LRTA v NATIVIDAD o ARTICLE 1755 .

A common carrier is bound to

Facts: carry the passengers safely as far as human
October 14, 1993, 7:30pm. Nicanor Navidad drunk entered EDSA care and foresight can provide, using the
LRT station, after purchasing a token utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with
Junelito Escartin, guard, approached David a due regard for all the circumstances
Misunderstanding/ Altercation = led to a fist fight o ARTICLE 1756 In case of death of or injuries to
o No evidence was adduced who started the fight passengers, common carriers are presumed to
o Natividad fell on LRT tracks have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
o Train drove by Rodolfo Roman hit Natividad, Killed unless they prove that they observed
instantly extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles
December 8, 1994, Widow, Marjorie Navidad, with her children, 1733 and 1755."
o Filed for Complaint for Damages against Escartin, o Article 1759.Common carriers are liable for the
Roman, LRTA, and Metro Transit, Prudent death of or injuries to passengers through the
LRTA and Roman negligence or willful acts of the former's
o Counter claim against Natividad employees, although such employees may
o Cross claim against Escartin and Prudent have acted beyond the scope of their
Prudent authority or in violation of the orders of the
o Denied liability, due diligence in selection and common carriers. "This liability of the common
supervision of Security Guards carriers does not cease upon proof that they
LRTA and Roman exercised all the diligence of a good father of a
o Presented evidence family in the selection and supervision of their
Prudent and Escartin employees."
o Filed a Demurrer = Navidad failed to prove that o Article 1763.A common carrier is responsible
escartin was negligent in his assigned task for injuries suffered by a passenger on account
Trial Court of the willful acts or negligence of other
o In favor of LRTA and Roman passengers or of strangers, if the common
Prudent and Escartin to pay, carrier's employees through the exercise of the
Actual damages (44,830.00) diligence of a good father of a family could
Compensatory damages have prevented or stopped the act or
(443,520) omission."
Indemnity for the death of Can be proved to be negligent by simple proof of injury
Nicanor (50,000) In the absence of proof that of satisfactory explanation ny
Moral Damages (50,000) carrier how accident happened.
Attorneys fees (20,000) o PRESSUMED to have been at fault
Costs of suit LRTAs liability is the contract of carriage and its
Complaint against LRTA and Roman OBLIGATION to indemnify from the breach of contract = by
Dismissed = lack of merit reason of failure to exercise the high diligence required of
Counter claim of Lrta and the common carrier
roman dismissed
o Prudent Appealed If LRTA is liable= tort under article 2176 and 2180=
employer failed to exercise diligence in selection and
Court of Appealed supervision of its employees
o Exonerated Prudent of ANY LIABILTY for the death of o Can only be negated by Due diligence in the
Navidad selection of the employees
o Roman and LRTA are LIABLE
o There was already a contract of carriage when SUPREME COURT
Navidad entered the station after paying the Fare and o Nothing to link PRUDENT to death of
getting token. NICANOR
o Nothing to Link security agency to the death o NEGLIGENCE OF ESCARTIN IS NOT PROVEN in
Failed to show that escartin threw the court of appeals
first blow upon the victim o Rodolfo Roman is not guilty of culpable act or
Only showed that navidad was hit by the omission = must be absolved of liability
train owned and managed by the LRTA, Can only be liable for own fault or
driven by Roman negligence
Failed to present expert
evidence establish that ROMAN ABSOLVED
Emergency brakes could not AFFIRMED MODIFICATION
have stopped the train NOMINAL DAMAGES IS DELETED
o Denied Motion for reconsideration

