Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 84458, November 6, 1989
Facts:
Anacleto Viana boarded MV Antonio from Occidental Mindoro bound to Manila.
Upon arrival, passengers disembarked through a gangplank connecting the vessel to the
pier. Viana disembarked through the third deck, instead of disembarking through the
gangplank. After the passengers have disembarked, Pioneer Stevedoring Corp.
pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement with Aboitiz Shipping Corp. started to unload
the cargo from the ship. Viana went back to the vessel upon realizing that he left some
of his cargoes in the vessel. While he was pointing at the crew of the vessel to where his
cargoes were loaded, a crane has hit him, pinning him between the crane and the side
of the vessel. He died three days after.
Vianas parents filed a complaint against Aboitiz for breach of contract of
carriage. Aboitiz argues that it should not be held liable since an hour has already lapsed
from the time Viana disembarked from the vessel and that he was given more than
ample time to unload his cargoes prior to the operation of the crane. Aboitiz contends
that Vianas presence in the vessel was no longer reasonable and at that moment he
was no longer a passenger of the vessel.
Issue:
Was Viana still considered a passenger of the vessel at the time of the incident?
Ruling:
Yes. The relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has
been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessels owner dock or premises.
Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has safely
alighted from the carriers conveyance or had reasonable opportunity to leave the
carriers premises. All persons who remain on the premises after leaving the conveyance
are to be deemed passengers. What is reasonable time or 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. 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 carriers premises to claim his
baggage.
Petitioner failed to prove that one hour prior the incident, the victim had already
disembarked from the vessel. What is clear is that at the time the victim was taking the
cargoes, the vessel had already docked an hour later. In consonance with common
shipping procedure as to the minimum time of one hour allowed for the passengers to
disembark, it may be presumed that the victim had just gotten off the vessel when he
went to retrieve his baggage. Even if he had disembarked an hour earlier, his presence
in petitioners premises was not without cause. The victim had to claim his baggage
which was possible only one hour after the vessel arrived since it was admittedly
standard procedure in the case of petitioners vessels that the unloading operations shall
start only after that time.
Consequently, after the foregoing circumstances, the victim Viana is still deemed
to be a passenger of the said carrier at the time of the incident. The 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 the 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.