The issue of whether a school bus service is a common carrier has been finally settled in one case decided by the Supreme Court. The distinction between a common carrier and a private carrier is significant in the determination of liability in case of damage or injury. Roughly defined, a common carrier “is a person, corporation, firm or association engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering such services to the public” (Perena vs Zarate et al. G.R. 157917, 29 August 2012). What is being referred to by the law as “common carrier” is not the vehicle but the person who operates it. The law imposes upon the common carrier the obligation to observe extra-ordinary diligence in transporting his passengers and in case of death or injury the common carrier may be held liable for breach of contract. This is so because when a passenger rides a public utility vehicle there arises a contract between them. When a person offers to the public his services to transport passengers or goods, he will be considered a common carrier. There was, however a problem in classifying school bus service because their services are only offered to a limited sector of society.
Perena vs. Zarate
This is a very simple case of 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 rail way 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.” 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.
