Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mariano vs. Callejas
Mariano vs. Callejas
166640
vehicular accident. On September 24, 1992, the said court dismissed the
complaint against La Perla Sugar Supply for lack of evidence. It, however,
found Arcilla liable to pay Callejas the cost of the repairs of his passenger
bus, his lost earnings, exemplary damages and attorneys fees. 5
A criminal case, Criminal Case No. 2223-92, was also filed against truck
driver Arcilla in the RTC of Imus, Cavite. On May 3, 1994, the said court
convicted truck driver Arcadio Arcilla of the crime of reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide, multiple slight physical injuries and damage to
property.6
In the case at bar, the trial court, in its Decision dated September 13, 1999,
found respondents Ildefonso Callejas and Edgar de Borja, together with
Liong Chio Chang, jointly and severally liable to pay petitioner damages and
costs of suit. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the defendants are ordered to pay as follows:
1. The sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the loss of life;
2. The sum of P40,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages;
3. The sum of P1,829,200.00 as foregone income;
4. The sum of P30,000.00 as moral damages;
5. The sum of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages;
6. The costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.7
Respondents Callejas and De Borja appealed to the Court of Appeals,
contending that the trial court erred in holding them guilty of breach of
contract of carriage.
On May 21, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial
court. It reasoned:
. . . the presumption of fault or negligence against the carrier is only a
disputable presumption. It gives in where contrary facts are established
proving either that the carrier had exercised the degree of diligence required
by law or the injury suffered by the passenger was due to a fortuitous event.
Where, as in the instant case, the injury sustained by the petitioner was in
no way due to any defect in the means of transport or in the method of
transporting or to the negligent or wilful acts of private respondent's
employees, and therefore involving no issue of negligence in its duty to
provide safe and suitable cars as well as competent employees, with the
injury arising wholly from causes created by strangers over which the carrier
had no control or even knowledge or could not have prevented, the
presumption is rebutted and the carrier is not and ought not to be held
liable. To rule otherwise would make the common carrier the insurer of the
absolute safety of its passengers which is not the intention of the
lawmakers.8
While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers
in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of
negligence against them, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer
of the absolute safety of its passengers.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from, insofar as it found defendantsappellants Ildefonso Callejas and Edgar de Borja liable for damages to
plaintiff-appellee Herminio E. Mariano, Jr., is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
another one entered absolving them from any liability for the death of Dr.
Frelinda Cargo Mariano.9
The appellate court also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioner.
Hence, this appeal, relying on the following ground:
THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL
FOURTEENTH DIVISION IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE
CASE.10
The following are the provisions of the Civil Code pertinent to the case at
bar:
Article 1755 of the Civil Code qualifies the duty of extraordinary care,
vigilance and precaution in the carriage of passengers by common carriers
to only such as human care and foresight can provide. What constitutes
compliance with said duty is adjudged with due regard to all the
circumstances.
Article 1756 of the Civil Code, in creating a presumption of fault or
negligence on the part of the common carrier when its passenger is injured,
merely relieves the latter, for the time being, from introducing evidence to
fasten the negligence on the former, because the presumption stands in the
place of evidence. Being a mere presumption, however, the same is
rebuttable by proof that the common carrier had exercised extraordinary
diligence as required by law in the performance of its contractual obligation,
or that the injury suffered by the passenger was solely due to a fortuitous
event.
ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
them, according to all the circumstances of each case.
In fine, we can only infer from the law the intention of the Code Commission
and Congress to curb the recklessness of drivers and operators of common
carriers in the conduct of their business.
ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far
as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very
cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
Thus, it is clear that neither the law nor the nature of the business of a
transportation company makes it an insurer of the passenger's safety, but
that its liability for personal injuries sustained by its passenger rests upon its
negligence, its failure to exercise the degree of diligence that the law
requires.