8/12/2019 Gillaco and Bachelor Express

1/2

Gillaco vs. Manila Railroad

G.R. No. L-8034, November 18, 1955

Facts:

Gillaco was a passenger in the early morning train of the Manila Railroad Company from

Calamba, Laguna to Manila. When the train reached the Paco Railroad station, Emilio Devesa, atrain guard of the Manila Railroad Company happened to be in said station waiting for the sametrain which would take him to Tutuban Station, where he was going to report for duty. Devesa

had a long standing personal grudge against Tomas Gillaco, same dating back during the

Japanese occupation and because of such, Devesa shot Gillaco with the carbine furnished to himby the Manila Railroad Company for his use as such train guard, upon seeing him inside the train

coach. Tomas Gillaco died as a result of the would which he sustained from the shot fired by

Devesa. Devesa was convicted with homicide by final judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Issue: Whether or not the employer is liable for the act of its employee

Held: NO. While a passenger is entitled to protection from personal violence by the carrier or

its agents or employees by virtue of the contract of carriage, this responsibility extends only to

those that the carrier could foresee or avoid through the exercise of the degree of car and

diligence required of it.The act of guard Devesa in shooting passenger Gillaco (because of a personal grudge

nurtured against the latter since the Japanese occupation) was entirely unforeseeable by the

Manila Railroad Co. The latter had no means to ascertain or anticipate that the two would meet,nor could it reasonably foresee every personal rancor that might exist between each one of its

many employees and any one of the thousands of eventual passengers riding in its trains. The

shooting in question was therefore "caso fortuito" within the definition of article 105 of the old

Civil Code, being both unforeseeable and inevitable under the given circumstances; and pursuantto established doctrine, the resulting breach of appellant's contract of safe carriage with the late

Tomas Gillaco was excused thereby. Moreover, when the crime took place, the guard Devesa

had no duties to discharge in connection with the transportation of the deceased from Calamba toManila. When Devesa shot and killed Gillaco, Devesa was assigned to guard the Manila-San

Fernando (La Union) trains, and he was at Paco Station awaiting transportation to Tutuban, the

starting point of the train that he was engaged to guard. In fact, his tour of duty was to start at

9:00 a.m., two hoursafter the commission of the crime. Devesa was therefore under no obligationto safeguard the passenger of the Calamba-Manila train, where the deceased was riding; and the

killing of Gillaco was not done in line of duty. The position of Devesa at the time was that of

another would be passenger, a stranger also awaiting transportation, and not that of an employeeassigned to discharge any of the duties that the Railroad had assumed by its contract with the

deceased. As a result, Devesa's assault cannot be deemed in law a breach of Gillaco's contract of

transportation by a servant or employee of the carrier.

8/12/2019 Gillaco and Bachelor Express

2/2

Bachelor Express, Inc. vs. CA

G.R. No. 85691, July 31, 1990

Facts:

A bus owned by Bachelor Express, Inc. and driven by Cresencio Rivera was the situs of a

stampede which resulted in the death of passengers Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut. Itcame from Davao City on its way to Cagayan de Oro City passing Butuan City; that while atTabon-Tabon, Butuan City, the bus picked up a passenger; that about fifteen (15) minutes later, a

passenger at the rear portion suddenly stabbed a PC soldier which caused commotion and panic

among the passengers; that when the bus stopped, passengers Ornominio Beter and NarcisaRautraut were found lying down the road, the former already dead as a result of head injuries and

the latter also suffering from severe injuries which caused her death later. The passenger

assailant alighted from the bus and ran toward the bushes but was killed by the police.

Thereafter, the heirs of Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut filed a complaint for "sum ofmoney" against Bachelor Express, Inc.

Issue: Whether or not the bus company should be held liable.

Held:

YES. The liability, if any, of the petitioners is anchored on culpa contractualor breach of

contract of carriage. The applicable provisions of law under the New Civil Code are Articles1732 & 1733 and 1755 & 1756. There is no question that Bachelor Express, Inc. is a common

carrier. Hence, from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy Bachelor Express,

Inc. is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide usingthe utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut were passengers of a bus belonging to petitioner

Bachelor Express, Inc. and, while passengers of the bus, suffered injuries which caused their

death. Consequently, pursuant to Article 1756 of the Civil Code, petitioner Bachelor Express,Inc. is presumedto have acted negligently unless it can prove that it had observed extraordinary

diligence in accordance with Articles 1733 and 1755 of the New Civil Code.

Considering the factual findings of the Court of Appeals-the bus driver did notimmediately stop the bus at the height of the commotion; the bus was speeding from a full stop;

the victims fell from the bus door when it was opened or gave way while the bus was still

running; the conductor panicked and blew his whistle after people had already fallen off the bus;

and the bus was not properly equipped with doors in accordance with law-it is clear that thepetitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of fault and negligence found in the law

governing common carriers. The petitioners' argument that the petitioners "are not insurers of

their passengers" deserves no merit in view of the failure of the petitioners to prove that thedeaths of the two passengers were exclusively due toforce majeure and not to the failure of the

petitioners to observe extraordinary diligence in transporting safely the passengers to their

destinations as warranted by law.