You are on page 1of 2

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, Petitioner, vs. ETHEL BRUNTY and JUAN MANUEL M. GARCIA, Respondents FACTS: 1.

Rhonda Brunty, daughter of respondent Ethel Brunty and an American citizen, came to the Philippines for a visit sometime in January 1980. 2. Prior to her departure, she, together with her Filipino host Juan Manuel M. Garcia, traveled to Baguio City on board a Mercedes Benz sedan driven by Rodolfo L. Mercelita. 3. It was about 12:00 midnight, January 25, 1980. By then, PNR Train No. T-71, driven by Alfonso Reyes, was on its way to Tutuban, Metro Manila as it had left the La Union station at 11:00 p.m., January 24, 1980. 4. By 2:00 a.m., Rhonda Brunty, Garcia and Mercelita were already approaching the railroad crossing at Barangay Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac. 5. Mercelita, driving at approximately 70 km/hr, drove past a vehicle, unaware of the railroad track up ahead and that they were about to collide with PNR Train No. T-71. 6. Mercelita was instantly killed when the Mercedes Benz smashed into the train; the two other passengers suffered serious physical injuries. 7. A certain James Harrow brought Rhonda Brunty to the Central Luzon Doctors Hospital in Tarlac, where she was pronounced dead after ten minutes from arrival. 8. Garcia, who had suffered severe head injuries, was brought via ambulance to the same hospital. He was transferred to the Manila Doctors Hospital, and later to the Makati Medical Center for further treatment. 9. PNR insisted among others that the sole and proximate cause of the accident was the negligence and recklessness of Garcia and Mercelita. It insisted that it had provided adequate warning signals at the railroad crossing and had exercised due care in the selection and supervision of its employees. ISSUE#1: W/N the contention of PNR as to the proximate cause correct?

HELD: NO. RATIO: In determining whether or not there is negligence on the part of the parties in a given situation, jurisprudence has laid down the following test: Did defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, the person is guilty of negligence. Petitioner was found negligent because of its failure to provide the necessary safety device to ensure the safety of motorists in crossing the railroad track. As such, it is liable for damages for violating the provisions of Article 2176 of the New Civil Code It was clearly established that plaintiffs-appellees (respondents herein) sustained damage or injury as a result of the collision. That there was negligence on the part of PNR is, likewise, beyond cavil. Considering the circumstances prevailing at the time of the fatal accident, the alleged safety measures installed by the PNR at the railroad crossing is not only inadequate but does not satisfy wellsettled safety standards in transportation. Pictures presented in evidence revealed that: 1) there were no flagbars or safety railroad bars;2) warning signals were inadequate; 3) the place was not properly lighted such that even if a flagman was stationed at the site, it would be impossible to know or see a railroad track ahead. A vehicle coming from the Moncada side would have difficulty in knowing that there is an approaching train because of the slight curve, more so, at an unholy hour as 2:00 a.m. Thus, it is imperative on the part of the PNR to provide adequate safety equipment in the area. Railroad companies owe to the public a duty of exercising a reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to persons and property at railroad crossings, which duties pertain both in the operation of trains and in the maintenance of the crossings. Moreover, every corporation constructing or operating a railway shall

make and construct at all points where such railway crosses any public road, good, sufficient, and safe crossings and erect at such points, at a sufficient elevation from such road as to admit a free passage of vehicles of every kind, a sign with large and distinct letters placed thereon, to give notice of the proximity of the railway, and warn persons of the necessity of looking out for trains. Note:
In a long line of cases, the Court held that in order to sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur: (1) damage to plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty; and (3) connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damage. Applying the foregoing requisites, the CA correctly made the following conclusions: It was clearly established that plaintiffs-appellees (respondents herein) sustained damage or injury as a result of the collision. That there was negligence on the part of PNR is, likewise, beyond cavil. Considering the circumstances prevailing at the time of the fatal accident, the alleged safety measures installed by the PNR at the railroad crossing is not only inadequate but does not satisfy well-settled safety standards in transportation. x x x

Mercelita was not familiar with the road. Yet, it was also established that Mercelita was then driving the Mercedes Benz at a speed of 70 km/hr and, in fact, had overtaken a vehicle a few yards before reaching the railroad track. Mercelita should not have driven the car the way he did. However, while his acts contributed to the nevertheless do not negate petitioners liability. collision, they

Pursuant to Article 2179 of the New Civil Code, the only effect such contributory negligence could have is to mitigate liability, which, however, is not applicable in this case since the relationship between Mercelita, the driver, and Rhonda Brunty was not alleged. DEFINITION OF NEGLIGENCE: Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In Corliss v. Manila Railroad Company, this Court held that negligence is want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require. In determining whether or not there is negligence on the part of the parties in a given situation, jurisprudence has laid down the following test: Did defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, the person is guilty of negligence. The law, in effect, adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet pater familias of the Roman law.

ISSUE#2: W/N there was a contributory negligence on Merceditas part? HELD: YES. RATIO: 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 to which he is required to conform for his own protection. To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health and body. To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link, although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury, and not simply a condition for its occurrence.

You might also like