Case Doctrines on Transportation Law explosives to an unduly unreasonable or unnecessary

prejudice or discrimination. Common carriers in this
De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals jurisdiction cannot lawfully decline to accept a particular
class of goods unless it appears that for some sufficient
Article 1732 makes no distinction between one reason the discrimination for such is reasonable and
whose principal business activity is the carrying of necessary. YSC has not met those conditions.
persons or goods or both, and one who does such The nature of the business of a common carrier
carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local Idiom as "a as a public employment is such that it is within the power
sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any of the State to impose such just regulations in the
distinction between a person or enterprise offering interest of the public as the legislator may deem proper.
transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis
and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic
or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 US vs. Quinahon
distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the
"general public," i.e., the general community or There is no pretense that it actually cost more to
population, and one who offers services or solicits handle the rice for the province than it did for the
business only from a narrow segment of the general merchants with whom the special contracts were made.
population. There was a clear discrimination against the province
The Court of Appeals referred to the fact that which is prohibited by the law. It is however not believed
private respondent held no certificate of public that the law prohibits common carriers from making
convenience. A certificate of public convenience is not a special rates for the handling and transporting of
requisite for the incurring of liability. That liability arises merchandise, when the same are made for the purpose
the moment a person or firm acts as a common carrier, of increasing their business and to manage their
without regard to whether or not such carrier has also important interests upon the same principles which are
complied with the requirements of the applicable regarded as sound and adopted in other trades and
regulatory statute and implementing regulations and has pursuits. Absolute equality is not required in all cases. It
been granted a certificate of public convenience or other is only unjust, undue and unreasonable discrimination
franchise. To exempt private respondent from the which the law forbids. The law of equality is in force only
liabilities of a common carrier because he has not where the services performed in the different cases are
secured the necessary certificate of public convenience, substantially the same and the circumstances and
would be offensive to sound public policy; that would be conditions are similar.
to reward private respondent precisely for failing to
comply with applicable statutory requirements.
Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. vs. CA

Planters Products, Inc. vs. CA Loadstar submits that the vessel was a private
carrier because it was not issued a CPC; it did not have
It is not disputed that respondent carrier, in the a regular trip or schedule nor a fixed route; and there
ordinary course of business, operates as a common was only “one shipper, one consignee for a special
carrier, transporting goods indiscriminately for all cargo.”
persons. When petitioner chartered the vessel M/V "Sun The SC held that Loadstar is a common carrier.
Plum", the ship captain, its officers and compliment were It is not necessary that the carrier be issued a CPC, and
under the employ of the shipowner and therefore this character is not altered by the fact that the carriage
continued to be under its direct supervision and control. of the goods in question was periodic, occasional,
Hardly then can the charterer be charged, a stranger to episodic or unscheduled.
the crew and to the ship, with the duty of caring for his
cargo when the charterer did not have any control of the
means in doing so. This is evident in the present case First Philippine Industrial Corporation vs. CA
considering that the steering of the ship, the manning of
the decks, the determination of the course of the voyage Based on Article 1732 NCC, there is no doubt
and other technical incidents of maritime navigation were that petitioner is a common carrier. It is engaged in the
all consigned to the officers and crew who were business of transporting or carrying goods, i.e.
screened, chosen and hired by the shipowner. It is petroleum products, for hire as a public employment. It
therefore imperative that a public carrier shall remain as undertakes to carry for all persons indifferently, that is, to
such, notwithstanding the charter of the whole or portion all persons who choose to employ its services, and
of a vessel by one or more persons, provided the charter transports the goods by land and for compensation. The
is limited to the ship only, as in the case of a time-charter fact that petitioner has a limited clientele does not
or voyage-charter. It is only when the charter includes exclude it from the definition of a common carrier. (De
both the vessel and its crew, that a common carrier Guzman Ruling upheld)
becomes private, at least insofar as the particular Respondent’s argument that the term “common
voyage covering the charter-party is concerned. carrier” as used in Section 133(j) of the Local
Indubitably, a shipowner in a time or voyage charter Government Code refers only to common carriers
retains possession and control of the ship, although her transporting goods and passengers through moving
holds may, for the moment, be the property of the vehicles or vessels either by land, sea or water is
charterer. erroneous. The definition of “common carriers” in NCC
makes no distinction as to the means of transporting as
long as it is by land, water or air. It does not provide that
Fisher vs. Yangco the transporting of the passengers or goods should be
by motor vehicle.
In construing Act 98 for the alleged violation, the
test is whether the refusal of YSC to carry the explosives
without qualification or conditions may have the effect of Home Insurance Company vs. American Steamship
subjecting any person or locality or the traffic is such Agencies, Inc.

there is actual delivery in contracts for the transport of goods when . actual delivery has been defined transport cargo or shipment for the general public. among other things. and services are available only to specific persons who enter the actual apprehension of corporeal possession by the into a special contract of charter party with its owner. them as a public utility. Inc. a common carrier undertaking to carry a Hence. Recovery can’t be had. The shipping service in accordance with the provisions of right to operate a public utility may exist independently law. It carried responsibility for loss or damage to the goods upon passengers or goods only for those it chose under a actual or constructive delivery of the same by the carrier special contract of charter party. In law. Indeed evidence to this warehouse of the carrier. and protect. Under American private carriage does not involve the general public. There is no doubt that Art. Nordeutscher Lloyd the bus trips and issues separate tickets whenever they board the MV "Black Double" that crosses Matnog to The validity of stipulations in bills of lading Allen. the carrier may be relieved of the not offer its services to the general public. public convenience or necessity same is due to personal acts or negligence of said generally means something fitting or suited to the public owner or its managers. one may operate a public utility without owning the facilities used to serve The contention of private respondent the public. and were stored in the warehouse of a third party when last National Steel Corporation vs. Garcia agent would be void only if strict public policy governing common carrier is applied. a justifiably be applied to a ship transporting commercial stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the goods as a private carrier.separating the land. As one of the basic requirements for the grant of a employees. The presumption of public of a ship totally chartered for the use of a single party. does not receive them. use in the ferrying of its passenger buses and cargo trucks is absurd. or to the person who has a right to renders tramping service and as such. 1738 finds reason why inspite of its amended franchise to operate a no applicability to the instant case. One can own said facilities without operating that it is a mere private ferry service. which are small body of waters . the interests of both the public While a ferry boat service has been considered as a and the existing transport operators. In the instant case. are determined primarily by stipulations in their The NCC provisions on common carriers should contracts of private carriage or charter party. Article 1736 is applicable to the instant suit. By the same token. while the burden of proving that there is no negligence of its agent is not against public policy and is need for the proposed service shall be the oppositor's. The said article private ferry boat service it cannot accept walk-in contemplates a situation where the goods had already passengers just for the purpose of crossing the sea reached their place of destination and are stored in the between Matnog and Allen. it is undisputed that VSI did Under said article. empirical data. The subject goods were still effect has been submitted. need for a service shall be deemed in favor of the The stipulation exempting the owner from liability for applicant. the conveyance of passengers. in a public service but a coastwise or interisland shipping service. awaiting transshipment to their port of destination. for loss or damage to the cargo against shipowners. not as a common carrier for its exclusive thereof who may not necessarily be the owner thereof. trucks and evidence. the rights and obligations of VSI and the goods as his representative for the purpose of NSC. Its as the ceding of corporeal possession by the seller. vs. CPC. PANTRANCO cannot pretend that in issuing exempting the carrier from liability for loss or damage to tickets to its passengers it did so as a private carrier and the goods when the same are not in its actual custody not as a common carrier. The devotion of property to serve the public PANTRANCO that its ferry service operation is as a may be done by the owner or by the person in control private carrier. buyer or by some person authorized by him to receive Consequently. It is a private carrier that to the consignee. Tatad vs. look out for. cargo. Such policy has no force “The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience is where the public at large is not involved. continuation of the highway when crossing rivers or even lakes. The stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for loss due to the negligence of its KMU vs. CA seen and/or heard of. such but as a private carrier. including their respective liability for damage to the custody or disposal. The existence or non- existence of public convenience and necessity is Considering the environmental circumstances of therefore a question of fact that must be established by the case. PANTRANCO do not adequately supply. PANTRANCO does not deny that it charges its passengers separately from the charges for Samar Mining Company. when as in this case the two terminals. the stringent provisions of the Civil Code on special cargo or chartered to a special person only common carriers protecting the general public cannot becomes a private carrier. unless the By its terms. negligence of its agent is valid. not apply where the common carrier is not acting as Unlike in a contract involving a common carrier. cargo from Matnog to Allen is certainly not a ferry boat statistics and such other means necessary. The object and Under no circumstance can the sea between Matnog purpose of such procedure. hearing conducted for that purpose. As a private carrier. or conversely. there is a clear distinction between the Respondent PANTRANCO should secure a separate "operation" of a public utility and the ownership of the CPC for the operation of an interisland or coastwise facilities and equipment used to serve the public. The Court does not see any has been upheld. however.” deemed valid. as distinguished from agents or need. is to and Allen be considered a continuation of the highway. Garcia Matnog and Allen are separated by an open sea it can not be considered as a continuation of the highway. real and/or testimonial. public convenience and necessity exists when the proposed facility or service meets a reasonable want of the public and supply a need which the existing facilities San Pablo vs. Jurisprudence. Its CPC as a bus transportation cannot be merely and separately from the ownership of the facilities amended to include this water service under the guise thereof. In sales. as in the case determined by public need.

for damages arising from the National Development Company vs. a term broad enough to include the concept of ship agent in maritime law. alleged transferee.” This Petitioner Carrier has also failed to establish satisfactorily. our jurisprudence that if the property covered by a Franchise is transferred or lease to another without (2) Under the Civil Code. However. is suppletory to the by the Public Service Commission. This is due to the fact that the lease loss. destruction. which gave rise to the action based on quasi-delict. supra. Intermediate Appellate Court Gelisan vs. Inc. As to solidarity. during or after the occurrence Court of Appeals of the disaster. The claim of the petitioners that he primarily by the Civil Code. natural disaster or calamity. In fact Art. destruction or deterioration.” However. Both owner and agent should be declared him to remove the goods. Article 1735 of the general public to enforce the rights of action that of the Civil Code provides that all cases than those they may have for injuries inflicted by the vehicles being mention in Article 1734. for members within the exception in Article 1734. Thus. in all matters not is not liable in view of the lease contract executed by regulated by said Code. However. And even if fire were to be considered a "natural private respondents are not required to go beyond the disaster" within the meaning of Article 1734 of the Civil vehicle’s certificate of registration to ascertain the owner Code. It does not involved may have been transferred to another person. under the provisions of the Code of 2194 expressly provides: Commerce. Article Significantly. The court a quo found that jointly and severally liable since the obligation which is there was actual delivery to the consignee through its the subject of the action had its origin in a fortuitous act duly authorized agent. or deterioration of the goods unless the contract in question. contrary to petitioner’s claim. the carrier. the Carriage of appears that the lease contract had not been approved Goods by Sea Act. negligence of the captain. from the obtaining the requisite approval. direct. a special law. the transfer is not nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. unless it proves that it has observed the allowed to deny liability by proving the identity of the extraordinary diligence required by law. Thus. although not effective against the same is due to any of the following causes only: public is valid and binding between the contracting (1) Flood. and did not arise from contract.possession has been turned over to the consignee or to the vessel. vs. CA tortious acts of the driver is primary. Alday 1) The law of the country to which the goods are to be The court has held in several decisions that the transported governs the liability of the common carrier in registered owner of a public service is responsible for case of their loss. that the "natural disaster" must have been the "proximate and only cause of the loss. the shipowner or carrier. The registered owner is not negligently. 2194. the rights and obligations of and between him and Espiritu which exempts him from common carrier shall be governed by the Code of liability to 3rd persons. We have consistently held that the liability of the registered owner of a public service vehicle. and joint and several or solidary with the driver. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. It vehicles registered under Public Service Law. actual or lawful owner thereof. As the damages that may arise from consequences incident to cargoes in question were transported from Japan to the its operation or that may be caused to any of the Philippines. The agreement between NDC and MCP shows Article 2181 of the Civil Code provides: that MCP is appointed as agent. minimize the loss before. earthquake. Primary liability is imposed on the shipowner or carrier in recognition of the Since the employer's liability is primary. its only recourse if the judgment for captain is merely the representative of the owner damages is satisfied by it is to recover what it has paid who has the actual or constructive control over the from its employee who committed the fault or negligence conduct of the voyage. Intermediate Appellate Court vessel by fire exempts it from liability under the phrase "natural disaster or calamity. binding upon the public and 3rd persons. It would be very difficult As the peril of the fire is not comprehended and often impossible as a practical matter. storm. This must be so as it arises almost invariably operations of the carrier even though the specific vehicle from some act of man or by human means. It is a settled rule in provisions of the Civil Code. is not exempt from liability for Art. the common carrier shall be negligently operated if they should be required to prove presumed to have been at fault or to have acted who the actual owner is. lightning or other parties. according to all the circumstances be indemnified by Espiritu for the amount he may be of each case. the liability of Petitioner Carrier is governed passengers therein. including the power to contract in the name his duly authorized agent and a reasonable time is given of the NDC. cannot be sustained because it Commerce and by special laws. 2181. Petitioner Carrier claims that the loss of the Benedicto vs. like petitioner Philtranco. common carriers. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the Gelisan is not without recourse because he has a right to vigilance over goods. fall within the category of an act of God unless caused This doctrine rests upon the principle in dealing with by lightning or by other natural disaster or calamity. it is required under Article 1739 of the same Code of the carrier. the public may even be caused by the actual fault or privity of the has the right to assume that the registered owner is the carrier. the Court said The prevailing doctrine in common carriers that fire may not be considered a natural disaster or make the owner liable for consequences having from the calamity. direct universally accepted doctrine that the shipmaster or and solidary. Whoever pays for the damage caused MCP was even conferred all the powers of the owner of by his dependents or employees may recover from the . Common carriers are responsible for the required to pay. The responsibility of two or more damages arising from collision due to the fault or persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. particularly Articles 826 to 839." and that the carrier has "exercised due diligence to prevent or PHILTRANCO Service Enterprise.

in our area. Ganzon’s owner as against VIDAD. as the registered extraordinary responsibility for the loss. as the kabit was the true was deemed perfected. By the delivery made during Dec. there is absence of sufficient solely on the charterer. Although not outrightly penalized as a into the cargo holds of the ship. Sibug and control of the common carrier.latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the with such force or intimidation as to completely claim. exempting the shipowner from proof that the issuance of the same order was attended liability for loss of or damage to the cargo caused even . 1734. In the instant case. the Valenzuela Hardwood & Industrial Supply vs. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. he is responsible for the excepted causes under Article 1734 thereof. common carriers. in the ordinary course of a owns motors vehicles to operate under such franchise voyage. overpower the will of the petitioner’s employees. 1. Thus. destruction or owner/operator and grantee of the franchise. In any case. Under the Civil Code. defendant appellant's employee even helped Fatima Minerva Fortades and her brother load the luggages/baggages in the bus' baggage Ganzon vs. Bernardo vigilance over the goods transported by them. The Sarkies Tours Phils vs. is directly deterioration of the goods commenced. particularly in the month of September which. vs. The defect of in existence of a contract is permanent and cannot be cured by ratification or by prescription. criminal offense. the latter. whereby a person who has been granted a These are conditions that ocean-going vessels would certificate of convenience allows another person who encounter and provide for. the injured party. void and inexistent under Article 1409 of the the part of the carrier applies. by the carrier to the person who has a owner continued to be the operator of the vehicle in legal right to receive them. actually the parties from that of employer and employee. the scrap iron due to any cause enumerated in Art. the scraps were unconditionally placed in the possession Santos vs. Court of Appeals mere lapse of time cannot give efficacy to contracts that are null and void. IAC is upheld. the carrier cannot Teja Marketing vs. It is a fundamental principle that the court will present evidence that it has observed the extraordinary not aid either party to enforce an illegal contract. the parties may bound to obey the illegal order to dump into the sea the validly stipulate that responsibility for the cargo rests scrap of iron. is a month of Unquestionably. Moreover. That rain water (not sea water) found its way for a fee. receipted or paid for. A certificate of public convenience is a special into the holds of the Jupri Venture is a clear indication privilege conferred by the government . unless the loss is due to any of the contemplation and as such. without asking that they be weighed. and received by the carrier are not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between for transportation until the same are delivered. vs. Abuse of this that care and foresight did not attend the closing of the privilege by the grantees thereof cannot be ship's hatches so that rain water would not find its way countenanced. They are not unforeseen nor unforeseeable. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the Magboo vs. its failure to mere lessor would be not only to abet flagrant violations collect the freight charge is the common carrier's own of the Public Service Law but also to place the riding lookout. Neither was this required Petitioner Ganzon failed to show that the loss of of the other passengers. and upon their receipt by the carrier of transportation. Intermediate master’s report were not caso fortuito but normal Appellate Court occurrences that an ocean-going vessel. system". Intermediate Appellate Court escape liability. order to escape liability for damage or destruction to the goods that it had admittedly carried in this case. the contract of carriage Although SANTOS. CA compartment. the presumption by law of fault or negligence on therefore. No such evidence exists of record. as a consequence of upon the delivery by the carrier to the consignee or the negligent or careless operation of the vehicle. The fact that part of ruling is based on the principle that the operator of the shipment had not been loaded on board did not record is considered the operator of the vehicle in impair the contract of transportation as the goods contemplation of law as regards the public and third remained in the custody & control of the carrier. fortuito. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. and the carrier must Civil Code. the "kabit system" is invariably Since the carrier has failed to establish any caso recognized as being contrary to public policy and. To exempt from Where the common carrier accepted its liability the owner of a public vehicle who operates it passenger's baggage for transportation and even had it under the “boundary system” on the ground that he is a placed in the vehicle by its own employee. The petitioner was not duly In a contract of private carriage. but will diligence required by Article 1733 of the Civil Code in leave them both where it finds them. Court of Appeals The heavy seas and rains referred to in the Lita Enterprises Inc. According to Art and primarily responsible and liable for the damages 1738. and this liability lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally The features which characterize the boundary system placed in the possession of. Consequently. This persons with right to receive them. comonly known as the "kabit routine. persons even if the vehicle involved in the accident had been sold to another where such sale had not been approved by the then Public Service Commission. The order of the acting Mayor did not constitute valid authority for petitioner to carry out. baggage. declared. 1956. It is responsible for the consequent loss of the public at the mercy of reckless and irresponsible drivers. The or constructively. The ruling in Lita Enterprises Inc. the parties herein operated rains and heavy seas would encounter as a matter of under an arrangement. intervention of the municipal officials was not of a Court of Appeals character that would render impossible the fulfillment by the carrier of its obligation. consequences incident to its operation. such extraordinary responsibility would cease only caused to SIBUG.

