TRANSPORTATION LAW REVIEWER Public utility ² business or service which is engaged in regularly supplying the public with some commodity or service of public consequences; implies public use and service to an indefinite public which has a legal right to demand and receive service. Transportation ² movement of things or person from one place to another Police power ² basis for State to regulate public utilities but does not extend beyond: Ƅ Regulation of rates and charges Ƅ Prevention of discrimination as to availability of service Ƅ Orders the conduct of public utility(safety rules) Art XII, 1987 Consti Ƅ Sec 11 ² issuance of franchise Ƅ Sec 17 ² temporarily take over public utility Ƅ Sec 18 ² permanent transfer of ownership to public from private Ƅ Sec 19 ² prohibit monopoly, restraint of trade, and unfair competition

y y

National Steel vs CA ² plaintiff is a private carrier. Its services are available only to specific persons who enter into a special contract of charter party with its owner.

First Philippine vs CA ² The definition of CC in the civil code does not make distinctions as to the means of tranportin as long as its by land, water or air, pipeline operators are considered CC. Convert CC to PC


Home Insurance vs ASA ² a CC undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only becomes a private carrier. A stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the negligence of its agent is valid with regards to private carriers.

Bareboat or demise ² charterer provides food, fuel, crew Time charter ² vessel charter for a period or duration of voyage Voyage or trip charter ² for one or more series of voyage Contract of freightage

COMMON CARRIERS IN GENERAL Liability of Registered Owners Art. 1732²Common 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 their services to the public.


Planters products vs CA ² it is only when the charter includes both the vessel and teh crew, as in a bareboat or demise that a common carrier becomes private, at least insofar as the particular voyage covering the charter-party is concerned. Loadstar vs CA ² It is not necessary that a carrier be issued a CPC, and this character is not altered by the fact that the carriage of goods was periodic, occasional, episodic, or unscheduled. Benedictovs IAC ² Registered owner is liable for the consequences flowing from the operations of the carrier, even though the specific vehicle involved may already
TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 1

Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC)


Bascosvs CA ² test to determine a CC is WON the given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted. ² carriage of goods is an integral part of the business (Calvo v. UCPB)


Registered owners liability


(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers. or deterioration of the goods. 1734 ² Common carriers are responsible for the loss. Exemption from liability. (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods. Art 1739 ² In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility. COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS 1733 ² Common carriers. or other natural disaster or calamity. y Art 1753 . on its own motion or on petition of any interested party. storm. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. whether international or civil.Common carriers. y Pantrancovs PSC ² the right of state to regulate public utilities is founded upon its police power and statutes for the control and regulation of utilities are a legitimate excuse thereof. storm. Art 1734 (1) ² Flood. 1. destruction or deterioration.The Public Service Commission may. However. 1735 ² In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. 2. earthquake. according to all the circumstances of each case. Art 1765 . CC is presumed negligent and therefore liable. y Cangcovs Manila Railroad ² failure to perform a contract cannot be excused upon the ground that the breach was due to negligence of a servant of the obligor. storm or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 2 . Art 1766 . during and after the occurrence of flood. the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. if the goods are lost. and 5 of the preceding article. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. for the protection of the public as well as of the utilities themselves. the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before. lightning. It is presumed that registered owner is actual owner. unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood.have been transferred to another person. cancel the certificate of public convenience 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 law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss. lightning. the rights and obligations of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws. destruction. (2) Act of the public enemy in war. according to all the circumstances of each case. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733. after due hearing.In all matters not regulated by this Code. and that the latter exercised due diligence in the selection and control of servant. or other natural disaster or calamity. destroyed or deteriorated. earthquake. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. 4. 3. Art 1733 . (5) Order or act of competent public authority. are bound to observe Ynchaustivs Dexter ² without a showing that the loss of damage suffered by the goods while in the carriers hands for transportation resulted from some other cause thanits own fault of negligence.

