La Mallorca vs.

CA (DEGREE OF DILIGENCE)

Plaintiffs (Mariano and his family), road a bus owned and operated by Defendant- La Mallorca. Upon reaching their destination,
Plaintiff- Mariano led his companions to a shaded part and returned to the bus to allegedly claim the bayong that he forgotten.
While waiting for the conductor to give him his bag, the bus suddenly started moving forward, the 2 nd time that it moved
forward w/o the consent of the conductor, P-Mariano immediately jumped off the bus w/o his bayong and saw that people are
gathering around a lifeless body of his child. For the death of their child, P’s commenced the present suit against the defendant.

D-La Mallorca claimed that there is no breach of contract for the reason that the child died not as a passenger of the bus,
hence, the contract of carriage had already terminated. The lower court ruled in favor of the P’s and found the D guilty of
quasi-delict for the negligence of its driver, thus, they are liable for the damages. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE: WON it is the liability of the Defendant, under the contract of carriage, to keep the Ps safe after disembarking.

RULING: the SC modified the decision of the lower court. Although it is true that the Ps had disembarked from the bus
extinguishing the passenger-carrier relationship, however, it was also established that P-Mariano returned to the bus to claim
his bayong that was left, thus, passenger-carrier relationship remained subsisting.

It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights
from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has
had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. It cannot be claimed that the carrier's
agent had exercised the "utmost diligence" of a "very cautious person" required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code. Thus, the
presence of said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are, therefore, to be considered still as passengers of
the carrier, entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage.

But even assuming arguendo that the contract of carriage has already terminated, herein petitioner can be held liable for the
negligence of its driver, as ruled by the LC.