FACTS:

Private respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioners for the death of Pedrito Cudiamat as a result of a vehicular
accident which occurred on March 25, 1985 at Marivic, Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet. Petitioner Theodore M. Lardizabal was driving a
passenger bus belonging to petitioner corporation in a reckless and imprudent manner and without due regard to traffic rules and
regulations and safety to persons and property, it ran over its passenger, Pedrito Cudiamat. Petitioners alleged that they had observed
and continued to observe the extraordinary diligence and that it was the victim’s own carelessness and negligence which gave rise to
the subject incident.

RTC pronounced that Pedrito Cudiamat was negligent, which negligence was the proximate cause of his death. However, Court of
Appeals set aside the decision of the lower court, and ordered petitioners to pay private respondents damages due to negligence.

ISSUE:

WON the CA erred in reversing the decision of the trial court and in finding petitioners negligent and liable for the damages claimed.

HELD: CA Decision AFFIRMED

The testimonies of the witnesses show that that the bus was at full stop when the victim boarded the same. They further confirm the
conclusion that the victim fell from the platform of the bus when it suddenly accelerated forward and was run over by the rear right
tires of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased was guilty of negligence.

It is not negligence per se, or as a matter of law, for one attempt to board a train or streetcar which is moving slowly. An ordinarily
prudent person would have made the attempt board the moving conveyance under the same or similar circumstances. The fact that
passengers board and alight from slowly moving vehicle is a matter of common experience both the driver and conductor in this case
could not have been unaware of such an ordinary practice.

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.

G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003

FACTS:
Navidad was drunk when he entered the boarding platform of the LRT. He got into an altercation with the
SG Escartin. They had a fistfight and Navidad fell onto the tracks and was killed when a train came and
ran over him.

The Heirs of Navidad filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, the train driver, (Roman) the LRTA,
the Metro Transit Organization and Prudent Security Agency (Prudent). The trial court found Prudent and
Escartin jointly and severally liable for damages to the heirs. The CA exonerated Prudent and instead held
the LRTA and the train driver Romero jointly and severally liable as well as removing the award for
compensatory damages and replacing it with nominal damages.

The reasoning of the CA was that a contract of carriage already existed between Navidad and LRTA (by
virtue of his havA ing purchased train tickets and the liability was caused by the mere fact of Navidad's
death after being hit by the train being managed by the LRTA and operated by Roman. The CA also
blamed LRTA for not having presented expert evidence showing that the emergency brakes could not have
stopped the train on time.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not LRTA and/or Roman is liable for the death.
(2) Whether or not Escartin and/or Prudent are liable.
(3) Whether or not nominal damages may coexist with compensatory damages.

HELD:
(1) Yes. The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the
victim arising from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence
required of a common carrier.
(2) Fault was not established. Liability will be based on Tort under Art. 2176 of the New Civil Code.
(3) No. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages.

RATIO:

Liability of LRTA – Read Arts. 1755,1756, 1759 and 1763 of the New Civil Code

A common carrier is required by these above statutory provisions to use utmost diligence in carrying
passengers with due regard for all circumstances. This obligation exists not only during the course of the
trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises where they ought to be in pursuance to then
contract of carriage.

Art. 1763 renders a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the negligence
or wilful acts of its employees or (b) on account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of
strangers if the common carrier’s employees through theexercise of due diligence could have prevented or
stopped the act or omission. In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or
been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the
fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that
the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.

Liability of Security Agency – If Prudent is to be held liable, it would be for a tort under Art. 2176 in
conjunction with Art. 2180. Once the fault of the employee Escartin is established, the employer, Prudent,
would be held liable on the presumption that it did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family
in the selection and supervision of its employees.

Relationship between contractual and non-contractual breach – How then must the liability of the
common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be described? It
would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission
causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the
Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that
which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of ontract would
have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties,
the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.

Nominal Damages - The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable. Nominal
damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by
the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for
any loss suffered by him. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with
compensatory damages. The award was deleted/\.