RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE

Legal Provisions:
Article 1756, NCC. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
unless they proved that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed
in Arts. 1733 and 1755.
Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
them, according to all the circumstances of its case.
Article 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 due regard for all the circumstances.
Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a
passenger on account of the wilfull 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
acts or omission.
A common carrier is likewise responsible for injuries suffered by a
passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or
of strangers, if the comon carriers employees through the exercise of the
diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the
act or omission. (Article 1760, New Civil Code)
It is all too-familiar that a common carrier may avoid liability by proving
either that it had observed extraordinary diligence as required by law in the
performance of its contractual obligation, or that death or injury suffered by
the passenger was due to fortuitous event. (Sy vs. Malate Taxicab Garage,
Inc. 102 Phil. 487)
Under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the employer is
subsidiarily liable for damages caused by the felonies committed by the
employee in the discharge of its duties. This is arose out from from the crime

of misdemeanor or reckless negligence. The defense of diligence of a good

father of a family to prevent accident by carefully selecting its employees is
not available in cases covered by the Penal Code but only in those covered
by the Civil Code (Arts. 2176 and 2180). The offended party seeking
damages by reason of the act of reckless negligence of the employee has the
right to choose between an action based on the Revised Penal Code or on the
Civil Code. Where the action for damages is brought under the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code, and the action was based on the result of the
criminal case, the defense of due diligence is not available. (Connel Bros.
Co. vs. Aduna, 91 Phil. 79)
The liability of the employer is subsidiarily, like a guarantor. (Connel Bros.
Co. vs. Aduna, 91 Phil. 79)
Negligence is the want of care required by the circumstances. It is a relative
or comparative, not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the
situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the
circumstances reasonably require. (Adzuara vs. Court of Appeals, GR No.
125134, January 22, 1999)
It is a rule that a motorist crossing a thru stop street has the right of way over
the one making a U-Turn. But if the person making a U-Turn has already
negotiated half of the turn and is almost on the other side so that he is
already visible to the person on the thru street, the latter must give way to
the former. (Adzuara vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 125134, January 22,
1999)
Where a common carrier submitted proof to show that the proximate and
only cause of the accident that resulted in the death of a passenger was the
negligence of a third person whose vehicle collided with the common carrier
and over whom the carriers owner had no supervision and control, the
Supreme Court has recognized that the presumption of negligence against
the common carrier has been overcome. (Estrada vs. Consolacion, 71
SCRA 523)
Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of
another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand. (Corliss vs. The Manila Railroad Co., 27
SCRA 674)

Proximate cause has been defined as the following:

The proximate cause of an injury is that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury and without which the result would not have occurred. And more
comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing
the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural continuous chain of events, each having a causal
connection with predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately
affecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first
acted, order such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event
should as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground
to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to same person
might probably result therefrom. (38 Am. Jur. Pp. 695-696, adopted by the
Supreme Court in Vda. De Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil. 181)
While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers
in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of
negligence against them, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of
the absolute safety of its passengers. (Pilapil vs. Court of Appeals, 180
SCRA 546)
Article 1756 of the Civil Code, in creating a presumption of fault or
negligence on the part of the common carrier when its pasengers is injured,
merely relieves the latter, for the time being, from introducing evidence to
fasten the negligence on the former, because the presumption stands in the
place of evidence. Being a mere presumption, however, the same is
rebuttable by proof that the common carrier had exercised extraordinary
diligence as required by law in the performance of its contractual obligation,
or that the injury suffered by the passenger was solely due to a fortuitous
event. (Pilapil vs. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 546, citing Lasam vs.
Smith, 45 Phil. 657)
It is clear that neither the law nor the nature of the business of a
transporation company makes it an insurer of the passengers safety, but that
its liability for personal injuries sustained by its passenger rests upon its
negligence, its failure to exercise the degree of diligence that the law
requires. (Pilapil vs. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 546, citing Necessito,
et.al. vs. Paras, et.al. 104 Phil. 75)

x x the principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that
the act must be occasioned solely by the violence of nature. Human
intervention is to be excluded from creating or entering into the cause of the
mischief. When the effect is found to be in part the result of the participation
of man, whether due to his active intervention or neglect or failure to act, the
whole occurrence is then humanized and removed from the rules applicable
to the acts of God.(NPC vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-47481, 161
SCRA 334 (1988), citing 1 Corpus Juris, pp. 1174-1175)
It has been held in several cases that when the negligence of a person
concurs with an act of God in producing a loss, such cause of the damage
was not the act of God. To be exempt he must be free from any previous
negligence or misconduct by which the loss or damage may have been
occasioned. (Fish and Elective Co. vs. Phil. Motors, 55 Phil. 129, Tucker
vs. Milan, 49 O.G. 4379; Limpangco & Sons vs. Yangco Steamship Co.,
34 Phil. 594, 604; Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657)
To exempt a common carrier from liability for death or physical injuries to
passengers upon the ground of force majeure, the carrier must clearly show
not only that the efficient cause of the casualty was entirely independent of
the human will, but also that it was impossible to avoid. Any participation by
the common carrier in the occurrence of the injury will defeat the defense of
force majeure. (Gatchalian vs. Delim & Court of Appeals, GR No.
56487, Oct. 21, 1991, 203 SCRA 126)
Damages:
The long established rule is that moral damages may be awarded where
gross negligence on the part of the common carrier is shown. (Gatchalian
vs. Delim & Court of Appeals, GR No. 56487, Oct. 21, 1991, 203 SCRA
126)
Notes:
Foreseeability is the fundamental basis of the law of negligence. To be
negligent, a person must have acted, or failed to act, in such a way that
an interests of others are put to a definite class of risk without him
foreseeing the same.