G.R. No. L-22272 June 26, 1967
ANTONIA MARANAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PASCUAL PEREZ, ET AL., defendants. PASCUAL PEREZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On October 18, 1960, Rogelio Corachea was a passenger in a taxicab owned and operated by Pascual Perez when he was stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon Valenzuela. Valenzuela was prosecuted and convicted for homicide. While his appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, Antonia Maranan, the victim’s mother, filed a civil action for damages against Perez and Valenzuela. The defendants claimed the killing was in self-defense and that it was a fortuitous event exempting the carrier from liability. The trial court found for the plaintiff and awarded P3,000 as damages against defendant Perez only, dismissing the claim against Valenzuela. Both plaintiff and defendant Perez appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the common carrier, Pascual Perez, is liable for damages arising from the death of his passenger, Rogelio Corachea, who was killed by the carrier’s own employee (the driver), despite the employee’s act being willful and allegedly in self-defense.

RULING

Yes, the common carrier is liable. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment with modifications, increasing the damages awarded.
The Court distinguished the case from Gillaco v. Manila Railroad Co., which was decided under the old Civil Code and where the employee’s assault was outside the scope and course of his duty. Here, the killing was perpetrated by the driver of the cab—the very employee entrusted with executing the contract of carriage—and occurred in the course of his duty.
The present Civil Code, specifically Article 1759, expressly makes common carriers liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of their employees, even if such employees acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of orders. This provision adopts the majority rule in Anglo-American law, which imposes an absolute liability on the carrier for assaults committed by its employees within the course of their duty, based on the carrier’s implied duty to transport passengers safely. The carrier delegates this duty of utmost care to its employees and must bear the risk of their wrongful acts.
The claim against the driver, Simeon Valenzuela, was correctly dismissed, as the action was predicated on breach of contract of carriage to which he was not a party; his civil liability was covered in the criminal case.
Regarding damages, the Court increased the compensatory damages from P3,000 to P6,000, the minimum set by Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206. The Court also awarded moral damages of P3,000 to the plaintiff for mental anguish, with legal interest on both amounts from the filing of the complaint.