Title
Supreme Court
Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Navidad
Case
G.R. No. 145804
Decision Date
Feb 6, 2003
Intoxicated Nicanor Navidad fell onto LRT tracks after altercation with security guard, struck by train. LRTA held liable for failing to ensure passenger safety; Roman, Prudent Security absolved. Nominal damages deleted.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145804)

Procedural History

On December 8, 1994, Marjorie Navidad and her children filed a damage suit against Escartin, Roman, LRTA, Metro Transit Organization, Inc., and Prudent Security Agency for the death of Nicanor Navidad. The Regional Trial Court (Pasig City, Branch 266) rendered judgment on August 11, 1998, holding Prudent and Escartin liable and dismissing claims against LRTA and Roman. Prudent appealed. On April 27, 2000, the Court of Appeals exonerated Prudent and instead held LRTA and Roman jointly liable. The appellate court denied reconsideration on October 10, 2000. LRTA and Roman filed the present petition.

Facts

On October 14, 1993, at about 7:30 PM, an inebriated Nicanor Navidad purchased a token and entered the EDSA LRT station platform. An altercation ensued between Navidad and station guard Escartin, resulting in a fistfight. Navidad fell onto the tracks as an LRT train—operated by Roman—approached. He was struck and killed instantly.

Trial Court Decision

The trial court found Prudent (through Escartin) liable for negligence that led to Navidad’s fall. It awarded actual damages (P44,830), compensatory damages (P443,520), indemnity (P50,000), moral damages (P50,000), attorney’s fees (P20,000), and costs. It dismissed the complaint against LRTA and Roman and denied their counterclaims.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals modified the judgment by exonerating Prudent and Escartin, and held LRTA and Roman jointly liable. It awarded actual damages (P44,830), nominal damages (P50,000), moral damages (P50,000), indemnity (P50,000), and attorney’s fees (P20,000). The appellate court reasoned that a contract of carriage arose when Navidad paid the fare and entered the station, invoking the strict-duty presumption against common carriers.

Issues on Appeal

LRTA and Roman assert that (i) the appellate court ignored the trial court’s factual findings, (ii) they were erroneously held liable, and (iii) the court erred in concluding that Roman is LRTA’s employee.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution; Civil Code of the Philippines, Articles 1755, 1756, 1759, 1763 (common carrier liability), Articles 2176, 2180, and 2194 (quasi-delict and solidary liability).

Liability of Common Carriers

Under Articles 1755 and 1756, a common carrier owes passengers utmost diligence and is presumed negligent in case of injury or death unless it proves extraordinary diligence. Article 1759 extends liability for employees’ negligent acts, and Article 1763 imposes liability for third-party acts if the carrier could have prevented them by exercising due diligence. A contract of carriage—along with its protective duties—attaches upon payment of fare and entry to the carrier’s premises.

Prudent Security Agency’s Liability

Liability of an employer or principal in quasi-delict rests on the employee’s negligence. Prudent’s employee, Escartin, was presumed negligent only if evidence showed he caused the fatal fall. The Court found no proof linking Escartin’s co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.