PNR vs. IAC

G.R. No. 70547 January 22, 1993 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAY an! HONORIO "A#AR$O, petitioners, vs. INTER%E$IATE APPELLATE "O&RT, an! #ALIWAG TRANIT, IN"., respondents.

'(A"T) 1. That plaintif was passing thru the town o Calumpit Bulacan, temporarily while the bridge at Hagonoy, Bulacan was under construction; . That deendant !hilippine "ational #ailways is a purely government owned and regularly passes along the intersection o Barrio Balungao, Calumpit, Bulacan, in going to $an %ernando, &a 'nion rom (anila and return; ). That on *ugust 1+, 1-, at about 1/+ o0cloc in the aternoon, !assenger !assenger train "o. -) hit and bumped the right mid portion o the plaintif0s passenger bus "o. 1+22, while the rear portion o said bus was at the railroad trac and its direction was towards Hagonoy, Bulacan at about 1/)+ o0cloc in the aternoon; aternoon; . That at the time o the collision there was a slight rainall in the vicinity o the scene o the accident and that there was at said intersection no bar, semaphores, and signal lights that would warn the public o the approaching train. 3. That on account o said collision, the Baliuag Transit Bus with Body "o. 1+22 driven by #omeo Hughes was damaged and eighteen 4156 o its passengers died and the rest who were more than 7ty three 43)6 passengers sufered physical in8uries;

'I&E) 1. 9ho between the driver #omeo Hughes o the Baliuag Transit :ncorporated and Honorio Cabardo, train ngineer o the !hilippine "ational #ailways was negligent in the operation o their respective vehicles, or whether or both were negligent< . Could either o the companies Baliuag Transit :ncorporated and the !hilippine "ational #ailways be held accountable or the collision because o negligence<

'R&LING)  The instant case case the $tate divested divested itsel o o its sovereign sovereign capacity capacity when it organi=ed organi=ed the !"# which is no diferent rom its predecessor, the (anila #ailroad Company.  The !"# did not not become immune rom rom suit. suit. :t did not remove remove itsel rom rom the operation o *rticles 1-) to 1-22 o the Civil Code on common carriers.  The correct correct rule is that that >not all government government entities, whether whether corporate corporate or noncorporate, are immune rom suits. :mmunity rom suit is determined by the character o the ob8ects or which the entity was organi=ed.> organi=ed.>

9hen it is apparent, or when in the e?ercise o reasonable diligence commensurate with the surroundings it should be apparent, to the company that a person on its

G.R. No. 70547 January 22, 1993 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAY an! HONORIO "A#AR$O, petitioners, vs. INTER%E$IATE APPELLATE "O&RT, an! #ALIWAG TRANIT, IN"., respondents. trac or to get on its trac is unaware o his danger or cannot get out o the way, it becomes the duty o the company to use such precautions, by warnings, applying braes, or otherwise, as may be reasonably necessary to avoid in8ury to him.

9hat e?acerbates against petitioners0 contention is the authority in this 8urisdiction to the efect that the ailure o a railroad company to install a semaphore or at the very least, to post a @agman or watchman to warn the public o the passing train amounts to negligence