Scribd
Upload
51 views2 pages

PNR V CA Digest

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's ruling that Philippine National Railways (PNR) and its train driver were negligent in a collision that killed a driver. [1] PNR argued it had right of way, but the court found the train was traveling too fast and precautions were inadequate. [2] While drivers must be cautious at rail crossings, the deceased complied by stopping and proceeding carefully when no train was seen. [3] Negligence depends on the circumstances, and PNR failed to show due diligence in selecting and supervising employees to negate liability.

Uploaded by

Alter Nate
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
51 views2 pages

PNR V CA Digest

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's ruling that Philippine National Railways (PNR) and its train driver were negligent in a collision that killed a driver. [1] PNR argued it had right of way, but the court found the train was traveling too fast and precautions were inadequate. [2] While drivers must be cautious at rail crossings, the deceased complied by stopping and proceeding carefully when no train was seen. [3] Negligence depends on the circumstances, and PNR failed to show due diligence in selecting and supervising employees to negate liability.

Uploaded by

Alter Nate
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PNR v CA and imprudence of the petitioner

Determining the Diligence Required | PNR and its locomotive driver,


GR No. 157658 Oct 15, 2007 | Nachura, J. Borja, in operating the train.
| by Abendan  The Court found that the train was
running at a fast speed because
notwithstanding the application of
DOCTRINE the ordinary and emergency
brakes, the train still dragged the
car some distance away from the
FACTS point of impact. In addition, the
precautions taken by PNR to
 Jose Amores was about to forewarn the public of the
traverse the railroad tracks while impending danger were
driving his car. Before crossing the inadequate.
railroad track, he stopped for a  PNR argued that a train has a
while then proceeded accordingly. right-of-way in a railroad crossing
 Unfortunately, just as Amores was under the existing laws based on
at the intersection, a PNR train Section 42(d), Article III of
turned up and collided with the car. Republic Act No. 4136, otherwise
At the time of the mishap, there known as the Land Transportation
was neither a signal nor a crossing and Traffic Code
bar at the intersection to warn o It is true that one driving an
motorists of an approaching train.
automobile must use his
 Aside from the railroad track, the faculties of seeing and
only visible warning sign at that hearing when nearing a
time was the defective standard railroad crossing.
signboard “STOP, LOOK and o The witnesses' testimonies
LISTEN" wherein the word "Listen"
showed that Amores
was missing while that of "Look"
slackened his speed, made
was bent.
a full stop, and then
 No whistle blow from the train was proceeded to cross the
likewise heard before it finally hit tracks when he saw that
the car of Amores. After impact, there was no impending
the car was dragged about 10 danger to his life. Under
meters beyond the center of the these circumstances, we
crossing. Amores died as a are convinced that Amores
consequence of the collision. The did everything, with
heirs of Amores filed a complaint absolute care and caution,
for damages against PNR and to avoid the collision.
Virgilio Borja, the locomotive driver
 Negligence has been defined as
at that time.
"the failure to observe for the
 The trial court ruled in favor of protection of the interests of
PNR but the appellate court another person that degree of
reversed it. care, precaution, and vigilance
which the circumstances justly
ISSUES/HELD demand, whereby such other
WON the appellate court was correct in person suffers injury."
ascribing negligence on the part of the  There is no hard and fast rule
petitioners. whereby such degree of care and
vigilance is calibrated; it is
 YES. dependent upon the circumstances
 It was ascertained beyond in which a person finds himself.
quandary that the proximate cause
of the collision is the negligence
SC RULING
Petition DENIED. Pursuant to Art. 2180,
the employer is liable on the assumption
of juris tantum that the employer failed to
exercise diligentissimi patris familias in the
selection and supervision of its
employees. The liability is primary and can
only be negated by showing due diligence
in the selection and supervision of the
employee, a factual matter that has not
been demonstrated.

You might also like