Bataclan v. Medina

Bataclan v. Medina 

[G.R. No. L-10126, October 22, 1957]

MONTEMAYOR, J.

Facts:

• At about 2:00am of September 13, 1952, the bus, operated by its owner defendant Mariano Medina and driven by its regular chauffeur, Conrado Saylon, left the town of Amadeo, Cavite. While on its way to Pasay City, one of the front tires burst and the vehicle began to zig-zag until it fell into a canal or ditch on the right side of the road and turned turtle.
• Some of the passengers managed to leave the bus but the three passengers seated beside the driver, named Bataclan, Lara and the Visayan and the woman behind them named Natalia Villanueva, could not get out of the overturned bus. No evidence to show that the freed passengers, including the driver and the conductor, made any attempt to pull out or extricate and rescue the four passengers trapped inside the vehicle.
• After half an hour, came about ten men, one of them carrying a lighted torch, approach the overturned bus, and almost immediately, a fierce fire started, burning and all but consuming the bus, including the four passengers trapped inside it. 
• That same day, the charred bodies of the four passengers inside the bus were removed and duly identified that of Juan Bataclan. By reason of his death, his widow, Salud Villanueva, in her name and in behalf of her five minor children, brought the present suit to recover from Mariano Medina compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees in the total amount of P87,150.
• After trial, the CFI Cavite awarded P1,000 to the plaintiffs plus P600 as attorney's fee, plus P100, the value of the merchandise being carried by Bataclan to Pasay City for sale and which was lost in the fire. Both plaintiffs and defendants appealed the case to CA which endorsed the case to SC. 

Issue: W/N the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was the overturning of the bus or the fire that burned the bus, including the 4 passengers left inside. 

Held:

• The Court held that the proximate cause was the overturning of the bus because when the vehicle turned not only on its side but completely on its back, the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected.
• The coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response to the call for help, made not only by the passengers, but most probably, by the driver and the conductor themselves, and that because it was dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to carry a light with them, and coming as they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not available. 
• In other words, the coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for outside help. 
• Moreover, the burning of the bus can also in part be attributed to the negligence of the carrier, through its driver and its conductor. According to the witness, the driver and the conductor were on the road walking back and forth. They, or at least, the driver should and must have known that in the position in which the overturned bus was, gasoline could and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around the bus. 
• The leaked gasoline can be smelt and directed even from a distance, and yet neither the driver nor the conductor would appear to have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted torch too near the bus.
• In addition, the case involves a breach of contract of transportation because the Medina Transportation failed to carry Bataclan safely to his destination, Pasay City. There was likewise negligence on the part of the defendant, through his agent, the driver Saylon. There is evidence to show that at the time of the blow out, the bus was speeding and that the driver failed to changed the tires into new ones as instructed by Mariano Medina. 
• The driver had not been diligent and had not taken the necessary precautions to insure the safety of his passengers. Had he changed the tires, specially those in front, with new ones, as he had been instructed to do, probably, despite his speeding, the blow out would not have occurred.

Ratio:

• Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
• Comprehensively, 'the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.