LARA vs. VALENCIA Facts: T h e d e c e a s e d w a s a n i n s p e c t o r o f t h e B u r e a u o f F o r e s t r y stationed in Davao.

The defendant is engaged in the business of exportinglogs from his lumber concession in Cotabato. Lara went to said concessionupon instructions of his chief to classify the logs of defendant which wereabout to be loaded on a ship anchored in the port of Parang. Lara boardedwith several others a pic !up bound for Davao and were seated at the bac o n a n i m p r o v i s e d b e n c h . L a r a a c c i d e n t a l l y f e l l f r o m t h e p i c ! u p a n d a s a result he suffered serious in"uries which lead to his death. Issue: #hether or not the respondent failed to exercise the ordinary diligence re$uired% Held: &es. The owner and driver of a vehicle owes to accommodation passengers or invited guests merely the duty to exercise reasonable care sothat they may be transported safely to their destination. Thus' (The rule ise s t a b l i s h e d b y w e i g h t o f a u t h o r i t y t h a t t h e o w n e r o r o p e r a t o r o f a n automobile owes the duty to an invited guest to exercise reasonable care inits operation' and not unreasonably to expose him to danger and in"ury by increasing the ha)ard of travel. The owner of the vehicle in the case at bar isonly re$uired to observe ordinary care' and is not in duty bound to exercise extraordinary diligence as re$uired by our law.* passenger must observe the diligence of a father of a family to avoid in"uryt o h i m s e l f w h i c h m e a n s t h a t i f t h e i n " u r y t o t h e p a s s e n g e r h a s b e e n proximately caused by his own negligence' the carrier cannot be held liable.

Mecenas v. CA Facts: Facts: M/T "Tacloban City," a barge-type oil tanker owned by the hilippine !ational "il Co#pany $ !"C% and operated by the !"C &hippingand Transport Corporation $ !"C &hipping%, having 'nloaded its cargo, le(t(or !egros "ccidental when it collided with a carrier ship na#ed )on *'an.

+hen the collision occ'rred, the sea was cal#, the weather (air and visibilitygood. As a res'lt o( this collision, the M/, ")on *'an" sank and h'ndreds o( itspassengers perished. A#ong the ill-(ated passengers were the parents o( petitioners, the spo'ses er(ecto Mecenas and &o(ia Mecenas, whose bodieswere never (o'nd despite intensive search by petitioners. -ss'e: +hether or not the respondents were negligent. /eld:

0es, the behavio'r o( the captain o( the ")on *'an" in tills instance-playing #ah1ong "be(ore and 'p to the ti#e o( collision constit'tes behavio'rthat is si#ply 'nacceptable on the part o( the #aster o( a vessel to whosehands the lives and wel(are o( at least seven h'ndred (i(ty $234% passengershad been entr'sted. +hether or not Capt. &antisteban was "o((-d'ty" or "on-d'ty" at or aro'nd the ti#e o( act'al collision is 5'ite i##aterial6 there is,both realistically speaking and in conte#plation o( law, no s'ch thing as "o((-d'ty" ho'rs (or the #aster o( a vessel at sea that is a co##on carrier 'ponwho# the law i#poses the d'ty o( e7traordinary diligence. The record shows that the ")on *'an" sank within ten $84% to (i(teen $83%#in'tes a(ter initial contact with the "Tacloban City. +hile the (ail're o( Capt.&antisteban to s'pervise his o((icers and crew in the process o( abandoningthe ship and his (ail're to avail o( #eas'res to prevent the too rapid sinkingo( his vessel a(ter collision, did not ca'se the collision by the#selves, s'ch(ail'res do'btless contrib'ted #aterially to the conse5'ent loss o( li(e and,#oreover, were indicative o( the kind and level o( diligence e7ercised byCapt. &antisteban in respect o( his vessel and his o((icers and #en prior toact'al contact between the two $9% vessels. The o((icer-on-watch in the ")on *'an" ad#itted that he had (ailed to in(or# Capt. &antisteban not only o( the"i##inent danger o( collision" b't even o( "the act'al collision itsel( " Thereis also evidence that the ")on *'an" was carrying #ore passengers than shehad been certi(ied as allowed to carry.:nder these circ'#stances, a pres'#ption o( gross negligence on the part o( the vessel $her o((icers and crew% and o( its ship-owner arises.

