TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that a bus company is primarily liable for passenger injuries and deaths resulting from a collision with a negligently parked truck, reinforcing the high standard of care required of common carriers. This means bus companies cannot easily deflect responsibility onto other negligent parties when passenger safety is compromised. While the parked truck’s negligence contributed to the accident, the bus company’s failure to exercise extraordinary diligence ultimately determined their liability. The court also clarified the insurer’s responsibility to provide compensation up to policy limits, emphasizing the purpose of compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance to protect victims. This decision highlights the paramount importance of passenger safety in public transportation and underscores the responsibilities of both carriers and insurers in ensuring that safety.

Collision Course: Whose Negligence Takes the Wheel?

In March 1987, a D’ Rough Riders passenger bus collided with a cargo truck parked on a national highway in Compostela, Cebu. The truck, owned by Benjamin Condor and driven by Sergio Pedrano, had stalled due to a tire explosion and was left partially obstructing the road without adequate warning devices. The bus, operated by William Tiu and driven by Virgilio Te Laspiñas, struck the truck’s rear, resulting in injuries to passengers and the death of Pedro Arriesgado’s wife, Felisa. This case explores whether the bus company can be held liable for breach of contract of carriage and damages or if the primary fault lies with the truck driver’s negligence, examining the extent of responsibility for ensuring passenger safety in public transportation.

The legal battle began when Pedro Arriesgado sued William Tiu, the bus operator, and Virgilio Te Laspiñas, the driver, for breach of contract of carriage, alleging negligence. Tiu, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Condor (the truck owner), Pedrano (the truck driver), and Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. (PPSII), his insurer. The central question revolved around determining who was primarily responsible for the accident: the bus driver for failing to avoid the stalled truck, or the truck driver for negligently parking on the highway. The trial court found Tiu liable, a decision affirmed with modifications by the Court of Appeals, prompting Tiu to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the matter is the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers, as stipulated in Articles 1733, 1755, and 1756 of the Civil Code. These provisions mandate that common carriers must ensure passenger safety to the highest degree, taking all possible precautions. The Court emphasized that a contract of carriage places an express obligation on the carrier to transport passengers safely to their destination, with any injury suffered during the journey presumed to be the carrier’s fault. Upon the accident, a presumption of negligence immediately arises, placing the burden on the carrier to prove they observed extraordinary diligence.

Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry 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.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ findings that Laspiñas, the bus driver, was indeed negligent. Despite claiming to have been driving at a moderate speed, the extent of the damage and the circumstances surrounding the accident suggested otherwise. The Court noted that Laspiñas had ample opportunity to avoid the truck, but failed to do so, implying a lack of due care and attention. This failure to exercise extraordinary diligence sealed the bus company’s fate, making them liable for the resulting damages.

The petitioners argued that the principle of last clear chance should apply, absolving them of liability because Pedrano, the truck driver, had the last opportunity to prevent the accident by properly positioning the warning devices. However, the Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable only in suits between the owners and drivers of two colliding vehicles. The Supreme Court pointed out it does not apply 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 owner on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence.

The Court also addressed the negligence of respondents Condor and Pedrano, recognizing that the improperly parked truck created an unreasonable risk for other drivers. Quoting from Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Supreme Court stated that Dionisio’s negligence was “only contributory,” and that “the immediate and proximate cause” of the injury remained the truck driver’s “lack of due care.” The court emphasized that the truck driver’s failure to provide adequate warning lights or reflector devices contributed significantly to the accident. Thus, the court found them jointly and severally liable alongside the bus company for the damages.

Regarding the liability of PPSII, the insurer, the Court noted that while PPSII admitted the existence of the insurance contract, it claimed that Arriesgado’s claim exceeded the policy limits. However, the Court ruled that PPSII was liable up to the extent specified in the insurance agreement, citing the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Law, which aims to provide compensation for victims regardless of the vehicle owner’s financial capacity. The court found that the insurer in an indemnity contract for third party liability is directly liable to the injured party up to the extent specified in the agreement but it cannot be held solidarily liable beyond that amount.

FAQs

This case reinforces the high standard of care expected from common carriers in ensuring passenger safety. The decision serves as a reminder that bus companies cannot easily deflect responsibility when passenger injuries or deaths occur due to their negligence, even if other parties also contributed to the accident.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: WILLIAM TIU vs. PEDRO A. ARRIESGADO, G.R. No. 138060, September 01, 2004