ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 137326.June 23, 1999]
PHIL. RABBIT LINES, INC. vs. RUIZ
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 23 1999.
G.R. No. 137326(Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Arlene E. Ruiz.)
On December 13,
1988, a bus, owned and operated by petitioner, was bound for Balanga, Bataan.
While it was traveling along the Roman Superhighway in the vicinity of Orani,
its driver, Jessie Ofrancia, suddenly lost control of the bus when its steering
wheel was detached from its base. As a result, the bus swerved to the opposite
lane and collided with a gravel and sand truck coming from the Opposite
direction. Respondent Arlene Ruiz, a passenger of the bus, was one of those
injured in the collision. She filed a complaint for breach of contract of
carriage against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Bataan
which, after trial, rendered judgment in her favor. The trial court found
petitioner grossly negligent by failing to have the bus inspected by a mechanic
before it left the terminal on Rizal Avenue in Manila and by neglecting to
assign a mechanic at its Manila terminal; and that from 1981 up to the time of
the incident, the steering wheel of the bus was never checked and that the bus
driver never underwent training on driving and maintenance skills in the course
of his employment.Accordingly,
petitioner was ordered to pay respondent P241,125.67 for actual or
compensatory damages; P617,292.00 for unearned income; P200,000.00
for moral damages; P50,000.00 for exemplary damages; P20,000.00
for attorney's fees; and the costs of the suit.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court and later, denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari questioning the factual findings of the Court of Appeals that petitioner failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers, and that the detachment of the steering wheel from its base was not caused by force majeure. Petitioner also questions the propriety of the award of damages in favor of respondent Ruiz.
After due consideration of the instant petition, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the same for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the decision of the trial court.
In appeals by certiorari under Rule 45, �1, only questions of law may be raised (Sarao v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 247 (1997)). Findings of fact of the Court it of Appeals are deemed conclusive unless it overlooked questions of substance which, if true, would require a reversal of the appealed decision. In this case, petitioner seeks a reevaluation of the evidence presented during the trial and a review of the factual findings that petitioner failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in the transportation of passengers. Indeed, the petition merely reiterates arguments already resolved by the Court of Appeals. The reevaluation that petitioner seeks cannot be done consistent with the limited scope of review under Rule 45.
In any case, the petition is devoid of merit. Although a common carrier is not an insurer of its passengers' safety, it should be held liable for the flaws of its equipment if the same were discoverable. In this case, the Court of Appeals was right in ejecting the claim that the detachment of the steering wheel from its base was due to force majeure. This mechanical defect could have easily been discovered had the bus been subjected to a thorough checkup before it took to the road in the morning of December 13, 1988. A steering wheel cannot easily be detached from its metal base if it is properly maintained. It is noteworthy that the driver of the bus, Jessie Ofrancia, admitted that from the time me he was employed as driver by petitioner in 1981 up to the time of the incident on December 13, 1988, a period of seven (7) years, the steering wheel of the bus had never been checked for defects (Rollo, p. 116). A period of seven (7) years is long enough to cause the breakdown of an equipment that is used daily for business but is not regularly inspected and properly maintained. In the case of Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657 (1924), the Court has ruled chat the defects in the steering gear of a car does not constitute a force majeure or fortuitous event which could absolve a common carrier from liability for damages. In Necesito v. Paras, 104 Phil. 75 (1958), petitioner was held liable for the death and injury of its passengers and the loss of its cargoes due to the fracture of the right steering knuckle of its bus. It was held:
����������� The rationale of the carriers 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 an 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. (at p. 79)
Thus, if petitioner can be made liable for the defects of its equipment directly attributable to the manufacturer of the said equipment, with more reason that it should be made liable for its own negligence in not subjecting its bus to periodic inspection and maintenance, as in the instant case.
As for the award of damages ages to respondent Ruiz, petitioner's arguments do not require serious consideration it appearing that at the award is supported by evidence on record and that petitioner merely relies on general allegations devoid of proof in contesting the same.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
