TRANSPORTATION LAW ‘only one functioning engine, instead of two. Even the lone functioning engine was not in perfect condition as sometime after it had run its course, it conked out. Plainly, vessel was unseaworthy even before voyage began. To be seaworthy, vessel must be adequately equipped for voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent officers and crew, Failure of the common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its vessel is clear breach of its duty under Art. 1755 of the Civil Code, which binds the cartier to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight could provide, using the utmost diligence of @ very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances. Spouses Landingan v. Pantranco 33 SCRA 284 (1970) Facts: A married couple with two children were passengers in a bus going to Baguio. Upon reaching an uphill point at the Kennon Road, the motor suddenly stopped and the bus backed down. The driver expertly guided the bus to rest on the mountainside of the road. But because of the noise, the two children became frightened and they jumped out of the bus and were killed. Is bus company held liable for their death? Hela: Yes. The bus, when it stopped, was not in perfect running condition. It is carrier's duty to ensure that the bus is always in perfect condition. Here, the defect was not latent. Necesito v. Paras 104 Phil. 75 (1958) Facts: While the Phil. Rabbit bus was traveling fast, its driver sensed that the wheels did not respond to the movement of the steering wheel. The bus hit a rut and it turn-turtled, killing a passenger. Mechanics of the bus company discovered that the worn-out gear of the steering wheel had a crack, which could not be seen by the naked eye from outside, Phil, Rabbit proved that the defect was attributed to GM USA and that defect was a factory defect which could not have been discovered by expert mechanics. Is bus company liable? Held: Yes. When a bus company places its bus for the use of the riding public it must be in good condition. If it was really the fault of GM, then the bus company's remedy would be to go after GM While the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of the passengers, it should nevertheless be held to answer for the flaws of its equipment, if such flaws were discoverable. In such case, the manufacturer of the defective appliance is considered in law the agent of the carrier, and manufacturer's good repute will not relieve the carrier from liability. 149180 COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW c. Circumstances at Time of Accident (1) When Vehicle Improperly Parked Batangas Trans. v. Caguimbal 22 SCRA 171 (1967) Facts: A Batangas Trans. bus going narth stopped on the highway when a passenger wanted to alight, Another bus was going south fast and recklessly, trying to pass @ carrefela. In trying to overtake the carretela, the driver of the approaching bus miscalculated and hit the Batangas Trans. bus, causing the alighting passenger to be thrown out and killed, The heirs of the victim sought recovery from Batangas Trans., which raised the defense of fortuitous event. Held: Batangas Trans. is still lable. In civil law, where a fortuitous event concurs with negligence, liability is net thereby extinguished. Although the bus was then in a “stop” position it did mot stop on road's shoulder at the time the passenger was alighting. That is considered negligence that concurred with fortuitous event and did not operate to extinguish the liability. (However, since Batangas Trans. and the company of the other bus were made alternative defendants, both were held liable: Batangas Bus for culpa contractual and the other company for culpa aquiliane.) (2) When Vehicle Bumped from Behind Raynera v. Hiceta 306 SCRA 102 (1999) Drivers of vehicles who bump the rear of another vehicle must be presumed to be the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence, since the rear driver is deemed to have the last clear chance of avoiding the accident, and therefore deemed negligent. (3) When Driver Violating Rules at Time of Accident Mallari, Sr. v. Court of Appeals 324 SGRA 147 (2000) Under Art. 2185 of Civil Code, unless there is contrary proof, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of mishap he was violating a traffic regulation, such as when he was driving at the wrong side of the road. (4) Rules on Overtaking Mallari, Sr. v. Court of Appeals 324 SCRA 147 (2000) The rule is settled that a driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle in an ordinary situation has theTRANSPORTATION LAW duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do 80 in safety. When a motor vehicle is approaching or rounding a curve, there is special necessity for keeping to the right side of the road and the driver does not have the right to drive on the left hand side relying upon having time to turn to the right if a car approaching from opposite direction comes into view. Non-compliance with such rules constitute negligence. (8) Hit and Run Driver Abueva v. People 390 SCRA 62 (2002) A bus driver could not be considered a hitand-run driver where he exerted efforts to see to it that the victim had been attended to, such as when there were several people assisting the victim, including his co-employer working for the bus company. Injuries Caused by Employees