and Valenzuela. After trial, the trial court found for the plaintiff and awarded her three thousand pesos in damages against Perez, while dismissing the claim against Valenzuela. Both the plaintiff and Perez appealed to the Supreme Court, the plaintiff asking for more damages and Perez insisting on non-liability. During the pendency of that appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the driver's conviction, and final judgment was entered in the criminal case.

Facts

On October 18, 1960, Rogelio Corachea was a passenger in a taxicab owned and operated by Pascual Perez. The driver of that very cab, Simeon Valenzuela, stabbed and killed him.

Valenzuela was prosecuted for homicide and convicted. While his appeal was pending, the victim's mother, Antonia Maranan, sued Perez and Valenzuela for damages for the death of her son. The defendants asserted that the deceased had been killed in self-defense, because he first assaulted the driver by stabbing him from behind. Perez added that the death was a fortuitous event, a caso fortuito, for which the carrier was not liable.

The trial court ruled for the mother and awarded her three thousand pesos against Perez, dismissing the claim against the driver. Both sides appealed. Perez relied solely on an earlier ruling holding that a carrier is under no absolute liability for assaults of its employees upon passengers, a ruling rendered in a case where the killing took place outside the scope and course of duty of the guilty employee.

Issues

• Whether or not the common carrier is liable for the death of a passenger killed by the willful act of its own driver, committed in the course of the driver's duty.
• Whether or not the claim against the driver may be maintained in the same civil action for breach of the contract of carriage.
• Whether or not the award of damages in favor of the mother should be increased.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1759 of the Civil Code provides:

Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful 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 is the provision that fixes the carrier's liability notwithstanding the willful act of its employee and even where that employee disobeyed orders.

Article 1174 of the Civil Code, on fortuitous events, is the provision invoked by the carrier, and the Court notes that it removes from its exempting effect the case where the law expressly provides for liability in spite of the occurrence of force majeure.

Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206, governs the damages recoverable when a breach of the contract of carriage results in the passenger's death, and it is the basis for both compensatory and moral damages in favor of the parents of the killed passenger.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the carrier liable. The earlier ruling relied upon by Perez was decided under the Civil Code of 1889, which did not impose upon common carriers absolute liability for the safety of passengers against willful assaults committed by their employees. The present Civil Code does, and Article 1759 categorically makes the carrier liable although the employee acted beyond the scope of his authority or in violation of orders. The Court explained that the carrier's liability rests on its implied duty to transport the passenger safely, so that it is enough that the assault happened within the course of the employee's duty. Here the killing was perpetrated by the driver of the very cab transporting the passenger, in whose hands the carrier had entrusted the duty of executing the contract of carriage. The Court stressed the carrier's strict obligation to select its drivers with due regard not only to technical competence but also to their total personality, moral fibers, and social attitude.

On the second issue, the Court held the dismissal of the claim against the driver correct, because the plaintiff's action was predicated on breach of the contract of carriage, and the cab driver was not a party to that contract. His civil liability is covered in the criminal case in which he was convicted by final judgment.

On the third issue, the Court increased the award. Three thousand pesos was only the minimum compensatory damages recoverable, and following the Court's policy that minimal award was raised to six thousand pesos. The finding that the other actual damages were not convincingly proved was left undisturbed. Moral damages, however, are awarded in addition, to compensate the parents for mental anguish, and the Court fixed three thousand pesos as sufficient, with legal interest on both amounts.

Doctrine

A common carrier is liable for the death of or injuries to a passenger through the willful acts of its employees, even if the employee acted beyond the scope of his authority or in violation of the carrier's orders. This liability is absolute in the sense that it practically secures passengers from assaults committed by the carrier's own employees. It is enough that the assault happened within the course of the employee's duty; it is no defense that the act was in excess of authority or in disobedience of orders. The carrier's strict obligation to select its drivers extends to their total personality, moral fibers, and social attitude. Where the breach of the contract of carriage results in the passenger's death, the parents may recover compensatory damages under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206, and moral damages in addition, to compensate for mental anguish.

Disposition

The judgment was affirmed with modification, increasing the actual damages in the plaintiff's favor to six thousand pesos plus three thousand pesos in moral damages, with legal interest on both from the filing of the complaint until full payment, and no costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the carrier's liability under Article 1759 is absolute in the sense that it practically secures passengers from assaults committed by its own employees. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between the old and the new Civil Code on carrier liability, and to test whether a driver's willful act in the course of duty is a fortuitous event that exempts the carrier, which it is not.