[84] PHILIPPINE RABBIT v IAC ● After a brief stopover at Moncada, Tarlac for refreshment, the jeepney

G.R. Nos. 66102-04 | August 30, 1990 | Medialdea, J. proceeded towards Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan.
● Upon reaching barrio Sinayoan, San Manuel, Tarlac, the right rear wheel of
TOPIC: Common Carriers; Nature and basis of liability the jeepney was detached, so it was running in an unbalanced position.
Manalo stepped on the brake, as a result of which, the jeepney which was
SUMMARY: There was an accident that occurred between a jeepney and a bus owned then running on the eastern lane (its right of way) made a U-turn, invading
by petitioner PH Rabbit. Due to said accident, 3 jeepney passengers died and the and eventually stopping on the western lane of the road in such a manner
jeepney driver was convicted for multiple homicide. The present case is concerned that the jeepney's front faced the south (from where it came) and its rear
with the 3 complaints for recovery of damages filed by the passengers and heirs. faced the north (towards where it was going).
They impleaded the owners and driver of both the jeepney and the bus, and also the ● The jeepney practically occupied and blocked the greater portion of the
insurer of the jeepney. The Court held that the negligence of the jeepney driver is the western lane, which is the right of way of vehicles coming from the north,
proximate cause of the accident. No liability on the part of the bus company. among which was Bus No. 753 of petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.
Furthermore, the owner of the jeepney is not jointly and severally liable with the driver. (Rabbit) driven by Tomas delos Reyes.
● Almost at the time when the jeepney made a sudden U-turn and encroached
DOCTRINE: The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the carrier in on the western lane of the highway as claimed by Rabbit and delos Reyes or
case of breach of the contract of carriage. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between after stopping for a couple of minutes as claimed by Mangune, Carreon and
the carrier and the passenger, and in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is Manalo, the bus bumped from behind the right rear portion of the jeepney.
exclusively responsible therefore to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the ● As a result of the collision, three passengers of the jeepney (Catalina
negligence of his driver. The carrier can neither shift his liability on the contract to his Pascua, Erlinda Meriales and Adelaida Estomo) died while the other jeepney
driver nor share it with him, for his driver's negligence is his. Secondly, if we make the passengers sustained physical injuries.
driver jointly and severally liable with the carrier, that would make the carrier's liability ● The police investigators upon arrival at the scene, prepared a sketch
personal instead of merely vicarious and consequently, entitled to recover only the showing the relative positions of the two vehicles as well as the alleged
share which corresponds to the driver, contradictory to the explicit provision of Article point of impact:
2181 of the New Civil Code ○ Purportedly, the point of impact or collision was on the western
lane of the highway about 3 feet (or one yard) from the center line
FACTS: ○ No skid marks of the Rabbit bus was found in the vicinity of the
● Passengers (Catalina Pascua, Caridad Pascua, Adelaida Estomo, Erlinda collision, before or after the point of impact. On the other hand,
Meriales, Mercedes Lorenzo, Alejandro Morales and Zenaida Parejas) there was a skid mark about 45 meters long purportedly of the
boarded the jeepney owned by spouses Isidro Mangune and Guillerma jeepney from the eastern shoulder of the road south of, and
Carreon and driven by Tranquilino Manalo at Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga extending up to the point of impact.
bound for Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan to spend Christmas at their ● After investigation, the police filed with the MTC of San Manuel a criminal
respective homes. complaint against the two drivers for Multiple Homicide.
● The passengers’ contract with Manalo was for them to pay P24.00 for the ● At the preliminary investigation, probable cause was found only with respect
trip. to the case of Manalo (drivery of jeepney).
● Purportedly riding on the front seat with Manalo was Mercedes Lorenzo. On ● Manalo was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. Not having
the left rear passenger seat were Caridad Pascua, Alejandro Morales and appealed, he served his sentence.
Zenaida Parejas. On the right rear passenger seat were Catalina Pascua, ● 3 complaints for recovery of damages were then filed before the CFI
Adelaida Estomo, and Erlinda Meriales. Pangasinan.
 ● In all three cases, spouses Mangune and Carreon (owners of jeepney), ● The principle about the 'last clear chance' would call for application in a suit
Manalo (jeepney driver), Rabbit, and delos Reyes (bus driver) were all between the owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles. It does not
impleaded as defendants. arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce
● Plaintiffs (Passengers and heirs) anchored their suits against spouses its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the
Mangune and Carreon and Manalo on their contractual liability. As against negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other
Rabbit and delos Reyes, plaintiffs based their suits on their culpability for a driver was likewise guilty of negligence.
quasi-delict.
● Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc. was also impleaded as The presumption against driver of rear vehicle was rebutted
additional defendant in 1 of the cases ● On the presumption that drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle guilty
● The trial court rendered its decision finding jeepney owners and driver and the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence, CA
negligent. Held that: held:
○ They breached contract of carriage with their passengers ○ ". . ., the jeepney had already executed a complete turnabout and at
○ Ordered them, jointly and severally, to pay the passengers and the time of impact was already facing the western side of the road.
heirs: indemnity for loss of life, loss of earnings, actual expenses, Thus the jeepney assumed a new frontal position vis a vis, the bus,
moral damages. and the bus assumed a new role of defensive driving. The spirit
○ Judgment against Filriters Guaranty Insurance Co. was also behind the presumption of guilt on one who bumps the rear end of
rendered, having contracted to ensure and answer for the another vehicle is for the driver following a vehicle to be at all times
obligations of defendants Mangune and Carreon for damages due prepared of a pending accident should the driver in front suddenly
their passengers come to a full stop, or change its course either through change of
○ They were also ordered to pay jointly and severally, cross-claimant mind of the front driver, mechanical trouble, or to avoid an accident.
Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., the amounts of P216.27 as actual The rear vehicle is given the responsibility of avoiding a collision
damages to its Bus No. 753 and P2,173.60 for loss of its earning. with the front vehicle for it is the rear vehicle who has full control of
● CA reversed. Finding delos Reyes (bus driver) negligent. the situation as it is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of
○ Award in favor of Phil Rabbit deleted it."
○ Phil Rabbit ordered to pay damages ● CA’s decision would have been correct were it not for the undisputed fact
● MR denied. Hence, the present petition. that the U-turn made by the jeepney was abrupt. Hence, delos Reyes (bus
driver) could not have anticipated the sudden U-turn executed by Manalo.
ISSUES: ● The presumption was rebutted by this piece of evidence.

[1] Who is liable for the death and physical injuries suffered by the passengers of the Substantial factor test
jeepney -- Jeepney owner and driver ● CA held that under the substantial factor test, if the actor's conduct is a
substantial factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor
● CA, in finding the bus driver negligent, applied primarily (1) the doctrine of neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the
last clear chance, (2) the presumption that drivers who bump the rear of manner in which it occurred does not prevent him from being liable.
another vehicle guilty and the cause of the accident unless contradicted by ○ Here, the defendant bus running was at a fast speed when the
other evidence, and (3) the substantial factor test. CA erred. accident occurred and did not even make the slightest effort to
avoid the accident
Doctrine of last clear chance does not apply
 ● It cannot be said that the bus was travelling at a fast speed when the defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver, is not a
accident occurred because the speed of 80 to 90 kilometers per hour, caso fortuito which would avoid the carrier's liability for damages.
assuming such calculation to be correct, is yet within the speed limit allowed
in highways. [2] W/N the spouses (owner of jeepney) and driver are jointly and severally liable --
● Court said it cannot fault delos Reyes for not having avoided the collision. NO
The jeepney left a skid mark of about 45 meters, measured from the time its ● The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the carrier in case
right rear wheel was detached up to the point of collision. Delos Reyes must of breach of the contract of carriage.
have noticed the perilous condition of the jeepney from the time its right rear ● Firstly, the contract of carriage is between the carrier and the passenger, and
wheel was detached or some 90 meters away, considering that the road was in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is exclusively responsible
straight and points 200 meters north and south of the point of collision, therefore to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the negligence of
visible and unobstructed. his driver.
● Delos Reyes admitted that he was running more or less 50 kilometers per ○ The carrier can neither shift his liability on the contract to his driver
hour at the time of the accident. Using this speed, delos Reyes covered the nor share it with him, for his driver's negligence is his.
distance of 45 meters in 3.24 seconds. ● Secondly, if we make the driver jointly and severally liable with the carrier,
● If We adopt the speed of 80 kilometers per hour, delos Reyes would have that would make the carrier's liability personal instead of merely vicarious
covered that distance in only 2.025 seconds.Verily, he had little time to react and consequently, entitled to recover only the share which corresponds to
to the situation. the driver, contradictory to the explicit provision of Article 2181 of the New
Civil Code.
Proximate cause was negligence of jeepney driver ● Furthermore, Court affirms the amount of damages adjudged by the trial
● The proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Manalo and court, except with respect to the indemnity for loss of life. Under Article 1764
spouses Mangune and Carreon. They all failed to exercise the precautions in relation to Article 2206 of the New Civil Code, the amount of damages for
that are needed precisely pro hac vice. the death of a passenger is at least P3K. The prevailing jurisprudence has
● In culpa contractual, the moment a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is increased the amount P30K
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, and this
disputable presumption may only be overcome by evidence that he had RULING: Decision of the CFI is REINSTATED WITH MODIFICATION that only Isidro
observed extra-ordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733, 1755 and Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc. are
1756 of the New Civil Code or that the death or injury of the passenger was liable to the victims or their heirs and that the amount of indemnity for loss of life is
due to a fortuitous event. increased to
● The negligence of Manalo was proven during the trial by the unrebutted
testimonies of passengers and police investigators.
● The negligence of spouses Mangune and Carreon was likewise proven
during the trial.
○ Spouses offered to show thru their witness Navarro, an alleged
mechanic, that he periodically checks and maintains the jeepney
○ This notwithstanding, the right rear wheel of the vehicle was
detached while in transit. As to the cause thereof no evidence was
offered.
● In any event, "[i]n an action for damages against the carrier for his failure to
safely carry his passenger to his destination, an accident caused either by