Landicho, Laurie Carr L. ABPL IV Bacarro vs.

Castano (GR L-34597, 5 November 1982) FACTS: Respondent Castano boarded a jeep driven by Petitioner Montefalcon who thereafter drove it at around 40 kilometers per hour. While approaching Sumasap Bridge at the said speed, a cargo truck coming from behind, blowing its horn to signal its intention to overtake the jeep. The jeep, without changing its speed, gave way by swerving to the right, such that both vehicles ran side by side for a distance of around 20 meters. Thereafter as the jeep was left behind, its driver was unable to return it to its former lane and instead it obliquely or diagonally ran down an inclined terrain towards the right until it fell into a ditch pinning down and crushing Castanos right leg in the process. Castano filed a case for damages against Rosita Bacarro, William Sevilla, and Felario Montefalcon. Defendants alleged that the jeepney was sideswiped by the overtaking cargo truck. After trial, the CFI of Misamis Oriental ordered Bacarro, et.al. to jointly and severally pay Castano. It was affirmed by the CA upon appeal. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not there was a contributory negligence on the part of the jeepney driver. 2. Whether or not extraordinary diligence is required of the jeepney driver. 3. Whether or not the sideswiping is a fortuitous event. HELD: 1.) Yes. The fact is, petitioner-driver Montefalcon did not slacken his speed but instead continued to run the jeep at about forty (40) kilometers per hour even at the time the overtaking cargo truck was running side by side for about twenty (20) meters and at which time he even shouted to the driver of the truck. 2.) Yes. The fact is, there was a contract of carriage between the private respondent and the herein petitioners in which case the Court of Appeals correctly applied Articles 1733, 1755 and 1766 of the Civil Code which require the exercise of extraordinary diligence on the part of petitioner Montefalcon. 3.) The third assigned error of the petitioners would find fault upon respondent court in not freeing petitioners from any liability, since the accident was due to a fortuitous event. But, We repeat that the alleged fortuitous event in this case - the sideswiping of the jeepney by the cargo truck, was something which could have been avoided considering the narrowness of the Sumasap Bridge which was not wide enough to admit two vehicles. As found by the Court of Appeals, Montefalcon contributed to the occurrence of the mishap.

Landicho, Laurie Carr L. ABPL IV Vda. De Bataclan vs Medina G.R. No. L-10126 October 22, 1957 FACTS: After one midnight in September 1952, Juan Bataclan rode a bus owned by Medina from Cavite to Pasay. While on its way, the driver of the bus was speeding through and when he applied the brakes it cause the bus to be overturned. The driver, the conductor, and some passengers were able to free themselves from the bus except Bataclan and 3 others. The passengers called the help of the villagers and as it was dark, the villagers brought torch with them. The driver and the conductor failed to warn the would-be helpers of the fact that gasoline has spilled from the overturned bus so a huge fire ensued which engulfed the bus thereby killing the 4 passengers trapped inside. It was also found later in trial that the tires of the bus were old. ISSUE: Whether or not the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan et al was their burning by reason of the torches which ignited the gasoline. HELD: No. The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus which was caused by the negligence of the driver because he was speeding and also he was already advised by Medina to change the tires yet he did not. Such negligence resulted to the overturning of the bus. The torches carried by the would-be helpers are not to be blamed. It is just but natural for the villagers to respond to the call for help from the passengers and since it is a rural area which did not have flashlights, torches are the natural source of lighting. Further, the smell of gas could have been all over the place yet the driver and the conductor failed to provide warning about said fact to the villagers.

