Search Upload EN

The world’s largest digital library

Home

0 0 RELATED TITLES
1.7K views
Saved

Transpo Digest
Bestsellers Uploaded by Jasper Meneses on Jun
25, 2014

Books Full description

LEGAL ETHICS TRANSPORTATION Negotia

Audiobooks BAR EXAM with… AND PUBLIC… Instrum
Save Embed Share Print suggested UTILITIES LAW Case Dig

Magazines
Download Search document

Documents

Sheet Music

RCJ BUS LINES VS. STANDARD INCURANCE CO.

G.R. No. 193629, Aug. 17, 2011, Carpio, J.:p, 2 nd Division

FACTS: Standard Insurance Co., Inc. (STANDARD) filed a complaint against the
petitioners Flor Bola Mangoba and RCJ Bus Lines, Inc. The complaint was predicated
upon an accident which involves the Mitsubishi Lancer and the RCJ Bus Lines. Upon
seeing a pile of gravel and sand on the road, the Toyota Corolla, which is ahead of the
Mitsubishi Lancer, stopped on its tracks. The Mitsubishi Lancer followed suit and also
halted. At this point, the bus hit and bumped the rear portion of the Mitsubishi Lancer
causing it to move forward and hit the Toyota Corolla in front of it. As a result of the
incident, the Mitsubishi Lancer sustained damages amounting to P162,151.22,
representing the costs of its repairs. Under the comprehensive insurance policy secured
by Rodelene Valentino, owner of the Mitsubishi Lancer, STANDARD reimbursed to the
former the amount she expended for the repairs of her vehicle. Rodelene then executed
a Release of Claim and Subrogation Receipt, subrogating STANDARD to all rights,
claims and actions she may have against RCJ Bus Lines, Inc. and its driver, Flor Bola
Mangoba. In its answer, RCJ Bus Lines, Inc. maintained, among others, that the direct,
immediate and proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver of the
Mitsubishi Lancer when, for no reason at all, it made a sudden stop along the National
Highway, as if to initiate and/or create an accident. The MeTC rendered its decision in
favor of Standard. The RTC affirmed with modification the MeTC‟s Decision deleting the
award for exemplary damages.The appellate court found that the RTC committed no
reversible error in affirming RCJ‟s liability as registered owner of the bus and employer
of Mangoba.

ISSUE:W/N the Court of Appeals erroneously disregarded the point that petitioner
RCJ‟s
Read defense
books,ofaudiobooks,
extraordinary and
diligence
morein the selection and supervision of its driver
was made as an alternative defense;
Scribd
½ View
GET The
HELD: petition
— On the Apphas no merit. RCJ, by presenting witnesses to testify on its exercise
Store
of diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its bus
drivers, admitted that Mangoba is its employee. Article 2180 of the Civil Code, in
relation to Article 2176, makes the employer vicariously liable for the acts of its
employees. When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while
performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer
is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a
family. For failure to rebut such legal presumption of negligence in the selection and
supervision of employees, the employer is likewise responsible for damages, the basis
of the liability being the relationship of pater familias or on the employer‟s own
negligence.Mangoba, per testimony of his conductor, was ten meters away from the
Mitsubishi Lancer before the collision and was driving 60 to 75 kilometers per hour
when the speed limit was 50 kilometers per hour. The presumption under Article 2185 of
the Civil Code was thus proven true: Mangoba, as driver of the bus which collided with
the Mitsubishi Lancer, was negligent since he violated a traffic regulation at the time of
the mishap. We see no reason to depart from the findings of the MeTC, RTC and
appellate court that Mangoba was negligent.

NEW WORLD INTERNATIONAL VS. NYK-FILJAPAN SHIPPING CORP.

