Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5044)
Facts:
Ampang (Moro), Amsia (Mora) and Lumpitan (Moro) v. Guinoo Transportation Co. and Vicente Guinoo, G.R. No. L-5044. April 30, 1953, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paras, C.J., writing for the Court.On March 21, 1948, Amsia and Lambayong were paid passengers aboard bus No. 24 (TPU plate No. 7629) owned by Guinoo Transportation Company and operated under the supervision of its manager, Vicente Guinoo, on the route from Digos to Davao City. At kilometer 44 the bus capsized; Lambayong later died from injuries and Amsia was physically injured. Plaintiffs (Amsia, Ampang and Lumpitan) sued the company and Guinoo in the Court of First Instance of Davao seeking P2,000 for Lambayong’s death and P1,000 for Amsia’s injuries.
The trial was largely submitted on the pleadings and a narrow stipulation of facts; plaintiffs did not offer affirmative proof that the defendants’ driver was at fault. The records show that a criminal complaint was filed against the driver, Quirino Piezas, in the Justice of the Peace Court of Sta. Cruz but that that criminal case was dismissed after Amsia and Lumpitan executed and presented a joint affidavit describing the incident as caused when a third-party vehicle, Habacco bus No. 39, struck the left side of the Guinoo bus, forcing the Guinoo driver to swerve, skid and overturn. That joint affidavit was introduced at the civil trial without objection by appellants’ counsel.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the civil complaint, concluding from the affidavit and the record that the accident was a caso for...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in dismissing the complaint for damages against Guinoo Transportation Company and Vicente Guinoo?
- Under the contract of carriage, is a carrier liable for passenger injuries or death notwithstanding a fortuitous event, or may the carrier be excused when the accident re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)