Bus company not an insurer of passengers

Dear PAO, I regularly ride a bus to work. One morning, while aboard an ordinary bus, a stranger from outside threw a stone, which hit my head. Due to the injury I sustained from the incident, work. A neighbor who heard what happened tome informed me that a bus, as a common carrier, is required to observe extraordinary diligence. Can I claim any liability against the bus company?

Anthony

Dear Anthony,

The answer to your query is no. Indeed, the law under Article 1733 of Republic Act 386, otherwise known as the “Civil Code of the Philippines,” requires common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each case. Nevertheless, the same law provides that a common carrier is not an insurer against acts of strangers.

While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers.

In your case, the injury sustained was in no way due to any defect in the means of transport or in the method of transporting, or to the negligent or willful acts of the private respondent’s employees. It involves no issue of negligence since the injury arose wholly from causes created by strangers, over which the carrier had no control or even knowledge of. Thus, the carrier should not be held liable. To rule otherwise would make the common carrier the insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers, which is not the intention of the lawmakers.

For acts of strangers, the contract of carriage provision under Article 1763 of the said law governs, to wit:

“Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of PilapilvsCourtofAppeals (GR 52159, Dec. 22, 1989), penned by Associate Justice Teodoro Padilla, instructs, viz:

“A tort committed by a stranger which causes injury to a passenger does not accord the latter a cause of action against the carrier. The negligence for which a common carrier is held responsible is the negligent omission by the carrier’s employees to prevent the tort from being committed when the same could have been foreseen and prevented by them.

“The carrier is not charged with the duty of providing or maintaining vehicles as to absolutely prevent any and all injuries to passengers. Where the carrier uses cars of the most approved type, in general use by others engaged in the same occupation, and exercises a high degree of care in maintaining them in suitable condition, the carrier cannot be charged with negligence in this respect.”

Thus, when a bus exercised due diligence in protecting its passengers against any acts of strangers, no liability can be imputed against it.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’ s note: Dear PA O is a daily column of the Public Attorney’ s Office. Questions for Chief A costa maybe sent to dear pao@ manila times.