G.R. No. 171468, Aug. 24, 2011, Abad, J.:p, 3 rd Division

FACTS: Petitioner New World International Development (Phils.), Inc. (New World)
bought from DMT Corporation (DMT) through its agent, Advatech Industries, Inc.
(Advatech) three emergency generator sets worth US$721,500.00.DMT shipped the
generator sets by truck from Wisconsin, United States, to LEP Profit International, Inc.
(LEP Profit) in Chicago, Illinois. From there, the shipment went by train to Oakland,
California, where it was loaded on S/S California Luna V59, owned and operated by
NYK Fil-Japan Shipping Corporation (NYK) for delivery to petitioner New World in
Manila. NYK issued a bill of lading, declaring that it received the goods in good
condition.NYK unloaded the shipment in Hong Kong and transshipped it to S/S ACX
Ruby V/72 that it also owned and operated. On its journey to Manila, however, ACX
Ruby encountered typhoon Kadiang whose captain filed a sea protest on arrival at the
Manila South Harbor respecting the loss and damage that the goods on board his
vessel suffered.

Marina Port Services, Inc. (Marina), the Manila South Harborarrastre or cargo-handling
operator, received the shipment and upon inspection of the three container vans
separately carrying the generator sets, two vans bore signs of external damage while
the third van appeared unscathed. An examination of the three generator sets in the
presence of petitioner New World‟s representatives, Federal Builders (the project
contractor) and surveyors of petitioner New World‟s insurer, Seaboard–Eastern
Insurance Company (Seaboard), revealed that all three sets suffered extensive damage
and could no longer be repaired. For these reasons, New World demanded recompense
for its loss from respondents NYK, DMT, Advatech, LEP Profit, LEP International
Philippines, Inc. (LEP), Marina, and Serbros. While LEP and NYK acknowledged receipt
of the demand, both denied liability for the loss. Since Seaboard covered the goods with
a marine insurance policy, petitioner New World sent it a formal claim. Seaboard
required petitioner New World to submit to it an itemized list of the damaged units,
parts, and accessories, with corresponding values, for the processing of the claim. But
petitioner New World did not submit what was required of it, insisting that the insurance
policy did not include the submission of such a list in connection with an insurance
claim. Reacting to this, Seaboard refused to process the claim. Thus,petitioner New
World filed an action for specific performance and damages against all the respondents
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The RTC rendered a decision
absolving the various respondents from liability with the exception of NYK. The RTC
found that the generator sets were damaged during transit while in the care of NYK‟s
vessel, ACX Ruby.The RTC ruled, however, that petitioner New World filed its claim
against the vessel owner NYK beyond the one year provided under the Carriage of
Goods by Sea Act (COGSA).On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment
affirming the RTC‟s rulings except with respect to Seaboard‟s liability. The CA rendered
an amended decision, reversing itself as regards the claim against Seaboard.

You're reading a preview. Unlock full access with a free trial. Download
Pages 3 to 26 are not shown in this preview. With Free
Trial

Petitioner New World asserts that the roles of respondents DMT, Advatech, LEP, LEP
Profit, Marina and Serbros in handling and transporting its shipment from Wisconsin to
Manila collectively resulted in the damage to the same, rendering such
respondentssolidarily liable with NYK, the vessel owner.

ISSUE: W/N the carrier, NYK, is liable for the damage.

HELD: Yes.Consequently, the Court will not disturb the finding of the RTC, affirmed by
the CA, that the generator sets were totally damaged during the typhoon which beset
the vessel‟s voyage from Hong Kong to Manila and that it was her negligence in
continuing with that journey despite the adverse condition which caused petitioner New
World‟s loss.That the loss was occasioned by a typhoon, an exempting cause under
Article 1734 of the Civil Code, does not automatically relieve the common carrier of
liability. The latter had the burden of proving that the typhoon was the proximate and
only cause of loss and that it exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize such loss
before, during, and after the disastrous typhoon. As found by the RTC and the CA, NYK
failed to discharge this burden.
Petitioner New World asserts that the roles of respondents DMT, Advatech, LEP, LEP
Profit, Marina and Serbros in handling and transporting its shipment from Wisconsin to
Manila
LOADMASTER collectively
CUSTOMS
You're
resulted in Reading
SERVICES the VS.
damagea Preview
GLODEL to the same, rendering such
respondentssolidarily liable with NYK, the vessel owner.
nd
G.R. No. 179446, Jan. 10, 2011, Mendoza, J.:p, 2 Division
ISSUE: Unlock full access with a free trial.
W/N the carrier, NYK, is liable for the damage.
HELD: R&B Insurance insured the shipment of 132 bundles of electric copper
FACTS:
cathodes Yes.Consequently,
against All Risks the for Court
Columbia, will notthedisturb
owner the of the finding of theThe
cargoes. RTC, affirmed
cargoes wereby
the CA, that the generator Download
sets were With
totally damaged
shipped on board the vessel "Richard Rey" from Isabela, Leyte, to Pier 10, North Free Trial
during the typhoon which beset
the vessel‟s
Harbor, Manila. voyageTheyfrom arrivedHong on Kong
the same to Manila and that itengaged
date.Columbia was herthe negligence
services of in
continuing with that journey despite the adverse
Glodel for the release and withdrawal of the cargoes from the pier and the subsequent condition which caused petitioner New
World‟s
delivery to loss.That the loss was occasioned
its warehouses/plants. Glodel, in turn, by a engaged
typhoon,the an services
exempting cause under
of Loadmasters
Article 1734 of the Civil Code, does not
for the use of its delivery trucks to transport the cargoes to Columbia‟s automatically relieve the common carrier of
liability.
warehouses/plants in Bulacan and Valenzuela City.One (1) truck, loaded withand
The latter had the burden of proving that the typhoon was the proximate 11
only cause
bundles or 232of loss pieces and of that it exercised
copper cathodes, duefailed
diligence to prevent
to deliver or minimize
its cargo.Later on,such loss
the said
before,
truck was during, and afterbut
recovered thewithout
disastrous thetyphoon.
copper As ndfound byBecause
cathodes. the RTC and the CA,
of this NYK
incident,
failed to discharge this burden.
Columbia filed with R&B Insurance a claim for insurance indemnity in the amount
ofP1,903,335.39. R&B Insurance paid Columbia the amount ofP1,896,789.62 as
insurance indemnity
LOADMASTER CUSTOMS and thereafter,
SERVICESfiled a complaint for damages against both
VS. GLODEL
Loadmasters
G.R. No. 179446, and Glodelbefore
Jan. 10, 2011,the RegionalJ.:p,
Mendoza, Trial2Court. It sought reimbursement of the
Division
amount it had paid to Columbia for the loss of the subject cargo. It claimed that it had
been subrogated "to the right of the consignee to recover from the party/parties who
may be held legally liable for the loss."The RTC rendered a decision holding Glodel
FACTS:
liable for R&B damages Insurance for theinsuredloss ofthe theshipment
subject cargo of 132and bundles
dismissingof electric copper
Loadmasters‟
cathodes
counterclaim for damages and attorney‟s fees against R&B Insurance.On appeal,were
against All Risks for Columbia, the owner of the cargoes. The cargoes the
shipped
CA likewise on held board the vessel
Glodel liable and "Richard Rey" from Isabela, Leyte, to Pier 10, North
also Loadmaster.
Harbor, Manila. They arrived on the same date.Columbia engaged the services of
Glodel for
ISSUE: W/N theLoadmaster
release andiswithdrawalalso liable for of thethe cargoes
loss. from the pier and the subsequent
delivery to its warehouses/plants. Glodel, in turn, engaged the services of Loadmasters
for the use of its delivery trucks to transport the cargoes to Columbia‟s
warehouses/plants in Bulacan and Valenzuela City.One (1) truck, loaded with 11
bundles or 232 pieces of copper cathodes, failed to deliver its cargo.Later on, the said
truck was recovered but without the copper cathodes. Because of this incident,
Columbia filed with R&B Insurance a claim for insurance indemnity in the amount
ofP1,903,335.39. R&B Insurance paid Columbia the amount ofP1,896,789.62 as
insurance indemnity and thereafter, filed a complaint for damages against both
Loadmasters and Glodelbefore the Regional Trial Court. It sought reimbursement of the
amount it had paid to Columbia for the loss of the subject cargo. It claimed that it had
been subrogated "to the right of the consignee to recover from the party/parties who
may be held legally liable for the loss."The RTC rendered a decision holding Glodel
liable for damages for the loss of the subject cargo and dismissing Loadmasters‟
counterclaim for damages and attorney‟s fees against R&B Insurance.On appeal, the
CA likewise held Glodel liable and also Loadmaster.
ISSUE:Yes.To totally exculpate itself from responsibility for the lost goods, Loadmasters
HELD:
argues that W/Nit Loadmaster
cannot be considered is also liable an foragentthe ofloss.Glodel because it never represented the
latter in its dealings with the consignee. At any rate, it further contends that Glodel has
no recourse against it for its (Glodel‟s) failure to file a cross -claim. Glodel, in its
Comment, counters that Loadmasters is liable to it under its cross-claim because the
latter was grossly negligent in the transportation of the subject cargo. Finally, Glodel
