Ysidro, a paying passenger, was on board Bus No. 904 owned and operated by Yatco Transportation Company (Yatco). He boarded the bus at Munoz, Nueva Ecija with Manila as his final destination. He was seated on the first row, window seat on the left side of the bus. As the bus was negotiating the national highway in front of the public market of Gerona, Tarlac, the bus came to a full stop because of the traffic. The driver of the bus took this opportunity to check on the tires of the bus and to relieve himself. As he was alighting from the bus to do these, an unidentified man standing along the highway hurled a huge rock at the left side of the bus and hit Ysidro between his eyes. He lost consciousness and immediately the driver, with the conductor, drove the bus to bring him to the nearest hospital. He expired before the bus could reach the hospital.
Ysidro’s wife and children brought a civil action to collect damages from Yatco, alleging that as a common carrier, it was required to exercise extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers. They contended that, in case of injuries and/or death on the part of any of its passengers, the common carrier is presumed to be at fault. In its defense, Yatco alleged that it is not an absolute insurer of its passengers and that Ysidro’s death was not due to any defect in the means of transport or method of transporting passengers, or the negligent acts of its employees. Since the accident was due to the fault of a stranger over whom the common carrier had no control, or of which it did not have any prior knowledge to be able to prevent it, the cause of Ysidro’s death should be considered a fortuitous event and not the liability of the common carrier.
(a) Is a common carrier presumed to be at fault whenever there is death or injury to its passengers, regardless of the cause of death or injury? (2.5%)
(b) What kind of diligence is required of common carriers like Yatco for the protection of its passengers? (2.5%)
(c) Will your answer be the same as your answer in (b) above, if the assailant was another paying passenger who boarded the bus and deliberately stabbed Ysidro to death? (2.5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(a) No, the presumption is not absolute. (b) Extraordinary diligence is required. (c) No, the answer is different.
Under Article 1756 of the Civil Code, carriers are presumed negligent upon passenger death, but not when caused wholly by strangers. Article 1755 requires extraordinary diligence for passenger safety. Under Article 1763, for willful acts of co-passengers, carriers owe diligence of a good father of a family.
Here, in (a), Yatco is not presumed at fault because Ysidro was struck by a stranger's rock. In (b), Yatco must exercise utmost diligence of a very cautious person. In (c), if a co-passenger stabs Ysidro, Yatco is liable only if employees failed to exercise diligence of a good father of a family.
Therefore, the presumption of fault is not absolute, extraordinary diligence applies generally, and diligence of a good father of a family governs co-passenger assaults.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Article 1755 of the Civil Code, what standard of diligence is generally required of common carriers for passenger safety?
Common carriers are bound to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons under Article 1755.
Under Article 1756 of the Civil Code, what is the statutory presumption when a passenger dies or suffers injury during carriage?
Article 1756 establishes a rebuttable presumption of fault or negligence against common carriers in case of passenger death or injury.
Why is Yatco Transportation Company exempt from liability for the death of Ysidro caused by a stranger throwing a stone from the national highway?
Unforeseeable stone-throwing by an uncontrollable stranger outside the vehicle is a fortuitous event that exempts the carrier.
Under Article 1763 of the Civil Code, what standard of diligence must common carrier employees exercise to prevent violence by fellow passengers?
Article 1763 requires common carrier employees to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent acts of fellow passengers.
Which primary code contains the statutory provisions governing common carrier diligence, fortuitous events, and liability for passenger acts in the Philippines?
The Civil Code of the Philippines contains the primary provisions governing common carrier liability and passenger safety.
Learn more about these topics
1. Common Carrier Diligence
Under Article 1733 and Article 1755 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act Number 386), common carriers are bound to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all circumstances. In case of death of or injury to passengers, Article 1756 creates a statutory presumption that the common carrier was at fault or acted negligently, unless the carrier proves that it observed extraordinary diligence or that the injury resulted from a fortuitous event or independent act of a stranger.
2. Fortuitous Event Exception
Under Article 1174 and established jurisprudence, a common carrier is not an absolute insurer of the safety of its passengers. When a passenger suffers injury or death due to the willful or negligent act of a stranger outside the vehicle—such as an unidentified person hurling a stone from the highway—over whom the carrier has no control and which could not be foreseen or prevented even through extraordinary diligence, the occurrence is considered a fortuitous event. Consequently, the presumption of fault is rebutted, and the common carrier is exempt from civil liability.
3. Acts of Passengers
Under Article 1763 of the Civil Code, a common carrier is responsible for injuries inflicted upon a passenger by co-passengers or strangers if the employees of the common carrier, through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family, could have prevented or stopped the act. Unlike carriage safety duties requiring extraordinary diligence, the statutory standard of care required of common carrier employees to prevent intentional torts or violent assaults committed by fellow passengers or strangers inside the vehicle is ordinary diligence, or the diligence of a good father of a family.