or public policy. or receipt by. the rights and obligations of properly mounted on the vehicle. The liability of the carrier wise: as common carrier begins with the actual delivery of the “While it may be true that petitioner had not goods for transportation. where it is Clause 14. 'Such provisions have been held to bill of lading is not necessary to complete delivery and be a part of the contract of carriage. Pursuant to Article Lu Do vs. that in the deliver. the The receipt of goods by the carrier has been loss is chargeable against the appellant. and if actually no goods are received there can bills of lading issued for the cargoes in question. There are human factors involved in the situation. public enemies. Therefore. This is a involve the general the negligence of the ship captain. A common carrier must supplementary to the provisions of the New Civil Code. so that the bill of landing is applicable to the there is nothing therein that is contrary to law. then it can be said with certainty that the stipulation does not bind them because it was printed in relation of shipper and carrier has been established. the issuance of a provisions thereof. a common carrier may not be absolved from and asserted in the bill of lading. destruction and deterioration. has been said that contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the . Insurance Co. the lighters are for the time its We sustain the validity of the above stipulation. the value of the goods had been declared by the shipper Moreover. and they cannot be loaded directly waters. “in all matter not entirely free from manufacturing defects or that it was regulated by this Code. Under 1766 of NCC. the stringent situation where we may say that the carrier losses provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers control of the goods because of a custom regulation and protecting the general public cannot justifiably be applied it is unfair that it be made responsible for what may to a ship transporting commercial goods as a private happen during the interregnum. NCC for quality. such stipulation is valid While delivery of the cargo to the consignee.. dangers or accidents of the sea or other one port to another. we believe stress that in a contract of private carriage. It is what lading. . their contract of goods are still in the hands of the Government and the private carriage is not even a contract of adhesion. the same is of as moment. Neither may the fact common carriers shall be governed by the Code of that the tire bought and used is of a brand name noted Commerce and by Special Laws. . on the vessel and lighters are sent by the vessel to bring the goods to it. or because it is freely entered into by the parties and the to the person who has a right to receive them. Court of documentary proof of the stipulations and conditions Appeals. same is not contrary to law. A fine letters on the back-of the bills of lading. Binamira 1306 17 of the Civil Code. Steam to overthrow the presumption of negligence with clear and convincing evidence. having failed Servando vs.” event. where there is a contract to carry goods from force majeure. resulting in the conclusion that it could not governs said rights and obligations. however. This argument overlooks the contract of carriage. Ltd. 1763 of the New Civil Code provides that “the laws of the country to which the goods are Yobido vs. in regards which it bind the carrier. 1736-1738. good customs. . carrier.” Art. petitioners are hereby held The court a quo held that the delivery of the shipment in liable for damages. and that bill of lading is not indispensable for the creation of a they did not sign the same. the liability loss or damage is due to negligence of carrier. war. fire . is a good delivery and damage to shipments billed 'owner's risk' unless such binds the vessel receiving the freight. The bill of lading is juridically a pronouncement of this Court in Ong Yiu vs. said to lie at the foundation of the contract to carry and It should be pointed out. The liability and responsibility of the parties agreed to limit the responsibility of the carrier for carrier under a contract for the carriage of goods the loss or damage that may be caused to the shipment commence on their actual delivery to. It is settled that an Sec 4(5) of COGSA states that the carrier shall not be accident caused either by defects in the automobile or liable in an amount exceeding $500 per package unless through the negligence of its driver is not a caso fortuito. where the same issue was resolved in this agreed upon by both parties. Court of Appeals transported shall govern the liability of the common The explosion of the new tire is not a fortuitous carrier in case of loss. COGSA should control in this case. said section is merely liability in case of force majeure. carrier be responsible for loss or damage caused by similarly. question to the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs is not the delivery contemplated by Article 1736. the public policy embodied therein is not contravened by stipulations in a charter party that American President Lines. the be no such contract. This means that the law of the Philippines on the New The fact that the tire was new did not imply that it was Civil Code. private carriage does not they are actually turned over to the consignee. contemplated in Article 1736. actual delivery and acceptance are sufficient to is known as a contract of 'adhesion'. morals or goods as soon as they are placed on the lighters. Thus. of the burning of the warehouse occurred before actual or North America constructive delivery of the goods to the appellees. because in such case the public order. Whenever the control and possession of goods passes to the carrier and nothing remains to be done by Appellees would contend that the above the shipper. Indeed. vs. and since Compania Maritima vs. Unlike in a contract through the inspection of the customs authorities before involving a common carrier. Art. Even where it is provided by statute that binding upon the passenger regardless of the latter's liability commences with the issuance of the bill of lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation'. substitutes. Hence. still prove that it was not negligent in causing the death or injury resulting from the accident. Nor shall commencing at the time of delivery to the lighter and. Carrier shall not be responsible for loss or the custom to deliver in that way. Klepper lessen or remove the protection given by law in contracts With regard to the contention of the carrier that involving common carriers. We owner cannot exercise dominion over them. and not merely with the formal signed the plane ticket. morals. Consequently.. although explode within five day’s use. . he is nevertheless bound by the execution of a receipt or bill of lading. and valid and acceptance. public policy. Phil. the parties however that the parties may agree to limit the liability of may freely stipulate their duties and obligations which the carrier considering that the goods have still to perforce would be binding on them. the therein the following stipulation: carrier or an authorized agent and delivery to a lighter in charge of a vessel for shipment on the vessel.

are contracts Macam vs." a bills of lading or bank guarantee. Jr. he gives his consent. the clearly named as buyer/importer. unless such common carriers previously containing this exemption from liability plainly formed a assume the obligation to deliver at a given date or time. A common carrier cannot placed in the exclusive possession. From the testimony of further reading and a more faithful quotation of the petitioner. and the shipper is held to have accepted regard. (However). Limiting the common carrier’s liability for loss or of the goods by the consignee or such other person damage from any cause or for any reason for less than entitled to receive them. This rule applies with particular force where a shipper accepts Maersk Line vs. as between the respondents is twice or thrice a week. There is no law which requires that the premise draws us to conclude that the delivery of the delivery of the goods for carriage and the issuance of the cargoes to GPC as buyer/importer which. and terminates only after the lapse of a reasonable time for the acceptance. As between the consignor and a receiving lines prior to releasing the goods. the fact must outweigh the recital. the carrier. CA a bill of lading with full knowledge of its contents. was very well aware accepts a receipt which states that its conditions are to of the specific date when the goods were expected to be found on the back. Petitioner also referred execution of the bill of lading even prior to actual to GPC as such in his demand letter to respondent possession and control by the carrier of the cargo to be WALLEM and in his complaint before the trial court. . This responsibility remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit. . receive them was proper. the right to for that matter. attach entered into between a passenger and the common and the presumption of fault of the carrier under Article carrier. Court of Appeals the bills of lading as consignee whereas GPC was the Except as may be prohibited by law. there was not a single instance when the knowledge of the shipper and agreed to by him. with Art. unless the shipper or owner exercises Ysmael vs. The goods are shipper and the carrier. and acceptance under such circumstances makes it a While it is true that common carriers are not binding contract." In transactions covered by a letter of credit. in the export invoices GPC was nothing to prevent an inverse order of events. PAKISTAN BANK was indicated in Saludo. as the plane ticket in the case at bar. such receipt comes within the arrive as indicated in the bill of lading itself. However. if it is shown that the by the parties indicating the date of arrival of the subject consignor knew of its terms. he is estopped from cargoes. of the ticket. conformably covering bill of lading must coincide in point of time or. for the purpose as it would be a mere superfluity. 1736 had. This transported. It has been the practice of petitioner to delivered for shipment no recitals in the bill can estop the request the shipping lines to immediately release carrier from showing the true facts . that is. recitals in a bill mangoes through telephone calls by himself or his of lading as to the goods shipped raise only a rebuttable "people. where a shipper shipment. The one who adheres to the The extraordinary responsibility of the common contract is in reality free to reject it entirely. to a stipulation in a bill of lading limiting the liability of a and persons are not vested with the right to prompt carrier may arise. . his shipment to GPC using the facilities of shipper and the carrier. embodying the conditions as printed at the back 1735 be invoked. it must appear that the clause delivery." cargoes to the consignee or to the person who has a right to receive them. such a delivery has thus been accepted by the carrier. there is delivery to the 1/8 the actual value of the goods is unconscionable and carrier when the goods are ready for and have been therefore against public policy. Thus. part of the contract contained in the bill of lading.other. other than the consignee. When mangoes and watermelons are in become something more than a contract between the season. there is notify party. Only when such fact of delivery has been unequivocally Shewaram vs. the liability of the common carrier commences. CA not entirely prohibited. lading or on papers attached to such receipt will be quite While there was no special contract entered into as effective as if printed on its face. and in bill of lading was first presented before the release of the the absence of fraud or mistake. there arises no need to execute another contract and to be bound by the conditions there to be found. A delivery of shipment or cargo should at least be made stipulation printed on the back of a receipt or bill of within a reasonable time. . petitioner dispenses with the bank There is a holding in most jurisdictions that the guarantee because the goods are already fully paid. Barretto the right of stoppage in transitu. The fact that those conditions are printed at the back of the ticket stub in letters so small that they are . In order that any presumption of assent obligated by law to carry and to deliver merchandise. Between the perishable cargoes such as watermelons and fresh consignor of goods and receiving carrier. Philippine Airlines established can the liability for loss. thereafter denying that he assented to such terms. petitioner nevertheless. presumption that such goods were delivered for bank guarantee is normally required by the shipping shipment. custody and control lawfully stipulate for exemption from liability. when no goods have been released to GPC. unless such of the carrier for the purpose of their immediate exemption is just and reasonable and the contract is transportation and the carrier has accepted them." telegraphic transfers. destruction or deterioration of goods in the custody of the carrier. And. It can not be said that a contract has been absent the excepting causes under Article 1734. that the former should precede the latter. if he carriers lasts until actual or constructive delivery of the adheres. In the Explicit is the rule under Article 1736 of the Civil case before us. In this general rule. Where freely and fairly made. While we agree with petitioners' statement that "an The real issue is whether respondents are liable airway bill estops the carrier from denying receipt of to petitioner for releasing the goods to GPC without the goods of the quantity and quality described in the bill. In acceptance of a bill of lading without dissent raises a his several years of business relationship with GPC and presumption that all terms therein were brought to the respondents. vs. we find that a delay in the delivery of the Code that the extraordinary responsibility of the common goods spanning a period of two months and seven days carrier begins from the time the goods are delivered to falls was beyond the realm of reasonableness. we gather that he has been transacting with authority cited would reveal that "(a) bill of lading may GPC as buyer/importer for around two (2) or three (3) contain constituent elements of estoppel and thus years already. . But for buyers using carrier.

the first and second kinds of stipulations are invalid as being contrary to public policy. proceedings of this nature. The binding upon the passenger regardless of the latter's latter merely endorsing the Manila to Hong Kong log of lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation".hard to read would not warrant the presumption that the if the value of its cargo was higher than the limited passenger was aware of those conditions such that he liability of the carrier. it is not just and fair to bind settled on the basis of the shipper's net invoice cost plus passengers to the terms of the conditions printed at the freight and insurance premiums. vs. and second. without any objection. he is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. are contracts function and is liable for damages which the principal not entirely prohibited. Conditions of contracts were one of continuous has been said that contracts of adhesion wherein one air transportation. as manifested by the fact that he The commercial Invoice does not in itself did not sign the ticket. liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight. the stipulation on the carrier’s limited liability applies. policy of the law forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence. the adheres. "Such provisions have been held to The contract of transportation was exclusively be a part of the contract of carriage. The contention of BA with respect to limited liability was overruled although it is recognized in the Philippines. The declare a higher valuation. In the bill of lading. The consignee also admits in the memorandum that the value of the goods does not Sweet Lines Inc. vs.00/kilo. if it is reasonable and just under the thus places upon his property. CA signed the plane ticket. The first is one exempting the (Article 1749 and 1750) the stipulation in the bill of lading carrier from any and all liability for loss or damage limiting the liability of the common carrier for loss or occasioned by its own negligence. The one who adheres to the may suffer by reason of its negligent act. According to an almost uniform weight of Citadel Lines. Furthermore. sound principle of public policy. Considered in the light of circumstances prevailing in the inter-island shipping industry in the country today. if he is based on breach of contract of carriage. A contract limiting liability passenger can only sue BA and not PAL. It is provided in recover a larger value in case of loss. as its subcontractor or is known as a contract of "adhesion". since the latter upon an agreed valuation does not offend against the was not a party in the contract. but the third is Basic is the rule that a stipulation limiting the valid and enforceable.00) Yen. Ong Yiu vs. destruction or deterioration of the goods is cannot thereafter recover more than the value which he valid. TEVES appear in the bill of lading. We find and hold that Condition No. stipulation on the ticket. CA authority. Court of Appeals While it may be true that the passenger had not British Airways vs. stating that BA had waived the defense of Sea Land Services. CA printed at the back of the passage tickets should be held as void and unenforceable for the following reasons first. and in no event back of the passage tickets. he gives his consent. the award based on the alleged understate value in order to reduce the rate and then market value of the goods is erroneous. or damage to goods transported by it under a contract of carriage so governed by the laws of the country of destination and the goods in question were shipped from H. Condition No. unless the shipper or owner declares If a common carrier gives to a shipper the choice a greater value. liability of the carrier to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading. had the option to declare a higher valuation rights and interests of innumerable passengers located .000. the liability of common carrier to the consignee is governed primarily Three kinds of stipulations have often been by the Civil Code. Macondray the United States to the Philippines.E. on which Condition No. in regards which it agent. since the same will prejudice the shipper. as the plane ticket in the case at bar. Well-settled rule that an agent is also party imposes a ready made form of contract on the responsible for any negligence in the performance of its other. vs. the sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper understandingly and freely. 14 or any consequential loss. a clause in the BOL that its liability is limited to US$2. Inc. Applying the Civil Code provisions made in a bill of lading. the carrier made it clear that under circumstances obligation in the inter-island all claims for which it may be liable shall be adjusted and shipping industry. and names his valuation. it had itself to blame for not passenger is considered not having agreed to the complying with the stipulations. if paid. vs. The second is one damages to the shipment covered by said rule unless providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to the shipper declares the value of the shipment and pays an agreed valuation. 14 Everett Seamship Corp. Hence. And the third is one limiting the additional charges is valid and binding on the consignee. Heacock Co. Its liability would only be up to subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of One Hundred Thousand (Y100. vs. sufficiently and convincingly show that the common carrier has knowledge of the value of the cargo as contended by the shipper. and has been fairly and freely agreed based upon an agreed value does not conflict with any upon. A limitation of liability circumstances. and it is not conformable to plain principles of justice that a shipper may In this case. Considering that the shipper did not had "fairly and freely agreed" to those conditions. is binding. It is what the former’s journey to PAL. a contract fixing of two rates and if the shipper makes such a choice. and valid and between the passenger and common carrier BA. he for the loss. When an action contract is in reality free to reject it entirely. However. Inc. 14 shall the carrier be liable for any loss of possible profits is Printed in fine letters. IAC limited liability when it allowed Mahtani(the passenger) to testify as to the actual damages he incurred due to the Since the liability of a common carrier for loss of misplacement of his luggage.

