Dear PAO,

I frequently take a bus going to my province. Unfortunately, the bus I rode last month was involved in an accident. The front tire suddenly exploded, causing the driver to lose control of the vehicle and to crash into a concrete barrier along the highway.Due to the impact, many passengers, including myself, were injured. I had to be taken to the hospital and I incurred medical expenses as a result. I asked for reimbursement from the bus company for the costs that I incurred due to my injuries.However, they refused, claiming that all their buses were in excellent running condition and that the tire blowout was something that could not have been foreseen or prevented. Is the bus company’s contention correct?

Jed

Dear Jed, To answer your question, we shall refer to Article 1733 of the Civil Code of the Philippines: “Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.” Operators of public utility vehicles, such as buses, are considered as common carriers. A common carrier, as defined, is a person, corporation, firm or association engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.

Under our transportation laws, a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. (Article 1755) In your case, the operator of the bus that you rode cannot deny liability by simply stating that their buses were in excellent running condition. In fact, under the law, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the common carrier in case of death of or injury to passengers, in which case, the victim or his/her heir only needs to prove the existence of a contract of carriage between the passenger and the common carrier. This presumption of negligence can only be rebutted if the common carrier can prove that it observed extraordinary diligence required in transporting its passengers. (Article 1756) Concerning tire blowout or any other vehicular defects, the case of Yobido vs. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 113003, October 17, 1997, Ponente: Associate Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero) explained that: “Under the circumstances of this case, the explosion of the new tire may not be considered a fortuitous event. There are human factors involved in the situation. The fact that the tire was new did not imply that it was entirely free from manufacturing defects or that it was properly mounted on the vehicle. Neither may the fact that the tire bought and used in the vehicle is of a brand name noted for quality, resulting in the conclusion that it could not explode within five days of use. Be that as it may, it is settled that an accident caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver is not a caso fortuito that would exempt the carrier from liability for damages.” Thus, tire blowouts, in general, are not considered as fortuitous event or something that could not have been foreseen. Further, granting but not conceding that the blowing of the tire was a fortuitous event, a common carrier may not be absolved from liability in case of force majeure or fortuitous event alone. The common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the death or injury resulting from an accident. As such, the contention of the bus company is not correct.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

We appreciate your trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]