KAPALARAN BUS LINE vs.

CORONADO
(G.R. No. 85331; August 25, 1989)
Facts of the Case:
The jeepney driven by Lope Grajera was then coming from Pila, Laguna and
traversing the an old highway towards Sta. Cruz collided with a KBL bus driven by
its regular driver Virgilio Llamoso. As testified to by Atty. Conrado L. Manicad who
was driving a Mustang car coming from the direction of Sta. Cruz and proceeding
towards the direction of Manila, he stopped at the intersection to give way to the
jeepney driven by Grajera. The sketch marked very clearly that the jeepney had
already traversed theinter section when it met the KBL bus head-on. It is also
obvious that the point of impact was on the right lane of the highway which is the
lane properly belonging to the jeepney. Judging from the testimony of Atty. Conrado
L. Manicad and the sketch (Exhibit 'E'), the sequence of events shows that the first
vehicle to arrive at the intersection was the jeepney. Seeing that the road was clear,
the jeepney which had stopped at the intersection began to move forward, and for
his part, Atty. Manicad stopped his car at the intersection to give way to the
jeepney. The KBL bus had no more room within which to stop without slamming into
the rear of the vehicle behind the car of Atty. Manicad. The KBL driver chose to
gamble on proceeding on its way, unfortunately, the jeepney driven by Grajera,
which had the right-of-way, was about to cross the center of the highway and was
directly on the path of the KBL bus. The impact indicates that the KBL bus was
travelling at a fast rate of speed because, after the collision, it did not stop; it
travelled for another 50meters and stopped only when it hit an electric post.
Legal Issue:
Whether or not KAPALARAN BUS LINE (KBL) is liable for damages from the collision.
Ruling of the Court:YES
. KBL is liable for the damages in the collision.
The patent and gross negligence on the part of the petitioner Kapalaran's
driver raised the legal presumption that Kapalaran as employer was guilty
of negligence either in the selection or in the supervision of its bus driver, where the
employer is held liable for damages; it has of course a right of recourse against its
own negligent employee.
The liability of the employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code is direct and
immediate;
it
is
not
conditioned
upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing
of
the
insolvency of such employee. So far as the record shows, petitioner Kapalaran was

unable to rebut the presumption of negligence on its own part. The award of moral
damages against petitioner Kapalaran is not only entirely in order; it is also quite
modest considering Dionisio Shinyo's death during the pendency of this petition, a
death hastened by, if not directly due to, the grievous injuries sustained by him in
the violent collision.
Delsan vs CA
G.R. No. 127897. November 15, 2001
Facts:
Caltex entered into a contract of affreightment with Delsan Transport Lines, Inc., for
a period of one year whereby the said common carrier agreed to transport Caltexs
industrial fuel oil from the Batangas-Bataan Refinery to different parts of the
country. Under the contract, petitioner took on board its vessel, MT Maysun,
2,277.314 kiloliters of industrial fuel oil of Caltex to be delivered to the Caltex Oil
Terminal in Zamboanga City. The shipment was insured with the private
respondent, American Home Assurance Corporation.
On August 14, 1986, MT Maysun set sail from Batangas for Zamboanga City.
Unfortunately, the vessel sank in the early morning of August 16, 1986 near Panay
Gulf in the Visayas taking with it the entire cargo of fuel oil.
The Respondent (insurance) paid the Caltex the amount of
representing the amount of the value of the lost cargo.

P5,096,635.57

Issue:
1. Whether or not the payment made by the private respondent to Caltex for the
insured value of the lost cargo amounted to an admission that the vessel was
seaworthy, thus precluding any action for recovery against the petitioner.
2. Whether or not the non-presentation of the marine insurance policy bars the
complaint for recovery of sum of money for lack of cause of action
Held:
No, under the law, extra ordinary diligence is required by the common carrier in
taking good care of the goods. The common carrier is presumed negligent unless
the contrary provides otherwise. The right of subrogation has its roots in equity. It is
designed to promote and to accomplish justice and is the mode which equity adopts
to compel the ultimate payment of a debt by one who in justice and good
conscience ought to pay. It is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any
privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim. It accrues simply upon
payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.

The presentation in evidence of the marine insurance policy is not indispensable in

this case before the insurer may recover from the common carrier the insured value
of the lost cargo in the exercise of its subrogatory right. The subrogation receipt, by
itself, is sufficient to establish not only the relationship of herein private respondent
as insurer and Caltex, as the assured shipper of the lost cargo of industrial fuel oil,
but also the amount paid to settle the insurance claim. The right of subrogation
accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.