Necesito VS Paras FACTS: A mother and her son boarded a passenger auto-truck of the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines

!hile entering a "ooden bridge# its front "heels s"er$ed to the right# the dri$er lost control and the truck fell into a breast-deep creek The mother dro"ned and the son sustained in%uries These cases in$ol$e actions e& contractu against the o"ners of PRBL filed b' the son and the heirs of the mother Lo"er Court dismissed the actions# holding that the accident "as a fortuitous e$ent (SS)*: !hether or not the carrier is liable for the manufacturing defect of the steering knuckle# and "hether the e$idence discloses that in regard thereto the carrier e&ercised the diligence re+uired b' la" ,Art -.//# ne" Ci$il Code0 1*L2: 3es !hile the carrier is not an insurer of the safet' of the passengers# the manufacturer of the defecti$e appliance is considered in la" the agent of the carrier# and the good repute of the manufacturer "ill not relie$e the carrier from liabilit' The rationale of the carrier4s liabilit' is the fact that the passengers ha$e no pri$it' "ith the manufacturer of the defecti$e e+uipment5 hence# he has no remed' against him# "hile the carrier has !e find that the defect could be detected The periodical# usual inspection of the steering knuckle did not measure up to the 6utmost diligence of a $er' cautious person7 as 6far as human care and foresight can pro$ide7 and therefore the knuckle4s failure cannot be considered a fortuitous e$ent that e&empts the carrier from responsibilit'

facing the middle of the high"a' in a diagonal angle Second# it is undisputed that petitioner=s dri$er took in more passengers than the allo"ed seating capacit' of the %eepne' The fact that Sunga "as seated in an >e&tension seat> placed her in a peril greater than that to "hich the other passengers "ere e&posed Therefore# not onl' "as petitioner unable to o$ercome the presumption of negligence imposed on him for the in%ur' sustained b' Sunga# but also# the e$idence sho"s he "as actuall' negligent in transporting passengers !e find it hard to gi$e serious thought to petitioner=s contention that Sunga=s taking an >e&tension seat> amounted to an implied assumption of risk (t is akin to arguing that the in%uries to the man' $ictims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merel' because those passengers assumed a greater risk of dro"ning b' boarding an o$erloaded ferr' This is also true of petitioner=s contention that the %eepne' being bumped "hile it "as improperl' parked constitutes caso fortuito A caso fortuito is an e$ent "hich could not be foreseen# or "hich# though foreseen# "as ine$itable This re+uires that the follo"ing re+uirements be present: ,a0 the cause of the breach is independent of the debtor=s "ill5 ,b0 the e$ent is unforeseeable or una$oidable5 ,c0 the e$ent is such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner# and ,d0 the debtor did not take part in causing the in%ur' to the creditor Petitioner should ha$e foreseen the danger of parking his %eepne' "ith its bod' protruding t"o meters into the high"a' Tiu vs. Arriesgado 437 SCRA 426 FACTS: At about -?:?? pm of @arch -/# -AB.# the cargo truck marked > Condor 1ollo" Blocks and :eneral @erchandise> "as loaded "ith fire"ood in Bogo# Cebu and left for Cebu Cit' )pon reaching Sitio Aggies# Poblacion Compostela# Cebu# %ust as the truck passed o$er the bridge# one of its rear tires e&ploded The dri$er# Sergio Pedrano# then parked along the right side of the bridge and remo$ed the damaged tire to ha$e it $ulcani8ed at a nearb' shop Pedrano left his helper# 9ose @ilitante 9r to keep "atch o$er the stalled $ehicle# and instructed the latter to place a spare tire C fathoms behind the stalled truck to ser$e as a "arning for oncoming $ehicles The truck=s tail lights "ere also left on At abount D:D/ am # 2 rough Riders Passenger bus dri$en b' ;irgilio te Las Pinas "as crushing along the national high"a' of Sitio Aggies also bound for Cebu Cit' Among its passengers "ere the Sposes Pedro A Arriesgado and Felisa Pepito Arriesgado# "ho "ere seated at the right side of the bus As the bus "as approaching the bridge# Las Pinas sa" the stalled truck 1e applied the brakes and tried to s"er$e to the left to a$oid hitting the truck But it "as too late5 the bus rammed into the truck=s left rear Pedro Arriesgado lost consciousness and suffered a fracture in his colles 1is "ife Felisa died after being transferred to (sland @edical Center Arriesgado then filed a complaint against !iliam Tiu# operator of 2 Rough and his dri$er Las Pinas for breach of contract of carriage (SS)*:

Calalas v. CA Facts: Pri$ate respondent *li8a 9u%eurche : Sunga took a passenger %eepne' o"ned and operated b' petitioner ;icente Calalas As the %eepne' "as alread' full# Calalas ga$e Sunga an stool at the back of the door at the rear end of the $ehicle Along the "a'# the %eepne' stopped to let a passenger off Sunga stepped do"n to gi$e "a' "hen an (su8u truck o"ned b' Francisco Sal$a and dri$en b' (glecerio ;erena bumped the %eepne' As a result# Sunga "as in%ured Sunga filed a complaint against Calalas for $iolation of contract of carriage Calalas filed a third part' complaint against Sal$a The trial court held Sal$a liable and absol$ed Calalas# taking cognisance of another ci$il case for +uasi-delict "herein Sal$a and ;erena "ere held liable to Calalas The Court of Appeals re$ersed the decision and found Calalas liable to Sunga for $iolation of contract of carriage (ssues: ,<0 !hether Calalas e&ercised the e&traordinar' diligence re+uired in the contract of carriage 1eld:

!hether the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable as the petitioner asserts 1*L2:

,<0 !e do not think so First# the %eepne' "as not properl' parked# its rear portion being e&posed about t"o meters from the broad shoulders of the high"a'# and

Contrar' to the petitioner=s contention# the principle of

last clear chance is inapplicable in the instant case# as it onl' applies in a suit bet"een the o"ners and dri$ers of t"o colliding $ehicles (t does not arise "here the passenger demands responsibilit' from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations# for it "ould be ine+uitable to e&empt the negligent dri$er and its o"ner on the ground that the other dri$er "as like"ise guilt' negligence The common la" notion of last clear chance permitted courts to grant reco$er' to a plaintiff "ho has also been negligent pro$ided that the defendant had the last clear chance to a$oid the casualt' and failed to do so Philippine Charter nsurance VS !n"no#n $#ner o% &V 'onor FACTS: Petitioner Philippine Charter (nsurance Corporation ,PC(C0 is the insurer of a shipment on board the $essel @E; 6Fational 1onor#7 represented in the Philippines b' its agent# Fational Shipping Corporation of the Philippines ,FSCP0 The @E; 6Fational 1onor7 arri$ed at the @anila (nternational Container Terminal ,@(CT0 The (nternational Container Terminal Ser$ices# (ncorporated ,(CTS(0 "as furnished "ith a cop' of the crate cargo list and bill of lading# and it kne" the contents of the crate The follo"ing da'# the $essel started discharging its cargoes using its "inch crane The crane "as operated b' Glegario Balsa# a "inchman from the (CTS(# e&clusi$e arrastre operator of @(CT 2enasto 2au8# 9r # the checker-inspector of the FSCP# along "ith the cre" and the sur$e'or of the (CTS(# conducted an inspection of the cargo The' inspected the hatches# checked the cargo and found it in apparent good condition Claudio Cansino# the ste$edore of the (CTS(# placed t"o sling cables on each end of Crate Fo - Fo sling cable "as fastened on the mid-portion of the crate (n 2au84s e&perience# this "as a normal procedure As the crate "as being hoisted from the $essel4s hatch# the mid-portion of the "ooden flooring suddenl' snapped in the air# about fi$e feet high from the $essel4s t"in deck# sending all its contents crashing do"n hard# resulting in e&tensi$e damage to the shipment PC(C paid the damage# and as subrogee# filed a case against @E; Fational 1onor# FSCP and (CTS( Both RTC and CA dismissed the complaint (SS)*: !hether or not the presumption of negligence is applicable in the instant case 1*L2: Fo !e agree "ith the contention of the petitioner that common carriers# from the nature of their business and for reasons of public polic'# are mandated to obser$e e&traordinar' diligence in the $igilance o$er the goods and for the safet' of the passengers transported b' them# according to all the circumstances of each case he Court has defined e&traordinar' diligence in the $igilance o$er the goods as follo"s: The e&traordinar' diligence in the $igilance o$er the goods tendered for shipment re+uires the common carrier to kno" and to follo" the re+uired precaution for a$oiding damage to# or destruction of the goods entrusted to it for sale# carriage and deli$er' (t re+uires common carriers to render ser$ice "ith the greatest skill and foresight and 6to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for shipment# and to e&ercise due care in the handling and sto"age# including such methods as their nature re+uires 7 The common carrier4s dut' to obser$e the re+uisite diligence in the shipment of

goods lasts from the time the articles are surrendered to or unconditionall' placed in the possession of# and recei$ed b'# the carrier for transportation until deli$ered to# or until the lapse of a reasonable time for their acceptance# b' the person entitled to recei$e them H I!hen the goods shipped are either lost or arri$e in damaged condition# a presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to obser$e that diligence# and there need not be an e&press finding of negligence to hold it liable To o$ercome the presumption of negligence in the case of loss# destruction or deterioration of the goods# the common carrier must pro$e that it e&ercised e&traordinar' diligence 1o"e$er# under Article -.JD of the Fe" Ci$il Code# the presumption of negligence does not appl' to an' of the follo"ing causes: < J D / Flood# storm# earth+uake# lightning or other natural disaster or calamit'5 Act of the public enem' in "ar# "hether international or ci$il5 Act or omission of the shipper or o"ner of the goods5 The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers5 Grder or act of competent public authorit'

