Aboitiz v CA G.R. No, 84454, 6 November 1989 Regalado, J.

Facts: Anacleto Viana was 40 years old and in good health, with an income as a farmer/farm supervisor of 400 cavans of palay per year. 20 cavans of palay (or P120) went to his parents (Antonio and Gorgonia) for support monthly. On May 11, 1975, Anacleto boarded the M/V Antonia owned by Aboitiz Shipping Corp at San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, with ticket 117392 worth P23.10, headed for Manila. The vessel arrived at Pier 4 North Harbor in Manila on 12 May 1975, and as the passengers disembarked, a gangplank was provided for them, connecting the side of the vessel to the pier. Viana didn't use the gangplank and instead disembarked the vessel by jumping over the third deck, which was on the level with the pier. At the time, the Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation was already operating its crane for the cargo (Alejo Figueroa was the operator), as per the Memorandum of Agreement between Pioneer and Aboitiz. When Viana remembered some of his cargoes were still loaded in the vessel, he went back and while he was pointing to the crew where his cargoes were, the crane hit him. He had to be hospitalized but died 3 days later due to "hypostatic pneumonia secondary to traumatic fracture of the pubic bone lacerating the urinary bladder." (in short, he was hit in the groin area, and died due to complications. ayan kasi.) Anacleto's wife, Lucila, spent P9800 for his hospitalization, burial, other miscellaneous expenses, and she and his parents demanded moral damages. They also had to hire a lawyer for P10K. Vianas: complaint for damages against Aboitiz for breach of contract of carriage. Aboitiz: third-party complaint against Pioneer. Trial Court: Aboitiz was ordered to pay the Vianas for damages incurred (the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of Anacleto Viana; P9,800.00 as actual damages; P533,200.00 value of the 10,664 cavans of palay computed at P50.00 per cavan; P10,000.00 as attorneys fees; P5,000.00, value of the 100 cavans of palay as support for 5 years for deceaseds parents, Antonio and Gorgonia Viana computed at P50.00 per cavan; P7,200.00 as support for deceaseds parents computed at P120.00 a month for 5 years pursuant to Article 2206 [2] of the Civil Code; P20,000.00 as moral damages, and costs), and Pioneer was ordered to reimburse Aboitiz for whatever amount the latter paid the Vianas. Aboitiz and Pioneer: Separate Motions for Reconsideration. Trial Court: Absolved Pioneer from liability due to failure of Vianas and Aboitiz to establish negligence case against crane operator by preponderance of evidence; Aboitiz only must pay. Aboitiz: Appeal to CA! CA: Affirmed TC ruling except as to amount of damages: P30K for death of Anacleto, P9800 actual damages, P160K unearned income, P7200 support for parents, P20K moral damages, P10K attys fees, plus costs of suit. Aboitiz: Appeal by certiorari to SC. Disposition: SC affirmed CA decision in toto. Contract of carriage subsists until passenger has been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel owners dock or premises. The contract will end once the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carriers conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carriers premises. All persons remaining on the premises a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable time or delay within this rule is to

be determined from all circumstances, and includes the reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure. The relationship therefore does not end merely because the person has been carried off to his destination. According to the La Mallorca doctrine, the relation of carrier and passenger doesnt cease at the moment the passenger alights from vehicle at place selected by the carrier, but continues until passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carriers premises. Several factors are to be considered in determining the reasonableness of time; but, the primary factor to be considered is the existence of a reasonable cause as will justify the presence of the victim on or near Aboitiz vessel. A carrier must afford passengers reasonable time to claim their baggage. In this case, it hasnt even been shown that Viana had already disembarked from the vessel. What was only proven was that Viana was taking his cargo an hour after the vessel had docked. It was merely presumed, in consonance with common shipping procedure that he had disembarked in the 1 hour given for them to disembark. Nevertheless, his staying in the premises was justified as he was claiming his baggage, hence, he was still a passenger at the time of his death. Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. The presumption, where a passenger dies or is injured, is that the common carrier is at fault or has acted negligently. Such gives rise to an action for breach of contract of carriage where all that is required of the plaintiff is to prove existence of the contract of carriage and the non-performance by the carrier, or the failure of the carrier to bring passenger safely to his destination which necessarily includes its failure to safeguard its passenger with extraordinary diligence while such relation subsists. Evidence doesnt show that there was a cordon of drums around the perimeter of the crane, and neither were the presence of visible warning signs in the vicinity of the cranes proven in a manner as to rebut the presumption of negligence. Even if these had been proven, these things, with the guards admonitions against entry into the area were insufficient precautions which pale into significance if considered vis--vis the gravity of the danger to which the deceased was exposed. There was no showing of extraordinary diligence in requiring or seeing to it that the said measures were strictly and actually enforced to prevent entry into the forbidden area. Hence, even if Viana had contributory negligence, it was still Aboitiz failure to exercise due diligence which was the proximate and direct cause of his death. Pioneer is not liable as there was no negligence attributed to it; it had taken necessary safeguards insofar as its unloading operations were concerned, which appears to be accepted by the Vianas as they didnt implead Pioneer as a defendant, and inceptively accepted by Aboitiz by filing its third-party complaint only after 10 months of filing of the suit. Furthermore, Pioneer is not within the ambit of the rule on extraordinary diligence as it is not a common carrier.