Case Doctrines Transpo

(SOME) CASE DOCTRINES TRANSPO MIDTERMS
Based on the course outline c/o Atty. Randolph Pascasio
CASE LEGAL PROVISION DOCTRINE

CONCEPT OF A COMMON CARRIER
No distinction between the following:
ARTICLE 1732 Principal Business OR Ancillary Activity (sideline)
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations Regular / Scheduled Basis OR Occasional / Episodic / Unscheduled Basis
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or General Public OR only from a Narrow Segment of the General Population
goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their
services to the public. Concept of common carrier coincides with the notion of public service of the Public Service Act (CA 1216)
ARTICLE 1734 Cendaa is properly characterized as a common carrier even though:
Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or
He merely "back-hauled" goods for other merchants
deterioration of the goods which they carry, unless the same is due
Such backhauling was done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner
to any of the following causes only:
1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster His principal occupation was not the carriage of goods for others
or calamity;
2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; Cendaa charged his customers a fee for hauling their goods
3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; IRRELEVANT: That the fee collected frequently fell below commercial freight rates
4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the
containers; and CPC NOT a requisite for the incurring of liability under the Civil Code provisions governing common carriers
5) Order or act of competent public authority. The list of causes of loss, destruction or deterioration which exempt the common carrier for responsibility
therefor, is a CLOSED LIST.
#1 De Guzman v CA ARTICLE 1735 Causes falling outside the list, even if they appear to constitute a species of force majeure, fall within the
In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of scope of Art. 1735.
the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or HIJACKING OF THE CARRIERS TRUCK specific cause alleged; does NOT fall within any of the 5
deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault categories of exempting causes listed in Art. 1734.
or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733. Cendaa as common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. But this presumption
may be overthrown by proof of extraordinary diligence on his part.
ARTICLE 1733, par. 1
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons STANDARD OF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE required De Guzman retain a security guard to ride with the
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the truck and to engage brigands in a firefight at the risk of his own life and the lives of the driver and his helper
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each CASE AT BAR
case. Armed men held up the second truck owned by De Guzman which carried the cargo. The decision of the CFI
(robbery) shows that the accused acted with grave, if not irresistible threat, violence or force. 3 of the 5 hold-
ARTICLE 1745, no. 6 uppers were armed with firearms. They not only took away the truck and its cargo but also kidnapped the driver
Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered and his helper, detaining them for several days and later releasing them in another province.
unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:
Occurrence of the loss was beyond the control of the common carrier and properly regarded as a fortuitous
xxx xxx xxx event. Common carriers are NOT made absolute insurers against all risks of travel and of transport of goods, and
are not held liable for acts or events which cannot be foreseen or are inevitable, provided that they shall have
(6) That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, complied with the rigorous standard of extraordinary diligence.
or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat,
violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished; Cendaa is NOT liable for the value of the undelivered merchandise which was lost because of an event entirely
beyond its control.
1 | GAIL C A S T I L L O
ARTICLE 1732 COMMON CARRIER one who holds himself out to the public as engaged in the business of transporting
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations persons or property from place to place, for compensation, offering his services to the public generally.
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or
goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their TEST (determining WON a party is a common carrier of goods)
services to the public. 1. He must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a public employment, and must hold
himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for person generally as a business and not as a
RA 387 (Petroleum Act of the Philippines) FPIC is considered casual occupation;
a common carrier; regards petroleum operation as a public utility 2. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is confined;
3. He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and over his established
BIR RULING NO. 069-83 FPIC is a pipeline concessionaire that roads; and
is engaged only in transporting petroleum products, it is considered 4. The transportation must be for hire
a common carrier under RA No. 387
#2 First Philippine FPIC is a common carrier.
Industrial Corp. v CA
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Engaged in the business of transporting or carrying goods for hire as a public employment
Section 133 (j) Undertakes to carry for all persons indifferently to all persons who choose to employ its services
Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers Transports the goods by land and for compensation
of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend
to the levy of the following : FACT that FPIC has a limited clientele does not exclude it from the definition of a common carrier
xxx xxx xxx Definition of "common carriers" in the Civil Code makes NO distinction as to the means of transporting, as long
(j) Taxes on the gross receipts of transportation contractors and as it is by land, water or air.
persons engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by
hire and common carriers by air, land or water, except as provided FPIC is NOT subject to withholding tax prescribed by Revenue Regulation No. 13-78, as amended.
in this Code
CONTENTION:
ARTICLE 1732
Calvo is NOT a common carrier but a private carrier because, as a customs broker and warehouseman
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations
She does not indiscriminately hold her services out to the public but only offers the same to select parties with
whom she may contract in the conduct of her business.
services to the public.
SC: CONTENTION HAS NO MERIT
DISTINCTIONS as discussed in De Guzman v CA
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE common carriers to render service with the greatest skill and foresight and to
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for shipment, and to
#3 Calvo v vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers
exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such methods as their nature requires
UCPB General transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each
Insurance Terminal case.
CASE AT BAR
Services, Inc.
The cargoes were withdrawn by Calvo from the arrastre still in good order and condition as the same were
ARTICLE 1734, no. 4
received by the former without exception, without any report of damage or loss. If the container vans were
Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
deformed, cracked, distorted or dented, Calvo would report it immediately to the consignee or make an exception
deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the
on the delivery receipt or note the same in the Warehouse Entry Slip. None of these took place. Calvo received
following causes only:
the shipment in good order and condition and delivered the same to the consignee damaged. Damages to the
cargo occurred while it was in the possession of Calvo.
xxx xxx xxx
Whenever the thing is lost (or damaged) in the possession of the debtor (or obligor), it shall be presumed that the
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the
loss (or damage) was due to his fault, unless there is proof to the contrary.
containers.
CALVO: No proof was proffered to rebut this legal presumption and the presumption of negligence attached to a
common carrier in case of loss or damage to the goods
If the improper packing or, the defect/s in the container, is/are known to the carrier or his employees or apparent
upon ordinary observation, but he nevertheless accepts the same without protest or exception notwithstanding
such condition, he is NOT relieved of liability for damage resulting therefrom.
CASE AT BAR
Calvo accepted the cargo without exception despite the apparent defects in some of the container vans. For
failure to prove the exercise of extraordinary diligence in the carriage of goods in this case or the exemption from
liability, the presumption of negligence as provided under Art. 1735 holds.
GPS exclusive contractor and hauler of Concepcion Industries, Inc., rendering or offering its services to NO
other individual or entity, CANNOT be considered a common carrier
COMMON CARRIERS persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for hire or compensation, offering their services
to the public, whether to the public in general or to a limited clientele in particular, but never on an exclusive
basis.
TRUE TEST carriage of passengers or goods, providing space for those who opt to avail themselves of its
ARTICLE 1732 transportation service for a fee
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or GPS LIABILITY CULPA CONTRACTUAL
#4 FGU Insurance Existence of a contract of carriage between it and FGU
Corporation v
services to the public. Cargoes it has assumed to deliver have been lost or damaged while in its custody
GPS Trucking
Failure of compliance with the obligation gives rise to a presumption of lack of care and
Corporation
corresponding liability on the part of the obligor the burden being on him to establish otherwise
GPS has FAILED to do so
GPS DRIVER without concrete proof of his negligence or fault, may not himself be ordered to pay FGU
Not being a party to the contract of carriage, he may not be held liable under the agreement
A contract can only bind the parties who have entered into it or their successors who have assumed their
personality or their juridical position
FGUs civil action against him can only be based on CULPA AQUILIANA would require the claimant for
damages to prove negligence or fault on the part of the defendant
He can be said to have been in control and management of the vehicle which figured in the accident
But It is NOT equally shown that the accident could have been exclusively due to his negligence
Sun Holidays is a COMMON CARRIER.
Its ferry services are so intertwined with its main business as to be properly considered ancillary thereto
Constancy of its ferry services in its resort operations is underscored by its having its own beach boats
TOUR PACKAGES which include the ferry services, may be availed of by anyone who can afford to pay
the same; these services are thus AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the
circumstances of each case
They are bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances
When a passenger dies or is injured in the discharge of a contract of carriage, it is PRESUMED that the common
carrier is at fault or negligent
There is even no need for the court to make an express finding of fault or negligence on its part
STATUTORY PRESUMPTION may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised
extraordinary diligence
ARTICLE 1732 TROPICAL DEPRESSIONS forecasted by PAG-ASA

Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations A very cautious person exercising the utmost diligence would thus not brave such stormy weather and put
#5 Spouses Cruz v engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or other people's lives at risk
Sun Holidays, Inc. goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their Extraordinary diligence required of common carriers demands that they take care of the goods or lives
services to the public. entrusted to their hands as if they were their own
Sun Holidays FAILED to do so
FORTUITOUS EVENT (Requisites)

