TRANSPORTATION LAWS CASE QUESTIONS:

A. XYZ Transport Corp. has an exclusive contract to transport all the goods manufactured by ABC
Manufacturing Corp. It doesnt offer its services to the public, no other customers but ABC Mfg. Corp
due to the exclusivity terms of the contract. Because of the negligence of one of the drivers of XYZ Corp.,
one of the trucks fell into the cliff which caused damage to the goods (appliances) of ABC Mfg. Corp.

1. Is XYZ Transport Corp. presumed to be negligent in the transportation of the goods? NO.
Presumption of negligence does not apply because XYZ Transport Corp. is not acting as a
common carrier but a private carrier. Presumption of negligence applies only to a common
carrier.
2. May XYZ Transport Corp. be sued under the vicarious liability doctrine or the doctrine of
imputed negligence (one way of saying, can it be sued under quasi delict, culpa aquiliana)? YES.
The driver-employee was negligent. His negligence also make the employer liable under the
quasi delict. The employer can be sued under the vicarious liability doctrine because it was
negligent in the selection and supervision over its driver.
3. If XYZ Transport Corp. is sued under a quasi-delict, should ABC prove the negligence of XYZ
Transport Corp.? NO. The negligence of the employer under Art. 2180 is presumed. Diligence in
the selection and supervision of the employees is a matter of defense.
4. May XYZ Trasnport Corp., when sued under a quasi-delict, invoke the defense of due diligence in
the selection and supervision of its driver? YES. This is a valid defense in a case of quasi-delict.
This defense is not valid when sued under a breach of contract theory.
5. There is a contract between XYZ Transport Corp., a private carrier and ABC Mfg. Company.
Stipulation includes that XYZ Transport Corp. will not exercise any diligence in the transportation
of goods. Is this valid? YES, because this is a private carrier situation. Art. 1735 of the transpo
law will not apply.
6. Suppose one of the stipulations says that XYZ Transport Corp. will not be held liable for the acts
or omissions of its employees, is this valid? YES. Under a private carrier situation but not under
the common carrier.
7. Is XYZ Transport Corp. can be made liable under a breach of contract theory filed by ABC Mfg.
Company aside from being liable under a quasi-delict? YES, because there is a contract of
carriage.
8. May the court hold XYZ Transport Corp. liable under the breach of contract theory even if ABC
Mfg. does not prove the negligence of XYZ in the transport of goods? YES. Because negligence is
not one of the elements of breach of contract. Mere existence of the contract and breach
thereto make the offending party liable.
9. May the driver be sued under a breach of contract suit filed by ABC Mfg. Corp.? NO. There is no
privity of contract between the driver and ABC Mgf. Corp. The contract is between XYZ
Transport Corp. and ABC Mfg. Corp.
10. May the driver be sued under a quasi-delict suit? YES. The driver is liable to a quasi-delict. The
applicable provision of law provides the following element of quasi-delict The driver, being
negligent, can be sued under a quasi delict suit.
11. May the judgment under the quasi-delict suit against the driver where the driver becomes
insolvent and cannot satisfy the civil liability attached to the judgment, may you hold XYZ
Transport Corp. subsidiarily liable? NO. Because the suit is based on quasi-delict. There is no
subsidiary liability in quasi-delict.
12. How would you make XYZ Transport Corp. liable in the above case? Sue him by impleading him
with the driver thru a joinder of causes of action. Actions against the driver and the transport
corporation are two distinct causes of action but the two parties can be sued under 1 complaint
because they are joined by a single occurrence of transaction, joined by common law or fact.
13. May the driver be sued under the RPC? YES. Reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
property
14. If the driver is held civilly liable because he was convicted in the criminal suit, may the employer
be held subsidiarily liable in case the driver becomes insolvent? YES. Subsidiary liability of the
employer applies here. No need to file an independent action because the subsidiary liability of
the employer is impliedly written in the judgment against the employee. It is binding and final
against the employer. It need not be stated in the judgment that the employer is subsidiarily
liable because the law considers it as impliedly written in the judgment.
15. Can XYZ Transport Corp. appeal the conviction of the accused driver without the consent of the
driver? NO. The employer cannot appeal because he is not the proper party to appeal. It should
be the driver. The employer has no right to put the convicted driver under double jeopardy. It is
only the driver who can put himself twice in double jeopardy by appealing. Note: When a
convicted party appeals, he is putting himself in the second danger and its only the accused
driver who can do so, not any other party.

