G.R. No. 116110. May 15, 1996.
Baliwag Transit, Inc., petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, Spouses Antonio Garcia & Leticia Garcia, A & J Trading, and Julio Recontique, respondents.

FACTS

On July 31, 1980, Leticia Garcia and her minor son Allan boarded a Baliwag Transit bus. The bus, driven by Jaime Santiago at an excessive speed, collided with a stalled cargo truck owned by A & J Trading and driven by Julio Recontique. The truck was parked on the road’s shoulder with a portion jutting into the lane, and a kerosene lamp served as a warning. The collision resulted in fatalities and injuries, including to Leticia and Allan Garcia.
The Garcia spouses sued Baliwag Transit, A & J Trading, and Recontique for damages. The trial court held all defendants jointly and severally liable. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision by absolving A & J Trading from liability, holding only Baliwag Transit liable, and adjusting the damages awarded. Baliwag Transit filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in absolving A & J Trading from liability and holding Baliwag solely liable for damages?

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, holding Baliwag Transit solely liable as a common carrier for breach of contract of carriage. Under Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code, a common carrier is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers. A statutory presumption of negligence arises against the carrier upon injury to a passenger, which Baliwag failed to rebut.
The evidence established that Baliwag’s driver was reckless: driving at high speed despite drizzle and darkness, ignoring passenger pleas to slow down, and being distracted by conversation. This constitutes a wanton disregard for passenger safety, making Baliwag liable under Article 1759. The alleged negligence of A & J Trading’s driver in parking the truck was not the proximate cause of the accident. The Court found that the kerosene lamp was a sufficient warning under the circumstances, and the immediate and efficient cause was the bus driver’s excessive speed and inattention. Therefore, Baliwag’s liability is exclusive. The awards for damages were largely affirmed, with a modification to reduce the actual damages for hospitalization to the amount substantiated by receipts.