Spouses Pereña v. Spouses
Zarate, G.R. No. 157917. Aug. 29, 2012
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
The Pereñas were engaged in
the business of transporting students from their respective residences in
Parañaque City to Don Bosco in Pasong Tamo, Makati City, and back. In their
business, the Pereñas used a KIA Ceres Van (van) with Plate No. PYA 896, which
had the capacity to transport 14 students at a time, two of whom would be
seated in the front beside the driver, and the others in the rear, with six
students on either side. They employed Clemente Alfaro (Alfaro) as driver of
the van.
On August 22, 1996, just like
the usual school days, the van picked up Aaron and other 13 students to school.
The students were running late due to traffic. Alfaro decided to take an
alternate route underneath the Magallanes Interchange. The railroad crossing
along this route lacked warning signs, watchmen, or other safety measures. When
the van approached the crossing, a PNR Commuter train operated by Jhonny Alano
was nearing the area.
At about the time the van was
to traverse the railroad crossing, PNR Commuter No. 302 (train), operated by
Jhonny Alano (Alano), was in the vicinity of the Magallanes Interchange
travelling northbound. As the train neared the railroad crossing, Alfaro drove
the van eastward across the railroad tracks, closely tailing a large passenger
bus. His view of the oncoming train was blocked because he overtook the
passenger bus on its left side. The train blew its horn to warn motorists of
its approach. When the train was about 50 meters away from the passenger bus
and the van, Alano applied the ordinary brakes of the train. He applied the
emergency brakes only when he saw that a collision was imminent. The passenger
bus successfully crossed the railroad tracks, but the van driven by Alfaro did
not. The train hit the rear end of the van, and the impact threw nine of the
students in the rear, including Aaron, out of the van. Aaron landed in the path
of the train, which dragged his body and severed his head, instantaneously
killing him. Alano fled the scene on board the train and did not wait for the
police investigator to arrive.
Spouses Zarates, parents of
Aaron, filed a lawsuit seeking damages against Alfaro, the Perefias, Philippine
National Railways (PNR), and Alano. The parties stipulated on several facts and
issues, including those related to the incident, the absence of warning signs
at the railroad crossing, and PNR's refusal to acknowledge liability.
RTC ruled in favor of the
Zarates. Defendants appealed the lower court’s decision. CA upheld the RTC's
decision but made some modifications, including award for the loss of Aaron's
earning capacity.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner
is a private/special carrier, expected to exercise ordinary diligence.
RULING
No, the petitioner is not a
private carrier but is a common carrier.
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 the
true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of the business
transacted, or the number and character of the conveyances used in the
activity, but whether the undertaking is a part of the activity engaged in by
the carrier that he has held out to the general public as his business or
occupation.
Applying the considerations
mentioned above, there is no question that Perenas as the operators of a school
service were: 1) engaged in transporting passengers generally as a business not
just as a casual occupation;2) undertaking to carry passengers over established
roads; 3) transporting students for a fee. Despite catering limited clientele,
the Perenas operated as a common carrier because they hold themselves out as a
ready transportation indiscriminately to the students at a particular school
living within or near where they operated the service and for a fee.
Given the nature of the
business and for reasons of public policy, the common carrier is 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment