Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(C) What, if any, are the valid defenses that CTC and UTI can raise
Transportation Law (2007-2013 Bar)
Carriage; Breach of Contract in the respective actions against them? Explain. (3%)
No.VIII. City Railways, Inc. (CRI) provides train service,
for a fee, to commuters from Manila to Calamba, Laguna. Commuter SUGGESTED ANSWER: With respect to Romeo, Samuel and
are required to purchase tickets and then proceed to designated Teresita, since there was no pre-existing contractual relationship
loading and unloading facilities to board the train. Ricardo Santos between them and CTC, CTC can raise the defense that it
purchased a ticket for Calamba and entered the station. While exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family in the
waiting, he had an altercation with the security guard of CRI leading
selection and supervision of its driver (Article 2180, New Civil
to a fistfight. Ricardo Santos fell on the railway just as a train was
entering the station. Ricardo Santos was run over by the train. He Code). It can raise the same defense against Uriel if there is a
died. stipulation that exempts it from liability for simple negligence,
In the action for damages filed by the heirs of Ricardo but not for willful acts or gross negligence (Article 1758, New
Santos, CRI interposed lack of cause of action, contending that the Civil Code).
of the team that the victims hired to handle the case for them as a
CTC can also raise against all the plaintiffs the defense that the group. In your case conference, the following questions came up:
collision was due exclusively to the negligence of the driver of (A) Explain the causes of action legally possible under the
UTI, and this constitutes a fortuitous event, because there was no given facts against the airline and the Pilots; whom will you
concurrent negligence on the part of its own driver (Ampang specifically implead in these causes of action? (5%)
v.Guinoo Transportation Company, G.R. No. L-5044, April 30,
1953). CTC can also raise against Samuel the defense that he was SUGGESTED ANSWER: A complaint for breach of
engaged in a seriously illegal act at the time of the collision, which contract of carriage can be filed against Fil-Asia for failure to
can render him liable for damages on the basis of quasi-delict exercise extraordinary diligence in transporting the passengers
(Dobbs, the Law of Torts, pp.524-525). safety from their point of embarkation to their destination
Since UTI had no pre-existing contractual relationship with any (Article 1755, Civil Code). A complaint based on a quasi-delict
of the plaintiffs, it can raise the defense that it exercised due can be filed against the pilots because of their fault and
diligence in the selection and supervision of its driver that the negligence (Article 2176, Civil Code). Fil-Asia Air can be
collision was due exclusively to the negligence of the driver of included for negligence in the selection and supervision of the
CTC, and that Samuel was committing a serious illegal act at the pilots (Article 2180, Civil Code).
time of the collision. Carriage;
Breach of Contract; Presumption of Negligence (2013) A third cause of action may be a criminal prosecution for
No.IX. Fil-Asia Flight 916 was on a scheduled passenger reckless imprudence resulting in homicide against two pilots. The
airline will be subsidiarily liable for the civil liability only after
flight from Manila when it crashed as it landed at the Cagayan de Oro
the pilots are convicted and found to be insolvent.
airport; the pilot miscalculated the plane’s approach and undershot
the runway. Of the 150 people on board, ten (10) passengers died at (B) How will you handle the cases of the passenger run over the
the crash scene. Of the ten who died, one was a passenger who ambulance and the airline employee allowed to hitch a free ride to
managed to leave the plane but was run over by an ambulance Cagayan de Oro? (3%)
coming to the rescue. Another was an airline employee who hitched a
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
free ride to Cagayan de Oro and who was not in the passenger
It is the driver of the ambulance and his employer who should be
manifest.
held liable for damages, because a passenger was run over. This
It appears from the Civil Aeronautics Authority
is in accordance with Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
investigation that the co-pilot who had control of the plane’s landing
had less than the required flying and landing time experience, and There could also be a criminal prosecution for reckless
should not have been in control of the plane at the time. He was imprudence resulting in homicide against the ambulance driver
allowed to fly as a co-pilot because of the scarcity of pilots – and the consequent civil liability. Since the airline employee was
Philippine pilots have been recruited by foreign airlines under vastly being transported gratuitously, Fil-Asia Air was not required to
improved flying terms and wages so that newer and less trained pilots exercise extraordinary diligence for his safety and only ordinary
are being locally deployed. The main pilot, on the other hand, had a
care. (Lara v. Valencia, 104 Phil. 65, 1958)
very high level of blood alcohol at the time of the crash. You are part