Case Digest: Yobido v. Tumboy, G.R. No. 113003, October 17, 1997

Commercial Laws 2: Common Carriers

Romero, J.

Recit Ver:

On April 26, 1988, Tito and Leny Tumboy, along with their children, boarded a Yobido Liner bus traveling from Surigao del Sur to Davao City. While navigating a wet and rough road in Agusan del Sur, the left front tire of the bus exploded, causing it to fall into a ravine and crash into a tree. Tito Tumboy tragically died, and other passengers were injured. Leny, on behalf of her children, filed a complaint against the bus owner, Alberta Yobido, and the driver, Cresencio Yobido, for breach of contract and damages. The defendants argued that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event, specifically the unexpected explosion of a newly purchased and installed tire.

The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the case, ruling that the tire blowout was a caso fortuito, an extraordinary event beyond the control of the bus operator. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, determining that the tire blowout could not automatically be classified as a fortuitous event.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling. The Civil Code provides that common carriers are presumed at fault unless they prove they exercised extraordinary diligence. A fortuitous event, which is an unforeseen occurrence beyond human control, could exempt a carrier from liability.  However, merely having a new tire or good brand does not automatically qualify as a fortuitous event due to human factors, such as potential negligence in tire maintenance or vehicle operation. In this case, the carrier failed to prove the tire blowout was truly unavoidable, given the dangerous road conditions and the need for careful vehicle maintenance, nor that it exercised the necessary diligence. 

Facts:

• On April 26, 1988, spouses Tito and Leny Tumboy, along with their minor children Ardee and Jasmin, boarded a Yobido Liner bus bound for Davao City from Mangagoy, Surigao del Sur.

• The winding road it traversed was not cemented and was wet due to the rain; it was rough with crushed rocks. 

• The bus which was full of passengers had cargoes on top.

• While traveling in Agusan del Sur, the left front tire of the bus exploded, causing it to fall into a ravine and strike a tree. 

• Tito Tumboy died in the accident, and other passengers sustained injuries.

• Leny and her children filed a complaint for breach of contract, damages, and attorney's fees against Alberta Yobido (the bus owner) and Cresencio Yobido (the driver).

• The defendants filed a third-party complaint against Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc.

• However, the third-party complaint was dismissed after the insurance company was found not liable under the insurance contract.

• Plaintiff Allegations:

• The accident was caused by the driver's failure to exercise proper diligence in transporting passengers safely, thus violating the contract of carriage.

• Leny testified that the bus was running fast on a rough, wet road despite her warning the driver to slow down before the tire exploded and the bus crashed.

• Defense:

• The accident was due to a fortuitous event.

• Abundio Salce (bus conductor): 

• The bus was not full and was running at a speed of 50 to 60 kph on a zigzag road.

• The left front tire that exploded was a brand new Goodyear tire, mounted only five days before the incident. 

• Minerva Fernando (Yobido Liner secretary):

• Confirmed the purchase and installation of the tire.

RTC-Davao: Dismissed the action, ruling that the tire blowout was a caso fortuito, an extraordinary circumstance beyond the defendants' control, and not caused by any external factors or negligence on their part. It distinguished this case from the La Mallorca ruling, stating that the exact cause of the tire explosion remained unknown, unlike in La Mallorca where a mechanical defect was identified.

CA: Reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that the tire blowout itself was not necessarily a fortuitous event and that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that it was unavoidable.

• The court also found that the bus was moving fast on wet and rough roads, which contributed to the accident. 

• It ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs P50,000 for the death of Tito Tumboy, P30,000 in moral damages, and P7,000 for funeral expenses.

Issue: Whether the explosion of a newly installed tire of a passenger vehicle is a fortuitous event that exempts the carrier from liability for the death of a passenger. NO

The Court did re-examine the facts and evidence in this case because of the inapplicability of the established principle that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and may not be reviewed on appeal by this Court. This general principle is subject to exceptions such as the one present in this case, namely, that the lower court and the Court of Appeals arrived at diverse factual findings. However, upon such re-examination, we found no reason to overturn the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals.