Mecenas vs. CA The behavio'r o( the captain o( the ")on *'an" in tills instance-playing#ah1ong "be(ore and 'p to the ti#e o( collision constit'tes behavio'r that issi#ply 'nacceptable on the part o( the #aster o( a vessel to whose hands thelives and wel(are o( at least seven h'ndred (i(ty $234% passengers had beenentr'sted. +hether or not Capt. &antisteban was "o((-d'ty" or "on-d'ty" at oraro'nd the ti#e o( act'al collision is 5'ite i##aterial6 there is, bothrealistically speaking and in conte#plation o( law, no s'ch thing as "o((-d'ty"ho'rs (or the #aster o( a vessel at sea that is a co##on carrier 'pon who#the law i#poses the d'ty o( e7traordinary diligence. The record shows that the ")on *'an" sank within ten $84% to (i(teen$83% #in'tes a(ter initial contact with the "Tacloban City. +hile the (ail're o(

Capt. &antisteban to s'pervise his o((icers and crew in the process o( abandoning the ship and his (ail're to avail o( #eas'res to prevent the toorapid sinking o( his vessel a(ter collision, did

not ca'se the collision bythe#selves, s'ch (ail'res do'btless contrib'ted #aterially to the conse5'entloss o( li(e and, #oreover, were indicative o( the kind and level o( diligencee7ercised by Capt. &antisteban in respect o( his vessel and his o((icers and#en prior to act'al contact between the two $9% vessels. The o((icer-on-watchin the ")on *'an" ad#itted that he had (ailed to in(or# Capt. &antisteban notonly o( the "i##inent danger o( collision" b't even o( "the act'al collisionitsel( " There is also evidence that the ")on *'an" was carrying #orepassen gers than she had been certi(ied as allowed to carry.:nder these circ'#stances, a pres'#ption o( gross negligence on thepart o( the vessel $her o((icers and crew% and o( its ship-owner arises.

!oc'# vs. ;ag'na Tayabas <'s Co#pany Fairness de#ands that in #eas'ring a co##on carrier=s d'ty towardsits passengers, allowance #'st be given to the reliance that sho'ld bereposed on the sense o( responsibility o( all the passengers in regard to theirco##on sa(ety. -t is to be pres'#ed that a passenger will not take with hi#anything dangero's to the lives and li#bs o( his co-passengers, not to speako( his own. !ot to be lightly considered #'st be the right to privacy to whicheach passenger is entitled. /e cannot be s'b1ected to any 'n's'al search,when he protests the innoc'o'sness o( his baggage and nothing appears toindicate the contrary, as in the case at bar. -n other words, in5'iry #ay beverbally #ade as to the nat're o( a passenger=s baggage when s'ch is noto'twardly perceptible, b't beyond this, constit'tional bo'ndaries are alreadyin danger o( being transgressed. Calling a police#an to his aid, as s'ggestedby the service #an'al invoked by the trial 1'dge, in co#pelling the passengerto s'b#it to #ore rigid inspection, a(ter the passenger had already declaredthat the bo7 contained #ere clothes and other #iscellaneo's, co'ld not have 1'sti(ied invasion o( a constit'tionally protected do#ain.

Facts: A passenger boarded the respondents b's carrying a bo7 which s'chperson attested to the cond'ctor as containing clothes and #iscellaneo'site#s.Appellee, who was a passenger in appellant=s <'s !o. 894 then #aking a tripwithin the barrio o( )ita, M'nicipality o( <ay, ;ag'na, was in1'red as aconse5'en ce o( the e7plosion o( (irecrackers, contained in the bo7 bro'ght bythe copassenger. -ss'e: )id ;T< Co. e7ercise the e7traordinary diligence re5'ired. /eld:

0es, (airness de#ands that in #eas'ring a co##on carrier=s d'tytowards its passengers, allowance #'st be given to the reliance that sho'ldbe reposed on the sense o( responsibility o( all the passengers in regard totheir co##on sa(ety. -t is to be pres'#ed that a passenger will not take withhi# anything dangero's to the lives and li#bs o( his co-passengers, not tospeak o( his own. !ot to be lightly considered #'st be the right to privacy towhich each passenger is entitled. /e cannot be s'b1ected to any 'n's'alsearch, when he protests the innoc'o'sness o( his baggage and nothingapp ears to indicate the contrary, as in the case at bar. -n other words, in5'iry#ay be verbally #ade as to the nat're o( a passenger=s baggage when s'chis not o'twardly perceptible, b't beyond this, constit'tional bo'ndaries arealready in danger o( being transgressed. Calling a police#an to his aid, ass'ggested by the service #an'al invoked by the trial 1'dge, in co#pelling thepassenger to s'b#it to #ore rigid inspection, a(ter the passenger hadalready de clared that the bo7 contained #ere clothes and other#iscellaneo's, co'ld not have 1'sti(ied invasion o( a constit'tionallyprotected do#ain.

