In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault or is negligent when a passenger dies or is injured

In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault or is negligent when a passenger dies or is injured

Breach contract of carriage Transportation Law

There existed a contract of carriage between G & S, as the owner and operator of the Avis taxicab, and Jose Marcial, as the passenger of said vehicle. As a common carrier, G & S "is bound to carry [Jose Marcial] 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."  However, Jose Marcial was not able to reach his destination safely as he died during the course of the travel.  "In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault or is negligent when a passenger dies or is injured.  In fact, there is even no need for the court to make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence." Unfortunately, G & S miserably failed to overcome this presumption.  Both the trial court and the CA found that the accident which led to Jose Marcial's death was due to the reckless driving and gross negligence of G & S' driver, Padilla, thereby holding G & S liable to the heirs of Jose Marcial for breach of contract of carriage. (Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa v. G & S Transport Corporation, G.R. No. 170071 & G.R. No. 170125, March 9, 2011).

Acquittal in the criminal case is immaterial to the resolution of breach of contract of carriage

Acquittal in the criminal case is immaterial to the resolution of breach of contract of carriage

Breach contract of carriage Transportation Law

The acquittal of Padilla in the criminal case is immaterial to the instant case for breach of contract

Article 31 of the Civil Code provides, viz:

When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.

In this case, the action filed by the heirs is primarily for the recovery of damages arising from breach of contract of carriage allegedly committed by G & S.  Clearly, it is an independent civil action arising from contract which is separate and distinct from the criminal action for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide filed by the heirs against Padilla by reason of the same incident. Hence, regardless of Padilla's acquittal or conviction in said criminal case, same has no bearing in the resolution of the present case. (Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa v. G & S Transport Corporation, G.R. No. 170071 & G.R. No. 170125, March 9, 2011)