UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

Arceo, Carlos Emmanuel C. | 2021-20395 | D2025

Case Name La Mallorca v. Court of Appeals

Common Carriers of Passengers > Duration of responsibility
Topic

Case No. | Date G.R. No. L-20761 | July 27, 1966

The Beltran family rode a bus. When they got off, the father noticed they left their bag inside. He went back to
get it and, unknowingly, his youngest child followed him. The bus driver, while the conductor was helping the
dad get his bayong, let the bus move forward. This unexpected movement of the bus prompted the father to
jump out, since he was only standing by the doorway. When he landed, he saw the corpse of his 4-year old
daughter, whose skull was crushed after getting run over by the bus.

The trial court awarded them damages for breach of the contract of carriage. The CA sustained the damages but
Case Summary said this was out of the negligence of the driver. The CA said there was no longer a contract of carriage since
the family had already gotten off the bus.

The SC ruled that the contract of carriage subsists. They cite jurisprudence and rule that the contract of carriage
ceases not upon the moment that a passenger alights from the vehicle, but rather when there is a passage of a
reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier. “Reasonable opportunity” is dependent on the circumstances
surrounding the situation. ITC, it cannot be said that there was a reasonable opportunity for the family to alight
since they even left their bag therein.
It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the
passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but
continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's
premises. And, what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the
circumstances. Thus, a person who, after alighting from a train, walks along the station platform is considered
Doctrine
still a passenger.2 So also, where a passenger has alighted at his destination and is proceeding by the usual way
to leave the company's premises, but before actually doing so is halted by the report that his brother, a fellow
passenger, has been shot, and he in good faith and without intent of engaging in the difficulty, returns to relieve
his brother, he is deemed reasonably and necessarily delayed and thus continues to be a passenger entitled as
such to the protection of the railroad and company and its agents.

RELEVANT FACTS
1. Around December 20 at noon time, Sps. Beltran with their three minor daughters boarded a bus owned and operated by the defendant,
La Mallorca.
2. The conductor issued three tickets for the spouses and their eldest daughter. The two youngest children were not issued tickets because
their height was below the minimum.
3. When they got off, Mariano went to come back to the bus to get his bayong that he left behind. Unbeknownst to him, his youngest
daughter, Raquel followed him. The bus, whose engine was still on, moved despite the conductor not giving the driver signal to go.
This prompted Mariano, who was at the doorway, to leap out. Upon landing, he saw that the people were gathering around the body of
a girl who was lying on her front. This girl was run over by the truck; her skull was crushed, and she was without life. This was his own
daughter, Raquel.
4. The TC awarded Sps. Beltran PHP 3,000 in damages, and another PHP 600 for burial expenses. They ruled that La Mallorca was in
breach of their contract of carriage.
5. The CA reversed this decision. They said that since the family was no longer on board the bus, they can no longer be bound by the rules
on contracts of carriage. However, the CA held them liable for quasi-delict.

ISSUE RATIO

Whether the petitioner, La It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the
Mallorca, is still liable for the moment the passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point
death of Raquel, under the of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable
contract of carriage despite the opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. And, what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay
passengers having already within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances. Thus, a person who, after alighting
alighted from the bus. – YES. from a train, walks along the station platform is considered still a passenger. 2 So also, where a
passenger has alighted at his destination and is proceeding by the usual way to leave the company's
premises, but before actually doing so is halted by the report that his brother, a fellow passenger, has
been shot, and he in good faith and without intent of engaging in the difficulty, returns to relieve his
brother, he is deemed reasonably and necessarily delayed and thus continues to be a passenger
entitled as such to the protection of the railroad and company and its agents.

In the present case, the father returned to the bus to get one of his baggages which was not unloaded
when they alighted from the bus. Raquel, the child that she was, must have followed the father.
However, although the father was still on the running board of the bus awaiting for the conductor to
hand him the bag or bayong, the bus started to run, so that even he (the father) had to jump down
from the moving vehicle. It was at this instance that the child, who must be near the bus, was run
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
Arceo, Carlos Emmanuel C. | 2021-20395 | D2025
over and killed. In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the carrier's agent had exercised the
"utmost diligence" of a "very cautions person" required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be
observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers. In
the first place, the driver, although stopping the bus, nevertheless did not put off the engine.
Secondly, he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal to go and while
the latter was still unloading part of the baggages of the passengers Mariano Beltran and family. The
presence of said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are, therefore, to be
considered still as passengers of the carrier, entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage.

RULING
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby modified by sentencing, the petitioner to pay to the respondents Mariano Beltran, et
al., the sum of P3,000.00 for the death of the child, Raquel Beltran, and the amount of P400.00 as actual damages. No costs in this instance. So
ordered.

Additional Notes

RE: Quasi-delicts sans contract of carriage

But even assuming arguendo that the contract of carriage has already terminated, herein petitioner can be held liable for the negligence of its
driver, as ruled by the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Paragraph 7 of the complaint, which reads —
That aside from the aforesaid breach of contract, the death of Raquel Beltran, plaintiffs' daughter, was caused by the negligence
and want of exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person on the part of the defendants and their agent, necessary to
transport plaintiffs and their daughter safely as far as human care and foresight can provide in the operation of their vehicle.
is clearly an allegation for quasi-delict. The inclusion of this averment for quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under the
contract of carriage, is permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8 of the New Rules of Court, which allows a plaintiff to allege causes of action in the
alternative, be they compatible with each other or not, to the end that the real matter in controversy may be resolved and determined. 4
The plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded the culpa or negligence upon which the claim was predicated when it was alleged in the complaint that "the
death of Raquel Beltran, plaintiffs' daughter, was caused by the negligence and want of exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person
on the part of the defendants and their agent." This allegation was also proved when it was established during the trial that the driver, even before
receiving the proper signal from the conductor, and while there were still persons on the running board of the bus and near it, started to run off
the vehicle. The presentation of proof of the negligence of its employee gave rise to the presumption that the defendant employer did not
exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees. And this presumption, as the Court of
Appeals found, petitioner had failed to overcome. Consequently, petitioner must be adjudged peculiarily liable for the death of the child Raquel
Beltran.

RE: Addt’l Damages

The increase of the award of damages from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 by the Court of Appeals, however, cannot be sustained. Generally, the
appellate court can only pass upon and consider questions or issues raised and argued in appellant's brief. Plaintiffs did not appeal from that
portion of the judgment of the trial court awarding them on P3,000.00 damages for the death of their daughter. Neither does it appear that, as
appellees in the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs have pointed out in their brief the inadequacy of the award, or that the inclusion of the figure
P3,000.00 was merely a clerical error, in order that the matter may be treated as an exception to the general rule. 5Herein petitioner's contention,
therefore, that the Court of Appeals committed error in raising the amount of the award for damages is, evidently, meritorious.1äwphï1.ñët