<;T< > Ar#ando on vs. -AC <atangas ;ag'na Tayabas <'s Co#pany > Ar#ando on v. -AC, The /eirs o( a? ,da. )e a#(ilo, The /eirs "( !or#a !eri, and <aylon &ales And !ena ,da. )e @osalesA aras B.@. !os. 2CDE2-F4 !ove#ber 8C, 8FEE FACT& G A b's owned by petitioner <;T< and driven by petitioner on collided with a b's owned by &'perlines, when the (or#er tried to overtake a car 1'st as the &'perlines= <'s was co#ing (ro# the opposite direction. G The collision res'lted in the death o( @osales, a#(ilo and !eri, as well as in1'ries to the wi(e o( @osales, and &ales. These people were passengers o( the petitioner=s b's. G @osales and &ales, as well as the s'rviving heirs o( a#(ilo, @osales and !eri instit'ted separate cases ih the CF- against <;T< and &'perlines, together with their drivers. Cri#inal cases against the drivers were also (iled in a di((erent CF-. G CF- r'led that only <;T< and on sho'ld be liable, and they were ordered 1ointly and severally to pay da#ages. "n appeal, the -AC a((ir#ed the CF-=s r'ling. G etitioners contended that the CF- erred in r'ling that the actions o( private respondents are based on c'lpa contract'al, since i( it were private respondents= intention to (ile an action based on c'lap contract'al, they co'ld have done so by #erely i#pleading <;T< and on. -nstead the respondents (iled an action against all de(endants based on c'lpa a5'iliana or tort. -&&:H& > A@B:MH!T& +"! erred in r'ling that the actions o( private respondents are based on c'lpa contract'al

/";)-!B > @AT-" )HC-)H!)-AC anchored its decision on both c'lpa contract'al and c'lpa a5'iliana The pro7i#ate ca'se o( the death and in1'ries o( the passengers was the negligence o( the b's driver on, who recklessly overtook a car despite knowing that that the bend o( highway he was negotiating on had a contin'o's yellow line signi(ying a Ino-overtakingJ ?one. -t is pres'#ed that a a person driving a #otor vehicle has been negligent i( at the ti#e o( the #ishap, he was violating any tra((ic reg'lation. -n the instant case, the driver o( the <;T< b's (ailed to act with diligence de#anded by the circ'#stances. on sho'ld have re#e#bered that when a #otor vehicle is approaching or ro'nding a c'rve there is special necessity (or keeping to the right side o( the road and the driver has not the right to drive on the le(t hand side relying 'pon having ti#e to t'rn to the right i( a car is approaching (ro# the opposite direction co#es into view. As to the liability o( the petitioners, on is pri#arily liable (or his negligence in driving recklessly the tr'ck owned by <;T<. The liability o( the <;T< itsel( is also pri#ary, direct and i##ediate in view o( the (act that the deat o( or in1'ries to its passengers was thro'gh the negligence o( its e#ployee. The co##on carrier=s liability (or the death o( or in1'ries to its passengers is based on its contract'al obligation to carry its passengers sa(ely to their destination. They are pres'#ed to have acted negligently 'nless they prove that they have observed e7taordinary diligence. -n the case at bar, the appellants acted negligently. <;T< is also solidarly liable with its driver even tho'gh the liability o( the driver springs (ro# 5'asi delict while that o( the b's co#pany (ro# contract. A; vs CA &ept 83,8FFD
Facts: rivate respondent was a#ong the 98 passengers o( Flight C22 that took o(( (ro# Ceb' bo'nd (or "?a#i? City. The ro'ting o( this (light was Ceb'-"?a#i?-Cotabato. The pilot received a radio #essage that "?a#i? airport was closed d'e to heavy rains and incle#ent weather and that he sho'ld proceed to Cotabato City instead. :pon arrival at Cotabato City, the A; &tation Agent in(or#ed the passengers o( their options to ret'rn to Ceb' on the sa#e day and then to "?a#i?, or take the ne7t (light to Ceb' the (ollowing day, or re#ain at Cotabato and take the ne7t available (light to "?a#i? City. Flight 3K4 bo'nd (or Manila wo'ld #ake a stop-over at Ceb' to bring so#e o( the diverted passengers6 that there were only K seats available. rivate respondent chose to ret'rn to Ceb' b't was not acco##odated beca'se he checked-in as passenger !o. F on Flight C22. /e was (orced to stay at Cotabato City despite the local war between the #ilitary and the #'sli# rebels. /e tried to (erry the Ford Fiera loaded with A; personnel b't said pick-'p vehicle did not acco##odate hi#. The personnel o( A; did not sec're his acco##odation in Cotabato City. /e received a (ree ticket on a (light to -ligan, b't chose to b'y his own. /e lost his personal belongings, incl'ding a ca#era.

