Short answer. Yes. The Civil Code makes a common carrier liable for a passenger's death or injuries caused by the negligence or wilful acts of its employees, even if the employee acted beyond the scope of his authority or in violation of the company's own orders. The lack of authorization does not excuse the company.
What the law says
Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.
Civil Code, Article 1759 — Liability for Employees' Acts. Read the full provision →
Lack of authorization is not a defense here
Article 1759 addresses this exact objection and rejects it. A common carrier is liable for a passenger's death or injuries caused by the negligence or wilful acts of its employees although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. So a bus company cannot escape liability by pointing to its own rules, policies, or instructions and arguing that the reckless driving was never something it sanctioned — the statute anticipates exactly that argument and forecloses it.
Why the law places the risk on the carrier
A common carrier undertakes to transport passengers safely, and it is the one that selects, trains, and puts its drivers behind the wheel. Passengers have no say in who drives the vehicle and no way to police the driver's conduct themselves — they simply rely on the carrier to have put a safe driver in that seat. Article 1759 reflects that imbalance by holding the carrier answerable for what its driver actually does on the road, not merely for what it told the driver to do.
Diligent hiring and supervision does not erase this liability
The article goes further than simply rejecting the "we didn't authorize it" defense — it also says this liability does not cease upon proof that the carrier exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. In other words, even a bus company that can show it carefully screened and trained the driver is still liable to the passenger for what happened. That diligence defense may matter for other kinds of claims, but this article specifically takes it off the table for a passenger's death or injury caused by the driver's negligence or wilful act.
What to gather if you were hurt
Document what actually happened as precisely as you can: the driving conduct that caused your injury, when and where it occurred, and whether you were a passenger on the bus at the time. Because the carrier's liability under this article does not turn on whether it approved of the driver's conduct, your focus should be on establishing the reckless act and the resulting injury, not on proving what instructions the company gave its drivers. Gather medical records, any police or incident report, and witness accounts, and bring them to a lawyer to evaluate your claim against the carrier.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Napoleon Sesante, et al, G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- R Transport Corporation vs. Eduardo Pante, G.R. No. 162104, September 15, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Aleson Shipping Lines vs. CGU International Ins. PLC. and Candado Shipping Lines, INC, G.R. No. 217311, July 15, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Dionisio Estrada and Jovita R. Estrada vs. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Eduardo R. Saylan, G.R. No. 203902, July 19, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →