Dianne Rosales Manrique
Cases: Brinas vs. People of the Philippines Mallari vs. Court of Appeals Sea-Land Service vs. IAC H.E. Heacock Co. vs. Macondray & Co. Citadel Lines vs. Court of Appeals Fabre vs. Court of Appeals

Page 1 of 9

Martina Bool. Without said announcement. fell from the passenger coach of the said train. It is also a matter of common experience that as the train or bus slackens its speed. conductor and assistant conductor. and failed to take the necessary precautions for the safety of passengers and to prevent accident to persons and damage to property. the victims would have been safely seated in their respective seats when the train jerked as it picked up speed. without due regard to existing laws. Dianne Rosales Manrique Brinas vs. 522-6 of the Manila Railroad Company. 1957. causing by such negligence. respectively. two of its passengers. It was negligence on the conductor's part to announce the next flag stop when said stop was still a full three minutes ahead. regulations and ordinances. and Emelita Gesmundo. causing their instantaneous death. a child about three years of age. they were over run. " Issue: Whether or not there is negligence on the part of the conductor? Held: It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common carriers like trains and buses that before reaching a station or flagstop they slow down and the conductor announces the name of the place. As the respondent Court of Appeals correctly observed. there is no way to stop it as a bus may be stopped.Ms. Province of Quezon. that although there were passengers on board the passenger coach. that when said passenger Train No. wilfully and unlawfully drove and operated the same in a negligent. The connection between the premature Page 2 of 9 . ready to disembark as the train or bus comes to a full stop. in the Municipality of Tiaong. it unexpectedly accelerated to full speed. an old woman. then running from Tagkawayan to San Pablo City. "the appellant's announcement was premature and erroneous. 522-6 was passing the railroad tracks in the Municipality of Tiaong. Quezon. some passengers usually stand and proceed to the nearest exit. carelessness and imprudence. People of the Philippines Facts: On or about January 6. they failed to provide lamps or lights therein. This announcement prompted the victims to stand and proceed to the nearest exit. Petitioner-appellant failed to show any reason why the train suddenly resumed its regular speed. as engine driver. Court. Clemente Briñas and Hermogenes Buencamino. as a result of which. being then persons in charge of passenger Train No. the said accused Victor Milan. This is especially true of a train because passengers feel that if the train resumes its run before they are able to disembark. careless and imprudent manner. That the announcement was premature and erroneous is shown by the fact that immediately after the train slowed down. The proximate cause of the death of the victims was the premature and erroneous announcement of petitioner' appelant Briñas. Philippines. The announcement was made while the train was still in Barrio Lagalag. and within the jurisdiction of this Hon.

Reyes.. testified that he went to the left lane of the highway and overtook a Fiera which had stopped on the right lane. The sketch of the accident showed that the collision occurred after Mallari Jr.V. The complaint alleged that the collision which resulted in the death of Israel Reyes was caused by the fault and negligence of both drivers of the passenger jeepney and the Bulletin Isuzu delivery van. Before he passed by the Fiera. Court of Appeals Facts: On 14 October 1987. The tworight wheels of the delivery van were on the right shoulder of the road and pieces of debris from the accident were found scattered along the shoulder of the road up to a certain portion of the lane travelled by the passenger jeepney. The complaint also prayed that the defendants be ordered jointly and severally to pay plaintiff P1. The points of collision were the and the left rear portion of the passenger jeepney and the left front side of the delivery van of BULLETIN. and the N. unbroken by any intervening efficient causes. P18. the passenger jeepney driven by petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr. the widow of Israel M.. its driver Felix Angeles. overtook the Fiera while negotiating a curve in the highway.Ms. at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning. Netherlands Insurance Company. filed a complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City against Alfredo Mallari Sr. he saw the van of respondent BULLETIN coming from the opposite direction.777. Reyes. collided with the delivery van of respondent Bulletin along the National Highway in Barangay San Pablo. and owned by his co-petitioner Alfredo Mallari Sr.00 for hospital and medical expenses.006. and also against BULLETIN. The impact caused the jeepney to turn around and fall on its left side resulting in injuries to its passengers one of whom was Israel Reyes who eventually died due to the gravity of his injuries.00 for burial expenses plus such amounts as may be fixed by the trial court for exemplary damages and attorney's fees. and Alfredo Mallari Jr.270. Issue: Whether or not the driver observed extraordinary diligence? Held: The negligence and recklessness of the driver of the passenger jeepney is binding against petitioner Mallari Sr. who admittedly was the owner of the passenger Page 3 of 9 .000. Petitioner Mallari Jr. Mallari vs.40 in compensatory damages. Dianne Rosales Manrique and erroneous announcement of petitioner-appellant and the deaths of the victims is direct and natural. Bataan. Dinalupihan. On 16 December 1987 Claudia G. It was driven by one Felix Angeles. P40.

