ROBERTO JUNTILLA, PETITIONER, VS. CLEMENTE FONTANAR, FERNANDO BANZON AND BERFOL CAMORO, RESPONDENTS.

Juntilla versus Fontanar

The Case

This is the case of Juntilla versus Fontanar, decided by the Supreme Court in May 1985. Roberto Juntilla, a passenger in a public utility jeepney, sued the carrier and its driver for breach of the contract of carriage and for damages after the vehicle turned turtle and threw him out, injuring him and costing him his wrist watch. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between a genuine fortuitous event, which excuses a common carrier, and a tire blow out that is really the product of the carrier's own negligence. It is the standing answer to the argument that a blown tire is always caso fortuito — a fortuitous event beyond human control.

Procedural History

Juntilla filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages before the City Court of Cebu, Branch One, against Clemente Fontanar, Fernando Banzon, and Berfol Camoro. After trial, the City Court ruled for the petitioner and ordered the defendants jointly and severally liable for the lost wrist watch, unrealized salary, doctor's fees and medicine, attorney's fees, and costs. The respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch Fourteen, which reversed the City Court upon a finding that the accident was due to a fortuitous event and exonerated the defendants. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. He then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on questions of law.

Facts

Roberto Juntilla was a passenger in a public utility jeepney on the route from Danao City to Cebu City. The jeepney was driven by Berfol Camoro, registered under the franchise of Clemente Fontanar, but actually owned by Fernando Banzon. Juntilla sat at the front seat.

Upon reaching Mandaue City, the right rear tire of the jeepney exploded. The vehicle turned turtle and jumped into a ditch, and Juntilla was thrown out. He momentarily lost consciousness and, when he came to, found a lacerated wound on his right palm and injuries on his left arm, right thigh, and back. On his way back to Danao City he discovered that his Omega wrist watch, bought for 852 pesos and 70 centavos, was lost; his father-in-law searched the place of the accident but could not find it. He was treated at the Danao City Hospital.

The respondents answered that the accident was beyond their control, since the tire that exploded was newly bought and only slightly used. The evidence, however, showed that the jeepney was running at a very fast speed before the accident and was overloaded, with three passengers in the front seat and fourteen in the rear.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of First Instance erred in holding that the tire blow out was a fortuitous event that exempted the common carrier from liability.
• Whether or not the respondents exercised the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers in the operation and maintenance of the vehicle.
• Whether or not the petitioner sufficiently proved his injuries and the loss of his wrist watch to warrant an award of damages.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1755 of the Civil Code provides:

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.

This is the standard of care against which the respondents' conduct is measured, and the Court finds it was not met.

Article 1756 of the Civil Code provides:

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.

This presumption of fault places the burden on the carrier to show extraordinary diligence, a burden the respondents failed to discharge.

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled for the petitioner. On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of First Instance erred in absolving the carrier on a finding that the tire blow out was a fortuitous event. The Court distinguished the Court of Appeals rulings relied upon, which involved no finding of specific acts of negligence. Here there were specific acts of negligence: the jeepney turned turtle and jumped into a ditch immediately after the tire exploded, it was running at a very fast speed, and it was overloaded. A public utility jeepney running at a regular and safe speed will not jump into a ditch when its right rear tire blows up.

On the second issue, the Court held that the fact that the tire was still good did not by itself make its explosion a fortuitous event. No evidence showed adverse road conditions or that precautions were taken. The sudden blowing up could have been caused by too much air pressure, coupled with overloading and speeding. The Court laid down the essential characteristics of caso fortuito:

In a legal sense and, consequently, also in relation to contracts, a caso fortuito presents the following essential characteristics: (1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will. (2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid. (3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. And (4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.

Here the cause was not independent of the human will; the accident was caused either through the negligence of the driver or through mechanical defects in the tire. On mechanical defects, the Court applied its ruling in Necesito versus Paras, that the carrier answers for flaws in its equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable, because the passenger has neither choice nor control over the selection and use of the carrier's equipment.

On the third issue, the Court declined to disturb the factual findings of the City Court on the petitioner's injuries and the loss of his wrist watch, especially since the Court of First Instance impliedly concurred in them when it confined itself to the fortuitous event question.

Doctrine

A common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person. A tire blow out is not, by itself, a fortuitous event that exempts the carrier; where there are specific acts of negligence such as speeding and overloading, the blow out is attributable to human will and the carrier is liable. For caso fortuito to excuse the carrier, the cause must be independent of the human will, unforeseeable or unavoidable, and the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury. The carrier answers for discoverable defects in its equipment, since the passenger has no choice or control over it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance and reinstated the decision of the City Court, with damages earning interest at twelve percent per annum and attorney's fees increased to six hundred pesos.

Remember This

A tire blow out is not automatically a fortuitous event; speed and overloading make it the carrier's negligence. Examiners use this case to test the four requisites of caso fortuito and the extraordinary diligence owed by common carriers under Articles 1755 and 1756.