Pablo positive measures to implement Civil Aeronautics cannot under the circumstances be restricted to that Administration regulations prohibiting civilians from prescribed by the Warsaw Convention for delay in the carrying firearms on board the plane. private Trial Court and the Appellate Court found that there was respondent manifested a disregard of airline rules on bad faith on the part of petitioner in that: allowable handcarried baggages. the baggage check is combined with the passenger ticket in one document of carriage. dynamite. (3) Defendants. to comply with a contract of display of firepower and violent fury. Prudence of a reasonably careful person also dictates that cash and (1) Defendants. vs. the ends of justice. Considering the expense and trouble a passenger residing outside of Cebu City would incur to The provisions in the plane ticket are sufficient to prosecute a claim in the City of Cebu. tardily. 14. much less prejudice. Rapadas The Warsaw Convention governs the availment of the liability limitations where the baggage check is combined with or incorporated in the passenger ticket. petitioner. petitioner has branches or offices vigilant insofar as his luggage is concerned. In the case at bar. the filing stipulations. Firearms. If the in the respective ports of call of its vessels and can passenger fails to adduce evidence to overcome the afford to litigate in any of these places. Certainly. The passenger. will not cause inconvenience to. an air carrier would be exempt from The highjacking-robbery was force majeure. but innocent hostages who will be coldly murdered unless a without appreciable different places of the country who. her baggage was ultimately delivered to her in Manila. allowance must be (c) a notice to the effect that. The Warsaw Convention's provisions. and Dr. The alleged lack of enough time for him to make defendants. in bad faith. Inc. upon contracting with the will thus defeat. Otherwise. 2220 of the Civil Code. as was done in liability limitations. “we are leaving already”. the instant case. Hence. As already mentioned. In attempting to avoid the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. The Fairness demands that in measuring a common passenger ticket complies with Article 3. Pan American World Airways. the Warsaw their common safety. It is to be presumed that a Convention may be applicable and that the Convention passenger will not take with him anything dangerous to governs and in most cases limits the liability of carriers the lives and limbs of his co-passengers. was expected to be Upon the other hand. Pablo's luggage and stealth. and when plaintiff-appellees wanted to failure to comply with the requirement that will exclude leave the port and gave up the trip. it is true. vs. Both the registering the luggage by going back to the line. and explosives are introduced into or otherwise improper conduct may be ascribed to the the airplane surreptitiously and with the utmost cunning employees of petitioner airline.appellants did not offer to refund Alitalia vs. not to speak of his own. she finally realized that she would no the plane surreptitiously. appellants employees would come and say. instead of enhance. he cannot avoid the application of the of the suit in the CFI of Misamis Oriental. although there is an occasional use of was eventually returned to her. Intermediate Appellate Court plaintiffs-appellees’ tickets nor provide them with transportation form Tacloban to Catbalogan. which gradually turned to force majeure nature of the hi-jacking. airline and receiving the plane ticket. plane is given to the hijackers' complete disposal. Firearms and grenades are brought to gone to Rome. compensated for loss or damage to her luggage. Court of Appeals employees. Pablo underwent PAL was not negligent so as to overcome the profound distress and anxiety. City of Cebu. Not to be lightly considered must be the right to . which is absurd. if the passenger's given to the reliance that should be reposed on the journey involves an ultimate destination or stop in a sense of responsibility of all the passengers in regard to country other than the country of departure. having and violent fury. most sophisticated electronic detection devices may have minimized hijacking but still ineffective against truly She is not.appellants instead made announce ment of a declaration of a higher value and to pay the assurance that the vessel would leave within a short corresponding supplementary charges cannot justify his period of time.Appellants did not give notice to jewelry should be removed from checked-in-luggage and plaintiffs-appellates as to the change of scheduled of the placed in one's pockets or in a handcarried Manila-paper vessel. under Condition for death or personal injury and in respect of loss of or No. In Nocum vs. no bad faith grenades. of course. or for some particular or exceptional type of damage. There can be no doubt that Dr. do not regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of contract by the carrier' or misconduct of its officers and Quisumbing Sr. but safely. faulted for want of diligence. or plastic envelope. defendants. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company the case at bar. belatedly. The facts show that the private respondent actually refused to register the attache case and chose Under Art. will have to file suits against petitioner only in the damage to baggage. moral to take it with him despite having been ordered by the damages are justly due in breaches of contract where PANAM agent to check it in. PAL could not have been longer be able to take part in the conference. the application of limited liability. hand. The any liability for damages in the event of its absolute hijackers do not board an airplane through a blatant refusal. (2) Knowing fully well that it would take no less than fifteen hours to effect the repairs of the damaged engine. which provides: carrier's duty towards its passengers. entitled to be determining hijackers. Hijackers do not panic and finally despair. The use of the transport of baggage. from the time she learned that board an airplane through a blatant display of firepower her suitcases were missing up to the time when. he would most govern the limitations of liabilities of the airline for loss of probably decide not to file the action at all. The condition luggage. carriage. particularly for failing to take the compensation for the injury suffered by Dr.

Passengers have the right to be are already in danger of being transgressed. vs. Mecenas vs. vs. simple measures to prevent the too rapid sinking of his vessel precautionary measures to protect the safety of after collision. collision between petitioner's bus and the jeepney in which the two Maranaos were riding. CA Fortune Express Inc. but beyond this. Delim The Duty to exercise due diligence includes the duty to The record yields affirmative evidence of fault or take passengers or cargoes that are within the carrying negligence on the part of respondent common carrier. contemplation of law. His clearance through immigration "snapping sound" which had occurred so frequently that and customs clearly shows that he had indeed been the driver had gotten accustomed to it. The assailant's motive was to retaliate for Juan" was carrying more passengers than she had been the loss of life of two Maranaos as a result of the certified as allowed to carry. that because of the negligence of petitioner's employees. duty" at or around the time of actual collision is quite the seizure of the bus by Mananggolo and his men was immaterial. Inc. its employees been vigilant they would not have failed to Santisteban to supervise his officers and crew in the see that the malefactors had a large quantity of gasoline process of abandoning the ship and his failure to avail of with them. both realistically speaking and in made possible. vs. While the failure of Capt. after the injurious language. could have been employed without violating the Santisteban in respect of his vessel and his officers and passenger's constitutional rights. The a passenger's baggage when such is not outwardly contract of air carriage generates a relation attended perceptible. inquiry may be verbally made as to the nature of themselves of the comforts and advantages it offers. . "imminent danger of collision" but even of "the actual No contributory negligence could be attributed to collision itself " There is also evidence that the "Don the deceased. The obvious continued failure of respondent to look after the roadworthiness and safety of the bus. capacity of the vessel. Had petitioner and with the "Tacloban City. latter an action for damages against the carrier. passengers. and even a modicum of concern for life and them when it failed to bring Lapuz to his destination.privacy to which each passenger is entitled. So it is that any discourteous conduct on the mere clothes and other miscellaneous. CA The behaviour of the captain of the "Don Juan" Art. could not have part of these employees toward a passenger gives the justified invasion of a constitutionally protected domain. (Same Ruling with Mecenas) The driver did not stop to check if anything had gone wrong with the bus when the snapping sound was heard and made known to him by the passengers. It invites people to avail words. courtesy and due consideration. no such thing as "off-duty" hours Despite warning by the Philippine Constabulary for the master of a vessel at sea that is a common at Cagayan de Oro that the Maranaos were planning to carrier upon whom the law imposes the duty of take revenge on the petitioner by burning some of its extraordinary diligence. In the present case. before allowing them on board the kind and level of diligence exercised by Capt. when he protests passengers is different in kind and degree from any the innocuousness of his baggage and nothing appears other contractual relation. Negros Navigation Co. passenger to submit to more rigid inspection. moreover. They are manual invoked by the trial judge. as suggested by the service respect. there is. a good father of a family. such as frisking passengers and inspecting such failures doubtless contributed materially to the their baggages. instead told Korean Airlines Co. were indicative of such as metal detectors. in compelling the entitled to be protected against personal misconduct. Diosdado Bravo. as in the case at bar. The acts of Maranaos could not be considered The officer-on-watch in the "Don Juan" admitted that he as caso fortuito because there was already a warning by had failed to inform Capt. buses and the assurance of petitioner's operation manager. KE 903. Calling a treated by the carrier's employees with kindness. policeman to his aid. a presumption of actually allowed deceased to retrieve something from gross negligence on the part of the vessel (her officers the bus. What apparently angered them was his attempt and crew) and of its ship-owner arises. to help the driver of the bus by pleading for his life. did not cause the collision by themselves. The driver's reply necessarily indicated that the same "snapping sound" had been The status of Lapuz as standby passenger was heard in the bus on previous occasions. In other mainly with the traveling public. LTD.. Santisteban not only of the the PC. KAL thus obviously alien to a motor vehicle in good operating committed a breach of the contract of carriage between condition. constitutional boundaries with a public duty. Such a sound is confirmed as a passenger of KAL in that flight. 1763 of the Civil Code provides that a in tills instance-playing mahjong "before and up to the common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a time of collision constitutes behaviour that is simply passenger on account of wilfull acts of other passengers. that the necessary The record shows that the "Don Juan" sank precautions would be taken. CA Gatchalian vs.. petitioner did nothing to within ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes after initial contact protect the safety of its passengers. unacceptable on the part of the master of a vessel to if the employees of the common carrier could have whose hands the lives and welfare of at least seven prevented the act through the exercise of the diligence of hundred fifty (750) passengers had been entrusted. The armed men Under these circumstances. it is clear Whether or not Capt. limb of passengers dictated that the bus be checked and repaired. Under the circumstances. The business of the carrier is to indicate the contrary. CA them that it was normal. This could only changed to that of a confirmed passenger when his mean that the bus had not been checked physically or name was entered in the passenger manifest of KAL for mechanically to determine what was causing the its Flight No. indignities and abuses from such passenger had already declared that the box contained employees. men prior to actual contact between the two (2) vessels. preferably with non-intrusive gadgets consequent loss of life and. He cannot This Court has held that a contract to transport be subjected to any unusual search. Santisteban was "off-duty" or "on.

