When a passenger of a passenger bus is injured or killed while inside the bus, the operator becomes liable even if the injury or death is not intended by him/her. This is because the relationship between the passenger and the operator is a contract of carriage where the latter is under obligation to convey the passenger safely to his or her destination. It should then be borne in mind by anyone intending to engage in the business of transportation that his or her obligation is higher since extraordinary diligence is required in conveying passengers. It is then very important to determine whether the owner of the vehicle is engaged in the transportation or a common carrier in the determination of liability in case of injury to or death of a passenger. In the definition of the law, once the service is offered to the public whether under a franchise, permit or not, then the operator is a common carrier. The question then is, what if the service is only offered to a limited portion of the public, is the operator still a common carrier? Is a school bus considered a common carrier even if it only transports students and not the general public?
Perena vs. Zarate
This is a very simple case involving a passenger’s death while riding a school bus service. Aaron was a 15-year-old student whose parents engaged the services of the Perenas to transport him from their home to school and back daily. On the day of the accident the driver decided to take a shortcut and when they crossed a railway a speeding train collided with the van throwing the children out of the vehicle. Aaron was instantaneously killed when his body was dragged by the train. The driver fled the scene. The parents of Aaron filed a civil case for damage against the driver, the Perena spouses, and the Philippine National Railway. The Regional Trial Court found the defendants liable and awarded damages. They appealed but the Court of Appeals affirmed the findings with modification on the amount of damages. The respondents appealed to the Supreme Court.
Respondents are Liable
The respondents are not actually denying their liability with respect to the death of Aaron. They have appealed to the Court saying the CA erred in not reducing their liability and that there should be no award of loss of earning capacity since Aaron was merely a highschool student who was not working at the time of the accident. The most important part of this case, however is the pronouncement of the SC with respect to the status of school bus service as a common carrier. The Court declared: “the true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of the business actually transacted, or the number and character of the conveyances used in the activity, but whether the undertaking is a part of the activity engaged in by the carrier that he has held out to the general public as his business or occupation. If the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of the general business or occupation engaged in, as advertised and held out to the general public, the individual or the entity rendering such service is a private, not a common, carrier…Despite catering to a limited clientèle, the Pereñas operated as a common carrier because they held themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to the students of a particular school living within or near where they operated the service and for a fee.”(Perena vs Zarate et al. G.R. 157917, 29 August 2012) With these reasons the operator of a school bus service is considered a common carrier and therefore has the obligation to observe extra-ordinary diligence in transporting its passengers.