Case #69: Philippine National Railways vs.
The Honorable Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. L-55347,October 4, 1985
Facts:
Winifredo Tupang, husband of private respondent Rosario Tupang,
boarded a PNR train bound for Manila from Camarines Sur. Due to some
mechanical defect, the train stopped for repairs, taking some two hours
before the train could resume its trip. Unfortunately, upon passing Iyam
Bridge at Quezon, Winifredo Tupang fell off the train resulting in his death.
The train did not stop despite the alarm raised by the other passengers that
somebody fell from the train. Instead, the train conductor requested for
verification of the information. Police authorities of Lucena City were
dispatched to the Iyam Bridge where they found the lifeless body of
Winifredo. The autopsy report revealed that Winifredo died of cardio-
respiratory failure due to massive cerebral hemorrhage due to traumatic
injuries.
Rosario Tupang filed a complaint with CFI Rizal for damages of breach of
contract of carriage to which the court ruled in her favor.
On appeal, the Appellate Court found that the train was so over-crowded
that many passengers had no choice but to sit on the open platforms
between the coaches of the train. Also, the train did not even slow down
when it approached the Iyam Bridge which was under repair at the time.
Neither did the train stop, despite the alarm raised by other passengers that
a person had fallen off the train at lyam Bridge. It thus sustained the
holding of the trial court that the PNR did not exercise the utmost diligence
required by law of a common carrier.
Moving for reconsideration of the above decision, the PNR raised for the
first time, as a defense, the doctrine of state immunity from suit. Such
motion was denied. Hence, this petition.
Issue: whether PNR is liable as a common carrier
Held:
Yes. The PNR has all the powers, the characteristics and attributes of a
corporation under the Corporation Law. There can be no question then that
the PNR may sue and be sued and may be subjected to court processes
just like any other corporation
The petitioner has the obligation to transport its passengers to their
destinations and to observe extraordinary diligence in doing so. Death or
any injury suffered by any of its passengers gives rise to the presumption
that it was negligent in the performance of its obligation under the contract
of carriage. Thus, as correctly ruled by the respondent court, the petitioner
failed to overthrow such presumption of negligence with clear and
convincing evidence.
But while petitioner failed to exercise extraordinary diligence as required by
law, it appears that the deceased was chargeable with contributory
negligence. Since he opted to sit on the open platform between the
coaches of the train, he should have held tightly and tenaciously on the
upright metal bar found at the side of said platform to avoid falling off from
the speeding train. Such contributory negligence, while not exempting the
PNR from liability, nevertheless justified the deletion of the amount
adjudicated as moral damages. By the same token, the award of exemplary
damages must be set aside. Exemplary damages may be allowed only in
cases where the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner. There being no evidence of fraud,
malice or bad faith on the part of petitioner, the grant of exemplary
damages should be discarded.
Separate Opinions
AQUINO, J., concurring:
The case of Malong vs. PNR, L-49930, Aug. 7, 1985 (en banc) hold that the PNR
is not immune from suit and is liable as a common carrier for the negligent acts of
its employeees. It is expressly liable for moral damages for the death of a
passanger under arts. 1764 and 2206 of the Civil Code.