since the case at bar is not a suit between A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit or her body." the general rule is that he cannot be held within the speed limit allowed in highways. A cursory examination of the purported waiver usually stated. All that imputed to the opponent is considered in law solely said document proves is that they expressed a "desire" responsible for the consequences of the accident. especially one on the face of the woman. and hence gross negligence on the part of The doctrine. It appears proven that the increasing the hazard of travel. might have avoided injurious consequences respect of whose safety a common carrier must exercise to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence. Phil. Petitioner Gatchalian Therefore. Rabbit Bus Lines vs. to make the waiver which obviously is not the same as making an actual waiver of their right. is a violation of bodily Lara vs.coupled with the driver's refusal or neglect to stop the mini-bus after he had heard once again the "snapping sound" and the cry of alarm from one of the passengers. is that the respondent and his driver. For it would answer for the laws its equipment if such flaws were at be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the all discoverable. stated broadly. It does not arise While the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of where a passenger demands responsibility from the the passengers. The conductor was apprised of the fact that diligence as required by our law. It cannot be said that the bus was travelling at a fast speed when the accident Accordingly. In this father of a family to avoid injury to himself which means he failed. This liability includes the loss of the earning not unreasonably to expose him to danger and injury by capacity of the deceased. The owner and driver of a vehicle owes to accommodation passengers or invited guests merely the duty to exercise reasonable care so that they may be Del Castillo vs. about harm to another. Thus. A scar. the be contrary to law. there is no question that when a occurred because the speed of 80 to 90 kilometers per party is unable to fulfill his obligation because of "force hour. CA constituted wanton disregard of the physical safety of the passengers. The rationale of the It is the rule under the substantial factor test that carrier's liability is the fact that the passenger has no if the actor's conduct is a substantial factor in bringing privity with the manufacturer of the defective equipment. negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that Because what is involved here is the liability of a the defendant. A passenger must observe the diligence of a ordinary care for the safety of the said passenger. With this knowledge the conductor should have taken extra. Mario del Castillo was deaf and dumb. Paras would call for application in a suit between the owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles. Corollarily. and an injury results. resulting from the infliction of injury upon her. assuming such calculation to be correct. For a waiver to be valid and effective. applying the doctrine of last clear chance as between the defendants. Jaymalin transported safely to their destination. As the doctrine is customs. Necessito vs. Valencia integrity." the carrier. the carrier cannot be held liable. is yet majeure. morals. A waiver of the All premises considered. damages are due and assessable. the respondent court erred in absolving the is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the owner and driver of the cargo truck from liability. "The rule is established by weight of authority that the owner or Common carriers are responsible for the death operator of an automobile owes the duty to an invited of their passengers (Articles 1764 and 2206 of the Civil guest to exercise reasonable care in its operation. that if the injury to the passenger has been proximately caused by his own negligence. a person who has the last clear chance or will readily show that appellees did not actually waive opportunity of avoiding an accident. In this connection. giving raise to a legitimate claim for restoration to her condition ante. public policy or good injured person is entitled to recovery. and the good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from liability. by exercising reasonable care and common carrier for injuries sustained by passengers in prudence. he has no remedy against him. notwithstanding the their right to claim damages from appellant for the latter's negligent acts of his opponent or that of a third person failure to comply with their contract of carriage. the manufacturer of jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other the defective appliance is considered in law the agent of driver was likewise guilty of negligence. CA passengers of the jeepney. IAC The principle about "the last clear" chance. The owner of the vehicle defendant corporations failed to exercise the diligence in the case at bar is only required to observe ordinary that was their duty to observe according to Articles 1733 care. The bus driver's conduct is not a substantial factor in bringing about harm to the Japan Airlines vs. when JAL was prevented from resuming its flight to . and Code). if that integrity is violated or diminished. and is not in duty bound to exercise extraordinary and 1755. it should nevertheless be held to carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. while the carrier foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm usually has. it must not him in a position of peril. extraordinary diligence. the fact that the actor neither hence. condition that she was before mishap. liable for damages for non-performance. the doctrine of last clear chance means purported waiver most strictly against the common that even though a person's own acts may have placed carrier. or the manner in which it occurred does not prevent him from being liable. Bustamante vs. brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against actual injury is suffered for which actual or compensatory both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles. we must construe any such In other words. the Court is convinced kind invoked by appellant must be clear and that the respondent Court committed an error of law in unequivocal.

CA take such risks incident to the mode of travel. 1756 of the Civil and convincing evidence. petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr. the victim was in the act of unloading his cargoes. what is a reasonable time or a meal expenses the stranded passengers incurred. vs. Skidding means partial or complete loss of control of the but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable . 1991. CA It has been recognized as a rule that the relation It is a well known physical tact that cars may skid on of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment greasy or slippery roads. from petitioner's vessel. CA furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. The victim accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does had to claim his baggage which was possible only one not happen if those who have the management use hour after the vessel arrived since it was admittedly proper care. The carrier-passenger make the necessary arrangements themselves for the relationship is not terminated merely by the fact that the next flight to Manila. It is clear therefore that the absence or want of diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all care of Daniel Serrano has been established by clear the circumstances. for example. the proximate cause of the collision the circumstances involved. the vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap Isuzu truck driven by Daniel Serrano.. IAC When the accident occurred. unless there is proof to the three or four meters from the back of the truck. an employee of the he was violating a traffic regulation. vs. place selected by the carrier at the point of destination. such person remains in the carrier's premises to claim his baggage. Pinatubo eruption. it is liable for the death of or injuries to La Mallorca vs. This liability of the common carrier The liability of the carrier for the child. All persons who remain on the private respondents on the first available connecting premises a reasonable time after leaving the flight to Manila. Bayasen vs. which he had every Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine which states thus: right to do. pursuant to Art. safely alighted from the carrier's Narita on account of the fortuitous event. 1755 of the Civil Code. who recklessly road or on half the shoulder of the right side of the road operated and drove his jeepney in a lane where would be of no moment taking into account the warning overtaking was not allowed by traffic rules. direct evidence is absent resulting in the death of a passenger of the jeepney. JAL had the conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the duty to make the necessary arrangements to transport carrier's premises. without the passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle at a fault on account of the manner of handling the car. It has been held that airline passengers must Aboitiz Shipping Co. it affords reasonable evidence. And. after alighting from the car. a Res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable. who was does not cease upon proof that it exercised all the already led by the father to a place about 5 meters away diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of from the bus for her safety under the contract of its employees. persists. after private respondents' living expenses during their stay in reaching his destination. Moreover. Under Art. unless it proves that it observed extraordinary diligence. But contrary. was and not readily available. carriage. it is presumed that a person driving a motor despite this warning which we rule as sufficient. The doctrine of Res time. the relationship While JAL was no longer required to defray will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has. in the standard procedure in the case of petitioner's vessels absence of an explanation by the defendant. Petitioner JAL reneged on its obligation conveyance are to be deemed passengers. still bumped the rear of the parked Under Art. The doctrine can be invoked when and only when. Further. and the petitioner's premises was not without cause.Manila due to the effects of Mt. aids the carrier's servant or employee in removing his baggage from the car. private respondent. It follows that the doctrine of Code. the passenger continues until the passenger has been consequences of which the passenger must assume or landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel expect. that the that the unloading operations shall start only after that accident arose from want of care. The relation of carrier and passenger does not necessarily cease where the latter. In this regard. Once created. Even if he had "Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be already disembarked an hour earlier. ipsa loquitur as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and Mallari Sr. assumed the hotel expenses of respondents for their unexpected overnight stay on June 15. 1759 of the same Code. the sole negligence of the driver of the passenger Whether the cargo truck was parked along the jeepney. reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined cannot be charged to JAL. and what is to look after the comfort and convenience of its a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule passengers when it declassified private respondents is to be determined from all the circumstances. CA passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former's employees. device consisting of the lighted kerosene lamp placed 2185 of the Civil Code. Yet it is undeniable that JAL from all the circumstances. his presence in under the management of the defendant. have acted negligently. under Clearly. as in the instant case. Layugan vs. time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's whatever losses or damages in the form of hotel and premises. adverse weather conditions or extreme climatic The rule is that the relation of carrier and changes are some of the perils involved in air travel. making the employer of common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to the driver liable for the negligence of his employee. person transported has been carried to his destination if. As a direct consequence of such accident carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as the petitioner sustained injuries on his left forearm and human care and foresight can provide using the utmost left foot. and from "transit passengers" to "new passengers" as a includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and result of which private respondents were obliged to prepare for his departure. owner's dock or premises. in case of death or injuries to passengers. under Art. a common cargo truck.

