La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals

The relation of carrier and passenger does not automatically cease upon alighting but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time and opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises; a passenger who returns to the vehicle to retrieve baggage and a child who follows and remains near it are still entitled to the carrier’s extraordinary diligence. A complaint may validly plead both breach of contract and quasi-delict in the alternative, and an employer who fails to rebut the presumption of negligence in selection and supervision is liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. An appellate court may not increase the award of damages in favor of a party who did not appeal from the judgment of the trial court.

On 20 December 1953, the Beltran spouses and their three minor daughters — Milagros (13), Raquel (about 4½), and Fe (over 2) — boarded Pambusco Bus No. 352, owned by La Mallorca, at San Fernando, Pampanga, bound for Anao, Mexico, Pampanga. They carried four pieces of baggage. The conductor issued tickets only for the parents and Milagros, as the two younger children were beneath the fare-paying height. Upon arrival at Anao, the family alighted; Mariano Beltran carried some baggage to a shaded spot on the pedestrian side of the road, about four to five meters from the bus, and then returned to retrieve a bayong left under a seat. Raquel followed him unseen. While Beltran stood on the running board waiting for the conductor to hand him the bag, the bus suddenly moved forward without the conductor’s signal; the engine had not been shut off. Beltran jumped from the running board, but Raquel was run over and killed.

• Trip and Alighting: On 20 December 1953, around noon, spouses Mariano Beltran and their three minor daughters (Milagros, 13; Raquel, about 4½; and Fe, over 2) boarded Pambusco Bus No. 352, owned and operated by La Mallorca, at San Fernando, Pampanga, bound for Anao, Mexico, Pampanga. They carried four pieces of baggage. The conductor issued three tickets for the parents and Milagros; Raquel and Fe were not charged because their height was below the fare-paying threshold. The bus reached Anao after about an hour and stopped to allow passengers to alight.
• Initial Disembarkation: Mariano Beltran alighted first, carrying some of the baggages, followed by his wife and children. He led them to a shaded spot on the left pedestrian side of the road, about four or five meters away from the vehicle.
• Return to the Bus: Mariano then returned to the bus to retrieve a bayong that had been left under a seat near the door. Unnoticed by him, Raquel followed. Mariano stood on the running board waiting for the conductor to hand him the bayong. The bus engine remained running while passengers disembarked.
• Premature Movement and Fatal Injury: Without the conductor having given the customary signal to start — the conductor was still attending to Beltran’s baggage — the bus suddenly moved forward, evidently to resume the trip. Sensing the motion, Mariano jumped from the running board without getting the bayong and landed on the side of the road almost in front of the spot where he had left his family. At that moment, he saw people gathering around a child lying prostrate on the ground, skull crushed and lifeless. The child was Raquel, who had been run over by the bus.
• Complaint Filed: The Beltran spouses sued La Mallorca for damages, alleging that the death of their daughter resulted from both a breach of the contract of carriage and the negligence and lack of utmost diligence of the carrier’s employees. The complaint sought an aggregate of P16,000 for moral and actual damages plus attorney’s fees.

• Liability based on quasi-delict: Petitioner contended that the respondents’ complaint was one for breach of contract of carriage; therefore the Court of Appeals could not base liability on quasi-delict.
• Increase of damages: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in raising the death indemnity from P3,000 to P6,000 when respondents did not appeal from the trial court’s decision.

• Carrier’s continuing duty: Respondents maintained that the relation of carrier and passenger did not terminate because the father had to return to the bus to retrieve baggage and the child remained near the vehicle; hence La Mallorca breached its obligation to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers.
• Alternative cause of action for quasi-delict: Respondents argued that the complaint sufficiently pleaded negligence in the alternative, as allowed by the Rules of Court, and that the driver’s negligence, coupled with petitioner’s failure to rebut the presumption of lack of due diligence in selection and supervision, rendered petitioner liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

• Liability for death of the child: Whether La Mallorca could be held liable for Raquel Beltran’s death under the contract of carriage or under quasi-delict, given that she had initially alighted but was run over while her father returned to the bus to retrieve baggage.
• Increase of damages: Whether the Court of Appeals could increase the death indemnity from P3,000 to P6,000 when the plaintiffs did not appeal the trial court’s award.

• Liability for death of the child: Liability was sustained on both alternative grounds. The relation of carrier and passenger did not cease because the father had to return to the bus to retrieve a bag left behind, an act akin to aiding the carrier’s servant in removing baggage. Under the circumstances, Raquel, who followed her father and remained near the bus, was still a passenger entitled to the carrier’s utmost diligence under Article 1755 of the Civil Code. The driver’s act of starting the bus before receiving the conductor’s signal, while the engine was running and passengers were still in the vicinity, constituted a breach of that extraordinary diligence. Even assuming the contract of carriage had ended, the complaint expressly pleaded an alternative cause of action for quasi-delict, permissible under Section 2, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. Proof of the employee’s negligent act gave rise to the presumption that La Mallorca failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees — a presumption the petitioner did not overcome. Consequently, La Mallorca was liable for quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
• Increase of damages: The increase could not be sustained. An appellate court is generally limited to issues raised and argued in the appellant’s brief. The plaintiffs did not appeal the trial court’s award of P3,000, nor did they, as appellees, point out any inadequacy in their brief before the Court of Appeals. Hence, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court had no authority to enhance the award in their favor.

• Continuing carrier-passenger relationship after alighting — The relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier’s vehicle 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. What constitutes a reasonable time or delay is determined from all the circumstances. A passenger who reapproaches the vehicle to retrieve baggage left behind, and a child who follows and remains near the vehicle, are considered still within the carrier’s protective duty.
• Alternative pleading of contract and tort — Under Section 2, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 8, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules), a plaintiff may plead causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible or incompatible, so long as the real matter in controversy is resolved. Thus, a complaint may validly allege both breach of contract of carriage and quasi-delict arising from the same incident.
• Presumption of employer’s negligence (Article 2180) — Proof that an employee acted negligently within the scope of his assigned tasks creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. The burden shifts to the employer to overcome this presumption; failure to do so results in vicarious liability.
• Prohibition against increasing damages without cross-appeal — An appellate court may not modify a judgment to increase an award of damages in favor of a party who did not appeal, unless that party, as appellee, points out the inadequacy of the award in its brief. This rule stems from the principle that an appellate court is confined to questions raised and argued in the appellant’s brief, in the absence of a cross-appeal.

• “The relation of carrier and passenger does not necessarily cease where the latter, after alighting from the car, aids the carrier’s servant or employee in removing his baggage from the car.” (quoting Ormond v. Hayer) — This passage anchored the Court’s finding that the father remained a passenger when returning for his bayong.
• “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.” — This articulation defines the temporal scope of the carrier’s extraordinary diligence.
• “The inclusion of this averment for quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under the contract of carriage, is permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8 of the New Rules of Court, which allows a plaintiff to allege causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible with each other or not, to the end that the real matter in controversy may be resolved and determined.” — This confirms the viability of alternative pleading and thus the dual basis of liability.
• “The presentation of proof of the negligence of its employee gave rise to the presumption that the defendant employer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees. And this presumption, as the Court of Appeals found, petitioner had failed to overcome.” — This encapsulates the shift in burden of proof under Article 2180.
• “Generally, the appellate court can only pass upon and consider questions or issues raised and argued in appellant’s brief. Plaintiffs did not appeal from that portion of the judgment of the trial court awarding them on P3,000.00 damages … Neither does it appear that, as appellees in the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs have pointed out in their brief the inadequacy of the award.” — This explains why the Court of Appeals lacked authority to increase the indemnity.

• Ormond v. Hayer, 60 Tex. 180, cited in 10 C.J. 626 — Cited as authority that the carrier-passenger relation does not cease when a passenger aids in removing baggage; followed.
• Keefe v. Boston, etc. R. Co., 142 Mass. 251, 7 NE 874 — Cited for the principle that a passenger walking along a station platform after alighting remains a passenger; followed.
• Layne v. Chesapeake, etc. R. Co., 68 W. Va. 213, 69 SE 700, 31 LRANS 414 — Cited for the rule that a passenger who returns to aid an injured fellow-passenger continues to be entitled to the carrier’s protection; followed.
• Melayan, et al. v. Melayan, et al., G.R. No. L-14518, 29 Aug. 1960 — Cited to support the permissibility of pleading alternative causes of action under Section 2, Rule 8; applied.

• Article 1755, Civil Code — 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. Applied because the driver’s premature movement while passengers were still near the bus fell short of this standard.
• Article 2180, Civil Code — The obligation to repair damage caused by employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks is imposed upon employers, with the employer able to avoid liability by proving the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. Applied as an alternative basis; petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that it lacked due diligence in selecting and supervising its driver.
• Section 2, Rule 8, Rules of Court (1964 Rules of Court) — A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim alternatively, regardless of consistency. Applied to sustain the alternative allegation of quasi-delict.
• Section 7, Rule 51, Rules of Court — An appellant’s brief shall contain the questions or issues to be raised, and the appellate court shall consider only those stated. Applied to bar the increase of damages: plaintiffs neither appealed nor raised the inadequacy in their appellees’ brief.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur. Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.