Legal Provisions:
Article 1756, NCC. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
unless they proved that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed
in Arts. 1733 and 1755.
Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
them, according to all the circumstances of its case.
Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as
far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of
very cautious persons. With due regard for all the circumstances.
Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a
passenger on account of the wilfull acts or negligence of other passengers or
of strangers, if the common carriers employees through the exercise of the
diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the
acts or omission.
A common carrier is likewise responsible for injuries suffered by a
passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or
of strangers, if the comon carriers employees through the exercise of the
diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the
act or omission. (Article 1760, New Civil Code)
It is all too-familiar that a common carrier may avoid liability by proving
either that it had observed extraordinary diligence as required by law in the
performance of its contractual obligation, or that death or injury suffered by
the passenger was due to fortuitous event. (Sy vs. Malate Taxicab Garage,
Inc. 102 Phil. 487)
Under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the employer is
subsidiarily liable for damages caused by the felonies committed by the
employee in the discharge of its duties. This is arose out from from the crime
x x the principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that
the act must be occasioned solely by the violence of nature. Human
intervention is to be excluded from creating or entering into the cause of the
mischief. When the effect is found to be in part the result of the participation
of man, whether due to his active intervention or neglect or failure to act, the
whole occurrence is then humanized and removed from the rules applicable
to the acts of God.(NPC vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-47481, 161
SCRA 334 (1988), citing 1 Corpus Juris, pp. 1174-1175)
It has been held in several cases that when the negligence of a person
concurs with an act of God in producing a loss, such cause of the damage
was not the act of God. To be exempt he must be free from any previous
negligence or misconduct by which the loss or damage may have been
occasioned. (Fish and Elective Co. vs. Phil. Motors, 55 Phil. 129, Tucker
vs. Milan, 49 O.G. 4379; Limpangco & Sons vs. Yangco Steamship Co.,
34 Phil. 594, 604; Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657)
To exempt a common carrier from liability for death or physical injuries to
passengers upon the ground of force majeure, the carrier must clearly show
not only that the efficient cause of the casualty was entirely independent of
the human will, but also that it was impossible to avoid. Any participation by
the common carrier in the occurrence of the injury will defeat the defense of
force majeure. (Gatchalian vs. Delim & Court of Appeals, GR No.
56487, Oct. 21, 1991, 203 SCRA 126)
Damages:
The long established rule is that moral damages may be awarded where
gross negligence on the part of the common carrier is shown. (Gatchalian
vs. Delim & Court of Appeals, GR No. 56487, Oct. 21, 1991, 203 SCRA
126)
Notes:
Foreseeability is the fundamental basis of the law of negligence. To be
negligent, a person must have acted, or failed to act, in such a way that
an interests of others are put to a definite class of risk without him
foreseeing the same.