Fortune Express, Inc. vs. CA 305 SCRA 14

FORTUNE EXPRESS vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PAULIE CAORONG and HER MINOR CHILDREN, 305 SCRA 14 (1999) FACTS:  Pauli Caurong filed a complaint for damages against petitioner, a bus company operating in Northern Mindanao, for the death of her husband, Atty. Talib Caorong. Atty. Caurong was shot by Maranaos in an ambush involving said bus.  BACKGROUND OF THE STORY: o In November 1989, a bus of Fortune was involved in an accident with a passenger jeepney resulting in the deaths of several passengers. o Crisanto Generalao, a local field agent of the Philippine Constabulary, conducted an investigation on the accident and found that the owner of the jeepney was a Maranao and that several Maranaos were planning to burn some of Fortune’s buses for revenge. o Generalao informed Diosdado Bravo, operations manager of Fortune, about the plot, and Bravo assured him that they would take the necessary precautions for safety. o Several days later, Atty. Caorong was on board a bus to Iligan when three Maranaos went on board the vehicle. The leader of the group ordered the passengers to leave the bus. Atty. Caorong later went back to get something when he saw that the Maranaos were already pouring gasoline on the bus and on the driver. Atty. Caorong pleaded for the life of the driver, after which the driver jumped out of the vehicle. Caorong was shot to death as a result.  RTC dismissed the complaint: o Fortune was not negligent. Disregarding the suggestion of providing its buses with security guards is not an omission of petitioner’s duty. The evidence showed that the assailants did not intend to harm the passengers. The death of Atty. Caorong was an unexpected and unforeseen occurrence beyond petitioner’s control.  CA REVERSED RTC’s ruling: o Fortune is negligent. Despite the tip to Manager Bravo of the devious plan by several Maranaos, management did not do not take any safety precautions at all.

o

One available safeguard that could have absolved Fortune from liability was frisking of incoming passengers en route to dangerous areas and bag inspection at the terminals, which Fortune failed to do. The frisking system is not novel in sensitive and dangerous places. Many companies adopt this measure. Fortune did “absolutely nothing”.

ISSUE: 1. W/N Petitioner is liable for the death of Atty. Caorong by failing to take necessary precautions to ensure the safety of its passengers; 2. W/N the attack by the Maranaos constituted causo fortuito? HELD: Petitioner is liable. Attack was not a fortuitous event.  Article 1763 holds common carriers liable for the injuries to passengers caused by the wilful act of other passengers, if its employees failed to exercise the diligence of a good father in preventing the act.  Despite the warning by the constabulary officer, petitioner did nothing to protect the safety of its passengers.  If petitioner took the necessary precautions, they would have discovered the weapons and the large quantity of gasoline the malefactors carried with them.  A common carrier is liable for failing to prevent hijacking by frisking passengers and inspecting baggages.1  The seizure of the bus was not force majeure. Of the four elements to constitute an event as caso fotuito, the element of “unforeseeable or unavoidable circumstances” was lacking. The seizure of the bus was foreseeable, given the fact that petitioner was well-informed of the possibility, days before the incident. This situation was likened to a case2 where the common carrier failed to take safety precautions despite warnings of an approaching typhoon.  Petitioner is solely liable for Atty. Caorong’s death. There was no contributory negligence on the part of the victim, since all he did

1

Gacal vs. Philippine Airlines.

2 Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals

was pleading for the life of the driver. His heroic effort was neither an act of negligence or recklessness.