TAMAYO v.

PASCUA (1965) enough that it slows to a negligible speed,

Petitioner: Benito Tamayo
Respondent: Juan Pascua and Royal Bus
Co., Inc.
DOCTRINE: see ratio FACTS:
1. This is an action for damages
filed by Tamayo against Royal Bus, Inc., and
Pascua, the driver of the bus.
2. A Royal bus was moving slowly
as it approached an island where several
persons are waiting for transportation, one of
whom was Tamayo.
3. In view of the slow pace of the
bus, which was a sign that it will pick up
passengers from the island, Tamayo, with a
jacket on his left arm, boarded the bus.
According to the patrolman’s testimony, he
held the handle at the entrance, placed his two
feet on the first step of the running board, and
then suddenly the bus increased speed and
caused Tamayo to lose his balance and to fall
on the ground.
allowing people to board it without danger to
their lives and limbs.
• Under such circumstances, it is
the driver’s duty to see to it that every person
who wants to board the bus is safe inside
before picking up speed and moving forward.
• If the accident was caused by the
carelessness of the driver by accelerating his
speed without making sure that he was safely
inside the bus, the driver was negligent and the
defendant company is liable as a common
carrier under Art.1759 of the Civil Code.
• This liability does not cease upon
proof that Royal Bus, as employer, exercised
all the diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection and supervision of its employees.
This defense is available only in quasi-delict.

4. The trial court dismissed the

complaint on the ground that there was no
contract of carriage between Tamayo and
Royal Bus.

a. There was no offer and

acceptance. Since plaintiff boarded the bus
without signalling to the driver, the lower court
held that there was no failure on the part of the
driver to exercise diligence to insure the safety
of Tamayo.

ISSUE: WON there was a contract of

carriage between Royal Bus and Tamayo

HELD: YES, there was a contract of

carriage.

• The patrolman’s testimony shows

that there was a contract of carriage because
of the concurrence of offer on the part of
Tamayo and acceptance on the part of Royal
Bus to take him as a passenger when the bus
slowed down, apparently in the act of allowing
and enabling Tamayo to board it.

