Pilapil v. CA

PILAPIL v. CA

December 22, 1989 | Padilla, J . | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Responsibility for acts of strangers and copassengers PETITIONER ! Jose

Pilapil #ppeals and #latco $ransportation Company, %nc&

RESPONDENT ! Co"rt of SUMMARY!

Pilapil boarded private respondent's b"s& (n t)e way to *aga, )e was )it by a stone )"rled by a bystander along t)e national )ig)way w)ic) res"lted to t)e partial loss of )is left eye's vision& +e t)en instit"ted a claim for  recovery of damages& $)e trial co"rt r"led in favor of petitioner& $)e appellate co"rt reversed& $)e C affirmed t)e -"dgment and )eld t)at t)e transportation company is not liable& DOCTRINE !

# tort committed by a stranger w)ic) ca"ses in-"ry to a passenger  does not accord t)e latter a ca"se of action against t)e carrier& $)e negligence for  w)ic) a common carrier is )eld responsible is t)e negligent omission by t)e carrier.s employees to prevent t)e tort from being committed w)en t)e same co"ld )ave been foreseen and prevented by t)em& /"rt)er, "nder #rticle 10 1, it is to be noted t)at w)en t)e violation of t)e contract is d"e to t)e willf"l acts of strangers, t)e degree of care ess ential to be e3ercised by t)e common carrier for t)e protection of its passenger is only t)at of a good fat)er of a family&

FACTS:

1&

2&

&

(n 1 eptember eptember 1901, 1901, Pilapil Pilapil boarded boarded a b"s owned by by respondent respondent in %riga %riga City bo"nd for *aga at abo"t  P4& 5)ile t)e b"s was reac)ed t)e vicinity of a cemetery in Camarines "r, an "nidentified man, a bystander along said national )ig)way, )"rled a stone at t)e left side of t)e b"s& $)e stone )it Pilapil Pilapil above )is left eye& Respondent Respondent's 's personnel immediately bro"g)t bro"g)t Pilapil to t)e provincial )ospital w)ere )e was confined and treated& Considerin Considering g t)at t)e sig)t sig)t of )is left eye eye was impaired, impaired, petitioner petitioner was ta6en ta6en to Dr& 4alabanan of %riga City w)ere )e was treated for anot)er wee6& ince t)ere was no improvement in )is left eye.s vision, petitioner went to 7& "na "na +ospital, "e:on City w)ere )e was treated by Dr& Cap"long& Despite t)e treatment accorded to )im by Dr& Cap"long, petitioner lost partially )is left eye.s vision and s"stained a permanent scar above t)e left eye& Petitioner Petitioner instit" instit"ted ted an action action for recovery recovery of damages damages s"stained s"stained as a res"lt res"lt

1 #rticle 10& # common carrier is responsible for in-"ries s"ffered by a passenger on acco"nt of t)e wilf"l acts or negligence of ot)er passengers or of strangers, if t)e common carrier.s employees t)ro"g) t)e e3ercise of t)e diligence of a good fat)er of  a family co"ld )ave prevented or stopped t)e act or omission&

of t)e stonet)rowing incident&$)e trial co"rt rendered -"dgment in favor of  petitioner and ordered t)e private respondent respondent to pay P1;6 as act"al damages, P"ires t)e ass"mption of certain ris6s, and t)e stoning of t)e b"s by a stranger res"lting in in-"ry to petitionerpassenger is one s"c) ris6 from w)ic) t)e common carrier may not e3empt itself from liability& Pilapil Pilapil also claims t)at t)e carrier was negligent on t)e gro"nd t)at t)e in-"ry co"ld )ave been prevented if t)e latter installed mes)wor6 grills to cover t)e windows of its b"s& ISSUE: 5o* RULING:

t)e transportation company is liable for Pilapil's in-"ry? NO&

J"dgment #//%R4@D&

RATIO:

1&

%n consideration of t)e rig)t granted to it by t)e p"blic to engage in t)e  b"siness of transporting passengers and goods, goods, a common carrier does not give its consent to become an ins"rer of any and all ris6s to passengers and goods& %t merely "nderta6es to perform certain d"ties to t)e p"blic as t)e law imposes, and )olds itself liable for any breac) t)ereof& 2& Ander #rticle 10 of t)e Civil Code, common carriers are re>"ired to observe e3traordinary diligence for t)e safety of t)e passenger transported  by t)em, according to all t)e circ"mstances of eac) case& $)e re>"irement of e3traordinary diligence imposed "pon common carriers is restated in #rticle 10"ire one c)arged wit) its e3ercise to ta6e do"btf"l or "nreasonable  preca"tions to g"ard against "nlawf"l "nlawf"l acts of strangers& $)e carrier is not c)arged wit) t)e d"ty of providing or m aintaining ve)icles as to absol"tely

 prevent any and all in-"ries to passengers& 5)ere t)e carrier "ses cars of t)e most approved type, in general "se by ot)ers engaged in t)e same occ"pation, and e3ercises a )ig) degree of care in maintaining t)em in s"itable condition, t)e carrier cannot be c)arged wit) negligence in t)is

respect&