Summary of the Three Causes of Actions Involving Common Carriers

Question 1

Illustration:

X, Inc. - Public Utility Company
Y - Bus driver, recklessly driving
Z - Passenger injured, who can avail of any three (3) causes of action

Question 2

Culpa contractual: Passenger Z v. X, Inc.
(Breach of Contract)

The contract is between the common carrier (employer) and the passenger injured, and the cause of the action is breach of contract. Driver Y is not to be included as a party, since there is no privity as to him.

Examples is Week 2, Case 2 on LRTA v. Navidad.

Question 3

Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad

A common carrier becomes liable under culpa contractual for the death of, or injury to, passengers when:

(1) Through the negligence or willful acts of its employees; or

(2) Willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act.

In the contract of carriage of passengers, the law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautions persons with due regard for all circumstances. Consequently, when a passenger dies or is injured in the discharge of a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault.

Question 4

Culpa aquiliana: Passenger Z v. X, Inc. and Driver Y

Damage caused to another due to negligence. The defendants will be solidarily liable as joint tortfeasors.

Question 5

Philtranco Service Enterprises v. Court of Appeals

Under quasi-delict, the liability of a registered owner of a public service vehicle for damages arising from the tortious act of driver is primary, direct, and solidary with the driver, pursuant to Article 2194 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The only recourse of such owner if the judgment is satisfied by him is to recover what it has paid from its employee who committed the fault or negligence which gave rise to the action based on quasi-delict pursuant to Article 2181.

Question 6

Culpa criminal: People v. Driver Y

Driver Y’s negligence may amount to a crime: reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries. If Driver Y is convicted but is insolvent, an action can be pursued by Passenger Z against X, Inc. to enforce the latter’s subsidiary liability.

Question 7

Pajarito v. Seneris

Conviction of employee is conclusive upon employer as to his subsidiary liability, although the latter may not in the strict sense, be a party to the criminal case brought against the employee. Enforcement of employer’ subsidiary liability may be conveniently litigated within the same criminal proceedings because the execution of the judgment is a logical and integral part thereof. Employer will have the right to present evidence of the employee’s solvency to avoid liability.