PNR v CA o PNR stressed that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a

G.R. No. 157658 | October 15, 2007 family in the selection and supervision of Borja, the locomotive
Nachura, J. driver and train engineer and that he also used extraordinary
diligence and caution to avoid the accident
Arada, Group 2 o Amores had the last clear chance to avoid the accident but
recklessly failed to do so
Petitioners: Philippine National Railways and Virgilio Borja  RTC: dismissed respondents’ complaint and petitioners’ counterclaim; costs
Respondents: Court of Appeals (Second Division), Corazon Amores, Ma. Emilie halved and paid equally by parties
Mojica, Cecile Sison, Dino Amores, Larisa Amores, Armand Amores, and John o Proximate cause of the collision: Amores’ fatal misjudgment and
Amores the reckless course of action in crossing the railroad track even
after seeing or hearing the oncoming train
Topic: Determining the diligence required o [Borja died]
 CA: reversed the RTC’s decision
Relevant provision o PNR and Borja’s estate jointly and severally liable to pay
Art. 2176 of NCC: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, respondents P122,300 for damage to the car and P50,000 as moral
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such damages; reimbursement of funeral expenses and claim for
fault or negligence, if there was no pre-existing contractual relation between payment of support is denied
the parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this o Petitioners found negligent based on PNR’s negligence to install
chapter. semaphore or post a flagman since the crossing is located in a
thickly populated area; also, the signboard is insufficient because
Facts: of its defective condition; no negligence attributed to Amores
 April 27, 1992: while Jose Amores (Amores) was passing the railroad track, because he exercised reasonable diligence in crossing the railroad
a PNR train (locomotive no. T-517) collided with his car; the car was track
dragged about 10 meters beyond the center of the crossing; Amores died  Amores stopped for a while before crossing the track
o There was no signal or crossing bar at the intersection to warn
motorists of an approaching train Issues:
o The only visible warning sign was the defective standard signboard 1. W/N appellate court was correct in ascribing negligence on the part of
“STOP, LOOK and LISTEN” – Listen was lacking while Look the petitioners – YES
was bent 2. W/N CA committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing RTC’s decision in
o No whistle blow from the train before it bumped the car not taking into consideration Sec. 42 of RA 4136 of the Land Transportation
 July 22, 1992: Respondents, the heirs of Amores (wife and 6 children), filed and Traffic Code – NO
a Complaint for Damages against petitioners PNR and Borja (locomotive
driver) before Manila RTC Judgment:
o Respondents: train’s speedometer was defective and the WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
petitioners’ negligence was the proximate cause of the mishap dated March 31, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 54906 is hereby AFFIRMED.
(failure to take precautions to prevent injury to persons and
property despite the dense population in the vicinity) Ratio:
o Prayed for actual and moral damages, and attorney’s fees Petitioners: Amores must have heard the trains whistle and heeded the warning but
 Petitioners: denied allegations since the train was still a distance away and moving slowly, he must have calculated
o Train was railroad-worthy and without defect that he could beat it to the other side of the track before the train would arrive at the
o Proximate cause of Amores’ death: his own carelessness and intersection
negligence, wanton disregard of traffic rules and regulations in Train was railroad-worthy and that its defective speedometer did not affect
crossing the railroad tracks and trying to beat the approaching train the trains operation
o Admitted that there was no crossing bar because it was merely Evidence showed sufficient warning signs strategically installed at the
a barangay road crossing to alert both motorists and pedestrians
Respondents: Cause of the accident was petitioners carelessness, imprudence and
laxity in failing to provide a crossing bar and keeper at the railway intersection 2. Petitioners: a train has a right-of-way in a railroad crossing under the existing
According to witness Querimit, Borja applied the brakes of the train only laws -- Section 42 (d), Article III of R.A. 4136 (Land Transportation and
when the locomotive was already very near Amores car Traffic Code) which states that: “The driver of a vehicle upon a highway shall
Borja’s failure to blow the locomotive’s horn, pursuant to the usual practice bring to a full stop such vehicle before traversing any through highway or
of doing the same 100 meters before reaching the crossing point, is an earmark of railroad crossing: Provided, That when it is apparent that no hazard exists,
recklessness on the part of the petitioners the vehicle may be slowed down to five miles per hour instead of bringing it
to a full stop.”
o Claim that motorists are enjoined by law to stop, look and listen
1. No cogent reason to reverse the CA’s decision before crossing railroad tracks and that a heavier responsibility rests
 Negligence is defined as, “the failure to observe for the protection of the upon the motorists in avoiding accidents at level crossings
interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance  True that one driving an automobile must use his
which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person faculties of seeing and hearing when nearing a railroad
suffers injury” crossing, however, the obligation to bring to a full stop
o There is no hard and fast rule where such degree of care and vehicles moving in public highways before traversing
vigilance is calibrated; dependent on the circumstances any through street only accrues from the time the said
o What law requires: person to always use that care and diligence through street or crossing is so designated and sign-
expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances posted
 Petitioners were negligent  It can be inferred that Amores exercised all the necessary
o Transcript of stenographic notes reveals the train was running at a precautions required of him as to avoid injury to
fast speed because notwithstanding the application of the ordinary himself and to others
and emergency brakes, the train still dragged the car some distance  Witnesses’ testimonies showed that Amores
away from the point of impact slowed, made a full stop, and then proceeded to
o Evidence also shows the inadequate precautions taken by PNR to cross the tracks when he saw that there was no
forewarn the public of the impending danger impending danger to his life
 No crossing bar, no flagman or guard to man the o Court: “xxx persuaded that the circumstances were beyond the
intersection at all times was posted on the day of the control of Amores for no person would sacrifice his precious life if
incident he had the slightest opportunity to evade the catastrophe. Besides,
 No reliable signaling device needed to give notice to public the authority in this jurisdiction is that the failure of a railroad
 Responsibility of the railroad company to use company to install a semaphore or at the very least, to post a flagman
reasonable care to keep the signal devices in working or watchman to warn the public of the passing train amounts to
order and failure to do so is an indication of negligence negligence.”
 Philippine National Railway v. Brunty: railroad companies owe to the
public a duty of exercising a reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to Liability of PNR: Art. 2180 of the NCC discusses the liability of the employer
persons and property at railroad crossings, which duties pertain both to once negligence or fault on the part of the employee has been established
the operation of trains and to the maintenance of the crossings. Moreover, o Employer is liable on the assumption of juris tantum that the
every corporation constructing or operating a railway shall make and employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the
construct at all points where such railway crosses any public road, good, selection and supervision of its employees
sufficient, and safe crossings, and erect at such points, at sufficient elevation o Liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due
from such road as to admit a free passage of vehicles of every kind, a sign diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee – has
with large and distinct letters placed thereon, to give notice of the proximity not been demonstrated
of the railway, and warn persons of the necessity of looking out for trains. o Existence of hiring procedures and supervisory employees cannot
o PNR’s failure to put a sign is evidence of negligence and be incidentally invoked to overturn the presumption of negligence
disregard of the safety of the public even if there is no law or on the part of the employer
ordinance requiring it because public safety demands that said
device or equipment be installed