British Airways vs. CA, GR. # 92288, Feb.

9, 1993, 218 SCRA 699

Facts:
on February 15, 1981, private respondent First International Trading and General
Services Co received a telex message from its principal ROLACO Engineering and
Contracting Services in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to recruit Filipino contract workers
in behalf of said principal.

private respondent instructed its travel agent, ADB Travel and Tours. Inc., to book
the 93 workers with petitioner but the latter failed to fly said workers, thereby
compelling private respondent to borrow money in the amount of P304,416.00 in order
to purchase airline tickets from the other airlines as evidenced by the cash
vouchers

A similar incident happened again months later. As a result of these incidents,

private respondent sent a letter to petitioner demanding compensation for the
damages it had incurred by the latter's repeated failure to transport its contract
workers despite confirmed bookings and payment of the corresponding travel taxes.

Issue:
WN private respondent has no cause of action against it there being no perfected
contract of carriage existing between them as no ticket was ever issued to private
respondent's contract workers

Held:

Petitioner's contention is untenable.

Private respondent had a valid cause of action for damages against petitioner.
Petitioner's repeated failures to transport private respondent's workers in its
flight despite confirmed booking of said workers clearly constitutes breach of
contract and bad faith on its part.

In dealing with the contract of common carriage of passengers for purpose of

accuracy, there are two (2) aspects of the same, namely: (a) the contract "to carry
(at some future time)," which contract is consensual and is necessarily perfected
by mere consent (See Article 1356, Civil Code of the Philippines), and (b) the
contract "of carriage" or "of common carriage" itself which should be considered as
a real contract for not until the carrier is actually used can the carrier be said
to have already assumed the obligation of a carrier. (Paras, Civil Code Annotated,
Vol. V, p. 429, Eleventh Ed.)

In the instant case, the contract "to carry" is the one involved which is
consensual and is perfected by the mere consent of the parties.

-----------

COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, petitioner,

vs.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

Facts:
on October, 1952, Macleod and Company of the Philippines contracted by telephone
the services of the Compañia Maritima, a shipping corporation, for the shipment of
2,645 bales of hemp from the former's Sasa private pier at Davao City to Manila and
for their subsequent transhipment to Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. on board the
S.S. Steel Navigator. This oral contract was later on confirmed by a formal and
written booking issued by Macleod's branch office in Sasa and handcarried to
Compañia Maritima's branch office in Davao.

During the night of October 29, 1952, or at the early hours of October 30, LCT No.
1025 sank, resulting in the damage or loss of 1,162 bales of hemp loaded therein.
On October 30, 1952, Macleod promptly notified the carrier's main office in Manila
and its branch in Davao advising it of its liability.

Issue:

W/N the damage caused to the cargo or the sinking of the barge where it was loaded
due to a fortuitous event, storm or natural disaster that would exempt the carrier
from liability

Held:

It shows that the mishap that caused the damage or loss was due, not to force
majeure, but to lack of adequate precautions or measures taken by the carrier to
prevent the loss

Aside from the fact that, as admitted by appellant's own witness, the ill-fated
barge had cracks on its bottom (pp. 18-19, t.s.n., Sept. 13, 1959) which admitted
sea water in the same manner as rain entered "thru tank man-holes", according to
the patron of LCT No. 1023 (exh. JJJ-4) — conclusively showing that the barge was
not seaworthy — it should be noted that on the night of the nautical accident there
was no storm, flood, or other natural disaster or calamity. Certainly, winds of 11
miles per hour, although stronger than the average 4.6 miles per hour then
prevailing in Davao on October 29, 1952 (exh. 5), cannot be classified as storm.

the report of R. J. del Pan & Co., Inc., marine surveyors, attributes the sinking
of LCT No. 1025 to the 'non-water-tight conditions of various buoyancy
compartments' (exh. JJJ); and this report finds confirmation on the above-mentioned
admission of two witnesses for appellant concerning the cracks of the lighter's
bottom and the entrance of the rain water 'thru manholes'."

------

DANGWA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. and THEODORE LARDIZABAL y MALECDAN, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:

Pedrito Cudiamat as a result of a vehicular accident which occurred on March 25,

1985 at Marivic, Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet. Among others, it was alleged that on
said date, while petitioner Theodore M. Lardizabal was driving a passenger bus
belonging to petitioner corporation in a reckless and imprudent manner and without
due regard to traffic rules and regulations and safety to persons and property, it
ran over its passenger, Pedrito Cudiamat. However, instead of bringing Pedrito
immediately to the nearest hospital, the said driver, in utter bad faith and
without regard to the welfare of the victim, first brought his other passengers and
cargo to their respective destinations before banging said victim to the Lepanto
Hospital where he expired.

Issue:

W/N respondent is negligent and therefore the petitioner cannot be held liable
Held:

NO. It is not negligence per se, or as a matter of law, for one attempt to board a
train or streetcar which is moving slowly. 14 An ordinarily prudent person would
have made the attempt board the moving conveyance under the same or similar
circumstances. The fact that passengers board and alight from slowly moving vehicle
is a matter of common experience both the driver and conductor in this case could
not have been unaware of such an ordinary practice.

The victim herein, by stepping and standing on the platform of the bus, is already
considered a passenger and is entitled all the rights and protection pertaining to
such a contractual relation. Hence, it has been held that the duty which the
carrier passengers owes to its patrons extends to persons boarding cars as well as
to those alighting therefrom. 15

A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence very cautious persons, with a due
regard for all the circumstances. 17

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and reasons of public policy,
are bound to observe extraordina diligence for the safety of the passengers
transported by the according to all the circumstances of each case. 16 A common
carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
can provide, using the utmost diligence very cautious persons, with a due regard
for all the circumstances.

---------------

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners,

vs.
MARJORIE NAVIDAD

Facts:
On 14 October 1993, about half an hour past seven o’clock in the evening, Nicanor
Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a "token"
(representing payment of the fare). While Navidad was standing on the platform near
the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard assigned to the area
approached Navidad. A misunderstanding or an altercation between the two apparently
ensued that led to a fist fight. No evidence, however, was adduced to indicate how
the fight started or who, between the two, delivered the first blow or how Navidad
later fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train,
operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the
moving train, and he was killed instantaneously.

Prudent, in its answer, denied liability and averred that it had exercised due
diligence in the selection and supervision of its security guards.

Issue:

W/N LRTA should be held liable

Held:
The foundation of LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation
to indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its
failure to exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier. In the
discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may
choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or
an independent firm to undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is
not relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage.

However, "there is nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), for
the reason that the negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly proven.
Needless to say, the contractual tie between the LRT and Navidad is not itself a
juridical relation between the latter and Roman; thus, Roman can be made liable
only for his own fault or negligence.