A Tragedy from Victory Liner

Last January 7, Philippine Coast Guard member Richard Padua, resident of Taguig, married with one four year old child, met his gruesome and untimely demise caused by the very same Victory Liner bus he boarded from Olongapo to Pangasinan. The story hit the local tabloids early this month and for a backgrounder on the story, you can visit http://bomboradyo.com/index.php/news/latest-news/35486-miyembro-ng-pcg-patay-matapos-mahagip-ng-bus-sa-pangasinan. Although Victory Liner Inc. promised to shoulder the expenses for the wake and burial of the victim, their promises were not acted on and the family of the victim is left without any feedback from the culprit company. I am writing this article to air the side of the Padua family about what happened; to give the reading public more information about the evidence that were not made available for the public to peruse, and to open for discussion the lessons we (including operators of public transportation) can learn from behind this tragedy and injustice.

When the Padua family spoke with the police station officers who covered the investigation, they were told that the Victory Liner driver and conductor claimed that Richard Padua was a “balut vendor” who decided to jump out of their moving bus which resulted into the tragic accident. The bus driver reportedly testified that he did not notice Richard Padua jump out of his bus and his testimony was reportedly supported by the bus conductor and a bus company inspector who happened to be in the bus at that time. The police reportedly obtained a testimony of another passenger who supported the claims of the three Victory Liner employees. Since the driver’s claims are corroborated by three people, is it then reasonable to say that Richard Padua, a “balut vendor”, jumped out of the moving bus and that Victory Liner Inc. should not be held liable for the tragic accident?

Any thinking person worth his salt should weigh all the evidence. In this case, testimonial evidence is not the end-all-be-all. The physical evidence need to be looked at as well in order to see if the testimonies of the four “witnesses” hold any water.

The accident occurred at Richard Padua’s final destination (Sison, Pangasinan). After the incident, Richard’s left side of the body was heavily damaged; the kind of damage that is consistent with damage sustained from force and friction after being dragged and trampled on by a heavy moving body or object. The strap located in the upper section of Richard’s backpack shows tears consistent with tears caused by force exerted to pull away from being stuck. There were also no “balut” found within the immediate scene of the accident, nor in Richard’s possession.

Based on the physical evidence, let us revisit the statement and the testimonies of the Victory Liner employees and the one passenger “witness”.

Was the driver’s claim and the witnesses’ testimony that Richard Padua was a “balut vendor” correct? No! During the time of the accident they had no knowledge that Richard was a member of the Philippine Coast Guard. Did they have reason to believe that Richard was a “balut” vendor? No! Richard did not have any “balut merchandise” in his possession and no “balut” meant to be sold were present at the scene of the accident. Does being a “balut” vendor even matter in this case? I do not think so.

Was the driver’s claim and the witnesses’ testimony that Richard Padua jumped out of the moving bus correct? This is a trickier one to answer but I submit that it does not matter heavily on this case whether Richard indeed jumped or not to establish culpability of the driver and the bus company. However, if we look at the physical evidence, it is more reasonable to believe that Richard asked the driver to stop so that he can disembark from the bus at his final destination in Sison, Pangasinan. The only way Richard could have disembarked from the bus was through the door closest to the driver (typical of many airconditioned province-route buses). When he disembarked from the bus his backpack must have gotten stuck when the driver closed the bus door. Realizing his situation, Richard probably attempted to forcibly pull his backpack from being stuck or another explanation is that the tear in the backpack was caused by being stuck as Richard’s body was dragged by the moving bus. These explanations seem to fit the physical evidence well.

So now we come to the questions regarding culpability. Even if we grant the witnesses’ statement corroborating the driver’s claim that Richard jumped out of the moving bus, isn’t it the bus company’s policy to ensure the safety of its passengers? Didn’t the driver, the conductor, and even the inspector make sure that their passenger was safely out of the bus before the bus door was closed and before it started moving? The driver claimed that he didn’t notice Richard jump out of the moving bus. Somehow this doesn’t make sense because wouldn’t he have opened the door of the bus first before Richard could disembark? This accident seems to be the result of either negligence or incompetence or even both! The claim of the driver seems to touch perjury and the corroborating statements of the other Victory Liner employees seems questionable if we consider the factor of “conflict of interest”. As for the passenger witness, how can that witness attest to the fact that Richard jumped out of the moving bus without the bus driver’s knowledge given the fact that the door to disembark the bus is immediately on the right side of the driver’s and that the driver needed to open the door of the bus before anyone can disembark? Even if we grant that Richard did jump out of the bus after the bus pulled over, there is no way the witness can attest that the Victory Liner employees in the bus exercised all due diligence to ensure the safety of passenger Richard Padua.

