79. Sps Perenas V Sps Zarate.pdf

SPS TEODORO & NANETTE PERENA v. SPS NICOLAS & TERESITA ZARATE, PNR & CA (2012) [Bersamin, J.] DOCTRINE: Extraordinary diligence required for common carriers SUMMARY: Petitioners’ business is to transport students. One day, the van was running late, the driver used an alternate route w/c involved crossing a railroad crossing that was not intended to be a railroad crossing. At the tracks, the van tried to overtake a bus so it didn’t see the train. The train hit the rear of the van w/c caused Respondents’ son to die. RTC and CA ruled in favor of Respondents. SC ruled that Perenas & PNR are jointly & severally liable. Perenas as a common carrier should have exercised extraordinary diligence w/c they didn’t because their passenger died. PNR was negligent for not placing signs & barriers to prevent vehicles from crossing. I. FACTS Perenas’ business is transporting students from Paranaque City to Don Bosco in Makati with a van (Driver: Clemente Alfaro) 6/1996: Aaron Zarate (son of Respondents) sat near the rear door of the van - Loud music was playing in the van - They were running late so Alfaro took an alternate route They were supposed to cross a railroad crossing - The path was not intended to be a railroad crossing for motorists - No railroad warning signs, or watchmen - Bamboo barandilla was up Alfaro was trying to overtake a passenger bus on the tracks so he failed to see the train - Alano (train operator) blew its horn, applied ordinary brakes 50m away, then emergency brakes when collision was imminent - The van’s rear got hit - Aaron landed in the path of the train, dragged his body, severed his head, dead.

-

Train operator fled the scene on board the train Respondents filed action for damages against Alfaro, Perenas, PNR, Alano - Breach of the contract of carriage - Quasi-delict (2176) against PNR Perenas: exercised diligence of a good father of a family in selection & supervision of Alfaro PNR: proximate cause of the collision was the reckless crossing of the van that did not stop, look, and listen RTC & CA: ruled in favor of Respondents II. ISSUE: W/N Perenas & PNR jointly & severally liable for damages- YES III. RULING Private Carrier Common Carrier Does not hold itself In the business of out to the public as carrying/transporting ready to act for all who passengers/goods/both may desire its services by land, water, or air, for compensation, By special agreement offering such services in a particular to the public instance, it undertakes to transport goods or persons from one place to another either gratuitously or for hire Ordinary diligence Extraordinary diligence (good father of the family) Presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of the loss of the effects of passengers or the death or injuries to passengers Perenas is a common carrier a. Engaged in transporting passengers as a business b. Undertaking to carry passengers over established roads by the method by w/c the business was conducted c. Transporting students for a fee Extraordinary care - NCC 1755: common carrier should “carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very

cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances” - No device, whether by stipulation, posting of notices, statements on tickets, or otherwise, may dispense with or lessen the responsibility of the common carrier ITCAB, Perenas already presumed negligent because passenger had died - They did not overturn the presumption - Liable despite driver had acted beyond the scope of his authority or in violation of the orders of the common carrier - Omissions of care on the part of the van driver constituted negligence PNR solidarily liable because also negligent - Did not ensure the safety of others by placing crossbars, signal lights, warning signs, and other permanent safety barriers - A crossing guard was assigned from 7AM-5PM w/c is a good indicum that PNR was aware of the risks to others & the need to control the traffic there IV. DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED.