Yobido vs.
CA ○ Yobidos to pay tumboys P50k for Tito’s death P30k Moral Damages & P7k funeral & burial
G.R. No. 113003 | October 17, 1997 | Justice Romero
Petitioners: Alberta Yobido & Cresencio Yobido
Respondents: Court of Appeals, Leny Tumboy, Ardee Tumboy & Jasmin Tumboy,
Recit Ready Summary:
1988 The tumboy family rode a Yobido Liner bus bound for Davao at Surigao. The left front
tire of the bus exploded causing the bus to fall and hit a tree. The accident left Mr. Tumboy dead and other
passengers injured. Widowed Mrs. Tumboy and her kids sued for breach of contract of carriage against the
Yobido family as busowner and bus driver, alleging their failure to exercise required diligence of the carrier
in transporting passengers safely. The Yobidos allege that the accident was a fortuitous event hence they
aren’t liable. SC held that Accident caused either by defects in automobile or through the negligence of its
driver is not a caso fortuito that would exempt the carrier from liability for damages.Yubidos failed to
discharge its duty to overthrow the presumption of negligence with clear & convincing evidence, Yubidos
are hereby held liable for damages.
Facts:
● 4/26/88 spouses Tito & Leny Tumboy & their minor children boarded at Mangagoy, Surigao
del Sur, a Yobido Liner bus bound for Davao City.
○ Along Picop Rd. in Km. 17 Sta. Maria, Agusan del Sur, the bus’ left front tire exploded
● The bus fell into a ravine around 3 feet from the road & struck a tree.
○ Resulted in death of 28-year-old Tito Tumboy & physical injuries to passengers.
● 11/21/88, a complaint for breach of contract of carriage was filed by Leny & her children
against bus owner Alberta Yobido, & bus driver Cresencio Yobido.
○ defendants filed their answer & raised the affirmative defense of caso fortuito, & filed a
third-party complaint against Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc.
■ This third-party defendant filed an answer with compulsory counterclaim.
● RTC dismissed the third party complaint:
○ Upon a finding that the third party defendant was not liable under the insurance
■ No amicable settlement was arrived at by the parties, trial on the merits ensued.
● Tumboy family: asserted that violation of the contract of carriage between them & the defendants was
brought about by the driver's failure to exercise the diligence required of the carrier in
transporting passengers safely to their place of destination.
○ bus left Mangagoy at 3PM, & the winding road it traversed was not cemented & was wet due to
the rain; it was rough with crushed rocks.
■ The bus which was full of passengers had cargoes on top.
○ Leny cautioned the driver to slow down the fast bus but he merely stared at her
■ 3:30PM in Trento, she heard something explode & immediately, the bus fell.
● Yobido family: accident was due to a fortuitous event.
○ Bus Conductor Abundio Salce, testified only 32 passengers filed the 42-seater bus
■ bus was running at 60 to 50km/hr & was going slow because of the zigzag road.
○ left front tire that exploded was a "brand new tire" that he mounted on the bus on 5 days before
the incident.
■ Yobido Liner secretary, Minerva Fernando, bought the Goodyear tire from Davao Toyo
Parts on 4/20/88 & was present when it was mounted on the bus by Salce.
○ Minerva stated all driver applicants underwent actual driving tests before employed.
■ Driver Cresencio underwent such test & submitted his professional driver's license &
clearances from the barangay, the fiscal & the police.
● 8/29/91 RTC Davao dismissed: Tire blowout was "caso fortuito” completely extraordinary
circumstance independent of Yubidos’ will" who should be relieved of "whatever liability the
Tumboys may have suffered by reason of the explosion pursuant to Article 11744 Civil Code
○ Yobidos appealed to the Court of Appeals.
● 8/23/93 CA Reversed RTC: Explosion of the tire is not in itself a fortuitous event
expenses.
● Yubidos filed an MR which CA denied
○ Yubidos filed to the SC asserting the cause of death of Tito was caso fortuito.
ISSUE: Cause of death of Tito is NOT caso fortuito
● When passenger boards common carrier, he takes risks incidental to travel mode taken
○ carrier not an insurer of safety of its passengers & is not bound absolutely & at all events to carry
them safely & without injury.
■ However, when passenger is injured or dies while travelling, the law presumes that common
carrier is negligent:
● Art. 1756. In case of death 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 & 1755.
● Article 1755: (a) common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care &
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the
circumstances.”
● In culpa contractual, once a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently.
○ This disputable presumption may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier had observed
extraordinary diligence or that the death or injury of the passenger was due to a fortuitous event
■ Consequently, court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of
the carrier to hold it responsible for damages sought by the passenger.
