Common

Carrier;
Damages;
Mechanical defects in a common
carrier (e.g. boats, vehicles) are not
considered fortuitous events
SWEET LINES V. CA 121 SCRA 769
(1983)
FACTS: For having by-passed a port
of call without previous notice,
petitioner shipping company and
the ship captain were sued for
damages by four of its passengers.
Private respondents, having first
class tickets, boarded the M/V
Sweet Grace to Catbalogan. The
vessel had some engine problems
which led to a change of schedule
and they were thus delayed for a
substantial amount of time.
Furthermore, the vessel brought
them to Tacloban instead of
Catbalogan. This led the passengers
to purchase another set of tickets
and to ride another ferryboat going
to
Catbalogan.
The
private
respondents then sued the
petitioner carrier for damages for
the breach of contract of carriage.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner is liable
for damages.
HELD: The Court held that the
petitioner is liable for damages.
Under Article 2220 of the Civil
Code, moral damages are justly due
in breaches of contract where the
defendant acted fraudulently or in
bad faith.
The governing provisions
are found in the Code of
Commerce: Articles 614, 698. The
voyage
of
Catbalogan
was
interrupted by the captain upon the
instruction of management. The
interruption was neither due to
fortuitous event or force majeure
nor to disability of the vessel.
Having been caused by the captain
upon instruction of management,
the passengers right to indemnity
is evident. The owner of a vessel
and the ship agent shall be civilly
liable for the acts of the captain,
Article 586, Code of Commerce.
Judgment MODIFIED.

BOUNDARY SYSTEM
MAGBOO V. BERNARDO 7 SCRA 952
FACTS: The action of the spouses
Urbano and Emilia Magboo against
Delfin Bernardo is for enforcement
of his subsidiary liability as
employer. Spouses are the parents
of Cesar Magboo, a child of 8 years
old, who lived with them and was
then under their custody until his
death when he was killed in a
motor vehicle accident, the fatal
vehicle being a passenger jeepney
owned by Delfin Bernardo. At the
time of the accident, said passenger
jeepney was driven by Condrado
Roque. The contract between
Roque and Bernardo was that
Roque was to pay to Bernardo the
sum of P8.00, for the privilege of
driving the jeepney, it being their
agreement that whatever earnings
Roque could make out of the use of
the jeepney in transporting
passengers from one point to
another would be entirely to
Roque. As a consequence of the
accident and as a result of the
death of Cesar Magboo, Roque was
prosecuted for homicide thru
reckless imprudence. Pursuant to
said judgment Roque served his
sentence but he was not able to
pay the indemnity because he was
insolvent.
ISSUE: W/N an employer-employee
relationship exists between the
jeep- operator and the driver.
HELD: Under a boundary system
arrangement
an
employeremployee
relationship
exists
between a jeep-owner and a driver.
The fact that the driver does not
receive a fixed wage but gets only
the excess of the amount of fares
collected by him over the amount
he pays to the jeep-owner, and the
gasoline consumed by the jeep is
for the amount of the driver- are
not sufficient to withdraw the
relationship between them from
that of employee and employer.
Consequently, the jeep-owner is
subsidiary liable as employer in
accordance with Art.103, RPC.

SAMAR
MINING
COMPANY
V.
NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD AND C.F. SHARP
& COMPANY, INC.
132 SCRA 529 OCTOBER 23, 1984
FACTS: An importation was made by
Samar Mining Co. Inc. Of 1 crate Optima
welded wedge wire sieves through the
M/S Schwabenstein, a vessel owned by
Nordeutscher Lloyd, (represented in the
Philippines by its agent, C.F. Sharp Co.,
Inc.), which shipment is covered by Bill
of Lading 18 duly issued to consignee
Samar Mining. Upon arrival of the vessel
at the port of Manila, the importation
was unloaded and delivered in good
order and condition to the bonded
warehouse of AMCYL. The goods were
however never delivered to, nor
received by, the consignee at the port of
destination-Davao. Samar Mining filed a
suit to enforce payment. Nordeutscher
Lloyd and C.F. Sharp & Co. brought in
AMCYL as third party defendant. The
trial court rendered judgment in favour
of Samar Mining ordering defendants to
pay the amount plus attorneys fees and
costs. However, the Court stated that
appellants may recoup whatever they
may pay Samar Mining by enforcing the
judgment against third party defendant
AMCYL, which earlier been declared in
default. Nordeutscher Lloyd and C.F.
Sharp & Co. appealed from said
decision.
ISSUE: W/N appellants are liable, under
the bill of lading 18 covering the subject
shipment.

HELD: The stipulations in bill of

lading 18 is valid and in conformity
with the provisions of the NCC on
common carriers, agency and
contracts, they incur no liability for
the loss of the goods in question.
Article 1736 is applicable to the
instant suit. The carrier may be
relived of the responsibility for loss
or damage of the goods upon
actual or constructive delivery of
the same by the carrier to the
consignee, or the person who has a
right to receive them. There is
actual delivery in contracts for
transport of goods when possession
has been turned over to the
consignee or to his duly authorized
agent and a reasonable time is
given him to remove the goods.
Decision
reversed.
DISMISSED.

Complaint