TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz,
Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
VDA. DE NUECA v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.
Facts:
- At 3 p.m. on Dec. 22, 1958, Fermin Nueca brought 7 sacks of
palay to Manila Railroad Co. (MRC) at its station in Barrio
del Rosario, Camarines Sur, to be shipped to the
municipality of Libmanan of the same province.
- He paid P 0.70 as freight charge and was issued Way Bill No.
56515.
- The cargo was loaded on the freight wagon of Train 537.
Passengers boarded the train and shunting operations
started to hook a wagon thereto.
- Before the train reached the turnoff switch, its passenger
coach fell on its side some 40 m from the station. The
wagon pinned Nueca, killing him instantly.
- Nueca’s widow and children bring this claim for damages,
alleging that the Nueca was a passenger and his death was
caused by MRC’s negligence.
- MRC disclaimed liability stating: (1) it exercised due care in
safeguarding the passengers during the shunting operation,
(2) Nueca was not a passenger but a trespasser, (3) even if
Nueca were a passenger, he illegally boarded the train
without permission by not paying the fare, (4) the mishap
was not attributable to any defect in MRC equipment, (5)
that the accident happened due to force majeur.
- MRC presented evidence showing there was no mechanical
defect, but it did not explain why the accident occurred or
show that force majeur caused the mishap.
- The lower court absolved MRC of liability and held that
Nueca was a trespasser since he did not buy any ticket, and
in any case, was not in a proper place for passengers.
Issue:
1. W/N Nueca was a passenger?
2. W/N MRC is liable?
3. Was the accident due to MRC’s negligence or force majeur?
4. Is Nueca liable for contributory negligence?
Held:
1. No, Nueca was not a passenger thus, MRC did not owe him
extraordinary diligence.
A passenger is one who travels in a public conveyance by virtue of
a contract, express or implied, with the carrier as to the payment
of the fare, or that which is accepted as an equivalent.
The relation of passenger and carrier commences when one puts
himself in the care of the carrier, or directly under its control, with
the bona fide intention of becoming a passenger, and is accepted as
such by the carrier – as where he makes a contract for
trasportation and presents himself at the proper place and in a
proper manner to be transported.
Even disregarding the matter of tickets, and assuming Nueca
intended to be a passenger, he was never accepted as such by MRC
as he did not present himself at the proper place and in a proper
manner to be transported.
2. Yes, the liability of railroad companies to persons upon the
premises is determined by the general rules of negligence
relating to duties of owners/occupiers of property.
1
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²

While railroad companies are not bound to the same degree of care
in regard to strangers who are unlawfully upon the premises of its
passengers, it may still be liable to such strangers for negligent or
tortious acts.

Here, Nueca was not on the track, but either unlawfully inside the
baggage car or beside the track.

It is normal for people to walk on the track or roadbed when there

is no oncoming train and to walk beside the track when a train
passes. This practice is tolerated by MRC. Generally, MRC’s stations
are not enclosed, and is easily accessible to the public.

3. MRC is negligent; doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied.

The train was under the complete control of the railroad company
at the time of the accident. The baggage car would not have been
derailed if the train had been properly operated.

Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence peculiar to the law of

negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be
established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for
specific proof of negligence.

4. No.

An invitation to stay in the premises is implied from the lack of

prohibition to outsiders to keep off the premises, hence, a stranger
who is injured by a derailed train while staying beside a railroad
track is not guilty of contributory negligence.

Note: Our law on common carriers is lifted from Anglo-American

statutes.