• Although the bus did not make a

complete stop, the fact that it slowed down to a
turtle pace was an indication that people on the
island could board it as a public carrier. It is
 Vda. De Nueca vs Manila Railroad
Company
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 the general rules of negligence relating to
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
duties of owners/occupiers of property. 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
DANGWA TRANSPORTATION VS. COURT foresight can provide, using the utmost
OF APPEALS diligence very cautious persons, with a due
regard for all the circumstances.
FACTS: Private respondents filed a complaint
for damages against petitioners for the death of It has also been repeatedly held that in an
Pedrito Cudiamat as a result of a vehicular action based on a contract of carriage, the
accident which occurred on March 25, 1985 at court need not make an express finding of fault
Marivic, Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet. Petitioner or negligence on the part of the carrier in order
Theodore M. Lardizabal was driving a to hold it responsible to pay the damages
passenger bus belonging to petitioner sought by the passenger. By contract of
corporation in a reckless and imprudent carriage, the carrier assumes the express
manner and without due regard to traffic rules obligation to transport the passenger to his
and regulations and safety to persons and destination safely and observe extraordinary
property, it ran over its passenger, Pedrito diligence with a due regard for all the
Cudiamat. Petitioners alleged that they had circumstances, and any injury that might be
observed and continued to observe the suffered by the passenger is right away
extraordinary diligence and that it was the attributable to the fault or negligence of the
victim’s own carelessness and negligence carrier. This is an exception to the general rule
which gave rise to the subject incident. that negligence must be proved, and it is
therefore incumbent upon the carrier to prove
RTC pronounced that Pedrito Cudiamat was that it has exercised extraordinary diligence as
negligent, which negligence was the proximate prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the
cause of his death. However, Court of Appeals Civil Code.
set aside the decision of the lower court, and
ordered petitioners to pay private respondents
damages due to negligence.
ISSUE:
WON the CA erred in reversing the decision of
the trial court and in finding petitioners
negligent and liable for the damages claimed.
HELD: CA Decision AFFIRMED
The testimonies of the witnesses show that that
the bus was at full stop when the victim
boarded the same. They further confirm the
conclusion that the victim fell from the platform
of the bus when it suddenly accelerated
forward and was run over by the rear right tires
of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, it
cannot be said that the deceased was guilty of
negligence.
It is not negligence per se, or as a matter of
law, for one attempt to board a train or
streetcar which is moving slowly. An ordinarily
prudent person would have made the attempt
board the moving conveyance under the same
or similar circumstances. The fact that
passengers board and alight from slowly
moving vehicle is a matter of common
experience both the driver and conductor in
this case could not have been unaware of such
an ordinary practice.
Common carriers, from the nature of their
business and reasons of public policy, are
bound to observe extraordinary diligence for
the safety of the passengers transported by the
according to all the circumstances of each
case. A common carrier is bound to carry the
passengers safely as far as human care and
 carry passengers safely using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons with due
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & regard for all circumstances. Such duty of a
RODOLFO ROMAN, versus MARJORIE common carrier to provide safety to its
NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR passengers so obligates it not only during the
NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY course of the trip but for so long as the
passengers are within its premises and where
FACTS:
they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of
Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the carriage. In case of death or injury, a carrier is
EDSA LRT station after purchasing a “token” presumed to have been at fault or been
(representing payment of the fare). While negligent and by simple proof of injury, the
Navidad was standing on the platform near the passenger is relieved of the duty to still
LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security establish the fault or negligence of the carrier
guard assigned to the area approached him. A to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen
misunderstanding or an altercation between event or to force majeure.
the two apparently ensued that led to a fist
fight. No evidence, however, was adduced to
indicate how the fight started or who, between
the two, delivered the first blow or how Navidad
later fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact
moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train,
operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was
coming in. Navidad was struck by the moving
train, and he was killed instantaneously. The
widow of Nicanor, Marjorie Navidad, along with
her children, filed a complaint for damages
against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the
LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc.
(Metro Transit), and Prudent for the death of
her husband. Trial court ruled in favor
Navidad’s wife and against the defendants
Prudent Security and Junelito Escartin . LRTA
and Rodolfo Roman were dismissed for lack of
merit. CA held LRTA and Roman liable, hence
the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a perfected contract
of carriage between Navidad and LRTA
HELD:
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but only in
that (a) the award of nominal damages is
DELETED and (b) petitioner Rodolfo Roman is
absolved from liability
Contract of carriage was deemed created from
the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT
station and entered the premises of the latter,
entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection
under a contractual relation. The appellate
court had correctly held LRTA and Roman
liable for the death of Navidad in failing to
exercise.
In affirming the LRTA’s liability and exonerating
Roman, the Supreme Court ruled that a
common carrier, both from the nature of its
business and for reasons of public policy, is
burdened with the duty of exercising utmost
diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers.
The Civil Code requires common carriers to

La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. L-20761, 27 July 1966, 17 SCRA
739)  Issue: Whether or not the child was no longer
Facts: Plaintiffs, husband and wife, together
with their three minor daughters (Milagros, 13
years old, Raquel, about 4 years old and Fe, 2
years old) boarded the Pambusco at San
Fernando Pampanga, bound for Anao, Mexico,
Pampanga. Such bus is owned and operated
by the defendant.  unloaded, the relation of passenger and carrier
They were carrying with them four pieces of
baggage containing their personal belonging.
The conductor of the b us issued three tickets
covering the full fares of the plaintiff and their
eldest child Milagros. No fare was charged on
Raquel and Fe, since both were below the
height which fare is charged in accordance with
plaintiff’s rules and regulations.  passenger does not cease the moment the
After about an hour’s trip, the bus reached
Anao where it stopped to allow the passengers
bound therefore, among whom were the
plaintiffs and their children to get off. Mariano
Beltran, carrying some of their baggage was
the first to get down the bus, followed by his
wife and children. Mariano led his companion
to a shaded spot on the left pedestrian side of
the road about four or five meters away from
the vehicle. Afterwards, he returned to the bus
in controversy to get his paying, which he had
left behind, but in so doing, his daughter
followed him unnoticed by his father. While
said Mariano Beltran was on he running board
of the bus waiting for the conductor to hand
him his bayong which he left under one its
seats near the door, the bus, whose motor was
not shut off while unloading suddenly started
moving forward, evidently to resume its trip,
notwithstanding the fact that the conductor was
still attending to the baggage left behind by
Mariano Beltran. Incidentally, when the bus
was again placed in a complete stop, it had
traveled about 10 meters from point where
plaintiffs had gotten off.  conductor gave him the signal to go and while
Sensing the bus was again in motion; Mariano
immediately jumped form the running board
without getting his bayong from conductor. He
landed on the side of the road almost board in
front of the shaded place where he left his wife
and his children. At that time, he saw people
beginning to gather around the body of a child
lying prostrate on the ground, her skull
crushed, and without life. The child was none
other than his daughter Raquel, who was run
over by the bus in which she rode earlier
together her parent. 
For the death of the said child, plaintiffs
comment the suit against the defendant to
recover from the latter damages. 
the passenger of the bus involved in the
incident, and therefore, the contract of carriage
was already terminated?
Held: There can be no controversy that as far
as the father is concerned, when he returned to
the bus for his bayong which was not
between him and the petitioner remained
subsisting. The relation of carrier and
passenger does not necessarily cease where
the latter, after alighting from the car aids the
carrier’s servant or employee in removing his
baggage from the car. 
It is a rule that the relation of carrier and
passenger alights from the carrier’s vehicle at a
place selected by the carrier at the point of
destination but continues until the passenger
has had a reasonable time or a reasonable
opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises. 
The father returned to the bus to get one of his
baggages which was not unloaded when they
alighted from the bus. Raquel must have
followed her father. However, although the
father was still on the running board of the bus
awaiting for the conductor to hand him the bag
or bayong, the bus started to run, so that even
he had jumped down from the moving vehicle.
It was that this instance that the child, who
must be near the bus, was run over and killed.
In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that
the carrier’s agent had exercised the “utmost
diligence” of a “very cautious person” required
by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be
observed by a common carrier in the discharge
of its obligation to transport safely its
passengers. The driver, although stopping the
bus, nevertheless did not put off the engine. He
started to run the bus even before the
the latter was still unloading part of the
baggage of the passengers Beltran and family.
The presence of the said passengers near the
bus was not unreasonable and they are,
therefore, to be considered still as passengers
of the carrier, entitled to the protection under
their contract of carriage.
 remains in the carrier’s premises to claim his
baggage. 

