G.R. No. 70547 January 22, 1993 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAY an! HONORIO "A#AR$O, petitioners, vs. INTER%E$IATE APPELLATE "O&RT, an! #ALIWAG TRANIT, IN"., respondents.
'(A"T) 1. That plaintif was passing thru the town o Calumpit Bulacan, temporarily while the bridge at Hagonoy, Bulacan was under construction; . That deendant !hilippine "ational #ailways is a purely government owned and regularly passes along the intersection o Barrio Balungao, Calumpit, Bulacan, in going to $an %ernando, &a 'nion rom (anila and return; ). That on *ugust 1+, 1-, at about 1/+ o0cloc in the aternoon, !assenger !assenger train "o. -) hit and bumped the right mid portion o the plaintif0s passenger bus "o. 1+22, while the rear portion o said bus was at the railroad trac and its direction was towards Hagonoy, Bulacan at about 1/)+ o0cloc in the aternoon; aternoon; . That at the time o the collision there was a slight rainall in the vicinity o the scene o the accident and that there was at said intersection no bar, semaphores, and signal lights that would warn the public o the approaching train. 3. That on account o said collision, the Baliuag Transit Bus with Body "o. 1+22 driven by #omeo Hughes was damaged and eighteen 4156 o its passengers died and the rest who were more than 7ty three 43)6 passengers sufered physical in8uries;
'I&E) 1. 9ho between the driver #omeo Hughes o the Baliuag Transit :ncorporated and Honorio Cabardo, train ngineer o the !hilippine "ational #ailways was negligent in the operation o their respective vehicles, or whether or both were negligent< . Could either o the companies Baliuag Transit :ncorporated and the !hilippine "ational #ailways be held accountable or the collision because o negligence<
'R&LING) The instant case case the $tate divested divested itsel o o its sovereign sovereign capacity capacity when it organi=ed organi=ed the !"# which is no diferent rom its predecessor, the (anila #ailroad Company. The !"# did not not become immune rom rom suit. suit. :t did not remove remove itsel rom rom the operation o *rticles 1-) to 1-22 o the Civil Code on common carriers. The correct correct rule is that that >not all government government entities, whether whether corporate corporate or noncorporate, are immune rom suits. :mmunity rom suit is determined by the character o the ob8ects or which the entity was organi=ed.> organi=ed.>
9hen it is apparent, or when in the e?ercise o reasonable diligence commensurate with the surroundings it should be apparent, to the company that a person on its
G.R. No. 70547 January 22, 1993 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAY an! HONORIO "A#AR$O, petitioners, vs. INTER%E$IATE APPELLATE "O&RT, an! #ALIWAG TRANIT, IN"., respondents. trac or to get on its trac is unaware o his danger or cannot get out o the way, it becomes the duty o the company to use such precautions, by warnings, applying braes, or otherwise, as may be reasonably necessary to avoid in8ury to him.
9hat e?acerbates against petitioners0 contention is the authority in this 8urisdiction to the efect that the ailure o a railroad company to install a semaphore or at the very least, to post a @agman or watchman to warn the public o the passing train amounts to negligence
