8/12/2019 Jose Pilapil vs CA and ALATCO Transportation Company.docx

1/1

Jose Pilapil vs CA and ALATCO Transportation Company

FACTS:

Jose Pilapilo Paying passengero Boarded Alatcos Bus No. 409 at San Nicolas, Iriga City on September 16, 1971 at about

6PM

Upon reaching the vicinity of the cemetery of the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, on theway to Naga City, an unidentified man, a bystander along the national highway, hurled a stone

at the left side of the bus

Pilapil was hit above his left eye Alatco Bus No. 409 immediately brought him to the Naga City Provincial Hospital Pilapil was later brought to Dr. Malabanan in Iriga City and was treated there for 1 week No improvement in his sight so he went to V. Luna, QC and was treated by Dr. Capulong Pilapil lost partially his left eyes vision and sustained permanent scar above the left eye. Pilapil filed a case against ALATCO CFI Ruling: ALATCO to pay 10k for actual and material damages + 5k for moral and exemplary

damages + 300 for reimbursement of his medical expenses + 1k attorneys fees

CA: reversed CFI ruling and dismissed the case Pilapils claims:

o ALATCO failed to rebut the presumption of negligence against it by proof on its part that itexercised extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers.

o Charge of negligence: the injury could have been prevented by the common carrier ifsomething like mesh-working grills had covered the windows of the bus.

ISSUE:WON ALATCO is liable under presumption of negligence?

HELD:NO

What constitutes compliance with said duty in Art 1755 is adjudged with due regard to all thecircumstances

Presumption of negligence is a disputable presumption Where, as in the instant case, the injury sustained by the petitioner was in no way due to any

defect in the means of transport or in the method of transporting or to the negligent or willful

acts of private respondent's employees, and therefore involving no issue of negligence in its

duty to provide safe and suitable cars as well as competent employees, with the injury arising

wholly from causes created by strangers over which the carrier had no control or even

knowledge or could not have prevented, the presumption is rebutted and the carrier is not andought not to be held liable. To rule otherwise would make the common carrier the insurer of the

absolute safety of its passengers which is not the intention of the lawmakers.

The carrier is not charged with the duty of providing or maintaining vehicles as to absolutelyprevent any and all injuries to passengers.