argues that its relationship with Loadmasters is that of Charter wherein the transporter
(Loadmasters) is only hired for the specific job of delivering the merchandise. Thus, the
diligence required in this case is merely ordinary diligence or that of a good father of the
family, not the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers.At the outset, it is
well to resolve the issue of whether Loadmasters and Glodel are common carriers to
determine their liability for the loss of the subject cargo. Under Article 1732 of the Civil
Code, common carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the
business of carrying or transporting passenger or goods, or both by land, water or air for
compensation, offering their services to the public.Based on the definition, Loadmasters
is a common carrier because it is engaged in the business of transporting goods by
land, through its trucking service. It is a common carrier as distinguished from a private
HELD:
carrier Yes.To
whereintotally exculpate itself fromundertaken
responsibility byfor the lost goods, Loadmasters
argues that it
the carriage
cannot be You're
considered Reading
is generally
an agent of a
GlodelPreview
not hold itself out to carry goods for the general public.The distinction is significant in the
special
because it
agreement
never
and it does
represented the
latter in its dealings with the consignee. At any rate,
sense that "the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract of private carriage are it further contends that Glodel has
no recourse
governed againstbyit their
principally Unlock full access
for stipulations,
its (Glodel‟s) with
notfailure
by theto alaw
free
fileontrial.
acommon
cross -claim. Glodel, in its
carriers."
Comment, counters that Loadmasters is liable to it under its cross-claim because the
latter
In thewas same grosslyvein, negligent
Glodel is in theconsidered
also transportation of the subject
a common carrier cargo.
within Finally,
the context Glodel of
argues 1732.
Article that itsInrelationship
its Memorandum, with Loadmasters
it states that is itthat
"is of
a Charter
corporation whereinduly the transporter
organized and
(Loadmasters)
existing under isthe only laws Download
hired of for
thetheRepublic
specific With job
of the ofFree
delivering Trial
Philippines the and
merchandise.
is engaged Thus, in thethe
diligence
business of customs brokering." It cannot be considered otherwise because as heldthe
required in this case is merely ordinary diligence or that of a good father of by
family,
this Court notinthe extraordinary
Schmitz Transport diligence
& Brokerage required of common
Corporation carriers.AtVenture,
v. Transport the outset,Inc. ,it14 is
a
well to resolve
customs broker the is alsoissue of whether
regarded as a Loadmasters
common carrier, andthe Glodel are common
transportation carriers
of goods being to
determine
an integraltheir part liability for the loss of the subject
of its business.Loadmasters and cargo.
Glodel,Under being Article 1732 of the
both common Civil
carriers,
Code,
are mandated from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,the
common carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in to
businessthe
observe of carrying
extraordinary or transporting
diligence passenger
in the vigilance or goods,
over the or bothgoodsby transported
land, water or byair themfor
compensation,
according to alloffering their services
the circumstances of to thecase,
such public.Based
as required on the definition,
by Article 1733 Loadmasters
of the Civil
is a common carrier because it is engaged in
Code.With respect to the time frame of this extraordinary responsibility, the Civil the business of transporting goods Code by
land, through
provides that its thetrucking
exerciseservice. It is a common
of extraordinary diligence carrier
lasts asfromdistinguished
the time the fromgoods
a private are
carrier wherein the carriage is generally undertaken
unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by, the carrier for by special agreement and it does
not hold itself out
transportation until to the
carrysamegoods arefordelivered,
the general public.The
actually distinction is by
or constructively, significant
the carrier in the to
sense that "the rights and obligations
the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them. of the parties to a contract of private carriage are
governed principally by their stipulations, not by the law on common carriers."
Premises considered, the Court is of the view that both Loadmasters and Glodel 14 are
In the and
jointly same vein, Glodel
severally liable is to also
R&B considered
Insurance aforcommon the losscarrier of the within
subjectthe context
cargo. Under of
Article 1732.ofInthe
Article 2194 its New
Memorandum,
Civil Code,it "the states that it "is a ofcorporation
responsibility two o r more duly organized
persons who and are
existing under the laws
liable for a quasi-delict is solidary." of the Republic of the Philippines and is engaged in the
business of customs Schmitz brokering."
Transport &ItBrokerage cannot be Corporation
considered otherwise v. Transport because
Venture, as Inc.
held, by
this Court in a
customs broker is also regarded as a common carrier, the transportation of goods being
an integral part of its business.Loadmasters and Glodel, being both common carriers,
are mandated from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, to
observe the extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them
according to all the circumstances of such case, as required by Article 1733 of the Civil
Code.With respect to the time frame of this extraordinary responsibility, the Civil Code
provides that the exercise of extraordinary diligence lasts from the time the goods are
unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by, the carrier for
transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to
the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.

Premises considered, the Court is of the view that both Loadmasters and Glodel are
jointly and severally liable to R & B Insurance for the loss of the subject cargo. Under
Article
CRUZ VS.2194SUNof the New Civil Code, "the responsibility of two o r more persons who are
HOLIDAYS
liable
G.R. No. 186312, Jun. is
for a quasi-delict 2010, Carpio Morales, J.:p, 3 rd Division
solidary."
29,

FACTS: Spouses Dante and Leonora Cruz (petitioners) lodged a Complaint against
Sun Holidays, Inc. (respondent) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for damages arising
from the death of their son Ruelito C. Cruz (Ruelito) who perished with his wife on board
the boat M/B Coco Beach III that capsized en route to Batangas from Puerto Galera,
Oriental Mindoro where the couple had stayed at Coco Beach Island Resort (Resort)
owned and operated by respondent.The stay of the newly wed Ruelito and his wife at
the Resort was by virtue of a tour package-contract with respondent that included
transportation to and from the Resort and the point of departure in
Batangas.Petitionersdemanded indemnification from respondent for the death of their
son in the amount of at least P4,000,000.Replying, respondent, rd by letter denied any
responsibility for the incident which it considered to be a fortuitous event. It nevertheless
offered, as an act of commiseration, the amount of P10,000 to petitioners upon their
signing
CRUZ VS. of aSUNwaiver.As
HOLIDAYS petitioners declined respondent‟s offer, they filed the Complaint,
as earlier
G.R. reflected,
No. 186312, Jun.alleging
29, 2010, that respondent,
Carpio Morales,asJ.:p, a common
3 Division carrier, was guilty of
negligence in allowing M/B Coco Beach III to sail notwithstanding storm warning

Administration
FACTS:
You're Reading a Preview
bulletins issued by the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services
(PAGASA). In its Answer, respondent denied being a common carrier,
alleging thatSpouses
its boatsDante are and Leonora Cruz
not available to the(petitioners)
general public lodged a Complaint
as they only ferry against
Resort
Sun Holidays,
guests and crew members.Unlock full access with a free trial.
Inc. (respondent) with the
Nonetheless, Regionalit Trial
claimed Court
that (RTC)
it for
exerciseddamages the arising
utmost
from the death
diligence of their the
in ensuring son safety
RuelitoofC.its Cruz (Ruelito) who
passengers; perished
contrary with his wifeallegation,
to petitioners‟ on board
the
there was no storm as the Coast Guard in fact cleared the voyage; and M/BGalera,
boat M/B Coco Beach III that capsized en route to Batangas from Puerto Coco
OrientalIIIMindoro
Beach was not where
filled tothe coupleand
capacity hadhadstayed at Coco
sufficient life Beach
jackets Island
for its Resort
passengers.(Resort)
By
owned
way of and operated by
Counterclaim, Download
respondent.The
respondent allegedWiththatofitFree
stay the newlyTrial
is entitled wed
to an Ruelito
awardand for his wife at
attorney‟s
the
feesResort was by expenses
and litigation virtue of aamounting
tour package-contract
to not less than with P300,000.RTC
respondent thatdismissed included
transportation to and from the Resort and
petitioners‟ Complaint and respondent‟s Counterclaim. The appellate court denied the point of departure in
Batangas.Petitionersdemanded
petitioners‟ appeal, holding, among indemnification
other things,from that respondent
the trial court forcorrectly
the death of their
ruled that
son
respondent is a private carrier which is only required to observe ordinary diligence; any
in the amount of at least P4,000,000.Replying, respondent, by letter denied that
responsibility
respondent infor facttheobserved
incident which it considered
extraordinary diligence to beinatransporting
fortuitous event. It nevertheless
its guests on board
offered,
M/B Coco as Beach
an act III;of commiseration,
and that the proximate the amount cause of P10,000 to petitioners
of the incident was aupon their
squall, a
signing of a
fortuitous event. waiver.As petitioners declined respondent‟s offer, they filed the Complaint,
as earlier reflected, alleging that respondent, as a common carrier, was guilty of
negligence
ISSUE: W/Ninrespondent
allowing M/B Coco
is liable as aBeach
common III carrier.
to sail notwithstanding storm warning
bulletins issued by the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration
HELD: Yes.The (PAGASA).
definitionIn of its aAnswer,
common respondent
carrier denied
by thebeing Civil a Code
common carrier,
makes no
alleging that its boats are not available to the general public
distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons as they only ferry Resortor
guests and crew members. Nonetheless, it claimed
goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in localthat it exercised the utmost
diligence
idiom, as "a in sideline").
ensuring the safety
Article 1732ofalsoits passengers;
carefully avoids contrary
makingtoany petitioners‟
distinctionallegation,
between
there
a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regularand
was no storm as the Coast Guard in fact cleared the voyage; or M/B Coco
scheduled
Beach
basis and III was
onenot filled such
offering to capacity
serviceand on had sufficient lifeepisodic
an occasional, jackets or forunscheduled
its passengers. By
basis.
way of Counterclaim, respondent alleged that it is entitled
Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to to an award for attorney‟s
fees and litigation
the "general p ublic,"expenses amounting
i.e., the general to not less
community than P300,000.RTC
or p opulation, and one who dismissed
offers
petitioners‟
services Complaint
or solicits businessand only
respondent‟s
from a narrow Counterclaim.
segment ofThe the appellate court denied
general population. We
petitioners‟ appeal, holding, among other things, that the trial court correctly ruled that
respondent is a private carrier which is only required to observe ordinary diligence; that
respondent in fact observed extraordinary diligence in transporting its guests on board
M/B Coco Beach III; and that the proximate cause of the incident was a squall, a
fortuitous event.
ISSUE:
W/N respondent is liable as a common carrier.
HELD:
Yes.The definition of a common carrier by the Civil Code makes no
distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or
goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local
idiom, as "a sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between
a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled
basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis.
Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to
the "general p ublic," i.e., the general community or p opulation, and one who offers
servicesthink that
or solicits Article
business 1733
only from deliberately
a narrow refrained
making
segment of the general from
population. We

