6. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN vs.

MARJORIE NAVIDAD
G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003

FACTS:
Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a “token” (representing payment of
the fare). While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard
assigned to the area approached Navidad and a misunderstanding or an altercation between the two apparently
ensued that led to a fist fight. Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT
train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was
killed instantaneously.

A complaint for damages was then filed against Escartin, Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization Inc.
and Prudent for the death of Navidad. The RTC then held that Prudent and Escartin were liable and it ordered them
to pay jointly and severally the damages for the death of Navidad.

On appeal, the CA exonerated Prudent and Escartin from any liability for the death of Navidad and held that LRTA
and Roman jointly and severally liable. It ruled that the contract of carriage had already existed when Navidad
entered the place where passengers were supposed to be after paying the fare and getting the corresponding token
therefor.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the LRTA and Roman are liable for the death of Navidad.

RULING:
The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons
with due regard for all circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so
obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises
and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage. Thus, in this case, the foundation of
LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that
contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier. In the discharge of
its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of
the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is not
relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage.

On the other hand, there is no showing that petitioner Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he
must also be absolved from liability. Needless to say, the contractual tie between the LRT and Navidad is not itself
a juridical relation between the latter and Roman; thus, Roman can be made liable only for his own fault or
negligence.
31. SARKIES TOURS PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 108897 October 2, 1997

FACTS: Fatima Fortades boarded petitioner Sarkies Tours’ De Luxe Bus in Manila on her way to Legazpi City. Her
three luggages were loaded in the baggage compartment of the bus. However, during a stopover at Daet, it was
discovered that only one bag remained in the open compartment. Fatima and her family went to great lengths to
recover the luggages but only one bag was returned to them. They reported to the police, the NBI, and the regional
and head offices of petitioner. Her mother even sought the assistance of Philtranco bus drivers and the radio
stations.

After more than nine months of fruitless waiting, respondents filed a case to recover the value of the remaining lost
items, as well as moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.
RTC rendered a favorable judgment. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, but deleted
the award of moral and exemplary damages.

ISSUES:
1) Whether the carrier was responsible for the loss.
2) Whether respondents are entitled to the award of damages.

RULING:
1) It has been established that the carrier received the luggages.

From the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, common carriers are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them, and this liability “lasts from the time the
goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same
are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the person who has a right to receive them,” unless the
loss is due to any of the excepted causes under Article 1734 thereof. The petitioners contention that the
luggages were not accounted for or was not declared has no standing. The cause of the loss was petitioner’s
negligence in not ensuring that the doors of the baggage compartment of its bus were securely fastened. As a result
of this lack of care, almost all of the luggage was lost, to the prejudice of the paying passengers.

2) Yes. Under the circumstances, respondents are entitled to the award of damages. It is not disputed that of the
three pieces of luggage of Fatima, only one was recovered. The other two contained optometry books, materials,
equipment, as well as vital documents and personal belongings. Respondents had to shuttle between Bicol and
Manila in their efforts to be compensated for the loss. During the trial, Fatima and Marisol had to travel from the
United States just to be able to testify. Expenses were also incurred in reconstituting their lost documents. The
Court agrees with the Court of Appeals in awarding P30,000.00 for the lost items and P30,000.00 for the
transportation expenses, but disagrees with the deletion of the award of moral and exemplary damages which, in
view of the foregoing proven facts, with negligence and bad faith on the fault of petitioner having been duly
established, should be granted to respondents in the amount of P20,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively.