SUBJECT: TORTS AND DAMAGES
5.Light Railway Transit Authority v. G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003
Navidad, 397 SCRA 75 (2003)
Vitug, J.
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY &
NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT RODOLFO ROMAN
SECURITY AGENCY
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
On 14 October 1993, about 7:30 in the evening, Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered
the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token. While Navidad was standing on the
platform near the LRT tracks, the assigned security guard Junelito Escartin
approached Navidad. A misunderstanding between them was apparently ensued that
led to a fist fight. No evidence was adduced on how the fight started. Navidad later fell
on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by
petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the moving train,
and he was killed instantaneously.
The widow of Nicanor, Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint for
damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit
Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent Security Agency for the death of her
husband. Prudent Security Agency denied liability and averred that it had exercised
due diligence in the selection and supervision of its security guards. The LRTA and
Roman presented their evidence while Prudent and Escartin filed a demurrer
contending that Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his
assigned task.
The RTC Pasig ruled against Prudent Security Agency and Junelito Escartin ordering
them to pay for actual and moral damages, the attorney’s fees and cost of suit, and
dismissed the complaint against LRTA and Roman for lack of merit
Prudent appealed to the Court of Appeals and the court modified the lower court’s
decision by exonerating Prudent from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad
and, instead, holding the LRTA and Roman jointly and severally liable.
ISSUES:
Is the LRTA liable for the death of Nicanor Navidad?
RULING OF THE COURTS:
RTC:
The RTC Pasig ruled against Prudent Security Agency and Junelito Escartin ordering
them to pay for actual and moral damages, the attorney’s fees and cost of suit, and
dismissed the complaint against LRTA and Roman for lack of merit
CA:
Prudent appealed to the Court of Appeals and the court modified the lower court’s
decision by exonerating Prudent from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad
and, instead, holding the LRTA and Roman jointly and severally liable.
SC:
appeal from the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals
YES, LRTA IS LIABLE - , ROMAN IS ABSOLVED FROM LIABILITY.
Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its
business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of exercising
utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers.4 The Civil Code, governing the
liability of a common carrier for death of or injury to its passengers, provides:
"Article 1755. 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 1756. 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 1759. 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.
"This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised
all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their
employees."
"Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on
account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the
common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of
a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission."
The foundation of LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to
indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to
exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier. 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 under the contract of carriage.
There being, similarly, no showing that petitioner Rodolfo Roman himself is guilty of
any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability. Needless to say,
the contractual tie between the LRT and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation
between the latter and Roman; thus, Roman can be made liable only for his own fault
or negligence.