respondent is a common carrier. Its ferry services are so

business as to be properly considered ancillary thereto. The
ferry services in its resort operations is underscored by its ha
boats. And the tour packages it offers, which include the ferry
of by anyone who can afford to pay the same. These service
public.That respondent does not charge a separate fee or fare
no moment. It would be imprudent to suppose that it provide
The Court is aware of the practice of beach resort operators
factor the transportation fee in arriving at the tour package p
not to avail of respondent‟s ferry services pay the sa
You'reThese
inconsequential. Reading a Preview
guests may only be deemed to have o
Unlock full access with a free trial.
Under the Civil Code, common carriers, from the nature
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary
the passengers Download With FreebyTrial
transported them, according to all the
case.19 They are bound to carry the passengers safely as
think thatcan
foresight Article 1733using
provide, deliberately
the utmost refrained
diligencefromof making
very ca
respondent
regard for all is athecommon carrier. Its ferry
circumstances.The services are
extraordinary so
diligen
business as to be that
carriers demands properly
they considered
take care ofancillary
the goods thereto.
or lives Theen
ferry services
they were theirinown.
its resort operations failed
This respondent is underscored
to do. by its ha
boats. And the tour packages it offers, which include the ferry
of by anyone who
Respondent‟s can afford
insistence that tothe
pay the same.
incident wasThese
caused service
by a
public.That respondent
impress either.The does of
elements notacharge
"fortuitousa separate fee or
event" are: (a)fare
th
no
andmoment.
unexpected It would be imprudent
occurrence, or the to suppose
failure that
of theit provide
debto
The Court ismust
obligations, aware of the
have been practice
independentof beach of resort
humanoperators
will; (b)
factor the transportation
the casofortuito must have feebeen
in arriving
impossibleat thetotour package
foresee or, ifpf
not
avoid;to(c)avail of respondent‟s
the occurrence must have ferry beenservices
such aspay the sa
to render it
inconsequential.
to fulfill their These
obligation guests
in a may
normal only be
manner; deemed
and to
(d) have
the obl o
19
from any participation in the aggravation of the resulting injury
Under the Civil Code, common carriers, from the nature
reasons of public
To fully free policy, carrier
a common are boundfromtoany observe extraordinary
liability, the fortuitou
the passengers
the proximate andtransported
only causeof bythe them,
loss. according
And it should to all
have the
case . They
prevent are bound
or minimize to carry
the loss before, theduring
passengers
and after safely
the asoc
foresight
event. can provide, using the utmost diligence of very ca
regard for all the circumstances.The extraordinary diligen
carriers
UNSWORTH demands that they take
TRANSPORT VS. care
CA of the goods or lives en
they
G.R. were their own.
No. 166250, This
Jul. 26,respondent
2010, Nachura, failedJ.:p,
to do.2 nd Division
arrived at the port of Manila and petitioner received the said s
Respondent‟s insistence that Purchasing
The shipper,Sylvex the incident Corporation,
was caused by a
FACTS:
and the materials were noted to be complete and in gooddelive ord
impress
shipment either.The
of 27arrived
drums elements of a "fortuitous
of various event" for are: (a) th
the shipment in Unilab‟sraw materials
warehouse and pharmace
was imm
and
subjectunexpected
shipment occurrence,
was insured or the
with failure
private of the debto
respondent Pion
independent surveyor and Unilab‟s quality control representati
obligations,
Corporation must
in favor have been independent of human will; (b)
containing dried yeastofand Unilab against
one steel drum all containing
risks in the amou
Vitamin
the casofortuito
shipment was loaded must have been
in afiled
sealed impossible
1x40claim to foresee
container or, if f
intended purpose. Unilab a formal for thevan, damage board a
avoid;
"Pres. (c) the occurrence
Jackson," Voyage must
42, have
and been such as
transshipped to to render
APL‟s M/V it
and UTI. UTI denied liability on the basis of the gate pass issu
to fulfill their
petitioner obligation
in favor in consignee
a normal manner; and (d) the obl
complete and goodofcondition.
the By virtue United
of theLaboratories,
Loss and Subr In
from any participation in the aggravation of the resulting injury
Unilab in favor of private respondent, the latter filed a comp
APL, UTI and petitioner with the RTC. The RT C decided in fa
To fully free a common carrier from any liability, the fortuitou
and against APL, UTI and petitioner. The CA affirmed the RTC
the proximate You're
andReading
only causeof a Preview the loss. And it should nd have
