When Bus Companies Fail: The Duty to Protect Passengers from Foreseeable Threats

TLDR: This case highlights that bus companies have a responsibility to protect passengers from foreseeable dangers, not just typical accidents. Failing to take reasonable precautions, like passenger checks, after receiving credible threats can lead to liability for passenger injuries or death, even if caused by third parties.

G.R. No. 119756, March 18, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine boarding a bus, expecting a safe journey to your destination. But what if the bus company knew of potential dangers lurking on the route, dangers beyond the usual traffic hazards? This was the grim reality in Fortune Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, where a bus passenger tragically lost his life due to an attack that could have potentially been prevented. This landmark case underscores a crucial principle in Philippine law: common carriers, like bus companies, are not just responsible for accidents; they also have a duty to protect their passengers from foreseeable criminal acts when they have prior warnings and fail to act.

In 1989, Fortune Express, a bus company in Mindanao, received a chilling report: revenge attacks were planned against their buses following a traffic accident. Despite this explicit warning, the company took no concrete steps to enhance passenger safety. Tragically, one bus was indeed attacked, resulting in the death of passenger Atty. Caorong. The Supreme Court, in this case, tackled the question: can a bus company be held liable for a passenger’s death resulting from a criminal attack, if they were forewarned of the danger but did nothing to prevent it?

LEGAL CONTEXT: Diligence and the Duty of Common Carriers

Philippine law places a high degree of responsibility on common carriers. Article 1755 of the Civil Code is clear: “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.” This isn’t just about avoiding accidents; it extends to ensuring passenger safety against various threats.

This “utmost diligence” is further defined by Article 1763 of the Civil Code, which specifically addresses liability for acts of other passengers or strangers. It states: “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 carrier’s employees could have prevented or stopped the act or omission through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family.” This principle means bus companies must act proactively to protect passengers when they are aware of potential risks.

The standard of care is “diligence of a good father of a family,” a legal term referring to the ordinary care and prudence that a reasonable person would exercise in managing their own affairs. However, for common carriers, given the public trust and the inherently risky nature of transportation, this standard is elevated to “extraordinary diligence.” This means they must go above and beyond ordinary precautions to safeguard their passengers.

Prior Supreme Court decisions have touched upon this duty. In Gacal v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., the Court suggested that airlines could be liable for failing to prevent hijackings if simple measures like frisking passengers could have been implemented. This case law sets the stage for Fortune Express, emphasizing proactive safety measures.

CASE BREAKDOWN: Negligence and Foreseeability

The narrative of Fortune Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals unfolds as follows:

• The Warning: Following a bus accident involving Fortune Express that resulted in the death of two Maranaos, a Philippine Constabulary agent, Crisanto Generalao, investigated and uncovered intelligence of planned revenge attacks by Maranaos targeting Fortune Express buses. He reported this threat to both his superiors and Diosdado Bravo, Fortune Express’s operations manager. Bravo assured Generalao that “necessary precautions” would be taken.
• No Action Taken: Despite the explicit warning and assurance, Fortune Express did not implement any visible safety measures. There was no increased security, no passenger frisking, and no baggage inspections.
• The Attack: Just days later, armed men, pretending to be passengers, hijacked a Fortune Express bus en route to Iligan City. Atty. Caorong was among the passengers. The hijackers stopped the bus, shot the driver, and began pouring gasoline to burn the bus.
• Atty. Caorong’s Heroism and Death: Passengers were ordered off the bus. However, Atty. Caorong returned to retrieve something. He then witnessed the hijackers about to burn the driver alive and bravely pleaded for the driver’s life. During this selfless act, shots were fired, and Atty. Caorong was fatally wounded before the bus was set ablaze.
• Lower Court Decisions: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the Caorong family’s complaint for damages, arguing that the bus company wasn’t obligated to post security guards and that the attack was unforeseeable force majeure. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed the RTC decision, finding Fortune Express negligent for failing to take any safety precautions after receiving the threat.