Now, should the culpability be limited to the involved driver and not extend to the bus company? The Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, Article 2180, mandates that the employers are also responsible for the negligence of their employees in the performance of their duties. The rationale for this rule is as follows:

“What has emerged as the modern justification for vicarious liability is a rule of policy, a deliberate allocation of a risk. The losses caused by the torts of employees, which as a practical matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the employers enterprise, are placed upon that enterprise itself, as a required cost of doing business. They are placed upon the employer because, having engaged in an enterprise, which will on the basis of all past experience involve harm to others through the tort of employees, and sought to profit by it, it is just that he, rather than the innocent injured plaintiff, should bear them; and because he is better able to absorb them and to distribute them, through prices, rates or liability insurance, to the public, and so to shift them to society, to the community at large. Added to this is the makeweight argument that an employer who is held strictly liable is under the greatest incentive to be careful in the selection, instruction and supervision of his servants, and to take every precaution to see that the enterprise is conducted safely.”

Of course, Victory Liner Inc. may invoke a defense of having exercised due diligence in order to be relieved of the responsibility. The case for Pestao vs. Sumayang on December 2000 (G.R. No. 139875) tells that employers may be relieved of responsibility for the negligent acts of their employees acting within the scope of their assigned task only if they can show that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. The Pestao vs Sumayang case ruled that the employer involved in that case failed to show due diligence. The scenario is very similar to the case with Richard Padua’s accident as there is no way Victory Liner could say that due diligence was exercised by putting in place inspectors who monitor the performance of its drivers at random places along the route. In the Pestao vs Sumayang case, the defendant employer used this defense but was junked by the Court. How much more weight can this defense hold in the case of Richard Padua’s accident when one of the witnesses who corroborated the driver’s claim was a Victory Liner inspector present at the time and scene of the accident? Obviously the presence of an inspector there and then was not enough to ensure and monitor the performance of the driver!

The Padua family tells that the expense for Richard’s wake and burial was not shouldered by Victory Liner Inc and they also say that the company has not provided them any updates or any feedback. When dealing with the media, Victory Liner Inc., as part of damage control, makes promises to show that it cares. However, it is one thing to say that they care; it is another to actually care. Last I heard, this practice that Victory Liner Inc. is engaging in is called “lip service”. If the victim was as prominent as someone like a Jaime Zobel or even a Kris Aquino, would Victory Liner Inc. still engage in lip service? I wonder.

The Padua family does not need lip service. Richard was a young poor public servant who was the breadwinner of his family. He left behind a wife and a four year old child who now have no one else to depend on except each other because of the negligence and incompetence of Victory Liner Inc. I hope through this article people would realize the pain of the Padua family, the physical evidence to consider, the injustice of engaging in mere lip service by Victory Liner Inc., and the reasons why Victory Liner Inc. must be held liable for the tragedy.

===========

References:

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2002/dec2002/154278.php

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/dec2000/139875.php

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this article represent the views of the author (hgamboa) and do not necessarily represent the editorial position of www.filipino-freethinkers-22d5b3.ingress-earth.easywp.com.

23 comments

  1. I am also a victim of this bus company. On April 17, 2011, my daughter and my motorcycle driver were hit by Victory Liner bus while signalling a left turn. The bus driver did not observe traffic rules by overtaking 3 vehicles in a row on an intersection. Fortunately, my daughter suffered only abrasions and bruises and the driver the same but a bit worse as he had to stay in the hospital for several days. My bike took all the impact and by the look of the damage, you wouldn't think anyone could have had survived in that accident. That day I did not file any formal charges against the driver and the bus company as we came into settlement that will immediately assist on medical expenses.Vis a vis with their driver, conductor, inspector, and their division manager. I did not gave them hardtime so the bus was released the same day. Now it 15th of June and I haven't got a refund even a single cent even just for the medical expenses. They are even pushing me around to talk to people from as far as the insurance company when in fact the bus company is the only extent to which I only need to talk to. Grabe talaga ang bus company na ito. kailangan siguro talagang batikusin na ng media to at iconsolidate na lahat ng taong inagrabyado nila para malaman ng lahat kung anong klaseng kumpanya ang bus liner na ito. Sa mga mahihirap sila kumikita ng husto pero kapag nadidisgrasya nila wala na silang pakialam! There's an urgent need to put their practice to an end. Media can be of great help. And i think kapag marami ng nakakaamoy ng baho nila, aayusin na nila sistema nila. and I really wish may ibang bus company na mag invest dito sa zambales. All these victims of VL's cruel practice must be dreaming of the day when VL no longer cruise our National Road.

