In
consideration of the right granted to it by the public to engage in the
business of transporting passengers and goods, a common carrier does not give
its consent to become an insurer of any and all risks to passengers and goods.
It merely undertakes to perform certain duties to the public as the law
imposes, and holds itself liable for any breach thereof.
Under
Article 1733 of the Civil Code, common carriers are required to observe
extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passenger transported by them,
according to all the circumstances of each case. The requirement of
extraordinary diligence imposed upon common carriers is restated in Article
1755: "A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human
care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with due regard for all the circumstances." Further, in case of
death of or injuries to passengers, the law presumes said common carriers to be
at fault or to have acted negligently.[1]
While
the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the
safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence
against them, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute
safety of its passengers.[2]
Article
1755 of the Civil Code qualifies the duty of extraordinary care, vigilance and
precaution in the carriage of passengers by common carriers to only such as
human care and foresight can provide. what constitutes compliance with said
duty is adjudged with due regard to all the circumstances.
Article
1756 of the Civil Code, in creating a presumption of fault or negligence on the
part of the common carrier when its passenger is injured, merely relieves the
latter, for the time being, from introducing evidence to fasten the negligence
on the former, because the presumption stands in the place of evidence. Being a
mere presumption, however, the same is rebuttable by proof that the common
carrier had exercised extraordinary diligence as required by law in the
performance of its contractual obligation, or that the injury suffered by the
passenger was solely due to a fortuitous event.[3]
In
fine, we can only infer from the law the intention of the Code Commission and
Congress to curb the recklessness of drivers and operators of common carriers
in the conduct of their business.
Thus, it is clear that neither the
law nor the nature of the business of a transportation company makes it an
insurer of the passenger's safety, but that its liability for personal injuries
sustained by its passenger rests upon its negligence, its failure to exercise
the degree of diligence that the law requires.[4] (Pilapil vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
52159, December 22, 1989, [Padilla, J.])