R Transport Gorp. v. Pante 599 SCRA 747 (2009) Common carriers are liable for the death or injury to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. Mallari, Sr. v. Court of Appeals 324 SCRA 147 (2000) The negligence and recklessness of a jeepney driver is binding against the owner thereof, and in the action based on contract of car- riage, the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible for payment of damages sought by the passenger, since under: (a) Art. 1758 of the Civil Code, the common carrier is bound to catry the passengers safely: (b) Art. 1756, in case of death or injury of the passenger, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault orto have acted negligently; and (6) Art. 1759, common carrier is liable for death of, or injury to, passengers through the negligence or willful acts of employees, and such liability of common carrier does not cease Upon proof that it exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of its employees. 151182 COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW Maranan v. Perez 20 SCRA 413 (1967) Facts: A taxi driver tried to hold-up his passenger, who resisted and was killed. His heirs sued based on culpa contractual against the taxi company, which denied liability on ground that the driver acted beyond the scope of his authority. Could the carrier be held liable for acts of employees beyond the scope of their authority? Held: It may be true that the taxi driver was acting beyond the scope of his authority, but Art. 1759 of the Civil Code expressly provides that the owner is liable for negligence of the employees even if such ‘acts are beyond the scope of his authority. The taxi company was held liable on culpa contractual. NOTE: This case repealed the doctrine of De Gillaco v. Manila Railroad, 97 Phil. 884 (1955), wherein a security guard rode on one of the trains to go to his place of duty. While en route, he killed @ passenger riding in the same train. Manila Railroad was absolved from any liability on the ground that the guard was not on duty at that time and therefore not acting within the scope of his authority e. As to Injuries Caused by Other Passengers (1) The Liability of Carrier is Expressly Covered by Article 1763 of the Civil Code Manila Railroad v. Ballesteros 6 SCRA 641 (1966) Facts: When a Manila Railroad bus reached one of the municipalities along its route, the driver stopped the bus and went down to answer a call of nature. While the driver was thus outside the bus, one of the passengers went into the driver's seat and drove off the bus. The bus met an accident, causing injury to another passenger. !s Manila Railroad liable for the act of the passenger? Held: Manila Railroad is liable for the injuries suffered by some passengers because its driver was guilty of negligence in leaving the key on the ignition. Had driver taken the key with himself, the passenger could not have driven off with the bus. The carrier is therefore liable for injuries when the carrier's employees could have prevented the injuries through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family. Obligation of Common Carriers for Baggage ‘Sarkies Tours Phil. v. Court of Appeals 280 SCRA 58 (1997) Where @ common carrier accepts its passenger's baggage for transportation and even had it placed in the vehicle by its own employee,6. TRANSPORTATION LAW its failure to collect freight charges is the common carrier's own lookout, ‘and cannot be used to exempt the common carrier from liability for the consequent loss of the baggage. Philippine Airlines v. IAC 216 SCRA 334 (1992) Although the baggage of a passenger was eventually delivered to him, that did not constitute a case of mere delay in delivery “since the baggage was not delivered at all to the passenger for the purpose of the trip in contravention of a common carrier's undertaking to transport the goods from the place of embarkation to the ultimate point of destination.” The non-delivery of luggage during the entire length of passenger's stay abroad, is a breach of carrier's obligation. Defenses Available in Culpa Contractual 183 a. Proof of Negligence; Presumption ~ Under Article 1756 of the Civil Code, in case af death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence. The cartier is presumed negligent as soon as the injury or death is proven. The carrier must rebut this presumption; otherwise, it will be liable for damages. LTB v. Tiongson 64 0.6. 10601 If a passenger is injured or dies, there immediately arises ‘the presumption that the commen carrier is negligent. The injured passenger or the heirs of the dead passenger do not have to prove the carrier's negligence; all they have to prove is the fact of injury or death in the course of the passenger's carriage, and the law automatically raises the presumption of negligence. Zamboanga Transit v. Court of Appeals 30 SCRA 717 (196) The presumption may be rebutted by evidence on any of the following: (a) Exercise of extraordinary due diligence; (b) Fortuitous event; or (c) Contributory negligence of the passenger under Arts. 1762 and 2179 of [the] Civil Code. Only evidence on one of these points is admissible. If the presumption is not rebutted, the carrier is automatically liable.154 COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW Due Diligence in Selection and Supervision of Employees RGU