LRTA v.
NATIVIDAD A common carrier is required by these above statutory provisions to use utmost diligence
G.R. No. 145804/ February 6, 2003 / Perfection of Contract/
NATURE Appeal
PETITIONERS Light Rail Transit Authority & Rodolfo Roman
RESPONDENTS Marjorie Navidad, Heirs of the late Nicanor Navidad & Prudent Security
Agency
SUMMARY. Natividad was drunk when he entered the LRT platform and got into a fist
fight with a security guard. He fell into the rails and got ran over the train which caused
his death. LRTA argues that Natividad is not yet inside the Cart when the incident
happened thus no Contract of Carriage arises. Court held that LRTA is liable for
Natividad’s death since the contended that a contract of carriage was deemed created
from the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the premises of
the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation.
DOCTRINE. In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or
been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved 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. In the
absence of satisfactory explanation by the carrier on how the accident occurred, which
petitioners, according to the appellate court, have failed to show, the presumption would be
that it has been at fault, an exception from the general rule that negligence must be proved.
FACTS.
 Navidad was drunk when he entered the boarding platform of the LRT. He got into an
altercation with the SG Escartin. They had a fistfight and Navidad fell onto the tracks and
was killed when a train came and ran over him.
 The Heirs of Navidad filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, the train driver,
(Roman) the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization and Prudent Security Agency
(Prudent). The trial court found Prudent and Escartin jointly and severally liable for
damages to the heirs. The CA exonerated Prudent and instead held the LRTA and the
train driver Romero jointly and severally liable as well as removing the award for
compensatory damages and replacing it with nominal damages.
 The reasoning of the CA was that a contract of carriage already existed between Navidad
and LRTA (by virtue of his having purchased train tickets and the liability was caused by
the mere fact of Navidad's death after being hit by the train being managed by the LRTA
and operated by Roman. The CA also blamed LRTA for not having presented expert
evidence showing that the emergency brakes could not have stopped the train on time.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON LRTA and/or Roman is liable for the death of Natividad. – YES for LRTA; NO for
Roman.
The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to
indemnify the victim arising from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to
exercise the high diligence required of a common carrier. HOWEVER, the contractual
tie between the LRT and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation between the latter and
Roman; thus, Roman can be made liable only for his own fault or negligence which is
not present in this case.
in carrying passengers with due regard for all circumstances. This obligation exists not only
during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises where
they ought to be in pursuance to then contract of carriage.
Art. 1763 renders a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through
the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or (b) on account of willful acts or negligence
of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through theexercise
of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In case of such death
or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof
of injury, the passenger is relieved 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.
2. WON Security Guard Escartin and/or Prudent are liable– NO.
Fault was not established. Liability will be based on Tort under Art. 2176 of the New
Civil Code. The premise for the employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the
employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then 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. The liability is primary and can
only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee,
a factual matter that has not been shown. Absent such a showing, one might ask further,
how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent
contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary.
However, there is nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason
that the negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly proven.
3. WON nominal damages may coexist with compensatory damages– NO.
It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory
damages. The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable.
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
DECISION.
CA affirmed with modification, nominal damages is deleted and Rodolfo Roman is absolved
from liability.