Mariano v. Calleja

Herminio Mariano v. Ildefonso Callejas, et al, G.R. No.
166640 (2009)
Doctrine: While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe
transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not,
however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers.
Facts:
Herminio Mariano, Jr. is the surviving spouse of Dr. Frelinda Mariano who was a passenger of a Celyrosa
Expres bus bound for Tagaytay when she met her death. Callejas is the registered owner of Celyrosa
Express, while Edgar de Borja was the driver of the bus on which the deceased was a passernger.
On November 12, 1991, along Aguinaldo Highway, the Celyrona Express bus, carrying Dr. Mariano as its
passenger, collided with an Isuzu truck with trailer. The passenger bus was bound for Tagaytay while the
trailer truck came from the opposite direction, bound for Manila. The trailer truck bumped the passenger
bus on its left middle portion and due to the impact; the passenger bus fell on its right side causing the
death of Dr. Mariano and physical injuries to four other passengers.
The petitioner filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages against respondents for
their failure to transport his wife safely to her destination. The respondents denied liability for the death of
Dr. Mariano. They claimed that the proximate cause of the accident was the recklessness of the driver of
the trailer truck which bumped their bus while allegedly at a halt on the shoulder of the road in its rightful
lane. Thus, respondent Callejas filed a third-party complaint against Liong Chio Chang for indemnity in
the even that he would be held liable for damages to petitioner.
The trial court, in its Decision dated September 13, 1999, found respondents Callegas and de Borja,
together with Liong Chio Chang, jointly and severally liable to pay petitioner damages and costs of suit.
The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the trial court erred in holding them
guilty of breach of contract of carriage. On May 21, 2004, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court.
The appellate court also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner. Hence, this appeal.
Issue/s: Whether or not the respondent failed to overcome the presumption of negligence. (NO)
Ruling:
Celyrosa Express, a common carrier, has the express obligation to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due
regard for all the circumstances, and to observe extraordinary diligence in the discharge of its duty. The
death of the wife of the petitioner in the course of transporting her to her destination gave rise to the
presumption of negligence of the carrier. To overcome the presumption, respondents have to show that
they observed extraordinary diligence in the discharge of their duty, or that the accident was caused by a
fortuitous event.
As interpreted in the case of Pilapil v. CA, the Court elucidated that:

While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their
passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not, however, make the carrier
an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers. Thus, it is clear that neither the law nor the nature of
the business of a transportation company makes it an insurer of the passenger's safety, but that its
liability for personal injuries sustained by its passenger rests upon its negligence, its failure to exercise the
degree of diligence that the law requires.
In the case at bar, petitioner cannot succeed in his contention that respondents failed to overcome the
presumption of negligence against them. The totality of evidence shows that the death of petitioners
spouse was caused by the reckless negligence of the driver of the Isuzu trailer truck which lost its brakes
and bumped the Celyrosa Express bus.
In fine, the evidence shows that before the collision, the passenger bus was cruising on its rightful lane
along the Aguinaldo Highway when the trailer truck coming from the opposite direction, on full speed,
suddenly swerved and encroached on its lane, and bumped the passenger bus on its left middle portion.
Respondent driver De Borja had every right to expect that the trailer truck coming from the opposite
direction would stay on its proper lane. He was not expected to know that the trailer truck had lost its
brakes.
The swerving of the trailer truck was abrupt and it was running on a fast speed as it was found 500
meters away from the point of collision. Secondly, any doubt as to the culpability of the driver of the trailer
truck ought to vanish when he pleaded guilty to the charge of reckless imprudence resulting to multiple
slight physical injuries and damage to property in Criminal Case No. 2223-92, involving the same incident.

Mariano v. Calleja

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mariano v. Calleja

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mariano v. Calleja

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herminio Mariano v. Ildefonso Callejas, et al, G.R. No.

As interpreted in the case of Pilapil v. CA, the Court elucidated that:

You might also like