b) Contract of carriage or of common carriage itself should be considered as a real contract for not until

carrier is actually used can carrier be said to have already assumed obligations of a carrier.
A carrier can be held liable for damages for failure to comply with the contract to carry which is consensual in
nature.
The obvious source of the liability of common carriers to the shipper or its passenger is contractual. Any
suit against the carrier will normally be based on a breach of contract. When the suit is based on this source
of liability, the plaintiff need not prove the negligence of the carrier. This negligence is presumed. (Art. 1735
and 1756, NCC)
The liability of a common carrier may also be anchored on quasi-delict if the liability originates from the
negligence of its employees. Under Art. 2180, an employer is liable for the acts of negligence of its
employees. Under Art. 2180, an employer is liable for the acts of negligence of its employees committed in
the exercise of their duties as such. The liability of the employer is its negligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees.
Principles governing the liabilities of 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 the circumstances or 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. 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 v. A.L. Ammen Transportation, G.R. No. L-
9671, August 23, 1957)
5. In case of death or injury, a carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently
Statutory Obligations of Carrier-
Art 1755 of Civil Code obliges the carrier to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide. It is supposed to do so by using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for
all the circumstances . In case of death or injuries to passengers, it is presumed to have been at fault or to
have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Arts. 1733
and 1755 of Civil code.
A common carrier by the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy is bound to carry passengers
safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. It is supposed to do so by using the utmost diligence
of very cautious persons with due regard for all the circumstances. In case of death or injuries to
passengers, it is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed
extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.
Upon the happening of the accident, the presumption of negligence at once arises and it becomes the duty
of a common carrier to overcome such presumption of negligence. The carrier must show:
(a) The utmost diligence of a very cautious persons as far as human care and foresight can provide; or
(b) That the accident was caused by fortuitous event.(Tiu v. Arriesgado, 437 SCRA 426(2004).
The explosion of a new tire cannot by itself be considered a fortuitous event to exempt the common carrier
from liability in the absence of showing on the part of the carrier that other human factors that could have
intervened to cause the blowout of the new tire did not in fact occur. Moreover, a common carrier may not
be absolved from liability in case of force majeure or fortuitous alone, it must still prove that it was not
negligent in causing the death or injury resulting from an accident (Yobido v. CA, 201 SCRA 1)
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 and therefore deemed negligent.(Raynera v. Hiceta, 306 SCRA 102)
Under Art. 2185 of the Civil Code, unless there is proof to the contrary, 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.(Mallari Sr. v CA, 324 SCRA 147)
The negligence and recklessness of a jeepney driver is binding against the owner thereof, and in the action
based on 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 for payment of damages sought by the passenger since under-
a) Art. 1755 of the Civil Code, the common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely
b) Art 1756 in case of death or injury of passenger, the common carrier is presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently, and
c) Art. 1759, a common carrier is liable for death or injury to, passenger s 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. (Mallari v. CA 324 SCRA 147)