Eugenio Landicho and Melitina Jonson v.

Batangas Transport Company

Peña, J. September 20, 1956 G.R. No. 16264-R
Nature and extent of liability. A common carrier is duty bound to safely transport its passengers from point
Doctrine of origin to place of destination, but the duty does not encompass all the risks of a passenger in transit
(common carrier is not an insurer of all risks). A carrier cannot be charged with all the diligence for each
and every passenger. It is enough that its employees see to it that the passenger places himself safely in the
vehicle, that it is operated carefully, and that the vehicle is not defective, so as to avoid mishaps. It would be
unreasonable to expect common carriers to foresee that a passenger will become dizzy or sleepy in transit.
Plaintiff Eugenio Landicho, carrying two cages of chickens, boarded bus no. 443 of defendant BTCo. The
Summary conductor tied the two cages to the running board. Landicho claimed that one of his cages was about to fall
so he fixed it in place, and when he did so, he fell from the bus and got injured. He was brought to various
hospitals for which BTCo paid his medical expenses. Landicho sued BTCo before the CFI, Batangas, CFI
ruled in his favor and held BTCo negligent. BTCo appealed and the SC reversed the CFI and ruled that
Landicho was negligent in not placing himself safely in the bus when he became drowsy and fell. BTCo
could not have been expected to foresee that Landicho would feel drowsy. Landicho only has himself to
blame.
 Plaintiff Eugenio Landicho boarded bus no. 443 of defendant Batangas Transport Company (BTCo)
Facts at Nasugbu, Batangas on his way to Balayan. As he boarded, the conductor helped him with his two
cages of chickens which the conductor tied to the running board. Landicho paid P0.50 so the
conductor issued a ticket to him.
 Landicho claimed that after a distance of 1.5 km, he noticed one chicken cage about to fall so he
called the conductor to no avail. He fixed the chicken cage in the proper place and when he did this,
he fell from the bus (!!). The conductor told the driver to stop the bus.
 Landicho was then brought to the Balayan Emergency Hospital and was transferred to the Irineo
Sison clinic from which Gabriel Gomez, chief supervisor of the BTCo, took him to the Batangas
Provincial Hospital where Landicho stayed for many days and incurred P160 hospital expenses, all
paid by BTCo.
 CFI: Landicho filed with the CFI, Batangas, a complaint for damages against BTCo. He claimed
that he fell due to the conductor’s negligence thus he was injured and lost his normal mind
(anxiety? depression?), that he should be awarded P2,800 as actual compensatory damages, P15,000
moral damages (for him and his wife), P2,000 attys fees, and P5,000 exemplary damages.
 CFI ruled for Landicho and ordered BTCo to pay P2,000 actual and moral damages and P200 attys
fees.
 BTCo appealed to the SC.
I. Whether or not BTCo should be held liable (NO)
Ratio/Issues (1) BTCo argued that the proximate cause of the injury was Landicho’s negligence and that it
exercised extraordinary diligence.
(2) Circumstances: The chicken cage was found to be secured even after Landicho fell, it was tied
to the running boards which were wide enough to accommodate chicken cages, the road was
smooth (asphalt), and the bus was running at a moderate speed.
(3) The chicken cage was secure the whole time the bus was running, this belies Landicho’s claim
that it was about to fall. There is nothing that the conductor and BTCo could be held liable for.
See doctrine.
(4) BTCo and its conductor could not have foreseen, and was not duty bound to inquire, if
Landicho would feel sleepy during travel. He was most probably drowsy and that was why he
fell, not because of his excuse that the chicken cage was about to fall. It was incumbent upon
Landicho, the passenger, to seat himself in a safe place so as to avoid falling in the event that he
becomes dizzy or sleepy (kaya magingat pag matutulog sa jeep).
(5) Since the driver and the conductor did not operate the vehicle in a negligent manner, and the
vehicle was not defective, they cannot be held liable for Landicho’s injuries.
Held Appeal is DENIED.
Prepared by: Lemarie Suing [ Transportation | Prof. Angeles ]