a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtors to comply with their
obligations, must have been independent of human will
b) the event that constituted the caso fortuito must have been impossible to foresee or, if foreseeable,
impossible to avoid
c) the occurrence must have been such as to render it impossible for the debtors to fulfill their obligation in a
normal manner; and
d) the obligor must have been free from any participation in the aggravation of the resulting injury to the creditor
NOTE:
To fully free a common carrier from any liability, the fortuitous event must have been the PROXIMATE and ONLY
cause of the loss. The common carrier should have exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss
BEFORE, DURING and AFTER the occurrence of the fortuitous event.
Sun Holidayss evidence fails to demonstrate that it exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss
before, during and after the occurrence of the squall. It is presumed to have acted recklessly.
ARTICLE 1732
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged
in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both,
by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public.
ARTICLE 1734
Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration
of the goods which they carry, unless the same is due to any of the
1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or TEST whether the given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out
calamity; to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted
2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the CASE AT BAR
containers; and Bascos was in the trucking business, offering her trucks to those with cargo to move
5) Order or act of competent public authority.
#6 Bascos v CA LOSS OF GOODS (HIJACKING) was not due to force majeure (De Guzman v CA)
ARTICLE 1735 To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must prove that the robbers or the hijackers
In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force
preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common Bascos was not able to prove such fact
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in
The presumption of negligence was raised against Bascos
Article 1733. It was her burden to overcome it
Her own failure prove extraordinary diligence made the presumption conclusive against her
ARTICLE 1745, no. 6
Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered
unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:
xxx xxx xxx
(6) That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of
robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is
dispensed with or diminished;
Caravan Travel is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods and is
therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier
It did not undertake to transport Crisostomo from one place to another its agreement with its customers is
simply to make travel arrangements in their behalf
ARTICLE 1732
Its services as a travel agency include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as
booking customers for tours
It acted merely as an agent of the airline, with whom Crisostomo ultimately contracted for her carriage to
Europe; its obligation was simply to see to it that Crisostomo was properly booked with the airline for the
services to the public.
appointed date and time
#7 Crisostomo v CA
OBJECT OF A CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE transportation of passengers or goods
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be
CASE AT BAR the contract between the parties was an ordinary one for services and NOT one of carriage
observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good
father of a family shall be required. It is NOT bound under the law to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation
STANDARD OF CARE REQUIRED good father of a family; reasonable care consistent with that which an
ordinarily prudent person would have observed when confronted with a similar situation
CASE AT BAR Caravan Travel performed all its obligations to enable Crisostomo to join the tour and exercised
due diligence in its dealings with the latter
Plane ticket issued clearly reflected the departure date and time
The travel documents, consisting of the tour itinerary, vouchers and instructions, were likewise delivered to
two days prior to the trip
It properly booked Crisostomo for the tour, prepared the necessary documents and procured the plane tickets
It arranged her hotel accommodation as well as food, land transfers and sightseeing excursions, in
accordance with its avowed undertaking
After the travel papers were delivered to Crisostomo, it became incumbent upon her to take ordinary care of
her concerns; would require that she at least read the documents in order to assure herself of the important
details regarding the trip
OPERATOR OF A SCHOOL BUS SERVICE has been usually regarded as a private carrier
Primarily because he only caters to some specific or privileged individuals
ARTICLE 1732 His operation is neither open to the indefinite public nor for public use
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or PRIVATE CARRIER one who, without making the activity a vocation, or without holding himself or itself out to
goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their the public as ready to act for all who may desire his or its services, undertakes, by special agreement in a
services to the public. particular instance only, to transport goods or persons from one place to another either gratuitously or for hire
Governed by the provisions on ordinary contracts of the Civil Code
ARTICLE 1733, par. 1 Diligence required is only diligence of a good father of the family
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the COMMON CARRIER
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers Governed the provisions on common carriers of the Civil Code, the Public Service Act, and other special
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each laws relating to transportation
case. Required to observe extraordinary diligence, and is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in
case of the loss of the effects of passengers, or the death or injuries to passengers
ARTICLE 1755
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as PUBLIC USE not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public
#8 Spouses Perea v human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of True criterion whether the public may enjoy it by right or only by permission
Spouses Zarate, very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
PNR and CA TEST (COMMON CARRIER) WON the undertaking is a part of the activity engaged in by the carrier that he
ARTICLE 1759 has held out to the general public as his business or occupation
Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to SINGLE TRANSACTION, not a part of the general business or occupation engaged in, as advertised and
passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former's held out to the general public PRIVATE
employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the
scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common CASE AT BAR
carriers. SPOUSES PEREAS the operators of a school bus service were:
a) engaged in transporting passengers generally as a business, not just as a casual occupation
This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that b) undertaking to carry passengers over established roads by the method by which the business was conducted;
they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the c) transporting students for a fee
selection and supervision of their employees.
LIMITED CLIENLE Pereas operated as a common carrier because they held themselves out as a READY
ARTICLE 2176 TRANSPORTATION indiscriminately to the students of a particular school living within or near where they
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being operated the service and for a fee
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE standard of diligence and vigilance as to the safety of the passengers
provisions of this Chapter. To successfully fend off liability in an action upon the death or injury to a passenger, the common carrier must
prove his or its observance of that extraordinary diligence
Otherwise, the legal presumption that he or it was at fault or acted negligently would stand
EVIDENCE did not overturn the presumption of the Spouses Pereas negligence
DEFENSE having observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their
driver was NOT legally sufficient
They were liable for the death of Aaron despite the fact that their driver might have acted beyond the scope of
his authority or even in violation of the orders of the common carrier
RECORDS
The driver did not slow down or go to a full stop before traversing the railroad tracks despite knowing
that his slackening of speed and going to a full stop were in observance of the right of way at railroad
tracks as defined by the traffic laws and regulations
He violated a specific traffic regulation on right of way, by virtue of which he was immediately presumed
to be negligent
OMISSIONS OF CARE (on the part of the van driver) constituted negligence
PNR v IAC SC held PNR solely liable for the damages caused to a passenger bus and its passengers when its
train hit the rear end of the bus that was then traversing the railroad crossing
No evidence of contributory negligence was adduced against the owner of the bus
NOTE it was the owner of the bus who proved the exercise of extraordinary diligence by preponderant
evidence; records are replete with the showing of negligence on the part of both the Pereas and the PNR
Passenger bus in was traversing the dedicated railroad crossing when it was hit by the train, but the Pereas
school van traversed the railroad tracks at a point not intended for that purpose
SPOUSES PEREAS and PNR jointly and severally liable for damages arising from the death of Aaron
BASIS OF RELIEF
As to the Spouses breach of contract
As to PNR quasi-delict
PNR was also guilty of negligence despite the school van of the Pereas traversing the railroad tracks at a
point not dedicated by the PNR as a railroad crossing for pedestrians and motorists
PNR did not ensure the safety of others through the placing of crossbars, signal lights, warning signs,
and other permanent safety barriers to prevent vehicles or pedestrians from crossing there.
FACT a crossing guard had been assigned to man that point from 7AM to 5PM; PNR was aware of
the risks to others as well as the need to control the vehicular and other traffic there
COMPLAINT seeks to enjoin Yangco from accepting for carriage on any of its vessels, dynamite, powder or
other explosives, under any conditions whatsoever
To prohibit the Collector of Customs and the prosecuting officers of the government from all attempts to
compel the company to accept such explosives for carriage on any of its vessels under any conditions
whatsoever
To prohibit these officials from any attempt to invoke the penal provisions of Act No. 98, in any case of a
refusal by the company or its officers so to do
PURPOSE (Act. 98) to forbid failures or refusals to receive persons or property for carriage involving any:
Unnecessary or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation
ARTICLE 98, PHILIPPINE COMMISSION or locality, or any particular kind of traffic in any respect whatsoever; or which would
Subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular kind of traffic to any
Section 3 undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination whatsoever
No common carrier engaged in the carriage of passengers or
property as aforesaid shall, under any pretense whatsoever, fail or GROUND OF REFUSAL dangers incident to the explosive quality of this class of merchandise
refuse to receive for carriage, and as promptly as it is able to do so
without discrimination, to carry any person or property offering for But in any case of a refusal to carry such products which would subject any person, locality or the traffic in such
carriage, and in the order in which such persons or property are products to any prejudice or discrimination whatsoever necessary to hear EVIDENCE before making an
#9 Fisher v Yangco offered for carriage, nor shall any such common carrier enter into affirmative finding that such prejudice or discrimination was or was not unnecessary, undue or unreasonable
Steamship Co. any arrangement, contract or agreement with any other person or Consideration of the suitability of the vessel for the transportation of such products
corporation whereby the latter is given an exclusive or preferential Reasonable possibility of danger or disaster resulting from their transportation in the form and under the
privilege over any other person or persons to control or monopolize conditions in which they are offered for carriage
the carriage of any class or kind of property to the exclusion or General nature of the business done by the carrier
partial exclusion of any other person or persons, and the entering All the attendant circumstances which might affect the question of the reasonable necessity for the refusal by
into any such arrangement, contract or agreement, under any form the carrier to undertake the transportation of this class of merchandise
or pretense whatsoever, is hereby prohibited and declared to be
unlawful. EXCEPTIONAL POWER AND VIOLENCE OF DYNAMITE AND GUNPOWDER IN EXPLOSION will always
furnish the owner of a vessel with a reasonable excuse for his failure or refusal to accept them for carriage or to
carry them on board his boat
GENERAL RULE: Common carriers in this jurisdiction cannot lawfully decline to accept a particular class of
goods for carriage, to the prejudice of the traffic in those goods
EXCEPTION: Unless it appears that for some sufficient reason the discrimination against the traffic in such
goods is reasonable and necessary
CASE AT BAR complaint LACKS the necessary allegations under this ruling, the demurrer must be sustained
on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute a cause of action.
ISSUE: WON Quinajon and Quitoriano established preferential privileges in favor of certain shippers
Presents the question WON they have violated the provisions of Act No. 98
The law requires common carriers to carry for ALL persons, either passengers or property
For exactly the SAME CHARGE for a LIKE or CONTEMPORANEOUS service in the transportation of
ACT NO. 98, PHILIPPINE COMMISSION LIKE KIND of traffic under substantially similar circumstances or conditions
The law prohibits common carriers from subjecting any person, etc., or locality, or any particular kind of traffic,
Section 1 to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination whatsoever
No person or corporation engaged as a common carrier of passengers or The law does not require that the same charge shall be made for the carrying of passengers or property,
property shall directly or indirectly by any special rate, rebate, drawback or
UNLESS all the conditions are alike and contemporaneous
other device, demand, collect or receive from any person or person's a
greater or less compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered in It is when the price charged is for the purpose of favoring persons for localities or particular kinds of
the transportation of passengers or property on land or water between any merchandise, that the law intervenes and prohibits
points in the Philippine Islands than such common carriers charges, It is FAVORITISM and DISCRIMINATION which the law prohibits
demands, collects or receives from any other person or persons for doing
for him a like or contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like ACTUAL COST of shipment must necessarily depend upon and be settled by its own proof
kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, and Does not prohibit the making of general schedules, providing they are made applicable to all
any such unjust discrimination is hereby prohibited and declared to be
#10 US v Quinajon A common carrier may discriminate between shippers when the amount of goods shipped by one actually
unlawful.
costs less to handle and transport
Section 2 Difference in the charge must be the difference in the cost
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in the transportation of
passengers or property as above set forth to make or give any SPECIAL AGREEMENTS (for handling and transporting merchandise) when it is made clearly to appear that
unnecessary or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular by such agreements the common carrier has only its interests and the legitimate increase of its profits in view
person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular kind of When the consideration given to the individual is for the interest of the common carrier alone
traffic in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person,
When the common carrier gives all shippers exactly the same rate, under the same conditions
company, firm, corporation or locality, or any receives from any other
person or persons for doing for him or them a like and contemporaneous
service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially CASE AT BAR
similar circumstances and conditions, such common carrier shall be Quinajon and Quitoriano justify the different charge upon the ground that they carried pianos and matches, for
deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby prohibited and the merchants with whom they had the special contracts, at the same price
declared to be unlawful. It is not believed that a merchant who happens to be a shipper of both pianos and matches, should have any
advantage over the merchant who ships pianos alone, UNLESS there is some other actual additional cost in
the one case, which does not exist in the other
A common carrier cannot discriminate upon the ground that he carries all of the goods of one shipper, while
he does not of another
From the evidence it would seem that there was a clear discrimination made against the province.
TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS
ISSUE: WON the payment made by American Home (insurance company) to Caltex for the insured value of the
ARTICLE 2207 lost cargo amounted to an admission that the vessel was seaworthy, thus precluding any action for recovery
If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received against Delsan
indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising
out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance Payment made by American Home for the insured value of the lost cargo operates as waiver of latters right to
company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against enforce the term of the implied warranty against Caltex under the marine insurance policy.
the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the BUT the same cannot be validly interpreted as an automatic admission of the vessel's seaworthiness by the
amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the insurance company as to foreclose recourse against the Delsan for any liability under its contractual
injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the obligation as a common carrier
deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury. PAYMENT grants the insurance company SUBROGATORY RIGHT which enables it to exercise legal
remedies that would otherwise be available to Caltex as owner of the lost cargo against Delsan
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons The right of subrogation accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the CASE AT BAR - payment made by American Home (insurer) to Caltex (assured) operates as an EQUITABLE
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers ASSIGNMENT to the former of all the remedies which the latter may have against the Delsan
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each
case. CONTENTION (DELSAN) attributes sinking of MT Maysun to fortuitous event or force majeure
Sudden and unexpected change of weather condition (strong winds and big waves)
#11 Delsan ARTICLE 1734 EFFECTIVELY REBUTTEN AND BELIED by the weather report from PAG-ASA
Transport v CA Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or MT Maysun sank with its entire cargo for the reason that it was NOT seaworthy
deterioration of the goods which they carry, unless the same is due No squall or bad weather or extremely poor sea condition in the vicinity when the said vessel sank
to any of the following causes only: EVIDENCE CERTIFICATES tend to show that at the time of dry-docking and inspection by the Philippine
1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or Coast Guard, the vessel MT Maysun, was fit for voyage
calamity; These pieces of evidence do NOT necessarily take into account the actual condition of the vessel at the
2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; time of the commencement of the voyage
3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; Certificates issued do not negate the presumption of unseaworthiness triggered by an unexplained
4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the sinking
containers; and SEAWORTHINESS relates to a vessel's actual condition
5) Order or act of competent public authority.
EXONERATION of MT Maysun's officers and crew by the Board of Marine Inquiry merely concerns their
ARTICLE 1735 respective administrative liabilities
In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of It does NOT operate to absolve the Delsan from its civil liability arising from its failure to observe extraordinary
the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or diligence in the vigilance over the goods it was transporting and for the negligent acts or omissions of its
deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault employees
or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733. CASE AT BAR
Delsan is liable for the insured value of the lost cargo of industrial fuel oil belonging to Caltex for its FAILURE to
rebut the presumption of fault or negligence as common carrier occasioned by the unexplained sinking of its
vessel, MT Maysun, while in transit
EXTRAORDINARY RESPONSIBILITY (COMMON CARRIER)
Remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, UNLESS the
shipper or owner exercises the right of stoppage in transit
Terminates only after the lapse of a reasonable time for the acceptance of the goods by the consignee or
such other person entitled to receive them
Delivery to the carrier when the goods are ready for and have been placed in its exclusive possession, custody
and control of the carrier for the purpose of their immediate transportation and the carrier has accepted them
Where delivery has been accepted by the carrier liability of the common carrier commences eo instant (at
that instant
For such duty to commence, there must in FACT have been delivery of the cargo subject of the contract of
carriage
Only when such fact of delivery has been UNEQUIVOCALLY ESTABLISHED can the liability for loss,
destruction or deterioration of goods in the custody of the carrier, absent the excepting causes under
Article 1734, attach and the presumption of fault of the carrier under Article 1735 be invoked
CASE AT BAR
Facts belie the averment that there was delivery of the cargo to the carrier on October 26, 1976
Body intended to be shipped as agreed upon was really placed in the possession and control of PAL on
October 28, 1976 it was from that date that PAL became responsible for the agreed cargo under their
undertakings in PAL Airway Bill No. 079--01180454
ARTICLE 1736
The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from For the switching of caskets PRIOR thereto which was not caused by them, and subsequent events caused
the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, thereby, PAL cannot be held liable
#12 Saludo v CA Switching occurred or, more accurately, was discovered on October 27, 1976
and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are
delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, It happened while the cargo was still with CMAS; before the same was placed in the custody of PAL
or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice No amount of inspection by the airline companies (PAL and TWA) could have guarded against the switching
to the provisions of Article 1738. that had already taken place
Granting that they could have opened the casket to inspect its contents, they had no means of ascertaining
whether the body therein contained was indeed that of Saludo
Except if the body was that of a male person and such was visually apparent upon opening the casket
NOTE they had no authority to unseal and open the same nor did they have any reason or justification
to resort thereto
DUTY (COMMON CARRIER) to make inquiry as to the GENERAL NATURE of the articles shipped and of their
value before it consents to carry them
Failure to do so cannot defeat the shipper's right to recovery of the full value of the package if lost, in the
absence of showing of fraud or deceit on the part of the shipper
In the absence of more definite information carrier has the right to accept shipper's marks as to the contents
of the package offered for transportation
NOT BOUND to inquire particularly about them in order to take advantage of a false classification and
where a shipper expressly represents the contents of a package to be of a designated character
EXCEPTION where a common carrier has REASONABLE GROUND to suspect that the offered
goods are of a dangerous or illegal character
CARRIER has the right to know the character of such goods and to insist on an inspection
CASE AT BAR
PAL and TWA had no reason whatsoever to doubt the truth of the shipper's representations
AIRWAY BILL expressly providing that "carrier certifies goods received below were received for carriage,"
and that the cargo contained "casketed human remains of Crispina Saludo"
RELIANCE REASONABLE; cannot be said to have acted negligently
CMAS party at fault
RULE in the absence of a special contract, a carrier is NOT an insurer against delay in transportation of goods
When a common carrier undertakes to convey goods, the law implies a contract that they shall be delivered at
destination within a reasonable time, in the absence of any agreement as to the time of delivery
But where a carrier has made an express contract to transport and deliver property within a specified time
It is bound to fulfill its contract and is liable for any delay, no matter from what cause it may have arisen
CASE AT BAR
Delay in the delivery of the remains of Crispina Saludo, undeniable and regrettable as it was, CANNOT be
attributed to the fault, negligence or malice of PAL and TWA
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
Where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other
Where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss
The one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss
NEGLIGENCE failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury
SEALOADER indeed guilty of negligence in the conduct of its affairs during the incident in question
Lack of a radio or any navigational communication facility aboard the D/B Toploader
ARTICLE 2179
Manifest laxity of the crew of the D/B Toploader in monitoring the weather; crew of the D/B Toploader failed to
When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and
keep a watchful eye on the prevailing weather conditions
#13 Sealoader proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
Crew of the D/B Toploader and the M/T Viper were caught unaware and unprepared when Typhoon Bising
Shipping v negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate
struck their vicinity
Grand Cement cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the
Manufacturing plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the At the height of the typhoon, the M/T Viper tried in vain to tow the D/B Toploader away from the wharf
damages to be awarded. Since the barge was still moored to the wharf, the line connecting the same to the M/T Viper snapped
and the latter vessel drifted to the Bohol area
Violent waves caused the D/B Toploader to ram against the wharf, thereby causing damage thereto
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the
harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection
GRAND CEMENT not guilty of negligent acts, which contributed to the damage that was incurred on its wharf
It timely informed the D/B Toploader of the impending typhoon
Evidence proffered by Sealoader to prove the negligence of Grand Cement was marred by contradictions and
are, thus, weak at best
Its contributory negligence was not established in this case.
CONTENTION: Cause of the loss of the goods, subject of this case, was FORCE MAJEURE
PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD

M/V Tandag sank due to a fire, which resulted from a crack in the auxiliary engine fuel oil service tank
Fuel spurted and dripped to the heating exhaust manifold, causing the ship to burst into flames
The crack was located on the side of the fuel oil tank, which had a mere 2-inch gap from the engine room
walling, thus precluding constant inspection and care by the crew
Having originated from an unchecked crack in the fuel oil service tank, the fire could NOT have been caused
ARTICLE 1734 by force majeure
Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods which they carry, unless the same is due FORCE MAJEURE generally applies to a natural accident, such as that caused by a lightning, an earthquake,
to any of the following causes only: a tempest or a public enemy
1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or Fire is not considered a natural disaster or calamity
calamity; Where loss of cargo results from the failure of the officers of a vessel to inspect their ship frequently so as to
2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; discover the existence of cracked parts that loss cannot be attributed to force majeure, but to the
3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; NEGLIGENCE of those officials
4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the
containers; and COMMON CARRIER presumed to have been negligent if it fails to prove that it exercised extraordinary
5) Order or act of competent public authority. vigilance over the goods it transported
Ensuring the seaworthiness of the vessel is the first step in exercising the required vigilance
ARTICLE 1735
In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of CASE AT BAR
#14 Cokaliong
the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or Cokaliong did not present sufficient evidence showing what measures or acts it had undertaken to ensure the
Shipping Lines v
deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault seaworthiness of the vessel
WCPB, Gen.
or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed It failed to show when the last inspection and care of the auxiliary engine fuel oil service tank was made, what
Insurance Co.
extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733. the normal practice was for its maintenance
It merely stated that constant inspection and care were not possible, and that the last time the vessel was dry-
ARTICLE 1749 docked was in November 1990
A stipulation that the common carrier's liability is limited to the value It is responsible for the loss of the goods covered by Bills of Lading Nos. 58 and 59
of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or
owner declares a greater value, is binding. BILL OF LADING contain the stipulation that in case of claim for loss or for damage to the shipped
merchandise or property, "the liability of the common carrier x x x shall NOT exceed the value of the goods as
ARTICLE 1750 appearing in the bill of lading"
A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or
shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is STIPULATION that limits liability VALID; as long as it is not against public policy
valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has
been freely and fairly agreed upon. CASE AT BAR
Stipulation limiting Cokaliongs liability is not contrary to public policy
The shippers/consignees may recover the full value of the goods by the simple expedient of declaring the true
value of the shipment in the Bill of Lading
Other than the payment of a higher freight, there was nothing to stop them from placing the actual value of the
goods therein
FACT they committed fraud against the common carrier by deliberately undervaluing the goods in their Bill
of Lading, thus depriving the carrier of its proper and just transport fare
PURPOSE of the limiting stipulation in the Bill of Lading to protect the common carrier
Such stipulation obliges the shipper/consignee to notify the common carrier of the amount that the latter may
be liable for in case of loss of the goods
Common carrier can then take appropriate measures getting insurance, if needed, to cover or protect itself
This precaution on the part of the carrier is reasonable and prudent
A shipper/consignee that undervalues the real worth of the goods it seeks to transport
Does not only violate a valid contractual stipulation, but commits a fraudulent act when it seeks to make
the common carrier liable for more than the amount it declared in the bill of lading
CASE AT BAR
For assuming a higher risk (the alleged actual value of the goods) the insurance company was paid the
correct higher premium
While Cokaliong was paid a fee lower than what it was entitled to for transporting the goods that had been
deliberately undervalued by the shippers in the Bill of Lading
Between the two of them, the insurer should bear the loss in excess of the value declared in the Bills of
Lading; this is the just and equitable solution
SARKIES claims that Fatima did not bring any piece of luggage with her, and even if she did, none was
declared at the start of the trip
DOCUMENTARY AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE established that Fatima indeed boarded the De Luxe
Bus No. 5 in the evening of August 31, 1984, and she brought 3 pieces of luggage with her
ARTICLE 1733, par. 1 One of the bags was even recovered with the help of a Philtranco bus driver
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons LETTER Sarkies tacitly admitted its liability by apologizing to respondents and assuring them that
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the efforts were being made to recover the lost items
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers Respondents went to great lengths just to salvage their loss
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each The incident was reported to the police, the NBI, and the regional and head offices of Sarkies
case. They even sought the assistance of Philtranco bus drivers and the radio stations
#15 Sarkies Tours To expedite the replacement of her mothers lost U.S. immigration documents, Fatima also had to
Phil., Inc. v CA execute an affidavit of loss
ARTICLE 1736 Clearly, they would not have gone through all that trouble in pursuit of a fancied loss
The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from Fatima was not the only one who lost her luggage
the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, Dr. Lita Samarista testified that Sarkies offered her 1,000 for her lost baggage and she accepted it
and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are Carleen Carullo-Magno also lost her chemical engineering review materials, while her brother lost
delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, abaca products he was transporting to Bicol
or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice
to the provisions of Article 1738. COMMON CARRIER responsible for the loss of Fatimas personal luggage
Cause of the loss Sarkies negligence in not ensuring that the doors of the baggage compartment of its bus
were securely fastened
As a result of this lack of care, almost all of the luggage was lost, to the prejudice of the paying passengers
ARTICLE 1733, par. 1 CASE AT BAR

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons Central Shipping disclaims responsibility for the loss of the cargo by claiming the occurrence of a STORM
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the under Article 1734
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers It attributes the sinking of its vessel solely to the weather condition between 10PM on July 25, 1990 and
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each 1:25AM on July 26, 1990
#16 Central
case.
Shipping v
ESTABLISHED between 10PM on July 25, 1990 and 1:25AM on July 26, 1990, M/V Central Bohol encountered
Insurance Company
a southwestern monsoon in the course of its voyage
It cannot now be allowed to retreat and claim that the southwestern monsoon was a storm
No typhoon was observed within the Philippine area of responsibility during that period
Strong winds accompanying the southwestern monsoon could not be classified as a storm
Such winds are the ordinary vicissitudes of a sea voyage
Even if the weather encountered by the ship is to be deemed a natural disaster under Article 1739 of the Civil
ARTICLE 1734 Code, Central Shipping FAILED to show that such natural disaster or calamity was the proximate and only
Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration cause of the loss
of the goods which they carry, unless the same is due to any of the Human agency must be entirely excluded from the cause of injury or loss
The damaging effects blamed on the event or phenomenon must not have been caused, contributed to,
1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or
calamity; or worsened by the presence of human participation
2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; Defense of fortuitous event or natural disaster cannot be successfully made when the injury could have been
3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; avoided by human precaution
4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the If a common carrier fails to exercise due diligence -- or that ordinary care that the circumstances of the
containers; and particular case demand -- to prevent or minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of the
5) Order or act of competent public authority. natural disaster
The carrier shall be deemed to have been negligent
ARTICLE 1735
The loss or injury is not, in a legal sense, due to a natural disaster under Article 1734(1)
In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, LOSS OF THE VESSEL caused not only by the southwestern monsoon, but also by the shifting of the logs in
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in the hold; such shifting could been due only to improper stowage
Article 1733.
EVIDENCE indicated that strong southwest monsoons were common occurrences during the month of July
ARTICLE 1739 Officers and crew of M/V Central Bohol should have reasonably anticipated heavy rains, strong winds and
In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility, the rough seas
natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss.
They should then have taken extra precaution in stowing the logs in the hold, in consonance with their duty of
However, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or
minimize loss, before, during and after the occurrence of flood, storm, or observing extraordinary diligence in safeguarding the goods
other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be exempted But the carrier took a calculated risk in improperly securing the cargo
from liability for the loss, destruction, deterioration of the goods. The same Having lost that risk, it cannot now escape responsibility for the loss
duty is incumbent upon the common carrier in cases of an act of the public
enemy referred to in Article 1734, No.2.
ISSUE WON Coastwise is a common carrier
CONTENTION Coastwise contracted with Pag-asa Sales, Inc. to transport the shipment of molasses from
Negros Oriental to Manila and refers to this contract as a "charter agreement"
A common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only becomes a
private carrier (Home Insurance Company vs. American Steamship Agencies, Inc)
CHARTER PARTY one of affreightment over the whole vessel, rather than a demise
LIABILITY OF THE SHIPOWNER of the for acts or negligence of its captain and crew, would REMAIN in the
absence of stipulation
#17 Coastwise TWO KINDS
Lighterage v CA Demise or bareboat charter of the vessel the charterer will generally be regarded as the owner for the
voyage or service stipulated
The charterer mans the vessel with his own people and becomes the owner pro hac vice, subject
to liability to others for damages caused by negligence
To create a demise, the owner of a vessel must completely and exclusively relinquish possession,
command and navigation thereof to the charterer
Anything short of such a complete transfer is a contract of affreightment (time or voyage charter
party) or not a charter party at all
Contract of affreightment owner of the vessel leases part or all of its space to haul goods for others
Contract for special service to be rendered by the owner of the vessel
General owner retains the possession, command and navigation of the ship, the charterer or
freighter merely having use of the space in the vessel in return for his payment of the charter hire
An owner who retains possession of the ship though the hold is the property of the charterer
REMAINS LIABLE as carrier and must answer for any breach of duty as to the care, loading and
unloading of the cargo
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT Pag-asa only leased 3 of Coastwises vessels, in order to carry cargo from
one point to another, but the possession, command and navigation of the vessels remained with the latter
It was not converted into a private carrier, but remained a common carrier and was still liable as such
PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST THE COMMON CARRIER

1. Mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier
2. Subsequent arrival of the same goods at the place of destination in bad order
Presumption of negligence that attaches to common carriers, once the goods it transports are lost, destroyed or
deteriorated APPLIES TO COASTWISE
This presumption, which is overcome only by proof of the exercise of extraordinary diligence REMAINED
UNREBUTTED in this case
It cannot safely claim to have exercised extraordinary diligence, by placing a person whose navigational skills
are questionable, at the helm of the vessel which eventually met the fateful accident
A person without license to navigate lacks not just the skill to do so, but also the utmost familiarity with
the usual and safe routes taken by seasoned and legally authorized ones
ISSUE WON Condition No. 14 printed at the back of the passage tickets which limits the venue of actions
arising from the contract of carriage to the CFI of Cebu, valid and enforceable
CONDITION 14 printed at the back of the passage tickets; contracts of adhesion

Validity and/or enforceability of which will have to be determined by the peculiar circumstances obtaining in
each case and the nature of the conditions or terms sought to be enforced
CONTRACT OF ADHESION the only participation of the other party is the signing of his signature or his
'adhesion' thereto
Insurance contracts, bills of lading, contracts of sale of lots on the installment plan
Held as VOID and UNENFORCEABLE
Under circumstances obtaining in the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind
ARTICLE 24
passengers to the terms of the conditions printed at the back of the passage tickets
In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the
#18 Sweet Lines v It subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedings of this nature
parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence,
Teves Will prejudice rights and interests of innumerable passengers in different parts of the country who,
ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age and other
under Condition No. 14, will have to file suits against Sweet Lines only in the City of Cebu
handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
Such agreement negates the action of the claimants
Hardly just and proper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets received from crowded/congested
counters, more often than not during rush hours, for conditions that may be printed thereon
Much less charge them with having consented to the conditions, so printed, especially if there are a
number of such conditions in fine print (CASE AT BAR)
If enforced, will be subversive of the public good or interest, since it will frustrate in meritorious cases, actions
of passenger claimants outside of Cebu City
Placing Sweet Lines at a decided advantage over said persons, who may have perfectly legitimate
claims against it
Should, therefore, be declared VOID and UNENFORCEABLE, as contrary to public policy - to make the
courts accessible to all who may have need of their services.
ISSUE WON Clause 12 of the bill of lading valid
CLAUSE 12
The CARRIER shall NOT be liable for loss or damage from any cause or for any reason:
Amount exceeding 300 for any single package of silk or other valuable cargo
Amount exceeding 100 for any single package of other cargo
UNLESS the value and contents of such packages are correctly declared in this bill of lading at the time of
shipment and freight paid in accord with the actual measurement or weight of the cargo shipped
The condition in printed on the back of the bill of lading
#19 Ysmael v STEAMSHIP ANDRES a common carrier; must have been operated as a public utility
Barretto COMMON KNOWLEDGE large quantities of silk are imported in the Philippine Islands, and that after being
imported, they are sold by the merchants in Manila and other large seaports, and then shipped to different
points and places in the Islands
There is nothing unusual about the shipment of silk
Matter of usual and ordinary business; no fraud or concealment in the shipment in question
EVIDENCE 164 cases were shipped; value of each case was very near 2,500
LIMIT would put it in the power of the defendants to have taken the whole cargo of 164 cases of silk at a
valuation of 300 for each case, or less than 18 of its actual value
If this should be sustained, no silk would ever be shipped from one island to another in the Philippines
Such a limitation of value is unconsionable and void as against public policy
PAL COMMON CARRIER; bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the
ARTICLE 1732 safety of the passengers transported by it according to the circumstances of each case
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations Loss of the transistor radio and camera of Shewaram due to the negligence of the employees of the PAL
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or PAL should be held liable for the payment of said loss
services to the public. CONTENTION its liability should be limited to the amount stated in the conditions of carriage printed at the
back of the plane ticket stub which was issued Shewaram
CONDITIONS embodied in Domestic Tariff Regulations No. 2 which was filed with the Civil Aeronautics Board
ARTICLE 1750 LIABILITY if any, for loss or damage to checked baggage or for delay in the delivery thereof is LIMITED to
A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or its value and, UNLESS the passenger declares in advance a higher valuation and pay an additional charge
shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is therefor, the value shall be conclusively deemed NOT to exceed I00 for each ticket
valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has
#20 Shewaram v been freely and fairly agreed upon. PECUNIARY LIABILITY may, by contract, be limited to a fixed amount
PAL REQUIRED must be reasonable and just under the circumstances and has been fairly and freely agreed upon
ARTICLE 1734 CASE AT BAR

Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration It cannot be said that Shewaram had actually entered into a contract with PAL, embodying the conditions as
of the goods which they carry, unless the same is due to any of the printed at the back of the ticket stub that was issued by the latter to the former
following causes only: FACT those conditions are printed at the back of the ticket stub in letter so small that they are hard to read
1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or
Would not warrant the presumption that Shewaram was aware of those conditions such that he had
calamity;
2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; "fairly and freely agreed" to those conditions
3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; PAL admits that passengers do not sign the ticket, much less did Shewaram herein sign his ticket when he
4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the made the flight
containers; and Shewaram is not, and cannot be, bound by the conditions of carriage found at the bade of the ticket stub
5) Order or act of competent public authority. issued to him when he made the flight on PAL
LIABILITY
ARTICLE 1735 The transistor radio and the camera of Shewaram were lost as a result of the negligence of PAL as a
In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
common carrier it must pay the former the value of those two articles.
preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Ysmael and Co. v Barretto the carrier cannot limit its liability for injury to or loss of goods shipped where such
Article 1733. injury or loss was caused by its own negligence.
PAL incurred in delay in the delivery of Ong Yius luggage
ISSUE WON there was negligence on the part of PAL and that it had not acted fraudulently or in bad faith as to
entitle Ong Yiu to an award of moral and exemplary damages
CASE AT BAR
PAL had not acted in bad faith
BAD FAITH breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will
It was the duty of PAL to look for Ong Yius luggage which had been miscarried; it exerted due diligence in
complying with such duty
ISSUE WON limit on PALs carriage liability to I00 as stipulated at the back of the ticket was valid
STIPULATION (written on the back of the ticket) liability of PAL for the loss is limited to I00 per baggage
CASE AT BAR
Ong Yiu did not declare a great value
#21 Ong Yiu v CA He did not call the attention of the PAL on its true value and paid the tariff therefor
Validity of this stipulation is NOT questioned by Ong Yiu
They are printed in reasonably and fairly big letters, and are easily readabl
Ong Yiu had been a frequent passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan City and back, and he, being a lawyer
and businessman, must be fully aware of these conditions
FACT Ong Yiu had not signed the plane ticket

He is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof
Such provisions have been held to be a part of the contract of carriage, and valid and binding upon the
passenger regardless of the latter's lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation
CONTRACT OF ADHESION wherein one party imposes a ready-made form of contract on the other, as the
plane ticket in the case at bar, are contracts NOT entirely prohibited
One who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely
If he adheres, he gives his consent
CASE AT BAR
Ong Yiu failed to declare a higher value for his baggage; cannot be permitted a recovery in excess of 100
Passengers are advised not to place valuable items inside their baggage but to avail of PALs V-cargo service
NOTE there is nothing in the evidence to show the actual value of the goods allegedly lost by PAL
COMPLAINT to recover the value of the property lost by Quisumbing and Loeffler to the robbers
Act of the armed robbers is NOT a force majeure, as the 'use of arms' or 'irresistible force' was NOT taken
advantage of by said armed robbers in gaining entrance to PALs ill-fated plane
It is not essential that the lost effects and belongings of Quisumbing and Loeffler were actually delivered to
PALs plane personnel or that the latter were notified thereof
DEFENSE
PAL alleged that the robbery during the flight and after the aircraft was forcibly landed at the Manila Airport
did indeed constitute force majeure
Quisumbing and Loeffler did not notify PAL or its crew or employees that they were in possession of cash,
German marks and valuable jewelries and watches or surrendered said items to the crew or personnel on
board the aircraft
RTC and CA
Rejected the argument that the use or arms or irresistible force constitutes force majeure only if resorted to
gain entry into the airplane, and not if it attends the robbery itself
HIJACKING-ROBBERY FORCE MAJEURE
Hijackers do not board an airplane through a blatant display of firepower and violent fury
Firearms, hand-grenades, dynamite, and explosives are introduced into the airplane surreptitiously and
#22 Quisumbing, with the utmost cunning and stealth
Sr. v CA There is an occasional use of innocent hostages who will be coldly murdered unless a plane is given to
the hijackers' complete disposal
OBJECTIVE to display the irresistible force amounting to force majeure only when it is most effective
and that is when the jetliner is winging its way at Himalayan altitudes and ill-advised heroics by either
crew or passengers would send the multi-million peso airplane and the priceless lives of all its
occupants into certain death and destruction
Where PAL has faithfully complied with the requirements of government agencies and adhered to the
established procedures and precautions of the airline industry at any particular time, its failure to take certain
steps that a passenger in hindsight believes should have been taken is not the negligence or misconduct
which mingles with force majeure as an active and cooperative cause
CASE AT BAR
Acts of the airline and its crew cannot be faulted as negligence
Hijackers had already shown their willingness to kill
FACT one passenger was killed and another survived gunshot wounds
The lives of the rest of the passengers and crew were more important than their properties
Cooperation with the hijackers until they released their hostages at the runway end near the South
Superhighway was dictated by the circumstances
SC AFFIRMED the decision of the CA
LOSS OF LUGGAGE Mahtani is entitled to damages from BA, in view of their contract of carriage
BA disclaimed its liability and instead imputed it to PAL which the latter naturally denies
BA and PAL are blaming each other for the incident.
CONTRACT OF AIR TRANSPORTATION was exclusively between Mahtani and BA, the latter merely
endorsing the Manila to Hongkong leg of the formers journey to PAL, as its subcontractor or agent
Conditions of Contracts of the ticket issued by BA to Mahtani confirms that the contract was one of
continuous air transportation from Manila to Bombay
RULE an agent is also responsible for any negligence in the performance of its function and is liable for
damages which the principal may suffer by reason of its negligent act
CASE AT BAR
#23 British Airways
The contractual relationship between BA and PAL is one of AGENCY, the former being the principal, since it was
(BA) v CA
the one which issued the confirmed ticket, and the latter the agent
INSTANT PETITION based on breach of contract of carriage