(t bears stressing that the enumeration in Article -.JD of the Fe" Ci$il Code "hich e&empts the common carrier for the loss or damage to the cargo is a closed list To e&culpate itself from liabilit' for the lossEdamage to the cargo under an' of the causes# the common carrier is burdened to pro$e an' of the aforecited causes claimed b' it b' a preponderance of e$idence (f the carrier succeeds# the burden of e$idence is shifted to the shipper to pro$e that the carrier is negligent 62efect7 is the "ant or absence of something necessar' for completeness or perfection5 a lack or absence of something essential to completeness5 a deficienc' in something essential to the proper use for the purpose for "hich a thing is to be used Gn the other hand# inferior means of poor +ualit'# mediocre# or second rate A thing ma' be of inferior +ualit' but not necessaril' defecti$e (n other "ords# 6defecti$eness7 is not s'non'mous "ith 6inferiorit' 7 &&& (n the present case# the trial court declared that based on the record# the loss of the shipment "as caused b' the negligence of the petitioner as the shipper: The same ma' be said "ith respect to defendant (CTS( The breakage and collapse of Crate Fo - and the total destruction of its contents "ere not imputable to an' fault or negligence on the part of said defendant in handling the unloading of the cargoes from the carr'ing $essel# but "as due solel' to the inherent defect and "eakness of the materials used in the fabrication of said crate The crate should ha$e three solid and strong "ooden batten placed side b' side underneath or on the flooring of the crate to support the "eight of its contents & & & Phil. A(erican )en. nsurance v. P*S Shipping Co. 2a$ao )nion @arketing Corporation ,2)@C0 contracted the ser$ices of PKS Shipping Compan' for the shipment to Tacloban Cit' of ./#??? bags of cement "orth PJ#J./#??? 2)@C insured the goods "ith Philippine American :eneral (nsurance ,Philamgen0 The bags "ere loaded aboard the barge Limar ( belonging to PKS Shipping# ho"e$er# "hile PKS4 tugboat @T (ron *agle "as to"ing the barge# Limar ( sank bringing do"n "ith it the entire cargo 2)@C filed a claim "ith Philamgen "hich promptl' made pa'ment and sought reimbursement from PKS Shipping The shipping compan' refused to pa' causing Philamgen to file a suit "ith the @akati RTC The RTC ruled against Philamgen since PKS couldn4t be liable in cases of fortuitous e$ent or through the negligence of the captain or its cre" leading

to abandonment The CA affirmed the RTC4s decision stating that there "as lack of e$idence to establish that PKS Shippine "as a common carrier and that the peculiar method of the shipping compan'4s carr'ing of goods for others "as not generall' held out as a business but as a casual occupation The Court again goes back to the 2e :u8man doctrine that Article -.J< of the Ci$il Code makes no distinction bet"een one "hose principal business is the carr'ing of persons or goods or both# and on "ho does such carr'ing onl' as an ancillar' acti$it' ,in local idiom# as a 6sideline70 Article -.J< also carefull' a$oids making an' distinction bet"een a person or enterprise offering transportation ser$ice on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such ser$ice on an occasional# episodic or unscheduled basis Feither does Article -.J< distinguish bet"een a carrier offering its ser$ices to the 6general public7# i e # the general communit' or population# and one "ho offers ser$ices or solicits business onl' from a narro" segment of the general population @uch of the distinction bet"een a >common or public carrier> and a >pri$ate or special carrier> lies in the character of the business# such that if the undertaking is an isolated transaction# not a part of the business or occupation# and the carrier does not hold itself out to carr' the goods for the general public or to a limited clientele# although in$ol$ing the carriage of goods for a fee# the person or corporation pro$iding such ser$ice could $er' "ell be %ust a pri$ate carrier Contrar' to the conclusion made b' the CA# factual findings indicate that PKS Shipping has engaged itself in the business of carr'ing goods for others# although for a limited clientele# undertaking to carr' such goods for a fee The regularit' of its acti$ities in this area indicates more than %ust a casual acti$it' on its part Still# the Supreme Court held that the sinking of the barge could not ha$e been pre$ented b' both the barge4s or tugboat4s cre"# hence# PKS Shipping should be absol$ed of liabilit' +astern Shipping ,ines VS AC Facts: Gn 9une# -A.. @ES AS(AT(CA# a ;essel operated b' *astern Shipping Lines "as bound for @anila from Kobe# 9apan (t loaded # /#??? pieces of colori8ed lance pipes in <B packages $alued at P</C#?JA ?? consigned to Philippine Blooming @ills Co # (nc # and . cases of spare parts $alued at PA<#JC- ./# consigned to Central Te&tile @ills# (nc Both "ere insured from marine risks "ith 2e$elopment (nsurance and Suret' Corp (t also took -<B cartoons of garment fabrics and accessories in < containers consigned to @ari$eles Apparel Corp and < Cases of sur$e'ing instruments consigned to Aman *nterprises and :eneral @erchandise The shipments "ere insured "ith 2G!A Fire and @arine (nsurance Co and Fisshin Fire and marine (nsurance Co respectabl' *n Route from Kobe to @anila the $essel caught fire and sank losing all its shipment The insurance companies paid for the insurance of the abo$e mentioned shipments The' Then instituted a case to redeem the insurance that the' paid to the $arious companies against *astern Shipping Lines The' contend that *astern should not be e&empted from liabilit' because it "as not able to e&ercise due diligence in pre$enting the occurrence of the fire as "ell as its unsea"orthiness *astern Shipping in$oked the Carriage of :oods b' Sea Act as a defense "herein it is said to be e&empt from the said liabilit' The Fire "as said to be one of the e&empting circumstance under the act (t also contended that it the fire occurred as a fortuitous e$ent such as a natural disaster or calamit' "hich leads them to conclude that the' should not be made liable (ssues: !hich la" should go$ern the case is it the Ci$il Code pro$isions or the specific la" "hich is the Carriage of :oods b' Sea ActL !ho has the burden of proof to sho" the negligence of the carrierL 1eld: (t is the la" of the countr' to "hich the goods are to be transported "hich shall appl' in this case The Carriage of :oods b' Sea Act "ill be supplementar' to the Ci$il Code pro$ision

