John Nico R.

Lucero
Case Study - Torts

In a news article by Philippine Star, the antecedents of this case

study are as follows:

MANILA, Philippines - A school field trip turned into a horrific

tragedy yesterday morning in Tanay, Rizal, with at least 15 people
killed and 40 college students injured.

At least 14 college students and the bus driver died when their
tourist bus smashed into an electric post along a curved road in
Barangay Sampaloc in Tanay.

Senior Supt. Randy Peralta, Rizal police director, said the

students were on board a Panda Coach bus with plate number TXS
325. They left Bestlink College of the Philippines in Novaliches,
Quezon City at 6:30 a.m. and were on their way to Sacramento
Adventure Camp in Tanay for medical and survival training as part of
the National Service Training Program.

Around 8:50 a.m., the bus driven by Julian Lacorda Jr. smashed
into an electric post and some trees along a curved road in Magnetic
Hill in Barangay Sampaloc in Tanay

Peralta said based on initial investigation, Lacorda lost control

of the wheel and then lost his brakes.

One of the survivors said they had smelled a burning tire.

Bus TXS 325 was the last of the nine buses used for the field
trip.

Peralta said at least 10 students were confirmed dead on the

spot.

Among the fatalities are Jeid Cabino, Jonahfay Cerezo,

Arneline Galauram, Robert Kenneth Pepito, Princess Nia Sentonis
and Lovely Siringan. The other fatalities have not been identified as of
last night.

The injured students aged 18 to 19 were rushed to Rizal

Provincial Hospital, Tanay General Hospital, Camp Capinpin Army
Station Hospital and Amang Rodriguez Hospital. Other injured
students later died in the hospitals.

Emmanuel Bueno of the Amang Rodriguez Hospital said 19

students were admitted to the hospital. One of them died, one
underwent an operation in the abdomen, while one has a popped eye
and exposed brain.

Lacorda was declared dead on arrival at the Rizal Provincial

Hospital.

LTFRB to suspend bus firm

The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board

(LTFRB) is set to suspend the operations of the bus company involved
in the fatal road accident.

LTFRB member Aileen Lizada said the agency will issue a 30-
day preventive suspension order against Panda Coach Tourist and
Transport Inc.

The LTFRB will suspend all six active units of the company
under its tourist transport shuttle franchise, which is valid until July
2019.

Since the franchise was issued last July 2016, the company has
not been involved in any accident or infraction, according to Lizada.
With Ed Amoroso, Romina Cabrera, Delon Porcalla

-end-

The relevant parties to this case study include:

1. Bestlink College
 2. Panda Coach Tourist and Transport Inc.

3. Driver of Panda Coach Tourist and Transport Inc.

4. Injured and deceased students

The main question wherein the issues revolve is who should be

held liable to the death and injuries of the Bestlink College students.
Hence it is necessary to scrutinize and determine the existence and/or
extent of liability of the above mentioned parties to the victims of the
said accident basing on the available facts and information readily
obtainable from various sources.

The liability of the Bestlink College to its students is sourced

from a contract or on ground of culpa-aquillana. Tort is now
independent, basing from our jurisprudence, of the existence of a
contractual relation. The students engaged in an out of school activity
which their school either required or offered as part of their
curriculum. Hence it is within their obligation to ensure the safety of
their students for after all it is the school who has direct supervision
over the students during the course of the field trip. Now, it could be
argued that the school did not directly and proximately caused the
accident since it is the bus companys driver or the bus company itself
which should be held liable. However, the school cannot avail such
defense due to the existence of an obligation arising from an implied
contract between the school and the students. Even the existence of
the waiver cannot absolve them from any liability since the waiver is
void by reason of public policy. The schools liability, however, may
be excused if the same had exercised reasonable diligence in ensuring
the safety of the students and prepared a strict procedure and steps to
prevent any unwanted incident. Hence the proper questions to be
answered are did the school exercised reasonable diligence in the
selection of transportation service provider and did the school
properly supervised the students during their transport? In the absence
of sufficient facts, the presumption of absence of negligence would
prevail. There is no information that would implicate that the bus
company has a notoriously bad reputation. Hence, it is already settled
that the school, regardless if the field trip was required or not, has the
obligation and therefore liability to the students in case of the latters
death or injury but the school has an available defense of exercise of
diligence of a good father in ensuring the safety of its students.

The driver of the bus company may be held liable both

criminally or civilly based on tort. The available information avers
that the initial cause of the accident is the loss of brakes of the bus.
The issue is whether or not the driver has the obligation to check on
the brakes or is expected to know the condition of the brakes of his
vehicle. Hence. It would be necessary to inquire on the procedures
that the bus company undergoes in checking the mechanical aspect of
the vehicle. Is it part of the job of the driver to assess the condition of
the mechanical aspect of the bus before it travels or there are other
ones who were tasked to do such. On the other hand, is the driver able
to foresee or at least expected to foresee possible mechanical failure
specifically loss of brakes while test-driving the bus before it leaves.
Basing from the allegations of the witnesses and in my opinion on the
latter question, the driver is not liable if the true cause of the accident
is the loss of brakes.

The employer, the bus company is liable for the death or injury
of the students. It is of their paramount obligation to ensure the safety
of the passengers being engaged in a transportation business. The
alleged cause of the accident is the loss of brakes. The companys
maintenance division should have ensured that all their conveyances
are fit to travel and the extent of caution they should exercise is
beyond diligence of a good father, since it is a common carrier.
Assuming that the driver is held liable, the company is also liable by
reason of vicarious liability provided by Article 2180 of the Civil
Code. It has been held in various jurisprudence that mechanical
failures cannot be considered as fortuitous event since the passengers
or those who engage in their services has no control nor supervision in
the selection and maintenance of the conveyances mechanical parts.
Hence, if there is a party among the three stated which would have the
most possible liability for the death of the students, it would be the
bus company.