prevent or minimize the loss before, during and after the oc
Petitioner admits that
Unlock full it iswith
access a for warder
a free trial. but disagrees with the C
event.
common carrier. It also questions the appellate court‟s finding
UNSWORTH
that it exercised TRANSPORT
extraordinary VS.or CAordinary diligence in the v
G.R. No. 166250,
shipment. Download
As the With
to Jul. 26, Free Trial
2010,
damages Nachura,
allegedly J.:p, suffered 2 Divisionby priva
counters that they were not sufficiently proven. Lastly, it insi
arrived
FACTS: atTthe be
event, should portlimited
of Manilato $500andpursuant
petitionertoreceived
the package the said
limita s
and the materialshe shipper,Sylvex
were noted to Purchasing
be complete Corporation,
and in gooddelive ord
shipment
the shipment of 27 drums
arrived of various
in Uni raw materials for pharmace
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner islab‟s
not awarehouse
common carrier, and was andimm its
subject
independentshipment surveyor was insured
andUnilab‟s with private
quality respondent
control Pion
$500 pursuant to the package limitation rule underrepresentati
COGSA.
Corporation
containing dried yeast and one steel drum containingthe
in favor of Unilab against all risks in amou
Vitamin
shipment
intended was loaded
purpose. in afiled
sealed 1x40claim
container thevan, board
HELD: Petitioner isUnilab
a common acarrier.
formal A freight forforwarder‟s
damage liaa
"Pres.
and UTI.Jackson,"
UTIits Voyage
denied 42,on
liability andthe transshipped
basis ofnegligence
the gateto APL‟s pass M/V
issu
arising from own negligence, including in choo
petitioner
complete in favor
goodofcondition.
the consignee United theLaboratories, In
where theand forwarder contractsBy to virtue
deliver of goods Loss to andtheirSubrdes
Unilab
arranging in favor of private
for their respondent,
transportation, the latterliable
it becomes filed aascomp a co
APL,
damage UTIto and petitioner
goods. A freightwith the RTC. The
forwarder RT C decided
assumes the respon in fa
and against
actually APL, UTI
executes theandtransport,
petitioner.even The CA thoughaffirmed thethe RTC
forwar
merchandise itself.Undoubtedly, UTI is liable as a common ca
Petitioner
a general admits rule, are thatpresumed
it is a for warder
to have butbeen
disagrees at fault withorthe neC
common
transported carrier. It also questions
deteriorated or got lost theorappellate
destroyed. court‟sThatfinding
is, un
that it exercised
exercised extraordinary
extraordinary diligence or ordinary diligence in
in transporting thethegov
shipment.
responsibility As forto anythe lossdamages
or damage, allegedly suffered
therefore, theybyhave privat
counters
they observed that they suchwere not sufficiently
diligence. Mere proof proven.
of deliveryLastly,ofit the insi
event,
common should
carrier be and
limited to $500
of their pursuant
arrival in badtoorderthe package
at their desti limita
facie
ISSUE: case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no ade
as to how W/N the the petitioner is
deterioration, loss,notora destruction
common carrier, of the and goods its
$500 pursuant
shall be to the packagethese
held responsible.All limitation rule under
conclusively prove COGSA.the fact
and condition, and the consequent damage to one steel dru
HELD:
Extract Petitioner
while in the is apossession
common carrier. A freight
of petitioner forwarder‟s
which failed to liae
arising
damage. from its own
Further, negligence,
petitioner failedincluding
to provenegligence
that it observed in choo t
where the forwarder
and precaution whichcontracts to delivera goods
the law requires common to carrier
their des to
arranging
order to avoid for their
damage transportation,
to or destruction it becomes
of theliable goodsasentrus a co
damage
and delivery.to goods. A freight forwarder assumes the respon
actually executes the transport, even though the forwar
merchandise itself.Undoubtedly, UTI is liable as a common ca
a general rule, are presumed to have been at fault or ne
transported deteriorated or got lost or destroyed. That is, un
exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the go
responsibility for any loss or damage, therefore, they have t
they observed such diligence. Mere proof of delivery of the
common carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their desti
facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no ade
as to how the deterioration, loss, or destruction of the goods
shall be held responsible.All these conclusively prove the fact
and condition, and the consequent damage to one steel dru
Extract while in the possession of petitioner which failed to e
damage. Further, petitioner failed to prove that it observed t
and precaution which the law requires a common carrier to
order to avoid damage to or destruction of the goods entrus
and delivery.