Common carriers are bound to obser$e e&traordinar' diligence "hen transporting goods Common carriers are responsible for the loss# destruction# or deterioration of the goods unless it is due to the ff e$ents: flood# storm# earth+uake# lightning# or other natural disaster or calamit' (n this case fire ma' not be considered a natural disaster or calamit' This is because the occurrence ma' be due to an act b' man or the actual fault of the carrier The common carrier is presumed to ha$e been at fault or ha$e acted negligentl' unless it pro$es that it has obser$ed the e&traordinar' diligence re+uired b' la" *$idence presented b' the "itness failed to establish the e&traordinar' diligence "hich "as re+uired of the carrier The fire started <D hours before disco$er' and upon disco$er' it "as alread' too big to suppress (t appears that after the cargoes "ere stored no regular inspections "ere done to see to it that the cargoes are "ell kept The cre" could not e$en e&plain ho" the fire started Because of this the carrier "as not able to pro$e that it has e&ercised e&traordinar' diligence making it liable of the costs and damages *$en if fire "ere to be considered a >natural disaster> "ithin the meaning of Article -.JD of the Ci$il Code# it is re+uired under Article -.JA of the same Code that the >natural disaster> must ha$e been the >pro&imate and onl' cause of the loss#> and that the carrier has >e&ercised due diligence to pre$ent or minimi8e the loss before# during or after the occurrence of the disaster > This Petitioner Carrier has also failed to establish satisfactoril' The' are bound to pa' the insurance companies as "ell as /K for attorne'4s fees

Phil.A(erican )en ns VS &C) Petitioner insurance compan' insured the cargo belonging to San @iguel Corporation and loaded on @E; Peathera' Patrick-:# o"ned b' respondents# to be transported from @andaue Cit' to Bislig# Surigao del Sur The ship sunk# and petitioner paid the amount insured to San @iguel Corporation Petitioner sued respondent for collection to reco$er the amount it paid on the insured cargo The trial court rendered %udgment in fa$or of petitioner finding respondents solidaril' liable for the loss The Court of Appeals# in rendering its decision re$ersing the %udgment of the trial court# relied on the findings of the Board of @arine (n+uir' that the loss of the cargo "as due solel' to the attendance of strong "inds and huge "a$es# a fortuitous e$ent# "hich caused the $essel to accumulate "ater# tilt to the port side and to e$entuall' keel o$er Common carriers are re+uired to obser$e e&traordinar' diligence in the $igilance o$er the goods transported b' them and are presumed to be at fault or negligent if the goods are lost# destro'ed or damaged This presumption does not arise "here the pro&imate and onl' cause of the loss is a fortuitous e$ent (n the case at bar# the Court of Appeals did not err in rel'ing on the factual findings# supported b' substantial e$idence# of the Board of @arine (n+uir'# an administrati$e bod' "hich is an e&pert in matters concerning marine casualties The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals "as affirmed C(;(L LA!5 GBL(:AT(GFS AF2 CGFTRACTS5 CG@@GF CARR(*RS5 PR*S)@*2 AT FA)LT GR F*:L(:*FT (F :GG2S TRAFSPGRT*2 AR* LGST# 2*STRG3*2 GR 2A@A:*2 M Common carriers# from the nature of their business and for reasons of public polic'# are mandated to obser$e e&traordinar' diligence in the $igilance o$er the goods and for the safet' of the passengers transported b' them G"ing to this high degree of diligence re+uired of them# common carriers# as a general rule# are presumed to ha$e been at fault or negligent if the goods transported b' them are lost# destro'ed or if the same deteriorated < (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 !1*F PR*S)@PT(GF 2G*S FGT AR(S* M 1o"e$er# this presumption of fault or negligence does not arise in the cases enumerated under Article -.JD of the Ci$il Code: Common carriers are responsible for the loss#

destruction# or deterioration of the goods# unless the same is due to an' of the follo"ing causes onl': ,-0 Flood# storm# earth+uake# lightning or other natural disaster or calamit'5 ,<0 Act of the public enem' in "ar# "hether international or ci$il5 ,J0 Act or omission of the shipper or o"ner of the goods5 ,D0 The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers5 ,/0 Grder or act of competent public authorit' J (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 FGRT)(TG)S *;*FT5 @)ST B* T1* PRGN(@AT* AF2 GFL3 CA)S* GF T1* LGSS M (n order that a common carrier ma' be absol$ed from liabilit' "here the loss# destruction or deterioration of the goods is due to a natural disaster or calamit'# it must further be sho"n that such natural disaster or calamit' "as the pro&imate and only cause of the loss5 there must be >an entire e&clusion of human agenc' from the cause of the in%ur' of the loss > D (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 2(L(:*FC* R*O)(R*2 (F FAT)RAL 2(SAST*R TG PR*;*FT GR @(F(@(P* LGSS M @oreo$er# e$en in cases "here a natural disaster is the pro&imate and onl' cause of the loss# a common carrier is still re+uired to e&ercise due diligence to pre$ent or minimi8e loss before# during and after the occurrence of the natural disaster# for it to be e&empt from liabilit' under the la" for the loss of the goods (f a common carrier fails to e&ercise due diligence M or that ordinar' care "hich the circumstances of the particular case demand M to preser$e and protect the goods carried b' it on the occasion of a natural disaster# it "ill be deemed to ha$e been negligent# and the loss "ill not be considered as ha$ing been due to a natural disaster under Article -.JD,-0 / (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 FGRT)(TG)S *;*FT# 2*F(F*2 M A fortuitous e$ent has been defined as one "hich could not be foreseen# or "hich though foreseen# is ine$itable An e$ent is considered fortuitous if the follo"ing elements concur: ,a0 the cause of the unforeseen and une&pected occurrence# or the failure of the debtor to compl' "ith his obligations# must be independent of human "ill5 ,b0 it must be impossible to foresee the e$ent "hich constitutes the caso fortuito# or if it can be foreseen# it must be impossible to a$oid5 ,c0 the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner5 and ,d0 the obligor must be free from an' participation in the aggra$ation of the in%ur' resulting to the creditor