Bus Lines, Inc. y. Standard Insurance Co. 655 SCRA 693 (2011) In a bus company, when the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family. For failure to rebut such legal presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of employees, the employer is likewise responsible for damages, the basis of the llability being the relationship of pater familias or on the employer's own negligence, Heirs of Ochoa v. G&S Transport Corp. 645 SCRA 93 (2011) G&S as a common carrier “is bound te carry [2 passenger] safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost dlligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all circumstances.” When the passenger dies during the course of the travel, then the rules prevails: “In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common cartier is at fault or is negligent when a passenger dies or is injured. In fact, there is even no need for the court to make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier.” Unfortunately, G&S miserably failed to overcome the presumption. Both the courts below found that the accident which led to the passenger's death was due to the reckless ¢riving and gross negligence of the taxi driver, thereby holding G&S liable fo the heirs of the deceased passenger for breach of contract of carriage. The acquittal of the driver in the criminal case is immaterial to the determination of the breach of contract. Fabre v. Court of Appeals 259 SCRA 426 (1996) Fora bus company, due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied by finding that the applicant possessed 2 professional driver's license. The employer should also examine the applicant for his qualifications, experience and record of service. Due diligence in supervision, on the other hand, requires the formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions as well as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules.TRANSPORTATION LAW 185 Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. Court of Appeals 386 SCRA 126 (2002) The mere formulation of various company policies on safety without showing that they were being complied with is not sufficient to exempt the employer from liability arising from negligence of its employees. It is incumbent upon the employer to show that in recruiting and employing the errant driver the recruitment procedures and company policies on efficiency and safety were followed. Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. Court of Appeals 386 SCRA 126 (2002) ‘The act of driver in bringing the victim to the nearest medical facility does not show adequate supervision by the employer over its employees; for one, the act was after the fact of negligence on the driver's part; for another, the evidence on record shows that the driver's act was neither voluntary nor spontaneous as he had to be prevailed upon by the victim's companions to render such assistance. ©. Coverage of Fortuitous Event A fortuitous event covers not only acts of God (lightning, earthquakes, shipwreck, etc.) but also acts of man (war, strikes, homicide, recklessness of other driver, latent mechanical defect, etc.). If a fortuitous event is proved, the carrier is absolved from liability. But the fortuitous event must not concur with negligence, otherwise, it is no longer a defense. In other words, the fortuitous event must be the sole element relied upon. Yobido v. Court of Appeals 281 SCRA 1 (1997) A fortuitous event is possessed of the following character- istics: (a) The cause of unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, 1 failure of debtor to comply with his obligations, must be independent of human will; (b) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes caso fortuito; (©) Occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) Obligor must be free from any participation in aggrava- tion of the injury resulting to the creditor.’? Also Fortune Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA (1999).156 COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW Based on the foregoing a bus company cannot be exempted from liability from a tire blowout which cannot be classified simply as a fortuitous event, in the absence of snowing that it has exercised the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers under the law. Cruz v. Sun Holidays, Inc. 622 SCRA 389 (2010) In addition to the requisites provided in Yobido v. Court of Appeals, to fully free a common carrier from any liability, the fortuitous event must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. New World Intl Dev., Inc. v. NYK-Fil Japan Shipping Corp. 656 SCRA 129 (2011) That the loss was occasioned by a typhoon, an exempting cause under Art. 1734 of [the] Civil Code, does not automatically relieve the common carrier of liability. The latter has the burden of proving that the typhoon was the proximate and only cause of loss and that it exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize such loss before, during, and after the disastrous typhoon, ‘Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Fernandez 417 SCRA 474 (2003) Facts: Airline company assails the award of damages for delay in the transport of the passenger which it attributed to Inclement weather beyond its control, and the longer route that had to be taken to avoid the airspace where the Gulf War was then being fought. Held: Airiine company is stil able, since it was not without recourse in meeting the bad weather's consequence to enable it to fulfil its obligation to transport the passengers safely as scheduled as far as human care and foresight can provide to their destination. Tagged as a premiere airline as it claims to be able to foresee and deal with such situation. It likewise showed indifference and negligence by its absence and insensitivity and [as] well as lack of diligence in communicating to its passengers the consequence of the delay in their fignts. Gatchalian v. Delim 203 SCRA 126 (1991) The death or injury to a passenger raises the statutory presumption that the common carrier was at fault or had acted negligently. To exempt a common carrier from liability for death orTRANSPORTATION LAW physical injuries to passengers upon the graund of force majeure, the carrier must clearly show not only that the efficient cause of the casualty was entirely independent of human will but also that itwas impossible to avoid Bachelor Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 488 SCRA 216 (1990) ‘The act of passenger stabbing another passenger in the bus is considered as force majeure, However, to be absolved from liability in the case of force majeure, the common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the injuries resulting from such accident; otherwise, it would still be held liable. Nocum v. LTD 30 SCRA 69 (1969) Facts: One of the bus passengers had firecrackers inside his baggage, which ignited when another passenger smoked cigarettes, causing injuries to another passenger. The injured passenger sought to recover damages from the carrier. Held; Carrier is not liable for the injuries caused to a Passenger by exploding firecrackers in the baggage of another passenger. The reason is that the carrier cannot be expected to examine and search each and every piece of baggage of passengers, otherwise the bus may not all together be able to leave. But this is only true so long as the cause of the accident (presence of firecrackers) was not apparent and the carrier or its employees are not guilty of negligence. This illustrates an example when an ‘act of man" would exempt the carrier fram liability 187 Contributory Negligence of Passengers is governed by Article 1762 of the Civil Code which provides that it does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injury if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of common carrier, but amount of damages shall be equitably reduced. Estacion v. Bernardo 483 SCRA 222 (2006) Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. But even in a situation where a person has contributed to his own injuries, it must nevertheless be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings or signs of an impending danger to health and body. The1908 COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW passenger's act of hanging on the vehiclo is definitely dangerous {o his life and limb. Nonetheless, the underlying precept of the artice on contrbutory negligence is that the plaintiff who is partly fesponsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in ful but must bear part of the consequences of his own negligence ‘Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. Court of Appeals 255 SCRA 38 (1996) Facts: Passenger was on board fight originating from Casablanca to Brussels, although she was on her way back to Manila, She had valuables in her luggage, and while she stayed overnight in Brussels her luggage was left on board. When she arrived In Marila, her luggage was missing, and she demanded the money value thereof and its contents. Airline company refused the liability on ground that the loss was due to the passenger's contributory negligence by failing to decare the valuables and not heeding the warning to all passengers not to place valuables in their luggage. and not retrieving her undeclared valuables from her luggage at Brussels Airport since her fight from Brussels to Manila would still have to be confirmed. Held: Airline company is liable. Ar. 1733 of [the] Civil Code ‘equires common carriers in carriage of goods to observe extraordinary cate in the vigilance over the goods. The rule remains basically unchanged even when the contracts breached by tort although non-contradictory principles on quas-delict may then be assimilated ae also forming part of the governing law. ‘Airline company is not thus entirely offtrack when it has likewiee raised in its defense the tort doctrine of proximate cause. Unfortunately, the doctrine cannot in this particular instance support its defense. Proximate cause is that which, in the naturel and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury and without which the resutt would not have occurred. It remains undisputed that the passenger's luggage was lost while it was in the custody of the airline company. The facts showed that when the kiggage wes first reported missing it wes ‘subsequently found and again lost in the custody of the airline company The loss of said luggage not only once but twice “underscores the wanten nagligene and lack of care on the pert of the carrier.” The proven nagligence of the airline company foreclosed whatever rights it might have had to the possible limitation of liabilities enjoyed by international air carriers under the Warsaw Convention.