HERMINIO MARIANO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. ILDEFONSO C. CALLEJAS AND EDGAR DE BORJA, RESPONDENTS.

Mariano versus Callejas

The Case

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in a case for breach of contract of carriage and damages. Herminio Mariano, Junior, the surviving spouse of Dr. Frelinda Mariano, sued Ildefonso Callejas, the registered owner of Celyrosa Express, and Edgar de Borja, the driver of the bus on which his wife was a passenger, after the bus figured in a collision that killed her. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of the exact reach of a common carrier's duty: extraordinary diligence, a rebuttable presumption of fault, but not absolute insurance of the passenger's safety. It is the companion rule to the celebrated Pilapil doctrine, applied here to a carrier whose bus was struck by a truck that lost its brakes.

Procedural History

Mariano filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. In its decision of September 13, 1999, the trial court found Callejas and De Borja, together with Liong Chio Chang, jointly and severally liable for civil indemnity, actual and compensatory damages, foregone income, moral damages, exemplary damages, and costs of suit. Callejas and De Borja appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the trial court erred in holding them guilty of breach of contract of carriage. On May 21, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and absolved them of any liability for the death of Dr. Mariano, reasoning that the presumption of fault against the carrier is only a disputable presumption and had been rebutted. The appellate court also denied Mariano's motion for reconsideration in its resolution of January 7, 2005. Mariano then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for review, assigning as sole ground that the decision of the Court of Appeals is not in accord with the factual basis of the case.

Facts

At around six thirty in the evening of November 12, 1991, along Aguinaldo Highway in San Agustin, Dasmariñas, Cavite, a Celyrosa Express passenger bus bound for Tagaytay collided with an Isuzu truck with trailer coming from the opposite direction and bound for Manila. Dr. Frelinda Mariano was a passenger on the bus. The trailer truck bumped the passenger bus on its left middle portion. From the impact, the bus fell on its right side on the right shoulder of the highway. Dr. Mariano died, and four other passengers suffered physical injuries. She was thirty six years old and left behind three minor children, aged four, three, and two.

The police investigator, PO3 Magno de Villa, prepared a sketch showing the passenger bus lying on its right side on the shoulder, about five meters from the point of impact, while the trailer truck was about five hundred meters away. He interviewed the bus driver, De Borja, who said he was about to unload passengers when his bus was bumped by the trailer truck that lost its brakes. The investigator tested the truck and found that its brakes really failed. His police report stated that the bus was running in its direction when it was hit by the truck running fast from the opposite direction, and that after the collision the truck continued and stopped approximately five hundred meters from the point of impact.

Other proceedings touched the same incident. Callejas sued the owner of the trailer truck and its driver for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, which dismissed the complaint against the owner for lack of evidence but held the truck driver liable for repairs, lost earnings, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. In a criminal case before the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, truck driver Arcadio Arcilla was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, multiple slight physical injuries, and damage to property. In the present case, the trial court ruled for Mariano, but the Court of Appeals reversed and absolved the carrier, prompting this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not a common carrier is presumed at fault when a passenger dies or is injured during transport, and what proof is needed to rebut that presumption.
• Whether or not the carrier in this case overcame the presumption of negligence by showing that it observed extraordinary diligence or that the injury was due solely to a fortuitous event.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in absolving the registered owner and the driver of the passenger bus from liability for the death of Dr. Mariano.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1733 of the Civil Code provides:

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

This fixes the standard of care owed by Celyrosa Express to its passenger.

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 qualifies the duty, showing that the carrier is not an insurer of absolute safety.

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 creates the presumption that arose upon Dr. Mariano's death and placed the burden of rebuttal on the respondents.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the death of the petitioner's wife in the course of transporting her to her destination gave rise to the presumption of negligence of the carrier. To overcome it, the respondents had to show that they observed extraordinary diligence, or that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event. The Court stressed, quoting its earlier ruling in Pilapil, that the law does not make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers, and that the presumption, being a mere presumption, is rebuttable by proof of extraordinary diligence or that the injury was solely due to a fortuitous event.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondents successfully rebutted the presumption. The totality of evidence showed that the death was caused by the reckless negligence of the driver of the Isuzu trailer truck, which lost its brakes and bumped the bus. The Court relied on the sketch of the investigator, his testimony that he tested the truck and found no brakes, and his police report. It found that the passenger bus was cruising on its rightful lane when the trailer truck from the opposite direction, on full speed, suddenly swerved, encroached on its lane, and bumped it on the left middle portion. The bus driver had every right to expect that the oncoming truck would stay on its proper lane, and he was not expected to know that it had lost its brakes. Any doubt as to the truck driver's culpability vanished when he pleaded guilty to the charge of reckless imprudence involving the same incident.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in absolving the respondents, since the carrier had discharged its burden and the injury arose wholly from a cause created by a stranger over which the carrier had no control.

Doctrine

A common carrier is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers, and in case of death or injury, it is presumed at fault or negligent. That presumption is disputable, not conclusive. It is rebutted by proof that the carrier observed extraordinary diligence as required by law, or that the injury was due solely to a fortuitous event. The law does not make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers; its liability rests upon its negligence, its failure to exercise the degree of diligence the law requires. Where the injury arises wholly from causes created by strangers over which the carrier had no control, knowledge, or means of prevention, the presumption is rebutted and the carrier is not liable.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals absolving Ildefonso Callejas and Edgar de Borja from liability were affirmed.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the common carrier is presumed negligent when a passenger dies or is injured, but it is not an insurer of absolute safety, and the presumption yields to proof of extraordinary diligence or of a fortuitous event. Examiners use this case to test the rebuttable character of the presumption under Article 1756 and to distinguish the carrier's contractual duty of extraordinary diligence from absolute liability.