The act of the owner contributed to the damage thus it only mitigates the liability of the CC. and (2) the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before. Art 1744(5) ² That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees y Art 1734(3) ² Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods. But none was taken. a natural disaster shall not free such carrier from exempted from liability for the loss. the latter shall be liable in damages. Even if the fact of improper packing was shown. destruction. it is not relieved of liability once it accepts the goods despite its condition. the proximate cause thereof being the negligence of the common carrier. provided said public authority had power to issue the order. plaintiff failed to do so. The same duty is incumbent upon the common carrier in case of an act of the public enemy referred to in article 1734. or the faulty nature of the packing or of the containers. the common carrier is not responsible. Also. Art 1734(5) ² Order or act of competent public authority Art 1743 ² If through the order of public authority the goods are seized or destroyed. The petitioner was not duty bound to obey the illegal order to dump into the sea the scrap iron. the cc should have undertaken precautionary measures to avoid possible damage. Art 1742 ² Even if the loss. The natural disaster must have been the (1) proximate and only cause of the loss. the common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss. Art 1740 ² If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the goods. destruction. which in this case. 2 overseeing the unloading of heavy equipment. y Philam General Ins vs CA ² the cc cannot be for the delay in discharging the cargo for the delay was not due to the negligence of the carrier but to several factors independent from the will of the cc. It does not fall within the category of an act of God unless caused by other natural disaster or calamity. Art 1734(4) ² The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers. destruction or deterioration of the goods. Ganzonvs CA ² the intervention of municipal officials was not of a character that would render impossible the fulfilment by the carrier of its obligation. y y Belgian vs Phil First Ins² Equipped with proper knowledge of the nature of the goods. Quisumbingvs CA ² Hijacking is considered force majeure because no amount of sophisticated technology can TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 3 y CompaniaMaritimavs CA ² CC is liable for damage caused to machinery because it could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable skill and attention in Other cases of Force Majeure y . or deterioration of the goods. which however. Art 1741 ² If the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss. during and after the occurrence of flood. shall be equitably reduced. storm or other natural disaster. there is absence of sufficient proof that the issuance of the same order was attended with such force or intimidation as to completely overpower the will of the petitioner·s employees. y Eastern Shipping Lines vs IAC ² Fire cannot be considered a natural disaster or calamity. No. Hence the CC shall be presumed to have been at fault unless it proves observance of extraordinary diligence. or deterioration of the goods should be caused by the character of the goods.

ART1738 ² 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. destruction. ship. or of a man of ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported. or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat. (3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods. unjust and contrary to public policy: (1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper. unless the shipper or owner has made use of the right of stoppage in transitu. vehicle. destruction. by the carrier to the consignee. and (3) Reasonable. (6) That the common carrier·s liability for acts committed by thieves. signed by the shipper or owner. (2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss.prevent truly determined hijacking from doing so. or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car. Agreement limiting to liability ART 1744. provided it be: (1) In writing. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable. A stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the former for the loss. y Lu Do vsBinamira ² Stipulation limiting liability considering the goods have to go through inspection is not contrary to morals or public policy. violence or force. It is the airport authority who is in charge of the security. 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. TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 4 . (5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees. ART 1745. ART 1737 ² The common carrier·s duty to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit. just and not contrary to public policy. destruction. airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage. or deterioration of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence shall be valid. Duration of Liability ART 1736 ² The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of. (7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss. This is a situation where the carrier loses control of the goods because of a custom regulation and it is unfair that it be made responsible for any loss or damage that may be caused to the goods during the interregnum. is dispensed with or diminished. without prejudice to the provisions of article 1738. the airline does not have any say on the security before the passengers get into the plane. Also. or to the person who has a right to receive them. (2) Supported by a valuable consideration other than the service rendered by the common carrier. (4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a family. and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered. Hijackers do not board the plane through blatant display of firepower. or deterioration of the goods. they do it surreptitiously. actually or constructively.

