04 La Mallorca v. CA
Mariano jumped off without getting his bayong, landing almost in fron of the
G.R. No. L-20761. July 27, 1966
Topic: XXX | Ponente: J. Barrera| Author: Rosales
Doctrine: The complaint contained an allegation for quasi-delict. The inclusion of
this averment for quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under the
contract of carriage, is permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8 of the New Rules of
Court, which allows a plaintiff to allege causes of action in the alternative, be they
compatible with each other or not, to the end that the real matter in controversy
may be resolved and determined. Thus, even assuming arguendo that the contract
of carriage had terminated, herein petitioner can be held liable for the negligence of
its driver. The presentation of proof of the negligence of its driver gave rise to the
presumption that the defendant employer did not exercise the diligence of a good
father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees. The petitioner
had failed to overcome such presumption. Consequently, the petitioner must be
adjudged pecuniarily liable for the death of the child.
Emergency Recit:
Facts:
1. Around noon on December 20 1953, Mariano Beltran together with his wife
and 3 minor children namely: Milagros (13), Raquel (4 ½) and Fe (2yrs), boarded
the Pambusco Bus, operated by La Mallorca, bound for Anao, Mexico,
Pampanga. They carried 4 pieces of baggage.
2. The conductor of the bus, half-brother of Mariano, issued 3 tickets covering the
full fares of Mariano, his wife, and Milagros. No fare was charged on Raquel
and Fe since both were below the height at which fare is charged according to
La Mallorca’s rules.
3. After around an hour of traveling, it reached Anao and the bus stopped to allow
passengers to get off.
4. Mariano got off the bus, carrying some of their baggage. He was followed by his
wife and children and he led them to a shaded spot about four-five meters
away from the bus.
5. Mariano returned to the bus to get his other bayong that he had left under the
seat. However, he did not know that his daughter Raquel followed him.
6. While he was on the running board of the bus waiting for the conductor to
hand him his bayong, the bus, whose motor was not shut off while unloading,
suddenly started moving forward. This happened even if the conductor had not
yet given the signal to the driver to resume the trip.
7.
shaded area where he left his wife and children. The bus stopped about 10
meters from the point where Mariano had gotten off.
8. When Mariano landed, he saw people gathering around the body of Raquel
lying prostrate on the ground, her skull crushed and without life.’
9. For the death of their child, Sps. Beltran commenced a suit against La Mallorca,
seeking to recover moral and actual damages.
10. TC: La Mallorca liable for breach of contract of carriage.
11. CA: sustained La Mallorca’s argument that there could not be a breach of
contract in the case, for the reason that when the child met her death, she was
no longer a passenger of the bus involved in the incident and, therefore, the
contract of carriage had already terminated. However, found La Mallorca liable
for quasi-delict.
Issue/s: Whether or not La Mallorca is liable for breach of contract of carriage
Held: Yes.
Ruling:
1. The relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the
passenger alights from the carrier’s vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at
the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable
time and opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises. And what is reasonable
time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from the
circumstances.
2. In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the carrier’s agent had
exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person required under Art.
1755.
a. the driver, although stopping the bus, did not put off the engine.
b. he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the
signal to go and while the latter was still unloading part of the baggage
of the passengers.
3. The presence of said passengers was not unreasonable and they are, therefore,
entitled to be considered still as passengers of the carrier, entitled to the
protection under their contract of carriage.
4. Even assuming, that the contract of carriage has terminated, petitioner can still
be held liable for the negligence of its driver for quasi delict under Art. 2180 of
the civil code.
5. Even though the complaint was for a breach of contract, the allegation of quasi-
delict was sufficiently pleaded in the complaint which stated that the death of
Raquel Beltran was caused by the negligence on the part of the defendants.