GR 85691; (July, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 85691 July 31, 1990
BACHELOR EXPRESS, INCORPORATED, and CRESENCIO RIVERA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Sixth Division), RICARDO BETER, SERGIA BETER, TEOFILO RAUTRAUT and ZOETERA RAUTRAUT, respondents.
FACTS
On August 1, 1980, a stampede occurred inside Bus No. 800, owned by Bachelor Express, Inc. and driven by Cresencio Rivera, resulting in the deaths of passengers Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut. The incident transpired when a passenger suddenly stabbed a PC soldier aboard the bus, causing panic and commotion. When the bus stopped, the two victims were found on the road, having sustained fatal injuries. The assailant fled but was later killed by police. The heirs of the deceased passengers filed a complaint for a sum of money against the bus company and the driver.
The petitioners denied liability, arguing that the deaths were caused by the criminal act of a third-party passenger—an event beyond their control. They asserted that the driver was not negligent, that the company exercised due diligence in selecting employees, and that the victims voluntarily jumped from the moving bus out of panic. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding the petitioners solidarily liable for damages totaling P120,000.00.
ISSUE
Whether the common carrier, Bachelor Express, Inc., and its driver are liable for the deaths of the passengers despite the incident being triggered by the criminal act of a fellow passenger.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding the petitioners solidarily liable. The legal logic is anchored on the contract of carriage, where common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers under Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code. A presumption of negligence arises under Article 1756 in case of death or injury to passengers, which the carrier must rebut by proving it exercised such extraordinary diligence.
The Court ruled that the stabbing incident was a foreseeable event within the context of a common carrier’s operation. The carrier’s duty includes safeguarding passengers from all dangers inherent in the journey, including those arising from human conduct. The petitioners failed to prove they observed extraordinary diligence to prevent the panic or to manage the situation effectively once the stabbing occurred. The driver’s alleged cautious driving was insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence, as the carrier did not demonstrate specific measures to ensure passenger safety against such internal disorders. Consequently, the breach of the contract of carriage was established, making the carrier liable for damages. The awarded amounts for loss of earning capacity, death indemnity, moral damages, and attorney’s fees were deemed proper and reasonable.