Case Digest (G.R. No. 119756)
Facts:
In Fortune Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, decided on March 18, 1999, petitioner Fortune Express, a bus company in northern Mindanao, became embroiled in litigation following a violent assault on one of its buses. On November 18, 1989, a Fortune Express vehicle collided with a jeepney in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, causing the deaths of two Maranaos. Crisanto Generalao, a Constabulary field agent, investigated and reported that aggrieved Maranao tribesmen planned revenge by burning several petitioner’s buses. He conveyed this to Sergeant Reynaldo Bastasa, who instructed him to notify petitioner’s operations manager, Diosdado Bravo, in Cagayan de Oro City. Bravo allegedly assured that “necessary precautions” would be taken. Four days later, on November 22, 1989, three armed Maranaos boarded a bus en route to Iligan City, assaulted the driver, doused the vehicle with gasoline and herded passengers off the bus. Attorney Talib Caorong, a passenger, reboarded to plead for the drivCase Digest (G.R. No. 119756)
Facts:
- Parties and prior proceedings
- Petitioner Fortune Express, Inc., a common carrier operating bus routes in northern Mindanao.
- Respondents: Paulie U. Caorong (widow of Atty. Talib Caorong) and their minor children Yasser King, Rose Heinni, and Prince Alexander, heirs of deceased passenger Atty. Caorong.
- Trial court dismissed respondents’ complaint for breach of contract of carriage; Court of Appeals reversed and awarded damages.
- Sequence of events leading to death
- November 18, 1989 – A collision between a Fortune Express bus and a jeepney in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, kills two Maranaos; PC agent Generalao investigates and reports threats of revenge against petitioner’s buses.
- Petitioner’s operations manager, Diosdado Bravo, assured PC Sgt. Bastasa that precautions would be taken, but none were implemented.
- November 22, 1989 – Three armed Maranaos hijack a Fortune Express bus at Linamon, Lanao del Norte; they order passengers off, pour gasoline, shoot driver, then fatally shoot Atty. Caorong who returned to the bus.
- Victims rush Atty. Caorong to Mercy Community Hospital; he dies during operation.
Issues:
- Whether petitioner breached the contract of carriage by failing to exercise the required degree of diligence to protect its passengers despite prior warning of a revenge threat.
- Whether the hijacking and killing constituted a fortuitous event (force majeure) relieving petitioner of liability.
- Whether Atty. Caorong was guilty of contributory negligence by returning to the bus.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)