Supreme Court
o LRTA:
Presumption of negligence of a common
carrier was not overcome
Assault by Escartin, could not have been
foreseen/ prevented
Failed to prove Employer employee
relationship between Roman and LRTA
Roman said he is an
employee of Metro Transit.
o Prudent:
Contract of carriage was deemed created
Navidad paid the fair and Entered the
premises of the latter
Entitling him of all rights and
protection under a
contractual relation.
Common Carrier
o Nature of its business & public policy
o Burdened duty of Exercising UTMOST
DILIGENCE in ensuring the Safety of Passengers
DANGWA v TRANSPORTATOIN CO V CA o Premature acceleration = breach of duty
INOCENCIA CUDIAMAT= Complaint for Damages Againt petitioners o Stepping on slowly moving bus is not negligent
March 25, 1985 , Mankayan Benguet per se
THEODORE LARDIZIBAL = Dangwa transportation Bus Driver Need not find and express fault of the carrier in order to
o Reckless, imprudent, without due regard to traffic hold it responsible to pay damages sought by the
rules and regulations passenger.
o RAN OVER PEDRITO CUDIAMAT o Assumes the responsibility to transport the
o In bad faith and without regard to the welfare of the passenger safely and to observe extraordinary
victim BROUGHT the passengers and cargo to the diligence with due regard to all circumstances
destinations before bringing to LEPANTO HOSPITAL o Must prove that they proved extraordinary
diligence (article 1733 and 1755)
Dangwa Transpo =
Observes extraordinary diligence required in the operation of FAILURE to bring the passenger to a hospital =
company and supervision over employees Inconvertible proof of their negligence
Not warranters of safety of public at large o Went to bunk 56, then Bunk 70 to deliver a
Victims own carelessness refrigerator
Dismiss complain Dangwa wife had to dress up for
o Award of damages by counterclaim 20 minutes
Refuted by CA scant
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT consideration
Findings : CANNOT BE SAID going to bunk 70
Cudiamat was negligent in boarding a moving vehicle, with was to inform the family about the
an umbrella in one hand, without giving driver or conductor accident
indication wish to board. Not said by the
But Dangwa is wanting of diligence because DOOR WAS driver/ conductor
OPEN Ref by Virginia Abalos,
o No one will board a bus with closed door she called the family
o So = equity demanded that something must be of Abalos
given money to the heirs of the victim
But there is an oversight in the damages
= in favor of dangwa o Loss of the portion which beneficiary would
Cudiamat was negligent= proximate cause of his death have received
Nevertheless ordered to pay heirs 10k (price of amicable NET EARNINGS not gross earnings
settlement previously offered) 216k not 288k

INOCENCIA CUDIAMAT appealed to the COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS
Findings:
Vitaliano Safarita, witness
o THE BUS WAS AT A FULL STOP
o Did indicate his intention to board the bus=
Made a sign
o when he was closing his umbrella at the
platform of the bus where there was a sudden
jerk in the bus
Fault of the driver
o Prematurely stepping on the accelerator
o Not waiting for to take a seat
o Slippery
o Art 1733 = extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over goods and for the passengers
transported by them
Interviewed Virginia abalos and Martin Anglog (Bus
conductor)
o Martin: saw a umbrella, went down saw
Pedrito asking for help
o 2 or 3 meters awar from the bus, saw at the
back
= set aside decision of lower court
Dangwa to pay 30k as indemnity
20k for moral damages
288k actual and compensatory damages
cost of suit

=Dangwa, motion of consideration = DENIED

= whether or not / CA is erring in reversing the decision of the trial court
= even though CA as a rule is FINAL may not be reviewed by SC.
TC and CA have a discordant position who is guilty of
negligence
Determine conflicting views

SUPREME COURT
Review of the Evidence:
Alighted between bunkhouses 53 and 54 THUS AT FULL
STOP
o NO NEED TO SIGNAL HIS INTENTION TO BOARD
if at stop
o Once stops makes a continuous offer to bus
riders
LA MALLORCA v CA
Dec 20, 1953 noon time with, Mariano beltran, wife, Milagros (13),
Raquel (4) , Fe (2)
boarded PAMBUSCO 352 (Pampanga) La mallorca
San Fernando to Mexico Pampanga
4 pieces of luggage, and personal belongings
Conductor is half brother of Mariano, issued 3 tickets, no
tickets were issued for Raquel and fe b/c under height limit

After an hour reached ANAO

Mariano family first to get off the bus
Led them to shaded spot on left of the pedestrian, 4/5
meters away from the bus
Went back to get a BAYONG
Raquel followed
Mariano was waiting for the bayon on the running board.
BUS did not shut off the engine, started moving forward
o Conductor did not give the driver the go signal
o Stopped again in 10 meters
Mariano jumped off from the running board, when the bus
moved
o Back to the shaded portion of the pedestrian
o Then he saw people looking at a dead child,
skull crushed
RTC give mariano Mariano = 3K

