Sps. Perena vs. Sps Zarate, Philippine National Railways, and Ca G.R. No. 157917 APRIL 29, 2012 Facts

SPS. PERENA vs.
SPS ZARATE, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL

RAILWAYS, and CA YES. the Pereñas, acting as a common carrier, were already
G.R. No. 157917 APRIL 29, 2012 presumed to be negligent at the time of the accident because
death had occurred to their passenger. The presumption of
FACTS: negligence, being a presumption of law, laid the burden of
evidence on their shoulders to establish that they had not
Petitioner Sposuses Pereña were engaged in the business of been negligent. It was the law no less that required them to
transporting students from their respective residences in prove their observance of extraordinary diligence in seeing to
Parañaque City to Don Bosco in Pasong Tamo, Makati City, the safe and secure carriage of the passengers to their
and back. In their business, the Pereñas used a KIA Ceres Van destination. Until they did so in a credible manner, they stood
which had the capacity to transport 14 students at a time, to be held legally responsible for the death of Aaron and thus
two of whom would be seated in the front beside the driver, to be held liable for all the natural consequences of such
and the others in the rear, with six students on either side. death.
They employed Clemente Alfaro as driver of the van. Aaron,
son of respondent spouses, was a member of the carpool. There is no question that the Pereñas did not overturn the
presumption of their negligence by credible evidence. Their
Considering that the students were due at Don Bosco by 7:15 defense of having observed the diligence of a good father of a
a.m., and that they were already running late because of the family in the selection and supervision of their driver was not
heavy vehicular traffic on the South Superhighway, Alfaro legally sufficient. According to Article 1759 of the Civil Code,
took the van to an alternate route at about 6:45 a.m. by their liability as a common carrier did not cease upon proof
traversing the narrow path underneath the Magallanes that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a
Interchange that was then commonly used by Makati-bound family in the selection and supervision of their employee. This
vehicles as a short cut into Makati. At the time, the narrow was the reason why the RTC treated this defense of the
path was marked by piles of construction materials and Pereñas as inappropriate in this action for breach of contract
parked passenger jeepneys, and the railroad crossing in the of carriage.
narrow path had no railroad warning signs, or watchmen, or
other responsible persons manning the crossing. In fact, the The Pereñas were liable for the death of Aaron despite the
bamboo barandilla was up, leaving the railroad crossing open fact that their driver might have acted beyond the scope of
to traversing motorists. his authority or even in violation of the orders of the common
carrier. In this connection, the records showed their driver’s
At about the time the van was to traverse the railroad actual negligence.
crossing, PNR Commuter No. 302 (train), was in the vicinity of
the Magallanes Interchange travelling northbound. As the The lower courts correctly held both the Pereñas and the PNR
train neared the railroad crossing, Alfaro drove the van "jointly and severally" liable for damages arising from the
eastward across the railroad tracks, closely tailing a large death of Aaron. They had been impleaded in the same
passenger bus. His view of the oncoming train was blocked complaint as defendants against whom the Zarates had the
because he overtook the passenger bus on its left side. The right to relief, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative,
train blew its horn to warn motorists of its approach. The in respect to or arising out of the accident, and questions of
passenger bus successfully crossed the railroad tracks, but fact and of law were common as to the Zarates.
the van driven by Alfaro did not. The impact threw nine of the
12 students in the rear, including Aaron, out of the van. Aaron Although the basis of the right to relief of the Zarates (i.e.,
landed in the path of the train, which dragged his body and breach of contract of carriage) against the Pereñas was
severed his head, instantaneously killing him. distinct from the basis of the Zarates’ right to relief against
the PNR (i.e., quasi-delict under Article 2176, Civil Code), they
The Zarates filed an action for damages based on breach of nonetheless could be held jointly and severally liable by virtue
contract of carriage against petitioners; while the basis for of their respective negligence combining to cause the death
damages against PNR was quasi-delict under Article 2176 of of Aaron. PNR did not ensure the safety of others through the
the Civil Code. placing of crossbars, signal lights, warning signs, and other
permanent safety barriers to prevent vehicles or pedestrians
The lower courts found that the Perenas were, in fact, from crossing there. The RTC observed that the fact that a
negligent in the selection and supervision of Alfaro, and ruled crossing guard had been assigned to man that point from 7
against them. a.m. to 5 p.m. was a good indicium that the PNR was aware of
the risks to others as well as the need to control the vehicular
ISSUE: and other traffic there. Verily, the Pereñas and the PNR were
joint tortfeasors.
Whether or not it was proper for the CA to hold the Perenas
jointly liable with PNR for damages.
RULING

Sps. Perena vs. Sps Zarate, Philippine National Railways, and Ca G.R. No. 157917 APRIL 29, 2012 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Perena vs. Sps Zarate, Philippine National Railways, and Ca G.R. No. 157917 APRIL 29, 2012 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Perena vs. Sps Zarate, Philippine National Railways, and Ca G.R. No. 157917 APRIL 29, 2012 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPS. PERENA vs.

SPS ZARATE, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.