TRANSPORTATION LAW BAR QUESTIONS 1986

Topic: Liability of Common Carriers

Question No. 1:
Pasahero, a paying passenger boarded a Victory Liner bus bound for
Olongapo. He chose a seat at the front near the bus driver. Pasahero told the
bus driver that he had valuable items in his bag which was placed near his
feet. Since he had not slept 24 hours, he requested the driver to keep an eye
on the bag should he doze off during the trip.
(a) While Pasahero was asleep, another passenger took the bag
away and alighted at Guagua, Pampanga. Is Victory Liner liable to
Pasahero? Explain.
(b) Supposing the two armed men staged a hold-up while the bus was
speeding along the North Expressway. One of them pointed a gun
at Pasahero and stole not only his bag but his wallet as well. Is
Victory Liner liable to Pasahero? Explain.
(c) There have been incidents of unknown persons throwing stones at
passing vehicles form the overpasses in the North Expressway.
While the bus was traversing the superhighway, a stone hurled
from the Sto. Domingo overpass smashed the front windshield and
hit Pasahero in the face. Pasahero lost an eye and suffered other
injuries. Can Pasahero hold the bus company liable for damages?
Explain.
Answer:
(a) The responsibility of common carriers in the case of loss and damage to
hand-carried baggage is governed by the rule on necessary deposits
under the Civil Code. The common carrier is thus liable for the loss of the
personal property caused by its employees or by strangers unless the
loss of the property proceeded from force majure and that is when the act
of the thief was done with the use of arms or irresistible force.
(b) The use of arms (in the staging of the holdup) is force majeure under the
rule on necessary deposits. Accordingly, Pasahero may not hold Victory
Liner liable.
(c) Article 1763 provides that a common carrier is responsible for injuries
suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of
other passengers or of strangers, if the common carriers employee
through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could
have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In this case, Pasahero
can hold the bus company liable because of its failure to exercise utmost
diligence. Since incidents of stone-throwing had earlier been known, it
behooved upon the common carrier to warn its passengers against
seating themselves close to the windshield or to provide other
precautionary measures for its passengers.

TRANSPORTATION LAW BAR QUESTIONS 1986

Topic: Liability of the Vessels Owner and Captain
Question No. 2:
The vessel M/V Sweet Perceptions, commanded by Kapitan, its captain, has
unloaded goods at a private wharf in Naval, Leyte, when the ship bumped the
wharf of the pier causing it to collapse into the sea. It turned out that Kapitan
failed to drop the vessels bow anchors and to fasten the vessel properly to
the pier. The vessel was pushed by the combined action of the currents in the
Biliran Island Stait and the usual southwest monsoon winds of the season. As
a result, Pantalan, the owner of the wharf, lost not only the wharf but also the
goods that had just been unloaded on the pier pending their delivery to him.
Pantalan sued both the owner of the M/V Sweet Perceptions and Kapitan for
the loss of the cargoes and the destruction of the wharf of the peir. The
vessels owner, who is in Manila, states that he exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of Kapitan.
Can the vessels owner and Kapitan be held liable for the loss of the wharf
and the cargoes? Explain.

Answer:
The vessels owner is not liable for the loss of or damage to the wharf but he
can be held liable for the loss of the cargo. The cause of action in the loss of
or damage to the wharf is one of culpa acquiliana where due diligence in the
selection and supervision of employees is valid defense against liability. That
defense, however, is not available for the loss of the cargo since the cause of
action is one of culpa contractual (the goods had not yet been delivered to the
consignee).

TRANSPORTATION LAW BAR QUESTIONS 1986

Topic: Public Service Regulations
Question No. 3:
Mr. Mangasiwa applied for a certificate of public convenience to operate five
jeepneys form the batasang Pambansa area to Cubao, Quezon City. The
application was opposed by Hallelujah Transit and Kingdom Bus Co., which
were already serving the area. They invoke the prior or old operator rule in
their opposition. Mangasiwa, in turn, invoked the prior applicant rule.
Discuss the prior or old operator rule and the limitations or provisos on its
application. In case of conflict between the prior applicant rule, which rule
shall prevail? Explain.

Answer:
The prior or old operator rule allows an existing franchise operator to invoke
preferential right to render public service within the authorized territory as long
as long as he does so satisfactorily and economically. In case of conflict
between the prior or old operator rule and the prior applicant rule, the
former will apply as long as again the operator is able to render satisfactorily
and economically service.

TRANSPORTATION LAW BAR QUESTIONS 1986

Topic:
Question No. 4:
Sumakay, a passenger on a bus owned and operated by Kanlungan Bus
Company suffered serious injuries when the vehicle went out of control and
rammed an electric post. Tsuper, the bus driver, was, at the time of accident,
doing 100 kilometers per hour in a school zone and hit the post because he
was trying to avoid hitting school children crossing the street.
In a suit for damages against the bus company for the drivers gross
negligence, Kanlungan interposed the defenses that all its drivers were under
strict injunction to observe speed limits in their particular routes and that in
any event, the driver should first have been sued, held liable, and fouled
insolvent before Kanlungan could be proceeded against.
Are the bus companys defenses tenable? Explain.
Answer:
I beg to qualify my answer. As far as the first defense is concerned, it is
submitted that said defense is untenable. This is clearly stated by the Civil
Code itself. In this jurisdiction, we have never adhered to the principle of
respondent superior. We adhere instead to the principle that there is always
an implied duty on the part of a common carrier to carry passenger safely to
his place of destination. Anent the second defense, if the civil action for
damages is impliedly instituted in the criminal action itself, the, the defense is
tenable. Under the principle of subsidiary liability of employers, it is essential
that there must be a finding that the driver is insolvent before the bus
company can be proceeded against. However, if the civil action for damages
is separated from the criminal action, then, the defense is untenable. Under
the civil code, the liability of the bus company is always directed and primary.
The bus company, if sued based on culpa contractual, cannot raise the
defense of diligence in the supervision of its employees. The mere fact that
there was a breach of contract of carriage makes the company liable for
damages.