Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Hon.

Court of Appeals,Lucila
Viana, Sps. Antonio and Gorgonia Viana, and Pioneer
Stevedoring Corporation

In the case of "Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Lucila Viana, Sps.
Antonio and Gorgonia Viana, and Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation," the main issue
revolved around the liability of Aboitiz Shipping Corporation as a common carrier for
the death of Anacleto Viana.

Anacleto Viana was a passenger on Aboitiz's vessel, M/V Antonia. After the vessel
arrived at its destination, Anacleto disembarked but later returned to the vessel to
retrieve his cargo. While he was pointing to the crew the location of his cargo, a crane
operated by Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation, which was unloading cargo from the
vessel, struck him, causing fatal injuries.

The court examined whether Aboitiz was liable for Anacleto's death and whether
Pioneer Stevedoring Corporation shared any responsibility. Aboitiz argued that Anacleto
was no longer considered a passenger at the time of the incident and that Pioneer
Stevedoring Corporation should be held responsible.

The court ruled that Anacleto was still considered a passenger when the accident
occurred, as he had a reasonable cause to be on the premises, and Aboitiz had failed to
exercise extraordinary diligence to prevent the accident. Pioneer Stevedoring
Corporation was absolved of liability.

The court upheld the judgment that Aboitiz Shipping Corporation was liable to pay
damages to the Viana family for Anacleto's death, based on the carrier's failure to
ensure the passenger's safety.
Rosito Z. Bacarro, William Sevilla, and Felario
Montefalconv. Geruridio B. Castano and The Court of
Appeals

In the case of Rosito Z. Bacarro, William Sevilla, and Felario Montefalcon v. Geruridio B.
Castano and The Court of Appeals, the main issue concerned the legality of the land
titles and ownership of a parcel of land. Bacarro, Sevilla, and Montefalcon claimed to be
the rightful owners of the land, while Castano asserted his ownership based on a
different land title. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Castano, prompting Bacarro,
Sevilla, and Montefalcon to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and examined the validity of the land titles
presented by both parties. It ultimately ruled in favor of Bacarro, Sevilla, and
Montefalcon, declaring their land titles as the legitimate ones. The Court of Appeals'
decision was reversed, and the ownership of the disputed land was awarded to the
appellants. This case underscores the importance of accurate land title documentation
and the need for a fair and just resolution of property disputes.

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

and Atty. Renato T. Arroyo
In the case of Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Atty.
Renato T. Arroyo, the central issue revolved around a maritime accident and
the liability of the shipping company, Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. Atty.
Renato T. Arroyo was one of the survivors of the accident, which resulted in
the sinking of the vessel M/V Asia South Korea.

Atty. Arroyo, along with other survivors and heirs of the deceased passengers,
filed a complaint against Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. seeking damages for
the injuries and deaths that occurred during the maritime disaster. The trial
court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the company to pay damages.

Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that
it should not be held liable for the accident as it was caused by force majeure
or fortuitous event. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
decision, holding that the company failed to prove that the accident was due
to a force majeure.

The case underscores the importance of proving the cause of a maritime

accident when seeking liability and damages against a shipping company. In
this instance, the courts found Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. responsible for
the accident due to its failure to demonstrate the force majeure as the true
cause.

Carlos Singson v. Court of Appeals and Cathay Pacific

Airways, Inc.
In the case of Carlos Singson v. Court of Appeals and Cathay Pacific Airways, Inc., the
main issue revolved around the liability of Cathay Pacific Airways for the alleged
mishandling of Carlos Singson's baggage during an international flight. Singson claimed
that his checked baggage arrived damaged and with missing items after his flight with
Cathay Pacific Airways.

Singson initially sought compensation for the damages and losses he incurred by filing a
complaint against the airline. The trial court ruled in favor of Singson, ordering Cathay
Pacific Airways to pay him a specified amount as damages.

However, Cathay Pacific Airways appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, arguing
that it should not be held liable for the damaged baggage, as the liability should be
governed by international conventions and treaties.

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Cathay Pacific Airways, stating that the liability
should indeed be determined by international agreements and regulations, and not
solely by domestic law. This case highlights the complexities of determining liability and
damages in international air travel disputes, which often involve the application of
international conventions and treaties.

Japan Airlines v. Jesus Simangan

In the case of Japan Airlines v. Jesus Simangan, the central issue revolved around the
responsibility and liability of Japan Airlines (JAL) for the delayed arrival of Jesus
Simangan's baggage on an international flight. Simangan claimed that upon his arrival
in Manila from Japan, his checked baggage did not arrive with him, causing
inconvenience and additional expenses.

Simangan initially sought compensation for the inconvenience and losses he incurred by
filing a complaint against Japan Airlines. The trial court ruled in favor of Simangan,
ordering JAL to pay him a specified amount as damages.
However, Japan Airlines appealed the decision to a higher court, arguing that it should
not be held liable for the delayed baggage as the delay was due to factors beyond its
control, such as customs and security checks.