Mahtani can only sue BA alone, and not PAL, since the latter was not a party to the contract
This is NOT to say that PAL is relieved from any liability due to any of its negligent acts
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
BAs complaint against PAL for the purpose of ultimately determining who was primarily at fault as
between them
Purpose of a third-party complaint is precisely to avoid delay and circuity of action and to enable the
controversy to be disposed of in one suit
Logical, fair and equitable to allow BA to sue PAL for indemnification, if it is proven that the latters
negligence was the proximate cause of Mahtanis unfortunate experience, instead of totally absolving
PAL from any liability
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS
CASE AT BAR
Before the box containing the firecrackers were allowed to be loaded in the bus by the conductor, inquiry was
made with the passenger carrying the same as to what was in it, since its opening was folded and tied with abaca
Does not require for a PROPER AND RIGID OBSERVATION

ARTICLE 1733, par. 1 Reasonably qualifies the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers for the safety of the passengers
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons transported by them to be "according to all the circumstances of each case"
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers MEASUREMENT OF COMMON CARRIERS DUTY (towards its passengers)
Allowance must be given to the reliance that should be reposed on the sense of responsibility of all the
case.
passengers in regard to their common safety
PRESUMED a passenger will not take with him anything dangerous to the lives and limbs of his co-
ARTICLE 1755
passengers, not to speak of his own
#24 Nocum v A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
Laguna Tayabas human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of RIGHT TO PRIVACY must be considered; each passenger is entitled
Bus Co. and CA very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. He cannot be subjected to any unusual search, when he protests the innocuousness of his baggage
and nothing appears to indicate the contrary
ARTICLE 1174 INQUIRY may be verbally made as to the nature of a passenger's baggage when such is NOT
Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is outwardly perceptible, but beyond this, constitutional boundaries are already in danger of being
otherwise declared by stipulations, or when the nature of the transgressed
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events, which, could not be foreseen, or NECESSARY for evidence of circumstances indicating cause or causes for apprehension that the passenger's
which though foreseen, were inevitable. baggage is dangerous
FAILURE of the common carrier's employee to act in the face of such evidence constitutes the cornerstone
of the common carrier's liability in cases similar to the present one
COMMON CARRIERS relieved from the consequence of fortuitous events
Bus Company has succeeded in rebutting the presumption of negligence by showing that it has
exercised extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers
ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE
UNNECESSARY to rule WON there was any fortuitous event in this case
CIVIL CASE grounded on contract, the contract of carriage between the Mecenas spouses as regular
passengers who paid for their boat tickets and Negros Navigation
Action based upon a breach of the contract of carriage carrier is liable for the death of passengers arising
from the negligence or willful act of the carrier's employees although such employees may have acted beyond
the scope of their authority or even in violation of the instructions of the carrier
Collision with M/T Tacloban City and the sinking of M/V Don Juan were caused or attended by negligence on
ARTICLE 1755
the part of Negros Navigation
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
#25 Mecenas v CA
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of
CASE AT BAR
very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
Behavior of the captain of the M/V Don Juan -- playing mahjong before and up to the time of collision
constitutes behaviour that is simply unacceptable on the part of the master of a vessel to whose hands the
lives and welfare of at least 750 passengers had been entrusted
WON Capt. Santisteban was "off-duty" or "on-duty" at or around the time of actual collision is quite immaterial
There is no such thing as "off-duty" hours for the master of a vessel at sea that is a common carrier
upon whom the law imposes the duty of extraordinary diligence
M/V Don Juan was carrying more passengers than she had been certified as allowed to carry
Certificate of Inspection total number of persons allowed on the ship was 864, of whom 810 are
passengers, but there were actually 1,004 on board the vessel when it sank
140 persons more than the maximum number that could be safely carried by it
PRESUMPTION OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE (on the part of the vessel, her officers and crew) and of its ship-
owner never rebutted by Negros Navigation.
CASE AT BAR
M/V Don Juan was more than twice as fast as M/T Tacloban City
It carried the full complement of officers and crew members specified for a passenger vessel of her class
It was equipped with radar which was functioning that night
Its officer on-watch had sighted the M/T Tacloban City on his radar screen while the latter was still 4 nautical
miles away; visual confirmation of radar contact was established by M/V Don Juan while M/T Tacloban City
was still 2.7 miles away
Failed to take early preventive action
Allowing the 2 vessels to come to such close quarters as to render the collision inevitable when there
was no necessity for passing so near to M/T Tacloban City as to create that hazard or inevitability
M/V Don Juan could choose its own distance
M/T Tacloban City upon turning hard to port shortly before the moment of collision, signaled its intention
to do so by giving 2 short blasts with its horn
M/V Don Juan gave no answering horn blast to signal its own intention and proceeded to turn hard to
starboard
Capt. Santisteban and Negros Navigation held liable for gross negligence in connection with the collision of the
vessels and the sinking of M/V Don Juan leading to the death of hundreds of passengers
Negros Navigation was found EQUALLY NEGLIGENT
In tolerating the playing of mahjong by the ship captain and other crew members while on board the ship and
Failing to keep the M/V Don Juan seaworthy so much so that the ship sank within 10 to 15 minutes of its
impact with the M/T Tacloban City
CASE AT BAR
M/V Don Juan was OVERLOADED
#26 Negros
Certificate of Inspection total number of persons allowed on the ship was 864, of whom 810 are
Navigation Co., Inc
passengers, but there were actually 1,004 on board the vessel when it sank
v CA
140 persons more than the maximum number that could be safely carried by it
M/V Don Juan was GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Had it taken seriously its duty of extraordinary diligence, could have easily avoided the collision with the
M/T Tacloban City (oil tanker); it might well have avoided the collision even if it had exercised ordinary
diligence merely
The captain and Negros Navigation are properly held LIABLE for gross negligence in connection with
the collision of M/V Don Juan and M/T Tacloban City and the sinking of M/V Don Juan leading to the
death of hundreds of passengers
STATUS OF LAPUZ (AS STANDBY PASSENGER)
Changed to that of a confirmed passenger when his name was entered in the passenger manifest of Korean
Airlines (KAL) for its Flight
His clearance through immigration and customs clearly shows that he had indeed been confirmed as a
passenger of KAL in that flight
KAL committed a breach of the contract of carriage between them it failed to bring Lapuz to his destination
CONTRACT OF AIR CARRIAGE

Generates a relation attended with a public duty
Passengers have the right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due
consideration
They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses
#27 KAL v CA from such employees
Any discourteous conduct on the part of these employees toward a passenger gives the latter an action for
damages against the carrier
BREACH OF CONTRACT (CASE AT BAR)

Aggravated when, instead of courteously informing Lapuz of his being a "wait-listed" passenger, a KAL officer
rudely shouted "Down! Down!" while pointing at him, thus causing him embarrassment and public humiliation
EVIDENCE (PERFECTED CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE)
Lapuz he had indeed checked in at the departure counter
Passed through customs and immigration
Boarded the shuttle bus and proceeded to the ramp of KAL's aircraft
FACT his baggage had already been loaded in KAL' s aircraft, to be flown with him to Jeddah. The
contract of carriage between him and KAL had already been perfected when he was summarily and
insolently prevented from boarding the aircraft
ISSUE WON PAL acted in bad faith when it failed and refused to provide hotel accommodations for Pantejo or
to reimburse him for hotel expenses incurred by reason of the cancellation of its connecting flight to Surigao City
due to force majeure
CONTRACT OF AIR CARRIAGE its business is mainly with the travelling public
Invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers
Generates a relation attended with a public duty
ARTICLE 21 Neglect or malfeasance of the carriers employees naturally could give ground for an action for damages
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a
#28 PAL v CA manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
shall compensate the latter for the damage. 1. PAL - cash assistance was given to Pantejo instead because of non-availability of rooms in hotels; evidence
shows that Sky View Hotel, where Pantejo was billeted, had plenty of rooms available
2. Not true that the 300 paid to a co-passenger of Pantejo, was a refund for his plane ticket, the truth being
that it was a reimbursement for hotel and meal expenses
3. Pantejo came to know about the reimbursements only because another passenger informed him that she was
able to obtain the refund for her own hotel expenses
4. PAL offered to pay 300 to Pantejo only after he had confronted the airlines manager about the
discrimination committed against him, which the latter realized was an actionable wrong
5. Service Voucher presented by PAL to prove that it gave cash assistance to its passengers, was based merely
on the list of passengers already given cash assistance and was prepared 2 hours before Pantejo came to
know of the cancellation of his flight to Surigao, hence latter could not have possibly refused the same
ARGUMENTS SAKE airline passengers have no vested right to these amenities in case a flight is cancelled
due to force majeure, what makes PAL liable for damages is its blatant refusal to accord the so-called amenities
equally to all its stranded passengers who were bound for Surigao City
PALS STANDARD COMPANY POLICY whenever a flight has been cancelled, to extend to its hapless
passengers cash assistance or to provide them accommodations in hotels with which it has existing tie-ups
Refund of hotel expenses was surreptitiously and discriminatorily made by PAL since the same was not made
known to everyone, except through word of mouth to a handful of passengers
Sad commentary on the quality of service and professionalism of an airline company, which is the countrys
flag carrier at that
It acted in bad faith in disregarding its duties as a common carrier to its passengers and in discriminating
against Pantejo
Discriminatory act of PAL against Pantejo makes the former liable for moral damages
Such inattention to and lack of care by the airline for the interest of its passengers who are entitled to its
utmost consideration, particularly as to their convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to
the award of moral damages (Alitalia Airways vs. CA, et al)
ARTICLE 1733
case. CASE AT BAR
Upon the happening of the accident, the presumption of negligence at once arose, and it became the duty of
Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is Calalas to prove that he had to observe extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers.
further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1746, Nos. 5,6, and 7, Jeepney was not properly parked, its rear portion being exposed about 2 meters from the broad shoulders of
while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is the highway, and facing the middle of the highway in a diagonal angle
#29 Calalas v CA further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756. Violation of the R.A. No. 4136, as amended (Land Transportation and Traffic Code)
The driver took in more passengers than the allowed seating capacity of the jeepney
ARTICLE 1755 Violation of the same law
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as FACT Sunga was seated in an "extension seat" placed her in a peril greater than that to which the other
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of passengers were exposed
very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. Calalas was unable to overcome the presumption of negligence imposed on him for the injury sustained by
Sunga, but also, the evidence shows he was actually negligent in transporting passengers
ARTICLE 1756
In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless
they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed
by articles 1733 and 1755.
COMMON CARRIER does not give its consent to become an insurer of any and all risks to passengers and
goods; it merely undertakes to perform certain duties to the public as the law imposes, and holds itself liable for
any breach thereof
While the law requires the HIGHEST DEGREE of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their
passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does NOT, however, make the carrier
an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers
COMPLIANCE adjudged with due regard to all the circumstances
LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURIES (sustained by its passenger) rests upon its negligence, its failure to
exercise the degree of diligence that the law requires
ARTICLE 1755
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as CASE AT BAR
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of Injury sustained by the petitioner was in NO way due to any defect in the means of transport or in the method
very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. of transporting or to the negligent or wilful acts of private respondent's employees
Involving no issue of negligence in its duty to provide safe and suitable cars as well as competent employees
ARTICLE 1756 INURY arising wholly from causes created by strangers over which the carrier had no control or even
In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are knowledge or could not have prevented
#30 Pilapil v Court presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless Presumption is rebutted and the carrier is not and ought not to be held liable
of Appeals and they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed To rule otherwise would make the common carrier the insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers
Alatco Trans. Co., by articles 1733 and 1755. which is not the intention of the lawmakers
Inc.
GENERAL RULE common carriers are bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in the safe transport of their
ARTICLE 1763 passengers; NOT the standard by which its liability is to be determined when intervening acts of strangers
A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a directly cause the injury, while the contract of carriage exists
passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other
passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees Negligence for which a common carrier is held responsible NEGLIGENT OMISSION by the carrier's employees
through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the tort from being committed when the same could have been foreseen and prevented by them
could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. When the violation of the contract is due to the wilful acts of strangers, the degree of care essential to be
exercised by the common carrier for the protection of its passenger is ONLY that of a good father of a family
Carrier is not charged to provide or maintain vehicles as to ABSOLUTELY prevent any and all injuries to
passengers
Where the carrier uses cars of the most approved type, in general use by others engaged in the same
occupation, and exercises a high degree of care in maintaining them in suitable condition
Carrier cannot be charged with negligence in this respect
STONE-THROWING INCIDENTS which make a carrier liable such a policy would be better left to the
consideration of Congress which is empowered to enact laws to protect the public from the increasing risks and
dangers of lawlessness in society
CASE AT BAR Because of the negligence of Fortune Express employees, the seizure of the bus by
ARTICLE 1763 Mananggolo and his men was made possible
A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a Despite warning by the Philippine Constabulary at CDO that the Maranaos were planning to take revenge on
passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other Fortune Express by burning some of its buses and the assurance of its operation manager that the necessary
#31 Fortune
passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees precautions would be taken, it did nothing to protect the safety of its passengers
Express, Inc. v CA
through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family Had its employees been vigilant they would not have failed to see that the malefactors had a large quantity of
could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. gasoline with them
Frisking passengers and inspecting their baggages, preferably with non-intrusive gadgets such as metal
detectors, before allowing them on board could have been employed without violating the passenger's
constitutional rights
A common carrier can be held liable for failing to prevent a hijacking by frisking passengers and inspecting
ARTICLE 1744 their baggages (Gacal v PAL)
Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is Fortune Express employees failed to prevent the attack on one of its buses because they did not exercise the
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the diligence of a good father of a family; should be held liable for the death of Atty. Caorong
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, SEIZURE OF BUS NOT A CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE
though foreseen, were inevitable. REQUISITES
Cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the human will
ARTICLE 1755 Event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as Occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of manner
very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. Obligor must be free of participation in, or aggravation of, the injury to the creditor
Despite the report of PC agent Generalao that the Maranaos were going to attack its buses, Fortune Express
took no steps to safeguard the lives and properties of its passengers
Seizure of the bus was foreseeable and, therefore, was not a fortuitous event which would exempt Fortune
Express from liability
UNFORSEEABILITY LACKING
Despite the report of PC agent that the Maranaos were planning to burn some of the buses and the
assurance of the operations manager that the necessary precautions would be taken, nothing was really done
by petitioner to protect the safety of passengers
DECEASED NOT CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

