Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

A common carrier’s duty of extraordinary diligence extends to passengers who are in the act of boarding its vehicle; a driver’s premature acceleration that causes a boarding passenger to fall and be run over constitutes a breach of that duty, and the passenger’s attempt to board a slowly moving bus is not negligence per se where the practice is common and known to the carrier’s employees. Actual damages for death are computed on the basis of net earnings — gross income less necessary living and incidental expenses — not gross income alone.

On March 25, 1985, Pedrito Cudiamat was run over by a passenger bus owned by Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. and driven by Theodore Lardizabal at Marivic, Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet. Instead of being taken directly to the nearest hospital, he was transported only after the driver first delivered other passengers and cargo to their destinations. Cudiamat died at the Lepanto Hospital. His heirs subsequently filed a complaint for damages.

• The Accident: On March 25, 1985, petitioner-theodore Lardizabal was driving a passenger bus owned by petitioner-corporation. Between Bunkhouses 53 and 54 at Marivic, Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet, the bus stopped to allow a passenger to alight. Pedrito Cudiamat, who was carrying an umbrella in a drizzle, approached the bus. When the bus was at a full stop, he boarded and was on the platform closing his umbrella. Without waiting for him to secure his seat, Lardizabal suddenly accelerated, causing Cudiamat to fall from the slippery platform. He was run over by the rear right tires and found lying two to three meters behind the bus. Petitioners’ own witnesses confirmed the positions of the bus and the victim and the sequence of events.

• Failure to Render Immediate Aid: After the accident, instead of proceeding directly to the nearest hospital, the driver went first to Bunk 70 to deliver a refrigerator and allow another passenger to alight. It was only thereafter that the victim was taken to the Lepanto Hospital, where he died. Petitioners attributed the delay to the victim’s wife taking about twenty minutes to dress, a claim the appellate court found scandalous and unworthy of belief under the circumstances.

• The Complaint: The heirs of Pedrito Cudiamat filed an action for damages alleging that the driver acted recklessly and failed to bring the victim immediately to a hospital. Petitioners denied negligence, claimed the victim was careless, and counterclaimed for damages.

• Victim’s Contributory Negligence: Petitioners contended that the victim was negligent in attempting to board a moving vehicle while holding an umbrella, and without signaling his intention to board. He was therefore the proximate cause of his own death.

• No Breach of Extraordinary Diligence: Petitioners maintained that they had observed the extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier and were not absolute insurers of public safety. They asserted the driver and conductor had no knowledge the victim intended to board.

• Justification for Delay: The delay in taking the victim to the hospital was attributed to waiting for the victim’s wife, not to any fault of petitioners.

• Negligence Established: Private respondents argued that the bus was at full stop when Cudiamat boarded, making it unnecessary to signal his intention. The driver’s premature acceleration breached the carrier’s duty of extraordinary diligence.

• No Contributory Negligence: Even if the bus was moving slowly, such boarding practices are common, and the carrier’s employees should have anticipated them. The victim’s act was not negligent under the circumstances.

• Gross Indifference in Rendering Aid: The failure to bring the gravely injured victim directly to the hospital and the prioritization of cargo delivery demonstrated a complete lack of due regard for the passenger’s safety.

• Review of Factual Findings: Whether the Supreme Court could reexamine the factual findings of the Court of Appeals when they conflict with those of the trial court.

• Negligence of the Carrier and Driver: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found petitioner-driver and petitioner-corporation negligent for the death of Pedrito Cudiamat.

• Contributory Negligence: Whether Cudiamat was guilty of contributory negligence that barred or mitigated the carrier’s liability.

• Failure to Render Prompt Medical Aid: Whether the driver’s delay in transporting the victim to the hospital constituted additional negligence.

• Computation of Actual Damages: Whether the award of actual damages based on the victim’s gross annual income was proper.

• Amount of Death Indemnity: Whether the death indemnity of P30,000.00 should be increased in line with current jurisprudence.

• Review of Factual Findings: Review of the factual findings was warranted because the appellate court’s conclusions were contrary to those of the trial court, a recognized exception to the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and binding.

• Negligence of the Carrier and Driver: Negligence was established. The Court of Appeals correctly found, based on petitioners’ own witnesses, that the bus was at a full stop when Cudiamat boarded, and that the driver’s premature acceleration caused the victim to fall and be run over. A public utility bus that stops makes a continuing offer to passengers; it is the duty of driver and conductor not to act in a manner that increases the peril to a boarding passenger.

• Contributory Negligence: Cudiamat was not contributorily negligent. Even on petitioners’ version that the bus was moving slowly, it is not negligence per se to board a slowly moving vehicle. An ordinarily prudent person would have made the same attempt, and the practice is common—a fact the carrier’s employees could not be unaware of. The moment the victim stepped onto the platform, he became a passenger entitled to extraordinary diligence.