The higher court, in this case, considered the circumstances and ultimately ruled in favor
of Japan Airlines, stating that the airline had taken all reasonable measures to prevent
baggage delays and should not be held liable for factors beyond its control. This case
illustrates the challenges in determining airline liability for baggage-related issues,
especially when factors beyond the airline's control are involved.

Alberta and Cresencio Yobido v. Court of Appeals and Leny Tumboy, et al

In the case of Alberta and Cresencio Yobido v. Court of Appeals and Leny Tumboy, et al.,
the main issue concerned the ownership and possession of a piece of land. Alberta and
Cresencio Yobido claimed that they were the rightful owners of the land in question,
asserting their prior possession and continuous occupation of the property.

On the other hand, Leny Tumboy and other respondents contested the Yobidos' claim,
asserting their own right to the land based on a deed of sale and transfer of rights. They
argued that they had acquired the property legally from a previous owner and had the
necessary documents to prove their ownership.

The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Yobidos, recognizing their prior possession
and ownership of the land. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision,
favoring Tumboy and the other respondents based on the presented documents.

This case highlights the importance of presenting valid and legally recognized
documents to establish ownership rights in land disputes. The outcome ultimately
depended on the sufficiency and authenticity of the provided evidence.

Bachelor Express, Inc. and Cresencio Rivera v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al
In the case of Bachelor Express, Inc. and Cresencio Rivera v. The Honorable Court of
Appeals, et al., the main issue revolved around the liability of Bachelor Express, Inc. (BEI),
a bus company, for a vehicular accident involving one of its buses. Cresencio Rivera, a
passenger on BEI's bus, was injured when the bus collided with a cargo truck.

Rivera filed a complaint seeking damages from BEI, arguing that the company was
negligent in maintaining and operating its bus, leading to the accident and his injuries.
BEI, in response, claimed that the collision was caused by the negligence of the cargo
truck driver, who suddenly swerved into the path of the bus.
The trial court found BEI liable for the accident and ordered it to pay damages to Rivera.
BEI appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court upheld the
trial court's ruling.

This case illustrates the importance of establishing negligence and liability in vehicular
accidents and the responsibility of common carriers like bus companies to ensure
passenger safety.

Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Spouses Antonio Garcia and Leticia Garciaand Julio
Recontique

In the case of Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Spouses Antonio Garcia & Leticia
Garcia, A & J Trading, and Julio Recontique, the dispute centered around a vehicular
accident that occurred when Leticia Garcia and her young son, Allan Garcia, were
passengers on Baliwag Transit Bus No. 2036. The bus, driven by Jaime Santiago, collided
with a cargo truck owned by A & J Trading and driven by Julio Recontique.

The accident took place on a dark, drizzly night in Malimba, Gapan, Nueva Ecija. The
cargo truck had a flat tire and was parked partially on the shoulder of the road. While
passengers warned the bus driver, Santiago, to slow down, he continued driving at a
high speed, ultimately colliding with the stalled truck, resulting in Santiago's death,
injuries to several passengers, and damages to Leticia and Allan Garcia.

Spouses Antonio and Leticia Garcia filed a lawsuit against Baliwag Transit, A & J Trading,
and Recontique for damages. The trial court held all defendants liable, with Baliwag
Transit found responsible for failing to ensure passenger safety. The Court of Appeals
upheld this decision, although it absolved A & J Trading from liability and reduced some
of the awarded damages.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' findings, stating that Baliwag Transit
breached its contract of carriage by failing to ensure passenger safety due to the
reckless driving of its employee. The Court also held that there was insufficient evidence
to support the full amount of awarded medical expenses and adjusted the damages
accordingly. Ultimately, Baliwag Transit was found liable for its negligence in the
accident.

Franklin Gacal and Corazon M. Gacalv. Philippine Airlines

In the case of Franklin Gacal and Corazon M. Gacal v. Philippine Airlines (PAL), the
plaintiffs, Franklin Gacal and Corazon M. Gacal, filed a lawsuit against Philippine Airlines.
The dispute revolved around the plaintiffs' dissatisfaction with the services provided by
PAL during their international flight. They alleged that PAL failed to meet the standard
of care and service expected from an international carrier. The passengers experienced
discomfort and inconvenience due to problems with the in-flight entertainment system,
food quality, and seating arrangements.

The trial court ruled in favor of the passengers, ordering PAL to pay damages for the
inconvenience and discomfort they suffered during the flight. PAL appealed the
decision, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling.

The case highlights the importance of international carriers meeting the expectations of
passengers in terms of service quality and comfort. It also underscores the passengers'
right to seek compensation when their travel experience falls short of reasonable
standards.

Herminio Mariano, Jr. v. Idelfonso C. Callejas and Edgar De Borja

In the case of Herminio Mariano, Jr. v. Ildefonso C. Callejas and Edgar De Borja, the
petitioner, Herminio Mariano, Jr., filed a lawsuit against Ildefonso C. Callejas, the owner
of Celyrosa Express, and Edgar De Borja, the driver of the bus, for damages resulting
from the death of his wife, Dr. Frelinda Mariano. The incident occurred when a Celyrosa
Express bus, driven by De Borja and owned by Callejas, collided with an Isuzu truck on
Aguinaldo Highway in Cavite.

The trial court initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding Callejas and De Borja
liable for damages. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, absolving the
respondents from any liability. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the accident resulted
from the negligence of the Isuzu truck driver, who lost control of the vehicle due to
brake failure, and not from any fault or negligence on the part of Celyrosa Express.

The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals'
decision was not in line with the factual basis of the case. However, the Supreme Court
affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, stating that the evidence showed the accident
was caused by the sudden swerving of the Isuzu truck, which encroached on the bus's
lane. The truck's driver had pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence in a related criminal
case, further supporting the conclusion that the truck driver was at fault.

As a result, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, absolving Callejas and De
Borja from liability for the death of Dr. Frelinda Mariano.
 Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals (Twelfth Division) andJacinta L. Pamalaran

In the case of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Jacinta L. Pamalaran, the petitioner, Sulpicio Lines,
Inc. (SLI), sought to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, awarding damages to Jacinta L. Pamalaran,
the private respondent.

The case stemmed from a contract of carriage between SLI and AGO Lumber Company
(ALC) for the transportation of timber. While attempting to load timber onto SLI's barge,
several stevedores, including Leoncio L. Pamalaran, were overcome by gas poisoning
due to copra stored in the holds of the ship. Leoncio L. Pamalaran lost consciousness
and eventually died.

Pamalaran's heirs filed a case for damages against SLI, CBL Timber Corporation (CBL),
ALC, and its manager, Ernie Santiago. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs,
holding the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages. The Court of Appeals
affirmed this decision.

SLI argued that it should not be considered a common carrier and that it was not
negligent in the events leading to Pamalaran's death. However, the Court of Appeals
disagreed, considering SLI liable as a common carrier and finding that SLI's employees
failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring the safety of the stevedores on board. As a
result, the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals, maintaining SLI's liability as a
common carrier and affirming the award of damages to Pamalaran's heirs. The Court
also increased the indemnity for Pamalaran's death from P40,000 to P50,000.
Furthermore, SLI's counterclaims and cross claims were deemed without legal basis, as
the solidary liability of SLI with the other defendants had been established and upheld
by the lower courts.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, affirming SLI's
liability as a common carrier and increasing the indemnity for Pamalaran's death to
P50,000, while dismissing SLI's counterclaims and cross claims.

Jose Pilapil v. Court of Appeals and Alatco Transportation Co., Inc.

In the case of Jose Pilapil v. Alatco Transportation Company, Inc., the petitioner, Jose Pilapil,
filed a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, which reversed and set aside the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. The original case involved an incident
where Pilapil, a paying passenger on a bus operated by Alatco Transportation Company, Inc.,
was injured when an unidentified person threw a stone at the bus, hitting Pilapil above his left
eye.

The trial court had initially ruled in favor of Pilapil, ordering Alatco to pay damages to him.
However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision.

Pilapil argued that common carriers should assume the risk of such incidents as part of their duty
to ensure passenger safety. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that common carriers are not
insurers of absolute safety but are required to exercise extraordinary diligence for passenger
safety. This duty is subject to the limitations of what human care and foresight can provide.

The Court also noted that the presumption of negligence against common carriers can be rebutted
by proof that they exercised the required degree of diligence or that the injury resulted from a
fortuitous event. In this case, the injury resulted from the willful act of a stranger, and Alatco
could not have reasonably prevented it. Therefore, Alatco was not held liable for the injury.

The Court emphasized that it is the role of Congress to consider policy matters like making
carriers liable for such incidents, rather than the judiciary.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, stating that
Alatco was not liable for the injury suffered by Pilapil due to the stone-throwing incident.

Fortune Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Paulie v. Caorong

In the case of Fortune Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Paulie U. Caorong, the
petitioner, a bus company in northern Mindanao, faced legal action for damages
resulting from a breach of the contract of carriage. The incident occurred when one of
the petitioner's buses was seized by armed individuals, leading to the death of Atty.
Caorong, a passenger. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision and
held the petitioner liable for damages.

The court's decision was based on several factors. First, the petitioner failed to exercise
the required diligence in protecting its passengers, despite receiving information about
potential threats to its buses. Second, the seizure of the bus was not considered a force
majeure event since it was foreseeable and could have been prevented with reasonable
precautions. Third, Atty. Caorong was not guilty of contributory negligence, as he
attempted to help the bus driver and was not acting recklessly.

As a result, the petitioner was ordered to pay death indemnity, actual damages, moral
damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and compensation for loss of earning
capacity to the heirs of Atty. Caorong.