Case Citation: G.R. No.

84458

Date: November 6, 1989

Petitioners: ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION , petitioner,

Respondents: HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ELEVENTH DIVISION, LUCILA C.

VIANA, SPS. ANTONIO VIANA and GORGONIA VIANA, and
PIONEER STEVEDORING CORPORATION, respondents.

Doctrine: It is of common knowledge that, by the very nature of the business of a

shipper, the passengers of vessels are allotted a longer period of time to
disembark from the ship than the passengers of other common carriers
considering the bulk of cargoes and the number of passengers it can
load. Consequently, such passenger will need at least an hour to
disembark from the vessel and claim his baggage. In the case at bar,
when the accident occurred, the victim was in the act of unloading his
cargoes which he had every right to do. As such, even if he had already
disembarked an hour earlier, his presence in the carrier’s premises was
not without cause. The victim had to claim his baggage which was
possible only 1 hour after the vessel arrived. It was admitted that it is
Aboitiz’s standard procedure that the unloading operations shall start
only at such time. Consequently, Anacleto is still deemed a passenger
of said carrier at the time of his tragic death. It must further be noted
that a carrier is duty bound not only to bring its passengers safely to
their destination but also to afford them a reasonable time to claim their
baggage.

Antecedent Anacleto Viana boarded the vessel M/V Antonia which is owned by
Facts: Aboitiz Shipping Corporation and is bound for Manila. When it arrived
at Pier 4, North Harbor, Manila, Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation took
over the exclusive control of the cargoes loaded on the said vessel.

An hour after the passengers had disembarked, the crane owned by

Pioneer and operated by Alejo Figueroa, its crane operator, started
unloading the cargoes. During the said operation, Anacleto who had
already disembarked went back to the vessel when remembered that
some of his cargoes were still loaded in the vessel. It was while he was
pointing to the place where his cargoes were loaded to the crew that
the crane hit him, pinning him between the side of the vessel and the
crane. He was thereafter brought to the hospital where he expired 3
days after due to hypostatic pneumonia secondary to traumatic
fracture of the pubic bone lacerating the urinary bladder. As such, the
Vianas filed a complaint for damages against Aboitiz for breach of
contract of carriage. Aboitiz, on the other hand, filed a third-party
complaint against Pioneer.
Petitioner’s Aboitiz denied responsibility contending that at the time of the
Contention: accident, the vessel was completely under the control of Pioneer as its
exclusive stevedoring contractor. Since the crane operator was not an
employee of Aboitiz, the latter cannot be held liable under the fellow-
servant rule. It also contends that since 1 hour had already elapsed
from the time Anacleto disembarked from the vessel and that he was
given more than ample opportunity to unload his cargoes prior to the
operation of the crane, his presence on the vessel was no longer
reasonable and he consequently ceased to be a passenger.
Accordingly, it claims that the doctrine found in La Mallorca vs CA is
inapplicable in this case.

Respondent’s Pioneer, on the other hand, raised the defense that Aboitiz had no
Contention: cause of action against it considering that the former is being sued for
breach of contract of carriage to which it is not a party. It also
observed the diligence of a good father of a family both in the selection
and supervision of its employees as well as in the prevention of
damage. In any case, Anacleto’s gross negligence was the direct and
proximate cause of his death.

MTC/RTC the trial court absolved Pioneer from liability for failure of the Vianas
Ruling: and Aboitiz to preponderantly establish a case of negligence against
the crane operator which the court a quo ruled is never presumed,
aside from the fact that the memorandum of agreement supposedly
refers only to Pioneer's liability in case of loss or damage to goods
handled by it but not in the case of personal injuries, and, finally that
Aboitiz cannot properly invoke the fellow-servant rule simply because
its liability stems from a breach of contract of carriage.

CA Ruling: affirmed the findings of of the trial court except as to the amount of
damages awarded to the Vianas

Issue: Whether Aboitiz should be held solely liable for the death of Anacleto
Viana. (YES)

SC Ruling: The doctrine found in La Mallorca vs. CA states that the relation of
carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger
alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the former at
the point of destination but continues until the passenger has had a
reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. What is a
reasonable time is to be determined from all the circumstances such
as the kind of common carrier, the nature of its business and the
customs of the place such that a consideration of the time element per
se without taking into account such other factors is precluded. It is
thus of no moment whether there was no appreciable interregnum for
the passenger to leave the carrier's premises or whether an interval of
1 hour had elapsed before the victim met the accident as in the case
at bar. The primary factor to be considered is the existence of a
reasonable cause as will justify the presence of the victim on or near
the vessel. The Court believes there exists such a justifiable cause in
the present case.

It is of common knowledge that, by the very nature of the business of

a shipper, the passengers of vessels are allotted a longer period of
time to disembark from the ship than the passengers of other
common carriers considering the bulk of cargoes and the number of
passengers it can load. Consequently, such passenger will need at
least an hour to disembark from the vessel and claim his baggage. In
the case at bar, when the accident occurred, the victim was in the act
of unloading his cargoes which he had every right to do. As such, even
if he had already disembarked an hour earlier, his presence in the
carrier’s premises was not without cause. The victim had to claim his
baggage which was possible only hour after the vessel arrived. It
was admitted that it is Aboitiz’s standard procedure that the
unloading operations shall start only at such time. Consequently,
Anacleto is still deemed a passenger of said carrier at the time of his
tragic death. It must further be noted that a carrier is duty bound not
only to bring its passengers safely to their destination but also to
afford them a reasonable time to claim their baggage.

In an action for breach of contract of carriage, all that is required of

plaintiff is to prove the existence of the contract of carriage and its
non-performance by the carrier, that is, the failure of the carrier to
carry the passenger safely to his destination which necessarily
includes its failure to safeguard its passenger with extraordinary
diligence while such relation subsists. The law presumes that the
common carrier is at fault or has acted negligently when a passenger
dies or is injured. In the case at bar, Aboitiz failed to rebut such
presumption. The evidence does not show that there was a cordon of
drums around the perimeter of the crane as claimed by petitioner. The
presence of visible warning signs in the vicinity was also disputable.
Definitely, even assuming the existence of the supposed cordon of
drums loosely placed around the unloading area and the guard's
admonitions against entry therein, these were at most insufficient
precautions which pale into insignificance if considered vis-a-vis the
gravity of the danger to which the deceased was exposed. There is also
no showing that the petitioner was extraordinarily diligent in seeing to
it that said precautionary measures were strictly and actually
enforced.

As for Pioneer, the Court found it not negligent both on grounds of

estoppel and of lack of evidence. In its answer, Aboitiz readily alleged
that Pioneer had taken the necessary safeguards insofar as its
unloading operations were concerned. In fact, it filed its third-party
complaint only after 10 months. In any case, Pioneer is not within the
ambit of the rule on extraordinary diligence and the corresponding
presumption of negligence foisted on common carriers like Aboitiz.
Others