July 31, 1990

BACHELOR EXPRESS, INCORPORATED, and CRESENCIO RIVERA, petitioners,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION), RICARDO BETER, SERGIA
BETER, TEOFILO RAUTRAUT and ZOETERA RAUTRAUT, respondents.
Gutierrez, Jr., J.:
SUMMARY: Ornominio and Narcisa were on board a Bachelor bus bound for Cagayan de Oro.
When they were passing Butuan, a passenger ran amuck and stabbed a policeman who was on
board. A stampede ensued; Ornominio and Narcisa were pushed off the bus as the passengers
scampered for the solitary door. As the bus was still running, the unlucky couple (kasi dalawa
sila eh) fell into the road and died, as the door was forced open by the panicking passengers.
Their parents sued Bachelor, its owner and the bus driver. RTC absolved them from liability on
the ground of caso fortuito and lack of negligence. CA reversed, holding that RTC overlooked
material facts showing negligence of Bachelor (inappropriate speed, drivers failure to stop bus
promptly, not enough doors, conductor panicked). SC upheld CA and held Bachelor et.al. liable.
DOCTRINE: Common carriers are presumed negligent in case of injury or death of a
passenger, even when the proximate cause of the death is a fortuitous event. In such cases, the
common carrier must show that it exercised extraordinary diligence in preventing harm to its
passengers; for it to be absolved from liability. (NCC 1173, 1732, 1733, 1735 & 1736)
Common carrier must prove that it exercised care and diligence in protecting its customers in
the case of a fortuitous event (e.g., an unexpected stabbing incident).
For the defense of force majeure to prosper the accident must be due to natural causes and
exclusively without human intervention.
Application of the formula for computing damages loss of earning capacity.
NATURE: Petition for review of a CA decision. Original action for sum of money [with quotation
marks; apparently it was a suit for damages].
FACTS
August 1, 1980 BACHELOR Express Bus No. 800 was travelling from Davao City to
Cagayan de Oro via Butuan.
o Owner/Operator: Samson YASAY
o Driver: Cresencio RIVERA
o Conductor: Pedro COLLANGO
o Bus had only one door at the front.
While the bus was in Tabon-tabon, Butuan, the bus stopped to pick up a passenger.
About 15 minutes later, a commotion arose when a passenger at the rear end of the bus
(not identified by name) ran amuck and stabbed a fellow passenger who was a member
of the Philippine Constabulary.
A stampede ensued and the bus had to be stopped. In the aftermath of the incident,
passengers ORNOMINIO Beter and NARCISA Rautraut were found lying on the
roadside.
o Ornominio died on the spot from head injuries. He was 32 y/o and a carpenter by
trade.
o Narcisa eventually died due to severe injuries she sustained from the accident.
She was 23 y/o and unemployed.

The passenger who ran amuck was able to jump off the bus but was killed by the
police after he was pursued into the bushes.
Ornominios parents (the SPS. BETER) and Narcisas parents (the SPS. RAUTRAUT
[RA-UT-RA-UT]) filed a complaint for sum of money against Bachelor, Yasay, and
Rivera before Branch I of the Butuan RTC.
TESTIMONIES
o LEONILA CULLANO (a passenger, testifying for the defense)
When the commotion occurred, she stood up, and noticed a wounded
man.
Collango opened the door only when the passengers were shouting at the
driver to stop the bus. Collango was panicking.
The passengers were in a state of panic as well.
She saw Narcisa and Ornominio alight the bus through the door.
o SERGIA BETER (also a passenger; Ornominios mother)
Categorically stated that she saw Ornominio fall of the bus as the door
was pushed open by the force of onrushing passengers.
o PEDRO COLLANGO (the conductor; an employee of Bachelor)
He shut the door after the last passenger had entered the bus.
Some passengers jumped out of the windows while the bus was running
[Bachelor claims that Ornominio and Narcisa were among them].
Asked to provide an estimate of the bus speed at the time the commotion
occurred, he stated that they were running at not less than 30 or 40 miles
[per hour], equivalent to 48-65 kilometers per hour.
The bus was running slowly as they have just picked up a passenger. The
bus was running at second gear when the commotion broke out.
BACHELORS DEFENSES
o It was able to transport the passengers safely to their respective places of
destination except Ornominio and Narcisa, who jumped off the bus without the
knowledge and consent of Rivera and Collango
o It had exercised due diligence in the choice of its employees
o The incident was not a traffic accident or vehicular accident but a fortuitous event
very much beyond the control of Bachelor, Yasay or Rivera
o Bachelor et.al. were not parties to the incident complained of as it was an act of a
third party who is not in any way connected with them and of which they have no
control and supervision.
RTC DECISION
o FACTUAL FINDINGS
The parties presented conflicting evidence as to how Narcisa and
Ornominio died.
From the evidence adduced by Sps. Beter and Sps. Rautraut, the Court
could not see why the two deceased could have fallen off the bus when
their own witnesses testified that when the commotion ensued inside the
bus, the passengers pushed and shoved each other towards the door
apparently in order to get off from the bus through the door.
The passengers could not have passed through the door because
according to the evidence the door was locked.
Court gave credence to the evidence adduced by Bachelor et.al. that
when the commotion ensued inside the bus, the two deceased panicked
o

and, in a state of shock and fear, they jumped off from the bus through
the window.
Rivera and Collango were not negligent in their duties. They had every
right to accept passengers absent any manifestation of violence or
drunkenness.
o HOLDING
Complaint was dismissed.
Transportation companies are not insurers of their passengers.
If and when such passengers harm other passengers without the
knowledge of the transportation company's personnel, the latter should
not be faulted.
CA DECISION
o FACTUAL FINDINGS
There was no evidence to support the conclusion that the door was
locked.
Collangos testimony must not be given weight because, apart from being
inconsistent, it is biased. He is an employee of Bachelor; he was also
involved in the incident and would be inclined to testify in his employers
favor.
The lone disinterested eyewitness, Cullano, testified that the door was
opened.
Court gave credence to the testimonies of Sergia and Cullano.
The bus was not running slowly. 48-65 km/h cannot be considered slow.
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING NEGLIGENCE
Rivera stopping the bus only after mass agitation by the
passengers
Reckless opening of the doors of the bus while traveling at an
appreciably fast speed
Violation of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code in operating
a public utility bus with only one door
o HOLDING
Bachelor et.al. held liable:
For Ornominios death - P75,000.00 in loss of earnings and
support, moral damages, straight death indemnity and attorney's
fees
For Narcisas death - P45,000.00 for straight death indemnity,
moral damages and attorney's fees.
Costs of suit
Bachelor et.al. appealed to the SC

ISSUE (HELD)
W/N Bachelor et.al. is liable for the deaths of Ornominio and Narcisa (YES)
SUB-ISSUES (HELD)
1) W/N the proximate cause of the incident was beyond the control of Bachelor et.al. (YES)
2) W/N Bachelor exercised extraordinary diligence to safeguard its passengers lives (NO)
RATIO

1) RUNNING AMUCK WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE; EVENT WAS FORTUITOUS; COMMON

CARRIERS NOT IMMEDIATELY ABSOLVED
Bachelor is correct in claiming that the proximate cause of the incident was the stabbing
of the constable.
o The sudden and unexpected stabbing incident drove the passengers and the bus
crew to panic.
o A stampede ensued when the passengers all rushed to the solitary exit, causing
the death of Narcisa and Ornominio (more on this below)
NCC 1173: Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise declared
by stipulations, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which
though foreseen, were inevitable. This provision was taken from Art. 1105 of the
Spanish Civil Code, which uses the term caso fortuito.
Lasam v. Smith [Torts]: some extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the
obligor, or of his employees, is an essential element of a caso fortuito.
COMMON CARRIER MUST STILL PROVE THAT IT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN
CAUSING THE INJURIES RESULTING FROM FORTUITOUS EVENTS
o NCC 1756: Common carriers are presumed negligent if a passenger dies or is
injured.
o Tan Chiong Sian v. Inchausti & Co.: Common carrier must prove that it exercised
care and diligence in protecting its customers in the case of a fortuitous event
o BLTB Co. v. IAC: For the defense of force majeure to prosper the accident must
be due to natural causes and exclusively without human intervention.
Now the Court had to find out if Bachelor could not really be faulted in any way for the
death of Ornominio and Narcisa, which was brought about by the stabbing incident.
2) BACHELOR DID NOT EXERCISE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
Bachelors arguments:
o Rivera was driving cautiously giving due regard to traffic rules, laws and
regulations throughout the course of the trip, even during the incident.
o As ruled by the trial court, common carriers are not insurers of their passengers.
SC: Untenable. There is enough evidence to prove Bachelors failure to exercise
extraordinary diligence. It therefore failed to prove that the deaths of Ornominio and
Narcisa were attributable solely to the fortuitous event.
SC noted that the RTCs and CAs factual findings were conflicting. [hence the SC
reviewed the record]
SC upheld the CAS findings of fact [see above], which point to the failure of Bachelor to
exercise extraordinary diligence. The RTC disregarded these material facts.
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING NEGLIGENCE
o Rivera did not immediately stop the bus at the height of the commotion
o The bus was speeding from a full stop
o The victims fell from the bus door when it was opened or gave way while the bus
was still running
o Collango panicked and blew his whistle after people had already fallen off the
bus
o The bus was not properly equipped with enough doors in accordance with law
It is therefore clear that Bachelor et.al. have failed to overcome the presumption of fault
and negligence found in the law governing common carriers.

BASIS FOR LIABILITY OF COMMON CARRIERS

o Culpa contractual or breach of contract of carriage
o NCC 1732: Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both
by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.
o NCC 1733: Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them,
according to all the circumstances of each case.
o NCC 1755: A common carrier is bound to 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.
o NCC 1756: In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers
are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they
prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733
and 1755.

3) On Bachelors allegation that the Sps. Beter and the Sps. Rautraut were not the parents of
Ornominio and Narcisa, respectively: Nagpapalusot na lang ang Bachelor. The spouses were
identified as the parents of the deceased during the trial and were recognized by the RTC as
such. The complaint was dismissed solely on the ground that Bachelor et.al. were not negligent.
It is a belated attempt to evade liability.
4) Award of Damages
FACTORS TO CONSIDER (Alcantara v. Surro):
1) life expectancy (considering the state of health of the deceased and the
mortality tables are deemed conclusive) and loss of earning capacity
2) pecuniary loss, loss of support and service
3) moral and mental suffering
Villa Rey Rule, as reiterated in People v. Daniel: BASES FOR COMPUTING LOSS OF
EARNING CAPACITY:
1) number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed; and
2) rate at which the losses sustained by the heirs should be fixed.
Using Davila v. PAL formula: at the age of 30 one's normal life expectancy is 33-1/3
years based on the American Expectancy Table of Mortality (2/3 x 80-32).
By taking into account the pace and nature of the life of a carpenter, it is reasonable to
make allowances for these circumstances and reduce the life expectancy of Ornominio
to 25 years.
To fix the rate of losses it must be noted that Art. 2206 refers to gross earnings less
necessary living expenses of the deceased, in other words, only net earnings are to be
considered.
COMPUTATION FOR ORNOMINIO
o Considering his social standing and position
o Deductible, living and incidental expenses=P400 a month, P4,800 annually, and
P120,000 for 25 years.
o Daily Income: Considering that Ornominios work is seasonal (arawan), SC
assumed that he works 20 days a month at P25 a day or P500 a month.
o Annual Income=P6,000 or P150,000 for 25 years.

Compensation for Loss of support and service=P30,000 (150,000 minus

120,000)
o Straight death indemnity under NCC 2206=P30,000
o Moral Damages=P10,000.00 as an exception to the general rule against moral
damages in case of breach of contract rule Art. 2200 (Necesito v. Paras).
o Attorney's fees=P5,000.
o TOTAL INDEMNITY for Ricardo and Sergia Beter as parents and heirs of
Ornominio=P75,000.
COMPUTATION FOR NARCISA
o Straight death indemnity=P30,000.00
o Moral damages=P10,000.00
o Attorney's fees =P5,000.00
o TOTAL INDEMNITY= P45,000.00
o No indemnity for loss of earning capacity as there was no evidence that she had
visible means of support.
o

DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed, CA decision affirmed.