LRT vs.

Navidad
FACTS:
On 14 October 1993, about half an hour past seven o’clock in the evening, Nicanor
Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a “token”.

While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the
security guard assigned to the area approached Navidad. A misunderstanding or an
altercation between the two apparently ensued that led to a fist fight.

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, herein respondent Marjorie Navidad, along with her children,
filed a complaint for damages against Junelito Escartin (security guard), Rodolfo Roman
(train driver), the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and
Prudent (Security agency) for the death of her husband.

ISSUE:
Whether LRT is liable for breach of contract of carriage.

RULING:
YES. Law and jurisprudence dictate 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 foundation of LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to
indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to
exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier. In the discharge of its
commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its own
employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to
undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its
responsibilities under the contract of carriage.
 LA MALLORCA VS. CA
FACTS:
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, together with their minor daughters boarded the
Pambusco Bus No. 352, bearing plate TPU No. 757 (1953 Pampanga), owned and
operated by the defendant, at San Fernando, Pampanga, bound for Anao, Mexico,
Pampanga.

No fare was charged on Raquel and Fe, since both were below the height at which fare
is charged in accordance with the appellant's rules and regulations.

With respect to the group of the plaintiffs, Mariano Beltran, then carrying some of their
baggages, was the first to get down the bus, followed by his wife and his children.
Mariano led his companions to a shaded spot on the left pedestrians side of the road
about four or five meters away from the vehicle.

He returned to the bus in controversy to get his other bayong, which he had left behind,
but in so doing, his daughter Raquel followed him unnoticed by her father.

While said Mariano Beltran was on the running board of the bus waiting for the
conductor to hand him his bayong which he left under one of 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 has not given
the driver the customary signal to start, since said conductor was still attending to the
baggage left behind by Mariano Beltran.

At that precise 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 with her parents.

La Mallorca claimed that there could not be a breach of contract in the case, for the
reason that when the child met her death, she was no longer a passenger of the bus
involved in the incident and, therefore, the contract of carriage had already terminated.

ISSUE: WON La Mallorca is liable.

RULING:
YES. 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 unloaded, the relation of passenger
and carrier between him and the petitioner remained subsisting. For, 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 has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease
at the moment the 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.

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.
 JAPAN AIRLINES VS. CA
FACTS:
 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES VS. CA
FACTS:
On 25 November 1976, private respondent filed a complaint for damages for breach of
contract of carriage against Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL). The routing of this flight was
Cebu-Ozamiz-Cotabato. While on flight and just about fifteen (15) minutes before
landing at Ozamiz City, the pilot received a radio message that the airport was closed
due to heavy rains and inclement weather and that he should proceed to Cotabato City
instead.

The PAL Station Agent informed the passengers of their options to return to Cebu on
Flight 560 of the same day and thence to Ozamiz City on 4 August 1975, or take the next
flight to Cebu the following day, or remain at Cotabato and take the next available
flight to Ozamiz City on 5 August 1975.

Private respondent was left at the airport and could not even hitch a ride in the Ford
Fiera loaded with PAL personnel. PAL neither provided private respondent with
transportation from the airport to the city proper nor food and accommodation or his
stay in Cotabato City.

The following day, private respondent purchased a PAL ticket to Iligan City. He
informed PAL personnel that he would not use the free ticket because he as filing a case
against PAL. His personal effects including the camera, which were valued at P2,000.00,
were no longer recovered.

ISSUE: WON PAL is liable.

RULING:
YES. Undisputably, PAL'S diversion of its flight due to inclement weather was a
fortuitous event. Nonetheless, such occurrence did not terminate PAL's contract with its
passengers.

PAL necessarily would still have to exercise extraordinary diligence in safeguarding the
comfort, convenience and safety of its stranded passengers until they have reached their
final destination.
 GACAL VS. PAL
FACTS:
Plaintiffs Franklin G. Gacal and his wife, Corazon M. Gacal, Bonifacio S. Anislag and his
wife, Mansueta L. Anislag, and the late Elma de Guzman, were then passengers
boarding defendant's BAC 1-11 at Davao Airport for a flight to Manila, not knowing
that on the same flight, Macalinog, Taurac Pendatum known as Commander Zapata,
Nasser Omar, Liling Pusuan Radia, Dimantong Dimarosing and Mike Randa, all of
Marawi City and members of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), were their
co-passengers, three (3) armed with grenades, two (2) with .45 caliber pistols, and one
with a .22 caliber pistol.

Ten (10) minutes after take-off at about 2:30 in the afternoon, the hijackers brandishing
their respective firearms announced the hijacking of the aircraft and directed its pilot to
fly to Libya. They relented and directed the aircraft to land at Zamboanga Airport,
Zamboanga City for refueling.

When the plane began to taxi at the runway, it was met by two armored cars of the
military with machine guns pointed at the plane, and it stopped there.

