G.R. No.
L-23733 October 31, 1969
HERMINIO L. NOCUM, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, defendant-appellant.
Fernando M. Mangubat and Felimon H. Mendoza for plaintiff-appellee.
Domingo E. de Lara and Associates for defendant-appellant.
BARREDO, J.:
Facts:
Appellee, who was a passenger in appellant's Bus No. 120 then making a trip within the
barrio of Dita, Municipality of Bay, Laguna, was injured as a consequence of the
explosion of firecrackers, contained in a box, loaded in said bus and declared to its
conductor as containing clothes and miscellaneous items by a co-passenger.
Analyzing the evidence presented by the parties, His Honor found (trial court):
According to Severino Andaya, a witness for the plaintiff, a man with a box went up
the baggage compartment of the bus where he already was and said box was placed
under the seat. They left Azcarraga at about 11:30 in the morning and when the
explosion occurred, he was thrown out. PC investigation report states that thirty
seven (37) passengers were injured (Exhibits "O" and "2").
The bus conductor, Sancho Mendoza, testified that the box belonged to a passenger
whose name he does not know and who told him that it contained miscellaneous
items and clothes. He helped the owner in loading the baggage which weighed about
twelve (12) kilos and because of company regulation, he charged him for it twenty-
five centavos (P0.25). From its appearance there was no indication at all that the
contents were explosives or firecrackers. Neither did he open the box because he
just relied on the word of the owner.
Dispatcher Nicolas Cornista of defendant company corroborrated the testimony of
Mendoza and he said, among other things, that he was present when the box was
loaded in the truck and the owner agreed to pay its fare. He added that they were not
authorized to open the baggages of passengers because instruction from the
management was to call the police if there were packages containing articles which
were against regulations.
xxx xxx xxx
There is no question that Bus No. 120 was road worthy when it left its Manila
Terminal for Lucena that morning of December 5, 1960. The injuries suffered by the
plaintiff were not due to mechanical defects but to the explosion of firecrackers inside
the bus which was loaded by a co-passenger.
Issue: WON the Bus Company is liable for the injuries suffered by Nocum?
Held:
NO. The Bus Company has succeeded in rebutting the presumption of negligence by
showing that it has exercised extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers,
“according to the circumstances of the (each) case.”
It is undisputed that before the box containing the firecrackers were allowed to be loaded in
the bus by the conductor, inquiry was made with the passenger carrying the same as to what
was in it, since its "opening ... was folded and tied with abaca." (Decision p. 16, Record on
Appeal.) According to His Honor, "if proper and rigid inspection were observed by the
defendant, the contents of the box could have been discovered and the accident avoided.
Refusal by the passenger to have the package opened was no excuse because, as stated
by Dispatcher Cornista, employees should call the police if there were packages containing
articles against company regulations." That may be true, but it is Our considered opinion that
the law does not require as much. Article 1733 is not as unbending as His Honor has held,
for it reasonably qualifies the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers for the
safety of the passengers transported by them to be "according to all the circumstances of
each case." In fact, Article 1755 repeats this same qualification: "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."
In this particular case before Us, it must be considered that while it is true the passengers of
appellant's bus should not be made to suffer for something over which they had no control,
as enunciated in the decision of this Court cited by His Honor, 1 fairness demands that in
measuring a common carrier's duty towards its passengers, allowance must be given
to the reliance that should be reposed on the sense of responsibility of all the
passengers in regard to their common safety. It is to be presumed that a passenger
will not take with him anything dangerous to the lives and limbs of his co-passengers,
not to speak of his own. Not to be lightly considered must be the right to privacy to which
each passenger is entitled. He cannot be subjected to any unusual search, when he protests
the innocuousness of his baggage and nothing appears to indicate the contrary, as in the
case at bar. In other words, inquiry may be verbally made as to the nature of a passenger's
baggage when such is not outwardly perceptible, but beyond this, constitutional boundaries
are already in danger of being transgressed.
