Facts:
Winifredo Tupang boarded
'Train No. 516 of appellant at Libmanan, Camarines Sur, as a paying passenger
bound for Manila. Due to some mechanical defect, the train stopped at Sipocot,
Camarines Sur, for repairs, taking some two hours before the train could resume
its trip to Manila. Unfortunately, upon passing Iyam Bridge at Lucena, 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 Perfecto Abrazado, called the station
agent at Candelaria, Quezon, and 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 Tupang.
Winifredo Tupang died of
cardio-respiratory failure due to massive cerebral hemorrhage due to traumatic
injury.
Rosario Tupang, the deceased’s
widow, filed a complaint to CFI Rizal. The Court held the petitioner PNR liable
for damages for breach of contract of carriage and ordered "to pay the
plaintiff the sum of P12,000,00 for the death of Winifredo Tupang, plus
P20,000.00 for loss of his earning capacity and the further sum of P10,000.00
as moral damages, and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs.
CA sustained the holding of
the trial court that the PNR did not exercise the utmost diligence required by
law of a common carrier. It further increased the amount adjudicated by the
trial court by ordering PNR to pay the plaintiff an additional sum of P5,000.00
as exemplary damages.
PNR filed an MR. PNR raised
for the first time, as a defense, the doctrine of state immunity from suit. It
alleged that it is a mere agency of the Philippine government without distinct
or separate personality of its own, and that its funds are governmental in
character and, therefore, not subject to garnishment or execution. The motion
was denied; the respondent court ruled that the ground advanced could not be
raised for the first time on appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not PNR is
liable for the death of Winifredo Tupang
Held:
No. The PNR was
created under Rep. Act 4156, as amended. Section 4 of the said Act provides:
The Philippine National Railways shall have the following
powers:
a. To do all such other things and to transact all such
business directly or indirectly necessary, incidental or conducive to the
attainment of the purpose of the corporation; and
b. Generally, to exercise all powers of a corporation under
the Corporation Law.
Under the foregoing section,
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.
Justice Fernando cited the
Court's holding in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Industrial
Relations, to wit: "The premise that the funds could be spoken of as
public in character may be accepted in the sense that the People's Homesite and
Housing Corporation was a government-owned entity. It does not follow though
that they were exempt from garnishment. National Shipyard and Steel
Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations is squarely in point. As
was explicitly stated in the opinion of then Justice, later Chief Justice,
Concepcion: "The allegation to the effect that the funds of the NASSCO are
public funds of the government, and that, as such, the same may not be
garnished, attached or levied upon, is untenable for, as a government- owned
and controlled corporation, the NASSCO has a personality of its own, distinct
and separate from that of the Government. It has-pursuant to Section 2 of
Executive Order No. 356, dated October 23, 1950 * * *, pursuant to which the
NASSCO has been established- 'all the powers of a corporation under the
Corporation Law * * *.
The case of Manila
Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Co., laid down the rule
that "when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its
sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. [Bank of
the U.S. v. Planters' Bank, 9 Waitch 904, 6 L. ed. 244]. By engaging in a
particular business through the instrumentality of a corporation the government
divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character, so as
to render the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private
corporations.
The appellate court found,
the petitioner does not deny, that the train boarded by the deceased Winifredo
Tupang was so over-crowded that he and many other passengers had no choice but
to sit on the open platforms between the coaches of the train. It is likewise
undisputed that 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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment