Case Digest: Fabre v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 111127

Fabre v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 111127 July 26, 1996

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

The case stemmed from an accident that occurred on November 2, 1984.The petitioners owned a 1982 model Mazda minibus, which they used for a bus service for school children in Manila. They employed a driver, Porfirio J. Cabil, to operate the bus. On the mentioned date, private respondent Word for the World Christian Fellowship Inc. (WWCF) arranged for the transportation of its members from Manila to La Union and back, paying the petitioners P3,000.00 for the service. The trip was delayed due to some members' tardiness and finally commenced at 8:00 PM. Cabil drove the minibus.

While en route to Caba, La Union, the bus encountered a slippery road due to rain and approached a sharp curve known as "siete." Despite being unfamiliar with the area and the late hour, Cabil did not reduce speed adequately. The bus skidded, hit a traffic sign, crashed into a fence, and overturned, resulting in injuries to several passengers, including Amyline Antonio.

Amyline Antonio suffered severe injuries and became permanently paralyzed from the waist down, a condition known as paraplegia. She underwent extensive medical treatment, including surgery and therapy. She filed a case against the petitioners for damages in the RTC of Makati.

ISSUE

Whether or not the spouses Fabre are common carriers. 

RULING

Yes. Spouses Fabre are common carriers.

Under the law, common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public.

In this case, SC held that Fabres, did not have to be engaged in the business of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers to apply to them. The law makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as "a sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the "general public," i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population.