ANTONIA MARANAN,
plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
PASCUAL PEREZ, ET AL., defendants.
PASCUAL PEREZ, defendant appellant.
FACTS:
Rogelio Corachea, on October 18, 1960, was a passenger in a taxicab owned and operated by Pascual Perez when he was stabbed and killed by
the driver, Simeon Valenzuela.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Perez (carrier) is liable for the act committed by its driver
RULING: YES
Unlike the old Civil Code, the new Civil Code of the Philippines expressly makes the common carrier liable for intentional assaults committed by
its employees upon its passengers, by the wording of Art. 1759 which categorically states that Common carriers are liable for the death of
or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful 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.
Accordingly, it is the carrier's strict obligation to select its drivers and similar employees with due regard not only to their technical competence
and physical ability, but also, no less important, to their total personality, including their patterns of behavior, moral fibers, and social attitude.
Applying this stringent norm to the facts in this case, therefore, the lower court rightly adjudged the defendant carrier liable pursuant to Art. 1759
of the Civil Code. The dismissal of the claim against the defendant driver was also correct. Plaintiff's action was predicated on breach of contract
of carriage and the cab driver was not a party thereto. His civil liability is covered in the criminal case wherein he was convicted by final
judgment.
NOTES:
The Civil Code provisions on the subject of Common Carriers1 are new and were taken from Anglo-American Law.2 There, the basis of the
carrier's liability for assaults on passengers committed by its drivers rests either on (1) the doctrine of respondeat superior or (2) the
principle that it is the carrier's implied duty to transport the passenger safely.3
Under the first, which is the minority view, the carrier is liable only when the act of the employee is within the scope of his authority and duty.
It is not sufficient that the act be within the course of employment only.4
Under the second view, upheld by the majority and also by the later cases, it is enough that the assault happens within the course of the
employee's duty. It is no defense for the carrier that the act was done in excess of authority or in disobedience of the carrier's orders. 5 The carrier's
liability here is absolute in the sense that it practically secures the passengers from assaults committed by its own employees.6
As can be gleaned from Art. 1759, the Civil Code of the Philippines evidently follows the rule based on the second view. At least three very
cogent reasons underlie this rule. As explained in Texas Midland R.R. v. Monroe, 110 Tex. 97, 216 S.W. 388, 389-390, and Haver v. Central
Railroad Co., 43 LRA 84, 85: (1) the special undertaking of the carrier requires that it furnish its passenger that full measure of protection
afforded by the exercise of the high degree of care prescribed by the law, inter alia from violence and insults at the hands of strangers and other
passengers, but above all, from the acts of the carrier's own servants charged with the passenger's safety; (2) said liability of the carrier for the
servant's violation of duty to passengers, is the result of the formers confiding in the servant's hands the performance of his contract to safely
transport the passenger, delegating therewith the duty of protecting the passenger with the utmost care prescribed by law; and (3) as between the
carrier and the passenger, the former must bear the risk of wrongful acts or negligence of the carrier's employees against passengers, since it, and
not the passengers, has power to select and remove them.
CIVIL LAW; COMMON CARRIERS; CASE AT BAR. — R.C. was a passenger in a taxicab owned by P. P. when he was stabbed to death by
the driver, S.V. In the subsequent action for damages, P. P. cited Gillaco vs. MRR, 97 Phil., 884, which ruled that the carrier is under no absolute
liability for assaults of its employees upon the passengers. Held , the Gillaco case does not apply. There, the passenger was killed outside the
scope and course of duty of the guilty employee while here, the killing took place in the course of duty of the guilty employee and when he was
acting within the scope of his duties.
80 of 375
