Monday, October 9, 2023

Case Digest: LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY vs Navidad, et.al., G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003


LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY vs Navidad, et.al., G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003

Subject: Transportation Law

 

FACTS

Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token representing payment of the fare. While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Escartin, the security guard assigned to the area approached Navidad. An altercation between the two ensued that led to a fist fight. No evidence was adduced to indicate how the fight started or who delivered the first blow or how Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck and killed instantaneously by the moving train. The widow of Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent for the death of her husband.

The trial court ordered Prudent Security and Escartin to pay damages. On appeal, the appellate court exonerated Prudent from any liability for the death of Navidad and, instead, holding the LRTA and Roman jointly and severally liable. The appellate court ruled that while the deceased might not have then as yet boarded the train, a contract of carriage had already existed when the victim entered the place where passengers were supposed to be after paying the fare and getting the corresponding token.

ISSUE

Whether or not there exists a contract of carriage to make LRTA liable, as common carrier.

RULING

Yes, there exists a contract of carriage which will make LRTA, a common carrier, liable for the death of Natividad.

Under the law, 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. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence.

In this case, a contract of carriage was created from the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation. LRTA is liable for the death of Navidad in failing to exercise extraordinary diligence imposed upon a common carrier. The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage. Also, in the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Case Digest: General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC, G.R. No. 178647

  General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC,  G.R. No. 178647,  Februa...