This liability of the common carrier does not cease upon proof that it exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of its employees. 1755 of the Civil Code. assumed the express obligation to transport the passengers to their destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with due regard for all the circumstances.048 representing the Philippine currency value of the lost cargo. by the contract of carriage. the limit of said carrier's liability for loss of the shipment under the bill of lading.00 to US$1. Moreover.00 for attorney’s fees. The trial court sentenced Sea-Land to pay Cue P186. and any injury or death that might be suffered by its passengers is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier. 1756 of the Civil Code.00. The CA affirmed the trial court.000. in case of death or injuries to passengers.814 for unrealized profit and P25. Dianne Rosales Manrique jeepney engaged as a common carrier. P55. Issue: Whether or not it is just and fair that Sea-Land's dollar obligation be convertible at the same rate? Held: The private respondent admits that as early as on April 22. 1981. Under Art.00. a common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. Sea-Land had offered to settle his claim for US$4. bear for its own account all of the increase in said rate since the time of the offer of settlement. it does not appear just or equitable that Sea-Land. it is liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former's employees. by being made to pay at the current conversion rate of the dollar to the peso. The shipper not having declared the value of the shipment was indicated in the bill of lading. which offered that amount in good faith as early as six years ago. The shipment was discharged in Manila.00 for said shipment.256. unless it proves that it observed extraordinary diligence. Sea-Land Service vs. under Art. IAC Facts: Sea-Land received from Starborne Trading Company a shipment consigned to Sen Hiap Hing. should. All circumstances considered. This Court having reached the conclusion that said sum is all that is justly due said respondent. 1759 of the same Code. it is just and fair that Page 4 of 9 . pursuant to Art.00 as the peso value of the lost shipment is clearly based on a conversion rate of P8. the carrier jeepney owned by Mallari Sr. Further. The decision of the Regional Trial Court awarding the private respondent P186. said respondent having claimed a dollar value of $23. considering the fact that in an action based on contract of carriage. Clearly. and while awaiting transshipment to Cebu the cargo was stolen and never recovered. the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible for the payment of damages sought by the passenger.048.Ms. a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all the circumstances.

and any loss or damage for which the carrier may be liable shall be adjusted pro rata on said basis. Both parties appealed. H.00 per package is held valid and binding on private respondent.00. the proportionate freight ton value. Costs against private respondent.000. the equivalent in Philippine currency of US$4. Macondray & Co.00. It was also agreed that in the event of claims for shortage or damage the carrier shall not be liable for more than the net invoice price plus freight and insurance less charges. the invoice value plus freight and insurance. Dianne Rosales Manrique Sea-Land's dollar obligation be convertible at the same rate. There being no question of the fact that said shipment consisted of eight cartons or packages. The clocks were not delivered despite demands.Ms. vs. Issue: Page 5 of 9 . Trial court decided for the plaintiff for P226.02.000. for the loss of which Sea-Land is therefore liable in the aggregate amount of US$4. the market value of the clocks.00 to $1.00. The stipulation in the questioned bill of lading limiting Sea-Land's liability for loss of or damage to the shipment covered by said bill to US$500. Plaintiff claimed P420.E. unless the value be expressly stated in the bill and freight paid. Facts: The plaintiff shipped Edmonton clocks from New York to Manila on board a vessel of the defendant. Heacock Co.00 at the conversion rate of P8.00. it is the judgment of the Court that said petitioner discharge that obligation by paying private respondent the sum of P32. It was agreed in the bill of lading that the value of goods receipted do not exceed US$500 per freight on or in proportion for any part of a ton. while defendant tendered only P76.36.000.

