Facts
In the early afternoon of April 27, 1992, Jose Amores (Amores) was traversing the railroad tracks in Kahilum II Street, Pandacan, Manila.
Before crossing the railroad track, he stopped for a while, then proceeded accordingly. Unfortunately, just as Amores was at the intersection, a Philippine National Railways (PNR) train with locomotive number T-517 turned up and collided with the car.
At the time of the mishap, there was neither a signal nor a crossing bar at the intersection to warn motorists of an approaching train.
Aside from the railroad track, the only visible warning sign at that time was the defective standard signboard “STOP, LOOK and LISTEN” wherein the sign “Listen” was lacking, while that of “Look” was bent.
No whistle blow from the train was likewise heard before it finally bumped the car of Amores. After the impact, the car was dragged about ten (10) meters beyond the center of the crossing. Amores died as a consequence thereof.
In July 1992, the heirs of Amores, consisting of his surviving wife and six children, herein respondents, led a Complaint for Damages against petitioners PNR and Virgilio J. Borja (Borja), PNR’s locomotive driver at the time of the incident, before the RTC of Manila.
In their Answer, the petitioners denied the allegations, stating that the train was railroad-worthy and without any defect. According to them, the proximate cause of the death of Amores was his own carelessness and negligence.
The petitioner admitted that there was no crossing bar at the site of the accident because it was merely a barangay road. PNR stressed that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the locomotive driver and train engineer and that the latter likewise used extraordinary diligence and caution to avoid the accident.
Petitioners further asserted that respondents had the last clear chance to avoid the accident but recklessly failed to do so.
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioners and dismissed the complaint. The RTC rationalized that the proximate cause of the collision was Amores’ fatal misjudgment and the reckless course of action he took in crossing the railroad track even after seeing or hearing the oncoming train.
The CA reversed the ruling of the trial court. The appellate court found the petitioners negligent. The court based the petitioners’ negligence on the failure of PNR to install a semaphore or, at the very least, to post a flagman, considering that the crossing is located in a thickly populated area. Moreover, the signboard “Stop, Look and Listen” was found insufficient because of its defective condition as described above. Lastly, no negligence could be attributed to Amores as he exercised reasonable diligence in crossing the railroad track.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA was correct in ascribing negligence on the part of the petitioners
Ruling
YES, the Court holds petitioners were negligent when the collision took place. The transcript of stenographic notes reveals that the train was running at a fast speed because, notwithstanding the application of the ordinary and emergency brakes, the train still dragged the car some distance away from the point of impact. Evidence likewise unveils the inadequate precautions taken by petitioner PNR to forewarn the public of the impending danger. Aside from not having any crossing bar, no flagman or guard to man the intersection at all times was posted on the day of the incident. A reliable signaling device in good condition, not just a dilapidated “Stop, Look and Listen” signage because of many years of neglect, is needed to give notice to the public. It is the responsibility of the railroad company to use reasonable care to keep the signal devices in working order. Failure to do so would be an indication of negligence.
The failure of the PNR to put a crossbar, or signal light, flagman, switchman, or semaphore is evidence of negligence and disregard for the safety of the public, even if there is no law or ordinance requiring it, because public safety demands that said device or equipment be installed.
The Court also defined ‘negligence’, as “the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.”Using the aforementioned philosophy, it may be reliably concluded that there is no hard and fast rule whereby such a degree of care and vigilance is calibrated; it is dependent upon the circumstances in which a person finds himself. All that the law requires is that it is perpetually compelling upon a person to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances.
The petitioners insist that a train has a right-of-way at a railroad crossing under the existing laws. One driving an automobile must indeed use their faculties of seeing and hearing when nearing a railroad crossing. However, the obligation to bring to a full stop vehicles moving on public highways before traversing any “through street” only accrues from the time the said “through street” or crossing is so designated and sign-posted. From the records of the case, it can be inferred that Amores exercised all the necessary precautions required of him to avoid injury to himself and others.
Article 2180 of the New Civil Code discusses the liability of the employer once negligence or fault on the part of the employee has been established. The employer is actually liable on the assumption of juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris familias in the selection and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been demonstrated.