-ss'e: 8. +"! A; can properly invoke the de(ense o( (ort'ito's event o( bad weather in "?a#i? to e7e#pt itsel( (ro# paying da#ages to the @. !" 9. +"! the e7e#plary da#ages was properly awarded by the appellate co'rt. !" /eld: 8. A; re#issed in its d'ty o( e7tending 't#ost care to private respondent while being stranded in Cotabato City. A;Ls diversion o( its (light d'e to incle#ent weather was a (ort'ito's event. !onetheless, s'ch occ'rrence did not ter#inate A;Ls contract with its passengers. <eing in the b'siness o( air carriage and the sole one to operate in the co'ntry, A; is dee#ed e5'ipped to deal with sit'ations as in the case at bar. The relation o( carrier and passenger contin'es 'ntil the latter has been landed at the port o( destination and has le(t the carrierLs pre#ises. /ence, A; necessarily wo'ld still have to e7ercise e7traordinary diligence in sa(eg'arding the co#(ort, convenience and sa(ety o( its stranded passengers 'ntil they have reached their (inal destination. A; grossly (ailed considering the then ongoing battle between govern#ent (orces and M'sli# rebels in Cotabato City and the (act that the private respondent was a stranger to the place. A contract to transport passengers is 5'ite di((erent in kind and degree (ro# any other contract'al relation. <eca'se o( the relation which an air carrier s'stains with the p'blic. -ts b'siness is #ainly with the travelling p'blic. -t invites people to avail o( the co#(orts and advantages it o((ers. The contract o( air carriage, there(ore, generates a relation attended with a p'blic d'ty. &ince part o( the (ail're to co#ply with the obligation o( co##on carrier to deliver its passengers sa(ely to their destination lay in the de(endantLs (ail're to provide co#(ort and convenience to its stranded passengers 'sing e7tra-ordinary diligence, the ca'se o( non-('l(ill#ent is not solely and e7cl'sively d'e to (ort'ito's event, b't d'e to so#ething which de(endant airline co'ld have prevented, A; beco#es liable to plainti((. 9.The award o( #oral da#ages was e7cessive and was red'ced by the Co'rt. There was no clear basis that A; (ailed to entertain the plainti(( and answer its 5'eries. -n (act, the #anager acco##odated hi# in his o((ice. Moral da#ages are not intended to enrich the private respondent. They are awarded only to enable the in1'red party to obtain #eans, diversion or a#'se#ents that will serve to alleviate the #oral s'((ering he has 'ndergone by reason o( the de(endantLs c'lpable action. The plainti((Ls clai# on loss o( b'siness opport'nities was based only on p're spec'lation. -t #'st depend on co#petent proo(.

Abeto ,s hilippine Air ;ines,-nc.*'ly D4, 8FE9@elova, *. : H!T-T-H& -!,";,H): A; M carrier *:)BH N:@-C" A<AT" M passenger/deceased C"!)@A)A ,)A. )H A<HT" - plainti(( FACT&:

8.*'dge N'irico Abato boarded the hilippine Airline= --C8DD plane at the Mand'rriao Airport, -loilo City (orManila 9. The plane did not reach its destination and there wasnews that the plane went #issing.D. A(ter D weeks, it was ascertained that the planecrashed at Mt. <aco, rovince o( Mindoro.C. All the passengers have been killed incl'ding *'dgeN'irico Abeto3. Condrada ,da. de Abeto , the wi(e o( the deceased,was appointed ad#inistratri7 o( the estate o( *'dgeAbeto.K. Condrada, together with her children (iled aco#plaint (or da#ages against hilippine Airlines (orthe death o( *'dge Abeto.2. hilippine Airlines, on the other hand, contends thatthe plane crash was das d'e to a (ort'ito's event.E. The trial co'rt r'led in (avor o( Abeto and herchildren. )HFH!&H&: G lane Crash was beyond the control o( the pilot. GThe plane was airworthy (or the p'rpose o( conveying passengers across the co'ntry as shownby the certi(icate o( airworthiness iss'ed by the CivilAerona'tics Ad#inistration. GThere was navigational error b't no negligence or#al(easance on the part o( the pilot. GThe plane had 'ndergone pre-(light checks, thoro'ghchecks, ter#inating checks and a(ter-#aintenancechecks. GThe deviation (ro# its prescribed ro'te was d'e tobad weather condition. -&&:H: G-s hilippine Airlines liable (or violation o( its contract o( carriage. @:;-!B: 0es The Civic Code, as the law governing the liability o( co##on carriers, is clear and e7plicit: Art. 822D - binds co##on carriers (ro# the nat'reo( their b'siness and by reason o( p'blic policy toobserve e7traordinary in vigilance (or the sa(ety o( the passengers transported by the# according to allthe circ'#stances o( each case. Art. 8233

