ALBENSON v CA

FACTS:

Albenson Ent. delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Industries Inc. A Pacific Banking Corporation Check was paid and drawn against the account of EL Woodworks. Check was later dishonored for the reason “Account Closed.” Company traced source of check and

BLTB & Armando Pon vs. IAC

Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company & Armando Pon v. IAC, The Heirs of Paz Vda. De Pamfilo, The Heirs Of Norma Neri, and Baylon Sales And Nena Vda. De Rosales| Paras
G.R. Nos. 74387-90 November 14, 1988

FACTS
• A bus owned by petitioner BLTB and driven by petitioner Pon collided with a bus owned by Superlines, when the former tried to overtake a car just as the Superlines' Bus was coming from the opposite direction.
• The collision resulted in the death of Rosales, Pamfilo and Neri, as well as injuries to the wife of Rosales, and Sales. These people were passengers of the petitioner's bus.
• Rosales and Sales, as well as the surviving heirs of Pamfilo, Rosales and Neri instituted separate cases ih the CFI against BLTB and Superlines, together with their drivers. Criminal cases against the drivers were also filed in a different CFI.
• CFI ruled that only BLTB and Pon should be liable, and they were ordered jointly and severally to pay damages. On appeal, the IAC affirmed the CFI's ruling.
• Petitioners contended that the CFI erred in ruling that the actions of private respondents are based on culpa contractual, since if it were private respondents' intention to file an action based on culap contractual, they could have done so by merely impleading BLTB and Pon. Instead the respondents filed an action against all defendants based on culpa aquiliana or tort.

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

WON erred in ruling that the actions of private respondents are based on culpa contractual

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

IAC anchored its decision on both culpa contractual and culpa aquiliana

The proximate cause of the death and injuries of the passengers was the negligence of the bus driver Pon, who recklessly overtook a car despite knowing that that the bend of highway he was negotiating on had a continuous yellow line signifying a “no-overtaking” zone.

It is presumed that a a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

In the instant case, the driver of the BLTB bus failed to act with diligence demanded by the circumstances. Pon should have remembered that when a motor vehicle is approaching or rounding a curve there is special necessity for keeping to the right side of the road and the driver has not the right to drive on the left hand side relying upon having time to turn to the right if a car is approaching from the opposite direction comes into view.

As to the liability of the petitioners, Pon is primarily liable for his negligence in driving recklessly the truck owned by BLTB. The liability of the BLTB itself is also primary, direct and immediate in view of the fact that the deat of or injuries to its passengers was through the negligence of its employee.

The common carrier's liability for the death of or injuries to its passengers is based on its contractual obligation to carry its passengers safely to their destination. They are presumed to have acted negligently unless they prove that they have observed extaordinary diligence. In the case at bar, the appellants acted negligently.

BLTB is also solidarly liable with its driver even though the liability of the driver

springs from quasi delict while that of the bus company from contract.