PNB v Brunty Callejo, Sr., J.

November 2, 2006

Negligence is want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, and not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonable require.

SUMMARY: A Mercedes Benz sedan collided with a PNR Train, which resulted in the death of two and severe physical injuries. PNB was sued for damages, which was granted by the court on account of its negligence in providing the necessary safety measures and equipment in its track. The driver of the sedan was found to be guilty of contributory negligence. However, this was not appreciated since there was no allegation and proof as to the relationship between the driver and Brunty. FACTS: Plaintiff- Ethel Brunty and Juan Manuel Garcia Defendant- Philippine National Railways o Rhonda Brunty was the daughter of respondent Ethel Brunty. She came to the Philippines in January 1980. Prior to her departure, she, together with Juan Manuel Garcia, went to Baguio on board a Mercedes Benz sedan, driven by Rodolfo Mercelita. By 2am, they were already approaching the railroad crossing at Brgy. Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac. Mercelita was driving at 70kph when they overtook a vehicle and consequently collided with PNR Train No. T-71. He was instantly killed while Brunty and Garcia suffered serious physical injuries. Brunty was brought to the Central Luzon Doctors Hospital in Tarlac, where she was pronounced dead after 10 minutes of arrival. Garcia was brought to the same hospital, but was transferred to Manila Doctors Hospital and Makati Medical Center for further treatment. On July 1980, Ethel Brunty sent a demand letter to PNR for payment of actual, compensatory, and moral damages, as a result of her daughters death but PNR did not respond. Ethel Brunty and Garcia filed a complaint for damages against PNR, alleging that the death of Mercelita and Brunty, and the injuries suffered by Garcia, were the direct and proximate result of PNRs negligence in not providing the necessary equipment at the railroad crossing in Brgy. Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac. There was no flagbar or red light signal to warn motorists who were about to cross the railroad track, and the flagman was only equipped with a flashlight. PNR argued that: 1) it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees; 2) it had the right of way and it has no legal duty to put up a bar or red light signal in any such crossing, insisting that there were adequate warning signals posted on both sides of the road before the crossing; 3) the immediate and proximate cause of the accident was Mercelitas negligence, and he had the last clear chance to avoid the accident RTC ruled against PNR and ordered it to pay damages in the amount of P1,102,760 and attorneys fees in the amount of P50,000. CA affirmed, with partial modifications. PNR appealed.

o o

ISSUES: 1) W/N PNRs negligence resulted in the collision. YES. PNR was negligent because of its failure to provide the necessary safety device to ensure the safety of motorists in crossing the railroad track.

Considering the circumstances at the time of the accident, the safety measures installed by the PNR at the railroad crossing are not only inadequate but do not satisfy well-settled safety standards in transportation. Pictures presented in evidence revealed that: 1) there were no flagbars or safety railroad bars; 2) warning signals were inadequate; 3) the place was not properly lighted such that even if a flagman was stationed at the site, it would be impossible to know or see a railroad track ahead. In addition, the slight curve leading to the railroad track made it difficult for a vehicle coming from Moncada to know if there is an approaching train, especially at 2am. It is imperative on the part of PNR to provide adequate safety equipment in the area. Railroad companies owe to the public a duty of exercising a reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to persons and property at railroad crossings, which duties pertain both in the operation of trains and in the maintenance of the crossings. **To sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following must concur: (1) damage to plaintiff; (2) negligence1, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty; and (3) connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damage.

2) W/N Mercelita is guilty of contributory negligence2. YES, but it cannot mitigate the liability of PNR. Mercelita was driving at a speed of 70kph and had overtaken a vehicle a few yards before the track. Such acts, while not the direct and proximate cause, contributed to the collision. Contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff does not exonerate a defendant. It can only mitigate the defendants liability (Art. 2179). However, contributory negligence cannot be appreciated in this case since the relationship between Mercelita, the driver, and Rhonda Brunty was not alleged. 3) W/N the doctrine of the last clear chance is applicable. NO. The doctrine provides that the antecedent negligence of plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence of defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. It has been ruled that the proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of PNR. Hence, this doctrine does not apply. DISPOSITIVE: Affirmed with modifications. Actual damages deleted, and in lieu thereof, temperate damages of P25,000 awarded to the heirs of Rhon da Brunty. Moral damages reduced to P500,000.

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. 2 Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered.