AMPANG (MORO), AMSIA (MORA) AND LUMPITAN (MORO), PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. GUINOO TRANSPORTATION CO. AND VICENTE GUINOO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Ampang versus Guinoo Transportation

The Case

This is an action for damages arising from a contract of carriage, brought by the heirs and a surviving passenger against a bus operator and its manager after a passenger died and another was injured when the bus capsized. The plaintiffs are Ampang, Amsia, and Lumpitan; the defendants are the Guinoo Transportation Company and its manager, Vicente Guinoo. The case matters because it fixes the boundary of a common carrier's liability: the carrier's duty to transport passengers safely is not absolute, and it is excused when the accident is due to a fortuitous event — what the Court calls a caso fortuito, meaning an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the obligor or his employees.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed the action in the Court of First Instance of Davao to recover damages for the death of Lambayong and for the physical injuries suffered by Amsia. After hearing, the trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the accident was due to a caso fortuito outside the control of the defendants and of their driver, Quirino Piezas. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal.

Facts

On March 21, 1948, Lambayong and Amsia were paying passengers on bus Number 24 of the Guinoo Transportation Company, on its return trip from Digos to Davao City. At kilometer 44 the bus capsized on the road. Lambayong died and Amsia suffered physical injuries.

A criminal case was filed against the driver, Quirino Piezas, in the Justice of the Peace Court of Santa Cruz, but it was dismissed upon the joint affidavit of Amsia and Lumpitan. In that affidavit the two declared that a Habacco bus, overtaking a Quitranco bus, struck the Quitranco bus on its left side, pushing it toward the canal; that the Quitranco driver swerved to the left to avoid the canal and a tree; and that the bus then skidded and turned upside down, causing the injuries and the death.

The case was submitted practically on the pleadings and a meager stipulation of facts, with no proper evidence from the plaintiffs that the accident was due to any fault of the defendants' driver. The affidavit was introduced without objection from the plaintiffs' counsel, and the trial court based its decision mainly on it.

Issues

• Whether or not the defendants are liable under their contract to transport the passengers safely to their destination, regardless of fault or negligence causing the accident.
• Whether or not the capsizing of the bus was due to a fortuitous event, exempting the carrier from liability.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it construes the doctrine of fortuitous event as applied to a common carrier's obligation, and the Court states the element of that doctrine:

As will be seen, these authorities agree that some extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the obligor, or of his employees, is an essential element of a caso fortuito.

This definition is the test the Court applies to decide whether the carrier is excused.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the carrier is not liable regardless of fault. The plaintiffs relied on the case of Lasam versus Smith, but the Court held that this authority comes to the aid of the appellees, because under it the carrier is excused from liability if the accident is due to a fortuitous event.

On the second issue, the Court held that the accident was a fortuitous event. The defendants' bus capsized after being bumped on the left side by the Habacco bus, which caused the driver to swerve to the left to avoid the canal and a tree, a maneuver that led the bus to skid and capsize. This resulted from the extraordinary circumstance of being struck by the Habacco bus, independent of the will of, and unforeseen by, the defendants' driver, in the absence of any showing to the contrary. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' allegation that the collision was found untrue, there being nothing in the record to sustain it, while the affidavit of Amsia and Lumpitan was introduced without objection.

Doctrine

A common carrier is bound to transport its passengers safely, but this obligation is not absolute. The carrier is excused from liability when the accident is due to a fortuitous event. A fortuitous event requires an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the obligor or of his employees. Where the evidence shows that the carrier's driver acted only in response to an unforeseen external cause, with no showing of fault on his part, the carrier is not liable.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court dismissing the complaint, without costs; the defendants won.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a carrier's duty to carry passengers safely is excused by a fortuitous event, which requires an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the obligor or his employees. Examiners use this case to test the limits of a common carrier's liability and the elements of caso fortuito.