12) M Ruiz Highway Transit V CA
12) M Ruiz Highway Transit V CA
Doctrine: A contract of carriage exists when there are paying passengers in Held:
the bus, and the carrier is duty bound to transport them using the utmost A Contract of Carriage existed and M. Ruiz was required to exercise
diligence of very cautious persons. If one of the passengers die because the extraordinary diligence
floor of the bus gave way, this reinforces the presumption that the carrier had 1. The issue is inarguable, it being partly factual. Also, CA has also
neglected to provide a safe conveyance. found that there was a contract of carriage.
2. Spouses Monserrat and Victoria were paying passengers in the bus,
Facts: and M. Ruiz Transit and Buena were duty bound to transport them
1. On May 22, 1954, Spouses Guillermo Monserrat and Marta using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. Victoria died
Consignado (Spouses Monserrat) and their four-year old daughter because the floor of the bus gave way. This reinforces the
Victoria were paying passengers in a bus of M. Ruiz Highway presumption that petitioners had neglected to provide a safe
Transit, Inc. (M. Ruiz Transit) driven Martin Buena, bound for conveyance (Art. 1756). Evidence of the required extraordinary
Antipolo, Rizal. diligence was not introduced to rebut the presumption.
2. In Sta. Rosa, Laguna, while the bus was running, a rear tire 3. As found by the CA, the bus was overcrowded and overspeeding,
exploded, blasting a hole on the floor where Victoria was standing in and the floor thereof was weak and that the tire exploded due to one
front of her mother. As a result, the child fell through the hole, and or a combination of the following: "The tire was not strong and safe;
died that same morning from injuries sustained in the fall. the air pressure was not properly checked; the load was heavy; the
3. Spouses Monserrat sued M. Ruiz Transit, and Buena at CFI Laguna excessive speed of the bus must have overstrained the tire; and the
to recover damages for the death of their four-year old daughter high velocity generated heat in the tire which could have expanded
Victoria. the already compressed air therein."
4. CFI dismissed the complaint on the ground that (1) the accident was 4. M. Ruiz Transit and Buena, however, venture to guess that it was
not due to negligence of the carrier, but was an act of God; and (2) due either to accidental puncture by a sharp instrument, as a nail, or
even if negligence was attributable to defendants, their liability had to latent defect in the tire. However, no evidence was presented to
been discharged, as evidenced by a signed instrument where prove such. Even conceding that the tire blow-out was accidental, we
Spouses Monserrat acknowledged that the accident was an act of could still hold the carrier liable for failure to provide a safe floor in
God, so they cannot and do not claim anything before the courts of the bus.
justice; and that they were paid Php 150.00 for such damage.
5. On appeal, CA reversed the judgment, upon the finding that (1) The liability of petitioners were not waived by the signed instruments
defendants failed to prove the extraordinary diligence required of 1. The signed instruments are not proof that petitioners have
carriers; and (2) the signed instrument did not effect a waiver of discharged their legal liability to claimants. What is expressed there
plaintiffs' right to damages. is the latter's belief that petitioners are not liable to them and
6. CA required defendants to pay plaintiffs P6,000.00 as indemnity for acknowledgment of the voluntary help extended by petitioner
the child's death; P2,000.00 as moral damages and P500.00 as transportation company. The belief is baseless. Sps. Monserrat were
attorney's fees, with interest from the date of its decision (minus the ignorant, illiterate, indigent, and, at the time they signed the
P150.00 that had been given to plaintiff Guillermo Monserrat). instrument, thoroughly confused and distracted by the death of their
7. Hence, this petition. M. Ruiz Transit and Buena questioned the child.
award of moral damages to Sps. Monserrat, as well as the amount of
death indemnity. They also argued that there was no contract of Discussion on Award of Damages and Death Indemnity
carriage; hence, M. Ruiz was not liable for allegedly not exercising 1. The minimum death indemnity is P3,000, although this Court has in
extraordinary diligence. They also argued that the liability, if any, has various instances granted P6,000.00. As for moral damages, the
already been waived, as evidenced by the signed instruments. carrier is liable therefor to the parents of a child who meets death
while a passenger in any of the carrier's vehicles (Arts. 2206 and
1764). Since respondents are indigents, and have litigated as
paupers, they should be allowed attorney's fees of P500.00.