This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
PKS Shipping FACTS: DUMC contracted the services of PKS Shipping for the shipment to Tacloban of 75,000 bags of cement worth 3,375,000. DUMC insured the goods for its value with petitioner. While the goods were loaded to the barge of PKS and being towed by respondent¶s tugboat, the barge sank bringing down with it the entire cargo of bags of cement. DUMC filed a formal claim with Philamgen for the full amount of the insurance and the insurance company promptly made the payment; it then sought reimbursement from PKS of the sum paid to DUMC but the shipping company refused to pay. CA concluded that PKS is not a common carrier hence it is not expected to observe the stringent extraordinary diligence required of common carriers in the care of goods. ISSUE: W/N PKS Shipping is a common carrier. HELD: PKS is a common carrier. Article 1732 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 public,¶ i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions. Contrary to the conclusion made by the appellate court, its factual findings indicate that PKS Shipping has engaged itself in the business of carrying goods for others, although for a limited clientele, undertaking to carry such goods for a fee. The regularity
of its activities in this area indicates more than just a casual activity on its part.6Neither can the concept of a common carrier change merely because individual contracts are executed or entered into with patrons of the carrier. Such restrictive interpretation would make it easy for a common carrier to escape liability by the simple expedient of entering into those distinct agreements with clients. Baritua vs. Mercader FACTS: Dominador Mercader boarded petitioner¶s bus at the Manila Station bound for Northern Samar as a paying passenger. At that time, Mercader had with him as his baggage assorted goods since he is engaged in the buy and sell business. However, Mercader was not able to reach his destination because the bus fell into the river at the Beily Bridge and as a result, Mercader died. ISSUE: Whether or not, petitioner as a common carrier, observed extraordinary diligence. HELD: We agree with the findings of both courts that petitioners failed to observe extraordinary diligence that fateful morning. It must be noted that a common carrier, by the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is bound to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. It is supposed to do so by using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances In case of death or injuries to passengers, it is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 175520 of the Civil Code. We sustain the ruling of the CA that petitioners failed to prove that they had observed extraordinary diligence. First, petitioners did not present evidence on the skill or expertise of the driver of Bus No. 142 or the condition of that vehicle at the time of the incident. Second, the bus was overloaded at the time. In fact, several individuals were standing when the incident occurred.
they were rudely treated by the employees of United Airlines. Its conductor testified that it had overtaken several buses before it reached the Bugko Bailey Bridge. they were informed that the flight was overbooked. 500 cases of 1-liter softdrink bottles to be transported from Zamboanga to Cebu. the bus was overspeeding. As earlier stated.250. vs. On July 7. the Court is of the opinion that the private respondents were not able to prove that they were subjected to coarse and harsh treatment by the ground crew of united Airlines. It was top-heavy as an excessive amount of cargo was loaded on deck. It cannot therefore escape liability through the expedient of filing a notice of . where they used the first coupon from San Francisco to Washington. While there. the award of moral and exemplary damages by the Court of Appeals is improper. Inc. as amended. CA FACTS: Coca-cola Bottlers Phil. As such. Having no seat assignments. Hence. On the date of their flight. Neither were they able to show that there was bad faith on part of the carrier airline. 7. they were informed that their flight had been overbooked. Petitioner. According to Fontanilla. ISSUE: W/N there was a breach of contract in bad faith on the part of United Airlines in not allowing the Fontanillas to board the United Airlines flight. Claiming its right of subrogation. the award of attorney¶s fees is. What this Court considers as bad faith is the willful and deliberate overbooking on the part of the airline carrier.22 Moreover. Aniceto Fontanilla bought 2 additional coupons and they were issued tickets with corresponding boarding passes. The Fontanillas proceeded to the US as planned. Philamgen sought recourse against FELMAN which disclaimed any liability for the loss. HELD: It was already established at the outset that the sinking of "MV Asilda" was due to its unseaworthiness even at the time of its departure from the port of Zamboanga. the vessel sank bringing down the entire cargo with her including the cases of softdrink bottles. Their version of the story was that the Fontanillas failed to go to the check-in counter to get their seat assignments. 1983. FELMAN was equally negligent. It was only at 12 noon that they were able to leave Los Angeles. ISSUE: W/N FELMAN was negligent. of the Civil Aeronautics Board clearly states that when the overbooking does not exceed ten percent (10%). CA FACTS: Private respondent Fontanilla purchased from petitioner 3 ³Visit the USA´ tickets. HELD: For the plaintiff to be entitled to an award of moral damages arising from a breach of contract of carriage. denied the allegations. While there may have been overbooking in this case. denied for lack of any legal and factual basis. the carrier must have acted with fraud or bad faith. however. the stewardess at the door of the plane instructed them to go to the check-in counter. Said shipment was insured with petitioner. loaded on board MV Asilda. United Airlines. The Economic Regulations No. owned by FELMAN.Third. it is not considered as deliberate and therefore does not amount to bad faith. likewise. prior to crossing the bridge. private respondents were not able to prove that the overbooking on United Airlines Flight 1108 exceeded ten percent. Corollarily. it had accelerated and maintained its speed towards the bridge. Coca-Cola filed a claim with FELMAN for recovery of damages but was denied thus prompting Coca-cola to file an insurance claim with Philamgen which paid its claim of 755. Philippine American General Insurance vs. Inc. Closer supervision on the part of the shipowner could have prevented this fatal miscalculation. 7.
clearly established and cited in the decision of said court. with his slow reaction and poor judgment. the pilot. even though afflicted with tumor of the nasopharynx. He admittedly had tumor of the nasopharynx (nose). FELMAN. Part of the trip was a boat-ride going to Corregidor. the eyes which are very near it. as a result of and notwithstanding diligent efforts of Samson to avert an accident. Bernardo. PAL vs. was not able to rebut this presumption. Although the request says that ³it is believed that his continuing to fly as a co-pilot does not involve any hazard.´ flying as a First Officer entails a very different responsibility than flying as a mere co-pilot. The request for waiver of physical standards is itself a positive proof that the physical condition of Capt." In the event of loss of goods. He was then discharged from employment. PAL. Bustamante. headache and general debility and then complained to PAL. No one will certify the fitness to fly a plane of one suffering from the disease. . Under Art 1733 of the Civil Code. Samson suffered dizzy spells. CA FACTS: Captain Bustamante and co-pilot Samson manned the regular afternoon flight of PAL¶s plane from Manila to Legazpi. Tumor on the spot will affect the sinus. Upon making a landing at Daet. contended that Samson only suffered superficial wounds and the dizziness experienced was due to emotional disturbance. CA FACTS: Petitioner Sarkies advertised for a Corregidor tour for Independence Day. common carriers are presumed to have acted negligently. Mendoza. ISSUE: W/N PAL was guilty of gross negligence for having allowed Capt. The boat capsized and one of the children of Dizons died. Bernardo to the Medical Director of the CAA requesting waiver of physical standards. overshot the airfield and. PAL merely referred him to its clinic attended by general practitioners on his external injuries. the shipowner. The Deputy Administrator of the CAA granted the request relying on the representation and recommendation made by Dr. For having allowed Bustamante to fly as a First Officer on 8 January 1951.abandonment of the vessel by virtue of Art. The fact First Pilot Bustamante has a long standing tumor of the Nasopharynx for which reason he was grounded since November 1947 is admitted in the letter of Dr. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. The spot is very near the brain and the eyes. Dizon and 4 children availed of the promo and were issued receipt under the Sarkies letterhead. the breathing. HELD: The imputation of gross negligence by the court to PAL for having allowed Capt. Delfin Bustamante to fly on that fateful day of the accident as the same is duly supported by substantial evidence. according to all the circumstances of each case . PAL also recalled Samson to active duty as a copilot and ignored his plea for expert medical assistance. . "(c)ommon carriers. was given a waiver of physical standards to enable hom to retain his first class airman certificate. The lower court exonerated Sarkies from liability and attributed sole responsibility . The jolt and impact caused Samson to hit his head upon the plane¶s front windshield thereby causing his brain concussions and wounds on the forehead. 587 of the Code of Commerce. PAL requested the CAA to allow Capt. owner of a motorized was not authorized to operate a watercraft. Dizons filed a complaint against Sarkies and Mendoza. Bustamante is short of the standard set by the CAA. They further alleged that they only employ pilots who are proficient and competent. Sarkies vs. the plane crash-landed beyond the runway into the mangrove. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. with concomitant intense pain. PAL is guilty of gross negligence and therefore should be made liable for the resulting accident. Samson was not given proper medical attention and treatment demanded by the nature and severity of his injuries. Bustamante to fly. The pilot was sick. Bustamante to fly merely as a co-pilot and it is safe to conclude that the CAA approved the request thus allowing Bustamante to fly only as a co-pilot. however.
Police officers acting without judicial authority secured in the manner provided by law are not beyond the pale of constitutional inhibitions designed to protect individual human rights and liberties. Of course. In other words. Calling a policeman to his aid.to Mendoza. Not to be lightly considered must be the right to privacy to which each passenger is entitled. its principle should be applied in favor of Sarkies. not to speak of his own. it is but fair that SARKIES should have a right of action against Mendoza for reimbursement. HELD: In this particular case before Us. the constitutional rights of the passenger. v. for the reason that the relationship between Sarkies and the excursionists was ³a single operation which in effect guaranteed them safe passage all throughout. the owner and operator of the EDISCO. Although Article 2181 of the Civil Code is not technically invocable. considering how easily the duty to inspect can be made an excuse for mischief and abuse. when he protests the innocuousness of his baggage and nothing appears to indicate the contrary. what must be importantly considered here is not so much the infringement of the fundamental sacred rights of the particular passenger herein involved. The provision of the Civil Code on common carriers is based on Anglo-American Law. in compelling the passenger to submit to more rigid inspection. as enunciated in the decision of this Court cited by His Honor. above all. Withal. CA reversed the decision and held both Sarkies and Mendoza liable. but the constant threat any contrary ruling would pose on the right of privacy of all passengers of all common carriers. it must be considered that while it is true the passengers of appellant's bus should not be made to suffer for something over which they had no control. constitutional boundaries are already in danger of being transgressed. It is to be presumed that a passenger will not take with him anything dangerous to the lives and limbs of his copassengers. after the passenger had already declared that the box contained mere clothes and other miscellaneous. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company FACTS: Nocum was a passenger in the appellant¶s bus. could not have justified invasion of a constitutionally protected domain. the assistance of the police authorities may be solicited. Co.´ Nocum vs. as suggested by the service manual invoked by the trial judge. but beyond this. in the interest of the common safety of all. HELD: Considering that the actual negligence for the drowning of Merceditas was the responsibility of Mendoza. loaded in a bus and declared to its conductor as containing clothes and miscellaneous items by a copassenger. ISSUE: W/N Laguna Tayabas Bus Company is liable for the injuries suffered by its passengers caused by the articles brought into said bus by other passengers. Latham. as in the case at bar. . He cannot be subjected to any unusual search. the following was said: ³When a railroad company had been compelled to pay a judgment for damages for injuries sustained by a passenger as a result of the maltreatment and misconduct of the conductor the Court (held) that the servant was liable to his master for all the loss and damage sustained by it. Exemplary damages was awarded. It is in this sense that the mentioned service manual issued by appellant to its conductors must be understood. not necessarily to force the passenger to open his baggage. In regards to Grand Trunk R. On its way to Laguna.1 fairness demands that in measuring a common carrier's duty towards its passengers. but to conduct the needed investigation consistent with the rules of propriety and. allowance must be given to the reliance that should be reposed on the sense of responsibility of all the passengers in regard to their common safety. ISSUE: W/N Sarkies has a right of action against Mendoza. he was injured as a consequence of the explosion of firecrackers contained in a box. inquiry may be verbally made as to the nature of a passenger's baggage when such is not outwardly perceptible. when there are sufficient indications that the representations of the passenger regarding the nature of his baggage may not be true.
Judge Cornejo of the city court favoured shipper Elite for the recovery of damages from common carrier Compania Maritima. but thereafter denied the judgment of execution and set aside its previous decision. ISSUE: Who should be liable for the death of Medina²registered owner or absolute owner? HELD: The law requires the approval of the Public Service Commission in order that a franchise. may be sold or leased without infringing the certificate issued to the grantee and that if property covered by the franchise is transferred or leased without this requisite approval. When. was no longer as a common carrier but as a depository. stored in its bodega but subsequently burned.Elite Shirt Factory vs. Cresencia however. a point not passed upon in this proceeding. or any privilege pertaining thereto. The view cannot be accepted. It was still under duty to deliver the same to the consignees. answered that he already sold the jeepney in question. A criminal case was filed against the driver and the heir reserved their right to file a separate civil action for damages. Guillermo Cresencia. the proceeding in effect is one for a breach of a contract of shipment. While said cargo was stored in the bodega of respondent. Cresencia FACTS: A jeepney driven by Brigido Avorque smashed into a Meralco post and resulted to the death of Vicente Medina. hence. They then brought an action against the driver and Guillermo Cresencia. as in this case. Aragon. That remained the basis of whatever liability. as petitioner would insist both here and in the lower court. the transfer is not binding against the public or the Service Commission. that the obligation of respondent Compañia Maritima from the contract entered into by it with the petitioner had ceased the moment the goods were discharged in the port of destination. continued to be liable to the Commission and the public for the consequences incident to its operation. Compañia Maritima. no delivery having been made to the consignee as a result? HELD: The decisive consideration is that the admiralty jurisdiction as decided by us in a leading case. As long as the subject matter thereof is maritime service or a maritime transaction. As the sale of the jeepney here in question was admittedly without the approval of the Public Service Commission. ISSUE: Does the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on a Court of First instance over admiralty and maritime cases include the suit where the shipper files a claim against the carrier. it is the City Court which has jurisdiction. the ground: Judge had no jurisdiction. would attach to respondent Compañia Maritima. Cornejo FACTS: Elite Shirt delivered to Compania Maritima for shipment to designated consignees several cartons of merchandise. it cannot be said that the contract of affreightment was at an end. Until there be compliance therewith.5 extends over all maritime contracts in whatever form entered into. one of its passengers. Appellant herein. Medina vs. the jurisdiction of the court of first instance under the specific provision of the Judiciary Act is undeniable. . whether executed or still to be performed. then it is embraced within such a concept. the grantee of record continues to be responsible under the franchise in relation to the Commission and to the public. but rather the CFI within its exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. who is the registered owner and operator thereof. from the time the shipment was deposited in its warehouse. a fire broke out and as a result of which appellant filed a complaint for damages in the City Court of Manila against respondent. the registered owner and operator of the jeepney. in contemplation of law. Elite Shirt Factory contends that the liability of the carrier. v. That is why it would not be in consonance with the settled law if under the above specific facts the matter would not be considered as falling within the admiralty jurisdiction of a court of first instance. International Harvester Co. the goods having been landed.
That duty. and its non-performance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant's servants.´ . by implication.. FACTS: As an employee of the Manila Railroad Co. but the care which a man of ordinary prudence would use under similar circumstances. ISSUE: What is the liability of Manila Railroad Co. not the care which may or should be used by the prudent man generally. While he stepped of the train. his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains (civil code. Because of the incident. one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons hence his feet slipped under him and he fell on the platform. was direct and immediate. would have acted as the passenger acted under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence. of the age.Cangco vs. Thompson¶s work on negligence²The test by which to determine whether the passenger has been guilty of negligence in attempting to alight from a moving railway train. It is to be considered whether an ordinarily prudent person. being contractual. Jose Cangco was entitled to ride the company¶s trains free of charge.? HELD: The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff carried with it. Manila Railroad Co. to avoid injury. sex and condition of the passenger. This care has been defined to be. article 1258). is that of ordinary or reasonable care.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.