[74] Fabre v. CA1 - 11:30PM - Cabil came upon a sharp curve on the highway.

The road was

GR No. 111127 | July 26, 1996 | J. Mendoza slippery because it was raining, causing the bus, which was running at the
speed of 50kph, to skid to the left road shoulder.
SUMMARY Petitioners Sps. Fabre owned a minibus. They hired Cabil to drive the bus - The bus hit the left traffic steel brace and sign along the road and
that was normally being used as a school service. WWCF hired the petitioners to rammed the fence of one Jesus Escano, then turned over and
transport its members from Manila to La Union. On the route to La Union, the bus landed on its left side, coming to a full stop only after a series of
came upon a sharp curve on the highway and because it was dark, raining, and since impacts. The bus came to rest off the road.
the bus was running at 50kph it skidded to the left road shoulder and crashed into the - Several passengers were injured.
fence along the side of the road. Several passengers were injured. RTC and CA held - Private respondent Amyline Antonio was thrown on the floor of the
that the driver was negligent. SC affirmed and held that the owners of the bus are bus and pinned down by a wooden seat
jointly and severally liable with the driver. - Cabil claimed that he did not see the curve until it was too late, that he was
not familiar with the area, and that the area was dark and there was no sign
DOCTRINE: Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or on the road. He said that he saw the curve when he was already within 15 to
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods 30 meters of it. He allegedly slowed down to 30 kilometers per hour, but it
or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public. The was too late.
article makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the - Amyline Antonio, who was seriously injured, brought this case in the RTC of
carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an Makati, Metro Manila.
ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a sideline). Article 1732 also carefully avoids - As a result of the accident, she is now suffering from paraplegia
making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service and is permanently paralyzed from the waist down.
on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, - RTC held that the evidence showed that the negligence of the defendants led
episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a to the accident. No convincing evidence was shown that the minibus was
carrier offering its services to the general public, i.e., the general community or properly checked for travel to a long distance trip and that the driver was
population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow properly screened and tested before being admitted for employment.
segment of the general population. We think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained - CA affirmed the decision with respect to the award for damages to Amuline
from making such distinctions. but dismissed it with respect to the other plaintiffs for failure to prove their
respective claims.
FACTS
- Petitioners Engracio Fabre, Jr. and his wife owned a 1982 Mazda minibus ISSUE w/ HOLDING: W/N petitioners were negligent - YES
- The bus was used as a school service for children in Manila - First, it is unnecessary for our purpose to determine whether to decide this
- Driver was Porfiro Cabil. His job was to take the school children to case on the theory that petitioners are liable for breach of contract of
and from St. Scholastica’s College carriage or culpa contractual or on the theory of quasi delict or culpa
aquiliana as both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals held, for
- Nov 2, 1084 - private respondent Word for the World Christian Fellowship
although the relation of passenger and carrier is contractual both in origin
Inc. (WWCF) hired the petitioners to transport 33 members of its Young
and nature, nevertheless the act that breaks the contract may be also a
Adults Ministry from Manila to La Union and back. Payment was P3,000. tort.In either case, the question is whether the bus driver, petitioner Porfirio
- Although the bus was supposed to leave at 5PM, because some of the Cabil, was negligent.
members were late the bus left at 8PM
- The bridge through the usual route at Carmen, La Union was under repair so Cabil was grossly negligent.
- The finding that Cabil drove his bus negligently, while his employer, the
they took a detour through the town of Baay in Lingayen.
Fabres, who owned the bus, failed to exercise the diligence of a good father
1 Respondents are CA, WWCF, and several of the injured passengers
 of the family in the selection and supervision of their employee is fully - The hour of departure had not been fixed. Assuming that it was, the delay
supported by the evidence on record. was not the proximate cause of the incident.
- Indeed, it was admitted by Cabil that on the night in question, it was raining, - As regards the second contention: [A] person who hires a public automobile
and, as a consequence, the road was slippery, and it was dark. and gives the driver directions as to the place to which he wishes to be
- It is undisputed that Cabil drove his bus at the speed of 50 kilometers per conveyed, but exercises no other control over the conduct of the driver, is
hour and only slowed down when he noticed the curve some 15 to 30 meters not responsible for acts of negligence of the latter or prevented from
ahead.By then it was too late for him to avoid falling off the road. recovering for injuries suffered from a collision between the automobile and
- Given the conditions of the road and considering that the trip was Cabils first a train, caused by the negligence either of the locomotive engineer or the
one outside of Manila, Cabil should have driven his vehicle at a moderate automobile driver.
speed. - As already stated, this case actually involves a contract of carriage.
- There is testimony that the vehicles passing on that portion of the road Petitioners, the Fabres, did not have to be engaged in the business of public
should only be running 20 kilometers per hour, so that at 50 kilometers per transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers to
hour, Cabil was running at a very high speed. apply to them.
- Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations
Employer/owner of the minibus, Fabre, was negligent engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or
- Pursuant to Arts. 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code his negligence gave rise to both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the
the presumption that his employers, the Fabres, were themselves negligent public.
in the selection and supervision of their employee. - No distinction between one whose principal business activity is the
- Due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied by finding that the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such
applicant possessed a professional drivers license. The employer should carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a sideline).
also examine the applicant for his qualifications, experience and record of - No distinction between a person or enterprise offering
service. Due diligence in supervision, on the other hand, requires the transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one
formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled
issuance of proper instructions as well as actual implementation and basis.
monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules. - Not distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the general
- Cabil’s employer was negligent. public, i.e., the general community or population, and one who
- Fabres, in allowing Cabil to drive the bus to La Union, apparently did offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of
not consider the fact that Cabil had been driving for school children the general population.
only, from their homes to the St. Scholastica's College in Metro - As common carriers, the Fabres were bound to exercise extraordinary
Manila. diligence for the safe transportation of the passengers to their destination.
- They had hired him only after a two-week apprenticeship. This duty of care is not excused by proof that they exercised the diligence of
- They had tested him for certain matters, such as whether he could a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their
remember the names of the children he would be taking to school, employee.
which were irrelevant to his qualification to drive on a long distance - Art. 1759: Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to
travel, especially considering that the trip to La Union was his first. passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the formers employees,
- The existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies cannot be although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their
casually invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence on the part of an authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.
employer. - This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they
- Defense of Fabre, the employer: exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
- An earlier departure (made impossible by the congregations supervision of their employees.
delayed meeting) could have averted the mishap\ - The same circumstances detailed above, supporting the finding of the trial
- Under the contract, the WWCF was directly responsible for the court and of the appellate court that petitioners are liable under Arts. 2176
conduct of the trip. and 2180 for quasi delict, fully justify finding them guilty of breach of
- Court: Neither of these contentions hold water. contract of carriage under Arts. 1733, 1755 and 1759 of the Civil Code.
Award of Damages 4) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages;
- Viewed as an action forquasi delict, this case falls squarely within the 5) 25% of the recoverable amount as attorney's fees; and
purview of Art. 2219(2) providing for the payment of moral damages in
6) costs of suit.
cases of quasi delict.
- On the theory that petitioners are liable for breach of contract of carriage, the
award of moral damages is authorized by Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2220, SO ORDERED.
since Cabils gross negligence amounted to bad faith.
- Amyline Antonios testimony, as well as the testimonies of her father and co-
passengers, fully establish the physical suffering and mental anguish she
endured as a result of the injuries caused by petitioner's negligence.
- The award of exemplary damages and attorneys fees was also properly
made.
- As above stated, the decision of the Court of Appeals can be sustained
either on the theory of quasi delict or on that of breach of contract. The
question is whether, as the two courts below held, petitioners, who are the
owners and driver of the bus, may be made to respond jointly and severally
to private respondent. We hold that they may be.
- Dangwa Trans. Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, on facts similar to those
in this case, this Court held the bus company and the driver jointly
and severally liable for damages for injuries suffered by a
passenger.
- Bachelor Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals a driver found negligent in
failing to stop the bus in order to let off passengers when a fellow
passenger ran amuck, as a result of which the passengers jumped
out of the speeding bus and suffered injuries, was held also jointly
and severally liable with the bus company to the injured
passengers.
- The same rule of liability was applied in situations where the negligence of
the driver of the bus on which plaintiff was riding concurred with the
negligence of a third party who was the driver of another vehicle, thus
causing an accident.
- It is true that in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals this Court
exonerated the jeepney driver from liability to the injured passengers and
their families while holding the owners of the jeepney jointly and severally
liable, but that is because that case was expressly tried and decided
exclusively on the theory of culpa contractual.

RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with

MODIFICATION as to award of damages. Petitioners are ORDERED to PAY jointly and
severally the private respondent Amyline Antonio the following amounts:
1) P93,657.11 as actual damages;
2) P500,000.00 as the reasonable amount of loss of earning capacity of
plaintiff Amyline Antonio;
3) P20,000.00 as moral damages;