[59] VDA. DE BATACLAN v.

MEDINA - REASON: gas leaked from the tank when the bus overturned; it spread
GR L-10126 | October 22, 1957 | Montemayor, J. all over the bus and ground under it; the lighted torch set it on fire.
 Complaint: recovery of compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages, and
SUMMARY atty’s fees from Mariano Medina in the amount of P87,150
A bus owner by Medina overturned trapping inside it 4 people including the - Made by Bataclan’s widow, Salud Villanueva
husband of the petitioner. When men came to help, they carried with them a  CFI: awarded P1k, plus P600 as attorney's fee, plus P100, the value of the
lighted torch; this prompted a fire engulfing the bus and causing the death the of 4 merchandise being carried by Bataclan (both parties appealed to CA)
inside. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of damages against Medina. The CFI  CA: endorsed the appeal to SC
awarded damages but only to the extent of the physical injuries suffered, not the
death, stating that the overturning of the bus was not the proximate cause of ISSUE
Bataclan’s death. The Court disagreed; the overturning of the bus was the W/n Medina should be liable for the death of Bataclan. YES
proximate cause of the death of the petitioner’s husband.
RATIO
DOCTRINE Medina is liable for damages
Proximate cause is “. . . 'that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,  There was a breach of contract of transportation for hire by Medina Transpo 1
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the - Medina Transpo undertook to carry Bataclan safely to his destination
result would not have occurred.'…” (SEE RATIO FOR MORE COMPREHENSIVE DEF)  Medina was negligent through his agent, driver Saylon
- At the time of the blow out, the bus was speeding
FACTS - From the point where the front tire burst up to the canal where the
 Shortly after midnight, a bus of the Medina Transportation was on its way to bus overturned, there was a distance of about 150 meters.
Pasay City from Amadeo, Cavite - After breaking, because of the velocity, it took 150 meters before it
- Operated by its owner defendant Mariano Medina fell into the canal and turned turtle.
- Driven by its regular chauffeur, Conrado Saylon.
- About eighteen passengers, including the driver and conductor. [IMPORTANT PART] As to what degree is Medina’s liability
- Seat plan (idk how this works but this is how it was described)  CFI: the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was the fire not the
overturning of the bus
“Visaya” Driver Juan Bataclan Felipe Lara
- At the time the fire started, Bataclan, was still alive, though seriously
Natalia Villanueva (“seated just behind the four mentioned”)
injured, and so damages were awarded, not for his death, but for the
 About 2AM, while the bus was in Imus, one of the front tires burst and the
physical injuries suffered by him.
vehicle began to zig-zag until it fell into a canal or ditch on the right side of the
 SC: We disagree
road and turned turtle. - Definition of proximate cause2, which the plaintiffs cited in their briefs
- Some of the passengers managed to leave the bus
- The 4 passengers (in the above table) could not get out of the bus. . . . 'that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which
- Shouts for help from Bataclan and Lara, who said they could not get
the result would not have occurred.' And more comprehensively, 'the
out of the bus, were heard by the escaped passengers. proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either
- No evidence that any freed passenger attempted to free the four, but immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural
cries for help were made to neighboring houses and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with
 After half an hour, 10 men came, one of them carrying a lighted torch made of its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately
bamboo with a wick on one end, evidently fueled with petroleum. effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first
- As they approached, a fierce fire started, burning the bus, including acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first
event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have
the four passengers trapped inside it.

1 Provisions on responsibility of common carriers are found in CC Arts. 1733, 1755, 1756,1759,1763 2 Volume 38, pages 695-696 of American jurisprudence
 reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an
injury to some person might probably result therefrom.
 In this case, the proximate cause was the overturning of the bus
- When the vehicle overturned completely, the leaking of the gasoline
from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected
- When the men came to answer the call for help, which was also
probably made by the driver and conductor themselves, it was dark,
and they needed a lighted torch to see.
- The coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was a
natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the trapping of some
of its passengers and the call for outside help.
 There was again negligence resulting to the burning3
- The driver should and must have known that in the position in which
the overturned bus was, gasoline could and must have leaked,
especially since large amounts of gasoline can be smelt and directed
even from a distance
- Neither the driver nor the conductor cautioned the rescuers

In view of the foregoing, with the modification that the damages awarded by the
trial court are increased from ONE THOUSAND (P1,000) PESOS TO SIX THOUSAND
(P6,000) PESOS, and from SIX HUNDRED PESOS TO EIGHT HUNDRED (P800) PESOS,
for the death of Bataclan and for the attorney's fees, respectively, the decision
appealed is from hereby affirmed, with costs.

(Another manifestation of negligence; this was a comment of the crim case against driver on
criminal negligence)
 When Medina visited one of the injured passengers in the hospital, the latter overheard
him speaking to one of his bus inspectors, telling said inspector to have the tires of the
bus changed immediately because they were already old, and that as a matter of fact,
he had been telling the driver to change the said tires, but that the driver did not follow
his instructions.
 Yet the criminal case against him, on motion of the fiscal and with his consent, was
provisionally dismissed, because according to the fiscal, the witnesses on whose
testimony he was banking to support the complaint, either failed or appear or were
reluctant to testify. But the record of the case before us shows the several witnesses,
passengers, in that bus, willingly and unhesitatingly testified in court to the effect of the
said driver was negligent. In the public interest the prosecution of said erring driver
should be pursued, this, not only as a matter of justice, but for the promotion of the
safety of passengers on public utility buses.

3 Said negligence come under Arts 1733, 1759 and 1763.