./? cartons of milk )nfortunatel'# onl' -/? cartons "ere deli$ered# as the other C?? cartons "ere intercepted b' hi%ackers along @arcos 1igh"a' 1ence# petitioner commenced an action against pri$ate respondent (n his defense# respondent argued that he cannot be held liable due to force ma%eure# and that he is not a common carrier# hence not re+uired to e&ercise e&traordinar' diligence

(ssues: - !hether or not respondent is a common carrier < !hether or not respondent can be held liable for loss of the C?? cartons of milk due to force ma%eure 1eld: - Respondent is a common carrier Article -.J< of the Fe" Ci$il Code does not distinguish bet"een one "hose principal business acti$it' is the carr'ing of persons or goods or both# and one "ho does such carr'ing onl' as an ancillar' acti$it' (t also a$oids a distinction bet"een a person or enterprise offering transportation ser$ices on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such ser$ices on an occasional# episodic# and unscheduled basis

< The court ruled in the affirmati$e The circumstances do not fall under the e&emption from liabilit' as enumerated in Article -.JD of the Ci$il Code The general rule is established b' the article that common carriers are responsible for the loss# destruction or deterioration of the goods "hich the' carr'# unless the same is due to an' of the follo"ing causes onl': a Flood# storm# earth+uake# lightning or other natural disasters5 b Act of the public enem'# "hether international or ci$il5 c Act or omission of the shipper or o"ner of the goods5 d Character of the goods or defects in the packing5 e Grder or act of competent public authorit'

/untilla vs 0ontanar ,-JC SCRA C<D0 Facts: 1erein plaintiff "as a passenger of the public utilit' %eepne' on course from 2anao Cit' to Cebu Cit' The %eepne' "as dri$en b' dri$en b' defendant Berfol Camoro and registered under the franchise of Clemente Fontanar !hen the %eepne' reached @andaue Cit'# the right rear tire e&ploded causing the $ehicle to turn turtle (n the process# the plaintiff "ho "as sitting at the front seat "as thro"n out of the $ehicle Plaintiff suffered a lacerated "ound on his right palm aside from the in%uries he suffered on his left arm# right thigh# and on his back Plaintiff filed a case for breach of contract "ith damages before the Cit' Court of Cebu Cit' 2efendants# in their ans"er# alleged that the tire blo" out "as be'ond their control# taking into account that the tire that e&ploded "as ne"l' bought and "as onl' slightl' used at the time it ble" up (ssue: !hether or not the tire blo"-out is a fortuitous e$entL 1eld: Fo (n the case at bar# the cause of the unforeseen and une&pected occurrence "as not independent of the human "ill The accident "as caused either through the negligence of the dri$er or because of mechanical defects in the tire Common carriers should teach dri$ers not to o$erload their $ehicles# not to e&ceed safe and legal speed limits# and to kno" the correct measures to take "hen a tire blo"s up thus insuring the safet' of passengers at all tines

C (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 LGSS GF CAR:G (F CAS* AT BAR CA)S*2 B3 FGRT)(TG)S *;*FT M (n the case at bar# it "as ade+uatel' sho"n that before the @E; Peathera' Patrick-: left the port of @andaue Cit'# the Captain confirmed "ith the Coast :uard that the "eather condition "ould permit the safe tra$el of the $essel to Bislig# Surigao del Sur Thus# he could not be e&pected to ha$e foreseen the unfa$orable "eather condition that a"aited the $essel in Cortes# Surigao del Sur (t "as the presence of the strong "inds and enormous "a$es "hich caused the $essel to list# keel o$er# and conse+uentl' lose the cargo contained therein The appellate court like"ise found that there "as no negligence on the part of the cre" of the @E; Peathera' Patrick-: -e )u.(an VS CA Facts: Respondent *rnesto Cendana "as engaged in bu'ing up used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan After collection# respondent "ould bring such material to @anila for resale 1e utili8ed ,<0 t"o si&-"heelers trucks "hich he o"ned for the purpose )pon returning to Pangasinan# he "ould load his $ehicle "ith cargo belonging to different merchants for deli$er' to different establishments in Pangasisnan for "hich respondent charged a freight fee

Sometime in Fo$ember -A.?# petitioner Pedro de :u8man# a merchant and dealer of :eneral @ilk Compan' (nc in Pangasinan contracted "ith respondent for hauling

0ortune +1press VS CA Petitioner Fortune *&press# (nc is a bus compan' in Forthern @indanao Gn Fo$ember -B# -ABA# one of its buses collided "ith a %eepne' o"ned b' a @aranao "hich resulted in the death of se$eral passengers of the %eepne' including t"o @aranaos (n relation thereto# the Philippine Constabular' of Caga'an de Gro "arned the petitioner# through its operations manager 2iosdado Bra$o# that the @aranaos "ere planning to take re$enge on the petitioner b' burning some of its buses Bra$o assured them that the necessar' precautions to ensure the safet' of li$es and properties of the passengers "ould be taken Gn Fo$ember <<# -ABA# three armed @aranaos "ho pretended to be passengers# sei8ed and burned the bus of the petitioner at Linamon# Lanao del Forte "hile on its "a' to (ligan Cit' "hich resulted in the death one of its passengers# Att' Talib Caorong Thus the heirs of Att' Caorong filed before the Regional Trial Court# Branch ;(# (ligan Cit' a complaint for damages for breach of contract of carriage against the petitioner The trial court dismissed the complaint 1o"e$er# the Court of Appeals re$ersed the decision of the trial court 1ence# this petition for re$ie" Article -.CJ of the Ci$il Code pro$ides that a common carrier is responsible for in%uries suffered b' a passenger on account of the "ilful acts of other passengers# if the emplo'ees of the common carrier could ha$e pre$ented the act through the e&ercise of the diligence of a good father of a famil' (n the present case# it is clear that because of the negligence of petitioner=s emplo'ees# the sei8ure of the bus b' @anggolo and his men "as made possible 2espite "arning b' the Philippine Constabular' at Caga'an de Gro that the @aranaos "ere planning to take re$enge on the petitioner b' burning some of its buses and the assurance of petitioner=s operations manager# 2iosdado Bra$o# that the necessar' precautions "ould be taken# petitioner did nothing to protect the safet' of its passengers 1ad petitioner and its emplo'ees been $igilant# the' "ould not ha$e failed to see that the malefactors had a large +uantit' of gasoline "ith them )nder the circumstances# simple precautionar' measures to protect the safet' of passengers# such as frisking passengers and inspecting their baggages# preferabl' "ith non-intrusi$e gadgets such as metal detectors# before allo"ing them on board could ha$e been emplo'ed "ithout $iolating the passenger=s constitutional rights The decision of the Court of Appeals "as AFF(R@*2 - C(;(L LA!5 GBL(:AT(GFS AF2 CGFTRACTS5 CG@@GF CARR(*R5 R*SPGFS(BL* FGR (F9)R(*S S)FF*R*2 B3 PASS*F:*R GF ACCG)FT GF !(LF)L ACTS GF GT1*R PASS*F:*RS M Art -.CJ of the Ci$il Code pro$ides that a common carrier is responsible for in%uries suffered b' a passenger on account of the "ilful acts of other passengers# if the emplo'ees of the common carrier could ha$e pre$ented the act through the e&ercise of the diligence of a good father of a famil' cdasia < (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 CAS* AT BAR M (n the present case# it is clear that because of the negligence of petitioner=s emplo'ees# the sei8ure of the bus b' @ananggolo and his men "as made possible 2espite "arning b' the Philippine Constabular' at Caga'an de Gro that the @aranaos "ere planning to take re$enge on the petitioner b' burning some of its buses and the assurance of petitioner=s operation manager# 2iosdado Bra$o# that the necessar' precautions "ould be taken# petitioner did nothing to protect the safet' of its passengers 1ad petitioner and its emplo'ees been $igilant the' "ould not ha$e failed to see that the malefactors had a large +uantit' of gasoline "ith them )nder the circumstances# simple precautionar' measures to protect the safet' of passengers# such as frisking passengers and inspecting their baggages# preferabl' "ith non-intrusi$e gadgets such as metal

detectors# before allo"ing them on board could ha$e been emplo'ed "ithout $iolating the passenger=s constitutional rights J (2 5 (2 5 FGRT)(TG)S *;*FT5 2*F(F*2 M Art --.D of the Ci$il Code defines a fortuitous e$ent as an occurrence "hich could not be foreseen or "hich though foreseen# is ine$itable (n Yobido v. Court of Appeals# "e held that to be considered as force ma%eure# it is necessar' that: ,-0 the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the human "ill5 ,<0 the e$ent must be either unforeseeable or una$oidable5 ,J0 the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner5 and ,D0 the obligor must be free of participation in# or aggra$ation of# the in%ur' to the creditor The absence of an' of the re+uisites mentioned abo$e "ould pre$ent the obligor from being e&cused from liabilit' D (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 FGT PR*S*FT (F CAS* AT BAR M Thus# in Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, it "as held that the common carrier "as liable for its failure to take necessar' precautions against an approaching t'phoon# of "hich it "as "arned# resulting in the loss of the li$es of se$eral passengers The e$ent "as foreseeable# and# thus# the second re+uisite mentioned abo$e "as not fulfilled This ruling applies b' analog' to the present case 2espite the report of PC agent :eneralao that the @aranaos "ere going to attack its buses# petitioner took no steps to safeguard the li$es and properties of its passengers The sei8ure of the bus of the petitioner "as foreseeable and# therefore# "as not a fortuitous e$ent "hich "ould e&empt petitioner from liabilit' / (2 5 (2 5 2A@A:*S5 2*C*AS*2 FGT :)(LT3 GF CGFTR(B)TGR3 F*:L(:*FC* M The petitioner contends that Att' Caorong "as guilt' of contributor' negligence in returning to the bus to retrie$e something But Att' Caorong did not act recklessl' (t should be pointed out that the intended targets of the $iolence "ere petitioner and its emplo'ee# not its passengers The assailant=s moti$e "as to retaliate for the loss of life of t"o @aranaos as a result of the collision bet"een petitioner=s bus and the %eepne' in "hich the t"o @aranaos "ere riding @ananggolo# the leader of the group "hich had hi%acked the bus# ordered the passengers to get off the bus as the' intended to burn it and its dri$er The armed men actuall' allo"ed Att' Caorong to retrie$e something from the bus !hat apparentl' angered them "as his attempt to help the dri$er of the bus b' pleading for his life 1e "as pla'ing the role of the good Samaritan Certainl'# this act cannot be considered an act of negligence# let alone recklessness C (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 (F2*@F(T3 FGR 2*AT1 M Art -.CD of the Ci$il Code# in relation to Art <<?C thereof# pro$ides for the pa'ment of indemnit' for the death of passengers caused b' the breach of contract of carriage b' a common carrier (nitiall' fi&ed in Art <<?C at PJ#??? ??# the amount of the said indemnit' for death has through the 'ears been graduall' increased in $ie" of the declining $alue of the peso (t is presentl' fi&ed at P/?#??? ?? Pri$ate respondents are entitled to this amount . (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 ACT)AL 2A@A:*S M Art <-AA pro$ides that >e&cept as pro$ided b' la" or b' stipulation# one is entitled to an ade+uate compensation onl' for such pecuniar' loss suffered b' him as he has dul' pro$ed > The trial court found that the pri$ate respondents spent PJ?#??? ?? for the "ake and burial of Att' Caorong Since petitioner does not +uestion this finding of the trial court# it is liable to pri$ate respondents in the said amount as actual damages B (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 @GRAL 2A@A:*S M )nder Art <<?C# the >spouse# legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased ma' demand moral damages for mental anguish b' reason of the death of the deceased > The trial court found that pri$ate respondent Paulie Caorong suffered pain from the death of her

husband and "orr' on ho" to pro$ide support for their minor children# pri$ate respondents 3asser King# Rose 1einni# and Prince Ale&ander The petitioner like"ise does not +uestion this finding of the trial court Thus# in accordance "ith recent decisions of this Court# "e hold that the petitioner is liable to the pri$ate respondents in the amount of P-??#??? ?? as moral damages for the death of Att' Caorong A (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 *N*@PLAR3 2A@A:*S M Art <<J< pro$ides that >in contracts and +uasi-contracts# the court ma' a"ard e&emplar' damages if the defendant acted in a "anton# fraudulent# reckless# oppressi$e# or male$olent manner > (n the present case# the petitioner acted in a "anton and reckless manner 2espite "arning that the @aranaos "ere planning to take re$enge against the petitioner b' burning some of its buses# and contrar' to the assurance made b' its operations manager that the necessar' precautions "ould be taken# the petitioner and its emplo'ees did nothing to protect the safet' of passengers )nder the circumstances# "e deem it reasonable to a"ard pri$ate respondents e&emplar' damages in the amount of P-??#??? ?? -? (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 ATTGRF*3=S F**S @A3 B* R*CG;*R*2 !1*F *N*@PLAR3 2A@A:*S AR* A!AR2*2 M Pursuant to Art <<?B# attorne'=s fees ma' be reco$ered "hen# as in the instant case# e&emplar' damages are a"arded (n the recent case of Sulpicio Lines# Inc. v. Court of Appeals# "e held an a"ard of P/?#??? ?? as attorne'=s fees to be reasonable 1ence# the pri$ate respondents are entitled to attorne'=s fees in that amount -- (2 5 (2 5 (2 5 CG@P*FSAT(GF FGR LGSS GF *ARF(F: CAPAC(T3 M Art -.CD of the Ci$il Code# in relation to Art <<?C thereof# pro$ides that in addition to the indemnit' for death arising from the breach of contract of carriage b' a common carrier# the >defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacit' of the deceased# and the indemnit' shall be paid to the heirs of the latter > The formula established in decided cases for computing net earning capacit' is as follo"s: Fet *arning Capacit' Q Life *&pectanc' & R:ross Annual (ncome - Fecessar' Li$ing *&pensesH Life e&pectanc' is e+ui$alent to t"o thirds ,<EJ0 multiplied b' the difference of eight' ,B?0 and the age of the deceased (c*S2 )ACA, vs. PA, : R Fo L-//J?? @arch -/# -AA?

passengers ade+uatel' in order to disco$er hidden "eapons in the bodies of the hi%ackers 2espite the pre$alence of sk'%acking# PAL did not use a metal detector "hich is the most effecti$e means of disco$ering potential sk'%ackers among the passengers

PAL in$okes the defense of force ma%eure or caso fortuito

(ssue: !GF PAL can in$oke caso fortuito to e&culpate itself from pa'ing damages to herein plaintiffsL 3*S

1eld:

The e&istence of force ma%eure has been established e&empting respondent PAL from the pa'ment of damages to its passengers "ho suffered death or in%uries in their persons and for loss of their baggages

The source of a common carrier4s legal liabilit' is the contract of carriage# and b' entering into said contract# it binds itself to carr' the passengers safel' as far as human care and foresight can pro$ide There is breach of this obligation if it fails to e&ert e&traordinar' diligence according to all the circumstances of the case in e&ercise of the utmost diligence of a $er' cautious person

The failure to transport petitioners safel' from 2a$ao to @anila "as due to the sk'%acking incident# all members of the @FLF# "ithout an' connection "ith pri$ate respondent# hence# independent of the "ill of either the PAL or of its passengers

)nder normal circumstances# PAL might ha$e foreseen the sk'%acking incident "hich could ha$e been a$oided had there been a more thorough frisking of passengers and inspection of baggages as authori8ed b' R A Fo C<J/ But the incident in +uestion occurred during @artial La" "here there "as a militar' takeo$er of airport securit' including the frisking of passengers and the inspection of their luggage preparator' to boarding domestic and international flights

Facts:

Plaintiffs Franklin : :acal and his "ife# Cora8on @ :acal along "ith three others "ere then passengers boarding defendant4s BAC ---- at 2a$ao Airport for a flight to @anila# not kno"ing that on the same flight "ere members of the @FLF armed "ith grenades and pistols

The securit' checks and measures and sur$eillance precautions in all flights# including the inspection of baggages and cargo and frisking of passengers at the 2a$ao Airport "ere performed and rendered solel' b' militar' personnel "ho under appropriate authorit' had assumed e&clusi$e %urisdiction o$er the same in all airports in the Philippines

Ten minutes after takeoff# the @FLF announced the hi%acking of the aircraft and directed its pilot to fl' to Lib'a !ith the pilot e&plaining to them of the fuel limitations of the plane# the hi%ackers directed the pilot to fl' to Sabah So the' landed in Pamboanga Airport to refuel

Gther"ise stated# these e$ents rendered it impossible for PAL to perform its obligations in a nominal manner and ob$iousl' it cannot be faulted "ith negligence in the performance of dut' taken o$er b' the Armed Forces of the Philippines to the e&clusion of the former

At the Pamboanga Airport# there ensued hostilities bet"een the militar' and the hi%ackers As a result of such faceoff# the "i$es of :acal and Anislag suffered in%uries Se$eral

S$!T'+RN , N+S VS CA 2GCTR(F*:(F T1* FACT GF (@PRGP*R PACK(F: (S KFG!F TG T1* CARR(*R GR 1(S S*R;AFTS# GR APPAR*FT )PGF GR2(FAR3 GBS*R;AT(GF# B)T (T ACC*PTS T1* :GG2S FGT!(T1STAF2(F: S)C1 CGF2(T(GF# (T (S FGT R*L(*;*2 GF L(AB(L(T3 FGR LGSS GR (F9)R3 R*S)LT(F: T1*R*FRG@

Fo"# plaintiffs are claiming for damages a$erring that PAL e&ercised negligence# finding basis on its breach of contract of carriage There "as a failure to frisk the

FACTS:

therefrom - The Cit' of (loilo re+uisitioned for rice from the Fational Rice and Corn Corporation ,FAR(C0 - FAR(C shipped -#.<C sacks of rice consigned to the Cit' of (loilo on board of SS :eneral !right belong to Southern Lines - The Cit' of (loilo recei$ed the shipment and paid the amount stated in the bill of lading ,around Php CJK0 - 1o"e$er# at the bottom of the bill of lading# it "as noted that Cit' of (loilo recei$ed the merchandise in the same condition as "hen shipped# e&cept that it recei$ed onl' -#CB/ sacks - )pon actual "eighing# it "as disco$ered that the shortage "as e+ual to D- sacks of rice - Thus# the Cit' of (loilo filed a complaint against FAR(C and Southern Lines for the reco$er' of the $alue of the shortage of the shipment of rice ,Php C#DBC J/0 - The lo"er court absol$ed FAR(C but sentenced Southern Lines to pa' the amount - CA affirmed - 1ence# this petition for re$ie" - Southern Lines claims e&emption from liabilit' b' contending that the shortage in the shipment of rice "as due to such factors as shrinkage# leakage or spillage of the rice on account of the bad condition of the sacks at the time it recei$ed the same and negligence of the agents of Cit' of (loilo in recei$ing the shipment (SS)*S: - !hether Southern Lines is liable for the loss or shortage of the rice shipped 3*S - !hether the Cit' of (loilo is precluded from filing an action for damages on account of its failure to present a claim "ithin <D hours from receipt of the shipment as stated in the bill of lading FG 1*L2: - 3*S The SC held that the contention of Southern Lines "ith respect to the improper packing is untenable )nder Art JC- of the Code of Commerce# the carrier# in order to free itself from liabilit'# "as onl' obliged to pro$e that the damages suffered b' the goods "ere 6b' $irtue of the nature or defect of the articles 7 )nder Art JC<# the plaintiff# in order to hold the defendant liable# "as obliged to pro$e that the damages to the goods is b' $irtue of their nature# occurred on account of its negligence or because the defendant did not take the precaution adopted b' careful persons (t held that if the fact of improper packing is kno"n to the carrier or his ser$ants# or apparent upon ordinar' obser$ation# but it accepts the goods not"ithstanding such condition# it is not relie$ed of liabilit' for loss or in%ur' resulting - FG The SC noted that Southern Lines failed to plead this defense in its ans"er to Cit' of (loilo4s complaint and# therefore# the same is deemed "ai$ed and cannot be raised for the first time The SC also cited the finding of the CA that Cit' of (loilo filed the action "ithin a reasonable time5 that the action is one for the refund of the amount paid in e&cess# and not for damages or the reco$er' of shortage5 the bill of lading does not at all limit the time for the filing of action for the refund of mone' paid in e&cess

)an.on vs. CA

Petitioner :an8on failed to sho" that the loss of the scrap iron due to an' cause enumerated in Art -.JD The order of the acting @a'or did not constitute $alid authorit' for petitioner to carr' out (n an' case# the inter$ention of the municipal officials "as not of a character that "ould render impossible the fulfillment b' the carrier of its obligation The petitioner "as not dul' bound to obe' the illegal order to dump into the sea the scrap of iron @oreo$er# there is absence of sufficient proof that the issuance of the same order "as attended "ith such force or intimidation as to completel' o$erpo"er the "ill of the petitioner4s emplo'ees

By the delivery made during Dec. 1, 1956, the scraps were unconditionally placed in the possession and control of the common carrier, and upon their receipt by the carrier of transportation, the contract of carriage was deemed perfected. Conse uently, !an"on#s e$traordinary responsibility for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods commenced. %ccording to %rt 1&'(, such e$traordinary responsibility would cease only upon the delivery by the carrier to the consignee or persons with right to receive them. )he fact that part of the shipment had not been loaded on board did not impair the contract of transportation as the goods remained in the custody * control of the carrier.