GOVERNING LAWS

A. Domestic/inter-island/coastwise
 Applicable to Land, Water, and Air transportation
1. Civil Code - primary
2. Code of Commerce (Arts. 349, 379, 573-734, 580, 806-845) - suppletory

B. International/foreign/overseas (Foreign country to Philippines)

 Applicable to Water/maritime and Air transportation
 The law of the country of destination generally applies.
1. Civil Code - primary
2. Code of Commerce - suppletory
3. Others - suppletory
a. Water/maritime: Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA)
b. Air: Warsaw Convention

I. NEW CIVIL CODE

(Arts. 1732-1766)

REQUIREMENT OF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE

 Rendition of service with the greatest skill and utmost foresight. (Davao Stevedore Co. v. Fernandez)
 Rationale:
1. From the nature of the business and for reasons of public policy (Art. 1733)
2. Relationship of trust
3. Business is impressed with a special public duty
4. Possession of the goods
5. Preciousness of human life
 A common carrier is not an absolute insurer of all risks of travel.

COVERAGE
1. Vigilance over goods (Arts. 1734-1754); and
2. Safety of passengers (Arts. 1755-1763).

PASSENGER
 A person who has entered into a contract of carriage, express or implied, with the carrier. They are entitled to extraordinary
diligence from the common carrier.
 The following are not considered passengers, and are entitled to ordinary diligence only:
a. One who has not yet boarded any part of a vehicle regardless of whether or not he has purchased a ticket;
b. One who remains on a carrier for an unreasonable length of time after he has been afforded every safe opportunity to
alight;
c. One who has boarded by fraud, stealth, or deceit;
d. One who attempts to board a moving vehicle, although he has a ticket, unless the attempt be with the knowledge and
consent of the carrier;
e. One who has boarded a wrong vehicle, has been properly informed of such fact, and on alighting, is injured by the
carrier;
f. Invited guests and accommodation passengers. (Lara vs. Valencia)
g. One who rides any part of the vehicle which is unsuitable or dangerous or which he knows is not designed or intended for
passengers.

DEFENSES OF A COMMON CARRIER IN THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS

1. CASO FORTUITO/FORCE MAJEURE
 Requisites:
a. Must be the proximate and only cause of the loss
b. Exercise of due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during or after the occurrence of the disaster (Art. 1739)
c. Carrier has not negligently incurred in delay in transporting the goods (Art. 1740)
 Fire is not considered a natural disaster or calamity as it arises almost invariably from some act of man. (Eastern Shipping Lines
Inc. vs. IAC)
 Mechanical defects are not force majeure if the same was discoverable by regular and adequate inspections. (Notes and Cases
on the Law on Transportation and Public Utilities, Aquino, T. & Hernando, R.P. 2004 ed. p.120-122)

2. ACTS OF PUBLIC ENEMY

 Requisites:
a. Must be the proximate and only cause of the loss
b. Exercise of due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during or after the act causing the loss, deterioration or
destruction of the goods (Art. 1739)

3. NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIPPER OR OWNER

a. Sole and proximate cause: absolute defense
 b. Contributory: partial defense. (Art. 1741)

4. CHARACTER OF THE GOODS OR DEFECTS IN THE PACKING OR IN THE CONTAINER

 Even if the damage should be caused by the inherent defect/character of the goods, the common carrier must exercise due
diligence to forestall or lessen the loss. (Art. 1742)
 The carrier which, knowing the fact of improper packing of the goods upon ordinary observation, still accepts the goods
notwithstanding such condition, is not relieved of liability or loss or injury resulting therefrom. (Southern Lines, Inc. v. CA, 4 SCRA
258)

5. ORDER OR ACT OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY

 Said public authority must have the power to issue the order (Art. 1743). Consequently, where the officer acts without legal
process, the common carrier will be held liable. (Ganzon v. CA 161 SCRA 646)
 Diligence in the selection and supervision of employees under Article 2180 of the Civil Code cannot be interposed as a defense by
the common carrier because the liability of the carriers arises from the breach of the contract of carriage. The defense under said
articles is applicable to negligence in quasi-delicts under Art. 2176. (Del Prado v. Manila Electric Co., 52 Phil 900)