Case Digest: La Mallorca v. CA, G.R. No. L-20761, July 27, 1966
Commercial Laws 2: Common Carriers
Barrera, J.
Recit Ver:
On December 20, 1953, plaintiffs Mariano Beltran, his wife, and their three daughters boarded a Pambusco bus owned by La Mallorca. After disembarking at Anao, Mariano returned to the bus to retrieve a bag while unaware that his 4½-year-old daughter Raquel followed him. The bus started moving without a signal from the conductor, and Raquel was run over and killed. The plaintiffs sued the bus company for damages.
The Supreme Court upheld the finding of La Mallorca's liability for negligence, ruling that the bus driver failed to exercise utmost diligence in safely transporting passengers. The Court ruled that the relation of passenger and carrier persisted until a reasonable opportunity was provided to safely leave the area. Even assuming the contract had ended, the company was liable for negligence, as alleged in the complaint. However, the increase in damages to P6,000 was reversed because the plaintiffs did not appeal the trial court's P3,000 award.
Facts:
On December 20, 1953, plaintiffs Mariano Beltran and his wife, boarded a Pambusco bus with their three daughters:
Milagros (13 years old),
Raquel (4½ years old), and
Fe (over 2 years old).
The bus, owned by La Mallorca, was traveling from San Fernando, Pampanga to Anao, Mexico, Pampanga.
The conductor, a half-brother of the plaintiff, issued tickets for the parents and eldest daughter, while no fare was charged for Raquel and Fe due to their age.
After about an hour, the bus stopped at Anao for passengers, including the plaintiffs and their children, to disembark.
Mariano, carrying their baggage, was the first to get off, followed by his wife and children. He led them to a shaded area, four to five meters from the bus.
Mariano returned to the bus to retrieve a bayong (basket) but was unaware that Raquel followed him back to the bus.
While on the bus's running board, the bus suddenly began moving forward without the conductor signaling the driver, as the conductor was still attending to Mariano's baggage.
Mariano jumped from the bus when it moved but noticed a crowd gathering around a child's body, which was his daughter Raquel, who had been run over by the bus.
The plaintiffs filed an action against the bus company, seeking damages.
After trial, the court rendered a judgment on the case.
Trial Court: Found the defendant liable for breach of contract of carriage.
On appeal, La Mallorca argued that there was no breach of contract because the child was no longer a passenger at the time of her death, and thus, the contract of carriage had ended.
CA: Appeals agreed that the contract of carriage had terminated, but found the defendant guilty of negligence (quasi-delict) under Article 2180 of the Civil Code due to the driver's fault.
Issues:
Whether the CA erred in holding La Mallorca liable for quasi-delict, considering that respondents complaint was one for breach of contract.
Whether the CA erred in raising the award of damages from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 although respondents did not appeal from the decision of the lower court.
Held:
Under the facts as found by the Court of Appeals, we have to sustain the judgement holding petitioner liable for damages for the death of the child, Raquel Beltran. It may be pointed out that although it is true that respondent Mariano Beltran, his wife, and their children (including the deceased child) had alighted from the bus at a place designated for disembarking or unloading of passengers, it was also established that the father had to return to the vehicle (which was still at a stop) to get one of his bags or bayong that was left under one of the seats of the bus. There can be no controversy that as far as the father is concerned, when he returned to the bus for his bayong which was not unloaded, the relation of passenger and carrier between him and the petitioner remained subsisting. For, the relation of carrier and passenger does not necessarily cease where the latter, after alighting from the car, aids the carrier's servant or employee in removing his baggage from the car. The issue to be determined here is whether as to the child, who was already led by the father to a place about 5 meters away from the bus, the liability of the carrier for her safety under the contract of carriage also persisted.
It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. And, what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances. Thus, a person who, after alighting from a train, walks along the station platform is considered still a passenger. So also, where a passenger has alighted at his destination and is proceeding by the usual way to leave the company's premises, but before actually doing so is halted by the report that his brother, a fellow passenger, has been shot, and he in good faith and without intent of engaging in the difficulty, returns to relieve his brother, he is deemed reasonably and necessarily delayed and thus continues to be a passenger entitled as such to the protection of the railroad and company and its agents.
In the present case, the father returned to the bus to get one of his baggages which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus. Raquel, the child that she was, must have followed the father. However, although the father was still on the running board of the bus awaiting for the conductor to hand him the bag or bayong, the bus started to run, so that even he (the father) had to jump down from the moving vehicle. It was at this instance that the child, who must be near the bus, was run over and killed. In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the carrier's agent had exercised the "utmost diligence" of a "very cautions person" required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers.
In the first place, the driver, although stopping the bus, nevertheless did not put off the engine. Secondly, he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal to go and while the latter was still unloading part of the baggages of the passengers Mariano Beltran and family. The presence of said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are, therefore, to be considered still as passengers of the carrier, entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage.
But even assuming arguendo that the contract of carriage has already terminated, herein petitioner can be held liable for the negligence of its driver, as ruled by the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Paragraph 7 of the complaint, which reads —
That aside from the aforesaid breach of contract, the death of Raquel Beltran, plaintiffs' daughter, was caused by the negligence and want of exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person on the part of the defendants and their agent, necessary to transport plaintiffs and their daughter safely as far as human care and foresight can provide in the operation of their vehicle.
is clearly an allegation for quasi-delict. The inclusion of this averment for quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under the contract of carriage, is permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8 of the New Rules of Court, which allows a plaintiff to allege causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible with each other or not, to the end that the real matter in controversy may be resolved and determined.
The plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded the culpa or negligence upon which the claim was predicated when it was alleged in the complaint that "the death of Raquel Beltran, plaintiffs' daughter, was caused by the negligence and want of exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person on the part of the defendants and their agent." This allegation was also proved when it was established during the trial that the driver, even before receiving the proper signal from the conductor, and while there were still persons on the running board of the bus and near it, started to run off the vehicle. The presentation of proof of the negligence of its employee gave rise to the presumption that the defendant employer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees. And this presumption, as the Court of Appeals found, petitioner had failed to overcome. Consequently, petitioner must be adjudged peculiarily liable for the death of the child Raquel Beltran.
The increase of the award of damages from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 by the Court of Appeals, however, cannot be sustained. Generally, the appellate court can only pass upon and consider questions or issues raised and argued in appellant's brief. Plaintiffs did not appeal from that portion of the judgment of the trial court awarding them on P3,000.00 damages for the death of their daughter. Neither does it appear that, as appellees in the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs have pointed out in their brief the inadequacy of the award, or that the inclusion of the figure P3,000.00 was merely a clerical error, in order that the matter may be treated as an exception to the general rule. Herein petitioner's contention, therefore, that the Court of Appeals committed error in raising the amount of the award for damages is, evidently, meritorious.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby modified by sentencing, the petitioner to pay to the respondents Mariano Beltran, et al., the sum of P3,000.00 for the death of the child, Raquel Beltran, and the amount of P400.00 as actual damages. No costs in this instance. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.
Comments
Post a Comment