PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS CORPORATION, JAPHET ESTRANAS AND BEN SAGA, PETITIONERS, VS. PURIFICACION VIZCARA, MARIVIC VIZCARA, CRESENCIA A. NATIVIDAD, HECTOR VIZCARA, JOEL VIZC…

Philippine National Railways versus Vizcara

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Philippine National Railways and its train operators, Japhet Estranas and Ben Saga, against the surviving victims and the heirs of those who perished in a collision between a PNR train and a passenger jeepney at a railroad crossing in Tiaong, Quezon. The respondents sued for damages, alleging that the railroad company's gross negligence in failing to provide adequate safety measures at the crossing caused the deaths and serious injuries. The case matters because it fixes the standard of care owed by railroad companies to the travelling public, and because it clarifies the relationship between the negligence of the defendant, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and the doctrine of last clear chance.

Procedural History

The respondents filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Palayan City, Branch 40. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, ordering the petitioners to pay, jointly and severally, indemnity for the deaths, funeral and interment expenses, reimbursement for the value of the jeepney, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of negligence but modified the monetary awards, deleting certain expenses and the reimbursement for the jeepney, substituting temperate damages, and reducing the moral and exemplary damages and the attorney's fees. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

In the early morning of May 14, 2004, Reynaldo Vizcara was driving a passenger jeepney toward Bicol to deliver onion crops, accompanied by Cresencio Vizcara, Crispin Natividad, Samuel Natividad, Dominador Antonio, and Joel Vizcara. While crossing the railroad track in Tiaong, Quezon, a PNR train operated by Japhet Estranas suddenly appeared and rammed the jeepney. Reynaldo, Cresencio, Crispin, and Samuel died instantly; Dominador and Joel suffered serious physical injuries.

At the time of the accident, there was no level crossing installed at the railroad crossing, and the "Stop, Look and Listen" signage was poorly maintained. The "Stop" signage was already faded, while the "Listen" signage was partly blocked by another signboard.

The petitioners claimed they exercised due diligence. Estranas said he was driving at a moderate speed, began blowing the horn four hundred meters from the crossing, and proceeded at twenty-five kilometers per hour when he saw the vehicles at a full stop. When the train was ten meters away, the jeepney suddenly crossed the tracks; he stepped on the brakes, but the weight of the train dragged the jeepney twenty to thirty meters from the point of collision. The respondents countered that no crossing bar, warning light, bell, or flagman was present to warn motorists.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the petitioners.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the doctrine of last clear chance finds no application in this case.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding negligence on the part of the petitioners, or in not finding at least contributory negligence on the part of the respondents.

Applicable Provisions

Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides:

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there was no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.

This is the source of the petitioners' civil liability for damages arising from their negligent omission in maintaining safety devices at the crossing.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition lacks merit and that the petitioners' negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The test is whether the defendant used that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation. The Court stressed that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and are not reviewable, especially when they affirm the trial court, and that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. On the merits, both lower courts found that the petitioners fell short of the diligence expected of them: they failed to install safety railroad bars, and the "Stop, Look and Listen" signage was poorly maintained and inadequate to alert the public. The Court held that it is the responsibility of the railroad company to use reasonable care to keep the signal devices in working order, and failure to do so is an indication of negligence.

On the third issue, the Court ruled that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the respondents. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection. Here, the jeepney was following a ten-wheeler truck only three to five meters ahead; when the truck safely crossed the track, Reynaldo followed under the impression that it was safe to proceed. There was no crossing bar, stoplight, or signage to forewarn them, so Reynaldo had no reason to anticipate the impending danger.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that the doctrine of last clear chance does not apply. That doctrine provides that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences. Since the respondents were not negligent at all, the doctrine cannot apply. The Court also reminded the PNR of its duty to keep pace with contemporary standards in railroad safety, including barriers, signal lights, bells, and advance warning signs with ample lighting and unobstructed visibility.

Doctrine

A railroad company owes the public a duty of exercising a reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to persons and property at railroad crossings, pertaining both to the operation of trains and to the maintenance of the crossings. The failure to install a cross bar, signal light, flagman, switchman, or semaphore is evidence of negligence and disregard of public safety, even absent a law or ordinance requiring it, because public safety demands it. The duty does not end with installation; the company must use reasonable care to keep the devices in good condition and working order, since poorly maintained warning devices create as much danger as none at all. Under Article 2176, fault or negligence that causes damage obliges the wrongdoer to pay. Contributory negligence requires conduct by the injured party falling below the standard required for his own protection; where the injured party had no reason to anticipate the danger, there is no contributory negligence, and the doctrine of last clear chance, which presupposes negligence on both sides, cannot apply.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed; the petitioners lost and remained liable, jointly and severally, for the damages as modified by the Court of Appeals.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the failure of a railroad company to install and maintain adequate warning devices at a crossing is itself evidence of negligence, even without a law requiring it. Examiners use this case to test the standard of care of railroad companies, the requisites of contributory negligence, and the correct application of the doctrine of last clear chance.