Yobido vs CA 281 SCRA 1 (1997)

FACTS
1. Tito and Lenoy Tumboy, together with their minor children boarded a Yobido Liner bus bound for
Davao City from Surigao del Sur
2. But while driving in Agusan del Sur, the left front tire of the bus exploded, in which the bus fell into
ravine
3. This caused the death of Tito TUmboy and physical injuries to other passengers
4. Complaint for breach of contract was filed by Leny against the owner of the bus,
5. Alberta Yobido and its driver. The Yobidos used as a defense that the case was a caso fortuito.
More so, a separate charge was filed against the Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance but was
dismissed
6. During the trip to Davao, Leny cautioned the driver that the bus was running fast but he merely
stared at her
7. The tire that exploded, however was a new one installed only five days before the incident. Drivers
on the other hand, underwent driving tests before they were employed
ISSUE: WON the explosion of a newly installed tire of a passenger vehicle is a fortuitous event that
exempts the carrier from liability for the death of passenger
HELD: When a passenger boards a common carrier, he takes the risks incidental to the mode of travel he
has taken as a carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers and is not bound absolutely and at all
events to carry them safely and without injury. However, when a passenger is injured or dies while
traveling, the law presumes that the carrier is negligent based on CC Art. 1756; as this is the presumption
in culpa contractual, unless the defendant proves that the case was caso fortuito . If carrier be unable to
debunk this presumption, there even be no need to make an express finding of negligence or fault. CC
1755 provides that passengers must be carried safely as far as human care and foresight can provide,
using utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all circumstances. Liability for a tire
blow-out is not a fortuitous event as the requisites for these are:
a. The Cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or the failure of the debtor to comply
with his obligations, must be independent of human will
b. It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be
foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid
c. The occurrence must be such as to render impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner
d. The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
creditor
e. The fact that a new tire was installed nor even the existence of force majeure does not imply caso
fortuito immediately as the carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the death or
injury resulting from the accident
Driver must have taken precautionary measures given the circumstances but the driver did not do anything
to this effect. For failing to overthrow the presumption of negligence with clear an convincing evidence, the
Yobidos are held liable for damages amounting to 50,000 pesos. While moral damages are not recoverable

in culpa contractual, damages may be recovered in breach of contract of carriage resulting in the death of a
passenger, notwithstanding exemplary damages as the carrier through its driver acted recklessly.