ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 145804. May 9, 2003]

LRT AUTHORITY vs. NAVIDAD

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 9 2003 .

G.R. No. 145804(Light Rail Transit Authority and Rodolfo Roman vs. Marjorie Navidad, Heirs of the late Nicanor Navidad and Prudent Security Agency.)

Petitioner LRTA seeks reconsideration of the decision, dated 06 February 2003, affirming with modification that of the Court of Appeals holding LRTA civilly liable for the death of Nicanor Navidad.

It argues that since the Court has absolved Rodolfo Roman (operator of the LRT train) and Escartin (security guard) of negligence or any culpable act or omission, then there would be no basis for holding LRTA liable. Petitioner adds that the failure of the heirs of Navidad to prove Escartin's actions which caused the fall of Navidad on the tracks does not necessarily make it liable for his death because the trial court found that it would have been humanly impossible for Roman to avoid hitting the victim.

It must be stressed that the foundation of the liability of the common carrier is based on culpa contractual and it is not dependent upon proof of prior negligence on the part of its employees. In fact, the law cannot be any clearer; 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 have observed extraordinary diligence required of them. ^[1] cralaw The defense raised by LRTA would have been relevant had petitioner's liability been derived solely on account of the fault (willful acts or negligence) of Its employees or from culpa aquiliana. But such is not the basis for the Court's holding in this case. Irrefutably, petitioner failed to discharge its burden to prove that it had exercised utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of its passenger which duty the law imposed upon it as a common carrier. The Court is not unaware of the dictum that a common carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers. Petitioner had the opportunity to exonerate itself from liability by proving extraordinary diligence required of it but the fact of the matter is that it did not; hence, the presumption established by Article 1756 of the Civil Code stands and petitioner is liable.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied with finality.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Article 1756 and 1759 of the Civil Code.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011