Jose Pilapil vs CA and ALATCO Transportation Company

FACTS:
Jose Pilapil
o Paying passenger
o Boarded Alatcos Bus No. 409 at San Nicolas, Iriga City on September 16, 1971 at about
6PM
Upon reaching the vicinity of the cemetery of the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, on the
way to Naga City, an unidentified man, a bystander along the national highway, hurled a stone
at the left side of the bus
Pilapil was hit above his left eye
Alatco Bus No. 409 immediately brought him to the Naga City Provincial Hospital
Pilapil was later brought to Dr. Malabanan in Iriga City and was treated there for 1 week
No improvement in his sight so he went to V. Luna, QC and was treated by Dr. Capulong
Pilapil lost partially his left eyes vision and sustained permanent scar above the left eye.
Pilapil filed a case against ALATCO
CFI Ruling: ALATCO to pay 10k for actual and material damages + 5k for moral and exemplary
damages + 300 for reimbursement of his medical expenses + 1k attorneys fees
CA: reversed CFI ruling and dismissed the case
Pilapils claims:
o ALATCO failed to rebut the presumption of negligence against it by proof on its part that it
exercised extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers.
o Charge of negligence: the injury could have been prevented by the common carrier if
something like mesh-working grills had covered the windows of the bus.


ISSUE: WON ALATCO is liable under presumption of negligence?


HELD: NO
What constitutes compliance with said duty in Art 1755 is adjudged with due regard to all the
circumstances
Presumption of negligence is a disputable presumption
Where, as in the instant case, the injury sustained by the petitioner 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 private respondent's employees, and therefore involving no issue of negligence in its
duty to provide safe and suitable cars as well as competent employees, with the injury arising
wholly from causes created by strangers over which the carrier had no control or even
knowledge or could not have prevented, the presumption is rebutted and the carrier is not and
ought not to 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.
The carrier is not charged with the duty of providing or maintaining vehicles as to absolutely
prevent any and all injuries to passengers.