G.R. No. L-45637 May 31, 1985
ROBERTO JUNTILLA, petitioner, vs. CLEMENTE FONTANAR, FERNANDO BANZON and BERFOL CAMORO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Roberto Juntilla was a passenger in a public utility jeepney owned by respondent Fernando Banzon, registered under the franchise of respondent Clemente Fontanar, and driven by respondent Berfol Camoro. During the trip from Danao City to Cebu City, the jeepney’s right rear tire exploded in Mandaue City, causing the vehicle to turn turtle. Juntilla was thrown from the vehicle, sustaining injuries including a lacerated wound on his right palm, and discovered his Omega wristwatch was lost. He sought medical treatment and filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages before the City Court of Cebu.
The City Court ruled in favor of Juntilla, ordering the respondents to pay jointly and severally for the value of the lost watch, unrealized salary, medical expenses, attorney’s fees, and costs. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Cebu reversed this decision. It found the tire blow-out to be a fortuitous event, noting the tire was newly bought and slightly used, and thus exonerated the carrier from liability, relying on a Court of Appeals precedent that a blow-out without showing of negligence constitutes a caso fortuito.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in absolving the common carrier from liability by ruling that the tire blow-out was a fortuitous event.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and reinstated the City Court’s judgment with modifications. The legal logic centers on the nature of a common carrier’s liability under the contract of carriage. Article 1755 of the Civil Code requires common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers. This obligation is not excused by a tire blow-out alone. The Court distinguished the cited Court of Appeals precedent, noting it was not binding and involved different considerations where no specific acts of negligence were found.
Here, the carrier’s liability stems from its non-delegable duty to ensure the roadworthiness of its vehicle, including its tires. The fact that a tire explodes, even if new, does not automatically constitute a fortuitous event that exempts the carrier. The carrier is responsible for flaws in its equipment that are discoverable through the exercise of extraordinary diligence. The passenger, having no privity with or control over the equipment manufacturer, rightly looks to the carrier for redress. The failure to prove the exercise of such diligence in the selection, maintenance, and inspection of the tire renders the carrier liable for breach of its contractual obligation. The findings of fact by the City Court regarding Juntilla’s injuries and loss, which the Court of First Instance did not disturb, stand. The carrier is thus liable for damages arising from the breach.