CalalasvsCA

G.R.No.122039
May31,2000
Mendoza,J:.
FACTS:
1. ElizaSunga(privaterespondent)tookapassengerjeepneyownedandoperatedby
Calalas.Asthejeepneywasfilledtocapacity(24passengers),Sungawasgivenby
theconductoranextensionseat,awoodenstoolatthebackofthedoorattheendof
thevehicle.
2. The jeepney stoppedto leta passenger off.As shewas seatedat the rearofthe
vehicle,Sungagavewaytotheoutgoingpassenger.Justasshewasdoingso,anIsuzu
truckdrivenbyIglecerioVerenaandownedbyFranciscoSalvabumpedtheleftrear
portionofthejeepney.
3. Asaresult,Sungawasinjured.Shesustainedafractureofthedistalthirdoftheleft
tibiafibulawithseverenecrosisoftheunderlyingskin.
4. SungafiledacomplaintfordamagesagainstCalalas,allegingviolationofthecontract
ofcarriagebytheformerinfailingtoexercisethediligencerequiredofhimasa
common carrier. Calalas, on the other hand, filed a thirdparty complaint against
FranciscoSalva,theowneroftheIsuzutruck.
5. RTC: judgment against Salva as thirdparty defendant and absolved Calalas of
liability,holdingthatitwasthedriveroftheIsuzutruckwhowasresponsibleforthe
accident.Ittookcognizanceofanothercase(CivilCaseNo.3490),filedbyCalalas
againstSalvaandVerena,forquasidelict
6. CA:Reversed.Causeofactionwasbasedonacontractofcarriage,notquasidelict,
andthatthecommoncarrierfailedtoexercisethediligencerequiredundertheCivil
Code. The appellate court dismissed the third party complaint against Salva and
adjudgedCalalasliablefordamagestoSunga.
7. Calalas:thebumpingofthejeepneybythetruckownedbySalvawasacasofortuito.
PetitionerfurtherassailstheawardofmoraldamagestoSungaonthegroundthatitis
notsupportedbyevidence.
a. inCivilCaseNo.3490:thenegligenceofVerenawastheproximatecauseof
theaccidentnegateshisliabilityandthattoruleotherwisewouldbetomake
thecommoncarrieraninsurerofthesafetyofitspassengers
ISSUE:Whetherornottakingtheextensionseatwasanimpliedassumptionofrisk?
HELD:NO.
The Civil case cannot bind Sunga. The civil case involved quasi delict, while this case
involvesculpacontractual(breachofcontractofcarriage).
Incaseofdeathorinjuriestopassengers,Art.1756oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatcommon
carriersarepresumedtohavebeenatfaultortohaveactednegligentlyunlesstheyprovethat
theyobservedextraordinarydiligenceasdefinedinArts.1733and1755oftheCode.This
provisionnecessarilyshiftstothecommoncarriertheburdenofproof.

Itisimmaterialthattheproximatecauseofthecollisionbetweenthejeepneyandthetruck
wasthenegligenceofthetruckdriver.Thedoctrineofproximatecauseisapplicableonlyin
actionsforquasidelict,notinactionsinvolvingbreachofcontract.
Inthecaseatbar,uponthehappeningoftheaccident,thepresumptionofnegligenceatonce
arose,anditbecamethedutyofpetitionertoprovethatheobservedextraordinarydiligence
inthecareofhispassengers.
Now,didthedriverofjeepneycarrySungasafelyasfarashumancareandforesightcould
provide,usingtheutmostdiligence ofverycautious persons,withdueregardforallthe
circumstancesasrequiredbyArt.1755?Wedonotthinkso.
a. thejeepneywasnotproperlyparked,itsrearportionbeingexposedabouttwo
metersfromthebroadshouldersofthehighway,andfacingthemiddleofthe
highwayinadiagonalangleinviolationoftheLandTransportationandTraffic
Code.
b. undisputed that petitioners driver took in more passengers than the allowed
seatingcapacityofthejeepney,aviolationof32(a)ofthesamelaw.
ThefactthatSungawasseatedinanextensionseatplacedherinaperilgreaterthanthatto
which the other passengers were exposed. Therefore, not only was petitioner unable to
overcomethepresumptionofnegligenceimposedonhimfortheinjurysustainedbySunga,
butalso,theevidenceshowshewasactuallynegligentintransportingpassengers.
Wefindithardtogiveseriousthoughttopetitioners contention thatSungastakingan
extensionseatamountedtoanimpliedassumptionofrisk.Itisakintoarguingthatthe
injuriestothemanyvictimsofthetragediesinourseasshouldnotbecompensatedmerely
becausethosepassengersassumedagreaterriskofdrowningbyboardinganoverloaded
ferry.
This is also true of petitioners contention that the jeepney being bumped while it was
improperlyparkedconstitutescasofortuito.Acasofortuitoisaneventwhichcouldnotbe
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable. This requires that the following
requirementsbepresent:(a)thecauseofthebreachisindependentofthedebtorswill;(b)
theeventisunforeseeableorunavoidable;(c)theeventissuchastorenderitimpossiblefor
thedebtortofulfillhisobligationinanormalmanner;and(d)thedebtordidnottakepartin
causingtheinjurytothecreditor.Petitionershouldhaveforeseenthedangerofparkinghis
jeepneywithitsbodyprotrudingtwometersintothehighway.