○ Yubidos' contention they should be exempt from liability because tire blowout was no more than
a fortuitous event that could not have been foreseen, must fail.
● A fortuitous event is possessed of the following characteristics:
(a) cause of the unforeseen & unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtor to comply with his
obligations, must be independent of human will;
(b) must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be
foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid;
(c) occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner; &
(d) obliger must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
creditor.
● As Article 1174 provides, no person shall be responsible for a fortuitous event which could not be
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable.
○ there must be an entire exclusion of human agency from the cause of injury or loss.
● Explosion of the new tire may not be considered a fortuitous event.
○ There are human factors involved in the situation.
■ The fact that the tire was new did not imply that it was entirely free from manufacturing
defects or that it was properly mounted on the vehicle.
○ Neither may the fact that the tire bought & used in the vehicle is of a brand name noted for
quality, resulting in the conclusion that it could not explode within five days' use.
● Accident caused either by defects in automobile or through the negligence of its driver is not
a caso fortuito that would exempt the carrier from liability for damages.
○ Common carrier may not be absolved from liability in case of force majeure or fortuitous event
alone.
○ Common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the death or injury resulting
from an accident.
● Yubidos proved through bus conductor, bus was running at 60-50km/hr or w/in lawful speed
○ However, they failed to rebut the testimony of Leny that the bus was running so fast that
she cautioned the driver to slow down.
● Contradictory facts resolved in favor of liability in view of carrier’s presumption of negligence
 ○ Established condition of the road — rough, winding & wet due to the rain.
■ Incumbent upon defense to establish that it took precautionary measures considering
partially dangerous condition of the road.
● proof that the tire was new & of good quality is not sufficient proof that it was not negligent.
○ Yubidos should have shown that it undertook extraordinary diligence in the care of its carrier,
such as conducting daily routinary check-ups of the vehicle's parts.
● Justice J.B.L. Reyes: It may be impracticable, as appellee argues, to require of carriers to test the
strength of each & every part of its vehicles before each trip; but we are of the opinion that a due
regard for the carrier's obligations toward the traveling public demands adequate periodical tests to
determine the condition & strength of those vehicle portions the failure of which may endanger the
safety of the passengers.
● Having failed to discharge its duty to overthrow the presumption of negligence with clear &
convincing evidence, Yubidos are hereby held liable for damages.
○ Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 Civil Code prescribes at least P3K as damages for the
death of a passenger.
■ Under prevailing jurisprudence, t award of damages under Article 2206 has been increased
to P500K
● Moral damages generally not recoverable in culpa contractual except if bad faith is proven.
○ damages recoverable when breach of contract of carriage results in passenger death
● Exemplary damages, awarded by way of example or correction for the public good when moral
damages are awarded, may likewise be recovered in contractual obligations if the defendant acted in
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
○ Because Yubidos failed to exercise extraordinary diligence required of common carrier, which
resulted in the death of Tito Tumboy, it is deemed to have acted recklessly.
■ As such, Tumboys shall be entitled to exemplary damages.
Disposition: CA Affirmed + Exemplary Damages of P20K
 Gelisan vs. Alday
G.R. No. L-30212 | September 30, 1987 | Justice Padilla
Petitioners: Bienvenido Gelisan
Respondents: Benito Alday
Recit Ready Summary:
Roberto hired Bienvenido’s freight truck to haul fertilizers. Benito contracted with Atlas to haul
their fertilizers to the Atlas Mandaluyong Warehouse. Benito met Roberto, & Roberto offered his truck’s
use with the driver & helper at 9 centavos per bag. Roberto made 2 hauls of 200 Atlas fertilizer bags, but
they weren’t delivered to the warehouse as Roberto became missing. The truck was eventually found by
Benito who notified the Police, causing the truck to be impounded. Benito was compelled to pay Atlas for
the 400 fertilizers, hence he filed for damages against Bienvenido & Roberto. Bienvenido disowns
responsibility as he is not privy to Roberto and Benito’s contract. SC states that as registered owner of a
public service vehicle Bienvenido is responsible for damages that may arise from consequences incident to
its operation or that may be caused to any of passengers therein. SC held Bienvenido may seek
reimbursement from Roberto for any amounts he paid as damages suffered to Benito.
Facts:
● Bienvenido owns a freight truck bearing plate No. TH-2377.
● 1/31/62 Roberto Espiritu contracted to hire Bienvenido’s freight truck to haul rice, sugar, flour &
fertilizer at P18/trip within Manila City with a load limit of 200 sacks.
