Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 11, 1978, a collision occurred between BLTB Bus No. 1046, driven by Armando Pon, and Superlines Bus No. 404, driven by Ruben Dasco, in Tayabas, Quezon. The collision resulted in the death of passengers Aniceto Rosales, Francisco Pamfilo, and Romeo Neri, and injuries to Nena Rosales and Baylon Sales, all passengers of the BLTB bus. The BLTB bus attempted to overtake a Ford Fiera on a highway bend, a zone marked as a no-overtaking area by a continuous yellow line, while a Superlines bus was approaching from the opposite direction. The BLTB driver made a belated attempt to return to his lane, but the buses collided. Procedural History: Separate civil cases for damages were filed by the surviving heirs and injured passengers against BLTB, Superlines, and their respective drivers. Criminal cases were also filed against the drivers. The trial court exonerated Superlines and its driver, attributing sole responsibility to BLTB and Armando Pon, ordering them to pay damages jointly and severally. BLTB and Pon appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The Petition: The IAC affirmed the trial court's decision with a modification increasing the death indemnity to P30,000.00 for each set of victims' heirs. BLTB filed a Petition for Review by Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assigning a lone error: that the IAC erred in adjudging that the actions were based on culpa contractual.
Issue(s)
Whether the actions filed by the private respondents were based on culpa contractual or culpa aquiliana. Whether the Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB) and its driver, Armando Pon, were liable for the death of and injuries to the passengers. Whether the defense of force majeure was applicable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court in toto, holding BLTB and Armando Pon jointly and severally liable for damages. The Court found that the proximate cause of the collision was the sole negligence and recklessness of the BLTB driver in overtaking in a no-overtaking zone, which negligence is binding against petitioner BLTB. The Court also held that BLTB's liability arises from contract of carriage, requiring utmost diligence, and that the defense of force majeure was not applicable as the accident was due to human intervention (negligence).
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the action (culpa contractual vs. culpa aquiliana): The Court held that the petitioners' contention that the actions were based solely on culpa aquiliana was without merit. A reading of the respondent court's decision showed that it anchored petitioners' liability on both culpa contractual and culpa aquiliana. The proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of the BLTB driver, who recklessly operated the bus by overtaking in a no-overtaking zone, a continuous yellow strip on an ascending bend. This negligence was confirmed by the fact that the driver admitted the yellow line signified a no-overtaking zone. The driver's failure to observe simple precautions, especially when overtaking on a curved highway, demonstrated a lack of diligence demanded by the circumstances. The Court cited established rules that a driver attempting to pass must ensure the road is clear and proceed only if safe, and that when rounding a curve, there is a special necessity for keeping to the right side of the road. The presumption of negligence arises when a driver violates traffic regulations, as provided in Article 2165 of the Civil Code. On the liability of BLTB and Armando Pon: The Court affirmed the finding that Armando Pon was primarily liable for his own negligence under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, the liability of his employer, BLTB, was primary, direct, and immediate because the death and injuries to its passengers occurred through the negligence of its employee. This liability under Article 1759 of the Civil Code does not cease even upon proof of exercising diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision. The common carrier's liability for passenger safety is based on its contractual obligation to carry passengers safely, requiring "utmost diligence of very cautious person" under Article 1755. Carriers are presumed negligent unless they prove extraordinary diligence, which BLTB failed to do. The Court reiterated that the liability of BLTB is solidary with its driver, even if the driver's liability stems from quasi-delict and the company's from contract, citing Viluan v. Court of Appeals. On the defense of force majeure: The Court dismissed petitioners' contention that a common carrier is not an absolute insurer and may be liable for unforeseeable or inevitable accidents. The Court found this contention to hold no water because petitioners failed to provide any factual basis for the defense of force majeure. The undisputed fact was that the cause of the collision was the sole negligence and recklessness of petitioner Armando Pon. For the defense of force majeure to prosper, the accident must be due to natural causes and exclusively without human intervention, which was clearly not the case here.
Main Doctrine
A common carrier's liability for the death of or injuries to its passengers is based on its contractual obligation to carry its passengers safely, requiring utmost diligence. Failure to observe extraordinary diligence, coupled with proven negligence of the driver, makes both the driver and the carrier liable, even if the liability of the driver springs from quasi-delict and that of the company from contract.