Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. IAC
Driver Manalo stepped on the
DOCTRINE: (1) The principle of "the last clear" chance is
applicable in a suit between the owners and drivers of the two
colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual
obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent
driver and its owners on the ground that the other driver was
likewise guilty of negligence.
(2)In culpa contractual, the moment a passenger dies or is
injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently, and this disputable presumption may only be
overcome by evidence that he had observed extra-ordinary
diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the New
Civil Code or that the death or injury of the passenger was due to
a fortuitous event.
(3) The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the
carrier in case of breach of the contract of carriage. Firstly, the
contract of carriage is between the carrier and the passenger, and
in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is exclusively
responsible to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the
negligence of his driver. In other words, the carrier can neither
shift his liability on the contract to his driver nor share it with him,
for his driver's negligence is his. Secondly, that would make the
carrier's liability personal instead of merely vicarious and
consequently, entitled to recover only the share which corresponds
to the driver contradictory to the explicit provision of Article 2181
of the New Civil Code.
FACTS: At 11am on December 24, 1966, Catalina Pascua, Caridad
Pascua, Adelaida Estomo, Erlinda Meriales, Mercedes Lorenzo,
Alejandro Morales and Zenaida Parejas boarded the jeepney
owned by spouses Isidro Mangune and Guillerma Carreon and
driven by Tranquilino Manalo at Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga bound
for Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan to spend Christmas with their
families for P 24.00. Upon reaching barrio Sinayoan, San Manuel,
Tarlac, the right rear wheel of the jeepney detached causing it to
run in an unbalanced position.
brake, causing the jeepney to make a U-turn, invading and
eventually stopping on the opposite lane of the road (the jeepney's
front faced the south (from where it came) and its rear faced the
north (towards where it was going)). The jeepney occupied and
blocked the greater portion of the western lane, which is the right
of way of vehicles coming from the north.
Petitioner Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines claims that almost immediately
after the sudden U-turn the bus bumped the right rear portion of
the jeep. Defendants, on the other hand, claim that the bus
stopped a few minutes before hitting the jeepney. Either way, as
a result of the collision, three passengers of the jeepney (Catalina
Pascua, Erlinda Meriales and Adelaida Estomo) died while the other
jeepney passengers sustained physical injuries.
A criminal complaint was filed against the two drivers for Multiple
Homicide. The case against delos Reyes (driver of Phil. Rabbit) was
dismissed for insufficieny of evidence. Manalo (jeepney driver),
however, was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment.
3 complaints for recovery of damages were then filed before the
CFI of Pangasinan. (1) Spouses Casiano Pascua and Juana Valdez
sued as heirs of Catalina Pascua while Caridad Pascua sued in her
behalf Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. (2) Spouses Manuel
Millares and Fidencia Arcica sued as heirs of Erlinda Meriales. And
(3) spouses Mariano Estomo and Dionisia Sarmiento sued as heirs
of Adelaida Estomo. All three cases impleaded spouses Mangune
and Carreon, Manalo (jeepney owners), Rabbit and delos Reyes as
defendants. Plaintiffs anchored their suits against spouses
Mangune and Carreon and Manalo on their contractual liability. As
against Rabbit and delos Reyes, plaintiffs based their suits on their
culpability for a quasi-delict. Filriters Guaranty Assurance
Corporation, Inc. was also impleaded as additional defendant in
the first case only.
The trial court ruled in favour of then plaintiffs, finding defendants
negligent and having breached the contract of carriage with their
passengers and ordering them, jointly and severally, to pay the
plaintiffs damages.
The IAC reversed the ruling of the trial court, applying primarily
(1) the doctrine of last clear chance, (2) the presumption that
drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle guilty and the cause
of the accident unless contradicted by other evidence, and (3) the
substantial factor test (which concluded that bus driver delos
Reyes, NOT jeepney driver Manalo, was negligent).
Issue: Who are liable for the death and injuries of the
passenger? - Trial court decision reinstated with
modification. Only Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and
Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc. are liable to
the victims or their heirs.
RATIO:
(1) The principle of "the last clear" chance is applicable in a
suit between the owners and drivers of the two colliding
vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual
obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the
negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the
ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of
negligence.
(2) The IAC erred in applying the presumption that the driver
who bumps the rear of another vehicle is guilty and the
cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other
evidence. This presumption is based on the responsibility
given to a rear vehicle of avoiding a collision with the front
vehicle for it is the rear vehicle who has full control of the
situation as it is in a position to observe the vehicle in front
of it. Such presumption is rebutted by the evidence that
shows that the jeepney, which was then traveling on the
eastern shoulder, making a straight, skid mark of
approximately 35 meters, crossed the eastern lane at a
sharp angle, making a skid mark of approximately 15
meters from the eastern shoulder to the point of impact.
(Basically, the U-turn was sudden and delos Reyes could
not have reasonably anticipated it even though he was the
rear vehicle)
(3) Likewise, the bus cannot be made liable under the
substantial factor test (that if the actor's conduct is a
substantial factor in bringing about harm to another, the
fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have
foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it
occurred does not prevent him from being liable). Contrary
to the findings of the appellate court, the bus was
travelling within the speed limit allowed in highways. He
also had only a few seconds to react to the situation. To
require delos Reyes to avoid the collision is to ask too
much from him. Aside from the time element involved,
there were no options available to him to have avoided the
collision.
The proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of jeepney
driver Manalo and spouses Mangune and Carreon. They all failed to
exercise the precautions that are needed precisely pro hac vice.
In culpa contractual, the moment a passenger dies or is injured,
the carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, and this disputable presumption may only be
overcome by evidence that he had observed extra-ordinary
diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the New
Civil Code or that the death or injury of the passenger was due to
a fortuitous event.
The negligence of Manalo was proven during the trial by the
unrebutted testimonies of Caridad Pascua, the police who arrived
on the scene, his (Manalo's) conviction and the application of the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur supra. Spouses Mangune and Carreon
alleged that their mechanic regularly maintains the jeepney and on
the day before the collision, the mechanic actually checked the
vehicle and even tightened the bolts, thus the incident was caused
by a caso fortuito. The SC upheld the trial court’s findings that "in
an action for damages against the carrier for his failure to safely
carry his passenger to his destination, an accident caused either
by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its
driver, is not a caso fortuito which would avoid the carriers’
liability.

The SC modified the decision holding spouses Mangune and

Carreon jointly and severally liable with Manalo. The driver cannot
be held jointly and severally liable with the carrier in case of
breach of the contract of carriage. Firstly, the contract of carriage
is between the carrier and the passenger, and in the event of
contractual liability, the carrier is exclusively responsible to the
passenger, even if such breach be due to the negligence of his
driver. In other words, the carrier can neither shift his liability on
the contract to his driver nor share it with him, for his driver's
negligence is his. Secondly, that would make the carrier's liability
personal instead of merely vicarious and consequently, entitled to
recover only the share which corresponds to the driver
contradictory to the explicit provision of Article 2181 of the New
Civil Code.