○ Roberto bears & pay losses & damages attending the carriage of goods hauled by him.
● 2/1/62 Truck was taken by Roberto’s driver
○ 15 truck owner Benito knew truck operator Roberto since 1948 as a truck operator.
● Benito contracted to haul Atlas Fertilizers from Pier 4 to its Mandaluyong Warehouse
○ Benito met Roberto at Pier 4 gate & Roberto offered his truck’s use with the driver & helper at
9 centavos/fertilizer bag
■ Offer was accepted by Benito & he instructed his checker Celso Henson to let Roberto haul
the fertilizer.
● Roberto made two hauls of 200 bags of fertilizer per trip.
○ Fertilizer was delivered to Roberto’s driver & helper with the necessary way bill receipts
■ Roberto, however, didn’t deliver the fertilizers to Atlas’ bodega at Mandaluyong
● Signatures appearing in the way bill receipts of the Benito Transportation admittedly not the
signature of any Atlas Fertilizer Corporation representative or employee
○ Roberto could not be found, & Benito reported the loss to the Manila Police Department.
Roberto was later arrested & booked for theft. ...
● Benito saw the truck on Sto. Cristo St. & notified the Manila Police, & it was impounded
○ Bienvenido claimed it from the Police after he had been notified by his employees that the
truck had been impounded by the police
■ but as he could not produce the registration papers, police would not release it.
○ As a result of the impounding he paid premium of P300 to the surety company.
● Benito was compelled to pay value of 400 fertilizer bags at P5,397.33, to Atlas Fertilizer
○ 2/12/62 Benito filed for the recovery of damages against Roberto & Bienvenido.
■ Roberto failed to file an answer & was, accordingly, declared in default.
● Bienvenido disowned responsibility: had no contractual relations with Benito as regards the
hauling and/or delivery of the 400 bags of fertilizer in the complaint
○ Roberto’s misappropriation or nondelivery of Benito's fertilizer, was beyond his control &
knowledge, which he only knewn when his freight truck was impounded.
■ in his written contract of hire with Roberto, it was expressly provided that Roberto will bear
& pay all loss & damages attending carriage of goods to be hauled by him
● CFI Manila: Roberto alone was liable to Benito Benito P6K , since Bienvenido wasn’t privy to the
contract between Roberto & Benito.
○ On appeal, CA: citing Montoya vs. Ignacio, found Bienvenido is likewise liable for being the
registered owner of the truck;
■ lease contract, executed between Bienvenido& Roberto not binding upon Benito for not
having been previously approved by Public Service Commission (PSC).
○ Bienvenido to pay, jointly & severally with Roberto, Benito P5,397.30, with legal interest
■ Roberto ordered to pay or refund Bienvenido whatever amount paid to Benito.
● Hence, the present recourse by Bienvenido Bienvenido.
ISSUE: Registered owner of public service vehicle is responsible for damages that may arise from
consequences incident to its operation or that may be caused to any of passengers therein.
● claim of the petitioner that he is not hable in view of the lease contract executed by & between him &
Roberto which exempts him from liability to third persons, can’t be sustained because it appears that
the lease contract, adverted to, had not been approved by PSC
○ If property covered by a franchise is transferred or leased to another without obtaining the
requisite approval, the transfer is not binding upon the public & third persons.
● law really requires the approval of Public Service Commission in order that a franchise, or any
privilege pertaining thereto, may be sold or leased without infringing the certificate issued to the
grantee.
○ Since a franchise is personal in nature any transfer or lease thereof should be notified to the
Public Service Commission so that the latter mav take proper safeguards to protect the interest of
the public.
● law requires that, before the approval is granted, there should be a public hearing, with notice to all
interested parties, in order that PSC may determine if there are good & reasonable grounds justifying
the transfer or lease of the property covered by the franchise, or if the sale or lease is detrimental to
public interest.
○ Such being the reason & philosophy behind this requirement, it follows that if property covered
by franchise is transferred, or leased to another without obtaining requisite approval, transfer is
not binding against PSC & in contemplation of law the grantee continues to be responsible
under the franchise in relation to PSC & to the Public.
● Bienvenido, the registered owner, is not however without recourse.
○ He has a right to be indemnified by Roberto for amount he’s required to pay as damages for
injury to Benito, since lease contract, although not effective against public for not having been
approved by PSC, is valid & binding between contracting parties.
● Registered owner/operator of a public service vehicle to be jointly & severally liable with the
driver for damages incurred by passengers or third persons as a consequence of injuries
sustained in the operation of said vehicles.
Disposition: Denied.