G.R. No. 157917 ; August 29, 2012
SPOUSES TEODORO and NANETTE PERENA, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES TERESITA and L. ZARATE, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, and the COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Pereña operated a school bus service. Respondents Spouses Zarate contracted their services to transport their 15-year-old son, Aaron, to school. On August 22, 1996, the Pereñas’ van, driven by Clemente Alfaro, was carrying 14 students, including Aaron. Running late, Alfaro took an alternate route via a narrow path under the Magallanes Interchange, which functioned as an unofficial railroad crossing. The crossing lacked warning signs, watchmen, or safety railings. As Alfaro attempted to cross the tracks, closely tailing a bus which blocked his view, a Philippine National Railways (PNR) commuter train approached. The train blew its horn and applied its brakes, but a collision was imminent. The train hit the van’s rear, ejecting Aaron, who was fatally dragged and decapitated.
The Zarates filed a damages suit against Alfaro, the Pereñas, PNR, and the train driver. The Pereñas and PNR filed answers with cross-claims against each other. The parties stipulated on several facts at pre-trial, including the absence of safety warnings at the crossing and the train driver’s flight from the scene. The Regional Trial Court held both the Pereñas and PNR jointly and severally liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the awarded damages. The Pereñas appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the Pereñas, as common carriers, were liable for the death of Aaron Zarate, and if so, whether their liability was solidary with PNR.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA with modification, holding the Pereñas solely liable. The Court ruled that the Pereñas, operating a school bus service, were common carriers bound to observe extraordinary diligence for passenger safety. Under Article 1756 of the Civil Code, a common carrier is presumed negligent upon death or injury to a passenger. This presumption was not overturned. The driver, Alfaro, was grossly negligent: he drove through an unguarded crossing with obstructed visibility, failed to make the required full stop before a railroad crossing, and violated traffic regulations. This negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.
The Court exonerated PNR. While the crossing lacked formal warnings, evidence showed it was an unofficial path not intended for public use. The train operator blew the horn and applied brakes appropriately. His flight did not per se establish PNR’s negligence, as the act was not part of his official duties. The breach of duty lay solely with the van driver. Consequently, the Pereñas, as employers, were vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The Court also upheld the award of damages for loss of earning capacity, noting that the potential future income of a student, though unemployed, is compensable. Liability was adjudged to be joint and several only between the Pereñas and their driver, not with PNR.