SY VS.

MALATE TAXICAB

FACTS:

On June 26, 1952, at Dewey Boulevard in front of the Selecta Restaurant, Olegario Brito
Sy engaged a taxicab bearing plate No. Taxi-1130, owned and operated by Malate Taxicab and
Garage, Inc. and driven by Catalino Ermino, to take him to his place of business at Dencia's
Restaurant on the Escolta where he was the general manager. Upon reaching the Rizal
Monument he told the driver to turn to the right, but the latter did not heed him and instead
countered that they better pass along Katigbak Drive. At the intersection of Dewey Bolevard and
Katigbak Drive, the taxi collided with an army wagon with plate No. TPI-695 driven by Sgt.
Jesus De quito, as a result of which Olegario Brito Sy was jarred, jammed and jolted. He was
taken to the Santa Isabel Hospital suffering from bruises and contusions as well as fractured right
leg. Thereafter he was transferred to the Gonzales Orthopedic Clinic and was accordingly
operated on. He spent some P2,266.45 for medical bills and hospitalization.

RULING:

ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reason of public policy,
are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of
the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734,
1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the
passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.

ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers to safety as far as human care
and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard
for all the circumstances.

ART. 1756. In case of death of 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 and 1755. (Emphasis supplied.)

Evidently, under these provisions of law, the court need not make an express finding of fault or
negligence on the part of the defendant appellant in order to hold it responsible to pay the
damages sought for by the plaintiff, for the action initiated therefor is based on a contract of
carriage and not on tort. When plaintiff rode on defendant-appellant's taxicab, the latter assumed
the express obligation to transport him to his destination safely, and to observe extraordinary
diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by the
passenger is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier (Article 1756, supra).
This is an exception to the general rule that negligence must be proved, and it was therefore
incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in
Articles 1733 and 1755 of the new Civil Code. It is noteworthy, however, that at the hearing in
the lower court defendant-appellant failed to appear and has not presented any evidence at all to
overcome and overwhelm the presumption of negligence imposed upon it by law; hence, there
was no need for the lower court to make an express finding thereon in view of the provisions of
the aforequoted Article 1756 of the new Civil Code.