Likewise, if the driver is acquitted, the prosecution cannot appeal. There is only 1 way to assail
an acquittal by the prosecution, that is, it was deprived of due process and that the deprivation
of due process amounted to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. A
petition for certiorari is the proper way to assail a judgment of acquittal.

2. Mr. X disembarked from a ship. Upon its arrival, Mr. X disembarked from the ship but he
needs to go back to the deck to point out to the crew where his luggage were. A crane fell and
hit him which caused his death.

Even Mr. X already disembarked, he is still considered a passenger of the ship, hence, common
carrier is liable for his death.

3. Mr. Fundador is a passenger of Philtranco from Cubao to Naga City. He was holding an
attach case and sat at the back of the driver. When the bus stopped at Lucena City, he decided
to sleep. When he woke up, his attach case is gone which contained cash. Can he make the
common carrier liable for the loss?
 The common carrier cannot be held liable under the doctrine of necessary deposit without the
common carrier being notified with the presence of the attach case. Two requirements for
liability:
a. Notice of the presence
b. Passenger follow the advice of the carrier on how to take care of the belongins

Art. 1998 of Civil code. Also 2001 to 2003.

4. Mr. X was allowed to ride in a bus of ABC Lines, a common carrier, gratuitously from Rizal Avenue to
Baguio City. He was not a paying passenger because he was allowed by the common carrier to ride for
free.

What kind of diligence is required of a common carrier transporting a passenger without a fee?
Extraordinary diligence as required under Art. 1755. The utmost diligence of a very cautious person.

Is there automatic reduction of the degree of diligence? None. To reduce it, there must be a stipulation.

Assuming there is a stipulation reducing it to a diligence of a good father of family. Will there still be a
presumption of negligence in case something happens? Yes. The presumption of negligence is not
affected despite presence of stipulation. This presumption of negligence is always observed in goods,
more to passengers.

What kinds of stipulations involving a passenger carried gratuitously are not allowed by law:

1. Exempting the carrier from wilful act

2. Exempting the carrier from gross negligence

5. Mr. A, a passenger, was stabbed by Mr. B, a fellow passenger, without any provocation on the part of
Mr. A. This happened when both are passengers of Bus X. What is the liability of the common carrier?

Under Art. 1763, the liability depends on what circumstance. A common carrier is responsible for injury
suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or strangers, if
the common carriers employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could
have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

6. Victory Liner was sued by a passenger who was injured when the bus rammed a lamp post due to the
negligence of the driver. The bus driver and the common carrier were sued under a single complaint. Is
this valid? Yes. Their liability is solidary.

May both defendants, if lose the case, be liable for moral damages? (Both were sued under quasi-delict).
YES. Under Art. 2217, being sued under quasi-delict and it caused physical injury, there is a liability for
moral damages due to physical suffering resulting therefrom. (look also Art. 2219).
If the common carrier is sued based on breach of contract theory, can it be held liable for moral
damages? NO. Under Art. 2219, it does not include a breach of contract case. Art. 2220 must apply.
However, if there is fraud, bad faith and death, the carrier is liable for moral damages.

7. What is real or hypothecary nature of maritime transactions? This comes from the word res the
thing. All the liabilities of the shipower or carrier are actually attached to the res, the ship. Every liability
is hypothecated on the ship. When the ship sinks, the liabilities attached thereto vanish. No ship, no
liability rule.

8. The Doctrine of Limited Liability not applicable in the following cases:

a. Lost or negligence is traceable to the shipowner.

b. Ship agent instructed the ship captain to sail even not safe. Ship agent is the alter ego of the ship
owner, the former is solidarily liable with the latter. Under the civil code, the ship agent will only make
the principal liable if he discloses the act with the principal. But under the Code of Commerce, the ship
owner is still liable even if the ship agent did not disclose the act to him. If the fault is due to the ship
captain alone, the ship owner can still use the defense of limited liability doctrine or the no ship, no
liability doctrine.

c. Negligence of both the captain and ship owner/agent. Degree of negligence does not matter.

d. Negligence of both the ship agent and crew.

e. Vessel is not seaworthy.

f. No life-saving devices.

g. Shipowner/ship agent allowed over loading

h. Laxity in the policies of the ship owner (crew or captain gambles but tolerate the same) resulting to
the accident

i. Employment of unlicensed captain and crew members