GR 119756; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119756 March 18, 1999
FORTUNE EXPRESS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PAULIE U. CAORONG, and minor children YASSER KING CAORONG, ROSE HEINNI and PRINCE ALEXANDER, all surnamed CAORONG, and represented by their mother PAULIE U. CAORONG, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Fortune Express, Inc. is a bus company. On November 18, 1989, one of its buses figured in an accident resulting in the deaths of several jeepney passengers, including two Maranaos. An investigation by a PC field agent, Crisanto Generalao, revealed that certain Maranaos were planning revenge by burning the company’s buses. Generalao reported this to his superior and personally informed the company’s operations manager, Diosdado Bravo, who assured him that necessary precautions would be taken.
On November 22, 1989, three armed Maranaos seized a Fortune Express bus. They ordered all passengers, including Atty. Talib Caorong, to alight. However, Atty. Caorong returned to the bus to retrieve an item and to plead for the driver’s life. During this encounter, he was shot. The bus was set on fire, and Atty. Caorong later died from his wounds. His heirs (private respondents) filed a complaint for damages based on breach of contract of carriage, alleging the carrier failed to exercise the required diligence.
ISSUE
Whether Fortune Express, Inc. breached its contract of carriage by failing to exercise the requisite degree of diligence to prevent the death of its passenger, Atty. Talib Caorong.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the carrier was negligent and liable for damages. A common carrier is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers. This duty includes taking reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks. The carrier had actual knowledge of a specific and serious threat—the plan to burn its buses in retaliation for the prior accident. Despite this warning, the carrier failed to implement any effective security measures, such as deploying security escorts on its buses or suspending operations along the dangerous route. This omission constituted a breach of its contractual obligation.
The Court rejected the carrier’s defense of force majeure, as the event was not entirely unforeseeable. The threat was specific, and the carrier’s inaction made the risk foreseeable. The fact that the assailants initially allowed passengers to alight does not absolve the carrier; its liability attached from the moment it failed to act on the known danger, which created the opportunity for the attack. The death of Atty. Caorong, who acted heroically, was a direct consequence of this breach. The carrier is solidarily liable for damages, including loss of earning capacity, death indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.