At around 4:00 p.m. of December 25, 2020, Christmas Day, Queenie and her child, Paeng, boarded a jeepney being operated by Emil and driven by Amor. Queenie was made to sit on an empty beer case at the edge of the rear entrance/exit of the jeepney with her sleeping child on her lap. When they reached an uphill incline on the road, the jeepney slid backwards. Queenie pushed both her feet against the step board to prevent herself and her child from being thrown out of the exit, but because the step board was wet, her left foot slipped and was crushed between the step board and the coconut tree which halted the jeepney’s backward motion. As a result, Queenie’s leg was badly injured and had to be amputated. Queenie then sued Emil and Amor for breach of contract of carriage. Emil and Amor countered that the injuries Queenie sustained were due to her own fault since Amor had instructed everyone not to panic, but Queenie nevertheless tried to disembark which caused her foot to be crushed If you were the judge, would you hold Emil and Amor solidarily liable? Explainbriefly. (5 points)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, I would not hold Emil and Amor solidarily liable; only Emil is liable.
Under the Civil Code and Sanico v. Colipano, liability in an action for breach of contract of carriage is direct and contractual between the passenger and the common carrier operator. The driver, as a mere employee, is not a party to the contract of carriage and cannot be held liable for its breach.
Here, Queenie sued Emil (the operator) and Amor (the driver) for breach of contract of carriage. Because the contract exists solely between Queenie and Emil, only Emil is liable for failing to carry her safely. Amor cannot be held solidarily liable under the contract since he is not a party thereto, though he may be liable under quasi-delict.
Therefore, Emil alone is liable for breach of contract of carriage, and Amor is not solidarily liable.
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
In an action for breach of contract of carriage, who is directly liable to the injured passenger?
In breach of contract of carriage, only the operator as party to the contract is directly liable.
In Sanico versus Colipano, why is the motor vehicle driver NOT solidarily liable for breach of contract of carriage?
Sanico versus Colipano established that the driver is not a party to the contract of carriage.
Under Article 1755 of the Civil Code, what standard of diligence is required of common carriers toward passengers?
Article 1755 requires common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence for passenger safety.
What legal cause of action may a passenger bring directly against a negligent driver for physical injuries?
A passenger may sue a negligent driver directly based on quasi-delict.
What legal presumption arises when a passenger suffers physical injury while riding a common carrier?
Passenger injury during transit creates a legal presumption of negligence against the common carrier.
Learn more about these topics
1. Contract Parties Liability
In an action for breach of contract of carriage under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, liability is strictly contractual and exists solely between the passenger and the common carrier operator. The contract of carriage is perfected between the passenger who pays the fare and the operator holding the certificate of public convenience. Because a cause of action based on breach of contract requires privity of contract, the operator alone is bound by the contractual obligation to transport the passenger safely to the destination, assuming direct legal liability for any contractual breach.
2. Driver Liability Distinction
In Sanico versus Colipano, the Supreme Court held that a jeepney driver is a mere employee of the common carrier operator and is not a party to the contract of carriage. Consequently, the driver cannot be held solidarily liable with the operator in a civil action grounded exclusively on breach of contract of carriage. While the driver may incur personal civil liability under quasi-delict or crime, such liability must be enforced through a separate cause of action rather than an action for breach of contract.
3. Common Carrier Diligence
Under Article 1755 of the Civil Code, 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. When a passenger suffers injury during transit, a presumption of negligence arises against the common carrier. Overloading a vehicle or making passengers sit on unstable makeshift seats like beer cases near entrance steps constitutes gross failure to exercise extraordinary diligence.