Published — March 11, 2019
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
Related article: Transport company’s liability in transporting passengers or goods
Common carrier is defined under Article 1732 of the Civil Code of the Philippines as “a person, corporation or firm, or association 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”.
Common carrier “offering their services to the public” means to the general public without any specific segment of the population. Anyone can avail of their transportation service since it is offered for everyone in general who wishes to avail of their service. It need not be the principal activity of the person as long as he is engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, even if it is only a sideline activity.
Diligence required of a Common Carrier
The law provides that extraordinary diligence is required when it comes to vigilance over the goods and, safety of its passengers. In case of injury to passengers or, loss or deterioration of goods it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault. Such presumption of fault can only be overcome by evidence of extraordinary diligence. Extraordinary diligence is defined as that extreme care and caution which very prudent and thoughtful persons use in securing and preserving their own property.
“Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are 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 (Article 1733 of the Civil Code)”.
“A 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 (Article 1755 of the Civil Code)”.
“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 as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755 (Article 1756 of the Civil Code)”.
However, when it comes to vigilance over the goods, parties to a contract of carriage are allowed to stipulate on a diligence less than extraordinary. They may stipulate that only ordinary diligence is required of the common carrier thereof. Such stipulation to be valid must be (1) in writing, (2) supported by a consideration other than the service of the carrier, and (3) the stipulation is reasonable and not contrary to public policy. But absence of said stipulation, the prevailing diligence required is extraordinary.
On the other hand, when it comes to transporting passengers, parties cannot stipulate to less than extraordinary diligence required. As what is at stake is much higher being the lives of the passengers. It cannot be taken for granted. To make a stipulation of less than extraordinary diligence is contrary to law and public morals.
A school bus operator is a Common Carrier; Responsibilities and Liabilities
The case of Spouses Pereña v. Spouses Zarate, G.R. No. 157917, August 29, 2012 is instructive with regard to the question of whether or not a school bus operator is a common carrier. In this case, the Pereñas were engaged in the business of transporting students (as school bus operator) from their respective residences in Parañaque City to Don Bosco School in Makati, and back and employed Alfaro as driver of the van. The Zarates contracted the Pereñas to transport their child, Aaron, to and from Don Bosco. As on previous school days, the school bus will pick Aaron from the Zarates’ residence. Aaron took his place on the left side of the van near the rear door. The van, with its air-conditioning unit turned on and the stereo playing loudly, ultimately carried all the 14 student riders on their way to Don Bosco. Considering that the students were due at Don Bosco by 7:15 a.m., and that they were already running late because of the heavy vehicular traffic on the South Superhighway, the driver took the van to an alternate route by traversing the narrow path underneath the Magallanes Interchange that was then commonly used by Makati-bound vehicles as a short cut into Makati. At the time, the narrow path was marked by piles of construction materials and parked passenger jeepneys, and the railroad crossing in the narrow path had no railroad warning signs, or watchmen, or other responsible persons manning the crossing. At about the time the van was to traverse the railroad crossing, a PNR train was in the vicinity of the Magallanes Interchange travelling northbound. As the train neared the railroad crossing, Alfano, the driver of the school bus 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 train hit the rear end of the van, and the impact threw nine of the 12 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.
The Supreme Court ruled that thePereñas being school bus operators which is considered as a common carrier, is liable thereof. The Court in the said case provided to wit:
“There is no question that the Pereñas as the operators of a school bus service were: (a) engaged in transporting passengers generally as a business, not just as a casual occupation; (b) undertaking to carry passengers over established roads by the method by which the business was conducted; and (c) transporting students for a fee. Despite catering to a limited clientèle, the Pereñas operated as a common carrier because they held themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to the students of a particular school living within or near where they operated the service and for a fee”.
Further, the Court stated:
“The operator of a school bus service is a common carrier in the eyes of the law. He is bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the conduct of his business. He is presumed to be negligent when death occurs to a passenger. His liability may include indemnity for loss of earning capacity even if the deceased passenger may only be an unemployed high school student at the time of the accident”.
A common carrier is expected and bound to observe extraordinary diligence in transporting passengers. In case of injury or death of passengers, it is presumed that they are negligent unless they overcome it by evidence that they exercised extraordinary diligence. In this case, the Pereñas did not show credible evidence that they observed the required standard of care. They cannot put up the defense that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee.
Also, in case of injury or death of passengers, the aggrieved party may ask for damages (actual and moral) as well as for loss of earning capacity and basic indemnity which is at present fixed in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (50,000).
Hence, school bus operators are common carriers as they offer the transportation service, for compensation, to the public. They should make sure to exercise extraordinary diligence in transporting passengers especially that most likely their passengers are children who should be very well taken care of. Otherwise, they will be held liable should any mishap happen thereof.
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES!
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]