After that, relatives of the hijackers were allowed to board the plane but immediately
after they alighted therefrom, an armored car bumped the stairs. That commenced the
battle between the military and the hijackers which led ultimately to the liberation of
the surviving crew and the passengers, with the final score of ten (10) passengers and
three (3) hijackers dead on the spot and three (3) hijackers captured.

Mrs. Corazon M. Gacal suffered injuries in the course of her jumping out of the plane
when it was peppered with bullets by the army and after two (2) hand grenades
exploded inside the plane. Mrs. Anislag suffered a fracture at the radial bone of her left
elbow for which she was hospitalized and operated on.

Petitioners alleged that the main cause of the unfortunate incident is the gross, wanton
and inexcusable negligence of respondent Airline personnel in their failure to frisk the
passengers adequately in order to discover hidden weapons in the bodies of the six (6)
hijackers.

Respondent Airline averred that in the performance of its obligation to safely transport
passengers as far as human care and foresight can provide, it has exercised the utmost
diligence of a very cautious person with due regard to all circumstances, but the
security checks and measures and surveillance precautions in all flights, including the
inspection of baggages and cargo and frisking of passengers at the Davao Airport were
performed and rendered solely by military personnel who under appropriate authority
had assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the same in all airports in the Philippines.

ISSUE:
Whether or not hijacking or air piracy during martial law and under the circumstances
obtaining herein, is a caso fortuito or force majeure.

RULING:
YES. PAL might have foreseen the skyjacking incident which could have been avoided
had there been a more thorough frisking of passengers and inspection of baggages as
authorized by R.A. No. 6235. But the incident in question occurred during Martial Law
where there was a military take-over of airport security including the frisking of
passengers and the inspection of their luggage preparatory to boarding domestic and
international flights.

Otherwise stated, these event rendered it impossible for PAL to perform its obligations
in a normal manner and obviously it cannot be faulted with negligence in the
performance of duty taken over by the Armed Forces of the Philippines to the exclusion
of the former.
 FORTUNE EXPRESS VS. CA
FACTS:
A bus of petitioner figured in an accident with a jeepney in Kauswagan, Lanao del
Norte, resulting in the death of several passengers of the jeepney, including two
Maranaos.

Certain Maranaos were planning to take revenge on the petitioner by burning some of
its buses.

Bravo, operations manager of petitioner, at its main office in Cagayan de Oro City.
Bravo assured him that the necessary precautions to ensure the safety of lives and
property would be taken.

After 4 days, three armed Maranaos who pretended to be passengers, seized a bus of
petitioner at Linamon, Lanao del Norte while on its way to Iligan City. Among the
passengers of the bus was Atty. Caorong. The leader of the Maranaos, identified as one
Bashier Mananggolo, ordered the driver, Godofredo Cabatuan, to stop the bus on the
sideway.

Mananggolo then shot Cabatuan on the arm, which caused him to slump on the
steering wheel. Then one of the companions of Mananggolo started pouring gasoline
inside the bus, as the other held the passengers at bay with a handgun. Mananggolo
then ordered the passengers to get off the bus. The passengers, including Atty.
Caorong, stepped out of the bus and went behind the bushes in a field some distance
from the highway.

Atty. Caorong returned to the bus to retrieve something from the overhead rack. At that
time, one of the armed men was pouring gasoline on the head of the driver. Cabatuan,
who had meantime regained consciousness, heard Atty. Caorong pleading with the
armed men to spare the driver as he was innocent of any wrongdoing and was only
trying to make a living.

During this exchange between Atty. Caorong and the assailants, Cabatuan climbed out
of the left window of the bus and crawled to the canal on the opposite side of the
highway. He heard shots from inside the bus.

Some of the passengers were able to pull Atty. Caorong out of the burning bus and rush
him to the Mercy Community Hospital in Iligan City, but he died while undergoing
operation.

ISSUE: WON Petitioner is liable for the death of Atty. Caorong.

RULING:
YES. Despite warning by the Philippine Constabulary at Cagayan de Oro that the
Maranaos were planning to take revenge on the petitioner by burning some of its buses
and the assurance of petitioner's operation manager, Diosdado Bravo, that the necessary
precautions would be taken, petitioner did nothing to protect the safety of its
passengers.

Had petitioner and its employees been vigilant they would not have failed to see that
the
malefactors had a large quantity of gasoline with them. Under the circumstances,
simple
precautionary measures to protect the safety of passengers, such as frisking passengers
and inspecting their baggages, preferably with non-intrusive gadgets such as metal
detectors, before allowing them on board could have been employed without violating
the passenger's constitutional rights.

As to the contributory negligence:

The armed men actually allowed Atty. Caorong to retrieve something from the bus.
What apparently angered them was his attempt to help the driver of the bus by
pleading for his life. He was playing the role of the good Samaritan. Certainly, this act
cannot be considered an act of negligence, let alone recklessness.