Landicho, Laurie Carr L. ABPL IV ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LUCILA C. VIANA, SPS. ANTONIO VIANA and GORGONIA VIANA, and PIONEER STEVEDORING CORPORATION (G.R. No. 84458 November 6, 1989) FACTS: Anacleto Viana boarded the vessel M/V Antonia, owned by Aboitiz Shipping Corporation, at the port at San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, bound for Manila. After said vessel had landed, the Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation took over the exclusive control of the cargoes loaded on said vessel pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement between Pioneer and petitioner Aboitiz. The crane owned by Pioneer was placed alongside the vessel and one (1) hour after the passengers of said vessel had disembarked, it started operation by unloading the cargoes from said vessel. While the crane was being operated, Anacleto Viana who had already disembarked from said vessel obviously remembering that some of his cargoes were still loaded in the vessel, went back to the vessel, and it was while he was pointing to the crew of the said vessel to the place where his cargoes were loaded that the crane hit him, pinning him between the side of the vessel and the crane. He was thereafter brought to the hospital where he later expired three (3) days thereafter. Private respondents Vianas filed a complaint for damages against petitioner for breach of contract of carriage. Aboitiz denied responsibility contending that at the time of the accident, the vessel was completely under the control of respondent Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation as the exclusive stevedoring contractor of Aboitiz, which handled the unloading of cargoes from the vessel of Aboitiz. ISSUE: Whether or not Aboitiz is negligent and is thus liable for the death. HELD: Yes. The victim Anacleto Viana guilty of contributory negligence, but it was the negligence of Aboitiz in prematurely turning over the vessel to the arrastre operator for the unloading of cargoes which was the direct, immediate and proximate cause of the victim's death. The rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel owner's dock or premises. 11 Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carrier's conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. All persons who remain on the premises a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances, and includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure. 12 The carrier-passenger relationship is not terminated merely by the fact that the person transported has been carried to his destination if, for example, such person remains in the carrier's premises to claim his baggage. It is apparent from the foregoing that what prompted the Court to rule as it did in said case is the fact of the passenger's reasonable presence within the carrier's premises.

That reasonableness of time should be made to depend on the attending circumstances of the case, such as the kind of common carrier, the nature of its business, the customs of the place, and so forth, and therefore precludes a consideration of the time element per se without taking into account such other factors. It is thus of no moment whether in the cited case of La Mallorca there was no appreciable interregnum for the passenger therein to leave the carrier's premises whereas in the case at bar, an interval of one (1) hour had elapsed before the victim met the accident. The primary factor to be considered is the existence of a reasonable cause as will justify the presence of the victim on or near the petitioner's vessel. We believe there exists such a justifiable cause. .

Landicho, Laurie Carr L. ABPL IV SOUTHERN LINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS De Leon, J. (1962) FACTS: In 1948, the City of Iloilo requisitioned for rice from the National Rice and Corn Corporation(hereafter referred to as NARIC) in Manila. On August 24 of the same year, NARIC, pursuant tothe order, shipped 1,726 sacks of rice consigned to the City of Iloilo on board the SS "GeneralWright" belonging to the Southern Lines, Inc. Each sack of rice weighed 75 kilos and the entireshipment as indicated in the bill of lading had a total weight of 129,450 kilos. According to thebill of lading, the cost of the shipment was P63,115.502. NARIC shipped 1,726 sacks of rice on board a vessel owned by Southern Lines . After paying for the shipment, it was noted at the foot of the bill of lading that the City of Iloilo'Received the above mentioned merchandise apparently in same condition as when shipped,save as noted below: actually received 1685 sacks with a gross weight of 116,131 kilos uponactual weighing. Total shortage ascertained 13,319 kilos." The shortage was equivalent to 41 sacks of ricewith the proportionate value of which was P6,486.353. City filed a case against NARIC and Southern Lines for the recovery of the amount lost.Southern Lines' contention: it is exempt from liability because the shortage in the shipment of rice was due to such factors as the shrinkage, leakage or spillage of the rice on account of thebad condition of the sacks at the time it received the same and the negligence of the agents of respondent City of Iloilo in receiving the shipment. Lower Court Ruling: Southern Lines ordered to pay, and NARIC was absolved of liability. CA: affirmed lower court ruling. SC: Southern Lines liable. ISSUES: 1) WON Southern Lines is liable for the loss or shortage of the rice shipped? HELD: YES . SL CANNOT CLAIM EXEMPTION WHEN IT KNOWINGLY ACCEPTED GOODS WHICHWERE IN AN IMPROPER STATE. If the fact of improper packing was known to the carrier or its servants, or apparent uponordinary observation, but it accepts the goods notwithstanding such condition, it is not relievedof liability for loss or injury resulting thereform.