SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE- STILL TRYING TO FIND ORIGS
Sarreal v. Soliman (1965)Petitioner:Respondent:Ponencia:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:1. Plaintiff Prudencia Sarreal is a teacher in Mariveles,
Bataan. However, there was a break in her teaching from Liberation
when she met an accident with the La-Mallorca-Pambusco in 1953. She
was receiving PhP140.00 a month as a teacher. She is also a
business agent dealing in buying and selling furniture. She is a
widow of Jose Sarreal who died in 1952. Jose Sarreal had been mayor
for three terms in Mariveles. Sarreal figured in an accident where
she was a passenger in one of the defendants' (La
Mallorca-Pambusco) buses. She paid PhP3.75 for her round trip
ticket from Manila to Mariveles and vice versa. While at a stopover
in Balanga, Bataan, Sarreal went down to answer the call of nature.
When she was returning to the bus, another bus driven by Soliman
hit Sarreal as a result of which she sustained multiple injuries.
The bus driven by Soliman was also owned by
La-Mallorca-Pambusco.
1. Plaintiff filed an action before the CFI of Bataan against
defendants Emiliano Soliman and others claiming (1) damages for
breach of contract arising from the carrier-passenger relation
between the plaintiff and the defendant carrier companies, La
Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Company, and (2) damages for the
negligence of defendant Emiliano Soliman, a chauffeur of the said
carrier companies. The defendant companies maintained that they had
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the hiring
or selection of their employees, including the defendant
chauffeur.
1. The lower court rendered judgment condemning the defendant
Emiliano Soliman to pay the plaintiff, and holding the defendant
carrier companies subsidiarily liable.
ISSUES: Whether defendant carrier companies observed
extraordinary diligence or the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, having due regard for all circumstances, to avoid the
injury caused to the plaintiff.
RULING + RATIO: No.The case at bar is not one to recover damages
for the tortious act or omission of another under Article 1732.
Under the circumstances, the relation of passenger and carrier
between the plaintiff and defendant companies continued to exist
and was not suspended, let alone terminated.
As a general rule, a passenger who, without objection from the
carrier of its agent, alights at an intermediate station, which is
a station for the discharge and reception of passengers, for any
reasonable and usual purpose, such as that of obtaining
refreshment, for the sending or receipt of telegrams, or for
exercise, or other matters of convenience or necessity, does not
lose his status as a passenger. A bus passenger who disembarks at a
rest stop when ordered to do so by the driver of the bus does not
lose the status of a passenger.
At the time of the accident there was a door on the right side
of the entrance facing Paterno Street which was well adjusted then
and the door was hanging loosely to the left side, and one entering
the station will encounter stores along the left side. The presence
of the said stores along the right side of the station must have
made it a thoroughly crowded and congested station. There were
sacks of rice piled at the right side of the entrance to the
station which, together with the loosely hanging door blocked a
possible exit toward the street through the narrow space between
the parked trucks and the wall along the right side of the station.
Worse, there were not even seats provided inside the station for
passengers waiting for the departure of their buses.
Not only did the defendant companies neglect to maintain
adequate station facilities for the protection and accommodation of
the said Balanga station, but they also failed to exercise even the
most elementary care to see that said station was free from such
defects and obstructions from which resultant injury to persons or
property could reasonably be expected.
Every person is under a duty to exercise his sense and
intelligence in his actions in order to avoid injury to others, and
where a situation suggests investigation and inspection in order
that its dangers may fully appear, the duty to make such
investigation and inspection is imposed by law. To render one
liable for negligence, it is sufficient that he should have
foreseen that the negligence would probably result in injury of
some kind to some person, and he need not have foreseen the
particular consequences or injury that resulted. And where, as in
this case, the peculiar facts obtaining called for caution and
vigilance of a high or superior degree, Emiliano Soliman's utter
inattention to his assigned duty amounted to gross, not merely
simple, negligence.
As regards the issue of contributory negligence, the Court
disagreed with the trial court and ruled that there was no
contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
DISPOSITION:
