You are on page 1of 3

La Mallorca v.

Court of Appeals (17 SCRA 739)


Post under case digests, Civil Law at Thursday, February 23, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: Plaintiffs husband and wife, together with their


minor children, boarded a La Mallorca bus. Upon arrival
at their destination, plaintiffs and their children alighted
from the bus and the father led them to a shaded spot
about 5 meters from the vehicle. The father returned to
the bus to get a piece of baggage which was not
unloaded. He was followed by her daughter Raquel.
While the father was still on the running board awaiting
for the conductor to give his baggage, the bus started to
run so that the father had to jump. Raquel, who was
near the bus, was run over and killed.
Lower court rendered judgment for the plaintiff which
was affirmed by CA, holding La Mallorca liable for quasidelict and ordering it to pay P6,000 plus P400. La
Mallorco contended that when the child was killed, she
was no longer a passenger and therefore the contract of
carriage terminated.
Issue: Whether or not the contractual obligation
between the parties ceases the moment the passenger
alighted form the vehicle.
Held: On the question whether the liability of the carrier,
as to the child who was already led a place 5 meters
from the bus under the contract of carrier, still persists,
we rule in the affirmative. It is a recognized rules that the
relation between carrier and passengers does not cease
at the moment the passenger alights from the carriers
premises, to be determined from the circumstances. In
this case, there was no utmost diligence. Firstly,
the driver, although stopping the bus, did not put off the

engine. Secondly, he started to run the bus even before


the bus conductor gave him the signal and while the
latter was unloading cargo. Here, the presence of said
passenger near the bus was not unreasonable and the
duration of responsibility still exists. Averment of quasidelict is permissible under the Rules of Court, although
incompatible with the contract of carriage. The Rules of
Court allows the plaintiffs to allege causes of action in
the alternative, be they compatible with each other or
not (Sec. 2, Rule 1). Even assuming arguendo that the
contract of carriage has already terminated, herein
petitioner can be held liable for the negligence of
its driver pursuant to Art. 2180 of NCC. Decision
MODIFIED. Only question raised in the briefs can be
passed upon, and as plaintiffs did not appeals the award
of P3,000.00 the increase by the CA of the award to
P6,000.00 cannot be sustained.

La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Co. vs. De Jesus, Tolentino and CA


LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY vs. VALENTIN DE JESUS, MANOLO
TOLENTINO and COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-21486. 14 May 1966.
Appeal by Certiorari from the decision of the CA which affirmed that rendered by the CFI Bulacan
MAKALINTAL, J.:

Facts: The suit arose by reason of the death of Lolita de Jesus, 20-year old daughter of Valentin de
Jesus and wife of Manolo Tolentino, in a head-on collision between petitioner's bus, on which she was
a passenger, and a freight truck traveling in the opposite direction, in a barrio in Marilao Bulacan, in
the morning of October 8, 1959. The immediate cause of the collision was the fact that the driver of the
bus lost control of the wheel when its left front tire suddenly exploded. The court a quo sentenced the
defendant, now petitioner, to pay to plaintiffs actual, compensatory, and moral damages; and counsel
fees. CA affirmed.

Issues: (1) WON the petitioners are liable for the consequences of the accident. (2) WON petitioners
are liable for moral damages.

Ruling: Judgment affirmed.


(1) Petitioner maintains that a tire blow-out is a fortuitous event and gives rise to no liability for
negligence. Both the CFI and the CA found that the bus was running quite fast immediately before the
accident. Considering that the tire which exploded was not new, petitioner describes it as "hindi
masyadong kalbo," or not so very worn out, the plea of caso fortuito by petitioner cannot be
entertained. The cause of the blow-out was a mechanical defect of the conveyance or a fault in its
equipment which was easily discoverable if the bus had been subjected to a more thorough check-up
before it took to the road. Hence, petitioners are liable for the accident.

(2) The second issue raised by petitioner is already a settled one. In this jurisdiction moral damages
are recoverable by reason of the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract of a common
carrier, as provided in Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206, of the Civil Code.

*Dani'q

You might also like