- a co##on carrier is re5'ired to carrythe passengers sa(ely as (ar as h'#an care and(oresight can provide, 'sing the 't#ost diligence o( every ca'tio's persons, with d'e regard (or all thecirc'#stances. Art. 823K - in case o( death o( or in1'ries topassengers, co##on carriers are pres'#ed to havebeen at (a'lt or to have acted negligently, 'nlessproved that they observed e7tra ordinary diligence. Art. 8232 - the responsibility o( a co##on carrier(or the sa(ety o( passengers cannot be dispensedwith or lessened by stip'lation, by posting o( notices,by state#ents on tickets, or otherwise, A; is liable (or the death o( *'dge Abeto: The plane did not take the designated ro'te whichwas -loilo-@o#blonManila or "A#ber -", i( it had taken this ro'te, then the crash wo'ld have nothappened. This was even s'pported by the state#ents o( @a#on ero?a $Ad#inistrative assistant o( hilippineAir ;ines -nc.%and Cesar Mi1ares $Assistant )irector o( the Civil Aerona'tics Ad#inistration% The weather d'ring that ti#e was clear and the pilotwas s'pposed to cross airway "A#ber -"= instead he#ade a straight (light to Manila in violation o( airtra((ic r'les. &ince thereLs no satis(actory e7planation by A; withregard to the accident, then the pres'#ption is it is at (a'lt.

LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC., vs. GLODEL BROKERAGE CORPORATION and R&B INSURANCE CORPORATION, / G.R. No. 17 !!" / #an$a%& 1', ('11
)ACTS* The case is a petition for review on certiorari under +ule ,- of the +evised +ules of Court assailing the *ugust .,' .//0 Decision of the Court of *ppeals 1CA2 in C*!3.+. C4 5o. 6.6... 7n *ugust .6' .//8' +9B :nsurance issued ;arine Policy 5o. ;5!//8/-<.//8 in favor of Columbia to insure the shipment of 8=. bundles of electric copper cathodes against *ll +is s. 7n *ugust .6' .//8' the cargoes were shipped on board the vessel (+ichard +ey( from :sabela' Leyte' to Pier 8/' 5orth >arbor' ;anila. They arrived on the same date. Columbia engaged the services of 3lodel for the release and withdrawal of the cargoes from the pier and the subse$uent delivery to its warehouses<plants. 3lodel' in turn' engaged the

services of Loadmasters for the use of its delivery truc s to transport the cargoes to Columbia?s warehouses<plants in Bulacan and 4alen)uela City. The goods were loaded on board twelve 18.2 truc s owned by Loadmasters' driven by its employed drivers and accompanied by its employed truc helpers. 7f the six 1@2 truc s route to Balagtas' Bulacan' only five 1-2 reached the destination. 7ne 182 truc ' loaded with 88 bundles or .=. pieces of copper cathodes' failed to deliver its cargo. Later on' the said truc ' was recovered but without the copper cathodes. Because of this incident' Columbia filed with +9B :nsurance a claim for insurance indemnity in the amount ofP8'A/='==-.=A. *fter the investigation' +9B :nsurance paid Columbia the amount ofP8'6A@'06A.@. as insurance indemnity. +9B :nsurance' thereafter' filed a complaint for damages against both Loadmasters and 3lodel before the +egional Trial Court' Branch 8,' ;anila 1RTC2' :t sought reimbursement of the amount it had paid to Columbia for the loss of the sub"ect cargo. :t 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.( 7n 5ovember 8A' .//=' the +TC rendered a decision holding 3lodel liable for damages for the loss of the sub"ect cargo and dismissing Loadmasters? counterclaim for damages and attorney?s fees against +9B :nsurance. Both +9B :nsurance and 3lodel appealed the +TC decision to the C*. 7n *ugust .,' .//0' the C* rendered that the appellee is an agent of appellant 3lodel' whatever liability the latter owes to appellant +9B :nsurance Corporation as insurance indemnity must li ewise be the amount it shall be paid by appellee Loadmasters. >ence' Loadmasters filed the present petition for review on certiorari. ISSUE* #hether or not Loadmasters and 3lodel are common carriers to determine their liability for the loss of the sub"ect cargo. RULING* The petition is PARTIALL+ GRANTED. Budgment is rendered declaring petitioner Loadmasters Customs Cervices' :nc. and respondent 3lodel Bro erage Corporation "ointly and severally liable to respondent Dnder *rticle 80=. 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. Loadmasters is a common carrier because it is engaged in the business of transporting goods by land' through its truc ing service. :t is a common carrier as distinguished from a private carrier wherein the carriage is generally underta en by special agreement and it does not hold itself out to carry goods for the general public. 3lodel is also considered a common carrier within the context of *rticle 80=.. For as stated and well provided in the case of Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v. Transport Venture, Inc., a customs bro er is also regarded as a common carrier' the transportation of goods being an integral part of its business. Loadmasters and 3lodel' 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

re$uired by *rticle 80== of the Civil Code. #hen the Court spea s of extraordinary diligence' it is that extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection observe for securing and preserving their own property or rights. #ith 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. The Court is of the view that both Loadmasters and 3lodel are "ointly and severally liable to + 9 B :nsurance for the loss of the sub"ect cargo. Loadmasters? claim that it was never privy to the contract entered into by 3lodel with the consignee Columbia or +9B :nsurance as subrogee' is not a valid defense. For under *+T. .86/. The obligation imposed by *rticle .80@ is demandable not only for one?s own acts or omissions' but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. xxxx Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tas s' even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. :t is not disputed that the sub"ect cargo was lost while in the custody of Loadmasters whose employees 1truc driver and helper2 were instrumental in the hi"ac ing or robbery of the shipment. *s employer' Loadmasters should be made answerable for the damages caused by its employees who acted within the scope of their assigned tas of delivering the goods safely to the warehouse. 3lodel is also liable because of its failure to exercise extraordinary diligence. :t failed to ensure that Loadmasters would fully comply with the underta ing to safely transport the sub"ect cargo to the designated destination. 3lodel should' therefore' be held liable with Loadmasters. :ts defense of force majeure is unavailing. For the conse$uence' 3lodel has no one to blame but itself. The Court cannot come to its aid on e$uitable grounds. (E$uity' which has been aptly described as Fa "ustice outside legality'? is applied only in the absence of' and never against' statutory law or "udicial rules of procedure.( The Court cannot be a lawyer and ta e the cudgels for a party who has been at fault or negligent. B.@. !o. 82FCCK *an'ary 84, 9488;"A)MA&TH@& C:&T"M& &H@,-CH&, -!C., etitioner,vs. B;")H; <@"OH@ABH C"@ "@AT-"! and @>< -!&:@A!CHC"@ "@AT-"!, @espondents. Facts

: "n A'g'st 9E, 9448, @>< -ns'rance iss'ed Marine olicy !o. M!-44843/9448 in (avoro( Col'#bia to ins're the ship#ent o( 8D9 b'ndles o( electric copper cathodes against All@isks. "n A'g'st 9E, 9448, the cargoes were shipped on board the vessel "@ichard @ey"(ro# -sabela, ;eyte, to ier 84, !orth /arbor, Manila. They arrived on the sa#e date.Col'#bia engaged the services o( Blodel (or the release and withdrawal o( the cargoes (ro# the pier and the s'bse5'ent delivery to its wareho'ses/plants. Blodel, in t'rn,engaged the services o( ;oad#asters (or the 'se o( its delivery tr'cks to transport thecargoes to Col'#biaLs wareho'ses/plants in <'lacan and ,alen?'ela City. The goods were loaded on board twelve $89% tr'cks owned by ;oad#asters, driven by itse#ployed drivers and acco#panied by its e#ployed tr'ck helpers. &i7 $K% tr'ckloads o( copper cathodes were to be delivered to <alagtas, <'lacan, while the other si7 $K %tr'ckloads were destined (or ;awang <ato, ,alen?'ela City. The cargoes in si7 tr'ckloads (or;awang <ato were d'ly delivered in Col'#biaLs wareho'ses there. "( the si7 $K% tr'cks enro'te to <alagtas, <'lacan, however, only (ive $3% reached the destination. "ne $8% tr'ck,loaded with 88 b'ndles or 9D9 pieces o( copper cathodes, (ailed to deliver its cargo.;ater on, the said tr'ck, an -s'?' with late !o. !&)-882, was recovered b't witho'tthe copper cathodes. <eca'se o( this incident, Col'#bia (iled with @>< -ns'rance a clai# (orins'rance inde#nity in the a#o'nt o( 8,F4D,DD3.DF. A(ter the re5'isite investigation andad1'st#ent, @>< -ns'rance paid Col'#bia the a#o'nt o( 8,EFK,2EF.K9 as ins'r anceinde#nity.

@>< -ns'rance, therea(ter, (iled a co#plaint (or da#ages against both ;oad#astersand Blodel be(ore the @egional Trial Co'rt, <ranch 8C, Manila $ @TC %, docketed as Civil Case!o. 49-84D4C4. -t so'ght rei#b'rse#ent o( the a#o'nt it had paid to Col'#bia (or the losso( the s'b1ect cargo. -t clai#ed that it had been s'brogated "to the right o( the consignee torecover (ro# the party/parties who #ay be held legally liable (or the loss." -ss'e : +hether or not ;oad#asters and Blodel are co##on carriers. /eld : :nder Article 82D9 o( the Civil Code, co##on carriers are persons, corporations,(ir#s, or associations engaged in the b'siness o( carrying or transporting passenger orgoods, or both by land, water or air (or co#pensation, o((ering their services to the p'blic.<ased on the a(orecited de(inition, ;oad#asters

is a co##on carrier beca'se it isengaged in the b'siness o( transporting goods by land, thro'gh its tr'cking service. -t is aco##on carrier as disting'ished (ro# a private carrier wherein the carriage is generally'ndertaken by special agree#ent and it does not hold itsel( o't to carry goods (or thegeneral p'blic. The distinction is signi(icant in the sense that "the rights and obligations o( the parties to a contract o( private carriage are governed principally by their stip'lations,not by the law on co##on carriers."-n the sa#e vein, Blodel is also considered a co##on carrier within the conte7t o( Article 82D9. -n its Me#orand'#, it states that it "is a corporation d'ly organi?ed ande7isting 'nder the laws o( the @ep'blic o( the hilippines and is engaged in the b'siness o( c'sto#s brokering." -t cannot be considered otherwise beca'se as held by this Co 'rtin &ch#it? Transport > <rokerage Corporation v. Transport ,ent're, -nc., a c'sto#s broker isalso regarded as a co##on carrier, the transportation o( goods being an integral part o( its b'siness.
Baliwag Transit vs. CA (GR 116110, 15 May 1996) FACTS: n !1 "#ly 19$0, %&ti'ia Gar'ia, an( )&r 5*y&ar +l( s+n, Allan Gar'ia, ,+ar(&( Baliwag Transit B#s -0!6 ,+#n( .+r Ca,anat#an City (riv&n ,y "ai/& Santiag+. T)&y t++0 t)& s&at ,&)in( t)& (riv&r. At a,+#t 1:!0 2./., in Mali/,a, Ga2an, 3#&va 4'i5a, t)& ,#s 2ass&ng&rs saw a 'arg+ tr#'0, +wn&( ,y A 6 " Tra(ing, 2ar0&( at t)& s)+#l(&r +. t)& nati+nal )ig)way. 7ts l&.t r&ar 2+rti+n 5#tt&( t+ t)& +#t&r lan&, as t)& s)+#l(&r +. t)& r+a( was t++ narr+w t+ a''+//+(at& t)& w)+l& tr#'0. A 0&r+s&n& la/2 a22&ar&( at t)& &(g& +. t)& r+a( +,vi+#sly t+ s&rv& as a warning (&vi'&. T)& tr#'0 (riv&r, an( )is )&l2&r w&r& t)&n r&2la'ing a .lat tir&. B#s (riv&r Santiag+ was (riving at an in+r(inat&ly .ast s2&&( an( .ail&( t+ n+ti'& t)& tr#'0 an( t)& 0&r+s&n& la/2 at t)& &(g& +. t)& r+a(. Santiag+8s 2ass&ng&rs #rg&( )i/ t+ sl+w (+wn ,#t )& 2ai( t)&/ n+ )&&(. Santiag+ &v&n 'arri&( ani/at&( '+nv&rsati+ns wit) )is '+*&/2l+y&&s w)il& (riving. 9)&n t)& (ang&r +. '+llisi+n ,&'a/& i//in&nt, t)& ,#s 2ass&ng&rs s)+#t&( :Ba,angga tay+;<. Santiag+ st&22&( +n t)& ,ra0&, ,#t it was t++ lat&. =is ,#s ra//&( int+ t)& stall&( 'arg+ tr#'0 0illing )i/ instantly an( t)& tr#'08s )&l2&r, an( in5#ry t+ s&v&ral +t)&rs a/+ng t)&/ )&r&in r&s2+n(&nts. T)#s, a s#it was .il&( against Baliwag Transit, 7n'., A 6 " Tra(ing an( "#li+ R&'+nti>#& .+r (a/ag&s in t)& RTC +. B#la'an. A.t&r trial, it .+#n( Baliwag Transit, 7n'. lia,l& .+r )aving .ail&( t+ (&liv&r Gar'ia an( )&r s+n t+ t)&ir 2+int +. (&stinati+n sa.&ly in vi+lati+n +. Gar'ia8s an( Baliwag Transit8s '+ntra't#al r&lati+n? an( li0&wis& .+#n( A 6 " an( its tr#'0 (riv&r lia,l& .+r .ail#r& t+ 2r+vi(& its 'arg+ tr#'0 wit) an &arly warning (&vi'& in vi+lati+n +. t)& M+t+r @&)i'l& %aw. All w&r& +r(&r&( t+ 2ay s+li(arily t)& Gar'ia s2+#s&s.

