Jesusa vda. De Nueca vs.

MRR
Highlights:
a. Passenger is one who travels in public conveyance by virtue of a contract express
or implied with the carrier as to the payment of fare or that which is accepted as
an equivalent thereof
b. How commenced: when the one commits himself to the care of the carrier and
has been expressly or impliedly received as such by the carrier.
c. Liability to strangers for Tort or Negligence: A railroad company, while not
bound to the same degree of care in regard to strangers, is liable to strangers for
injuries sustained. The element that will determine the extent of liability of the rail
road company is whether the presence of the injured person was to have
been anticipated.
 Why? The carrier has a duty from abstaining from wantonly or recklessly
injuring
d. Res ipsa loquitur: the transaction speaks for itself – a rule of evidence peculiar to
the law of negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a
substitute proof of negligence.
FACTS:
1. Fermin Nueca brought seven sacks of palay for shipment to Manila Railroad
Company (now Philippine National Railways) on December 22, 1958.The cargo was
loaded on the freight wagon of train 537.
2. After the passengers had boarded the train, the shunting operations were started
to hook the wagon thereto. However, before the train reached the turn off switch,
its passenger coach and the freight wagon were derailed and fell on its side. The
freight wagon pinned Fermin Nueca killing him.
3. Fermin’s widow Jesusa de Nueca and children, brought an action against MRC
alleging that the Fermin Nueca was MRC’s passenger and that his death was a
result of the carrier’s negligence.
4. MRC contends that it Fermin Nueca was a trespasser and that the accident was
due to force majeure and not due to any defect in the carrier’s equipment. The
company adduced evidence showing that there was no mechanical defect in the
derailed cars.
ISSUES:
1. WON Fermin Nueca was a passenger
2. WON MRC was negligent
3. WON MRC can be held liable
RULING:
1. No Fermin Nueca was not a passenger.
a. No evidence that he paid for a ticket
b. He was inside the baggage car which was not the proper place for
passengers.
c. He was merely a trespasser, licensee or invitee.
i. What is the duty of MRC: duty to abstain from wantonly or
recklessly injuring him
d. In sum, he did not present himself at the proper place and in a proper
manner to be transported
e. Since Fermin was not a passenger, MRC did not owe him extraordinary
diligence.
f. Extent of liability to strangers:
i. liable for its negligent or tortious acts
ii. Why: It is expected to conduct its affairs and operate its business as
not to injure the rights to others in accordance to the legal maxin
“sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas”

2. Yes, MRC was negligent. MRC adduced proof of the freight cars being in good
condition but did not adduce proof as to force majeure which lead the court to
invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
a. Since information on the tracks, engines, car and crew were under the
immediate control of the def and Pff has no direct knowledge, the
derailment of the car resulting to the death of the decedent authorized the
application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur since the movement of trains
past a railroad station does in in ordinary course result in cars leaving the
track when ordinary diligence is observed

3. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur:

a. The occurrence of an injury;
b. The thing which caused the injury was under the control and management
of the Def
c. The occurrence was such as in the ordinary course of things would not
happen if those has its control or management used proper care and
d. Absence of explanation by Def

4. In view of railroads:
a. The company is bound to exercise special care and watchfulness at any point
upon its tracks where people may be expected to be used by pedestrians
b. A railway company may be liable for injuries or death even to trespassers
who are not on the railroad track
 c. There was an implied invitation for the deceased to stay behind the railroad
tracks, considering the lack of prohibition on the part of the def to outsiders
to keep off the premises.

5. What is a passenger:
a. See definition above
b. Mere purchasing of a ticket does not create the relationship of carrier and
passenger but merely indicates the intention to become a passenger.
c. The person must the under the charge of the carrier and be accepted by the
carrier by virtue of the ticket.
d. There must be a bona fide intention of the person to:
i. Use the carrier’s facilities
ii. Possess sufficient fare to pay for his passage
iii. Present himself for transportation in the place and manner provided.

6. Awaiting transportation on carrier’s premises

a. If a person is within the carrier’s premises with the intention to become a
passenger, s/he is assumed to be a passenger.

7. When is a person a mere trespasser?

a. One who secures passage on a freight train which he knows by company
policy is not allowed to carry passengers
b. One who rides upon any part of the vehicle or conveyance which is
unsuitable or dangerous which he knows is not intended for passengers.
c. Mere knowledge of carrier’s agents that a person riding in part of a train
which is unsuitable or exposed does not make a person a passenger.
d. One who secures free passage by fraud or stealth
e. A person on a conveyance of the carrier, not ordinarily used for conveying
passengers, without the knowledge or consent of the carrier
f.