Dear PAO,

My friend who is a taxi driver figured in a car accident. The report said that the accident was primarily caused by a tire blowout. I am not yet certain regarding the casualties and/or damages, if there is any, but we were surprised since our information says that the blown tires were brand new.

be that as it may, may we know whether a sudden car tire blowout can be considered as an act of God? If so, can it be used as a defense against any liability?

Dennis

Dear Dennis,

To begin with, we shall jointly discuss the questions for being interrelated and for brevity.

Tersely put, a taxi is considered a common carrier. As such, when a passenger is injured or dies during its operation, the law presumes that the taxi, as a common carrier, is negligent pursuant to Article 1756 of Republic Act 386, otherwise known as the “New Civil Code of the Philippines,” viz.:

“Article 1W56. In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriM ers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Corollary thereto, a fortuitous event has the following characteristics/elements: a) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligations, must be independent of human will; b) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; c) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and d) The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. (See Metal Forming Corp. v Office of the President, GR 111386, 28 August 1995, retired Associate Justice Josue Bellosillo).

The foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements find its basis in Article 1174 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which says that: “Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.” The foregoing dictates that there must be an entire exclusion of human agency from the cause of injury or loss in order that an accident may be considered as a fortuitous event.

With respect to tire blowout, the Supreme Court held in the case of Yobido v Court of Appeals (GR 113003, 17 October 1997) penned by the late Associate Justice Flerida Ruth Romero that the fact that the tire was new did not imply that it was entirely free from manufacturing defects or that it was properly mounted on the vehicle, to wit:

“Under the circumstances of this case, the explosion of the new tire may not be considered a fortuitous event. There are human factors involved in the situation. The fact that the tire was new did not imply that it was entirely free from manufacturM ing defects or that it was properly mounted on the vehicle. Neither may the fact that the tire bought and used in the vehicle is of a brand name noted for quality, resulting in the conclusion that it could not explode within five days’ use. Be that as it may, it is settled that an accident caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver is not a caso fortuito that would exempt the carrier from liability for damages.

Moreover, a common carrier may not be absolved from liability in case of force majeure or fortuitous event alone. The common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the death or injury resulting from an accident. This Court has had occasion to state:

“While it may be true that the tire that blew up was still good because the grooves of the tire were still visible, this fact alone does not make the exploM sion of the tire a fortuitous event. No evidence was presented to show that the accident was due to adverse road conditions or that precautions were taken by the jeepney driver to compensate for any conditions liable to cause accidents. The sudden blowing-up, therefore, could have been caused by too much air pressure injected into the tire coupled by the fact that the jeepney was overloaded and speeding at the time of the accident. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

As such, a tire explosion, on its own, may not be considered a fortuitous event even if the tire is new for it does not exclude human negligence on the mounting of the tires and the operation of the taxi.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.