Case Summary (A.C. No. 5440)
Key Dates
• April 26, 1988 – bus departs; left front tire explodes; Tito Tumboy killed
• November 21, 1988 – complaint filed in RTC
• August 29, 1991 – RTC decision dismissing complaint
• August 23, 1993 – Court of Appeals (CA) reverses RTC, awards damages
• October 17, 1997 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (carrier’s public service obligation)
• Civil Code
– Art. 1174 (fortuitous events)
– Art. 1733 (extraordinary diligence by carriers)
– Art. 1755–1756 (contractual liability of common carriers; presumption of negligence)
– Art. 1764 in relation to Art. 2206 (damages for death of passenger)
• Jurisprudence: La Mallorca v. De Jesus; Juntilla v. Fontanar; Necesito v. Paras; Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. IAC; Bachelor Express v. CA; Sulpicio Lines v. CA
Facts of the Incident
On April 26, 1988, the Yobido Liner bus carried the Tumboy family from Mangagoy to Davao City. At Km. 17 along a winding, wet, unpaved stretch, the newly installed left front tire exploded. The bus plunged into a three‐foot ravine and struck a tree, killing 28-year-old Tito Tumboy and injuring other passengers. Conductor Abundio Salce testified that only 32 of 42 seats were occupied, speed was 50–60 kph, and the tire had been mounted five days earlier. Secretary Minerva Fernando confirmed purchase and mounting of the Goodyear tire.
Procedural History
• RTC: Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract of carriage, damages, and attorney’s fees; petitioners raised caso fortuito and filed a third‐party complaint against insurer; third‐party suit dismissed; RTC found tire blowout a fortuitous event and dismissed plaintiffs’ action.
• CA: Reversed RTC. Held that tire explosion is not per se fortuitous, carrier bears burden to prove absence of negligence and extraordinary diligence. Noting wet, rough road and disputed speed, CA awarded ₱50,000 for death, ₱30,000 moral damages, and ₱7,000 funeral expenses. Reconsideration denied.
Issue
Whether the explosion of a newly installed tire constitutes a fortuitous event that exempts a common carrier from liability for a passenger’s death.
Liability of a Common Carrier and Presumption of Negligence
Under Article 1756, a common carrier is presumed negligent when a passenger dies or is injured. This disputable presumption imposes on the carrier the burden to prove either:
- Observation of “extraordinary diligence” under Articles 1733 and 1755; or
- That the injury or death resulted from a fortuitous event independent of human will (Art. 1174).
Definition and Characteristics of Fortuitous Event
To be a fortuitous event, the occurrence must be:
a) Independent of human will;
b) Unforeseeable or, if foreseeable, unavoidable;
c) Such as to render fulfillment of the obligation impossible in the normal manner; and
d) Devoid of any participation or aggravation by the obligor.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- Fortuitous event doctrine is not available for accidents caused by equipment defects or driver negligence. A tire explosion may have stemmed from manufacturing or mounting defects, overpressure, or improper maintenance—human factors within carrier control.
- Good brand name or recent purchase does not eliminate risk of hidden defects nor substitute for proof of extraordinary diligence.
- Contradictory evide
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5440)
Facts of the Case
- On April 26, 1988, spouses Tito and Leny Tumboy and their minor children Ardee and Jasmin boarded a Yobido Liner bus at Mangagoy, Surigao del Sur, bound for Davao City.
- At around Km. 17 on Picop Road, Sta. Maria, Agusan del Sur, the left front tire of the bus suddenly exploded.
- The bus veered off the road, plunged into a ravine approximately three feet deep, and struck a tree.
- Tito Tumboy, age 28, died from the accident; other passengers sustained physical injuries.
Procedural History
- November 21, 1988: Leny Tumboy and her children filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage, damages, and attorney’s fees against Alberta Yobido (bus owner) and Cresencio Yobido (driver) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City.
- Defendants raised the affirmative defense of caso fortuito and joined Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. as third-party defendant; the RTC later dismissed the third-party complaint.
- August 29, 1991: RTC, Judge William M. Layague presiding, dismissed the plaintiffs’ case for lack of merit, finding the tire explosion a fortuitous event.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
- August 23, 1993: CA, through Associate Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, reversed the RTC, held the tire blowout was not per se fortuitous, and awarded P50,000 for death, P30,000 moral damages, and P7,000 funeral expenses.
- November 4, 1993: CA denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration.
- Defendants filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, contesting the characterization of the blowout and challenging the factual findings.
Issue Presented
- Whether the explosion of a newly installed tire on a passenger bus constitutes a fortuitous event (caso fortuito) that would exempt the common carrier from liability for the death of a passenger under the contract of carriage.
Decision of the Regional Trial Court
- Found that the bus’s fall into the ravine resulted solely from the tire blowout, with no external factor implicated.
- Distinguished the case f