Civil Law Common Carrier Private School Transport are Common

Carriers
Torts and Damages Heirs of a high school student may be awarded
damages for loss income
In June 1996, Nicolas and Teresita Zarate contracted Teodoro and Nanette
Perea to transport their (Zarates) son, Aaron Zarate, to and from school.
The Pereas were owners of a van being used for private school transport.
At about 6:45am of August 22, 1996, the driver of the said private van,
Clemente Alfaro, while the children were on board including Aaron,
decided to take a short cut in order to avoid traffic. The usual short cut
was a railroad crossing of the Philippine National Railway (PNR).
Alfaro saw that the barandilla (the pole used to block vehicles crossing the
railway) was up which means it was okay to cross. He then tried to
overtake a bus. However, there was in fact an oncoming train but Alfaro
no longer saw the train as his view was already blocked by the bus he was
trying to overtake. The bus was able to cross unscathed but the vans rear
end was hit. During the collision, Aaron, was thrown off the van. His body
hit the railroad tracks and his head was severed. He was only 15 years
old.
It turns out that Alfaro was not able to hear the train honking from 50
meters away before the collision because the vans stereo was playing
loudly.
The Zarates sued PNR and the Pereas (Alfaro became at-large). Their
cause of action against PNR was based on quasi-delict. Their cause of
action against the Pereas was based on breach of contract of common
carriage.
In their defense, the Pereas invoked that as private carriers they were
not negligent in selecting Alfaro as their driver as they made sure that he
had a drivers license and that he was not involved in any accident prior
to his being hired. In short, they observed the diligence of a good father in
selecting their employee.
PNR also disclaimed liability as they insist that the railroad crossing they
placed there was not meant for railroad crossing (really, thats their
defense!).

The RTC ruled in favor of the Zarates. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
RTC. In the decision of the RTC and the CA, they awarded damages in
favor of the Zarates for the loss of earning capacity of their dead son.
The Pereas appealed. They argued that the award was improper as Aaron
was merely a high school student, hence, the award of such damages was
merely speculative. They cited the case of People vs Teehankee where the
Supreme Court did not award damages for the loss of earning capacity
despite the fact that the victim there was enrolled in a pilot school.
ISSUES: Whether or not the defense of due diligence of a good father by
the Pereas is untenable. Whether or not the award of damages for loss of
income is proper.
HELD: Yes, in both issues.
Defense of Due Diligence of a Good Father
This defense is not tenable in this case. The Pereas are common carriers.
They are not merely private carriers. (Prior to this case, the status of
private transport for school services or school buses is not well settled as
to whether or not they are private or common carriers but they were
generally regarded as private carriers). Private transport for schools are
common carriers. The Pereas, as the operators of a school bus service
were: (a) engaged in transporting passengers generally as a business, not
just as a casual occupation; (b) undertaking to carry passengers over
established roads by the method by which the business was conducted;
and (c) transporting students for a fee. Despite catering to a limited
clientle, the Pereas operated as a common carrier because they held
themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to the students
of a particular school living within or near where they operated the service
and for a fee.
Being a common carrier, what is required of the Pereas is not mere
diligence of a good father. What is specifically required from them by law
is extraordinary diligence a fact which they failed to prove in court.
Verily, their obligation as common carriers did not cease upon their
exercise of diligently choosing Alfaro as their employee.
(It is recommended that you read the full text, the Supreme Court made
an elaborate and extensive definition of common and private carriers as
well as their distinctions.)

Award of Damages for Aarons loss of earning capacity despite he being a

high school student at the time of his death
The award is proper. Aaron was enrolled in a reputable school (Don
Bosco). He was of normal health and was an able-bodied person. Further,
the basis of the computation of his earning capacity was not on what he
would have become. It was based on the current minimum wage. The
minimum wage was validly used because with his circumstances at the
time of his death, it is most certain that had he lived, he would at least be
a minimum wage earner by the time he starts working. This is not being
speculative at all.
The Teehankee case was different because in that case, the reason why no
damages were awarded for loss of earning capacity was that the
defendants there were already assuming that the victim would indeed
become a pilot hence, that made the assumption speculative. But in the
case of Aaron, there was no speculation as to what he might be but
whatever hell become, it is certain that he will at the least be earning
minimum wage.
PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES,
INC.,
Petitioner,

-versus-

FELIX PARAS AND INLAND TRAILWAYS,

INC., AND HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 161909

Present:
CORONA, C.J. Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
April 25, 2012