COURT OF APPEALS
LAMALLORCA:
Not a breach because the child was no longer a passenger
Contract of carriage is terminated
o = CA SUSTAINED THIS but found them guilty of
quasi delict for negligence of the driver
o NOT LIABLE but increased the damages 6k +
400 pesos = instead of 3k
LA MALLORCA CA erred
o Holding them for quasi delict, the complaint
was for breach of contract
o In raising the award

SUPREME COURT
Although they have alighted, father returned to get bayong
Relation between passenger and carrier still existed
(MARIANO)

Relation between Carrier and Passenger does not cease at the moment
the passenger ALIGHTS
CONTINUES until has reasonable time or opportunity to
leave the carriers premises
Reasonable delay determined with the circumstances
When child was runover
Carrier was not exercising utmost diligence of a very
cautious person of ARTICLE 1755
o 1.) driver though stop, did not close the engine
o 2.) started to run the engine without the go
signal of the conductor, while conductor was
still unloading the baggage of Mariano Beltran
Presence of the family not unreasonable
= Sufficiently pleaded the negligence of the want of utmost
diligence of a very cautious person on part of the defendants and
their agents
= NEGLIGENCE OF THE EMPLOYEE shows the negligence of the
employer in exercising DOAGFOAF in selection and supervision of
its employees
La Mallorca failed to overcome this
Increasing the awarding 3 to 6k is not sustained

= ERRING in increasing damages GRANTED

Even if not liable for contract of carriage still liable for quasi delict
Caused by negligence and want of uxorious utmost
diligence of a very cautious person on the part of the
defendants and their agents
ABOITIZ SHIPPING V CA.
May 11, 1975 ANACLETO VIANA
Boarded M/V Antonia by Aboitiz shipping at San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro to Manila
o Ticket PHP23.10
When arrived to Pier 4, North Harbor, Manila
Passengers were disembarking using a Gangplank
o Viana disembarked on the 3rd deck
Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation (PSC) took control of the
cargoes on the vessel
Crane owned by PSC was put beside the vessel,
Operated by Alejo Figueroa
After 1 hour of disembarking started to operate
Anecleto Viana
Went back, some of his cargoes were still loaded
While he was pointing where his cargoes
CRANE HIT HIM, pinning him between the crane and vessel
Was brought to the hospital = killed 3 days later
o Hypostatic pneumonia secondary to traumatic
fracture of the pubic bone lacerating the
urinary bladder
Was only 40, in good health, average annual income, as
farmer, farm supervisor was 400 cavans of palay annually
Wife spent total PHP9,800
Parents Antonio and Gorognia Viana
usually received 20 cavans monthly or 120 pesos
Parents suffered mental anguish, extreme worry, moral
damages
10k for lawyer
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES for Breach of Contract
Aboitiz
Denied responsibility
Was under exclusive control of the Pioneer Stevedoring
Corporation
Since crane operator was not employee of aboitiz, they
cannot be held liable
ABOITIZ FILED A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINT PIONEER
o Negligence of the crane operator
o Exclusive control and supervision of Pioneer
Pioneer
Aboitiz had no cause of action to them.
They are not a party in the breach of contract of carriage
Observed DOAGFAF
Viana gross negligence was direct and proximate cause of
his death
Filing a 3rd party complaint is premature because of
pendency of the criminal case for homicide through
reckless imprudence
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Aboitiz ORDERED TO PAY VIANAS
o for damages incurred
Pioneer to REIMBURSE ABOITIZ
Both ABOITIZ and PIONEER filed separate motions for reconsideration
Failure to declare Viana with gross negligence
ABOITIZ:
o MOA liability of pioneer as contractor is
automatic for any damages or losses arising
from the operation of its services
= ABSOLVED Pioneer from liability of the Vianas and Aboitiz
Negligence is NEVER PRESUMED
MOA only refers to Liability in case of Loss or Damages to
goods handled by it.
ABOITIZ shipping corp to pay plaintiff
o APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS
Affirmed the findings EXCEPT as to amount of damages awarded to the
Vianas
Aboitiz
La Mallorca doctrine does not apply here
Not liable for damages since Viana was guilty of
contributory negligence
o Negligence was the Proximate Cause of his
death, failed to apply ART 1762
Error in dismissing 3rd party complaint against Pioneer,
instead of compelling Pioneer to pay reimbursement
BOTH RTC and CA
Found that Viana is guilty of contributory negligence
NEGLIGENCE of aboitiz is PREMATURE in turning over the
vessel to the arrastre operator for the unloading of cargoes
= Direct, immediate and proximate cause of the
victims death
SUPREME COURT
Aboitiz
1 hour had already elapsed when Viana disembarked the
vessel
o given ample time to unload his cargoes
o Presence was no longer reasonable
o LA MALLORCA not applicable here
Relationship will not ordinarily terminate after
reaching destination, safely alighted from the
carriers conveyance or had a Reasonable
opportunity to leave the carriers premises
Reasonableness of time: depends on the circumstances
o Not shown that victim disembarked 1 hour
before the incident
o 1 hour after disembarking ship, presence is not
without cause.
1 hour after standard procedure
of unloading operations had JUST
STARTED
o Presumption in passengers death or injury, the
operator of the vessel was at fault or
negligence, having failed to exercise of
extraordinary diligence
Found by COURT OF APPEALS
o Evidence does not show there was CORDON OF
DRUMS around the perimeter of the crane
o Warning signs was NOT INDUBITABLE
ESTABLISHED
o No utmost diligence od a very cautious
persons
Though Contributory Negligence
o Failure of Aboitiz of extraordinary diligence is
was the proximate cause and COULD HAVE
PREVENTED the formers death
o No exempting circumstances present
No NEGLIGENCE with PIONEER
Pioneer
Had taken necessary safeguards insofar as unloading
operations were concerned
o Accepted by Aboitiz, since only filled 10 months
after institution of suit
NOT IN AMBIT rule of extraordinary diligence required of a
common carrier.
= Basis = FAILURE of aboitiz to exercise extraordinary diligence for the
safety of its passengers
SCMITZ TRANSPORT V TRANSPORT VENTURES
September 25, 1991, SYTCO Pte Ltd. Singapore
Shipped from Russia
On board M/V Alexander Saveliev
545 hot rolled steel sheets in coil
o 6,992,450 metric tons
Discharged in Manila
o Consignee: Little Giant steel pipe corp
o Insured: Industrial Insurance Company
Arrived Oct 24, 1991
o Philippine Ports Authority assigned it a place
of berth
OUTSIDE BREAKWATER at the
manila south harbor
SCHMITZ TRANSPORT
o Hired by Little giant
o Receive cargo and deliver to warehouse in
Cainta
o ENGAGED SERVICES of Transport Venture Inc.
October 26, 1991
