Title
Mara vs. Perez
Case
G.R. No. L-22272
Decision Date
Jun 26, 1967
A passenger was killed by a taxicab driver; the carrier was held absolutely liable for damages under Article 1759, despite claims of self-defense and *caso fortuito*.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22272)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Incident and initial prosecution
    • On October 18, 1960, Rogelio Corachea was a passenger in a taxicab owned and operated by Pascual Perez.
    • Rogelio was stabbed and killed by the cab driver, Simeon Valenzuela.
    • Valenzuela was prosecuted for homicide before the Court of First Instance of Batangas.
    • He was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Rogelio in the amount of ₱6,000.
    • Valenzuela appealed to the Court of Appeals.
  • Civil action for damages
    • On December 6, 1961, while the appeal was pending, Antonia Maranan (Rogelio’s mother) filed a separate civil action in the Court of First Instance of Batangas
    • She sought damages from Pascual Perez and Simeon Valenzuela for the death of her son.
    • Defendants asserted self-defense, claiming the deceased stabbed the driver first from behind.
    • Defendant Perez further claimed the death was a caso fortuito (fortuitous event), thus exempting the carrier from liability.
    • After trial, the court ruled in favor of Antonia Maranan, awarding ₱3,000 damages against defendant Pascual Perez.
    • The claim against driver Valenzuela was dismissed.
  • Appeals and subsequent developments
    • Both plaintiff and defendant Perez appealed to the Supreme Court: plaintiff sought higher damages, while Perez contested liability.
    • During the pendency of the appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed Valenzuela’s criminal conviction on May 19, 1964.

Issues:

  • Whether Pascual Perez, as common carrier and owner of the taxicab, is liable for the death of his passenger committed by the driver, Simeon Valenzuela.
  • Whether the killing was a fortuitous event exempting the carrier from liability.
  • Whether the driver’s act occurred within the scope of his employment.
  • Whether the awarded damages were proper and should be increased.
  • Whether the plaintiff can hold the driver civilly liable in the civil action apart from the criminal case.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.