LRTA V.

Navidad
G.R. No. 145804 February 6, 2003
Laws Cited: Art. 1755,Art. 1756,Art. 1759,Art. 1763
FACTS:
October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor) entered the EDSA LRT
station after purchasing a token.
While Nicanor was standing at the platform near the LRT tracks, the guard Junelito
Escartin approached him.
Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed
instantaneously upon being hit by a moving train operated by Rodolfo RomanDecember
8, 1994:
The widow of Nicanor, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against
Escartin, Roman, LRTA, Metro Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent (agency of security guards)
for the death of her husband.
LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and a cross-claim against
Escartin and Prudent
Prudent: denied liability averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and
surpervision of its security guards LRTA and Roman: presented evidence Prudent and
Escartin: demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was
negligent in his assigned task
RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin, complaint against LRT and
Roman were dismissed for lack of merit
CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and Roman liable
ISSUE:
W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the contract of carriage
HELD:
NO. Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages is DELETED (CANNOT coexist w/ compensatory damages) (b) Roman is absolved.
Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business
and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty off exercising utmost
diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers Civil Code:
Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human
care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with
a due regard for all the circumstances.
Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to
have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755
Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through
the negligence or wilful acts of the formers employees, although such employees may
have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the
common carriers

This liability of the common carriers does NOT cease upon proof that they Exercised all
the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their
employees
Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on
account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the
common carriers employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a
family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.
Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple proof of injury, the
passenger is relieaved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or
of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to
an unforeseen event or to force majeure
Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an
independent firm to undertake the task, the common carrier is NOT relieved of its
responsibilities under the contract of carriage
General Rule: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and related provisions
in conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. (Tort may arise even under a contract,
where tort [quasi-delict liability] is that which breaches the contract)
EX: if employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee, employer
can be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed
to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its
employees.
EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee
Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the death of Nicanor for the reason
that the negligence of Escartin was NOT proven NO showing that Roman himself is
guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability
Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relation bet. Nicanor and
Roman. Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence