Title
La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-20761
Decision Date
Jul 27, 1966
A 1953 bus accident led to a child's death; La Mallorca held liable for quasi-delict due to driver negligence, despite contract termination. Damages reduced to P3,000.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20761)

Key Dates

Accident: December 20, 1953
Supreme Court Decision: July 27, 1966

Applicable Law

• 1935 Philippine Constitution (in force at decision date)
• Civil Code of the Philippines
 – Article 1755 (common carriers’ obligation to exercise “utmost diligence”)
 – Article 2180 (employer’s liability for quasi-delict)
• New Rules of Court
 – Rule 8 § 2 (alternative and inconsistent pleading)
 – Rule 51 § 7 (limits on appellate review of unappealed issues)

Factual Background

On December 20, 1953, the Beltran family boarded Bus No. 352 in San Fernando bound for Anao. Tickets covered the parents and eldest child; Raquel and Fe rode free under company rules. Upon arrival at Anao, the family alighted at a designated stop. Mariano led his family to a shaded spot some four to five meters from the bus, then returned to the vehicle to retrieve a bayong left under a seat. Raquel followed him unnoticed. While Mariano stood on the running board awaiting his bayong, the driver—engine still running and without the conductor’s signal—moved the bus. Mariano jumped off; turning, he found Raquel’s body under the wheels, her skull crushed.

Proceedings Below

Trial Court
 – Held La Mallorca liable for breach of contract of carriage.
 – Awarded ₱3,000 for the child’s death and ₱400 actual damages (burial expenses and costs).
Court of Appeals
 – Concluded the carriage contract had terminated when passengers alighted.
 – Found La Mallorca liable in quasi-delict for driver’s negligence under Art. 2180.
 – Increased death award to ₱6,000; affirmed ₱400 actual damages.

Issues Presented

  1. Did the contract of carriage remain in force as to Raquel at the time of the accident?
  2. Was the alternative plea for quasi-delict properly alleged and proven?
  3. Did the Court of Appeals exceed its authority in raising the damages award absent any appeal or objection by respondents?

Contract of Carriage Analysis

Under Article 1755, a common carrier must exercise utmost diligence for passenger safety until the passenger has a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises. Jurisprudence holds that passenger status continues beyond alighting until departure is reasonably possible. Because Mariano returned to the bus to retrieve baggage and Raquel accompanied him, both remained passengers. The driver’s failure to shut off the engine and to await the conductor’s signal breached the carrier’s contractual duty.

Quasi-Delict Analysis

Respondents properly pleaded negligence in the alternative under Article 2180, alleging that Raquel’s death resulted from the defendants’ “want of exercise of the utmost diligence.” Evidence demonstrated that the driver moved the bus prematurely while persons were on or near the running board. This proof invoked the presumption t

...continue reading

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