ART 1748. ART 1752. ART 1751.As to amount of liability ART1749. the rules in articles 1998 and 2000 to 2003 concerning the responsibility of hotel-keepers shall be applicable. its failure to collect the freight charge is the common carrier·s own lookout. destruction. Maresklinevs CA ² While it is true that common carriers are not obligated by law to carry and to deliver merchandise. ART 1747. without just cause. Delay for a period of 2 months and 7 days falls way beyond the realm of reasonableness. CC is liable for gross negligence amounting to bad faith. Sarkiesvs CA ² where the common carrier accepted its passenger·s baggage for transportation and even had it placed in the vehicle by its own employee. Everette is only liable pursuant to clause 18 of the bill of lading. destruction. or deterioration of the goods. delays the transportation of the goods or changes the stipulated or usual route. the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss. If the common carrier. The fact that the common carrier has no competitor along the line or route. delivery of shipment or cargo should at least be made within reasonable time. Everette does not know the exact value of the goods. It is responsible for the consequent loss of the baggage. unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods. and has been fairly and freely agreed upon. COMMON CARRIER OF PASSENGER Delay in delivery of cargo y ART 1733 ² extraordinary diligence is required from CC in delivery of goods and passengers ART 1755 . In this case. is binding. if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances. just and in consonance with public policy.A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. 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. y Presumption of negligence ² factors affecting agreement ART 1746. to which the contract refers shall be taken into consideration on the question of whether or not a stipulation limiting the common carrier·s liability is reasonable. or deterioration of the goods is valid. ART1750. or a part thereof. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss. As to other baggage. the contract limiting the common carrier·s liability cannot be availed of in case of the loss. and persons are not vested with the right to prompt delivery unless CC assumes the obligation to deliver at a given date or time. The provisions of articles 1733 to 1753 shall apply to the passenger·s baggage which is not in his personal custody or in that of his employee. and the shipper failed to declare value of the goods. destruction or deterioration Passenger·s baggage ART 1754. An agreement limiting the common carrier·s liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid. A stipulation that the common carrier·s liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading. it is required that the stipulation limiting liability for loss must be reasonable and just. y Everette Steamship vs CA ² pursuant to 1749 and 1750. using TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 5 .

unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. In this case. y y ART 1757. ART 1758. and without which the result would not have occurred. which in natural and continuous sequence. The driver and conductor could have warned the men carrying the torches to stand back. Exception to 1756 y Lasamvs Smith ² the accident was not a fortuitous event and was cause either by defects in automobile or through the negligence of its driver. by statements on tickets. Remedies available: 1. Macawilivs PAB Co. Criminal Case (Art 365. In case of death of or injuries to passengers. CC did not exercise utmost diligence of a very cautious person in inspecting their equipment and cannot therefore be held as fortuitous event. Presumptionof Negligence ART 1756. by the posting of notices. or otherwise. Defect in automobile is not considered fortuitous event. validity of stipulations y Bataclanvs Medina ² Proximate cause is the overturning of the bus thus leaking of gasoline is not unexpected. Syvs Malate Taxicab ² the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the defendant in order to hold it responsible if the action initiated is based on a contract of carriage and not on tort. 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. RPC) against driver of V with subsidiary liability of owner of V and against driver of CC Limitations of liability. When a passenger is carried gratuitously. NecesitovsParas ² CC are to be held liable to answer for flaws of its equipment if such defects were discoverable. Breach of Contract against CC(ex to 1756) 2. Quasi-delict (2176) against owner of V or driver of V ² there has to be finding of facts proving fault or negligence 3. TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 6 . The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier·s liability. the court found them negligent under the NCC provision. Strong vs Iloilo-Negros Air ² Airline is not liable for an accident which rarely happens due to defects in ignition cables since cables are purchased from a competent and reputable manufacturer. a stipulation limiting the common carrier·s liability for negligence is valid. CC is liable. it is nevertheless axiomatic that the driver has the right to prove his prudence and care to be absolved from liability. but not for wilful acts or gross negligence.the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. with a due regard for all the circumstances.produces the injury. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. La Mallorca vs CA ² relation between carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier·s premises PAL vs CA ² the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the latter has been landed at the port of destination and has left the carrier·s premises. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. By failing to do so. ² While it is true that it is not incumbent upon the passenger to show the negligence of the driver. y y y y Duration of Responsibility Proximate cause ² that cause.

