Title
Pilapil vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 52159
Decision Date
Dec 22, 1989
Passenger injured by stone thrown at bus sues carrier for damages. Supreme Court rules carrier not liable, citing unforeseeable act of stranger and lack of negligence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 158589)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Trip
    • On 16 September 1971 at about 6:00 P.M., petitioner Jose Pilapil, a paying passenger, boarded Alatco Transportation Co. bus No. 409 at San Nicolas, Iriga City, Camarines Sur.
    • The bus was en route from Iriga City to Naga City along the national highway.
  • Stoning Incident and Injury
    • Near the Baao cemetery, an unidentified bystander hurled a stone through the bus’s left window, striking petitioner above his left eye.
    • Alatco personnel promptly brought petitioner to the provincial hospital in Naga City; subsequent treatment included one week with Dr. Malabanan (Iriga City) and convalescence at V. Luna Hospital in Quezon City under Dr. Capulong.
    • Despite treatment, petitioner suffered partial loss of vision in the left eye and a permanent scar.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • Petitioner filed Civil Case No. 7230 in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur seeking damages.
    • Trial court rendered judgment awarding:
      • ₱10,000.00 for actual/material damages,
      • ₱5,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages,
      • ₱300.00 for medical expenses,
      • ₱1,000.00 for attorney’s fees, plus costs (total ₱16,300.00).
    • Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 57354-R), which on 19 October 1979 reversed and set aside the trial court’s decision.
    • Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court to review the CA decision.

Issues:

  • Whether a common carrier is liable for passenger injuries caused by the wilful act of a stranger (stoning) during transport.
  • Whether the respondent transportation company successfully rebutted the presumption of negligence imposed by law.
  • Whether the carrier should be held to a standard of installing precautionary devices (e.g., window meshwork) to guard against unlawful acts of strangers.

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.