5. Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Marjorie Navidad

Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Marjorie Navidad Petitioner: Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) & Rodolfo Roman Respondent: Marjorie Navidad, Heirs of Late Nicanor Navidad & rudent !ecurity Agency Ponencia: "itug

a. Resonden Resondents, ts, suortin suorting g the decision decision of the aellate aellate court, contended contended that a contract o$ carriage &as dee)ed created $ro) the )o)ent Navidad paid the $are at the LRT station and entered the pre)ises o$ the latter* entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation* and that the appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Ro)an lia'le $or the death o$ Navidad in $ailing to e%ercise e%traordinary diligence i)posed upon a co))on carrier.

DOCTRN!: "ACT#: #$ Nicanor, Nicanor, %ho %ho %as drun, drun, entered the '!A '!A LRT after after urchasi urchasing ng of a ticet$ *hile Nicanor %as standing on the latform near the LRT tracs, +unelito 'scartin, the security guard assigned in the area (%oring under the rudent !ecurity Agency) aroached Nicanor and the t%o had a misunderstanding misunderstanding and fought$ No evidence %as resented to sho% %ho started the fight$

##+!#: #$ *3N LRTA LRTA is lial liale$ e$ 4es 4es /$ *3N ruden rudentt is lia liale5 le5 No$ R+LN, - RATO: . /!#. LRTA is lia'le

#$ Marjor Marjorie, ie, %ido% %ido% of Nicanor Nicanor,, and childre children n filed filed a coml comlain aintt for damage damages s against 'scartin, Roman, LRTA, Metro Transit, and rudent for the death of  her husand$ a$ LRTA LRTA and Roman Roman filed a counterclai counterclaim m against Navidad Navidad and a cross-claim cross-claim against 'scartin and rudent$ $ rudent, rudent, in its ans%er, ans%er, denied denied liailit liaility y and averred averred that it had e.ercised e.ercised due diligence in the selection and suervision of its security guards /$ RT0 judged judged in favor favor of Navidad Navidad and ordered ordered rudent rudent !ecurity !ecurity and 'scartin to ay damages %hile Roman and LRTA %as dismissed for lac of merit$ 1$ rudent rudent aealed aealed to the 0A and the 0A ruled that that rudent rudent and 'scartin 'scartin %ere not liale and that Roman and LRTA %as the ones liale$ a$ 0A ruled ruled saying saying that althoug although h Navidad Navidad had not oarded oarded the the train yet, a contract o$ carriage had already e%isted &hen Navidad entered the place &here passengers &ere supposed to 'e a$ter paying the $are and getting the to(en and to(en  and $ LRTA LRTA and and Roman failed failed to sho% sho% that emergenc emergency y raes raes could not have stoed the train in time$ rudent %as e.emted ecause there %as no sho%ing that 'scartin inflicted lo%s uon Navidad$ 0A denied MR$ hence this etition$ 2$ Hence Hence this this resen resentt etiti etition on

Co))on Co))on carriers are 'urdened 'urdened &ith the duty o$ e%ercising e%ercising ut)ost ut)ost diligence in ensuring the sa$ety o$ passengers. rovisions  Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. circumstances.  Article 1756. In case case of death of or injuries to passengers, passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, negligently, unless they prove that they observed etraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 17!! and 1755.  Article 175". #ommon #ommon carriers are liable liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the formers employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. This lia'ility o$ the co))on carriers does not cease upon proo$ that they e%ercised all the diligence o$ a good $ather  of $ather  of a family in the selection and suervision of their emloyees$

 Article 176!. 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 common carriers employees through the eercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. La% re6uires common carriers to carry assengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious ersons %ith due regard for all circumstances$ !uch duty of a common carrier to rovide safety to its assengers so oligates it not only during the course o$ the trip 'ut $or so long as the passengers are &ithin its pre)ises and &here they ought to 'e in pursuance to the contract o$ carriage$ They are liale for death of or injury to assengers a$

Through the negligence or %illful acts of its emloyees

$

*illful acts or negligence of other assengers or of strangers if the common carriers emloyees through the e.ercise of due diligence could have revented or stoed the act or omission$

7n case of such death or injury, a carrier is presu)ed to have 'een at $ault or 'een negligent* and 'y si)ple proo$ o$ injury* the passenger is relieved o$ the duty to still esta'lish the $ault or negligence o$ the carrier or o$ its e)ployees and the 'urden shi$ts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an un$oreseen event or to $orce )ajeure$ LRTAs lia'ility is the contract o$ carriage and its o'ligation to inde)ni$y the victi) arises $ro) the 'reach o$ that contract 'y reason o$ its $ailure to e%ercise the high diligence re0uired o$ the co))on carrier  7n the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of assengers, a carrier may choose to hire its o%n emloyees or avail itself of the services of  an outsider or an indeendent firm to undertae the tas$ 7n either case, the co))on carrier is not relieved o$ its responsi'ilities under the contract o$ carriage.

1. NO* Prudent is not lia'le. rudent in this case may only e liale for tort under the rovisions of Article /#89 and related rovisions, in conjunction %ith Art 123. The remise, ho%ever, for the emloyers liaility is negligence or fault on the art of the emloyee$ :nce such fault is estalished, the emloyer can then e made liale on the asis of the  presumption juris tantum that the emloyer failed to e.ercise diligentissimi patris families (diligence of a good father) in the selection and suervision of its emloyees$ The liaility is rimary and can only e negated y sho%ing due diligence in the selection and suervision of the emloyee, a factual matter that has not een sho%n$  A contractual oligation can e reached y tort and %hen the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in cula contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana , Art of the 0ivil 0ode can aly$ Lia'ility $or tort )ay arise even under a contract* &here tort is that &hich 'reaches the contract *hen an act %hich constitutes a reach of contract %ould have itself constituted the source of a 6uasi-delictual liaility had no contract e.isted et%een the arties, the contract can e said to have een reached y tort, therey allo%ing the rules on tort to aly$ 7n other %ords, %hen an act &hich constitutes the 'reach o$ contract* tanta)ounts to a 0uasi4delict* i$ there had 'een no contract* the contract can 'e said to 'e have 'een 'reached 'y tort &hich &ould )ean that the rules on tort can apply.

There is nothing that lins rudent to the death of Nicanor, for the reason that the negligence of its emloyee, 'scartin, has not een duly roven$ There is also no sho%ing that etitioner Rodolfo Roman himself is guilty of any culale act or omission, he must also e asolved from liaility$ Needless to say, the contractual tie 'et&een the LRT and Navidad is not itsel$ a juridical relation 'et&een the latter and Ro)an5 thus* Ro)an can 'e )ade lia'le only $or his o&n $ault or negligence.