Transportation Laws

*Common Carriers
Common Carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in
the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land water air,
for compensation, offering their service to the public.

Elements of a common carrier:

a. persons' corporations, firms or associations

b. engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers, goods or both
c. means of carriage is by land, water or air
d. the carrying of passengers, goods or both is for compensation
e. the service is offered to the public without distinction.

Distinguished from Private Carriers:

The distinction between a “common or public carrier” and a private or special

carrier lies in the character of the business, such that if the undertaking is a
single transaction, not a part of a general business or occupation, although
involving the carriage of the goods for a fee, the person or corporation offering
such service is a private carrier.

While a common carrier is bound to exercise extraordinary diligence, a private

carrier owes only diligence of a good father of a father of a family.

Moreover, while a common carrier cannot stipulate that it is exempt from liability
for negligence of its agents or employees, a private carrier may validly enter into
such stipulation.

*Required Degree of Diligence

- Regardless of whether the objects are goods or passengers, a common carrier
must observe extra-ordinary diligence.

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 cautions persons, with due
regard for all circumstances. This extraordinary diligence required of common carriers is
calculated to protect the passengers from the tragic mishaps that frequently occur in
connection with rapid modern transportation. This high standard of care is imperatively
demanded by the precariousness of human life and by the consideration that every
person must in every way be safeguarded against all injury. (Report of the Code
Commission, pp. 35-36)” (Padilla, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1956 ed., p.
197).

These are the principles that govern the liability of a common carrier:

(1) the liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. There
is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of each
case; (2) a carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a very
cautious person, having due regard for all the circumstances; (3) a carrier is presumed
to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death of, or injury to, passengers, it
being its duty to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence; and (4) the carrier is not
an insurer against all risks of travel. (Isaac vs. A.L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc.,
G.R. No. L-9671, August 23, 1957, [J., Bautista-Angelo])

OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES

I. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CARRIER

a. Duty to Accept

A common carrier that is granted a certificate of public convenience is duty bound to

accept passengers or cargo without any discrimination.

The instances when the carrier may validly refuse to accept goods include:

When the goods sought to be transported are dangerous objects, or substances

including dynamites and other explosives;

The goods are unfit for transportation;

Acceptance would result in overloading;

The goods are considered contrabands or illegal goods;

Goods are injurious to health;

Goods will be exposed to untoward danger like flood, capture by enemies and the like;

Goods like livestock will be exposed to diseases;

Strike; and

Failure to tender goods on time.

b. Duty to Deliver the Goods

a. Time of Delivery

Article 358 of the Code of Commerce: “If there is no period fixed for the delivery of the
goods the carrier shall be bound to forward them in the first shipment of the same or
similar goods which he may make to the point of delivery; and should he not do so, the
damages caused by the delay should be for his account.”

b. Consequences of Delay

Article 1747 of the Civil Code: “If the common carrier, without just cause, delays the
transportation of the goods or changes the stipulated or usual route, the contract limiting
the common carrier’s liability cannot be availed of in case of the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods.

In cases of delay on account of the fault of the shipper, the consignee may leave the
goods transported in the hands of the carrier, informing him thereof in writing before the
arrival of the same at the point of destination.

Right of Passengers in Case of Delay is specifically provided in Article 698 of the Code
of Commerce: “In case a voyage already begun should be interrupted, the passenger
shall be obliged to pay the fare in proportion to the distance covered, without right to
recover for losses and damages if the interruption is due to fortuitous event or force
majeure, but with a right to indemnity if the interruption should have been caused by the
captain exclusively.

Memorandum Circular No. 112 issued by Maritime Industry Authority provides: “In case
the vessel is not able to depart on time and the delay is unreasonable, the passenger
may opt to have his/her ticket immediately refunded without any refund service fee….”

*Liability in case of Fortuitous Event

Case:

Calalas v. CA
Facts:

Private respondent Eliza Jujeurche G. Sunga took a passenger jeepney owned and
operated by petitioner Vicente Calalas. As the jeepney was already full, Calalas gave
Sunga an stool at the back of the door at the rear end of the vehicle. Along the way, the
jeepney stopped to let a passenger off. Sunga stepped down to give way when an Isuzu
truck owned by Francisco Salva and driven by Iglecerio Verena bumped the jeepney.
As a result, Sunga was injured. Sunga filed a complaint against Calalas for violation of
contract of carriage. Calalas filed a third party complaint against Salva. The trial court
held Salva liable and absolved Calalas, taking cognisance of another civil case for
quasi-delict wherein Salva and Verena were held liable to Calalas. The Court of
Appeals reversed the decision and found Calalas liable to Sunga for violation of contract
of carriage.

Issue:  Whether Calalas exercised the extraordinary diligence required in the contract of
carriage.

Held:

We do not think so. First, the jeepney was not properly parked, its rear portion being
exposed about two meters from the broad shoulders of the highway, and facing the
middle of the highway in a diagonal angle. Second, it is undisputed that petitioner's
driver took in more passengers than the allowed seating capacity of the jeepney. The
fact that Sunga was seated in an "extension seat" placed her in a peril greater than that
to which the other passengers were exposed. Therefore, not only was petitioner unable
to overcome the presumption of negligence imposed on him for the injury sustained by
Sunga, but also, the evidence shows he was actually negligent in transporting
passengers. We find it hard to give serious thought to petitioner's contention that
Sunga's taking an "extension seat" amounted to an implied assumption of risk. It is akin
to arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be
compensated merely because those passengers assumed a greater risk of drowning by
boarding an overloaded ferry. This is also true of petitioner's contention that the jeepney
being bumped while it was improperly parked constitutescaso fortuito. A caso fortuito is
an event which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable. This
requires that the following requirements be present: (a) the cause of the breach is
independent of the debtor's will; (b) the event is unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the
event is such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal
manner, and (d) the debtor did not take part in causing the injury to the
creditor. Petitioner should have foreseen the danger of parking his jeepney with its body
protruding two meters into the highway.

Is the occurrence of a typhoon a fortuitous event? 

General Rule:

Yes, if all the elements of a natural disaster or calamity concur. This holds true especially if the
vessel was seaworthy at the time it undertook that fateful voyage and that it was confirmed with
the Coast Guard that the weather condition would permit safe travel of the vessel to its
destination. (Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. MGG Marine Services, Inc.,
G.R. No. 135645, Mar. 8, 2002)

Exception:

If a vessel sank due to a typhoon, and there was failure to ascertain the direction of the storm
and the weather condition of the path they would be traversing, it constitutes lack of foresight
and minimum vigilance over its cargoes taking into account the surrounding circumstances of
the case. Thus, the common carrier will still be liable. (Arada v. CA, G.R. No. 98243, July 1,
1992)