Jose Pilapil v.

Court of Appeals and Alatco Transportation Company

G.R. No. 52159 - December 22, 1989

Justice Padilla

FACTS:

On September 16, 1971 at about 6:00 PM, petitioner Jose Pilapil boarded the
bus of respondent Alatco Transportation Company bearing a bus No. 409 at San
Nicholas, Iriga City. Upon reaching the area of Municipality of Baao, the petitioner was
hit above his eye by a stone hurled by an unidentified bystander. The respondent’s
personnel lost no time in bringing him to a provincial hospital in Naga City where he was
confined and treated. However, petitioner Pilapil was again taken to a doctor in Iriga City
where he was treated for another week, but there was still no improvement to his left
eye’s vision, therefore he went to another hospital in Quezon City where he was treated
by Dr. Capulong. Unfortunately, despite the treatment of the latter doctor, the petitioner
partially lost his left eye’s vision and sustained a permanent scar above his left eye.

Thus, petitioner filed a case at Camarines Sur's Court of First Instance for the
recovery of damages experienced as a result of the stone-throwing incident, which the
latter granted. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not common carriers assume risks to passengers such as the stoning
in this case to be held liable to the injury sustained.

RULING:

There is no evidence that such an incident occurred, imposing an obligation on

the bus company's workers to notify passengers and take the appropriate precautions.
In this case, the hurling of a stone is a fortuitous event. And in recognition of the
privilege granted upon it by the public to transport passengers and products, a common
carrier does NOT undertake to accept responsibility as an insurer for all possible
hazards associated with passengers and goods. Furthermore, the law compels common
carriers to exercise extraordinary care in transporting their passengers and generates a
presumption of negligence against them, it does not make the carrier an insurer of the
absolute safety of its passengers. In accordance with Civil Law Article 1755, the duty of
unusual care, consciousness, and precautions in the carriage of passengers by
common carriers is limited to what human care and foresight may give.This case may
also be in line with Art. 1763, which states that a common carrier is liable for injuries
suffered by a passenger as a result of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers
or strangers, if the majority of the carrier's employees could have prevented or stopped
the act or omission with the diligence of a good father of a family. In this case the injury
or tort was committed by a stranger therefore, the passenger does not accord the latter
a cause of action against the carrier.