As a rule, when a passenger boards a common carrier, he takes the risks incidental to the mode of travel he has taken. After all, a carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers and is not bound absolutely and at all events to carry them safely and without injury. However, when a passenger is injured or dies while travelling, the law presumes that the common carrier is negligent. Thus, the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1756. In case of death 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.

Article 1755 provides that "(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."

Accordingly, in culpa contractual, once a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. This disputable presumption may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier had observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed by Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the Civil Code or that the death or injury of the passenger was due to a fortuitous event. Consequently, the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier to hold it responsible for damages sought by the passenger.

In view of the foregoing, petitioners' contention that they should be exempt from liability because the tire blowout was no more than a fortuitous event that could not have been foreseen, must fail. 

A fortuitous event is possessed of the following characteristics: 

1. the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligations, must be independent of 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 obliger must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.

As Article 1174 provides, no person shall be responsible for a fortuitous event which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable. In other words, there must be an entire exclusion of human agency from the cause of injury or loss. 

Under the circumstances of this case, the explosion of the new tire may not be considered a fortuitous event. There are human factors involved in the situation. The fact that the tire was new did not imply that it was entirely free from manufacturing defects or that it was properly mounted on the vehicle. Neither may the fact that the tire bought and used in the vehicle is of a brand name noted for quality, resulting in the conclusion that it could not explode within five days' use. Be that as it may, it is settled that an accident caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver is not a caso fortuito that would exempt the carrier from liability for damages.

Moreover, a common carrier may not be absolved from liability in case of force majeure or fortuitous event alone. The common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the death or injury resulting from an accident. This Court has had occasion to state:

While it may be true that the tire that blew-up was still good because the grooves of the tire were still visible, this fact alone does not make the explosion of the tire a fortuitous event. No evidence was presented to show that the accident was due to adverse road conditions or that precautions were taken by the jeepney driver to compensate for any conditions liable to cause accidents. The sudden blowing-up, therefore, could have been caused by too much air pressure injected into the tire coupled by the fact that the jeepney was overloaded and speeding at the time of the accident.

It is interesting to note that petitioners proved through the bus conductor, Salce, that the bus was running at "60-50" kilometers per hour only or within the prescribed lawful speed limit. However, they failed to rebut the testimony of Leny Tumboy that the bus was running so fast that she cautioned the driver to slow down. These contradictory facts must, therefore, be resolved in favor of liability in view of the presumption of negligence of the carrier in the law. Coupled with this is the established condition of the road — rough, winding and wet due to the rain. It was incumbent upon the defense to establish that it took precautionary measures considering partially dangerous condition of the road. As stated above, proof that the tire was new and of good quality is not sufficient proof that it was not negligent. Petitioners should have shown that it undertook extraordinary diligence in the care of its carrier, such as conducting daily routinary check-ups of the vehicle's parts. As the late Justice J.B.L. Reyes said:

It may be impracticable, as appellee argues, to require of carriers to test the strength of each and every part of its vehicles before each trip; but we are of the opinion that a due regard for the carrier's obligations toward the traveling public demands adequate periodical tests to determine the condition and strength of those vehicle portions the failure of which may endanger the safety of the passengers.

Having failed to discharge its duty to overthrow the presumption of negligence with clear and convincing evidence, petitioners are hereby held liable for damages. Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil Code prescribes the amount of at least three thousand pesos as damages for the death of a passenger. Under prevailing jurisprudence, the award of damages under Article 2206 has been increased to fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00).

Moral damages are generally not recoverable in culpa contractual except when bad faith had been proven. However, the same damages may be recovered when breach of contract of carriage results in the death of a passenger, as in this case. Exemplary damages, awarded by way of example or correction for the public good when moral damages are awarded, may likewise be recovered in contractual obligations if the defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. Because petitioners failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier, which resulted in the death of Tito Tumboy, it is deemed to have acted recklessly. As such, private respondents shall be entitled to exemplary damages.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that petitioners shall, in addition to the monetary awards therein, be liable for the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.