Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Public utility business or service which is engaged in regularly supplying the agent is valid with regards to private carriers.
public with some commodity or service of public consequences; implies Bareboat or demise charterer provides food, fuel, crew
public use and service to an indefinite public which has a legal right to Time charter vessel charter for a period or duration of voyage
demand and receive service. Voyage or trip charter for one or more series of voyage
Transportation movement of things or person from one place to another Contract of freightage
Police power basis for State to regulate public utilities but does not extend
Planters products vs CA it is only when the charter includes both the
beyond:
vessel and teh crew, as in a bareboat or demise that a common carrier
Regulation of rates and charges
becomes private, at least insofar as the particular voyage covering the
Prevention of discrimination as to availability of service charter-party is concerned.
Orders the conduct of public utility(safety rules)
Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC)
Art XII, 1987 Consti
Sec 11 issuance of franchise Loadstar vs CA It is not necessary that a carrier be issued a CPC, and
Sec 17 temporarily take over public utility this character is not altered by the fact that the carriage of goods was
Sec 18 permanent transfer of ownership to public from private periodic, occasional, episodic, or unscheduled.
Sec 19 prohibit monopoly, restraint of trade, and unfair competition Registered owners liability
TranspoLawReviwer bgmtinapao2011 1
Art 1753 - The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported goods. The same duty is incumbent upon the common carrier in case of an
shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or act of the public enemy referred to in article 1734, No. 2
deterioration. Eastern Shipping Lines vs IAC Fire cannot be considered a natural
Art 1766 - In all matters not regulated by this Code, the rights and obligations disaster or calamity. It does not fall within the category of an act of God
of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by unless caused by other natural disaster or calamity. Hence the CC shall
special laws. be presumed to have been at fault unless it proves observance of
extraordinary diligence, which in this case, plaintiff failed to do so.
COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS
The natural disaster must have been the (1) proximate and only cause
1733 Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of of the loss, and (2) the common carrier must exercise due diligence to
public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance prevent or minimize loss before, during and after the occurrence of
over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, flood, storm or other natural disaster.
according to all the circumstances of each case.
Art 1740 If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting
1734 Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or the goods, a natural disaster shall not free such carrier from responsibility.
deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following
causes only: Philam General Ins vs CA the cc cannot be for the delay in
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or discharging the cargo for the delay was not due to the negligence of
calamity; the carrier but to several factors independent from the will of the cc.
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; Art 1734(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; Art 1741 If the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss, destruction
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the or deterioration of the goods, the proximate cause thereof being the
containers; negligence of the common carrier, the latter shall be liable in damages,
(5) Order or act of competent public authority. which however, shall be equitably reduced.
1735 In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Compania Maritima vs CA CC is liable for damage caused to
preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common machinery because it could have been avoided by the exercise of
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, reasonable skill and attention in overseeing the unloading of heavy
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in equipment. The act of the owner contributed to the damage thus it
article 1733. only mitigates the liability of the CC.
Ynchausti vs Dexter without a showing that the loss of damage Art 1734(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the
suffered by the goods while in the carriers hands for transportation containers;
resulted from some other cause than its own fault of negligence, CC is Art 1742 Even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods should
presumed negligent and therefore liable. be caused by the character of the goods, or the faulty nature of the
Exemption from liability. packing or of the containers, the common carrier must exercise due
Art 1734 (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.
disaster or calamity; Belgian vs Phil First Ins Equipped with proper knowledge of the nature
Art 1739 In order that the common carrier may be exempted from of the goods, the cc should have undertaken precautionary measures
responsibility, the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only to avoid possible damage. But none was taken. Even if the fact of
cause of the loss. However, the common carrier must exercise due diligence improper packing was shown, it is not relieved of liability once it accepts
to prevent or minimize loss before, during and after the occurrence of flood, the goods despite its condition.
storm or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be
Art 1734(5) Order or act of competent public authority
exempted from liability for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the
TranspoLawReviwer bgmtinapao2011 2
Art 1743 If through the order of public authority the goods are seized or loss or damage that may be caused to the goods during the
destroyed, the common carrier is not responsible, provided said public interregnum.
authority had power to issue the order.
Art 1744(5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or
omission of his or its employees Agreement limiting to liability
Ganzon vs CA the intervention of municipal officials was not of a ART 1744. A stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or
character that would render impossible the fulfilment by the carrier of its owner limiting the liability of the former for the loss, destruction, or
obligation. The petitioner was not duty bound to obey the illegal order deterioration of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence
to dump into the sea the scrap iron. Also, there is absence of sufficient shall be valid, provided it be:
proof that the issuance of the same order was attended with such force (1) In writing, signed by the shipper or owner;
or intimidation as to completely overpower the will of the petitioners (2) Supported by a valuable consideration other than the service
employees. rendered by the common carrier; and
(3) Reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy.
Other cases of Force Majeure
ART 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered
Quisumbing vs CA Hijacking is considered force majeure because no unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:
amount of sophisticated technology can prevent truly determined (1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;
hijacking from doing so. Also, the airline does not have any say on the (2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, or
security before the passengers get into the plane. It is the airport deterioration of the goods;
authority who is in charge of the security. Hijackers do not board the (3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the
plane through blatant display of firepower, they do it surreptitiously. custody of the goods;
(4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less
Duration of Liability
than that of a good father of a family, or of a man of ordinary prudence
ART 1736 The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from
in the vigilance over the movables transported;
the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and
(5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or
received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered,
omission of his or its employees;
actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person
(6) That the common carriers liability for acts committed by thieves, or
who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of
of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or
article 1738.
force, is dispensed with or diminished;
ART 1737 The common carriers duty to observe extraordinary diligence in
(7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or
the vigilance over the goods remains in full force and effect even when
deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the
they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, unless the shipper or
car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of
owner has made use of the right of stoppage in transitu.
carriage.
ART1738 The extraordinary liability of the common carrier continues to be
operative even during the time the goods are stored in a warehouse of the
carrier at the place of destination, until the consignee has been advised of
the arrival of the goods and has had reasonable opportunity thereafter to As to amount of liability
remove them or otherwise dispose of them. ART 1749. A stipulation that the common carriers liability is limited to the
value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or
Lu Do vs Binamira Stipulation limiting liability considering the goods owner declares a greater value, is binding.
have to go through inspection is not contrary to morals or public policy. ART 1750. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or
This is a situation where the carrier loses control of the goods because of shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is
a custom regulation and it is unfair that it be made responsible for any
TranspoLawReviwer bgmtinapao2011 3
reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and freely not vested with the right to prompt delivery unless CC assumes the
agreed upon. obligation to deliver at a given date or time, delivery of shipment or
Delay in delivery of cargo PAL vs CA the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the
TranspoLawReviwer bgmtinapao2011 4
Presumption of Negligence the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of
ART 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
their employees.
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they
ART 1760. The common carriers responsibility prescribed in the preceding
prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles
article cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by the posting of
1733 and 1755.
notices, by statements on the tickets or otherwise.
Macawili vs PAB Co. While it is true that it is not incumbent upon the
De Gillaco vs MRR While a passenger is entitled to protection from
passenger to show the negligence of the driver, it is nevertheless
personal violence by the carrier or its agents or employees, the
axiomatic that the driver has the right to prove his prudence and care
responsibility of the carrier extends only to those acts the carrier could
to be absolved from liability.
foresee or avoid through the exercise of the degree of diligence
Exception to 1756
required of it. The shooting was therefore a caso fortuito. When the
Sy vs Malate Taxicab the court need not make an express finding of crime took place, Devesa had no duties to discharge since he is off
fault or negligence on the part of the defendant in order to hold it duty. His position would be a passenger, a stranger also wanting
responsible if the action initiated is based on a contract of carriage and transportation and not of an employee assigned to discharge duties.
not on tort. (old civil code)
Remedies available:
Maranan vs Perez the carrier is liable as long as the assault occurs
1. Breach of Contract against CC (ex to 1756) within the course of the performance of the employees duty. It is no
2. Quasi-delict (2176) against owner of V or driver of V there has to defense for the carrier that the act was done in excess of authority or in
be finding of facts proving fault or negligence disobedience of carriers order. The carriers liability is absolute in the
3. Criminal Case (Art 365, RPC) against driver of V with subsidiary sense that it practically secured the passenger from assaults committed
liability of owner of V and against driver of CC by its own employees. (new civil code)
Limitations of liability; validity of stipulations Responsibility for acts of strangers; co-passengers
ART 1757. The responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers ART 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a
as required in articles 1733 and 1755 cannot be dispensed with or lessened passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers
by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or or of strangers, if the common carriers employees through the exercise of
otherwise. the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped
the act or omission.
ART 1758. When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting the
common carriers liability for negligence is valid, but not for wilful acts or MRR vs Ballesteros A common carrier is liable for damages arising from
gross negligence. The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the the negligence of its driver in allowing another person to drive his
common carriers liability. vehicle.
Lara vs Valencia The rule is that an owner of an automobile owes a Duty of passengers; effect of contributory negligence
guest the duty to exercise ordinary diligence or reasonable care to ART 1761. The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a
avoid injuring him. The extraordinary diligence imposed on common family to avoid injury to himself.
carriers is not required. ART 1762. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar
Responsibility for acts of employees recovery of damages for his death or injuries, if the proximate cause thereof
is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount of damages shall
ART 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to
be equitably reduced.
passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the formers employees,
although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their Cangco v Manila Railroad In Rakes vs AG & P, the doctrine of
authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. This liability of comparative negligence was discussed. If the accident was caused
TranspoLawReviwer bgmtinapao2011 5
by plaintiffs own negligence, no liability is imposed. If caused by the obligation was constituted. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton
defendants negligence, and plaintiffs negligence merely contributed attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be
to his injury, damages are apportioned. It is not negligent per se for a reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. (1107a)
traveller to alight from a slowly moving train. ART 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a
TranspoLawReviwer bgmtinapao2011 6
computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate ART 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a
result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission. contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
ART 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34,
and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused,
referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages. The
spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the
action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
ART 2220. Wilful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral
damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such
damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract
where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
Exemplary Damages
ART 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of
example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
ART 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary
damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent manner.
ART 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right;
the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated.
Nominal, temperate, liquidated damages
ART 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
ART 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal
but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court
finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not,
from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.
TranspoLawReviwer bgmtinapao2011 7