G.R. No. 113003 October 17, 1997
ALBERTA YOBIDO and CRESENCIO YOBIDO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LENY TUMBOY, ARDEE TUMBOY and JASMIN TUMBOY, respondents.

FACTS

On April 26, 1988, spouses Tito and Leny Tumboy and their minor children boarded a Yobido Liner bus bound for Davao City. Along Picop Road in Agusan del Sur, the left front tire of the bus exploded. The bus fell into a ravine, resulting in the death of Tito Tumboy and physical injuries to other passengers. The respondents (Tumboy family) filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage against the petitioners, Alberta Yobido (bus owner) and Cresencio Yobido (driver). The petitioners raised the defense of caso fortuito, asserting the tire blowout was a fortuitous event. Evidence showed the exploded tire was a brand new Goodyear tire mounted only five days before the incident. The bus conductor testified the bus was running at 50-60 kph on a zigzag road. Leny Tumboy testified the bus was running fast on a wet, rough road and she had cautioned the driver to slow down. The driver was not presented as a witness. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling the tire blowout was a caso fortuito. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the explosion was not a fortuitous event and the carrier failed to overcome the presumption of negligence.

ISSUE

Whether or not 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.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The explosion of the tire is not a fortuitous event. Under Article 1756 of the Civil Code, common carriers are presumed negligent in case of death or injuries to passengers. This presumption can only be overcome by proof that the carrier observed extraordinary diligence or that the incident was due to a fortuitous event. A fortuitous event requires the cause to be independent of human will, unforeseeable or unavoidable, and the obligor free from any participation. Here, the cause of the blowout involved human factors such as possible manufacturing defects or improper mounting, and the carrier failed to prove the cause was truly unforeseeable or inevitable. The fact that the tire was new and of a reputable brand does not relieve the carrier of liability. Furthermore, the carrier failed to prove it exercised extraordinary diligence, especially since the driver was not presented to explain that the accident could not have been prevented even with due care. The carrier is liable for breach of contract of carriage.