VDA. DE BATACLAN V. MEDINA GR NO. L-10126 | OCTOBER 22, 1957 J.

Montemayor

CASE SUMMARY: Juan Bataclan was the passenger of a bus operated by defendant Mariano Medina. Around 2 AM on
September 13, 1952, one of the front tires of the bus burst causing it to fall into a canal and turn turtle. Bataclan was one
of four passengers who were trapped inside the bus, injured but alive. When a group of men arrived to help, the torch they
brought ignited the gasoline leaking from the fuel tank of the bus, causing a fire that consumed the bus as well as the four
passengers trapped inside. The trial court ruled that Medina was liable only for serious physical injuries caused by the
overturning of the bus and that the proximate cause of Bataclans death was the subsequent accidental fire. The Supreme
Court ruled that Medina is liable for Bataclans death, because the overturning of the bus was the proximate cause of his
death. The leaking of gasoline from the fuel tank, the arrival of rescuers with a torch, and the ignition of the fire was not
an unnatural or unexpected sequence of events following the overturning of the bus.

FACTS:

- Mariano Medina was a bus operator, owner of Medina Transportation. Bus No. 30 of Medina Transportation was
driven by Conrado Saylon. After midnight on September 13, 1952, the bus left Amadeo, Cavite on the way to
Pasay City. Juan Bataclan was one of 18 passengers on the bus including the driver and the conductor.
- At around 2 AM, in Imus, Cavite, one of the front tires of the bus burst, causing to fall into a ditch and turn turtle.
Most of the passengers managed to get out of the vehicle and started shouting for help, including the driver and
the conductor. Bataclan and three others were trapped in the vehicle, alive but injured.
- Half an hour later, a group of men responded to the calls for help (presumably including the driver). One of them
was carrying a torch, inadvertently igniting gasoline that was leaking from the buss fuel tank. The fire
immediately consumed the bus and the trapped passengers, whose bodies were recovered later that day.
- Bataclans widow, Salud Villanueva, sued Medina.
- The trial court found that there was a breach of contract of carriage. It also found negligence on the part of
Medina through his employee. One of the passengers testified that the driver was speeding when the tire blew out,
and that the bus travelled for 150 meters after the blow-out before falling into the canal.
- However, the trial court also found that Medina was liable only for Bataclans physical injuries as a result of the
overturning of the bus, and that the proximate cause of his death was the fire. Both parties appealed the decision.

ISSUES:

W/N defendant is liable YES, the proximate cause of Bataclans death was the overturning of the bus.

RULING:

- Our new Civil Code amply provides for the responsibility of common carrier to its passengers and their goods.
For purposes of reference, we are reproducing the pertinent codal provisions:
o ART. 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 each case.
o Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735,
and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extra ordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set
forth in articles 1755 and 1756.
o 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.
o ART. 1756. 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 prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755
o ART. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence
or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of
their authority or in violation of the order of the common carriers.
 o 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.
o ART. 1763. A common carrier responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful
acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through the
exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.
- The proximate cause of Bataclans death was the overturning of the bus.
- The Court found that the sequence of events was not an unnatural or unexpected result of the overturning of the
bus: Gasoline leaking from the fuel tank.
- The rescuers from a rural area carrying a torch instead of safer lighting devices like flashlights or lanterns.
- Said rescuers approaching the bus to aid after the passengers (probably including the driver and the conductor)
had been shouting for help.
- In fact, the burning of the bus could be attributed to the negligence of the driver and the conductor. They should
have known that it was very probable that gasoline had leaked and they probably smelled the gasoline spilled over
such a large area, but they did not warn the rescuers not to bring the torch to close to the bus. Such negligence by
the agents of the carrier comes under Articles 1733, 1759, and 1763.
- ALSO!!!!! One of the passengers who was injured testified that:
o Defendant Mario Medina visited her at the hospital
o During the visit, she overheard him talk to one of his bus inspectors telling said inspector to have the tires
of the bus changed immediately because they were already old, and that as a matter of fact, he had been
telling the driver to change the said tires, but that the driver did not follow his instructions.
- If this be true, it goes to prove that the driver had not been diligent and had not taken the necessary precautions to
insure the safety of his passengers. Had he changed the tires, specially those in front, with new ones, as he had
been instructed to do, probably, despite his speeding, as we have already stated, the blow out would not have
occurred.

DISPOSITIVE: In view of the foregoing, with the modification that the damages awarded by the trial court are increased
from ONE THOUSAND (P1,000) PESOS to Six THOUSAND (P6,000) PESOS, and from Six HUNDRED PESOS TO
EIGHT HUNDRED (P800) PESOS, for the death of Batacln and for attorney's fees, respectively, the decision appealed
from is hereby affirmed, with costs.

NOTES:

PROXIMATE CAUSE: 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 and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause
which first acted, under 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 some person
might probably result therefrom.