BACHELOR EXPRESS, INCORPORATED, and CRESENCIO RIVERA,

petitioners, 38
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Sixth Division), RICARDO
BETER, SERGIA BETER, TEOFILO RAUTRAUT and ZOETERA
RAUTRAUT, respondents.

FACTS:

August 1, 1980, a bus owned by Bachelor Express the petitioner and

driven by Cresencio Rivera travelled from Davao City to Cagayan de Oro
City.

While at Butuan City, the bus picked up a passenger; Inside the bus a
passenger suddenly stabbed a PC soldier which caused commotion and
panic among the passengers;

when the bus stopped, two passengers were found dead. The
passenger assailant was killed by the police.

Thereafter, the heirs and the parents of the two passengers filed a
complaint for "sum of money" against Bachelor Express,

In their answer, the petitioners denied liability for the death of the two
passengers. They alleged that the incident on August 1, 1980 was not a
traffic accident or vehicular accident; it was an incident or event very much
beyond the control of the defendants
ISSUE: Whether or not the vehicular incident resulting in the death of the
two passengers were caused by force majeure or caso fortuito
HELD:

Article 1174 of the present Civil Code states that “except in cases
expressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulations,
or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or
which though foreseen, were inevitable.”

In the case of Lasam v. Smith, the Court defined In relation to contracts, the
caso fortuito Here they presented the following essential characteristics:

(1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the

failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent
of the human will.

(2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the

caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid.

(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the

debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. And
 (4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the
aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.

In the case at bar the running amuck of the passenger was the
proximate cause of the incident as it triggered off a commotion and panic
among the passengers and resulting in the falling off the bus by the two
passengers causing their death and the sudden act of the passenger who
stabbed another passenger in the bus is within the context of force majeure.

However, in order that a common carrier may be absolved from liability

in case of force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was caused by
force majeure. The common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent
in causing the injuries resulting from such accident.

ISSUE: Another issue brought in this case whether or not the petitioner's
common carrier observed extraordinary diligence to safeguard the
lives of its passengers.

The Supreme Court said No, because the petitioner did not observed
extraordinary diligence to safeguard the lives of its passengers.

In the case at bar the bus driver did not immediately 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;

Here, the conductor panicked and also the bus was not properly
equipped with doors in accordance with law-it is clear that the petitioners
have failed to overcome the presumption of fault and negligence found in
the law governing common carriers.

petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the RTC
decision
dismissing the private respondents' complaint for collection of "a sum of money"
finding the petitioners solidarily liable for damages in the total amount of One Hundred
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00).
was the situs of a stampede which resulted in the death of passengers Ornominio
Beter and Narcisa Rautraut.
that the driver was able to transport his passengers safely except that the two
passengers who jumped off the bus without the knowledge and consent of the driver
and conductor;
the defendants said they had exercised due diligence in the choice of its
employees to avoid accidents;
 ; defendants were not parties to the incident complained of as it was an act of a
third party who is not in any way connected with the defendants and of which the latter
have no control and supervision;

In the case of Lasam v. Smith, we defined "events" which cannot be foreseen and
which, having been foreseen, are inevitable in the following manner:

caso fortuito

1. (An event that takes place by incident and could not have been foreseen.
Examples of this are destruction of houses, unexpected fire, shipwreck, violence
of robbers ...)
2. As an unexpected event or act of God which could neither be foreseen nor
resisted, such as floods, torrents, shipwrecks, conflagrations, lightning,
compulsion, insurrections, destruction of buildings by unforeseen accidents and
other occurrences of a similar nature.

3. In relation to contracts, a caso fortuito presents the following essential

characteristics:

(1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of
the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will.

(2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito,
or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid.

(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill
his obligation in a normal manner. And

(4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of
the injury resulting to the creditor.

Facts: On August 1, 1980, Bus No. 800 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.

The evidence shows that the bus came from Davao City on its way to Cagayan de Oro
City passing Butuan City; that while at Tabon-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 Narcisa
Rautraut 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,
private respondents herein filed a complaint for "sum of money" against Bachelor
Express, Inc. its alleged owner Samson Yasay and the driver Rivera.

The petitioners denied liability for the death of Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut.
the driver was able to transport his passengers safely to their respective places of
destination except Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut who jumped off the bus
without the knowledge and consent, much less, the fault of the driver and conductor
and the defendants in this case; the defendant corporation had exercised due diligence
in the choice of its employees to avoid as much as possible accidents; the incident on
August 1, 1980 was not a traffic accident or vehicular accident; it was an incident or
event very much beyond the control of the defendants; defendants were not parties to
the incident complained of as it was an act of a third party who is not in any way
connected with the defendants and of which the latter have no control and supervision.

o As regards the proximate cause of the death of Ornominio Beter and Narcisa
Rautraut, the petitioners maintain that it was the act of the passenger who ran
amuck and stabbed another passenger of the bus. They contend that the
stabbing incident triggered off the commotion and panic among the passengers
who pushed one another and that presumably out of fear and moved by that
human instinct of self-preservation Beter and Rautraut jumped off the bus while
the bus was still running resulting in their untimely death.
o . They argue that they should not be made liable for damages arising from acts of
third persons over whom they have no control or supervision.

The trial court issued an order dated August 8, 1985 dismissing the complaint.
However, the trial court's decision was reversed and set aside.

Issue: whether or not the petitioner's common carrier observed extraordinary diligence
to safeguard the lives of its passengers

Held: Article 1174 of the present Civil Code states:

o Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise declared by

stipulations, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk,
no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or
which though foreseen, were inevitable.

The running amuck of the passenger was the proximate cause of the incident as it
triggered off a commotion and panic among the passengers such that the passengers
started running to the sole exit shoving each other resulting in the falling off the bus by
passengers Beter and Rautraut causing them fatal injuries. The sudden act of the
passenger who stabbed another passenger in the bus is within the context of force
majeure.

o However, in order that a common carrier may be absolved from liability in case
of force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was caused by force majeure.
The common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the
injuries resulting from such accident.

Considering the factual findings of the Court of Appeals-the bus driver did not
immediately 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 the petitioners have failed to overcome the
presumption of fault and negligence found in the law governing common carriers.

o In the light of the foregoing, the negligence of the common carrier, through its
employees, consisted of the lack of extraordinary diligence required of common
carriers, in exercising vigilance and utmost care of the safety of its passengers,
exemplified by the driver's belated stop and the reckless opening of the doors of
the bus while the same was travelling at an appreciably fast speed

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 the deaths of the
two passengers were exclusively due to force majeureand not to the failure of the
petitioners to observe extraordinary diligence in transporting safely the passengers to
their destinations as warranted by law.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The questioned decision dated May
19, 1988 and the resolution dated August 1, 1988 of the Court of Appeals are
AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

Applying the foregoing rules with respect to Ornominio Beter, it is both just
and reasonable, considering his social standing and position, to fix the
deductible, living and incidental expenses at the sum of Four Hundred
Pesos (P400.00) a month, or Four Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos
(P4,800.00) annually. As to his income, considering the irregular nature of
the work of a daily wage carpenter which is seasonal, it is safe to assume
that he shall have work for twenty (20) days a month at Twenty Five Pesos
(P150,000.00) for twenty five years. Deducting therefrom his necessary
expenses, his heirs would be entitled to Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) representing loss of support and service (P150,000.00 less
P120,000.00). In addition, his heirs are entitled to Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) as straight death indemnity pursuant to Article 2206 (People
v. Daniel, supra). For damages for their moral and mental anguish, his
heirs are entitled to the reasonable sum of P10,000.00 as an exception to
the general rule against moral damages in case of breach of contract rule
Art. 2200 (Necesito v. Paras, 104 Phil. 75). As attorney's fees, Beter's heirs
are entitled to P5,000.00. All in all, the plaintiff-appellants Ricardo and
Sergia Beter as heirs of their son Ornominio are entitled to an indemnity of
Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00).

In the case of Narcisa Rautraut, her heirs are entitled to a straight death indemnity of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), to moral damages in the amount of Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as attorney's
fees, or a total of Forty Five Thousand Pesos (P45,000.00) as total indemnity for her
death in the absence of any evidence that she had visible means of support.