Mariano v. Callejas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Herminio Mariano, Jr. is the surviving spouse of Dr. Frelinda Mariano, who died when the Celyrosa Express bus she was a passenger in collided with an Isuzu truck. Respondent Ildefonso C. Callejas is the registered owner of Celyrosa Express, and respondent Edgar de Borja was the driver of the bus. The collision occurred along Aguinaldo Highway, San Agustin, Dasmariñas, Cavite, when the trailer truck, coming from the opposite direction, bumped the passenger bus on its left middle portion, causing the bus to fall on its right side. Dr. Mariano died, and four other passengers sustained physical injuries. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages against respondents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City found respondents jointly and severally liable for damages. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC decision, absolving respondents from liability. The CA reasoned that the presumption of fault against the carrier is disputable and was rebutted by evidence showing the injury was caused by a third party over whom the carrier had no control. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA decision was not in accordance with the factual basis of the case.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents, as common carriers, are liable for the death of Dr. Frelinda Mariano, considering the accident was caused by the recklessness of a third-party truck driver, and the legal principles governing the liability and negligence of common carriers. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's decision and absolving the respondents from liability, specifically considering the evidence presented to rebut the presumption of negligence against the common carrier.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 21, 2004, and the Resolution dated January 7, 2005, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66891 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of common carriers and the presumption of negligence, and its application to the accident: The Court reiterated that common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods and for the safety of passengers, as mandated by Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code. Article 1756 of the Civil Code creates a presumption of fault or negligence against common carriers in case of death or injuries to passengers, which relieves the passenger from proving negligence. However, this presumption is rebuttable. The carrier can overcome this presumption by proving that it observed extraordinary diligence or that the injury was caused by a fortuitous event. The law does not make a common carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers; its liability rests on negligence, i.e., failure to exercise the required degree of diligence. On whether respondents overcame the presumption of negligence and the propriety of the Court of Appeals' decision: The Court found that the totality of evidence showed that the death of petitioner's spouse was caused by the reckless negligence of the driver of the Isuzu trailer truck. The investigating police officer testified that the trailer truck lost its brakes and was found approximately 500 meters away from the point of impact. The police report and the sketch corroborated this, indicating the truck was running fast and encroached on the bus's lane. Respondent driver De Borja was about to unload passengers when his bus was hit. The truck driver's subsequent plea of guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, multiple slight physical injuries, and damage to property in a separate criminal case further solidified the finding that the truck driver's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, the presumption of negligence against the common carrier was successfully rebutted, and respondents were absolved from liability, justifying the Court of Appeals' reversal of the trial court's decision.
Main Doctrine
A common carrier's presumption of negligence in case of death or injury to passengers is rebuttable. The carrier is not liable if it proves it exercised extraordinary diligence or if the injury was caused by a fortuitous event, especially when the proximate cause of the accident is the recklessness of a third party over whom the carrier had no control.