  2. as i was reading this article. it was so disappointing that a very well respected major bus company tried to walk away with justice and responsibility . since back then when i was still in the philipiines, i always ride victory liner for safety and corteous service. this time, i will endorse my whole family and friends to take other option. this is a total case of cover up of a corrupt employees of victory liner. first foremost they (the police officer another corrupt entity) who investigated this accident should should apply a sobreity test to the bus driver to determine any alcohol or illigal drugs that may cuases the accident. i feel sorry for the family of Mr Padua and praying justice will be serve…………Inold Ticman from california

  3. are you, in anyway, related to our family? I am one of Richard's cousin (father side). This case, pushes me to take & finish law and give VICTORY what they truly deserve.

    • Thanks for reading Melody. My wife is one of Richard's cousins as well from the Padua side. It was Rio and her brothers Vicson and Jim-jim who informed us about Richard's accident. I wish you well on your endeavors and I hope Victory Liner Inc would one day own up to their responsibility. It is sad that they treated Richard almost as if he was a mere roadkill and it is sad that they do not see the Padua family as human beings but mere "business liabilities".

  4. Richard is a friend of mine way back our college days…it was very hard to say goodbye to a friend. Its only their alibi saying that Richard is a balut vendor. If you only knew that life of Richard is just started when he enter the Philippine Coast Guard. He is a great lost of being a PCG member, a son, a brother, a friend, and husband and father to his 4-year old daughter. Rest in peace pads…God is with us always.

    • Thanks for reading, Jon. I saw pictures of Richard's wake and burial. He was a very young man and I really feel sorry for his wife and 4 year old daughter. I'm sure he will be missed a lot.

    • With regards to the "balut vendor" tag. I find it so disgusting that the Victory Liner employees tried to paint Richard as a mere "balut vendor" who jumped out of the bus. First of all, the evidence shows that their story is preposterous. It was an airconditioned bus and the there was only one way anyone could have disembarked from the bus and the driver had to stop and open the door to let anyone out. Second thing is…. why does being a "balut vendor" matter? Are they insinuating that if the victim is a mere "balut vendor" then that ought to wash away any liability on their part? Richard was a human being whose life was cut short because of their negligence and incompetence; he left behind a wife and a 4 year old daughter…. and what is Victory Liner doing about this? They are merely engaging in lipservice and doing nothing to own up to their responsibility. What a heartless company!

    • Thanks for reading and for the expression of support, nonoy. I just hope Victory Liner Inc. would treat the victim and the victim's family as human beings and not as merely subjects for business damage control. The recent tragedy in Makati (the Eton building) involved the loss of lives and I understand some of those who perished are breadwinners of poor families. At least Eton was quick to offer help and assistance to the families, unlike Victory Liner Inc. who doesn't seem to care that their negligence and incompetence has deprived a young wife and a 4 year old child of a husband, father, and breadwinner.

    • Thanks for reading, Kristine. It's very painful for his wife and very sad for his 4 year old child who is now deprived of the love of a father. While it is true that accidents do happen and no one wants tragedies like this to happen, including Victory Liner Inc., I think it is still important that Victory Liner Inc. be brought to justice as this tragedy was the result of their incompetence and negligence. I also think it is important that businesses ought to be more compassionate and sincere in dealing with people whom their company harmed. They were quick to post bail on their erring driver but they did not fulfill their promise of shouldering the wake and burial of their victim. They don't even have the decency to provide updates and feedback to the Padua family. Such a deplorable business practice…very cold and inhuman!

  5. Thanks for reading, Edmond. I share your sentiments. We can only imagine how devastated and hurt Richard Padua's wife must feel right now. Because of the negligence and incompetence of the Victory Liner bus driver, the conductor and even the inspector, Richard Padua's wife and 4 year old child are left without a husband and a father and a family breadwinner. Victory Liner certainly is not helping by engaging in mere lip service. It is as if they do not find any urgency to help out their victim's family because they know Richard was just a poor man and Richard does not come from any prominent or influential clan. It is very sad.

  6. Stories like these are common here in the Philippines. Its a common sight to see the injustice that has forever plagued our culture, while those who are rich enjoy a status of immunity….. I only hope that justice would be served to the family and the bus company

    I have come to love this country and its people, but sometimes I can't help to hold both in contempt…

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here