Case Summary (G.R. No. 119756)
Parties
Petitioner: Fortune Express, Inc. (bus common carrier).
Respondents / Plaintiffs in the damage suit: Widow and children of Atty. Caorong, suing for breach of contract of carriage and consequential damages, represented by the mother Paulie Caorong.
Relevant Dates and Places
Collision involving a petitioner’s bus and a jeepney: November 18, 1989, Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte (resulted in deaths of several jeepney passengers, including two Maranaos).
Warning/report to petitioner of possible reprisals: after November 18, 1989, communicated by PC agent Generalao to Sgt. Reynaldo Bastasa and then to petitioner’s operations manager.
Ambush and seizure of petitioner’s bus: about 6:45 P.M., November 22, 1989, at Linamon, Lanao del Norte (bus en route to Iligan City).
Death of Atty. Caorong: occurred after he was shot during the ambush and later died while undergoing operation at Mercy Community Hospital in Iligan City.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is 1999).
- Relevant provisions of the Civil Code cited by the Court: Art. 1755, Art. 1763, Art. 1764, Art. 2199, Art. 2206, Art. 2208, Art. 2232, and Art. 1174 (fortuitous event).
- Precedents and authorities relied upon in the decision as cited in the prompt (e.g., Gacal v. Philippine Air Lines; Yobido; Vasquez; Pilapil; De Guzman; Metro Manila Transit; Villa Rey Transit; Negros Navigation; Sulpicio Lines).
Factual Background — Collision, Warning and Petitioner’s Response
On November 18, 1989 a collision between a petitioner’s bus and a jeepney in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte resulted in several deaths, including two Maranaos. PC volunteer agent Generalao investigated and reported that the jeepney owner was Maranao and that certain Maranaos planned to take revenge by burning some buses of the petitioner. Generalao relayed his findings through Sgt. Reynaldo Bastasa. Following instructions, Generalao went to petitioner’s operations manager, Diosdado Bravo, who assured that necessary precautions would be taken.
Factual Background — Ambush, Killing and Immediate Events
On November 22, 1989 three armed Maranaos boarded the bus at Linamon, seized it, forced it to stop, shot the driver on the arm, poured gasoline inside the bus, and ordered passengers to alight. Atty. Caorong returned to the bus to retrieve an item and intervened on behalf of the driver; during this exchange he was shot. The assailants then set the bus on fire. Some passengers pulled Atty. Caorong from the burning bus and rushed him to the Mercy Community Hospital, where he died during surgery.
Procedural History
- Complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages filed by private respondents in the Regional Trial Court (Branch VI, Iligan City).
- Trial court decision (Dec. 28, 1990): dismissed the complaint and counterclaim, finding petitioner not negligent and the incident unforeseeable and beyond petitioner’s control.
- Court of Appeals decision (July 29, 1994): reversed the trial court, found petitioner failed to exercise required diligence, and awarded substantial damages to private respondents.
- Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court followed.
Trial Court’s Reasoning
The trial court accepted that petitioner had been informed of “rumors” about planned revenge but concluded the law does not require posting security guards on buses and that the presence of guards would not necessarily have prevented a determined attack. The court characterized Atty. Caorong’s death as an unforeseen occurrence caused by willful acts of lawless persons over which petitioner had no control, praised the decedent’s altruism, and dismissed the complaint.
Court of Appeals’ Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found petitioner took no concrete precautions after receiving the written report that Maranaos planned to burn five of its buses. It held that petitioner could have implemented available safeguards such as frisking passengers or using simple detection devices, especially for routes or areas of likely threat. Given the factual circumstances (collision causing two Maranao deaths; written report of planned reprisals; petitioner’s inaction), the Court of Appeals held that petitioner failed to exercise the degree of diligence required of common carriers and was liable for the resulting injuries and death.
Issues Presented on Supreme Court Review
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and finding petitioner liable for breach of contract of carriage for failing to exercise required diligence.
- Whether the seizure and killing constituted force majeure (caso fortuito) excusing petitioner from liability.
- Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence.
- Proper measure and components of damages to which the heirs are entitled.
Supreme Court Holding on Breach of Contract of Carriage
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ finding that petitioner breached its contract of carriage by failing to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family. The Court concluded that petitioner’s employees’ negligence made possible the seizure and attack: despite receiving a report that reprisals were planned, and despite assurances from the operations manager that precautions would be taken, petitioner failed to implement reasonable precautions (e.g., frisking or baggage inspection using non-intrusive gadgets) that could have uncovered weapons or gasoline and prevented the attack.
Supreme Court Analysis — Duty of Diligence of Common Carriers
The Court applied Art. 1755 and Art. 1763 of the Civil Code, emphasizing that common carriers are bound to carry passengers with the utmost diligence commensurate to circumstances. Given the tangible warning and the foreseeable retaliatory risk tied to the earlier collision, the Court held that reasonable precautionary measures were available and feasible without unduly infringing constitutional privacy rights. The Court cited established precedent (as referenced in the prompt) recognizing that frisking and baggage inspection can be part of a carrier’s duty where circumstances justify such measures to prevent hijacking or violent assaults.
Supreme Court Analysis — Force Majeure (Caso Fortuito)
Applying Art. 1174 and the four requisites articulated in prior cases (cause independent of human will; unforeseeability or inevitability; impossibility to perform; lack of participation or aggravation by the obligor), the Court found the event foreseeable given the written report and thus not fortuitous. The absence of unforeseeability disqualified petitioner from claiming force majeure; petitioner’s failure to take precautions meant it participated in or aggravated the risk.
Supreme Court Analysis — Contributory Negligence of the Deceased
The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that Atty. Caorong was contributorily negligent for returning to the bus. The Court found his actions were not reckless but altruistic: the assailants’ primary motive targeted the bus and driver, not passengers, and Atty. Caorong was permitted to retrieve an item and then intervened to plead for the driver’s life. His conduct was characterized as an act of charity and cannot be deemed negligence that would bar recovery.
Damages — Indemnity for Death and Actual Damages
- Death indemnity: Under Art. 1764 in relation to Art. 2206, the Court awarded the statutory indemnity for death fixed at P50,000.00 to private
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 119756)
Procedural History
- This is an appeal by petition for review on certiorari from the decision dated July 29, 1994 of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch VI, Iligan City.
- The RTC had dismissed the private respondents' complaint for damages for breach of contract of carriage against petitioner Fortune Express, Inc.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and ordered Fortune Express, Inc. to pay substantial damages to the heirs of Atty. Talib Caorong.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals decision in G.R. No. 119756; decision rendered March 18, 1999, Second Division (Mendoza, J.).
Facts
- Petitioner Fortune Express, Inc. is a bus company operating in northern Mindanao.
- Private respondent Paulie Caorong is the widow of Atty. Talib Caorong; private respondents Yasser King, Rose Heinni, and Prince Alexander are their minor children and heirs, represented by their mother Paulie U. Caorong.
- On November 18, 1989, a petitioner’s bus collided with a jeepney in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, resulting in the death of several jeepney passengers, including two Maranaos.
- Crisanto Generalao, volunteer field agent of the Constabulary Regional Security Unit No. X, investigated and reported that the jeepney owner was a Maranao and that certain Maranaos were planning revenge by burning some of petitioner’s buses.
- Generalao reported his findings to Sgt. Reynaldo Bastasa of the Philippine Constabulary Regional Headquarters at Cagayan de Oro.
- On instruction from Sgt. Bastasa, Generalao informed Diosdado Bravo, operations manager of Fortune Express, at the company’s main office in Cagayan de Oro. Bravo assured Generalao that necessary precautions to insure safety of lives and property would be taken.
- On about 6:45 P.M., November 22, 1989, three armed Maranaos posing as passengers seized a Fortune Express bus at Linamon, Lanao del Norte, en route to Iligan City. Atty. Caorong was among the passengers.
- The leader, identified as Bashier Mananggolo, ordered the driver Godofredo Cabatuan to stop. Mananggolo shot Cabatuan on the arm, causing him to slump on the steering wheel.
- One companion began pouring gasoline inside the bus while another held passengers at bay with a handgun. The assailants ordered passengers to alight; passengers stepped out and went behind bushes some distance from the highway.
- Atty. Caorong returned to the bus to retrieve something from the overhead rack. One of the armed men was pouring gasoline on the driver’s head. Cabatuan, regaining consciousness, heard Caorong pleading with the assailants to spare the driver. The assailants warned they would burn the bus along with its driver.
- Cabatuan escaped through the left window and crawled to the canal across the highway. Shots were fired from inside the bus; Atty. Caorong was hit. The bus was set on fire. Passengers pulled Atty. Caorong from the burning bus and rushed him to Mercy Community Hospital in Iligan City, where he died while undergoing operation.
Trial Court Ruling (RTC, Branch VI, Iligan City — Decision dated December 28, 1990)
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of negligence on petitioner’s part, concluding that the diligence required by law did not include posting security guards on buses and such an obligation properly belonged to the State.
- The court reasoned that the presence of one or two security guards would not guarantee prevention of a determined assault and that failure to provide security could not, in the circumstances, be characterized as negligence.
- The trial court found the assailants did not intend to harm passengers and only set fire after passengers were out of danger; Atty. Caorong’s death was an unexpected and unforeseen occurrence due to the willful acts of lawless persons.
- The trial court also dismissed the counter-claim for lack of merit.
Court of Appeals Ruling (Decision dated July 29, 1994)
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held petitioner failed to exercise the required degree of diligence as a common carrier after being informed of threats by certain Maranaos to burn five of its buses.
- The appellate court found Fortune Express took no concrete precautionary measures; nothing was done to protect paying passengers.
- The Court of Appeals suggested practical safeguards that could have been adopted, including frisking passengers, particularly those boarding en route to sensitive areas, and frisking by bus conductor or additional personnel, and use of available security gadgets.
- The appellate court clarified it did not advocate mandatory frisking in all public conveyances but, given the circumstances (death of two Maranaos in earlier collision; a written report of planned revenge; petitioner’s inaction), petitioner failed to exercise the degree of diligence required of common carriers.
- The Court of Appeals ordered Fortune Express to pay: P3,399,649.20 as death indemnity (amount as rendered by CA), attorney’s fees P50,000.00 and P500.00 per appearance, and costs.
Issues Presented on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC and finding petitioner breached the contract of carriage by failing to exercise the required degree of diligence.
- Whether the acts of the Maranao assailants constituted casu fortuito (force majeure) relieving petitioner of liability.
- Whether petitioner could be required to provide adequate security in predominantly Muslim areas as part of its duty to observe extraordinary diligence as a common carrier.