2.1.5 G.R. No. 85691 July 31, 1990 BACHELOR EXPRESS, INCORPORATE , !"# CRESENCIO RI$ERA %&.

THE HONORABLE CO'RT O( APPEALS )S*+,- *%*&*o"., RICAR O BETER, SERGIA BETER, TEO(ILO RA'TRA'T !"# /OETERA RA'TRA'T (ACTS0 A bus owned by Bachelor Express, Inc. and driven by Cresencio Rivera was the situs of a stampede which resulted in the death of passengers rnominio Beter and !arcisa Rautraut. "he bus came from #avao City on its way to Cagayan de ro City$ that while in Butuan City, the bus pic%ed up a passenger$ that about &' minutes later, a 1!&&2"324 !, ,-2 42!4 1o4,*o" &u##2"ly &,!552# ! PC &ol#*24 which caused commotion and panic among the passengers$ that when the bus stopped, passengers rnominio Beter and !arcisa Rautraut were found lying down the road, the former already dead as a result of head in(uries and the latter also suffering from severe in(uries which caused her death later. "he passenger assailant alighted from the bus and ran toward the bushes but was %illed by the police. "hereafter, the heirs of rnominio Beter and !arcisa Rautraut, private respondents filed a complaint for )sum of money) against Bachelor Express, Inc. its alleged owner *amson +asay and the driver Rivera. ,etitioner alleged that the driver was able to transport his passengers safely to their respective places of destination except rnominio Beter and !arcisa Rautraut who (umped off the bus without the %nowledge and consent. "he trial court dismissed the complaint which was reversed and set aside by the Court of Appeals. ,etitioners asseverate that they were not negligent in the performance of their duties and that the incident was completely and absolutely attributable to a third person, the passenger who ran amuc%, for without his criminal act, Beter and Rautraut could not have been sub(ected to fear and shoc% which compelled them to (ump off the running bus. "hey argue that they should not be made liable for damages arising from acts of third persons over whom they have no control or supervision. . In effect, the petitioner, in order to overcome the presumption of fault or negligence under the law, states that the vehicular incident resulting in the death of passengers Beter and Rautraut was caused by force ma(eure or caso fortuito over which the common carrier did not have any control. ISS'E0 -hether petitioner is liable. HEL 0 6ES. "he liability of the petitioners is anchored on culpa contractual or breach of contract of carriage. rnominio Beter and !arcisa Rautraut were passengers of a bus belonging to petitioner Bachelor Express, Inc. and, while passengers of the bus, suffered in(uries which caused their death. Conse.uently, pursuant to Article &/'0 of the Civil Code, petitioner Bachelor Express, Inc. is presumed to have acted negligently unless it can prove that it had observed extraordinary diligence in accordance with Articles &/11 and &/'' of the !ew Civil Code. "he running amuc% of the passenger was the proximate cause of the incident as it triggered off a commotion and panic among the passengers such that the passengers started

running to the sole exit shoving each other resulting in the falling off the bus by passengers Beter and Rautraut causing them fatal in(uries. T-2 &u##2" !7, o8 ,-2 1!&&2"324 9-o &,!552# !"o,-24 1!&&2"324 *" ,-2 5u& *& 9*,-*" ,-2 7o",2+, o8 8o472 :!;2u42. A caso fortuito presents the following essential characteristics2 3&4 "he cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, :u&, 52 *"#212"#2", o8 ,-2 -u:!" 9*ll. 354 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. 314 "he occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. And 364 the obligor 3debtor4 must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the in(ury resulting to the creditor. As will be seen, these authorities agree that some extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the obligor or of his employees, is an essential element of a caso fortuito. Ho92%24, in order that a common carrier may be absolved from liability in case of force ma(eure, it is not enough that the accident was caused by force ma(eure. T-2 7o::o" 7!44*24 :u&, &,*ll 14o%2 ,-!, *, 9!& "o, "23l*32", *" 7!u&*"3 ,-2 *";u4*2& 42&ul,*"3 84o: &u7!77*#2",. "he bus driver did not immediately stop the bus at the height of the commotion$ the bus was speeding from a full stop$ the victims fell from the bus door when it was opened or gave way while the bus was still running$ the conductor panic%ed and blew his whistle after people had already fallen off the bus$ and the bus was not properly e.uipped with doors in accordance with law7it is clear that the petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of fault and negligence found in the law governing common carriers. "he petitioners8 argument that the petitioners )are not insurers of their passengers) deserves no merit in view of the failure of the petitioners to prove that the deaths of the two passengers were exclusively due to force ma(eure and not to the failure of the petitioners to observe extraordinary diligence in transporting safely the passengers to their destinations as warranted by law.