Batangas Transportation Company vs. Caguimbal, et al.G.R. No. L-22985| Concepcion, C.

J| January 24, 1968

Extraordinary Diligence

DOCTRINE: By the contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the expressobligation to transport the passenger to his
destination safely and to observeextraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances, and anyinjury that
might be suffered by the passenger is right away attributable tothe fault or negligence of the carrier.

FACTS: Pedro Caguimbal was a paying passenger of BTCO bus, going south onits regular route from Calamba, Laguna, to
Batangas, driven by Tomas Perez,its regular driver, at about 5:30 o'clock on the early morning. A passengerrequested the
conductor of BTCO to stop as he was going to alight, and whenhe heard the signal of the conductor, the driver
slowed down his busswerving it farther to the right in order to stop. At this juncture, a calesa,then driven by Makahiya
was at a distance of several meters facing the BTCObus coming from the opposite direction. At the same time the Bi8an
bus wasabout 100 meters away likewise going northward and following the directionof the calesa. Upon seeing the Bi8an
bus, the driver of the BTCO bus dimmedhis light. As the calesa and the BTCO bus were passing each other from
theopposite directions, the Bi8an bus following the calesa swerved to its left inan attempt to pass between the
BTCO bus and the calesa. Withoutdiminishing its speed of about seventy (70) kilometers an hour, the Bi8anbus
passed through the space between the BTCO bus and the calesa hittingfirst the left side of the BTCO bus with the left
front corner of its body andthen bumped and struck the calesa which was completely wrecked. As aresult, the driver
was seriously injured and the horse was killed. The BTCObus suffered damages for the repair of its damaged portion.
Caguimbal andTolentino died, and several others were injured. The widow and children of Caguimbal instituted an action,
which wastried jointly with a similar action of the Tolentinos, to recover damages fromBTCO. BTCO. The latter, in turn,
filed a third-party complaint against theBi8an and its driver, Ilagan. Subsequently, the Caguimbals amended
theircomplaint, to include therein, as defendants, said Bi8an and Ilagan. The CFI of Batangas dismissed the
complaint insofar as BTCO isconcerned, without prejudice to plaintiff's right to sue Bi8an and Ilagan. CAreversed said
decision and rendered judgment for Caguimbal. Hence, thisappeal by BTCO.

ISSUE: Whether or not BTCO should be liable for damages

HELD: Yes. In an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not make anexpress finding of fault or negligence
on the part of the carrier in order tohold it responsible to pay the damages sought for by the passenger. By thecontract of
carriage, the carrier assumes the express obligation to transportthe passenger to his destination safely and to
observe extraordinarydiligence with a due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury thatmight be suffered by the
passenger is right away attributable to the fault ornegligence of the carrier (Article 1756, new Civil Code). This is an
exceptionto the general rule that negligence must be proved, and it is thereforeincumbent upon the
carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinarydiligence as prescribed in Article 1733 and 1755 of the new Civil
Code. In thecase at bar, BTCO has not proven the exercise of extraordinary diligence onits part.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is herebyaffirmed, with the costs of this
instance against appellant BatangasTransportation Company.