36 which the defendant is ready and willing to pay to the plaintiff. The defendant-appellant contends that these two clauses. Dianne Rosales Manrique Whether or not clause 1 or clause 9 of the bill of lading here in question is to be adopted as the measure of defendant's liability? Held: Clause 1 provides as follows: it is mutually agreed that the value of the goods receipted for above does not exceed $500 per freight ton. Inc. Court of Appeals Facts: Petitioner Citadel Line. that in the even of claims for short delivery of. Clause 9 provides: also.Ms. Citadel Lines vs. Razon. cargo being made. in proportion for any part of a ton. Inc. Issue: Whether or not the loss occurred while the cargo in question was in the custody of E. is the importer of the subject shipment of Dunhill cigarettes from England where 90 cases of which were missing. Inc? Page 6 of 9 . if construed together. that since in this case the invoice value is more than $500 per freight ton. but should the invoice value of the goods be less than $500 per freight ton. then the invoice value governs. the proportionate value of the clocks in question is only P76. or. unless the value be expressly stated herein and ad valorem freight paid thereon. the carrier shall not be liable for more than the net invoice price plus freight and insurance less all charges saved.” while respondent Manila Wine Merchant Inc. is the general agent of vessel “Cardigan Bay/ Strait Enterprise. and any loss or damage for which the carrier may be liable shall be adjusted pro rata on the said basis. mean that the shipper and the carrier stipulate and agree that the value of the goods receipted for does not exceed $500 per freight ton. the latter valuation should be adopted and that according to that valuation. or damage to. or of Citadel Lines.

from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. the burden is shifted to the carrier to prove that it has exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law. on the basis of the evidence presented. The carrier is now estopped from claiming otherwise. find the award of damages in the amount of P312. The cases cited by petitioner in support of its allegations to the contrary do not find proper application in the case at bar simply because those cases involve a situation wherein the shipment was turned over to the custody and possession of the arrastre operator. therefore. Considering. however. The duty of the consignee is to prove merely that the goods were lost. We. based on the alleged market value thereof. there having been no formal turnover of the cargo to the Arrastre. Atty.00 for the value of the goods lost. Common carriers. Fabre vs. Thereafter. to be erroneous.800. its extraordinary responsibility lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of. actually or constructively. destroyed or deteriorated. Claims Manager and Head Checker. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. respectively. unless they prove that they observed extra ordinary diligence as required in Article 1733 of the Civil Code. and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered. And. the subject cargo which was placed in a container van. by the carrier to the consignee or to the person who has the right to receive them. Court of Appeals Facts: Page 7 of 9 . Besides. that the subject shipment was lost while it was still in the custody of herein petitioner carrier. Razon Inc.Ms. the inescapable conclusion is that the carrier was negligent and should be held liable therefor. namely. that for lack of space the containers were not turned over to and as the responsibility of E. of the carrier. Lope M. according to all the circumstances of each case. and considering further that it failed to prove that the loss was occasioned by an excepted cause. If the goods are lost. there is the categorical admission made by two witnesses. Velasco and Ruben Ignacio. padlocked and sealed by the representative of the carrier was still in its possession and control when the loss occurred. Dianne Rosales Manrique Held: The Court of Appeals declared in no uncertain terms that. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently.

Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the "general public. Scholastica's College. caused by the negligence or the automobile driver. experience and record of service.The above article makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both.Ms. since the driver was unfamiliar with the roads. one of them seriously who was paralyzed. On their way to La Union. they met an accident at a sharp curve.000. and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity. Page 8 of 9 . the Fabres. 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code his negligence gave rise to the presumption that his employers. on the other hand. Petitioners. who owned the bus. Private respondent Word for the World Christian Fellowship Inc. is not responsible for acts of negligence of the latter or prevented from recovering for injuries suffered from a collision between the automobile and a train. requires the formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and issuance of proper instructions as well as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules. the Fabres. and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional. this case actually involves a contract of carriage. it was raining. and his wife were owners of a 1982 model Mazda minibus. Issue: Are petitioners liable? Held: Yes The finding that Cabil drove his bus negligently. supported as they are by the evidence.As already stated. Jr. did not have to be engaged in the business of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers to apply to them. Due diligence in supervision. Dianne Rosales Manrique Petitioners Engracio Fabre.". Pursuant to Arts. were themselves negligent in the selection and supervisions of their employee. but exercises no other control over the conduct of the driver. These factual findings of the two courts we regard as final and conclusive. Due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied by finding that the applicant possessed a professional driver's license. The couple had a driver.00. while his employer. episodic or unscheduled basis. The passengers were injured. the Fabres. The employer should also examine the applicant for his qualifications. and it was a sharp curve. as "a sideline". failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their employee is fully supported by the evidence on record. A person who hires a public automobile and gives the driver directions as to the place to which he wishes to be conveyed. His job was to take school children to and from the St. (WWCF) arranged with petitioners for the transportation of 33 members of its Young Adults Ministry from Manila to La Union and back in consideration of which private respondent paid petitioners the amount of P3. We think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions. They used the bus principally in connection with a bus service for school. Cabil. whom they hired in 1981.

Dianne Rosales Manrique Page 9 of 9 .Ms.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful