TRANSPORTATION LAW November 21, 2012

COMMON CARRIERS
Art. 1732 Common Carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering services to the public.

NOTES: Elements of Common Carrier: 1. Any person, corporations, firms or associations; 2. Such persons etc., must be engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both; 3. The means of carriage or transporting passengers, goods or both is by LAND, WATER OR AIR; 4. The carrying or transporting of passengers or goods or both is for a fee or compensation; and 5. The services is offered to the public without distinction. Test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is: 1. He must engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a public employment, and must hold himself out as ready engage in the transportation of goods or person generally as a business and not as a casual occupation; 2. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is confined; 3. He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and over his established roads; and 4. The transportation must be for hire.

• The concept of “common carrier” under Article 1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of “Public Service” under the Public Service Act

(Commonwealth Act no. 1416) which at least partially supplements the law on common carriage set forth in the Civil Code. Under Section13(b) of said Act, “public service” includes: Xxx every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage or control in the Philippines, for hire or compensation with general or limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional, or accidental, and one ofr general business purposes, any common carrier xxx xxxx. (De Guzman vs. CA, Dec. 12, 1988)

Common carrier holds himself out in common, that is to all persons who choose to employ him as ready to carry for hire vs. Private Carrier agrees in some special case with some private individual to carry for hire.

• In Home Insurance Co. vs. American Steamship Agency, the Court adopted the principle laid in American jurisprudence wherein a common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special persons only, it becomes a private carrier. Thus, the provisions in Civil Code on common carrier will not apply. Thereby, as a private carrier a stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the negligence of its agent is valid. Thus stipulation would be void only if the strict public policy governing common carriers is applied. Such policy however has no force where the public at large is not involve, as the ship is totally chartered for the use of a single party.

JURISPRUDENCE: CASE 1 First Philippine Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, December 29, 1998 Facts: In imposing tax on the petitioner, respondent City treasurer contends that the pipelines are not included in the term “common carrier” which refers solely to ordinary carriers such as trucks, trains, ships and the like. It further posit the term “common carrier” under the said code pertains to the mode or manner by which a product is deliver to its destination.

that is. for compensation.Held: A "common carrier" may be defined. and transports the goods by land and for compensation. there is no doubt that petitioner is a common carrier. and 4. It undertakes to carry for all persons indifferently. 1987) Held: The true test of a common carrier is the carriage of passengers or good. Inc. He must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a public employment. As found by the RT. as one who holds himself out to the public as engaged in the business of transporting persons or property from place to place. for hire as a public employment. petroleum products. 3. i. A carrier which does not qualify on said test is deemed a private carrier. offering his services to the public generally. The fact that petitioner has a limited clientele does not exclude it from the definition of a common carrier Xxx Under the Petroleum Act of the Philippines (RA NO. broadly. and must hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for person generally as a business and not as a casual occupation. provided it has space. He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and over his established roads. 2.e. for all who opt to avail themselves of tis transportation service for a fee. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is confined.” Case 2 Vlasons Shipping. The transportation must be for hire. to all persons who choose to employ its services. It is engaged in the business of transporting or carrying goods. 387) petitioner is a “common carrier. CA (December 12. it carried passengers or goods only for those it chose under a . vs. Xxx In the case at bar. 15 Based on the above definitions and requirements. it is undisputed that VSI did not offer its services to the general public. The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is: 1.

Since petitioner was private carrier. exempting the ship owner from liability for loss or damage to the cargo caused even by the negligence of the ship captain. Nos. and the fact that the goods were lost or damaged while in the carrier’s custody does not put the burden of proof on the carrier. CA. 6. Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734. unless expressly stipulated by the parties in their charter party. ISSUE: Whether the stipulation in the charter party exempting the carrier from liability for the loss of cargo due to negligence of vessel’s captain is valid? Held: Yes. 1735. the ship owner’s obligations are governed by the provisions of the Code of Commerce. or injury to. petitioner was not a common but a private carrier. the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the carrier was negligent or unseaworthy. cargo. 5. and 1745. . common carriers are bound to observe EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in the vigilance of GOODS and for the SAFETY of passengers transported by them according to all circumstances of each case.” As correctly ruled by the CA. 1997 Facts: it is undisputed that the cause of the sinking of the vessel was due to the snapping of the iron chains and the subsequent rolling of the logs to the portside due to the negligence of the captain in stowing and securing the logs on board the vessel.” Case 3 Valenzuela Hardwood vs. In a contract of private carriage. Art. while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756. The stringent provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers cannot be applied to private carrier.“special contract of charter party. and 7. From the NATURE of their services and for reasons of PUBLIC POLICY. June 30. 1733. It has been held that the “ in an action against a private carrier for loss of. the rights and obligations are determined primarily by stipulations in their contract of private carriage or charter party.” Thus. the parties may validly stipulate that responsibility for the cargo rests solely on the charterer. Undisputed also was the fact that the private respondent is a private carrier when it contracted with the petitioner to transport its cargo.

of the time and of the place. storm.NOTES: TWO TYPES OF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE: A. 1997 Held: It is settled that carrying A DECK cargo raises the presumption of unseaworthiness unless it can be shown that the deck cargo will not interfere with the proper management of the ship. earthquake. PROVISIONS ON EXTRA DILIGENCE ON GOODS A. VIGILANCE ON GOODS B. The inordinate loading of cargo ON DECK resulted in the decrease of the vessel’s metacentric height thus making it unstable. whether international or civil. Common carriers are responsible for the loss. CA. I. or other natural disaster or calamity.is that which is require by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons. (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers. destruction. SAFETY OF PASSENGERS Due diligence. June 11. However. Case 1 Loadstar Shipping vs. The failure of a common carrier to maintain in searthy conditions its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code. the loadstar was at fault or negligent in not maintaining a seaworthy vessel and in having allowed its vessel to sail despite knowledge of an approaching typhoon. in his case it was established that the vessel was not designed to carry substantial amount of cargo ON DECK. Nor the doctrine of limited liability does not apply where there was negligence on the part of the vessel owner or agent. (2) Act of the public enemy in war. . (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods. it must be adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent officers and crew. unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood. (5) Order or act of competent public authority. Case 2 The Philippine American Genral Insurance vs. Article 1734. 1999 Held: For a vessel to be seaworthy. or deterioration of the goods. CA. Here. September 28. lightning.

unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. Article 1756. 1. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. B. unjust and contrary to public policy: 5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees. PROVISIONS ONF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE ON SAFETY OF PASSENGERS: A. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733. if the goods are lost. vehicle. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. with a due regard for all the circumstanes. Article 1735. In case of death of or injuries to passengers. (6) That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves. Article 1755. 3. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. Article 1745. violence or force. 2. and 5 of the preceding article.B. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. 4. airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage. C. ship. . destruction. or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car. destroyed or deteriorated. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. II. (7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss. or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat. is dispensed with or diminished.

Such act must be the proximate cause 2. Requisites for acts or omission of shipper: . storm. earthquake. destruction or deterioration. in the natural and continuous sequence. Only cause 3. lightning. produces the injury. It must the proximate cause. (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers. 3. 2. destruction. (2) Act of the public enemy in war. unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood. unbroken by any efficient.VIGILANCE OVER GOODS Article 1734. Common carrier has exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent or minimize BEFORE. Common carrier has not incurred delay or negligent in transporting goods. the carrier is presumed negligent in case of loss. or other natural disaster or calamity. DURING and AFTER the said act. If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the goods. Article 1740. DURING AND AFTER the natural disaster 4. (5) Order or act of competent public authority. and without which the result would not have occurred. intervening cause. It must have been the only cause of the loss. Common carriers are responsible for the loss. Proximate cause is defined as that which. a natural disaster shall not free such carrier from responsibility. CC exercised extra diligence BEFORE. or deterioration of the goods. Requisites for act of public enemy: 1. (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods. whether international or civil. NOTES: The foregoing list is a closed list which means that the if the circumstances do not fall within the list even they would constitute force majeure. Requisites for Natural Disaster or Calamity: 1.

2. or the faulty nature of packing or containers 2. If the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss. If through the order of public authority the goods are seized or destroyed. Requisites for the act of Public Authority: 1. or deterioration of the goods should be caused by the character of the goods. Relevant provision: Article 1741. The act or omission of the shipper of owner of good must be the proximate cause. The act of public authority must be the proximate or sole cause 2. which however. the latter shall be liable in damages. the proximate cause thereof being the negligence of the common carrier. 1988 . CC had exercised due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss Relevant provisions: Article 1742. destruction. or the faulty nature of the packing or of the containers. May 30.1. provided said public authority had power to issue the order. Even if the loss. The loss. the common carrier is not responsible. Court of Appeal. The public authority had power to issue the order. Requisites for character of goods or fault in packing or containers: 1. CASE 1 Ganzon vs. the common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss. destruction or deterioration of the goods. to use such degree of care for his safety and protection as ordinarily prudent men would use under the circumstances. Relevant provision: Article 1743. shall be equitably reduced. destruction or deterioration of goods was caused by the character of goods. And it must be the only cause. Define: Contributory negligence is the failure of a person who has been exposed to injury by the fault or negligence of another.

The Mayor drew his gun and shot Gelacio resulting his injuries and was treated. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 4. Issue: whether or not the dumping of the scrap iron into the sea that was ordered by the local government official a fortuitous event.00 from Gelacio but the latter refused to give the amount. Held: the intervention of the municipal official was not of a character that would render impossible the fulfillment by the carrier of its obligation. CA. June 12. 2. delivered the scrap iron to the captain for laoding. When about half of scrap iron was loaded.000. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss. absence of sufficient proof that the issuance of same order was attended with such force or intimidation as to completely overpower the will of petitioner’s employees. DESTRUCTION AND DETERIORATION OF GOODS Article 1753. acting mayor with three policemen ordered the captain to dump the scrap iron. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. Article 1735. Per agreement. destroyed or deteriorated. 3. The petitioner was not duty bound to obye the illegal order to dump into the sea the scrap iron. COMMON PROVISIONS ON LOSS. if the goods are lost. 1. Mayor Jose of Bataan demanded P5. 1995 . and 5 of the preceding article. Moreover. When the loading resumed.Facts: Galacio contracted services of Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron from Bataan to Manila. NOTES: Case 1 Coastwise Lighterage Corporation vs. destruction or deterioration.

The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of. This premise draws the Court to conclude that the delivery of the cargoes to GPC as . vs. actually or constructively. August 25.Held: When the charter party entered into was a contract of affreightment where the possession. 22 SCRA 674 CASE 1 Macam vs. Binamira. Although the cargoes were not delivered to the consignee. April 22. public policy or morals. or to the person who has a right to receive them. command and navigation of the vessels remained with the shipower or its agent then the contract of affreightment did not covert the Coastwise inot a private carrier. United States Lines.. without prejudice to the provisions of article 1738. GPC was clearly names as buyer/importer. it appears however that in the export invoices. by the carrier to the consignee. and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered. NOTES: A provision in the bill of lading exempting the common carrier from liability or damage once the goods were placed at the possession of the customs or authorities is valid. (Lu Do and Yu Ym corp. Article 1736. CA. vs. 1999 Held: the extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts until actual or constructive delivery of the cargoes to the consignee or to the person who has a right to receive them. The law and jurisprudence on common carriers both hold that the mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to carrier and the subsequent arrival of the same goods at the place of destination in bad order makes for a prima facie case against the carrier. not being contrary to law. 1957) The validity of stipulations in bills of lading exempting the carrier from liability for loss or damage to the goods when the same are not in its actual custody has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Phoenix Assurance Co.

United States Lines 22 scra 674. October 23. and he will then become entitled to the same rights in regard to the goods as he would have had if he had never parted with the possession. the unpaid seller who has parted with the possession of the goods has the right of stopping them in transitu. the right to receive them was proper. (n) Article 1531. when the buyer of goods is or becomes insolvent. 1984 Held: The validity of stipulations in bills of lading exempting the carrier from liability for loss or damage to the goods when the same are not in its actual custody has been upheld by the Court in Phoenix Assurance Co. Case 2 Samar Minig vs.buyer/importer which. In Sales. NOTES: RELEVANT PROVISIONS ON THE RIGHT OF STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU: Article 1530. Lloyd. comformably with Article 1736 had. Subject to the provisions of this Title. Ltd vs. The common carrier's duty to observe extraordinary diligence over the goods remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit. unless the shipper or owner has made use of the right of stoppage in transitu. and the actual apprehension of corporeal possession by the buyer or by person authorized by him to receive the goods as his representative for the purpose of custody or disposal. he may resume possession of the goods at any time while they are in transit. Goods are in transit within the meaning of the preceding article: . other than the consignee. actual delivery has been defined as the ceding of corporeal possession by the seller. that is to say. Article 1737.

by the exercise of reasonable diligence. XXX XXX Article 1532. to be effectual. or his agent in that behalf. The unpaid seller may exercise his right of stoppage in transitu either by obtaining actual possession of the goods or by giving notice of his claim to the carrier or other bailee in whose possession the goods are. (2) If. or air. Such notice may be given either to the person in actual possession of the goods or to his principal.(1) From the time when they are delivered to a carrier by land. In the latter case the notice. (2) If the goods are rejected by the buyer. obtains delivery of the goods before their arrival at the appointed destination. must be given at such time and under such circumstances that the principal. may prevent a delivery to the buyer. after the arrival of the goods at the appointed destination. The duty of the Cc to exercised extraordinary diligence ceases when the shipper exercises his right of stoppage in transit because by that time the Cc will transmute it to an ordinary bailee or warehouseman upon the theory that the that the exercise . until the buyer. and the carrier or other bailee continues in possession of them. the carrier or other bailee acknowledges to the buyer or his agent that he holds the goods on his behalf and continues in possession of them as bailee for the buyer or his agent. even if the seller has refused to receive them back. and it is immaterial that further destination for the goods may have been indicated by the buyer. takes delivery of them from such carrier or other bailee. (3) If the carrier or other bailee wrongfully refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer or his agent in that behalf. or his agent in that behalf. or other bailee for the purpose of transmission to the buyer. Goods are no longer in transit within the meaning of the preceding article: (1) If the buyer. water.

1969 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. but not over non-maritime contracts. 148) Article 1738. 170 N. vs.) Whether or not a contract is maritime depends not on the place where the contract is made and is to be executed. admiralty has jurisdiction of a proceeding in rem or in personam for the breach of a contract of affreightment. making the true criterion a maritime service or a maritime transaction. because the respondent Yaras and Company seeks to recover from the petitioner International Harvester Company of the Philippines the value of a certain lost cargo.) Specifically. (Id. making the locality the test. Cornejo. p.) And typical of a controversy over contracts of affreightment is a suit of one party against the other for loss of or damage to the cargo. pp. in whatever form.) This is the very case now before us. p. p.Y. CASE 2 Elite Shirt Factory Inc. vs. 85. Weir. 84. stored in its bodega . wherever they were executed or are to be performed. but on the subject-matter of the contract. (1 American Jurisprudence.of such right terminates the contract of carriage. NOTES: CASE 1 International Harvester Co. (Id. Oct. Aragon. (Rosenthal vs. 84 Phil 63 Admiralty has jurisdiction over all maritime contracts. the goods having been landed.. (2 Corpus Juris Secundum. L-26718. The extraordinary liability of the common carrier continues to be operative even during the time the goods are stored in a warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination. 567. until the consignee has been advised of the arrival of the goods and has had reasonable opportunity thereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of them. 31. whether evidenced by a bill of lading or a charter party. 90-91..

1961) Article 1739. No. Prince Line Feb. October 23. destruction. The same duty is incumbent upon the common carrier in case of an act of the public enemy referred to in article 1734. the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. or deterioration of the goods. Steam Navigation. an arrastree operator’s services are clearly not maritime.but subsequently burned. March 27. no delivery having been made to the consignee as a result? The Court held that the decisive consideration is that the admiralty jurisdiction as decided by us in a leading case. International Harvester Co. Phil. they are no different from those of a depositary or warehouseman. then it is embraced within such a concept. 2. the proceeding in effect is one for a breach of a contract of shipment. CASE 3 Servando vs. . Home Insurance Co. the jurisdiction of the court of first instance under the specific provision of the Judiciary Act is undeniable. (Delgaldo Brothers. 1982 Held: Absence of delay or negligence. during and after the occurrence of flood.5 extends over all maritime contracts in whatever form entered into. whether executed or still to be performed. Both as to the nature of the functions and place of their performance. vs. as in this case. As long as the subject matter thereof is maritime service or a maritime transaction. storm or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be exempted from liability for the loss. When. the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before. Aragon. In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility. v. However. the common carrier is not liable for loss or destruction of goods placed/deposited in the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs The legal relationship between an arrastre operator and the consignee is akin to that of warehouseman and depositor (Northern Motors vs. 29. 1960).

to which the contract . and (3) Reasonable. provided it be: (1) In writing. or a part thereof. It may even be caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier. just and not contrary to public policy. or deterioration of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence shall be valid.NOTES: Case 1 Eastern Shipping Lines vs. A stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the former for the loss. LIMITATIONS OF COMMON CARRIERS LIABILITY IN CASE OF LOSS. It does not fall within the category of an act of God unless caused by lighting or by other natural disaster or calamity. NOTES: Factors to be considered: Article 1751. This must be so as it arises almost invariably from some act of man or by human means. signed by the shipper or owner. and that the carrier has “exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before . (2) Supported by a valuable consideration other than the service rendered by the common carrier. DESTRUCTION OR DETERIORATION Article 1744. destruction. IAC 150 SCRA 464 Held: The Court ruled that fire may not be considered as natural disaster or calamity. Even if fire were to be considered a “natural disaster” within the meaning of Article 1734 of the Civil Code that the “natural disaster” must have been the “proximate and only cause of the loss”. during and after the occurrence of the disaster. The fact that the common carrier has no competitor along the line or route.

Exception to Article 1744: Article 1747. destruction. Additional limitation: Article 1748. An agreement limiting the common carrier's liability may be annulled by the shipper or owner if the common carrier refused to carry the goods unless the former agreed to such stipulation. delays the transportation of the goods or changes the stipulated or usual route. If the common carrier. without just cause. or deterioration of the goods. . just and in consonance with public policy.refers shall be taken into consideration on the question of whether or not a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability is reasonable. Article 1746. An agreement limiting the common carrier's liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid. Freight tickets or bus receipts for cargo are bills of lading. destruction. (Interprovincial Autobus vs. (2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss. or of a man of ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported. (5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees. (3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods. the contract limiting the common carrier's liability cannot be availed of in case of the loss. unjust and contrary to public policy: (1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable. or deterioration of the goods. Collector Internal Revenue) Article 1745. (4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a family.

vs. Shewaram vs.(6) That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves. PAL G. xxxx It is. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered. destruction. is dispensed with or diminished. violence or force. so the total value of the two articles was P373. July 7. Article 1749. and the transistor radio and the camera contained therein were lost.00. contended by the appellant that its liability should be limited to the amount stated in the conditions of carriage printed at the back of the plane ticket stub which was issued to the appellee. ship.00 and the camera cost P176. Macondray and co. Inc. by the owner or shipper for the loss. and that the loss of those articles was due to the negligence of the employees of the appellant. if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances. (7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss. however.00. airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage. is binding. Article 1750.. 1966 It is clear from the above-quoted portions of the decision of the trial court that said court had found that the suitcase of the appellee was tampered. and has been fairly and freely agreed upon. L-20099. vehicle. unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value. or deterioration of the goods is valid.. destruction.R. Phoenix Assurance Co. The evidence shows that the transistor radio cost P197. or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat. or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car. No. which conditions are embodied in Domestic Tariff . 1975: Stipulation limiting the carriers liability printed in the smallest type at the back of the bill of lading for loss or damage to $500 per package unless the shipper in writing declares the nature of the goods and a higher valuation and pays additional freightage on the basis of such higher valuation is held to be valid and binding although the bill is not signed by the shipper or consignee of goods. A stipulation that the common carrier's liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading. May 13.

using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. that the contract must be "reasonable and just under the circumstances and has been fairly and freely agreed upon. which is pertinent to the issue raised by the appellant in this case provides as follows: The liability." xxx The requirements provided in Article 1750 of the New Civil Code must be complied with before a common carrier can claim a limitation of its pecuniary liability in case of loss. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. SAFETY OF PASSENGERS Article 1755. the pecuniary liability of a common carrier may. by contract. xxx In accordance with the above-quoted provision of Article 1750 of the New Civil Code. for loss or damage to checked baggage or for delay in the delivery thereof is limited to its value and. It cannot be said that the appellee had actually entered into a contract with the appellant. 2 which was filed with the Civil Aeronautics Board. destruction or deterioration of the goods it has undertaken to transport. One of those conditions. if any. It is required. embodying the conditions as printed at the back of the ticket stub that was issued by the appellant to the appellee.Regulations No. be limited to a fixed amount. The fact that those conditions are printed at the back of the ticket stub in letters so small that they are hard to read would not warrant the presumption that the appellee was aware of those conditions such that he had "fairly and freely agreed" to those conditions. the value shall be conclusively deemed not to exceed P100. .00 for each ticket. unless the passenger declares in advance a higher valuation and pay an additional charge therefor. In the case before us We believe that the requirements of said article have not been met. however. with a due regard for all the circumstances.

So also. returns to relieve his brother. walks along the station platform is considered still a passenger.La Mallorca vs.1 The issue to be determined here is whether as to the child. and he in good faith and without intent of engaging in the difficulty. a person who. the relation of carrier and passenger does not necessarily cease where the latter. what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances. where a passenger has alighted at his destination and is proceeding by the usual way to leave the company's premises. It may be pointed out that although it is true that respondent Mariano Beltran. a fellow passenger. the relation of passenger and carrier between him and the petitioner remained subsisting. his wife. Court of Appeals (July 27. after alighting from the car. . aids the carrier's servant or employee in removing his baggage from the car. There can be no controversy that as far as the father is concerned. we have to sustain the judgement holding petitioner liable for damages for the death of the child. but before actually doing so is halted by the report that his brother. 1966) Under the facts as found by the Court of Appeals. the liability of the carrier for her safety under the contract of carriage also persisted. Raquel Beltran. has been shot. but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. he is deemed reasonably and necessarily delayed and thus continues to be a passenger entitled as such to the protection of the railroad and company and its agents. it was also established that the father had to return to the vehicle (which was still at a stop) to get one of his bags or bayong that was left under one of the seats of the bus. It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination. For. Thus. and their children (including the deceased child) had alighted from the bus at a place designated for disembarking or unloading of passengers. who was already led by the father to a place about 5 meters away from the bus. after alighting from a train. when he returned to the bus for hisbayong which was not unloaded. And.

although stopping the bus. he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal to go and while the latter was still unloading part of the baggages of the passengers Mariano Beltran and family. In the first place. was run over and killed. who must be near the bus. The rationale of the carrier’s liability is the fact that the passenger has neither the choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier. the father returned to the bus to get one of his baggages which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus. prejudice. The presence of said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are. In the circumstances.In the present case. the bus started to run. nevertheless did not put off the engine. the common carrier is liable since the said defect is not a caso fortuito. therefore. must have followed the father. passengers and crew members alike. Court of Appeals July 31. It was at this instance that the child. so that even he (the father) had to jump down from the moving vehicle. the child that she was. lapse or neglect therof will certainly result to the damage. Raquel. paras 104 Phil 75) PAL vs. the airplnane in the case at bar. the driver. This must be sofr any omission. Secondly. entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage. (Necesito vs. nay injuries and even death to all aboard the plane. When the cause of the accident or death was due to the defect (breakage of the crossjoint) of the motor vehicle. to be considered still as passengers of the carrier. 1981 The duty to exercise the utmost diligence on the part of the common carriers is for the safety of the passengers as well as for the members of the crew of complement operating the carrier. . although the father was still on the running board of the bus awaiting for the conductor to hand him the bag or bayong. it cannot be claimed that the carrier's agent had exercised the "utmost diligence" of a "very cautions person" required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers. However.

a maneuver which led the bus to skid and capsize. The liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation and there is breach if it fails to exercise extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of each case.Article 1756. The Court was of the opinion that this is an instance of fortuitous event where it resulted from extraordinary circumstances of being struck by the other bus. Estrada vs.1976: What is extraordinary diligence and requirements for fortuitous event. A carrier is obliged to carry its passengers with the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. . The carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel 5. and unforeseen by the defendant’s driver. or injury to passengers. April 30. In case of death of or injuries to passengers. independent from the will of. are inevitable. Principles governing the liability of the common carrier as to passengers 1. A carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death. The carrier is not responsible for events which could not be foreseen. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. it being its duty to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence 4. 1953 When the defendant bus which carried the passengers capsized after being bumped on the left side by another bus which caused the defendant’s driver to swerve his bus to the left so as to prevent it from falling into the canal and striking a tree. Guinoo Transportation L5044. 2. or which. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. June 29. Consolacion. 3. though foreseen. Fortuitous Event: Ampang vs. having due regard for all the circumstances.

it must be shown that the carrier had observed the required extraordinary diligence. Fontanar May 31. (2) the occurrence must render it impossible for the obligor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. 16 or that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event. the carrier is held liable the case not being fall under the caso fortuitous event. private respondents assumed the express ansport the wife of petitioner to her destination safely and to observe extra ordinary diligence with due regard for all the circumstances. 1985) VILLANUEVA VDA. one of the front tires burst and the vehicle zigzagged until it fell into a canal and turned turtle. is immediately attributable to the negligence of the carrier.Under the contract of carriage. When one of the rescuers who had a torch at that time approached the bus to extend help the bus started to fire-up originated from the gasoline leaked from within and ultimate burned down resulting to the death of the four passengers. it is necessary that (1) the event must be independent of the human will. Oct. In order to constitute a caso fortuito that would exempt a person from responsibility. Is the carrier liable? . 14 To overcome such presumption. and (3) the obligor must be free of a concurrent or contributory fault or negligence. 22. and that any injury suffered by her in the course thereof. MEDINA. When the cause of the accident was the blowing-up of the tire coupled with the fact that the jeepney was overloaded at that time and was running at a high speed resulting to injuries to passenger. BATACAN VS. 15 which means that the carrier must show the "utmost diligence of very cautious persons * * * as far as human care and foresight can provide".(Roberto Juntilla vs. 1957: The Proximate Cause was the negligent of the carrier’s driver At 2 o’clock in the morning while the bus of the defendant was running at full speed.

the common carrier may avail the defense that it exercises diligence of a good father of the family or in the selection and supervisions of his employees WITH RESPECT TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE AUTOMOBILE. but not to the injuries and death of its passenger. by the posting of notices. a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability for negligence is valid. but not for wilful acts or gross negligence.Held: Yes. Article 1757. or otherwise. Note: In case of collisions of two vehicles . by statements on tickets. When a passenger is carried gratuitously. . The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier's liability. Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former's employees. this for the reason that when the vehicle turned completely on its back. This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. The responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers as required in articles 1733 and 1755 cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation. that the coming othe men with the lighted torch was in response to the call for help. the leaking of gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected. Article 1758. although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. The proximate cause of the of the death of the passengers in question was the over-turning of the bus.

but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced. vs. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers. concerning Damages. COMMON PROVISIONS Article 1764.Relevant law: Article 1763. Article 1760. (Lara et al. on its own motion or on petition of any interested party. after due hearing.. The common carrier's responsibility prescribed in the preceding article cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation. by statements on the tickets or otherwise. The Public Service Commission may. if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier. Valencia. by the posting of notices. 1958) Article 1762. DUTY OF CARE OF PASSENGERS Article 1761. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries. IF THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT IS THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PASSENGER. June 30. The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself. cancel the certificate of public convenience . Article 1765. THEN THE CARRIER IS NOT LIABLE. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier.

.granted to any common carrier that repeatedly fails to comply with his or its duty to observe extraordinary diligence as prescribed in this Section. the rights and obligations of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws. Article 1766. In all matters not regulated by this Code.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful