Candida Virata vs Victorio Ochoa In September 1975, Borilla was driving a jeep when he hit Arsenio Virata thereby

causing the latters death. The heirs of Virata sued Borilla through an action for homicide through reckless imprudence in the CFI of Rizal. Viratas lawyer reserved their right to file a separate civil action the he later withdrew said motion. But in June 1976, pending the criminal case, the Viratas again reserved their right to file a separate civil action. Borilla was eventually acquitted as it was ruled that what happened was a mere accident. The heirs of Virata then sued Borilla and Ochoa (the owner of the jeep and employer of Borilla) for damages based on quasi delict. Ochoa assailed the civil suit alleging that Borilla was already acquitted and that the Viratas were merely trying to recover damages twice. The lower court agreed with Ochoa and dismissed the civil suit. ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs of Virata may file a separate civil suit. HELD: Yes. It is settled that in negligence cases the aggrieved parties may choose between an action under the Revised Penal Code or of quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. What is prohibited by Article 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to recover twice for the same negligent act. Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. But said article forestalls a double recovery. Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Teves Lessons Applicable: Contract of Adhesion (Transportation) FACTS: Atty. Leovigildo Tandog and Rogelio Tiro bought tickets for Tagbilaran City via the port of Cebu Since many passengers were bound for Surigao, M/S "Sweet Hope would not be proceeding to Bohol They went to the proper brancg office and was relocated to M/S "Sweet Town" where they were forced to agree "to hide at the cargo section to avoid inspection of the officers of the Philippine Coastguard." and they were exposed to the scorching heat of the sun and the dust coming from the ship's cargo of corn grits and their tickets were not honored so they had to purchase a new one They sued Sweet Lines for damages and for breach of contract of carriage before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental who dismissed the compalitn for improper venue A motion was premised on the condition printed at the back of the tickets -dismissed instant petition for prohibition for preliminary injunction ISSUE: W/N a common carrier engaged in inter-island shipping stipulate thru condition printed at the back of passage tickets to its vessels that any and all actions arising out of the contract of carriage should be filed only in a particular province or city HELD: NO.petition for prohibition is DISMISSED. Restraining order LIFTED and SET ASIDE contract of adhesion o not that kind of a contract where the parties sit down to deliberate, discuss and agree specifically on all its terms, but rather, one which respondents took no part at all in preparing o just imposed upon them when they paid for the fare for the freight they wanted to ship We find and hold that Condition No. 14 printed at the back of the passage tickets should be held as void and unenforceable for the following reasons o circumstances obligation in the inter-island ship will prejudice rights and interests of innumerable passengers in different s of the country who, under Condition No. 14, will have to file suits against petitioner only in the City of Cebu o subversive of public policy on transfers of venue of actions

philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer of venue of actions is the convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses and to promote 21 the ends of justice

LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY vs. VALENTIN DE JESUS, MANOLO TOLENTINO and COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. L-21486. 14 May 1966. Facts: The suit arose by reason of the death of Lolita de Jesus, 20-year old daughter of Valentin de Jesus and wife of Manolo Tolentino, in a head-on collision between petitioner's bus, on which she was a passenger, and a freight truck traveling in the opposite direction, in a barrio in Marilao Bulacan, in the morning of October 8, 1959. The immediate cause of the collision was the fact that the driver of the bus lost control of the wheel when its left front tire suddenly exploded. The court a quo sentenced the defendant, now petitioner, to pay to plaintiffs actual, compensatory, and moral damages; and counsel fees. CA affirmed. Issues: (1) WON the petitioners are liable for the consequences of the accident. (2) WON petitioners are liable for moral damages. Ruling: Judgment affirmed. (1) Petitioner maintains that a tire blow-out is a fortuitous event and gives rise to no liability for negligence. Both the CFI and the CA found that the bus was running quite fast immediately before the accident. Considering that the tire which exploded was not new, petitioner describes it as "hindi masyadong kalbo," or not so very worn out, the plea of caso fortuito by petitioner cannot be entertained. The cause of the blow-out was a mechanical defect of the conveyance or a fault in its equipment which was easily discoverable if the bus had been subjected to a more thorough check-up before it took to the road. Hence, petitioners are liable for the accident. (2) The second issue raised by petitioner is already a settled one. In this jurisdiction moral damages are recoverable by reason of the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract of a common carrier, as provided in Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206, of the Civil Code. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. vs. Court of Appeals (179 SCRA 95) Facts: On May 11, 1975, Anacleto Viana boarded M/|V Antonio from Occidental Mindoro bound for Manila. Upon arrival on May 12, 1975, the passengers therein disembarked through a gangplank connecting the vessel to the pier. Viana, instead of disembarking through the gangplank, disembarked through the third deck, which was at the same level with the pier. An hour after the passengers disembarked, Pioneer stevedoring started to operate in unloading the cargo from the ship. Viana then went back, remembering some of his cargoes left at the vessel. At that time, while he was pointing at the crew of the vessel to where his cargoes were loaded, the crane hit him, pinning him between the crane and the side of the vessel. He was brought to the hospital where he died 3 days after (May 15). The parents of Anacleto filed a complaint against Aboitiz for breach of contract of carriage. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Then both Aboitiz and Pioneer filed a motion for reconsideration, upon which the trial court issued an order absolving Pioneer from liability but not Aboitiz. On appeal, CA affirmed the trial court ruling. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not Viana is still considered a passenger at the time of the incident? Held: Yes. The La Mallorca case is applicable in the case at bar.

The rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel owners dock or premises. Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carriers conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carriers premises. All persons who remain on the premises a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances, and includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure. The carrier-passenger relationship is not terminated merely by the fact that the person transported has been carried to his destination if, for example, such person remains in the carriers premises to claim his baggage. The reasonableness of the time should be made to depend on the attending circumstances of the case, such as the kind of common carrier, the nature of its business, the customs of the place, and so forth, and therefore precludes a consideration of the time element per se without taking into account such other factors. Where a passenger dies or is injured, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. This gives rise to an action for breach of contract where all that is required of plaintiff is to prove the existence of the contract of carriage and its non-performance by the carrier, that is, the failure of the carrier to carry the passenger safely to his destination, which, in the instant case, necessarily includes its failure to safeguard its passenger with extraordinary diligence while such relation subsists. Dangwa Transportation Co. vs Court of Appeals GR No. 95582 October 1991 Facts: On March 25, 1985, Pedrito Cudiamat was ran over by a bus operated by Dangwa Transportation Company, and driven by Theodore Lardizabal. Lardizabal, being reckless and negligent, has prematurely stepped on the accelerator of the bus just as when Cudiamat boarded the same. The sudden jerk movement caused Cudiamat to fall from the platform and was ran over by they bus. Moreover, the driver did not immediately brought the victim to the nearest hospital for medical attention. Issue: Whether Held: They

or

not

the

driver

and

bus

company

are

liable

for

the

death

of

P.

Cudiamat.

are

liable.

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by the according to all the circumstances of each case. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. It has also been repeatedly held that in an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible to pay the damages sought by the passenger. By contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express obligation to transport the passenger to his destination safely and observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by the passenger is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier. This is an exception to the general rule that negligence must be proved, and it is therefore incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.