Trans-Asia Shipping Lines v.

CA

Facts:

Plaintiff boarded a vessel from Cebu to Cagayan de Oro. After an hour of slow voyage, the vessel
stopped at Kawit Island and dropped its anchor. Passengers demanded that they be returned to Cebu,
and was heeded to by the parties.

Held:

The carrier would not have been liable for loss or income if the plaintiff was unable to report to his office
on the day he was supposed to arrive were it not for delay.

CASE DIGEST (Transportation Law): Trans Asia vs. Court of Appeals

Trans-Asia Shipping Lines vs. CA

(GR 118126, 4 March 1996)

FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Renato Arroyo, a public attorney, bought a ticket from herein petitioner for the voyage
of M/V Asia Thailand vessel to Cagayan de Oro City from Cebu City on November 12, 1991.

At around 5:30 in the evening of November 12, 1991, respondent boarded the M/V Asia Thailand vessel
during which he noticed that some repairs were being undertaken on the engine of the vessel. The
vessel departed at around 11:00 in the evening with only one (1) engine running.

After an hour of slow voyage, the vessel stopped near Kawit Island and dropped its anchor thereat. After
half an hour of stillness, some passengers demanded that they should be allowed to return to Cebu City
for they were no longer willing to continue their voyage to Cagayan de Oro City. The captain acceded to
their request and thus the vessel headed back to Cebu City.

In Cebu City, plaintiff together with the other passengers who requested to be brought back to Cebu
City, were allowed to disembark. Thereafter, the vessel proceeded to Cagayan de Oro City. Petitioner,
the next day, boarded the M/V Asia Japan for its voyage to Cagayan de Oro City, likewise a vessel of
defendant.

On account of this failure of defendant to transport him to the place of destination on November 12,
1991, respondent Arroyo filed before the trial court “an action for damage arising from bad faith, breach
of contract and from tort,” against petitioner. The trial court ruled only for breach of contract. The CA
reversed and set aside said decision on appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner Trans-Asia was negligent?

HELD:

Yes.

Before commencing the contracted voyage, the petitioner undertook some repairs on the cylinder head
of one of the vessel’s engines. But even before it could finish these repairs, it allowed the vessel to leave
the port of origin on only one functioning engine, instead of two. Moreover, even the lone functioning
engine was not in perfect condition as sometime after it had run its course, it conked out. This caused
the vessel to stop and remain adrift at sea, thus in order to prevent the ship from capsizing, it had to
drop anchor. Plainly, the vessel was unseaworthy even before the voyage began. For a vessel to be
seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of
competent officers and crew.[21] The failure of a common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its
vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a clear breach of is duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil
Code.

Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. VS Court of Appeals

GR 118126 4 March 1996

FACTS:

Atty Renato Arroyo purchased a ticket from Trans-Asia Shipping lines, Inc. for the voyage of M/V Asia
Thailand vessel to Cagayan de Oro from Cebu Sity. Upon boarding he noticed that engines of the vessel
were being repaired. Regardless, he boarded the same.

The vessel departed on time with only 1 engine running. It stopped near Kawit Island and after half an
hour of stillness, the passengers, who already were suffering from mental distress, demanded that they
be brought back to their port of origin.

At Cebu City, passengers who wished to disembark were allowed and given 10 minutes. Atty. Arroyo as
one of the passengers. After which, the vessel continued its voyage.

On this account, Passenger Arroyo filed before the trial court a complaint for damages against Trans-
Asia Shipping Inc. for failure of transporting the former to his place of destination.

ISSUE:

WON a vessel being unworthy of the sea is tantamount to a breach of contract?

HELD:

Under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, the petitioner was bound to observe extraordinary diligence in
ensuring the safety of the private respondent. That meant that the petitioner was, pursuant to Article
1755 of the said Code, bound to carry the private respondent safely as far as human care and foresight
could provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the
circumstances. In this case, we are in full accord with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner failed to
discharge this obligation.
Before commencing the contracted voyage, the petitioner undertook some repairs on the cylinder head
of one of the vessel's engines. But even before it could finish these repairs, it allowed the vessel to leave
the port of origin on only one functioning engine, instead of two. Moreover, even the lone functioning
engine was not in perfect condition as sometime after it had run its course, it conked out. This caused
the vessel to stop and remain a drift at sea, thus in order to prevent the ship from capsizing, it had to
drop anchor. Plainly, the vessel was unseaworthy even before the voyage began. For a vessel to be
seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of
competent officers and crew. 21 The failure of a common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its
vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil
Code.

Dangwa Transco. Co. Inc. v. CA

Facts:

Private respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioners for the death of Pedrito Cudiamat.
The deceased was attempting to board a bus, but it suddenly accelerated forward. He fell off and the
bus ran over him, resulting to his death.

Issue:

Whether the bus is liable as a common carrier to the deceased who was still attempting to board

Held:

It is the duty of common carriers of passengers to stop their conveyances a reasonable length of time in
order to afford passengers an opportunity to board and enter, and they are liable for injuries suffered by
boarding passengers resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking of their conveyances while they are
doing so.

If the bus started moving slowly when the passenger is boarding the same, is the passenger negligent?

No. Further, even assuming that the bus was moving, the act of the victim in boarding the same cannot
be considered negligent under the circumstances. As clearly explained in the testimony of the
aforestated witness for petitioners, Virginia Abalos, the bus had "just started" and "was still in slow
motion" at the point where the victim had boarded and was on its platform. (Dangwa vs. CA, G.R. No.
95582, October 7, 1991)

Dangwa Transportation vs. Court of Appeals

Posted: November 25, 2012 in Transportation Law

FACTS:

Private respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioners for the death of Pedrito Cudiamat
as a result of a vehicular accident which occurred on March 25, 1985 at Marivic, Sapid, Mankayan,
Benguet. 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. Petitioners alleged that
they had observed and continued to observe the extraordinary diligence and that it was the victim’s
own carelessness and negligence which gave rise to the subject incident.

RTC pronounced that Pedrito Cudiamat was negligent, which negligence was the proximate cause of his
death. However, Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the lower court, and ordered petitioners to
pay private respondents damages due to negligence.

ISSUE:

WON the CA erred in reversing the decision of the trial court and in finding petitioners negligent and
liable for the damages claimed.

HELD: CA Decision AFFIRMED

The testimonies of the witnesses show that that the bus was at full stop when the victim boarded the
same. They further confirm the conclusion that the victim fell from the platform of the bus when it
suddenly accelerated forward and was run over by the rear right tires of the vehicle. Under such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased was guilty of negligence.

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. 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.

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and reasons of public policy, are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by the according to all the
circumstances of each case. 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.

It has also been repeatedly held that in an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not
make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible to
pay the damages sought by the passenger. By contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express
obligation to transport the passenger to his destination safely and observe extraordinary diligence with
a due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by the passenger is right
away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier. This is an exception to the general rule that
negligence must be proved, and it is therefore incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has exercised
extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.
Light Rail Transit Authority & Rodolfo Roman vs. Marjorie Natividad, Heirs of Nicanor Navidad & Prudent
Security Agency

Posted: November 25, 2012 in Transportation Law

Tags: Case Digest

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, versus

MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY

FACTS:

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 him. 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. The widow of
Nicanor, Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Junelito
Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent for
the death of her husband. Trial court ruled in favor Navidad’s wife and against the defendants Prudent
Security and Junelito Escartin . LRTA and Rodolfo Roman were dismissed for lack of merit. CA held LRTA
and Roman liable, hence the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a perfected contract of carriage between Navidad and LRTA

HELD:

AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but only in that (a) the award of nominal damages is DELETED and (b)
petitioner Rodolfo Roman is absolved from liability

Contract of carriage was deemed created from the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT station and
entered the premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual
relation. The appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Roman liable for the death of Navidad in failing
to exercise