Aboitiz Shipping Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
(179 SCRA 95)  made
Facts: On May 11, 1975, Anacleto Viana
boarded M/|V Antonio from Occidental Mindoro
bound for Manila. Upon arrival on May 12,
1975, the passengers therein disembarked
through a gangplank connecting the vessel to
the pier. Viana, instead of disembarking
through the gangplank, disembarked through
the third deck, which was at the same level
with the pier. An hour after the passengers
disembarked, Pioneer stevedoring started to
operate in unloading the cargo from the ship.
Viana then went back, remembering some of
his cargoes left at the vessel. At that time,
while he was pointing at the crew of the vessel
to where his cargoes were loaded, the crane hit
him, pinning him between the crane and the
side of the vessel. He was brought to the
hospital where he died 3 days after (May 15).
The parents of Anacleto filed a complaint
against Aboitiz for breach of contract of
carriage. 
The reasonableness of the time should be
to depend on the attending
circumstances of the case, such as the kind of
common carrier, the nature of its business, the
customs of the place, and so forth, and
therefore precludes a consideration of the time
element per se without taking into account
such other factors. 
Where a passenger dies or is injured, the
common carrier is presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently. This gives
rise to an action for breach of contract where
all that is required of plaintiff is to prove the
existence of the contract of carriage and its
non-performance by the carrier, that is, the
failure of the carrier to carry the passenger
safely to his destination, which, in the instant
case, necessarily includes its failure to
safeguard its passenger with extraordinary
diligence while such relation subsists.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

Then both Aboitiz and Pioneer filed a motion
for reconsideration, upon which the trial court
issued an order absolving Pioneer from liability
but not Aboitiz. On appeal, CA affirmed the trial
court ruling. Hence, this petition. 

Issue: Whether or not Viana is still considered

a passenger at the time of the incident? 

Held: Yes. The La Mallorca case is applicable

in the case at bar. 

The rule is that the relation of carrier and

passenger continues until the passenger has
been landed at the port of destination and has
left the vessel owner’s dock or premises. Once
created, the relationship will not ordinarily
terminate until the passenger has, after
reaching his destination, safely alighted from
the carrier’s conveyance or had a reasonable
opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises. All
persons who remain on the premises a
reasonable time after leaving the conveyance
are to be deemed passengers, and what is a
reasonable time or a reasonable delay within
this rule is to be determined from all the
circumstances, and includes a reasonable time
to see after his baggage and prepare for his
departure. The carrier-passenger relationship
is not terminated merely by the fact that the
person transported has been carried to his
destination if, for example, such person