4:30 pm TVI tugboat Lailani towed BARGE Erika V to
the shipside
7:00 pm put tugboat beside boat, returned to terminal
9:00 pm ARRASTRE Ocean Terminal Services started
unloading 37 out of 545 coils unto the barge
October 27,1991
12:30 am Strong waves, crew abandoned ship and
transferred to the vessel
Barge capsized washing 37 coils into the sea
7:00 am Tugboat finally arrived to pull the barge back to the
pier
Efforts of Little Giant and Industrial Insurance to recover
Little Giant
Filed a formal complaint against Industrial Insurance which
paid the amount = PHP 5,246,113.11
Little giant executed subrogation receipt in favor of
Industrial Insurance
Industrial Insurance
Filed a complaint against Schmitz, Black Sea &
Inchcape (thru TRANSPORT VENTURES) before the
RTC for the recovery of amounts paid to Little Giant
Schmitz = fault in undertaking the unloading cargo in
SIGNAL #1 Typhoon in metro manila
RTC
Schmitz negligent for unloading the cargoes outside the
breakwater NOTWITHSTANDING the storm signal
Jointly and Severally 5,246,113.11
Schmitz transport and TVI filed a Motion for Reconsideration
assailing that they are Common Carriers,
Excessive attorneys fees more than 1million pesos
Not motivated by bad faith
CAUSED BY FORTUITOUS EVENT
Denied
Appealed to COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF APPEALS
Affirmed in toto decision of trial court
They were common carriers
Black sea and TVI in transport of goods and cargoes from ship
to port for fee
o Solidarily liable, essential to contributory
negligence would now have happened without
each other
Though they did not have control over the fortuitious event,
they had control WHERE TO ANCHOR THE VESSEL,
o Where discharge will take place
o When discharge will commence
SCHMITZ TRANSPORT filed against TVI, Industrial Insurance and Black
Sea
By Chartering the barge and tugboat of TVI, it was acting for
its principal, consignee Little Giant
Black Sea
Cargo was received by Little Giant in good order and cannot
be faulted
No control over the supervision
TVI
Acted as a passive party, merely received the cargoes and
transferred them unto the barge upon instruction of
SCHMITZ
Issue: w/o LOSS OF CARGOES due to FORTUITOUS EVENT
Article 1174 No person shall be responsible for those events which
could not be foreseen, or which though foreseen, were inevitable
1.) Independent from human will
2.) Impossible to foresee which constitute the caso foruito, if
can be foreseen, must be impossible to foresee
3.) Render it impossible for debtor to fulfill his obligation in any
manner
4.) Obligor must be free from any participation in the
aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor
CA affirmed Trial Court
Found that contributory negligence RESULTED IN THE LOSS
OF CARGOES
Unloading outside breakwater, instead of INSIDE
BREAKWATER = negligence
Proximate cause = unloading in an unsafe place
Supreme Court
*** No indication that there was greater risk,
Weather remained normal when they got there
*** if barge was towed back to the pier, loss could have been avoided but
was left behind for the big waves at 5:30 am
= OUTSIDE GOD DOCTRINE
TVIs failure to promptly provide a tugboat
o Increased the risk
o PROXIMATE CAUSE
o Ordinary man would not leave barge floating for
a # of hours
o Overcharge of crew was not an excuse
Schmitz to be relieved of Liability exercised DD
o Failed to take all available and reasonable
precautions to avoid the loss
o It should have summoned another tugboat
when TVI couldnt
SCHMITZ AND TVI ARE SOLIDARILY LIABLE
o 5,246,113.11 6% per annum
Black water
o Duty as CC extended only from time the goods
were surrendered or unconditionally places in
its possession and received
DELIVERED TO LITTLE GIANT
Not pier to pier
Shipside Saveliev into the Barges
Eastern Shipping Lines v IAC o Fire fighting was not enough
June 1977 M/S Asiatica = Operated by Eastern shipping lines hatch 2
Loaded at Kobe Japan to Manila Lack of diligence required by article 1733
o 5k pieces of Calorized Lance piped in o Cannot escape liability for
28 packages = P256,039.00 = consigned to the loss of the cargo
Philippine Blooming corp ESL
o 7 cases of spare parts = P92,361.75= consigned o Avers that according to
to Central Textile Mills COGSA not exceed $500
o Insured by = Development Insurance and
Surety Corporation Article 1749 Civil Code allows limitation
Also took on board of liability
o 128 cartons of garment fabrics and accessories= o CC does not limit the liability
2 containers = consigned to Mariveles Apparel of the common carrier to a
Corporation fixed amount per package
Insured by = Nisshin Fire &Marine Although allows
Insurance co $46,583 limitation of
o 2 cases of Surveying instrument = consigned to liability
Aman Enterprises & General Merchandise CIVIL CODE ART 1734
Insured by = Dowa Fire & Marine Must have been the proximate and ONLY CAUSE
Insurance co $11,385.00 Carrier must have exercised due diligence to prevent or
minimize the loss
Development Insurance & Surety Corp = failed on both
Being subrogated to the rights of 2 insurance companies
FILED A SUIT AGAINST Eastern Shipping Lines COGSA
o For recovery of the amounts paid before the CFI Fire = UNLESS CAUSED by actual fault/ privity of the carrier
of manila
Eastern Shipping Lines GR. 69044
Denied responsibility ESL shall pay DIPSC
Loss was due to an Extraordinary fortuitous event o Of calorized lance pipes
o 7 cases of spare pipes
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GR 71478
In favor of Development Insurance Judgement Affirmed
256K

COURT OF APPEALS
Affirmed
Filed for petition of review to the SC

2nd case
Nisshin fire & Marine & Dowa
Filed suit against Eastern shipping lins with CFI of manila
Unseaworthiness of the ship
Non observance of extraordinary diligence
ESL
Denied liability
Ground FIRE CAUSED THE SINKING OF SHIP
o Exempting circumstance of the Carriage of good
by sea act (COGSA)
o Loss of fire is established, burden of proving
negligence shifted to cargo shipper
RTC
In favor of NISSHIN AND DOWHA

THUS PETITION FOR REVIEW = CONSOLIDATED 2 CASES

*Civil code applicable
Common carriers bound to observe extraordinary diligence

SUPREME COURT
Fire
May not be considered a natural disaster or calamity
Arises from some act of man or by human needs
o Unless caused by lightning
o Or other natural calamity
o Maybe caused by actual fault or privity of carrier
Article 1680 on Fortuitous event = refers to leases of rural
lands, where rent is allowed when more than of the fruits
have been lost
Not included in art 1734, 1735
ESL
Proved that cargo was lost
Proved that it was due to fire
Must prove that they have Exercised extraordinary diligence
o Facts in RTC concurred by CA
According to witnesses in hatches 2 and 3
Noticed the smoke, fire was
already big
Mustve started 24 hours
before, they were ordered to
open the hatches
GACAL v Philippine Air Lines
Franklin & Corazon Gacal,
Bonifacio & Mansueta Anislag
Elma De Guzman
May 21 Boarded PAL in Davao for manila
Same flight as commander ZAPATA members of MNLF
o Armed with 3 grenades,
o 2 .45 caliber pistols
o 1, .22 caliber pistol
10 minutes after take off (2:30pm) announced hi jacking
o Pilot explained to Commander Zapata that they
cannot fly internationally
o Zapata wanted to fly to Sabah
o Directed to Zamboanga Airport for refueling
Landed 3pm
Met by 2 armored cars of the
military with machine guns
o Demanded to fly to Libya
President of PAL hostage for $375 k
and 6 armalites
Otherwise they will blow up the
airplane
o Passengers were not served food/ water
Only may 23, sandwich, 1/10 PAL
water
Relatives of the hi jackers were allowed onto the plane
o Armored car bumped the stairs
o Battle commenced
o 10 passengers dead, 3 hijackers dead, 3
hijackers captured

Fiscal Gacal unhurt

o Wife injured when she jumped out, General
santos hospital spent 245 pesos.
Assistant Fiscal Anislag escaped unhurt
o Wife fracture on radial bone left elbow operated
Elma De Guzman
o Died
PLAINTIFFS demanded medical expenses, personal
belongings lost, 5k attorneys fees
RTC
Dismissed bc force majeure
Filed notice of appeal question of Law
& Certiorari with SC
They failed to reply brief
Failure of PAL to frisk the passengers to discover the hidden
weapons
o Didnt use metal detectors
PAL
o Transport passengers as far as human care and
foresight can provide
o Exercised utmost diligence of a very cautious
person with due regard to all circumstances
o Frisking, inspection were performes by solely
military personnel who had exclusive
jurisdiction over the same in all airports
o NEGOTIATIONS with hijackers were purely
governmental matter and a military operation
EXLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF military
authorities

Thus, as ruled by this Court, no person shall be responsible for those

"events which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen were
inevitable." (Article 1174, Civil Code).

Hi jacking was INDEPENDENT OF THE WILL OF PAL and Passengers

Incident in question occurred during Martial Law where there was a

military take-over of airport security including the frisking of passengers
and the inspection of their luggage preparatory to boarding domestic
and international flights.
Rendered it impossible for PAL to perform its obligations in
a normal manner
Finally, there is no dispute that the fourth element has also been
satisfied.
Consequently the existence of force majeure has been
established exempting respondent PAL from the payment of
damages to its passengers who suffered death or injuries in
their persons and for loss of their baggages.
Decision of CFI of south cotabato is affirmed
NECESITO V NATIVIDAD
Jan 28, 1954 Severina Garces & 1 year old son Precillano Necessito
Carrying vegetables
Boarded Philippine Rabbit Bus at AGNO, PANGASINAN
Driven by Francisco Bandonell
o After passing mangataren pangasinan
o Entered a wooden bridge
o Front wheels swerved to the right
o Driver lost control
o Wrecked the wooden rails, truck fell on its right
side into a creek, water was breast deep
Severina drowned
o Son injured, left abrasions and fracture on the
left femur, brought to Hospital at Dagupan
Lost money, wrist watch and cargo of vegetables

2 actions for damages and attorneys fees over 85k filed in CFI Tarlac
Philippine Rabbit Bus
o Due to Engine/ Mechanical trouble
o Beyond the control of the defendants or of the
driver Bandonell
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Facts:
Accident was caused by a Fracture of the right steering
knuckle
o Defective center/ core was not compact but
bubbled and cellulous
o Could not have been known despite 30 day
inspections
Since it was shiny
Was manufactured for heavy duty
of 10 years.

Necesito directly appealed to SC