ISAAC v. A.L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

WON Ammen observed extraordinary diligence in avoiding the collision which resulted
GR # L-9671 / 23 AUG 1957 / BAUTISTA ANGELO, J. / COMMON CARRIER - LEGAL EFFECT /
JMMoreno
NATURE: Action for damages appealing the decision of the lower court’s dismissal of
petitioner’s complaint
PETITIONERS: Cesar L. Isaac (Isaac)
RESPONDENTS: A.L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. (Ammend)
SUMMARY. Isaac boarded Bus No. 31 owned by Ammen, a common carrier that operates in
Bicol. During the trip from Albay to Camarines Sur, the bust collided with a pick-up which
led to Isaac’s left arm being completely severed. Isaac was treated for a total of 5 months but
brought an action for damages alleging negligence on the part of the bus driver and alleging
culpa contractual on the part of Ammen. The SC ruled that Ammen observed extraordinary
diligence as proven by evidence and the circumstances to avoid the collision. Evidently, the
SC found that Isaac did everything that a prudent man would have done under similar
circumstances and thus dismissed the action of Isaac against Ammen..
DOCTRINE. The following are the principles governing the liability of a common carrier: (1)
the liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. There is a
breach if it f ails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all the circumstances of each
case; (2) a carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a very cautious
person, having due regard for all circumstances; (3) a carrier is presumed to be at fault or to
have acted negligently in case of death of, or injury to, passengers, it being its duty to prove
that it exercised extraordinary diligence; and (4) the carrier is not an insurer against all risks of
travel.
in the injury of Isaac. – YES.
Considering all the circumstances, the SC ruled that the driver of the bus has done
what a prudent man could have done to avoid the collision and such relieves Ammen
from liability. When a carrier’s employee is confronted with a sudden emergency, the fact
that he is obliged to act quickly and without a chance fir deliberation must be taken into
account. Said employee is held to some degree of care that he would otherwise be required
to exercise in the absence of such emergency but he must exercise only such care as any
ordinary prudent person would exercise under like circumstances and conditions. And the
failure on his part to exercise the best judgment possible does not establish lack of care and
skill on his part and render the company liable.
Likewise, one who is placed in such a predicament cannot exercise such coolness or
accuracy of judgment as is required of him under ordinary circumstances and he cannot
therefore be expected to observe the same judgment, care, and precaution as in the latter.
For this reason, authorities abound where failure to observe the same degree of care that as
any ordinary prudent man would exercise under ordinary circumstances when confronted
with a sudden emergency was held to be warranted and a justification to exempt the carrier
from liability.
DECISION.
Lower court decision is affirmed with costs against Isaac.

FACTS.
 Ammen is a common carrier transporting passengers by land for compensation in Bicol.
 Isaac boarded Bus No. 31 of Ammen in Ligao, Albay bound for Pili, Camarines Sur which
collided with a pick-up which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result, Isaac’s
left arm was completely severed.
 Isaac was rushed to the hospital and was treated to save his life. After several treatment for
5 months, Isaac incurred expenses amounting to PHP623.40, excluding medical fees, which
were paid by Ammen.
 Isaac brought an action against Ammen for damages, alleging that the collision, which
resulted in the loss of his left arm, was mainly due to the gross incompetence and
recklessness of the driver of the bus, and that Ammen incurred in culpa contractual arising
for non-compliance with its obligation to transport him safely to his destination.
 Ammen set up, as special defense, that the injury was due entirely to the fault or negligence
of the driver of the pick-up car and to the contributory negligence of Isaac himself, and that
the accident was one which it could not foresee or, though foreseen, was inevitable.
 Lower Court: dismissed the complaint as it found that the collision occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the pick-up and that the driver of Bus No. 31 did everything he
could to avoid the same.

ISSUE & RATIO.