CONTENTION Atty. Caorong was guilty of contributory negligence in returning to the bus to retrieve
something
BUT Atty. Caorong did not act recklessly
NOTE the intended targets of the violence were Fortune Express and its employees, NOT its passengers
MOTIVE To retaliate for the loss of life of 2 Maranaos as a result of the collision between Fortune Express
bus and the jeepney in which the 2 Maranaos were riding
Mananggolo, the leader of the group which had hijacked the bus, ordered the passengers to get off the
bus as they intended to burn it and its driver
The armed men actually allowed Atty. Caorong to retrieve something from the bus
What apparently angered them was his attempt to help the driver of the bus by pleading for his life. He
was playing the role of the good Samaritan this act cannot be considered an act of negligence, let
alone recklessness
ISSUE who is liable for the death and physical injuries suffered by the passengers of the jeepney?
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE would call for application in a suit between the owners and drivers of
the 2 colliding vehicles
Does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual
#32 Philippine
obligations it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the
Rabbit Bus Lines v
ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence
IAC
On the presumption that drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle guilty and the cause of the accident,
unless contradicted by other evidence WOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECT were it not for the undisputed fact that
the U-turn made by the jeepney was abrupt
Delos Reyes could not have anticipated the sudden U-turn executed by Manalo CA did not realize that the
presumption was rebutted by this piece of evidence
PROXIMATE CASE OF THE ACCIDENT negligence of Manalo and Spouses Mangune and Carreon
They all failed to exercise the precautions that are needed precisely pro hac vice
CULPA CONTRACTUAL the moment a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION may only be overcome by evidence that he had observed extraordinary
diligence or that the death or injury of the passenger was due to a fortuitous event
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE

States that negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where
it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence
Even though a person's own acts may have placed him in a position of peril, and an injury results, the injured
person is entitled to recovery
A person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent
acts of his opponent or that of a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law solely responsible
for the consequences of the accident
PRACTICAL IMPORT OF THE DOCTRINE a negligent defendant held liable to a negligent plaintiff, or even to
a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff's peril, or
according to some authorities, should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due case, had in fact
an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident
#33 Bustamante v AS BETWEEN DEFENDANTS

CA Cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held
liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter's peril
Cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent
As against third persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had negligently failed to
take action which could have avoided the injury
CASE AT BAR
Not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased
passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles
(Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v IAC)

DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE would call for application in a suit between the owners and drivers of
the 2 colliding vehicles
Does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual
obligations it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the
ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence
CASE AT BAR
Lara (deceased) and his companions who rode in the pick-up of Valencia merely accommodation passengers
Paid nothing for the service; can be considered as INVITED GUESTS within the meaning of the law
As accommodation passengers or invited guests, Valencia as owner and driver of the pick-up owes to them
merely the duty to exercise reasonable care so that they may be transported safely to their destination
RULE - owner or operator of an automobile owes the duty to an invited guest to exercise reasonable care in its
operation, and not unreasonably to expose him to danger and injury by increasing the hazard of travel
Owner of an automobile owes a guest the duty to exercise ordinary or reasonable care to avoid injuring him
Since one riding in an automobile is no less a guest because he asked for the privilege of doing so, the same
obligation of care is imposed upon the driver as in the case of one expressly invited to ride
VALENCIA only required to observe ordinary care, and is not in duty bound to exercise extraordinary diligence
as required of a common carrier by our law
There is nothing there to indicate that Valencia has acted with negligence or without taking the precaution that
ARTICLE 1761 an ordinary prudent man would have taken under similar circumstances
#34 Lara v Valencia
The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a Lara went to the lumber concession of Valencia in answer to a call of duty which he was bound to perform
family to avoid injury to himself. because of the requirement of his office and he contracted the malaria fever in the course of the performance
of that duty
Valencia was not in duty bound to take the deceased in his own pick-up to Davao because from Parang to
Cotabato there was a line of transportation that regularly makes trips for the public, and if he agreed to take
the deceased in his own car, it was only to accommodate him considering his feverish condition and his
request that he be so accommodated
Those who rode in the pick-up of defendant took their respective seats therein at their own choice and not
upon indication of Valencia
Valencia even invited Lara to sit with him in the front seat but which invitation the latter declined
All the circumstances therefor clearly indicate that Valencia had done what a reasonable prudent man
would have done under the circumstances
INCIDENT attributed to lack of care on the part of Lara

The pick-up was open and he was then in a crouching position
If the injury to the passenger has been proximately caused by his own negligence, the carrier CANNOT be
held liable.
ISSUE WON a common carrier has the obligation to shoulder the hotel and meal expenses of its stranded
passengers until they have reached their final destination, even if the delay were caused by "force majeure"
GENERAL RULE when a party is unable to fulfill his obligation because of "force majeure" he cannot be held
liable for damages for non-performance
#35 Japan Airlines v When JAL was prevented from resuming its flight to Manila due to the effects of Mt. Pinatubo eruption,
CA whatever losses in the form of hotel and meal expenses the stranded passengers incurred, CANNOT be
charged to JAL
FACT JAL assumed the hotel expenses of respondents for their unexpected overnight stay
To be stranded for almost a week in a foreign land was an exasperating experience for the private respondents
They underwent distress and anxiety during their unanticipated stay in Narita, but their predicament was not
due to the fault or negligence of JAL but the closure of NAIA to international flights
To hold JAL, in the absence of bad faith or negligence, liable for the amenities of its stranded passengers by
reason of a fortuitous event is too much of a burden to assume
Airline passengers must take such risks incident to the mode of travel
Adverse weather conditions or extreme climatic changes are some of the perils involved in air travel, the
consequences of which the passenger must assume or expect
COMMON CARRIERS not the insurer of all risks

PAL v CA the fortuitous event was accompanied by neglect and malfeasance by the carriers employees, an
action for damages against the carrier is permissible
CASE AT BAR none of these conditions are present
NOTE private respondents bought tickets from the US with Manila as their final destination
JAL was no longer required to defray their living expenses during their stay in Narita (fortuitous event)
JAL had the DUTY to make the necessary arrangements to transport private respondents on the first available
connecting flight to Manila
It reneged on its obligation to look after the comfort and convenience of its passengers when it declassified
private respondents from "transit passengers" to "new passengers"
RESULT private respondents were obliged to make the necessary arrangements themselves for the next
flight to Manila
It had a contract to transport private respondents from the US to Manila as their final destination
Award of nominal damages is in order adjudicated in order that a right of a plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized and not for the purpose of indemnifying any loss
suffered by him
The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article
1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded
(CASE AT BAR CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE)
CA: Incident took place due to the gross negligence of the driver in prematurely stepping on the accelerator and
in not waiting for the passenger to first secure his seat
They utterly failed to observe their duty and obligation as common carrier to the end that they should observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
ARTICLE 1733, par. 1 them according to the circumstances of each case
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons Victim fell from the platform of the bus when it suddenly accelerated forward and was run over by the rear
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the right tires of the vehicle
DECEASED was not guilty of negligence
case.
#36 Dangwa v CA Bus NOT in motion no necessity for a person who wants to ride the same to signal his intention to board
PUBLIC UTILITY BUS once it stops, is in effect making a continuous offer to bus riders
ARTICLE 1755
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as DUTY of the driver and the conductor every time the bus stops, to do no act that would have the effect of
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of increasing the peril to a passenger while he was attempting to board the same
very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. PREMATURE ACCELERATION of the bus a breach of such duty
DUTY OF COMMON CARRIERS of passengers (by railroad train, streetcar, or motorbus) to stop their
conveyances a reasonable length of time in order to afford passengers an opportunity to board and enter
They are liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking of
their conveyances while they are doing so
TO ATTEMPT TO BOARD A TRAIN OR STREETCAR (which is moving slowly) not negligence per se, or as a
matter of law; An ordinarily prudent person would have made the attempt to board the moving conveyance under
the same or similar circumstances
FACT passengers board and alight from a slowly moving vehicle is a matter of common experience and
both the driver and conductor in this case could not have been unaware of such an ordinary practice
CASE AT BAR
VICTIM, by stepping and standing on the platform of the bus already considered a passenger and is entitled to
all the rights and protection pertaining to such a contractual relation
Duty which the carrier of passengers owes to its patrons extends to persons boarding the cars as well as to
those alighting therefrom
CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE carrier assumes the express obligation to transport the passenger to his
destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances
Any injury that might be suffered by the passenger is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the
carrier EXCEPTION to the general rule that negligence must be proved and it is therefore incumbent upon
the carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence
ISSUE WON La Mallorca is liable for quasi-delict, considering that complaint was one for breach of contract
SUSTAIN JUDGEMENT holding La Mallorca liable for damages for the death of the child, Raquel Beltran
FACT Mariano Beltran, his wife, and their children (including the deceased child) had alighted from the bus
at a place designated for disembarking or unloading of passengers
The father had to return to the vehicle (which was still at a stop) to get 1 of his bags or bayong that was left
under one of the seats of the bus
When he returned to the bus for his bayong which was not unloaded, the relation of passenger and carrier
between him and the petitioner REMAINED SUBSISTING
RELATION (carrier and passenger) does not necessarily cease where the latter, after alighting from the car,
aids the carrier's servant or employee in removing his baggage from the car
ISSUE WON as to the child, who was already led by the father to a place about 5m away from the bus, the
ARTICLE 1755 liability of the carrier for her safety under the contract of carriage also persisted
#37 La Mallorca A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as RULE relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the
v CA human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger
very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises
REASONABLE TIME and REASONABLE DELAY to be determined from all the circumstances
EXAMPLE
A person who, after alighting from a train, walks along the station platform is considered still a
passenger
Where a passenger has alighted at his destination and is proceeding by the usual way to leave the
company's premises, but before actually doing so is halted by the report that his brother, a fellow
passenger, has been shot, and he in good faith and without intent of engaging in the difficulty, returns to
relieve his brother
He is DEEMED reasonably and necessarily delayed and thus continues to be a passenger entitled as
such to the protection of the railroad and company and its agents
CASE AT BAR
Father returned to the bus to get 1 of his baggages which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus
Raquel, the child that she was, must have followed the father
However, although the father was still on the running board of the bus awaiting for the conductor to hand him
the bag or bayong, the bus started to run, so that even he (the father) had to jump down from the moving
vehicle
INSTANCE that the child, who must be near the bus, was run over and killed
CIRCUMSTANCES it cannot be claimed that the carrier's agent had exercised the "utmost diligence" of a
"very cautious person" to be observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport
safely its passengers
DRIVER although stopping the bus, nevertheless did not put off the engine
He started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal to go and while the latter
was still unloading part of the baggages of the passengers Mariano Beltran and family
Presence of said passengers near the bus was NOT UNREASONABLE therefore, to be considered still as
passengers of the carrier, entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage
ARGUMENTS SAKE the contract of carriage has already terminated

