View full case

G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT v. HEIRS OF ROMEO L. BATTUNG

FACTS:

Respondents alleged that Romeo L. Battung, Jr. boarded petitioner's bus bound for Manila and was seated at the first row behind the driver. When the bus reached Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, the bus driver stopped the bus to check the tires. At this point, a man seated at the fourth row shot Battung, resulting in his death. The bus conductor informed the driver of the incident and brought Battung to the hospital, but he was pronounced dead on arrival. Hence, respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioner, the bus driver, and the bus conductor, alleging a breach of contract of carriage. Petitioner and its employees argued that they had exercised the required extraordinary diligence as a common carrier and claimed that the incident should be considered a fortuitous event. The RTC ruled in favor of respondents, finding petitioner and its employees jointly and severally liable for damages. The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling, holding that the incident was not a fortuitous event. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition. The core issue is whether petitioner is liable for damages arising from culpa contractual.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the common carrier is liable for the death of the passenger caused by a co-passenger's criminal act.

  2. Whether the presumption of fault or negligence against the common carrier applies in this case.

  3. Whether or not the petitioner is liable for the death of the passenger.

  4. Whether or not the petitioner failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in preventing the act that caused the passenger's death.

  5. Whether or not the petitioner should have implemented heightened security measures to ensure the safety of its passengers.

  6. Did the bus company and its employees fail to employ the diligence of a good father of a family in ensuring the safety and security of its passengers?

  7. Is the bus company civilly liable for the death of one of its passengers?

RULING:

  1. The common carrier is not liable for the death of the passenger caused by a co-passenger's criminal act.

  2. The presumption of fault or negligence against the common carrier does not apply in this case.

  3. Yes, the petitioner is liable for the death of the passenger.

  4. No, the petitioner did not fail to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in preventing the act that caused the passenger's death.

  5. No, the petitioner was not required to implement heightened security measures to ensure the safety of its passengers.

  6. The Supreme Court held that the bus company and its employees did not fail to employ the diligence of a good father of a family in relation to its responsibility under Article 1763 of the Civil Code. Thus, the bus company is not civilly liable for the death of one of its passengers.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Common carriers are required to observe extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of their passengers.

  • Common carriers are not insurers of the absolute safety of their passengers.

  • The presumption of fault or negligence against the common carrier is rebuttable by proof that the carrier had exercised extraordinary diligence or that the injury was solely due to a fortuitous event.

  • The common carrier is not liable if the injury suffered by the passenger was in no way due to any defect in the means of transport or to the negligent or willful acts of its employees, and the injury arose wholly from causes created by strangers over which the carrier had no control or prior knowledge to prevent.

  • Article 1756 in relation to Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code imposes a duty of extraordinary diligence on common carriers to ensure the safety of their passengers.

  • Article 1763 of the Civil Code states that a common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or strangers, if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

  • The concept of diligence of a good father of a family connotes reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed when confronted with a similar situation.

  • The test to determine whether negligence attended the performance of an obligation is whether the defendant used that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation.

  • Case law has established that common carriers should be given sufficient leeway in assuming that the passengers they take in will not bring anything dangerous unless there is something that indicates a more stringent inspection should be made.

  • Constitutional boundaries should not be transgressed in conducting inspections of passengers' baggage. Police officers acting without judicial authority are subject to constitutional inhibitions designed to protect individual human rights and liberties.

  • The carrier's responsibility to its passengers is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code, which require it to exercise utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers.

  • The duty of the carrier to protect its passengers from harm does not extend to the conduct of a stringent search on all passengers.

  • In determining the carrier's liability, the court must consider whether the carrier and its employees exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in relation to their responsibility.