Landingin v. Pangasinan Transportation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Marcelo Landingin and Racquel Bocasas, and Spouses Pedro Garcia and Eufracia Landingin, filed separate complaints for damages against Pangasinan Transportation Co. (PANTRANCO) and its driver, Marcelo Oligan. Their respective daughters, Leonila Landingin and Estrella Garcia, were passengers on a PANTRANCO bus on an excursion trip from Dagupan City to Baguio City. The bus, allegedly open on one side in violation of Public Service Commission rules, stalled and slid backward on an uphill point at Camp 8, Kennon Road, Baguio City. The driver allegedly swerved the bus toward the mountainside, causing Leonila and Estrella, along with other passengers, to be thrown out. Both girls sustained serious injuries and died later that day. The driver was charged with and convicted of multiple homicide and multiple slight physical injuries, a case then pending appeal. Procedural History: The trial court found that a snapping or breaking of metal below the bus floor caused the bus to stop and roll back. Some passengers jumped out, while others stepped down. The driver maneuvered the bus safely against the mountainside. The court found no negligence on the part of the defendants, attributing the accident to a fortuitous event or act of God. However, the court ordered PANTRANCO to pay P6,500.00 to the Landingin spouses and P3,500.00 to the Garcia spouses, explicitly stating this was not for liability due to negligence but as an expression of sympathy and goodwill, citing previous offers of settlement by PANTRANCO and the desire to preserve public relations. The Petition: Defendants-appellants PANTRANCO and Marcelo Oligan appealed the portion of the judgment ordering them to pay damages, arguing that if they were found free from fault or negligence, they should not be held liable.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants-appellants are liable for damages despite the trial court's finding of no negligence and the dismissal of the complaints. Whether the accident constituted a fortuitous event or an act of God.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is modified. Defendant-appellant PANTRANCO is ordered to pay the plaintiffs-appellees the amounts stated in the judgment appealed from, as damages for breach of contracts, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaints. Costs against defendant-appellant PANTRANCO.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of liability despite a finding of no negligence: The Supreme Court held that while the trial court absolved the defendants from liability due to negligence, PANTRANCO was guilty of breach of contract of carriage. As a common carrier, PANTRANCO was duty-bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight could provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. The fact that the deceased passengers did not reach their destination safely constitutes a breach of this contract. Therefore, the awards made by the trial court should be considered as damages for breach of contracts of carriage, not as a consequence of negligence. On whether the accident constituted a fortuitous event or an act of God: The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event. The Court cited Lasam vs. Smith, holding that an accident caused by defects in the automobile is not a caso fortuito. The rationale is that passengers have no choice or control over the carrier's selection and use of equipment. When a passenger dies or is injured, there is a presumption that the common carrier is at fault or negligent. This presumption is only rebutted by proof of extraordinary diligence. The Court found that the trial court's conclusion was conjectural and speculative, as it did not give due regard to all the circumstances. The fact that the cross-joint was inspected the day before and found in order was insufficient to exempt the carrier, especially considering the bus was heavily laden and traversing mountainous roads, which would tax its mechanical parts more heavily.
Main Doctrine
A common carrier is liable for breach of contract of carriage if a passenger dies or is injured, and the presumption of fault or negligence is only rebutted by proof of extraordinary diligence. An accident caused by defects in the vehicle is not a fortuitous event.