Short answer. Yes. Article 1759 holds common carriers liable for injuries caused by their employees even where the employee acted beyond his authority or against the carrier's own orders. Proving careful hiring and supervision does not release the company, which is what makes this liability different from ordinary employer liability.
What the law says
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 →
What the law says
This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.
Civil Code, Article 1759 — Liability for Employees' Acts. Read the full provision →
The company's own rules are not a defence
The instinctive answer of any operator is that the driver was told not to do it. Article 1759 anticipates that answer and rejects it. Carriers are liable for injuries to passengers caused by the negligence or wilful acts of their employees although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. Speed limits in a company manual, a prohibition on racing, a rule against picking up passengers on the highway — breaking these makes the driver answerable to his employer, not the passenger's problem.
Careful hiring will not save the operator either
In an ordinary employer's case, proof of diligence in choosing and supervising staff can defeat the claim. Not here. The article closes the door in terms: this liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. Licences on file, seminars attended and drug tests passed are evidence of a well-run company; they are not an answer to a passenger who was hurt while being carried.
It covers wilful acts, not just carelessness
The article names negligence or wilful acts, so a conductor who strikes a passenger or a crew member who pushes someone off a moving vehicle falls inside it just as a careless driver does. The reason is the nature of the undertaking: a carrier does not merely promise to drive carefully, it undertakes to deliver its passengers safely, and it performs that undertaking through the very employees whose conduct is in question. Deliberate misconduct by staff is a failure of the carriage itself.
Bringing the claim
You sue the operator on the contract of carriage, and you do not have to prove how it was careless — a passenger's injury raises the presumption of fault against the carrier. Whether the driver is separately prosecuted or dismissed does not decide your civil claim. Keep the ticket or fare receipt, note the plate or vessel and the trip details, obtain the police or incident report, and get medical documentation from the first consultation. Report the incident to the operator in writing while its trip and personnel records still exist.
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 →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1759 — Liability for Employees' Acts
- Civil Code, Article 1760 — Cannot Be Limited
- Civil Code, Article 1756 — Presumption of Negligence (Passengers)