damages are apportioned. The extraordinary diligence imposed on common carriers is not required. 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. no liability is imposed. and plaintiff·s negligence merely contributed to his injury. The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself. by the posting of notices. if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier. 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. y MRR vs Ballesteros ² A common carrier is liable for damages arising from the negligence of its driver in allowing another person to drive his vehicle. although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. His position would be a passenger. the ´doctrine of comparative negligenceµ was discussed. If the accident was caused by plaintiff·s own negligence. (new civil code) Responsibility for acts of strangers. ART 1762. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries. If caused by defendant·s negligence. Duty of passengers.y Lara vs Valencia ² The rule is that an owner of an automobile owes a guest the duty to exercise ordinary diligence or reasonable care to avoid injuring him. co-passengers ART 1763. this is a circumstance which further militates against plaintiff·s position. The carrier·s liability is absolute in the sense that it practically secured the passenger from assaults committed by its own employees. 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.(old civil code) y Cangco v Manila Railroad ² In Rakes vs AG & P. Responsibility for acts of employees ART 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former·s employees. carrier·s order. a stranger also wanting transportation and not of an employee assigned to discharge duties. by statements on the tickets or otherwise. It is no defense for the carrier that the act was done in excess of authority or in disobedience of y . but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced. ART 1760. It is not negligent per se for a traveller to alight from a slowly moving train. Devesa had no duties to discharge since he is off duty. TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 7 y Marananvs Perez ² the carrier is liable as long as the assault occurs within the course of the performance of the employee·s duty. The shooting was therefore a casofortuito. the responsibility of the carrier extends only to those acts the carrier could foresee or avoid through the exercise of the degree of diligence required of it. Isaac vs AL AMMEN ² By placing his left arm on the window. The common carrier·s responsibility prescribedin the preceding article cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation. and although such cannot relieve the carrier but only mitigates liability. he is guilty of contributory negligence. When the crime took place. effect of contributory negligence ART 1761. y De Gillacovs MRR ² While a passenger is entitled to protection from personal violence by the carrier or its agents or employees.

by his negligence. Actual or Compensatory Damages ART 2199. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book. the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. In contracts and quasi-contracts. the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. ART 2205. Except as provided by law or by stipulation. committed a quasi-delict which caused damage to another. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. concerning Damages.In case of fraud. bad faith. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of article 291. ART 2201. ART 2197. Damages may be: (1) Actual or compensatory. Sulpicio Lines vsCa² the stevedores was there with the consent and knowledge of the owner of the vessel. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. may demand support from the person causing the death. malice or wanton attitude. the patron is liable as a common carrier. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 8 . and this suffices to hold the employer primarily and solidarily responsible for the tortuous act of the employee. (3) Nominal.Liability for Quasi-delict y China Airlines vs CA ² All that is required is that employee. DAMAGES RECOVERABLE FROM COMMON CARRIERS Liability of CC for Injury of Stevedores y ART 1764. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. (5) Liquidated. (3) The spouse. (1107a) ART 2203. and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. Damages may be recovered: (1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. (2) Moral. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. (2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit. for a period not exceeding five years. Despite the absence of a passenger-carrier relationship. (4) Temperate or moderate. ART 2206. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. or (6) Exemplary or corrective.

26. social humiliation. in addition to the moral. liquidated or compensatory damages. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. The spouse. (10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21. by way of example or correction for the public good. (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest. and similar injury. besmirched reputation. Moral Damages ART 2206. may be vindicated or recognized. Wilful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that. Though incapable of pecuniary computation. slander or any other form of defamation. and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. (7) Libel. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. or malevolent manner. and 35. is left to the discretion of the court. which has been violated or invaded by the defendant. 9 of this article. 3 of this article. descendants. abduction. rape. ART 2232. wounded feelings.damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. ascendants. In contracts and quasi-contracts. Moral damages include physical suffering. or other lascivious acts. the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton. oppressive. referred to in No. moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. ART 2233. the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages. 29. Exemplary Damages ART 2229. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right. ART 2220. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. (3) Seduction. ART 2224. In addition: (3) The spouse. (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. according to the circumstances of each case. ART 2216. except liquidated ones. moral shock. The parents of the female seduced. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed. (6) Illegal search. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. liquidated damages ART 2221. 32. may also recover moral damages. 28. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral. in the order named. and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. or abused. such damages are justly due. fraudulent. 27. liquidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated. temperate. under the circumstances. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff. reckless. fright. mental anguish. serious anxiety. 34. Nominal. temperate. Temperate or moderate damages. temperate. nominal. raped. (4) Adultery or concubinage. 30. ART 2219. (9) Acts mentioned in article 309. abducted. which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages. ART 2217. (8) Malicious prosecution. may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 9 .

been suffered but its amount can not. be provided with certainty. TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 10 . ART 2226. to be paid in case of breach thereof. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract. from the nature of the case.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.