Philippine National
Railways
A. Logo
B. Address of Main Office and Picture:
4/F PNR Executive Bldg., Mayhaligue St., Tondo, Manila
C. Address in Naga and Picture:
PNR Road, Tabuco, Naga City, Camarines Sur
D. Supervising Agency:
The Department of Transportation supervises the PNR.
E. Website:
www.pnr.gov.ph
F. Parent GOCC:
The Department of Transportation is the Parent GOCC of the PNR.
G. GOCC Type:
The PNR is a GOCC classified under Utilities and Communication by the
Governance Commission for GOCCs.
H. Brief History
PNR officially began operations on November 24, 1892 as the Ferrocarril de Manila-
Dagupan, during the Spanish colonial period, and later becoming the Manila Railroad
Company (MRR) during the American colonial period. It became the Philippine
National Railways on June 20, 1964 by virtue of Republic Act No. 4156.
I. Governing Board
Chairman: Roberto T. Lastimoso
Co-Chairman: Arthur P. Tugade
General Manager: Junn B. Magno
Board of Directors: Ryan Alvin R. Acosta
Ruben S. Reinoso Jr.
Carlos G. Dominguez III
Michael Mellijor Tulen
Noel Patrick Sales Prudente
Jovito T. Barte
Executive Officers
Acting Assistant General Manager: Celeste D. Lauta
Manager, Administrative & Finance Department: Ariel R. Cunanan
Manager, Operation Department: Joseline A. Geronimo
Manager, Engineering Department: Emmanuel L. Tolentino
Manager, Rolling Stock Maintenance Department: Roderick B. Medroso
Supervising Auditor: Teodora R. Joson
MANDATE:
A. Enabling Law:
Republic Act No. 4156. AN ACT CREATING THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, PRESCRIBING ITS
POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES, AND PROVIDING FOR THE NECESSARY FUNDS FOR ITS
OPERATION.
B. Purpose of Office:
The PNR shall provide safe, reliable and affordable railway services as a socio-economic development tool within the
framework of the national infrastructure system, while ensuring sustainable operations so that optimum service can be
rendered at a minimum passenger and freight prices.
C. Why is it considered a service for public benefit?
This Agency is considered a service for public benefit is because as stated in its GOCC sector, its under transport and
communication. This case its specifically railway transportation which serves the public as commuters in a day to day
basis.
Quasi-Legislative Function:
Section 6(a) of R.A. 4156 specifically states that Powers and
Duties of the Board of Directors include To prescribe, amend and
repeal, with the approval of the Administrator of Economic
Coordination, by-laws, rules and regulations governing the
manner in which the general business of corporation may be
exercised, including provisions for the formation of such
committee, or committees as the Board of Directors may deem
necessary to facilitate its business.
Latest jurisprudence and a discussion
containing the fact, issue and ruling.
GR No. 190022, 2012-02-15
Facts:
On May 14, 2004, at about three o'clock in the morning, Reynaldo Vizcara (Reynaldo) was driving a passenger
jeepney headed towards Bicol to deliver onion crops, with his companions, namely, Cresencio Vizcara
(Cresencio), Crispin Natividad (Crispin), Samuel Natividad (Samuel), Dominador Antonio (Dominador) and Joel
Vizcara (Joel). While crossing the railroad track in Tiaong, Quezon, a Philippine National Railways (PNR) train,
then being operated by respondent Japhet Estranas (Estranas), suddenly turned up and rammed the passenger
jeepney. The collision resulted to the instantaneous death of Reynaldo, Cresencio, Crispin, and Samuel. On the
other hand, Dominador and Joel, sustained serious physical injuries.n May 14, 2004, at about three o'clock in the
morning, Reynaldo Vizcara (Reynaldo) was driving a passenger jeepney headed towards Bicol to deliver onion
crops, with his companions, namely, Cresencio Vizcara (Cresencio), Crispin Natividad (Crispin), Samuel
Natividad (Samuel), Dominador Antonio (Dominador) and Joel Vizcara (Joel). While crossing the railroad track
in Tiaong, Quezon, a Philippine National Railways (PNR) train, then being operated by respondent Japhet
Estranas (Estranas), suddenly turned up and rammed the passenger jeepney. The collision resulted to the
instantaneous death of Reynaldo, Cresencio, Crispin, and Samuel. On the other hand, Dominador and Joel,
sustained serious physical injuries.At the time of the accident, there was no level crossing installed at the railroad
crossing. Additionally, the "Stop, Look and Listen" signage was poorly maintained. The "Stop" signage was
already faded while the "Listen" signage was partly blocked by another signboard. After trial on the merits, the
RTC rendered its Decision dated March 20, 2007, ruling in favor of the respondents.
Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS THE
NEGLIGENCE OF THE PETITIONERS.
Ruling:
The petitioners' negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. Article 2176
of the New Civil Code prescribes a civil liability for damages caused by a person's
act or omission constituting fault or negligence. The petition lacks merit. It also
prescribes a civil liability for damages caused by a person's act or omission
constituting fault or negligence. There was no contributory negligence on the part
of the respondents. As to whether there was contributory negligence on the part of
the respondents, this court rule in the negative. Contributory negligence is
conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm
he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to conform
for his own protection. The doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable.