n a22&al, t)& CA /+(i.i&( t)& trial '+#rt8s A&'isi+n ,y a,s+lving A 6 " Tra(ing .r+/ lia,ility. 7SSB4: 9)&t)&r +r n+t Baliwag s)+#l( ,& )&l( s+l&ly lia,l& .+r t)& in5#ri&s. =4%A: C&s. As a '+//+n 'arri&r, Baliwag ,r&a')&( its '+ntra't +. 'arriag& w)&n it .ail&( t+ (&liv&r its 2ass&ng&rs, %&ti'ia an( Allan Gar'ia t+ t)&ir (&stinati+n sa.& an( s+#n(. A '+//+n 'arri&r is ,+#n( t+ 'arry its 2ass&ng&rs sa.&ly as .ar as )#/an 'ar& an( .+r&sig)t 'an 2r+vi(&, #sing t)& #t/+st (ilig&n'& +. a v&ry 'a#ti+#s 2&rs+n, wit) (#& r&gar( .+r all t)& 'ir'#/stan'&s. 7n a '+ntra't +. 'arriag&, it is 2r&s#/&( t)at t)& '+//+n 'arri&r was at .a#lt +r was n&glig&nt w)&n a 2ass&ng&r (i&s +r is in5#r&(. Bnl&ss t)& 2r&s#/2ti+n is r&,#tt&(, t)& '+#rt n&&( n+t &v&n /a0& an &D2r&ss .in(ing +. .a#lt +r n&glig&n'& +n t)& 2art +. t)& '+//+n 'arri&r. T)is stat#t+ry 2r&s#/2ti+n /ay +nly ,& +v&r'+/& ,y &vi(&n'& t)at t)& 'arri&r &D&r'is&( &Dtra+r(inary (ilig&n'& as 2r&s'ri,&( in Arti'l&s 11!! an( 1155 +. t)& Civil C+(&. Arti'l& 1159 +. t)& Civil C+(& 2r+vi(&s t)at :C+//+n 'arri&rs ar& lia,l& .+r t)& (&at) +. +r in5#ri&s t+ 2ass&ng&rs t)r+#g) t)& n&glig&n'& +r will.#ll a'ts +. t)& .+r/&r8s &/2l+y&&s, alt)+#g) s#') &/2l+y&&s /ay )av& a't&( ,&y+n( t)& s'+2& +. t)&ir a#t)+rity +r in vi+lati+n +. t)& +r(&rs +. t)& '+//+n 'arri&rs. T)is lia,ility +. t)& '+//+n 'arri&rs (+ n+t '&as& #2+n 2r++. t)at t)&y &D&r'is&( all t)& (ilig&n'& +. a g++( .at)&r +. a .a/ily in t)& s&l&'ti+n +r s#2&rvisi+n +. t)&ir &/2l+y&&s.< S&'ti+n !E (g) +. t)& %an( Trans2+rtati+n an( Tra..i' C+(& 2r+vi(&s :%ig)ts an( r&.l&'t+r w)&n 2ar0&( +r (isa,l&(. F A22r+2riat& 2ar0ing lig)ts +r .lar&s visi,l& +n& )#n(r&( /&t&rs away s)all ,& (is2lay&( at t)& '+rn&r +. t)& v&)i'l& w)&n&v&r s#') v&)i'l& is 2ar0&( +n )ig)ways +r in 2la'&s t)at ar& n+t w&ll* lig)t&( +r, is 2la'&( in s#') /ann&r as t+ &n(ang&r 2assing tra..i'. F#rt)&r/+r&, &v&ry /+t+r v&)i'l& s)all ,& 2r+vi(&( at all ti/&s wit) ,#ilt*in r&.l&'t+rs +r +t)&r si/ilar warning (&vi'&s &it)&r 2ast&(, 2aint&( +r atta')&( at its .r+nt an( ,a'0 w)i') s)all li0&wis& ,& visi,l& at nig)t at l&ast +n& )#n(r&( /&t&rs away. 3+ v&)i'l& n+t 2r+vi(&( wit) any +. t)& r&>#ir&/&nts /&nti+n&( in t)is s#,s&'ti+n s)all ,& r&gist&r&(. < D D D =+w&v&r, t)& &vi(&n'& s)+ws t)at R&'+nti>#& an( 4'ala 2la'&( a 0&r+s&n& la/2 +r t+r') at t)& &(g& +. t)& r+a(, n&ar t)& r&ar 2+rti+n +. t)& tr#'0 t+ s&rv& as an &arly warning (&vi'&. T)is s#,stantially '+/2li&s wit) S&'ti+n !E (g) +. t)& %an( Trans2+rtati+n an( Tra..i' C+(&. T)& law 'l&arly all+ws t)& #s& n+t +nly +. an &arly warning (&vi'& +. t)& triang#lar r&.l&'t+riG&( 2lat&s vari&ty ,#t als+ 2ar0ing lig)ts +r .lar&s visi,l& 100 /&t&rs away. 7n(&&(, C+l. (&la Cr#G )i/s&l. a(/itt&( t)at a 0&r+s&n& la/2 is an a''&2ta,l& s#,stit#t& .+r t)& r&.l&'t+riG&( 2lat&s. 3+ n&glig&n'&, t)&r&.+r&, /ay ,& i/2#t&( t+ A 6 " Tra(ing an( its (riv&r, R&'+nti>#&. T)& S#2r&/& C+#rt a..ir/&( t)& A&'isi+n +. t)& C+#rt +. A22&als (CA*GR C@*!1-E6) wit) t)& /+(i.i'ati+n r&(#'ing t)& a't#al (a/ag&s .+r )+s2italiGati+n an( /&(i'al .&&s t+ H5,011.1E? wit)+#t '+sts.