G.R. No. 209351. January 20, 2014

SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 209351, January 20, 2014 ] SPOUSES ONOFRE LALUAN AND JULIE LALUAN V. HEIRS OF LUZVIMINDA AMBANLOC, NAMELY: BONIFACIO AMBANLOC, IMEE AMBANLOC AND REDENTOR AMBANLOC, AND ESO-NICE TRANSPORT CORPORATION.

After a careful review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the September 4, 2013 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 94842 for failure of Spouses Onofre Laluan and Julie Laluan (petitioners-spouses) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding their liability, as operators of Laluan Trans, for breach of contract of carriage with damages for the death of Luzviminda Ambanloc (Luzviminda).

As correctly ruled by the CA, there existed a contract of carriage between petitioners-spouses and Luzviminda, which the former breached when their minibus figured in an accident resulting in the latter's death. Case law has repeatedly held that mechanical defects in a common carrier - such as the breaking of the draggling bar of petitioners-spouses' minibus in this case - are not considered fortuitous events that exempt the carrier from responsibility.[2] The CA is also correct in ruling that petitioners-spouses and respondent Eso-Nice Transport Corporation are not engaged in the pernicious "kabit system" as the former has a valid franchise of their own.

Moreover, the petition suffers from procedural defects in that petitioners-spouses failed to remit the amount of P530.00 representing payment for docket and other lawful fees as well as deposit for costs as required under Section 3, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and their counsel's failure to indicate his current IBP Official Receipt Number as required under Bar Matter No. 1132, April 1, 2003.

SO ORDERED.

[1] Rollo, pp. 24-37. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Romeo F. Barza, concurring.
[2] See Juntilla v. Fontanar, 221 Phil. 314, 319 (1985). (Citations omitted)