Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017

VOL. 17, JULY 27, 1966 739


La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

No. L-20761. July 27, 1966.

LA MALLORCA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF


APPEALS, MARIANO BELTRAN, ET AL., respondents.

Common carriers; When relationship of carrier and passenger is


terminated; Reasonable time to leave carrier’s premises construed.—
Plaintiffs, husband and wife together with their minor daughters, namely,
Milagros, 13 years old, Raquel, about

740

740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

4½ years old, and Fe, over 2 years old, boarded a Pambusco Bus, Upon
reaching their destination, plaintiffs and all their daughters alighted from the
bus and the father led his compa-nions to a shaded spot about four or f ive
meters away f rom the vehicle. Father returned to the bus to get a piece of
baggage which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus. Raquel,
the child that she was, must have followed the father. However although the
father was still on the running board of the bus awaiting for the conductor to
give him the bag or bayong, the bus started to run, so that the father had to
jump down from the moving vehicle. It was at this instance that the child,
who must be near the bus, was run over and killed. Held: In the
circumstances, it cannot be said that the carrier’s agent had exercised to
utmost diligence of a very cautions person required by Article 1755 of the
Civil Code to be observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its
obligation to transport safely its passengers. In the first place, the driver,
although stopping the bus, nevertheless did not put off the engine. Secondly,
he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal
to go and while the latter was still unloading part of the baggage of the
passengers Mariano Beltran and family. The presence of said passengers

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb22b1c199b16ef71003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017

near the bus was not unreasonable and they are, therefore, to be considered
still passengers of the carrier, entitled to protection under their contract of
carriage.
Actions; Quasi-delicts; Pleadings; Averment thereof is permissible
under Rules of Court although incompatible with claim of contract of
carriage.—The complaint contained an allegation for quasi-delict. The
inclusion of this averment for quasi-delict, while incompatible with the
other claim under the contract of carriage, is permissible under Section 2 of
Rule 8 of the New Rules of Court, which allows a plaintiff f to allege causes
of action in the alternative, be they compatible with each other or not, to the
end that the real matter in controversy may be resolved and determined.
Thus, even assuming arguendo that the contract of carriage had terminated,
herein petitioner can be held liable for the negligence of its driver. The
presentation of proof of the negligence of its driver gave rise to the
presumption that the defendant employer did not exercise the diligence of a
good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees.
The petitioner had failed to overcome such presumption. Consequently, the
petitioner must be adjudged pecuniarily liable for the death of the child.
Appeals; Only questions raised in appellant’s brief can be passed upon.
—The increase of the award of damages from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 by
the Court of Appeals, however, cannot be sustained. Generally, the appellate
court can only pass upon and consider questions or issues raised and argued
in appellant’s brief. Plaintiff did not appeal from that portion of the judg-

741

VOL. 17, JULY 27, 1966 741

La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

ment of the trial court awarding them only P3,000.00 damages for the death
of their daughter.

PETITION for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of


Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.


     G.E. Yabut, R. Monterey and M.C. Lagman for petitioner.
     Ahmed Garcia for respondents.

BARRERA, J.:

La Mallorca seeks the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals


in CA-G.R. No. 23267-R, holding it liable for quasi-delict and
ordering it to pay to respondents Mariano Beltran, et al., P6,000.00

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb22b1c199b16ef71003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8