Dear PAO,

Last Sunday, JE and his family took a bus from Cubao to Sta. Cruz, Laguna. Upon reaching their destination, they disembarked, but JE returned to get their baggage. Unbeknownst to him, his youngest son followed. When JE attempted to re-enter the bus, it accelerated, resulting in his son’s tragic death. The bus company claims it is not liable because JE’s son was no longer a passenger on the said bus. Are they correct?

Janus

Dear Janus,

Well-settled is the rule that common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence and vigilance with respect to the safety of the goods and the passengers they transport. Articles 1732 and 1755 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines define common carriers and outline their duties to their passengers, particularly:

“Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations 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.

“Art. 1755. 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 a due regard for all the circumstances.”

In a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Jesus Barrera clearly explained that the relation between a common carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the common carrier’s vehicle at the point of destination but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or reasonable opportunity to leave the current premises. Additionally, the Supreme Court provides:

“And, what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances. Thus, a person who, after alighting from a train, walks along the station platform is considered still a passenger. So also, where a passenger has alighted at his destination and is proceeding by the usual way to leave the company’s premises, but before actually doing so is halted by the report that his brother, a fellow passenger, has been shot, and he in good faith and without intent of engaging in the difficulty, returns to relieve his brother, he is deemed reasonably and necessarily delayed and thus continues to be a passenger entitled as such to the protection of the railroad and company and its agents.

“In the present case, the father returned to the bus to get one of his baggage, which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus. Raquel, the child that she was, must have followed the father. However, although the father was still on the running board of the bus, waiting for the conductor to hand him the bag or bayong, the bus started to run so that even he (the father) had to jump down from the moving vehicle. It was at this instance that the child, who must be near the bus, was run over and killed. In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the carrier’s agent had exercised the ‘utmost diligence’ of a ‘very cautious person’ required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers.” (La Mallorca v. CA, GR L-20761, July 27, 1966, J. Barrera)

In the situation of JE and his son, they are still considered passengers even though they had alighted from the bus. Their presence near the bus was not unreasonable, considering that JE had yet to unload all of their baggage. Thus, the bus company can be held liable for the breach of their contract of carriage.

Under Article 1756 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides that in case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the said Code. Hence, the bus company is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently in the sudden death of JE’s son.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that 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.

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]