The Supreme Court sided with the Court of Appeals, affirming the bus company’s liability. Justice Mendoza, writing for the Court, emphasized the critical failure of Fortune Express to act on the warning:

“Despite warning by the Philippine Constabulary at Cagayan de Oro that the Maranaos were planning to take revenge on the petitioner by burning some of its buses and the assurance of petitioner’s operation manager, Diosdado Bravo, that the necessary precautions would be taken, petitioner did nothing to protect the safety of its passengers.”

The Court highlighted that simple, non-intrusive measures like frisking or baggage checks could have potentially prevented the tragedy. The Court dismissed Fortune Express’s defense of caso fortuito (fortuitous event or force majeure), stating:

“The seizure of the bus of the petitioner was foreseeable and, therefore, was not a fortuitous event which would exempt petitioner from liability.”

The Court also rejected the argument of contributory negligence on Atty. Caorong’s part, recognizing his actions as heroic and not reckless.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Lessons for Common Carriers and Passengers

Fortune Express provides clear and crucial lessons for common carriers in the Philippines, particularly bus companies, and offers important insights for passengers as well.

For bus companies and other common carriers, the ruling emphasizes:

• Proactive Security is Key: Simply reacting to incidents is insufficient. Companies must be proactive in assessing and mitigating potential threats, especially when credible warnings are received.
• Foreseeability Matters: The duty of utmost diligence is heightened when risks are foreseeable. Ignoring credible threats is a direct breach of this duty.
• Reasonable Precautions: Implementing reasonable security measures, like passenger and baggage checks, especially in areas with known risks, is not just advisable but potentially a legal obligation. The Court specifically mentioned frisking and metal detectors as examples of reasonable precautions.
• Beyond Accidents: Liability extends beyond typical vehicular accidents. Common carriers can be held liable for passenger injuries or deaths resulting from criminal acts if negligence in security contributed to the harm.

For passengers, this case reinforces the expectation of safety when using public transportation. It highlights that:

• Companies Have a Duty to Protect: Passengers have a right to expect that bus companies are taking reasonable steps to ensure their safety, including protection from foreseeable criminal acts.
• Awareness of Rights: Passengers should be aware of their rights under the law and that common carriers have a high duty of care.

KEY LESSONS

• Heed Warnings: Common carriers must take credible threats seriously and act decisively.
• Implement Security Measures: Reasonable security measures, appropriate to the threat level, are necessary to fulfill the duty of utmost diligence.
• Foreseeability Trumps Force Majeure: Foreseeable events, even criminal acts, are not considered force majeure if preventative measures could have been taken.
• Passenger Safety is Paramount: The business of transportation includes the fundamental responsibility of ensuring passenger safety and well-being.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What is “diligence of a good father of a family” in the context of common carriers?

A: It’s the legal standard of care required, elevated to “utmost diligence” for common carriers. It means they must be exceptionally careful and proactive in ensuring passenger safety, going beyond ordinary prudence, especially when risks are foreseeable.

Q: Are bus companies required to have security guards on every bus?

A: Not necessarily on every bus, but in areas with heightened risks or after receiving credible threats, implementing security measures, which could include security personnel or passenger checks, becomes a crucial part of their duty of care.

Q: What kind of security measures are considered “reasonable” for bus companies?

A: Reasonable measures can include passenger frisking, baggage inspections (potentially with metal detectors), increased security personnel at terminals or on buses in high-risk areas, and coordination with law enforcement.

Q: Can a bus company be liable for criminal acts of third parties?

A: Yes, if the company’s negligence in providing security or failing to act on foreseeable threats contributed to the passenger’s injury or death due to those criminal acts.

Q: What should I do if I feel a bus company is not taking passenger safety seriously?

A: Document your concerns and report them to the bus company management. If the issue is widespread or ignored, you can also file a complaint with the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) or seek legal advice.

Q: Is passenger frisking legal in the Philippines?

A: Limited and reasonable frisking for security purposes, especially in public transportation and sensitive areas, is generally considered legal, balancing security needs with individual rights. The key is to ensure it’s not discriminatory and is conducted respectfully and for legitimate safety reasons.

ASG Law specializes in transportation law and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.