Article 1757

SINGSON VS CA
No contract- the round trip ticket issued by the carrier to the passenger was in
itself a complete written contract by and between the carrier and the passenger. It
has all the elements of a complete written contract. In fact, the contract of carriage in
the instant case was already partially executed as the carrier complied with its
obligation to transport the passenger to his destination, i.e., Los Angeles. Only the
performance of the other half of the contract — which was to transport the passenger
back to the Philippines — was left to be done.
Negligence - Had CATHAY's agents been diligent in double checking the coupons
they were supposed to detach from the passengers' tickets, there would have been no
reason for CATHAY not to confirm petitioner's booking as exemplified in the case of
his cousin and flight companion Tiongson whose ticket booklet was found to be in
order
 presumption of negligence, defense of force majeure,
contributory negligence
FORTUNE EXPRESS VS CA
Presumption of negligence - Despite warning by the Philippine Constabulary at
Cagayan de Oro that the Maranaos were planning to take revenge on the petitioner
by burning some of its buses and the assurance of petitioner's operation manager,
Diosdado Bravo, that the necessary precautions would be taken, petitioner did
nothing to protect the safety of its passengers. Had petitioner and its employees
been vigilant they would not have failed to see that the malefactors had a large
quantity of gasoline with them. Under the circumstances, simple precautionary
measures to protect the safety of passengers, such as frisking passengers and
inspecting their baggages, preferably with non-intrusive gadgets such as metal
detectors, before allowing them on board could have been employed without
violating the passenger's constitutional rights.
 presumption of negligence, defense of force majeure,
contributory negligence
FORTUNE EXPRESS VS CA
Defense of force majeure - Despite the report of PC agent Generalao that the
Maranaos were going to attack its buses, petitioner took no steps to safeguard the
lives and properties of its passengers. The seizure of the bus of the petitioner was
foreseeable and, therefore, was not a fortuitous event which would exempt petitioner
from liabilty.
Contributory negligence - Atty. Caorong did not act recklessly. It should be
pointed out that the intended targets of the violence were petitioners and its
employees, not its passengers. The assailant's motive was to retaliate for the loss of
life of two Maranaos as a result of the collision between petitioner's bus and the
jeepney in which the two Maranaos were riding. The armed men actually allowed
Atty. Caorong to retrieve something from the bus. What apparently angered them
was his attempt to help the driver of the bus by pleading for his life. He was playing
the role of the good Samaritan. this act cannot considered an act of negligence, let
alone recklessness.
 Article 1763 – acts of passengers
BACHELOR EXPRESS VS CA
Defense of force majeure - The running amuck of the passenger was the
proximate cause of the incident as it triggered off a commotion and panic among the
passengers such that the passengers started running to the sole exit shoving each
other resulting in the falling off the bus by passengers Beter and Rautraut causing
them fatal injuries. The sudden act of the passenger who stabbed another passenger
in the bus is within the context of force majeure.
 Article 1763 – acts of passengers
Bachelor express vs ca
Defense of exercise of extraordinary negligence - the bus driver did not
immediately stop the bus at the height of the commotion; the bus was speeding from
a full stop; the victims fell from the bus door when it was opened or gave way while
the bus was still running; the conductor panicked and blew his whistle after people
had already fallen off the bus; and the bus was not properly equipped with doors in
accordance with law-it is clear that the petitioners have failed to overcome the
presumption of fault and negligence found in the law governing common carriers.
petitioners failed to prove that the deaths of the two passengers were exclusively
due to force majeure and not to the failure of the petitioners to observe extraordinary
diligence in transporting safely the passengers to their destinations as warranted by
law
 Article 1763 – acts of passengers
SMITH BELL VS BORJA
The attempts of Smith Bell to shift the blame on ITTC were all for naught. First,
the testimony of its alleged eyewitness was stricken off the record for his failure to
appear for cross-examination . Second, the documents offered to prove that the fire
originated from barge ITTC-101 were all denied admission by the Court for being, in
effect, hearsay. Thus, there is nothing in the record to support petitioners contention
that the fire and explosion originated from barge ITTC-101.
Petitioners vessel was carrying chemical cargo -- alkyl benzene and methyl
methacrylate monomer.15 While knowing that their vessel was carrying dangerous
inflammable chemicals, its officers and crew failed to take all the necessary
precautions to prevent an accident. Petitioner was, therefore, negligent.
 Article 1763 – acts of passengers and others
SMITH BELL VS BORJA
In determining the reasonableness of the damages awarded under Article 1764 in
conjunction with Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the factors to be considered are: (1)
life expectancy (considering the health of the victim and the mortality table which is
deemed conclusive) and loss of earning capacity; (b) pecuniary loss, loss of support
and service; and (c) moral and mental sufferings.
 RECOVERABLE DAMAGES
REGIONAL CONTAINER VS NETHERLANDS
RCL and EDSA Shipping failed to prove that they did exercise that degree of
diligence required by law over the goods they transported. Indeed, there is sufficient
evidence showing that the fluctuation of the temperature in the refrigerated
container van, as recorded in the temperature chart, occurred after the cargo had
been discharged from the vessel and was already under the custody of the arrastre
operator, ICTSI. This evidence, however, does not disprove that the condenser fan –
which caused the fluctuation of the temperature in the refrigerated container – was
not damaged while the cargo was being unloaded from the ship. It is settled in
maritime law jurisprudence that cargoes while being unloaded generally remain
under the custody of the carrier; RCL and EDSA Shipping failed to dispute this. RCL
and EDSA Shipping could have offered evidence before the trial court to show
 RECOVERABLE DAMAGES
REGIONAL CONTAINER VS NETHERLANDS
RCL and EDSA Shipping could have offered evidence before the trial court to
show that the damage to the condenser fan did not occur: (1) while the cargo was in
transit; (2) while they were in the act of discharging it from the vessel; or (3) while
they were delivering it actually or constructively to the consignee. They could have
presented proof to show that they exercised extraordinary care and diligence in the
handling of the goods, but they opted to file a demurrer to evidence. As the order
granting their demurrer was reversed on appeal, the CA correctly ruled that they are
deemed to have waived their right to present evidence, and the presumption of
negligence must stand.
 RECOVERABLE DAMAGES
SULPICIO LINES VS CURSO
the purpose of moral damages is indemnity or reparation, that is, to enable the
injured party to obtain the means, diversions, or amusements that will serve to
alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the tragic event.
According to Villanueva v. Salvador, the conditions for awarding moral damages are:
(a) there must be an injury, whether physical, mental, or psychological, clearly
substantiated by the claimant; (b) there must be a culpable act or omission factually
established; (c) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant must be the proximate
cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (d) the award of damages is
predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
 RECOVERABLE DAMAGES
SULPICIO LINES VS CURSO
In fine, moral damages may be recovered in an action upon breach of contract of
carriage only when: (a) where death of a passenger results, or (b) it is proved that the
carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith, even if death does not result. Article 2206 of
the Civil Code entitles the descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, and
surviving spouse of the deceased passenger to demand moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
 RECOVERABLE DAMAGES
AIR FRANCE VS GILLEGO
petitioner acted in bad faith in repeatedly ignoring respondent's follow-up calls.
The alleged entries in the PIR deserve scant consideration, as these have not been
properly identified or authenticated by the airline station representative in Budapest
who initiated and inputed the said entries. petitioner did not give the attention and
care due to its passenger whose baggage was not transported and delivered to him at
his travel destination and scheduled time. Inattention to and lack of care for the
interest of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as
to their convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to an award of
moral damages.
 RECOVERABLE DAMAGES
AIR FRANCE VS GILLEGO

Where as in this case the air carrier failed to act timely on the passenger's
predicament caused by its employees' mistake and more than ordinary inadvertence
or inattention, and the passenger failed to show any act of arrogance, discourtesy or
rudeness committed by the air carrier's employees, the amounts of P200,000.00,
P50,000.00 and P30,000.00 as moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's
fees would be sufficient and justified.
 RECOVERABLE DAMAGES
A passenger of a public utility bus was injured due to the driver’s recklessness,
what case or cases can the passenger file against the common carrier and the driver?

1. Civil case for Breach of contract against common carrier (not against the driver) –
contract is between passenger and common carrier and driver is only an agent;
- The defense of due diligence will only mitigate liability of carrier since it is not a
complete defense
- quantum of evidence: preponderance of evidence – passenger proves contract of
carriage between him and the common arrier, the public utility bus, and that he did
not reach his destination unhurt
 RECOVERABLE DAMAGES
2. Criminal case against the driver – Driver is directly and primarily responsible,
common carrier is subsidiarily responsible if driver is insolvent
- quantum of evidence: proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt – driver acted
recklessly

3. Civil case for culpa acquilania or quasi-delict

- Injured passenger may also opt to file even if there is a pre-existing contractual
relationship given that the act that breaks the contract resulted in tort
- the injured passenger has the burden of proving the negligence of the common
carrier and his driver, and the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision
of employee is a complete defense of the common carrier as employer to avoid civil
liability