La Mallorca can be held liable for the negligence of its driver
ALLEGATION proved when it was established during the trial that the driver, even before receiving the
proper signal from the conductor, and while there were still persons on the running board of the bus and near
it, started to run off the vehicle
The presentation of proof of the negligence of its employee gave rise to the PRESUMPTION that the
defendant employer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and
supervision of its employees
La Mallorca must be adjudged PECUNIARILY liable for the death of the child Raquel Beltran
RTC and CA found the victim Viana guilty of contributory negligence, but holding that it was the negligence of
Aboitiz in prematurely turning over the vessel to the arrastre operator for the unloading of cargoes which was the
ARTICLE 1733, par. 1 direct, immediate and proximate cause of the victim's death
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the CONTENTION since 1 hour had already elapsed from the time Viana disembarked from the vessel and that he
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers was given more than ample opportunity to unload his cargoes prior to the operation of the crane, his presence on
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each the vessel was no longer reasonable and he consequently ceased to be a passenger
case.
RULE the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has been landed at the port of
ARTICLE 1755 destination and has left the vessel owner's dock or premises
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as Once created, the relationship will not terminate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely
#38 Aboitiz
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of alighted from the carrier's conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises
Shipping v CA
very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. All who remain on the premises a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance deemed passengers
REASONABLE TIME OR DELAY to be determined from all the circumstances, and includes a reasonable
ARTICLE 1756 time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure
In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are Carrier-passenger relationship is not terminated merely by the fact that the person transported has been
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless carried to his destination if, for example, such person remains in the carrier's premises to claim his baggage
by articles 1733 and 1755. PRIMARY FACTOR existence of a reasonable cause as will justify the presence of the victim on or near the
Aboitiz Shippings vessel
SHIPPER (NATURE OF BUSINESS) passengers of vessels are allotted a longer period of time to disembark
from the ship than other common carriers such as a passenger bus
With respect to the bulk of cargoes and the number of passengers it can load, such vessels are capable of
accommodating a bigger volume of both as compared to the capacity of a regular commuter bus
Ship passenger will need at least an hour to disembark from the vessel and claim his baggage whereas a bus
passenger can easily get off the bus and retrieve his luggage in a very short period of time
VIANA was still a passenger at the time of the incident

When the accident occurred, the victim was in the act of unloading his cargoes, which he had every right to
do, from the vessel
DUTY (CARRIER) not only to bring its passengers safely to their destination but also to afford them a
reasonable time to claim their baggage
NOT SHOWN that 1 hour prior to the incident, the victim had already disembarked from the vessel
Aboitiz Shipping FAILED failed to prove this
CLEAR at the time the victim was taking his cargoes, the vessel had already docked an hour earlier
ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE all that is required of plaintiff is to prove the existence
of the contract of carriage and its non-performance by the carrier (failure of the carrier to carry the passenger
safety to his destination)
PRESUMPTION established by law that in case of passenger's death or injury the operator of the vessel was at
fault or negligent, having failed to exercise extraordinary diligence, and it is incumbent upon it to rebut the same
Aboitiz Shipping failed to rebut the presumption against it
The victim and other passengers were NOT sufficiently warned that merely venturing into the area in question
was fraught with serious peril
No showing that Aboitiz Shipping was extraordinarily diligent seeing to it that said precautionary measures
were strictly and actually enforced to subserve their purpose of preventing entry into the forbidden area
PROXIMATE AND DIRECT CAUSE OF VICTIMS DEATH Aboitiz Shippings failure to exercise extraordinary
diligence because it could definitely have prevented, the former's death
Aboitiz Shipping did not present sufficient evidence in support of its submission that the deceased Viana was
guilty of gross negligence
ARTICLE 2185 ISSUE WON the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of petitioners
Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the COLLISION occurred after Mallari Jr. overtook a vehicle in front of it while traversing a curve on the highway
mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. Overtaking violation of Sec. 41, pars. (a) and (b), of RA 4136 as amended (Land Transportation and Traffic
Code); provides that a driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle in an
ARTICLE 1755 ordinary situation has the duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do so in safety
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as When a motor vehicle is approaching or rounding a curve, there is special NECESSITY for keeping to the
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of right side of the road and the driver does not have the right to drive on the left hand side relying upon having
#39 Mallari, Sr. v CA
very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. time to turn to the right if a car approaching from the opposite direction comes into view
ARTICLE 1756 CASE AT BAR Mallari Jr. already saw that the BULLETIN delivery van was coming from the opposite direction
In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are and failing to consider the speed thereof since it was still dark at 5AM mindlessly occupied the left lane and
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless overtook 2 vehicles in front of it at a curve in the highway
by articles 1733 and 1755. PROXIMATE CAUSE (collision resulting in the death of Reyes) sole negligence of the driver of the passenger
jeepney, Mallari Jr., who recklessly operated and drove his jeepney in a lane where overtaking was not allowed
by traffic rules
ARTICLE 1759 Negligence and recklessness of the driver of the passenger jeepney is BINDING against petitioner Mallari Sr.,
Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to who admittedly was the owner of the passenger jeepney engaged as a common carrier
passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former's In an action based on contract of carriage, the court need NOT make an express finding of fault or negligence
employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible for the payment of damages sought by the passenger
scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common
carriers. This liability of the common carrier does NOT cease upon proof that it exercised all the diligence of a good father
of a family in the selection of its employees
This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that By the contract of carriage carrier jeepney owned by Mallari Sr. assumed the express obligation to transport
they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the the passengers to their destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with due regard for all the
selection and supervision of their employees. circumstances
Any injury or death that might be suffered by its passengers is right away attributable to the fault or
negligence of the carrier
ARTICLE 1755
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as CONTENTION Escartins assault upon Navidad, which caused the latter to fall on the tracks, was an act of a
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of stranger that could not have been foreseen or prevented
very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. Existence of an employer-employee relationship between Roman and LRTA lacked basis because Roman
himself had testified being an employee of Metro Transit and not of the LRTA
ARTICLE 1756
In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are COMMON CARRIER both from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless duty of exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers
they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed Law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons
in articles 1733 and 1755. with due regard for all circumstances
Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of
ARTICLE 1759 the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to
Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to the contract of carriage
passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the formers
#40 LRTA, et al. v
employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the LIABILITY: COMMON CARRIER (for death of or injury to passengers)
Marjorie Navidad,
scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common a) through the negligence or willful acts of its employees; or
et al.
carriers. b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees
through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission
This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that
they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the In case of such death or injury, a carrier is PRESUMED to have been at fault or been negligent
selection and supervision of their employees. By simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the
carrier or of its employees
ARTICLE 1763 Burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure
A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a
passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other LRTAs LIABILITY contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that
passengers or of strangers, if the common carriers employees contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier
through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family A carrier may choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent
could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. firm to undertake the task
EITHER CASE common carrier is NOT relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage
CONTENTION no liability attaches to it as employer (Railroad Company) of the killer, Devesa

That it is not responsible subsidiary ex delicto, under Art. 103 of the RPC
#41 Gillaco v Manila
Because the crime was NOT committed while the slayer was in the actual performance of his ordinary duties
Railroad Co.
and service
Nor is it responsible ex contractu since the complaint did not aver sufficient facts to establish such liability,
and no negligence on appellant's part was shown
RAILROAD COMPANY responsible on the ground that a contract of transportation implies protection of the
passengers against acts of personal violence by the agents or employees of the carrier
PASSENGER entitled to protection from personal violence by the carrier or its agents or employees, since the
contract of transportation obligates the carrier to transport a passenger safely to his destination
Responsibility extends only to those that the carrier could foresee or avoid through the exercise of the degree
of care and diligence required of it
BASIS OF CARRIERS LIABILITY (Old Civil Code of 1889 which was in force in 1946, when Gillaco was shot)
Source of the defendant's legal liability is the contract of carriage
By entering into that contract he bound himself to carry the plaintiff safely and securely to their destination
That having failed to do so he is liable in damages UNLESS he shows that the failure to fulfill his obligation
was due to causes mentioned in Article 1105 of the Civil Code
(Caso Fortuito events which could not be foreseen or which, even if foreseen, were inevitable)
Act of guard Devesa in shooting passenger Gillaco (because of a personal grudge nurtured against the latter
since the Japanese occupation) entirely UNFORSEEABLE by the Manila Railroad Co.
It had no means to ascertain or anticipate that the two would meet
It could not reasonably foresee every personal rancor that might exist between each one of its many
employees and any one of the thousands of eventual passengers riding in its trains
ISSUE WON due to caso fortuito, the resulting breach of appellant's contract of safe carriage with the late
Gillaco was excused thereby
Civil Code of 1889 did NOT impose such absolute liability; liability of a carrier as an insurer was NOT recognized
in this jurisdiction
When the crime took place, the guard Devesa had no duties to discharge in connection with the transportation
of the deceased from Calamba to Manila
Devesa's assault cannot be deemed in law a breach of Gillaco's contract of transportation by a servant or
employee of the carrier
PEREZ relies solely on the ruling enunciated in Gillaco v. Manila Railroad Co

That the carrier is under no absolute liability for as-saults of its employees upon the passengers
CASE AT BAR attendant facts and controlling law is DIFFERENT; in Gillaco, the passenger was killed outside
the scope and the course of duty of the guilty employee
HERE killing was perpetrated by the driver of the very cab transporting the passenger, in whose hands the
Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to
carrier had entrusted the duty of executing the contract of carriage
#42 Maranan v passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former's
Unlike the Gillaco case, the killing of the passenger here took place in the course of duty of the guilty
Perez emplo-yees, although such employees may have acted beyond the
employee and when the employee was acting within the scope of his duties
scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common
carriers.
GILLACO CASE decided under the provisions of the Civil Code of 1889
Did not impose upon common carriers absolute liability for the safety of passengers against willful assaults or
negligent acts committed by their employees
DEATH OF PASSENGER was truly a fortuitous event which exempted the carrier from liability
NEW CIVIL CODE expressly makes the common carrier liable for intentional assaults committed by its
employees upon its passengers
Basis of the carrier's liability for assaults on passengers committed by its drivers rests either on:
1. Doctrine of respondent superior (minority view) carrier is liable only when the act of the employee is
within the scope of his authority and duty. It is not sufficient that the act be within the course of
employment only
2. Principle that it is the carrier's implied duty to transport the passenger safely (majority view) it is enough
that the assault happens within the course of the employee's duty
No defense for the carrier that the act was done in excess of authority or in disobedience of the
carrier's orders
Carrier's liability here is absolute in the sense that it practically secures the passengers from
assaults committed by its own employees
CARRIERS STRICT OBLIGATION to select its drivers and similar employees with due regard not only to their
technical competence and physical ability, but also, no less important, to their total personality, including their
patterns of behavior, moral fi-bers, and social attitude
DISMISSAL OF CLAIM AGAINST DRIVER CORRECT