• Failure to Render Prompt Medical Aid: The driver’s failure to take Cudiamat directly to the hospital when it could have been done, and instead proceeding to deliver a refrigerator, was patent and incontrovertible proof of negligence amounting to callous indifference. The excuse based on the wife’s alleged dressing time was scandalously untenable.

• Computation of Actual Damages: The award of actual damages was incorrectly based on gross income. Only net earnings are recoverable—gross income less necessary living and incidental expenses. The deceased, aged 48 with a 12-year life expectancy, earned P24,000.00 gross annually; a deductible of P500.00 per month (P6,000.00 per year) was fairly and reasonably applied, resulting in net annual earnings of P18,000.00 multiplied by 12 years, yielding P216,000.00. The award of P288,000.00 was thus reduced.

• Amount of Death Indemnity: The death indemnity was increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Duty of Extraordinary Diligence of Common Carriers — Under Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers according to the circumstances of each case. This duty extends to persons boarding and alighting from the vehicle. Any injury suffered by a passenger is immediately attributable to the carrier’s fault or negligence; the carrier must prove it exercised extraordinary diligence. An express finding of fault is not necessary to hold the carrier liable in an action based on the contract of carriage.

• Boarding a Slowly Moving Vehicle Not Negligence Per Se — It is not negligence as a matter of law for a person to attempt to board a slowly moving train or bus. An ordinarily prudent person would do the same, and the common practice is one of which the carrier’s employees are chargeable with knowledge. The carrier must act accordingly to avoid increasing the peril to boarding passengers.

• Computation of Actual Damages for Death — The amount recoverable by the heirs is the loss of net earnings, i.e., gross income less expenses necessary to generate such income and the deceased’s living and incidental expenses. The base formula: (gross annual income – living/incidental expenses) × remaining life expectancy. Deductible living expenses may be reasonably fixed on a case-by-case basis (here, P500.00 per month).

• Increased Death Indemnity — In line with the evolving standard, the indemnity for death caused by a quasi-delict or crime is subject to adjustment; the award of P50,000.00, instead of P30,000.00, reflects prevailing jurisprudence at the time of the decision.

• “A public utility bus, once it stops, is in effect making a continuous offer to bus riders. Hence, it becomes the duty of the driver and the conductor, every time the bus stops, to do no act that would have the effect of increasing the peril to a passenger while he was attempting to board the same. The premature acceleration of the bus in this case was a breach of such duty.” — This passage articulates the affirmative duty that attaches the moment a public conveyance stops.

• “It is not negligence per se, or as a matter of law, for one to attempt to board a train or streetcar which is moving slowly. An ordinarily prudent person would have made the attempt to board the moving conveyance under the same or similar circumstances. The fact that passengers board and alight from slowly moving vehicles is a matter of common experience both the driver and conductor in this case could not have been unaware of such an ordinary practice.” — This clarifies the standard of conduct expected of both passenger and carrier in the local transportation context.

• “The victim herein, by stepping and standing on the platform of the bus, is already considered a passenger and is entitled to all the rights and protection pertaining to such a contractual relation.” — The moment the passenger’s person reaches the vehicle, the heightened duty of care commences.

• “Moreover, the circumstances under which the driver and the conductor failed to bring the gravely injured victim immediately to the hospital for medical treatment is a patent and incontrovertible proof of their negligence. It defies understanding and can even be stigmatized as callous indifference.” — The Court underscored that post-accident conduct is relevant to proving the breach of diligence.

• Sabinosa vs. Court of Appeals, 175 SCRA 552 (1989) — Applied as authority for the exception to the rule on finality of factual findings of the Court of Appeals; where findings conflict with those of the trial court, the Supreme Court may reexamine the evidence.

• Del Prado vs. Manila Electric Co., 52 Phil. 900 (1929) — Cited for the doctrine that the duty of common carriers extends to passengers boarding and alighting, and that a carrier is liable for injuries caused by the sudden starting of its vehicle.

• Sy vs. Malate Taxicab & Garage, Inc., 102 Phil. 482 (1957) and Batangas Transportation Co. vs. Caguimbal, 22 SCRA 171 (1968) — Cited for the rule that in an action on a contract of carriage, no express finding of fault or negligence is required; injury to a passenger is prima facie attributable to the carrier’s negligence.

• Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 31 SCRA 511 (1970) and Davila vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 49 SCRA 497 (1973) — Relied upon for the principle that actual damages for death are based on net, not gross, earnings.

• People vs. Sazon, 189 SCRA 700 (1990) — Used to justify the increase of the death indemnity to P50,000.00.

• Articles 1733 and 1755, New Civil Code — Article 1733 defines the standard of extraordinary diligence required of common carriers for the safety of passengers. Article 1755 requires the carrier to exercise the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all circumstances. These provisions were applied to hold that the carrier breached its duty by prematurely accelerating while the victim was on the platform and by failing to render immediate medical aid, and that the carrier bore the burden of proving it exercised the required diligence, which it failed to do.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Padilla, and Sarmiento, JJ., concurred.