Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


FACTS: 1. Sunga is not bound by the ruling in Civil Case No. 3490
1. Sunga rode a passenger jeepney owned and operated because she was never a party to that case and,
by petitioner Calalas. As the jeepney was filled to therefore, the principle of res judicata does not apply.
capacity of about 24 passengers, Sunga was given by 2. The issue in Civil Case No. 3490 was whether Salva
the conductor an "extension seat," a wooden stool at and Verena were liable for quasi delict. On the other
the back of the door at the rear end of the vehicle. hand, the issue in this case is whether petitioner is
2. As Sunga was giving way so that a passenger can get liable on his contract of carriage.
out, an Isuzu truck driven by Verena and Salva 3. Consequently, in quasi-delict, the negligence or fault
bumped the left rear portion of the Jeepney. As a should be clearly established because it is the basis of
result, Sunga was injured. the action, whereas in breach of contract, the action
a. Her physician certified that she would remain on can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of
a cast for a period of 3 months. the contract and the fact that the obligor, in this case
3. Sunga filed a complaint for damages against Calalas, the common carrier, failed to transport his passenger
alleging violation of the contract of carriage by the safely to his destination.
former in failing to exercise the diligence required of 4. It is immaterial that the proximate cause of the
him as a common carrier. Calalas, on the other hand, collision between the jeepney and the truck was the
filed a third-party complaint against Francisco Salva, negligence of the truck driver. The doctrine of
the owner of the Isuzu truck. proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-
4. LC: rendered judgment against Salva as third-party delict, not in actions involving breach of contract.
defendant and absolved Calalas of liability, holding a. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to
that it was the driver of the Isuzu truck who was a person where there is no relation between him
responsible for the accident. and another party.
a. Lower court based its decision on Civil Case No. b. In such a case, the obligation is created by law
3490 wherein Calalas filed damages against itself. But, where there is a pre-existing
Salva and Verena for quasi delict wherein the contractual relation between the parties, it is
court in that case ruled in favor of Calalas. the parties themselves who create the
5. CA: reversed. Sunga's cause of action was based on a obligation, and the function of the law is merely
contract of carriage, not quasi-delict, and that the to regulate the relation thus created.
common carrier failed to exercise the diligence 5. In the case at bar, upon the happening of the accident,
required under the Civil Code. Third-party complaint the presumption of negligence at once arose, and it
against Salva and adjudged Calalas liable for damages became the duty of petitioner to prove that he had to
to Sunga is dismissed. observe extraordinary diligence in the care of his
6. Petitioner now appeals contending that the ruling in passengers. However, based on the records, petitioner
Civil Case No. 3490 that the negligence of Verena was failed to observe extraordinary diligence:
the proximate cause of the accident negates his a. The jeepney was not properly parked, its rear
liability and that to rule otherwise would be to make portion being exposed about two meters from
the common carrier an insurer of the safety of its the broad shoulders of the highway, and facing
passengers. the middle of the highway in a diagonal angle.
(Violation of Land Transporation and traffic
ISSUE: WON petitioner is liable? Code)
b. It is undisputed that petitioner's driver took in
more passengers than the allowed seating IN CASE HE ASKED ABOUT CASIO FORTUTIO
capacity of the jeepney
c. The fact that Sunga was seated in an "extension A caso fortuito is an event which could not be foreseen, or
seat" placed her in a peril greater than that to which, though foreseen, was inevitable. This requires that the
which the other passengers were exposed following requirements be present: (a) the cause of the
6. As to petitioner's contention that Sunga's taking an breach is independent of the debtor's will; (b) the event is
"extension seat" amounted to an implied assumption unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event is such as to
of risk. It is akin to arguing that the injuries to the render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a
many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not normal manner, and (d) the debtor did not take part in
be compensated merely because those passengers causing the injury to thecreditor. Petitioner should have
assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an foreseen the danger of parking his jeepney with its body
overloaded ferry. protruding two meters into the highway.
7. The evidence shows he was actually negligent in
transporting passengers.