Plaintiff's action was predicated on breach of contract of carriage and the cab driver was not a party thereto
His civil liability is covered in the criminal case wherein he was convicted by final judgment
CA sustained the holding of the trial court that the PNR did not exercise the utmost diligence required by law of
a common carrier
TRAIN (boarded by the deceased Tupang) was so overcrowded that he and many other passengers had no
choice but to sit on the open platforms between the coaches of the train
Did not even slow down when it approached the Iyam Bridge which was under repair at the time
Did not train stop, despite the alarm raised by other passengers that a person had fallen off the train
PNR has the obligation to transport its passengers to their destinations and to observe extraordinary diligence
in doing so
Death or any injury suffered by any of its passengers gives rise to the PRESUMPTION that it was negligent in
the performance of its obligation under the contract of carriage
It failed to overthrow such presumption of negligence with clear and convincing evidence
#43 PNR v. CA
DECEASED (Tupang) chargeable with contributory negligence
He opted to sit on the open platform between the coaches of the train
He should have held tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal bar found at the side of said platform to
avoid falling off from the speeding train
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE while not exempting the PNR from liability, nevertheless JUSTIFIED the
deletion of the amount adjudicated as moral damages
By the same token, the award of exemplary damages must be set aside
Exemplary damages may be allowed only in cases where the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner
There being NO evidence of fraud, malice or bad faith on the part of petitioner, the grant of exemplary
damages should be DISCARDED
CONTENTION proximate cause of the deaths was the act of the passenger who ran amuck and stabbed
another passenger of the bus
STABBING INCIDENT triggered off the commotion and panic among the passengers who pushed one
another and that presumably out of fear and moved by that human instinct of self-preservation they jumped
off the bus while the bus was still running resulting in their untimely death
Bachelor Express were not negligent in the performance of their duties and that the incident was completely
and absolutely attributable to a 3rd person
Passenger who ran amuck, for without his criminal act, the deceased could not have been subjected to fear
ARTICLE 1732 and shock which compelled them to jump off the running bus
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations They should not be made liable for damages arising from acts of 3rd persons over whom they have no control
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or or supervision
goods or both by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their
services to the public. LIABILITY CULPA CONTRACTUAL
Bachelor Express, Inc. common carrier
ARTICLE 1733, par. 1 From the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, it is bound to carry its passengers safely as
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the regard for all the circumstances
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each CASE AT BAR
case. Beter and Rautraut were passengers of a bus belonging to Bachelor Express, Inc. and, while passengers of
the bus, suffered injuries which caused their death
ARTICLE 1755 Bachelor Express, Inc. presumed to have acted negligently UNLESS it can prove that it had observed
#44 Bachelor A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as extraordinary diligence
Express, Inc. v. CA human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of
very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INCIDENT running amuck of the passenger as it triggered off a commotion and
panic among the passengers
ARTICLE 1756 Such that the passengers started running to the sole exit shoving each other resulting in the falling off the bus
In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are by passengers Beter and Rautraut causing them fatal injuries
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless Sudden act of the passenger who stabbed another passenger in the bus within the context of force majeure
in Articles 1733 and 1755. TO BE ABSOLVED FROM LIABILITY common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the
injuries resulting from such accident
ARTICLE 1744 Negligence of the common carrier, through its employees, consisted of the lack of extraordinary diligence
Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise required of common carriers, in exercising vigilance and utmost care of the safety of its passengers
declared by stipulations, or when the nature of the obligation Exemplified by the driver's belated stop and the reckless opening of the doors of the bus while the same was
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for traveling at an appreciably fast speed
those events which could not be foreseen, or which though Bus was equipped with ONLY a solitary door for a bus its size and loading capacity, in contravention of rules
foreseen, were inevitable. and regulations provided for under the Land Transportation and Traffic Code (RA 4136 as amended)
Bus driver did not immediately stop the bus at the height of the commotion
It was speeding from a full stop
Victims fell from the bus door when it was opened or gave way while the bus was still running
Conductor panicked and blew his whistle after people had already fallen off the bus
Bus was not properly equipped with doors in accordance with law
Bachelor Express, Inc. have failed to overcome the presumption of fault and negligence found in the law
governing common carriers
RULE when a passenger boards a common carrier, he takes the risks incidental to the mode of travel he has
taken; a carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers and is not bound absolutely and at all events to
carry them safely and without injury
However, when a passenger is injured or dies while travelling, the law presumes that the common carrier is
negligent
Accordingly, in culpa contractual, once a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier had observed
extraordinary diligence or that the death or injury of the passenger was due to a fortuitous event
COURT need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier to hold it
responsible for damages sought by the passenger
REQUISITES (Fortuitous Event)

ARTICLE 1756 1. Cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtor to comply with his
In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are obligations, must be independent of human will
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless 2. It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must
they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed be impossible to avoid
in Articles 1733 and 1755. 3. Occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner
4. The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor
ARTICLE 1755
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as CASE AT BAR
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of Explosion of the new tire may NOT be considered a fortuitous event
#45 Yobido v. CA very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
There are human factors involved in the situation
The fact that the tire was new did not imply that it was entirely free from manufacturing defects or that it
was properly mounted on the vehicle
ARTICLE 1744
Neither may the fact that the tire bought and used in the vehicle is of a brand name noted for quality,
Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise
resulting in the conclusion that it could not explode within five days use
declared by stipulations, or when the nature of the obligation
SETTLED an accident caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for
driver is NOT a caso fortuito that would exempt the carrier from liability for damages
those events which could not be foreseen, or which though
foreseen, were inevitable.
COMMON CARRIER may not be absolved from liability in case of force majeure or fortuitous event alone
It must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the death or injury resulting from an accident
CASE AT BAR
CONTRADICTING STATEMENTS
SALCE Bus was running at 60-50kph only or within the prescribed lawful speed limit
TUMBOY the bus was running so fast that she cautioned the driver to slow down
Must be resolved in favor of liability in view of the presumption of negligence of the carrier in the law
ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF THE ROAD rough, winding and wet due to the rain
It was incumbent upon the defense to establish that it took precautionary measures considering partially
dangerous condition of the road
Proof that the tire was new and of good quality not sufficient proof that it was not negligent
Yobido should have shown that it undertook extraordinary diligence in the care of its carrier, such as
conducting daily routinary check-ups of the vehicles parts
ISSUE liability of a common carrier for injuries sustained by passengers in respect of whose safety a common
carrier must exercise extraordinary diligence
Any purported waiver must be construed most strictly against the common carrier
VAILD WAIVER must not be contrary to law, morals, public policy or good customs
Must in the first place be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the
intention of a person to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him
May not casually be attributed to a person when the terms thereof do not explicitly and clearly evidence
an intent to abandon a right vested in such person.
To uphold a supposed waiver of any right to claim damages by an injured passenger would be to dilute and
weaken the standard of extraordinary diligence exacted by the law from common carriers and hence to render
that standard unenforceable
Such a purported waiver is OFFENSIVE to public policy
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE (in protecting the safety of its passengers) imposed upon common carrier
In case of death or injuries to passengers, a statutory presumption arises that the common carrier was at fault
or had acted negligently unless it proves that it had observed extraordinary diligence
STATUTORY PRESUMPTION a court need not even make an express finding of fault or negligence on the
part of the common carrier in order to hold it liable
To overcome this presumption, the common carrier must show to the court that it had exercised extraordinary
diligence to prevent the injuries
STANDARD OF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE imposed upon common carriers considerably more

#46 Gatchalian
demanding than the standard of ordinary diligence
v Delim
A common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely "as far as human care and foresight can provide,
using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard to all the circumstances"
ISSUE WON Delim has successfully proved that he had exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent the
mishap involving his mini-bus
RECORDS bereft of any evidence showing that respondent had exercised the extraordinary diligence
required by law
Delim did not even attempt to prove that he had indeed exercised the requisite extraordinary diligence
He did try to exculpate himself from liability by alleging that the mishap was the result of force majeure
He utterly failed to substantiate his defense of force majeure
To exempt a common carrier from liability for death or physical injuries to passengers upon the ground of force
majeure:
1. Carrier must clearly show NOT ONLY that the efficient cause of the casualty was entirely independent of the
human will
2. But also that it was IMPOSSIBLE to avoid
Any participation by the common carrier in the occurrence of the injury will defeat the defense of force majeure
Bus had not been checked physically or mechanically to determine what was causing the "snapping sound"
which had occurred so frequently that the driver had gotten accustomed to it
Such a sound is obviously alien to a motor vehicle in good operating condition, and even a modicum of
concern for life and limb of passengers dictated that the bus be checked and repaired
Constituted wanton disregard of the physical safety of the passengers; Gross negligence on the part of
respondent and his driver
1. Obvious continued failure of Delim to look after the roadworthiness and safety of the bus
2. Coupled with the driver's refusal or neglect to stop the mini-bus after he had heard once again the
"snapping sound"
3. Cry of alarm from one of the passengers
ISSUE May a common carrier, by stipulations inserted in the bill of lading, limit its liability for the loss of or
damage to the cargo to an agreed valuation of the latter?
Kinds of stipulations made in a bill of lading

1. Exempting the carrier from any and all liability for loss or damage occasioned by its own negligence
2. Providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed valuation
3. Limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and
pays a higher rate of freight
FIRST AND SECOND STIPULATIONS INVALID; being contrary to public policy

Either exempt the carrier from liability for loss or damage occasioned by its negligence, or provide for an
unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed valuation
THIRD VALID and ENFORCEABLE
CASE AT BAR
Clauses 1 and 9 of the Bill of lading clearly shows that the present case falls within the 3rd stipulation
CLAUSE 1 value of the goods receipted for above does not exceed $500 per freight ton, or, in proportion for
any part of a ton, UNLESS the value be expressly stated herein and ad valorem freight paid thereon
ARTICLE 1255 (NOW 1306) CLAUSE 9 in the event of claims for short delivery of, or damage to, cargo being made, the carrier shall
#47 H. E. Heacock The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, NOT be liable for more than the net invoice price plus freight and insurance less all charges saved, and any
Co. v Macondray & terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they loss or damage for which the carrier may be liable shall be adjusted pro rata on the said basis
Co., Inc. are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or
public policy. CLAUSE 1 contains only an implied undertaking to settle in case of loss on the basis of NOT exceeding $500
per freight ton
CLAUSE 9 contains an express undertaking to settle on the basis of the net invoice price plus freight and
insurance less all charges saved
Any loss or damage for which the carrier may be liable shall be adjusted pro rata on the said basis,
IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT between the two clauses with regard to the measure of defendant's liability
Difficult to reconcile them without doing violence to the language used and reading exceptions and conditions
into the undertaking contained in clause 9 that are not there
Bill of lading in question should be interpreted against the defendant carrier, which drew said contract
A written contract should, in case of doubt, be interpreted against the party who has drawn the contract
PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTION ambiguity or uncertainty in an agreement must be construed most
strongly against the party causing it
In construing a bill of lading given by the carrier for the safe transportation and delivery of goods shipped by a
consignor, the contract will be construed most strongly against the carrier, and favorably to the consignor, in case
of doubt in any matter of construction

Case Doctrines Transpo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Doctrines Transpo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(SOME) CASE DOCTRINES TRANSPO MIDTERMS

Based on the course outline c/o Atty. Randolph Pascasio

CASE LEGAL PROVISION DOCTRINE

ARTICLE 1732 TROPICAL DEPRESSIONS forecasted by PAG-ASA

FORTUITOUS EVENT (Requisites)

xxx xxx xxx

PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD

ARTICLE 1733, par. 1 CASE AT BAR

PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST THE COMMON CARRIER

CONDITION 14 printed at the back of the passage tickets; contracts of adhesion

ARTICLE 1734 CASE AT BAR

PAL incurred in delay in the delivery of Ong Yius luggage

FACT Ong Yiu had not signed the plane ticket

SC AFFIRMED the decision of the CA

INSTANT PETITION based on breach of contract of carriage

Does not require for a PROPER AND RIGID OBSERVATION

CONTRACT OF AIR CARRIAGE

BREACH OF CONTRACT (CASE AT BAR)

DECEASED NOT CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE

#33 Bustamante v AS BETWEEN DEFENDANTS

(Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v IAC)

INCIDENT attributed to lack of care on the part of Lara

COMMON CARRIERS not the insurer of all risks

ARGUMENTS SAKE the contract of carriage has already terminated

VIANA was still a passenger at the time of the incident

CONTENTION no liability attaches to it as employer (Railroad Company) of the killer, Devesa

PEREZ relies solely on the ruling enunciated in Gillaco v. Manila Railroad Co

DISMISSAL OF CLAIM AGAINST DRIVER CORRECT

REQUISITES (Fortuitous Event)

STANDARD OF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE imposed upon common carriers considerably more

Kinds of stipulations made in a bill of lading

FIRST AND SECOND STIPULATIONS INVALID; being contrary to public policy

You might also like