Liability for Negligence in Transportation: Understanding Philippine Law on Common Carriers

When is a Bus Company Liable for Passenger Injuries? Examining Negligence and Due Diligence

G.R. No. 111127, July 26, 1996

Imagine boarding a bus for a long-awaited trip, only to find yourself in an accident due to the driver’s carelessness. Who is responsible? This question often arises when accidents occur involving public transportation. The case of Fabre v. Court of Appeals sheds light on the responsibilities of bus companies (common carriers) and their drivers in ensuring passenger safety, and what happens when negligence leads to injury.

This case explores the extent to which transportation companies are liable for damages when their drivers are negligent, and what steps companies must take to avoid liability.

Understanding Common Carriers and Negligence

In the Philippines, common carriers are held to a high standard of care. Article 1733 of the Civil Code states that common carriers are bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers. This means they must take every reasonable precaution to prevent accidents. Article 1759 further clarifies that carriers are liable for injuries or death caused by their employees’ negligence, regardless of whether the employees acted within their authority.

Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case; and Article 1759 states Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former’s employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.

Negligence, in a legal sense, is the failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. In the context of transportation, this includes ensuring vehicles are in good condition, drivers are competent, and routes are safe.

For example, a bus company that hires a driver without checking their driving record or fails to maintain its vehicles properly could be found negligent if an accident occurs.

The Fabre v. Court of Appeals Case: A Breakdown

In 1984, the Word for the World Christian Fellowship, Inc. (WWCF) chartered a minibus owned by Mr. & Mrs. Fabre for a trip to La Union. The driver, Porfirio Cabil, unfamiliar with the route, drove too fast on a rainy night, missed a sharp curve, and crashed. Amyline Antonio, a passenger, suffered severe injuries, resulting in permanent paralysis.

Here’s a timeline of how the case unfolded:

The Accident: November 2, 1984, the minibus crashes due to the driver’s negligence.

Initial Investigation: The police file a criminal complaint against the driver, Porfirio Cabil.

Civil Case Filed: Amyline Antonio, severely injured, sues the Fabres and Cabil for damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.

RTC Decision: The RTC finds the Fabres and Cabil jointly and severally liable for damages.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals affirms the RTC decision but modifies the amount of damages.

Supreme Court Review: The Fabres appeal to the Supreme Court, questioning their negligence and the award of damages.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of due diligence in both the selection and supervision of employees. The Court noted that simply possessing a professional driver’s license is not enough. Employers must thoroughly examine an applicant’s qualifications, experience, and service record.

The Court quoted the lower court’s findings, stating:

“No convincing evidence was shown that the minibus was properly checked for travel to a long distance trip and that the driver was properly screened and tested before being admitted for employment. Indeed, all the evidence presented have shown the negligent act of the defendants which ultimately resulted to the accident subject of this case.”

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding the Fabres and Cabil jointly and severally liable for damages, although it adjusted the amounts awarded.

Practical Implications for Transportation Businesses

This case underscores the significant responsibility that transportation companies bear for the safety of their passengers. It highlights the need for thorough screening and training of drivers, as well as regular maintenance of vehicles. The Fabre case serves as a stark reminder that failing to exercise due diligence can result in substantial financial liabilities.

Key Lessons:

Due Diligence in Hiring: Go beyond checking licenses; investigate driving history and conduct thorough background checks.

Proper Training: Ensure drivers are adequately trained for the specific routes and conditions they will encounter.

Vehicle Maintenance: Implement a rigorous maintenance schedule to keep vehicles in safe operating condition.

Insurance Coverage: Maintain adequate insurance coverage to protect against potential liabilities.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What does

ASG Law