Under the second view. Pestaño. the resulting breach of the relation between him and another party. the acts of an agent beyond the scope of his employees. CA personal rancor that might exist between each one of its many employees and any one of the thousands of It is immaterial that the proximate cause of the eventual passengers riding in its trains. its rear committed by its own employees. These are violations of the Land ability. guard of the Manila Railroad Company in shooting the he is to blame. The carrier's liability here is absolute in the sense regard for all the circumstances" as required by Art. the master that the petitioner had a valid excuse for his departure or employer is presumed to be negligent either in the from his regular course. It is not negligently unless they prove that they observed sufficient that the act be within the course of employment extraordinary diligence as defined in Arts. using the excess of authority or in disobedience of the carrier's utmost diligence of very cautious persons. the act of the train the said third person is aware of such limits of authority. It may occur without fault. Pestaño vs. there is no personality. including their patterns of behavior. it is enough that the assault common carrier the burden of proof. and the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation Maranan vs. Manila Railroad what the PAL agents did to his advantage. If required of it. owners and managers are responsible for damages the petitioner. as a professional When a train boarded by the deceased driver operating a public transport bus. This provision necessarily shifts to the also by the later cases. unless the latter undertook to secure the against the latter since the Japanese occupation) was principal's ratification. being both unforeseeable and inevitable actions involving breach of contract. the responsibility of the carrier extends only when the third person (herein petitioner) knows that the to those acts that the carrier could foresee or avoid agent was acting beyond his power or authority. and is not entitled to recover damages passenger (because of a personal grudge nurtured from the agent. The petitioner's driver took select its drivers and similar employees with due regard in more passengers than the allowed seating capacity of not only to their technical competence and physical the jeepney. the jeepney was not properly parked. destination. which is the minority view. The doctrine is a under the given circumstances. evidently portion being exposed about two meters from the broad follows the rule based on the second view. Under Articles 2180 and 2176 of the Civil Code. Perez thus created. Therefore. CA diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and the supervision of its employee. But. company's contract of safe carriage with the deceased the obligation is created by law itself. since the contract of transportation obligates authority do not bind the principal. entirely unforseeable by the Manila Railroad Co. unless the latter the carrier to transport a passenger safely to his ratifies the same expressly or impliedly. Furthermore.driver who skidded could not be regarded caused by their employees. The latter had no means to ascertain or anticipate that the two would meet. The doctrine of proximate definition of under circumstances not necessarily implying maneuver and should thus have exercised extreme negligence. and pursuant to device for imputing liability to a person where there is no established doctrine. should have passenger was so over-crowded that he and many other anticipated that overtaking at a junction was a perilous passengers had no choice but to sit on the open . fibers. upheld by the majority and 1755 of the Code. In case of death or injuries to passengers. the through the exercise of the degree of care and diligence principal cannot be held liable for the acts of the agent. he cannot use Gillaco vs. moral assumption of risk by the passenger. 1733 and only. First. with due orders. Art. Under the first. no less important. Since the PAL agents are not privy to the said Agreement and petitioner knew that a written request to the legal counsel of PAL was necessary. nor could it reasonably forsee every Calalas vs. the skidding being an unforeseen event. This presumption may be overcome only by satisfactorily showing that the employer exercised the care and the Cervantes vs. 1759. a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. Insofar as contracts of carriage are concerned. It is The driver of jeepney did not carry “safely as far no defense for the carrier that the act was done in as human care and foresight could provide. shoulders of the highway. and facing the middle of the Accordingly. acted without authority when they confirmed the While a passenger is entitled to protection from flights of the petitioner. transport the passenger safely. and social attitude. caution. In such a case. 1105 of the old Civil Code (which is the cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict. it is the parties themselves who create the obligation. it is the carrier's strict obligation to highway in a diagonal angle. some aspects regulated by the Civil Code The basis of the common carrier's liability under are those respecting the diligence required of common NCC for assaults on passengers committed by its drivers carriers with regard to the safety of passengers as well rests either on (1) the doctrine of respondeat superior or as the presumption of negligence in cases of death or (2) the principle that it is the carrier's implied duty to injury to passengers. The said agents. selection or in the supervision of that employee. Art. that it practically secures the passengers from assaults 1755. In the present case. so the negligence of a servant or an employee. Under the particular circumstances of the instant case. The shooting in collision between the jeepney and the truck was the question was therefore "caso fortuito" within the negligence of the truck driver. Under Article 1989 of the New personal violence by the carrier or its agents or Civil Code. happens within the course of the employee's duty. where there is was excused thereby. When an injury is caused by as negligent. not in law applicable). the 1756 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers carrier is liable only when the act of the employee is are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted within the scope of his authority and duty. CA In the case at bar. to their total Transportation and Traffic Code. but also. Sumayang PNR vs.

to provide force majeure. such as a four-year rule. LTB Co Attorneys fees may only be awarded when the The income which deceased could earn if he defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to should finish the medical course and pass the litigate with third persons or incur expenses to protect his corresponding board examinations must be deemed to interest. It will be probable consequences of the breach and which the observed that the defendant companies offered to settle parties had foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen the case by offering to the Soberanos the additional sum at the time the obligation was constituted. Pan American World Airways vs. The rationale behind exemplary or another passenger in the bus is within the context of corrective damages is. In view of it may be absolved from liability in case of force majeure.Caucasian to accommodate whites is very commotion and panic among the passengers such that regrettable.00 a year. potentiality and capacity to increase his future income was not considered said liability may be enforced upon If the carrier’s employee is confronted with a sudden finality of the decision. vs. Self enrichment or fraternal interest and not personal ill will may have been the motive of defendant. CA fact that plaintiff was ordered out under some pretext in order to accommodate a white man in an airline owned The running amuck of the passenger was the by an American firm with a reputation for bumping off proximate cause of the incident as it triggered off a non. under Article 2220 of the Civil Code on account of Likewise when the train did not even slow down breach of its contract of carriage because it did not act when it approached the Iyam Bridge which was under fraudulently or in bad faith. Co. Ammen Trans.platforms between the coaches of the train. . But while petitioner failed to exercise an important element in fixing the amount recoverable by extraordinary diligence as required by law. The sudden act of the passenger who stabbed exemplary damages. of kin. the bus was speeding from a full stop. Cariaga vs. not negligent in causing the injuries resulting from such accident. defendant had willfully and knowingly violated the prevailing rule that it is negligence per se for passengers contract of carriage and failed to bring the plaintiff to her on a railroad to protrude any part of his body and that no place of destination under its contract with plaintiff. but it is malice nevertheless. which is the annual salary of deceased at the time of his death. LTB had exercised due repair at the time. who sustained the bodily injuries.76. as a young "training assistant" and when the deceased’s Isaac vs. An award of attorney's fees is also in order. in the case at bar. not only relevant. In this case it was Juana Soberano. of P5. in order that a common carrier an example or correction for public good . no cogent reason negligence. fixed at a minimal rate of only of P2. CA presumption that it was negligent in the performance of its obligation under the contract of carriage. just and demandable claim. there was negligence. the common LTB could not be held liable to pay moral damages carrier is negligent. it appears private respondents herein. Bachelor was negligent. Although it is not the sole that the deceased was chargeable with contributory element determinative of said amount. It cannot however relieve the By refusing to accommodate plaintiff in said carrier but can only reduce its liability (ART. Appeals-the bus driver did not immediately stop the bus at the height of the commotion. the conductor panicked and blew his whistle after people In case of physical injuries. IAC By placing his left arm on the window. the discharge of their duties and so it must be The petitioner has the obligation to transport its considered an obligor in good faith. it should be imposed in such amount as to is not enough that the accident was caused by force sufficiently and effectively deter similar breach of majeure. be required in the absence of such emergency. passengers to their destinations and to observe extraordinary diligence in doing so. however. emergency.L. It is a flight. Inc. In this case. Death or any injury suffered by any of its passengers gives rise to the Villa Rey Transit. petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence. rejected the offer and proceeded to court to recover damages in the total sum of P76. and the bus was not recoverable only by the party injured and not by his next properly equipped with doors in accordance with law. not her husband Jose. However. but. or when the defendant acted in gross and be within the same category provided for by Art. the victims fell from the bus door when it Soberano vs. it nature.000. Considering the factual findings of the Court of having found bad faith on the part of defendant. faith was also present. Bad recovery can be had for an injury. A. despite the diligence in the selection and supervision of its alarm raised by other passengers that a person had employees like the drivers of its buses in connection with fallen off the train at lyam Bridge. of a purely arbitrary tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal bar found at standard. The common carrier must still prove that it was contract in the future by defendant and other airlines. The Bachelor Express Inc vs. unless there is express statutory provision to the contrary. the passengers started running to the sole exit shoving each other resulting in the falling off the bus by Defendant having breached its contract with passengers Beter and Rautraut causing them fatal plaintiff in bad faith. Life expectancy is. Since he opted to sit on the open platform has been given to warrant its disregard and the between the coaches of the train.184. The Soberanos. MRR was opened or gave way while the bus was still running. the side of said platform to avoid falling off from the When the liability of common carrier had been speeding train. which are those that are the natural and plainly valid. it is not error to have awarded injuries. 1762). he should have held adoption.757. as the name implies. he is not held to the same degree of care he would otherwise. moral damages are had already fallen off the bus. 2201 of evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's the Civil Code. neither did the train stop. also.

Suffice it to state that when plaintiffs defendant taxicab company has not committed any prayed in their complaint for such other relief and criminal offense resulting in physical injuries against the remedies that may be availed of under the premises. Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code: The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand Fores vs. the life expectancy of the deceased or of the As a proximate result of defendant's breach in beneficiary. common carrier expressly subject to the rule of Art. plaintiffs "prayed for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable. and constitute unwarranted judicial legislation. It is argued that this Court is without jurisdiction Under Article 1764 and Article 2206(1) of the Civil Code. The present action merely incidental or dependent upon what the court may was instituted because plaintiff demanded an exorbitant award as compensatory damages. nor proof. plaintiffs may not be the persons who might be liable for the damages caused expected to single out by express term the kind of but on an alleged breach of contract of carriage and damages they are trying to recover against the against the defendant employer alone. nor counterclaim of basis of the life expectancy of the deceased. in which case Article 1764 makes the shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. This is neither a case that comes under paragraph 11 of said De Caliston vs.00 paid to the recoverable unless it is proved that the carrier was guilty herein petitioner by the insurer of the passenger bus of malice or bad faith. and in the case at bar there is no death caused by his driver is subsidiary and. correction only in addition. not of his error for the same by the respondents. mental anguish. CA 185 SCRA 110 provisions of the law. just equivalent to the pension the decedent would have 1764 makes it all the more evident that where the injured received for one year if she did not die. amount for moral damages and naturally the defendant did not and could not yield to such demand. in employee and since exemplary damages is intimately the present case. to adjudicate the exemplary damages since there was the award of damages for death is computed on the no allegation nor prayer. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. Exemplary case does not come within the exception of paragraph 1 damages may be imposed by way of example or of Article 2219 of the Civil Code. would be to violate the clear Philippine Airlines vs. moral damages are not On the other hand. Manila Yellow Taxi Cab the complaint sought to recover damages against the defendant-carrier wherein plaintiffs prayed for While under the law. does not maintain his action against all connected with general damages. therefore. Court of Appeals Article because the Lower Court did not deem it just and equitable to award any amount for attorney's fees. However.00 awarded for loss which point this Court agrees.00 which is death of the deceased". Miranda pesos. 2220. the P5.000. other evidence of such malice to support the award of arises from the same culpa. the insurance proceeds moral damages by the Court of Appeals. We think it is clear that the mere which figured in the accident may be deemed to have carelessness of the carrier's driver does not per se come from the bus owner who procured the insurance. For plaintiffs were travelling with first class tickets issued by defendant and yet they were . whichever is shorter. the defendant's carrier. of pension is unjustified. Pan American of earnings arising from death is. because depending upon the discretion of the court. In addition: The exception to the basic rule of damages now (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the under consideration is a mishap resulting in the death of earning capacity of the deceased." Now. since the body of Cachero vs.000. the court is called upon the exercise plaintiff is the driver of defendant's taxicab but he was and use its discretion whether the imposition of punitive not made party defendant to the case. as established by authorities. . But the exceptional rule of Art. Mendoza For the settlement of the issue at hand. Even in the absence of local statute and case law. without proof of bad faith or malice on the part of the defendant. damages for breach of contract. as required by Art. at bottom. therefore. constitute or justify an inference of malice or bad faith on Since the civil liability (ex-delicto) of the latter for the the part of the carrier. their determination Code. wounded feelings. in plaintiff. and the reason is obvious because it is expenses to protect his interests. to The present case does not come under any of compensatory damages. observed however. resort to bad faith of its contracts with plaintiffs. on The deletion of the P10. Therefore. It is to be beneficiary. Petitioner relies on "the principle of law generally recognized and applied by the courts in the United States" that "the controlling element in determining loss Lopez vs. there are enough applicable local laws and jurisprudence. the latter suffered foreign jurisprudence would be proper only if no law or social humiliation. but that they cannot be the exceptions enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil recovered as a matter of right. that in the complaint. employers are made indemnification for the damages they suffered as a result responsible for the damages caused by their employees of the negligence of the driver who is appellant's acting within the scope of their assigned task. The one that committed the offense against effect. foreign jurisprudence is only persuasive. passenger does not die. However. If the amount defendant's failure to meet its responsibility was not the of exemplary damages need not be proved. it need not cause that compelled the plaintiff to litigate or to incur also be alleged. serious anxiety and jurisprudence is available locally to settle a controversy. specially of paragraph 2 thereof. the surviving heir of the moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the former is entitled to the award of P 10.000. descendants and income that was cut short by her death for which ascendants of the deceased passenger to "demand Dalmacio was responsible. plaintiff or exemplary damages even though not expressly is not entitled to compensation for moral damages as his prayed or pleaded in the plaintiffs' complaint. plaintiff. among others. Marchan vs. that entitles the spouse. To award moral should be credited in favor of the errant driver. The pension of the decedent being a sure 2206. and the indemnity a passenger.

Even from the standpoint of the petitioner that there is an employee-employer relationship between it and private Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. At stop-overs. The negligence of PAL is order to be able to arrive at his destination on his clearly a quasi-delict and therefore Art. Armovit vs. He was a director of control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by several companies and was active in civic and social the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. And he was former Vice-President of the the interest of its passengers who are entitled to its Philippines. particularly as to their States to attend a private business conference of the convenience. among the tourist passengers. justifying the recovery of moral damages. This being those awaiting to welcome them. CA Ortigas Jr. moral damages sustained by him. Nominal damages cannot co-exist with impunity. private respondent was a practicing lawyer. Such inattention and lack of care for such an office. and it is certainly not for No one will certify the fitness to fly a plane of one the airplane to say later. as in this case. only to be found the case. The Court of Appeals found that Dra. therefore. the proper Philippine Airlines vs. CA 106 SCRA 391 arrangements therefor having been made already. contrary to what is rightfully to be expected from the contractual undertaking. private respondent warned him that they were not in the We have uniformly upheld the right of a vicinity of Daet but above the town of Ligao. and pays a higher price therefor. class is anyway just as good as first class. the P100. It cannot be said therefore that there was fraud expected to be among the first-class passengers by or bad faith on the part of the carrier's driver. The passenger to damages in all cases wherein. he is transferred over his therefore there is causal connection between the objection to economy. 2219(2) is scheduled time. when the pilot was preparing to land in Daet. and (2) where it is proved Prudenciado vs. that economy landing. applicable. The exceptions are (1) where the mishap results in the death of a passenger. Lufthansa The gross negligence committed by private It is Our considered view that when it comes to respondent(Northwest Airlines) in the issuance of the contracts of common carriage. But in the and bad faith and establish that private respondent instant case. Alliance Transport that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith. having tumor on his nose. who may not be discriminated against with actual damages. . they were the other. More so in rank and position were by no means left behind. as in the instant case. even if he was sick. in view of the provisions of Article 2220. after having dizziness. when in truth such was not the case. Prudenciado suffered a brain concussion the two vehicles sideswiped each other at the middle of which although mild can admittedly produce the effects the road. he was angrily rebuffed by an employee his honor as Senate President Pro Tempore.given only the tourist class. There was gross negligence by PAL for allowing A passenger contracts for first class Capt. a senior A written contract for attorney's services shall partner of a big law firm in Manila. the breach appears to be of graver nature. after it deprives him of his suffering from the disease. even if death does not result. In other words. Lufthansa succeeded in keeping Ortigas as its passenger by assuring him that he would be given first class accommodation at the next stations. vs. but his aforesaid passenger to the award of moral damages. an award of At the time of this unfortunate incident. A organizations in the Philippines. headaches and general debility of private contracted and paid for first class accommodations duly respondent were after-effects of the crash-landing. passengers including private respondent Vinluan for the International carriers like defendant know the prestige of sake of economy. over plaintiff was done willfully and in wanton disregard The deletion of the nominal damages by the of plaintiff's rights and his dignity as a human being and appellate court is well-taken since there is an award of as a Filipino. class. both vehicles were in their complained of by her and that these symptoms can respective lanes and that they did not invade the lane of develop after several years and can lead to some. It may not be humiliating to travel as tourist passengers. committed a breach of contract which entitles petitioners since the preference given to the Belgian passenger to moral damages. And confirmed and validated. Senator Lopez was going to the United utmost consideration. provisions of Articles 2219 and 2220 of the New Civil Code.00 is appropriate. Petitioner sacrificed the comfort of its first class Senator Lopez was then Senate President Pro Tempore. he is entitled to the establish the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees. inattention and lack of tickets by the erroneous entry of the date of departure care on the part of the carrier resulting in the failure of and without changing or correcting the error when the the passenger to be accommodated in the class tickets were presented for re-confirmation and the contracted for amounts to bad faith or fraud which manner by which petitioners were rudely informed that entitles the passenger to the award of moral damages in they were bumped off are clear indicia of such malice accordance with Article 2220 of the Civil Code. Moral damages are not recoverable in actions private respondent is still entitled to moral damages in for damages predicated on a breach of the contract of view of the finding of bad faith or malice. and in this case where instead of courteously informing private fact he had a second engagement awaiting him in the respondent of his being downgraded under the United States: a banquet tendered by Filipino friends in circumstances. it is humiliating to be Trans World Airlines vs. such award of moral and exemplary damages. no moral damages are recoverable. Considering the consideration of the attorney’s prominence as well as circumstances of this case and the social standing of comparison of the defense counsel’s fees could well private respondent in the community. Esguerra respondent arising from the contract of employment. amount to bad faith which entitles the Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Company. For the of petitioner. One month prior to the crash- space in order to favor another passenger. applying the transportation. What worsened the situation of was that actual or compensatory damages. Bustamante to fly on the that fateful day of the accommodations for many reasons peculiar to himself accident. CA compelled to travel as such. which he has to take in accident and said after-effects.000.

corrective damages is. her fears can be turning to the right along Taft Ave.” The rationale behind exemplary or corrective measures. considering that the traffic was clear. as the name implies. The frequent incidence of accidents damages may be granted if the defendant acted with of this nature caused by taxi drivers indeed demands grave negligence. she is undeniably a proper recipient of to notice petitioner's car. Being a doctor by profession. . Failing Otherwise stated. exemplary roads are slippery. Article 2231 of the collision. Boulevard. and did not even swerve to the right to avoid the As to exemplary damages. he failed to apply his brakes moral damages which are proportionate to her suffering. to provide an example or correction for the public good. coming from Ayala more real and intense than an ordinary person. Much more.serious handicaps or predispose the patient to other Respondent driver was running at high speed after sickness. it was raining that time and the Civil Code provides: “In quasi-delicts.