enter, and they are liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking of their conveyances while they are doing so (Dangwa vs. CA, G.R. No. 95582, October 7, 1991).
Q: Is a person mere stepping on the platform of a bus already considered a passenger?
A: Yes. The person, by stepping and standing on
the platform of the bus, is already considered a passenger and is entitled all the rights and protection pertaining to such a contractual relation. Hence, it has been held that the duty which the carrier owes to its patrons extends to persons boarding cars as well as to those alighting therefrom (Dangwa vs. CA, G.R. No. 95582,
October 7, 1991).
Q: Robert De Alban and his family rode a bus owned by Joeben Bus Company. Upon reaching their desired destination, they alighted from the bus but Robert returned to get their baggage. However, his youngest daughter followed him without his knowledge. When he stepped into the bus again, the bus accelerated that resulting to Robert’s daughter death. The bus ran over her. Is the bus company liable?
A: Yes. The relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier’s vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or reasonable opportunity to leave the current premises (La Mallorca vs. CA,
GR L‐20761, 27 July 1966).
C. LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF OTHERS Q: Are common carriers liable for acts of its employees?
A: Common carriers are liable for the death of or
injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.
The liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.
(Art. 1759)
Q: What is the rationale behind this principle?
A: The basis of the carrier's liability for assaults on
passengers committed by its drivers rests on the principle that it is the carrier's implied duty to transport the passenger safely. As between the carrier and the passenger, the former must bear the risk of wrongful acts or negligence of the carrier's employees against passengers, since it, and not the passengers, has power to select and remove them. (Maranan v. Perez, G.R. No. L‐
22272, June 26, 1967)
Q: What is the extent of liability of common carriers for acts of co‐passengers or strangers?
A: A common carrier is responsible for injuries
suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family would have prevented or stopped the act or omission. (Art. 1763)
Q: In a jeepney, Angela, a passenger, was injured because of the flammable material brought by Antonette, another passenger. Antonette denied his baggage to be inspected invoking her right to privacy. Should the jeepney operator be held liable for damages?
A: No. The operator is not liable for damages. In
overland transportation, the common carrier is not bound nor empowered to make an examination on the contents of packages or bags, particularly those handcarried by passengers.
(Nocum v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, G.R. No. L‐23733, Oct. 31, 1969)
Q: In the question above, if it were an airline company involved, would your answer be the same?
A: No. The common carrier should be made liable.
In case of air carriers, it is unlawful to carry flammable materials in passenger aircrafts, and airline companies may open and investigate suspicious packages and cargoes pursuant to R.A. 6235. (1992 Bar Question)
Q: A passenger was injured because a bystander outside the bus hurled a stone. Is the bus company liable?
A: No. There is no showing that any such incident
previously happened so as to impose an obligation on the part of the personnel of the bus company to warn the passengers and to take the necessary precaution. Such hurling of a stone
constitutes fortuitous event in this case. The bus company is not an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers. (Pilapil v. CA, G.R. No. 52159,
Dec. 22, 1989) (1994 Bar Question)
D. EXTENT OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES Q: Who are not considered passengers? A:
1. One who remains on a carrier for an unreasonable length of time after he has been afforded every safe opportunity to alight
2. One who has boarded by fraud, stealth, or deceit
3. One who attempts to board a moving vehicle, although he has a ticket, unless the attempt be with the knowledge and consent of the carrier
4. One who has boarded a wrong vehicle, has been properly informed of such fact, and on alighting, is injured by the carrier
5. Invited guests and accommodation passengers
Note: The carrier is thus not obliged to exercise extraordinary diligence but only ordinary diligence in these instances.
Q: May a common carrier be held liable to a passenger who was injured and eventually died while trying to board the vehicle?
A: Yes. It is the duty of common carriers of
passengers to afford passengers an opportunity to board and enter, and they are liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking of their conveyances while they are doing so. The victim, by stepping and standing on the platform of the bus, is already considered a passenger and is entitled all the rights and protection pertaining to such a contractual relation. (Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 95582, Oct. 7, 1991)
Q: Is the victim’s presence in a vessel after 1 hour from his disembarkation was no longer reasonable and he consequently ceased to be a passenger?
A: No. Carrier‐passenger relationship continues
until the passenger has been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel‐owner’s
premises (Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. CA, GR
No. 84458, November 6, 1989)
Q: What is the rule in case of non‐paying passengers or if the fare is reduced?
A: When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a
stipulation limiting the common carrier’s liability for negligence is valid, but not for willful acts or gross negligence. However, the reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier’s liability (Art. 1758).
Q: What is assumption of risk on the part of passengers? A: Passengers must take such risks incident to the mode of travel. Note: Carriers are not insurers of any and all risks to passengers and goods. It merely undertakes to perform certain duties to the public as the law imposes, and holds itself liable for any breach thereof. (Pilapil v. CA, G.R. No. 52159, Dec. 22, 1989)
Q: Is a carrier liable to its passengers for damages caused by mechanical defects of equipments or appliances installed in the carrier?
A: Yes, whenever it appears that the defect would
have been discovered by the carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances was incumbent upon it, with regard to inspection and application of the necessary tests. The manufacturer is considered as being in law the agent or servant of the carrier, as far as regards the work of constructing the appliance. The good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from liability.
The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that the passenger has neither choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier. Having no privity whatever with the manufacturer or vendor of the defective equipment, the passenger has no remedy against him, while the carrier usually has. It is but logical, therefore, that the carrier, while not in insurer of the safety of his passengers, should nevertheless be held to answer for the flaws of his equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable. (Necesito v. Paras,
G.R. No. L‐10605, June 30, 1958)