Cases

Lara v Valencia

Doctrine
Chapter 3- EXTRAODRINARY DILIGENCE
For accommodation passengers or invited guests,
the owner and driver of the vehicle only owes to
them the duty to exercise reasonable care

Delsan Transport v CA

The evidence certificate that show the

seaworthiness of the ship during dry-docking and
inspection by the Philippine Coast Guard will not
negate the presumption of negligence/fault.

Caltex v Sulpicio Lines

For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be

adequately equipped for the voyage and manned
with a sufficient number of competent officers
and crew. Its violation of its implied warranty is a
breach of Article 1755 of the NCC. Caltex is not
at fault for not inspecting into the seaworthiness
of its chartered boat, as it had the right to presume
such.

Negros Navigation v CA (same facts with

Mecenas)

There were 140 more passengers than the limit

allowed by the ship. Had it not been overloaded,
the ship could have avoided the oil tanker despite
the negligence of the latter. For contributory
negligence, carrier is liable for loss of passengers.

Belgian Overseas
Insurance Co.

Chartering

Phil

First

Mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to

common carriers and of their arrival in bad order
at their destination constitutes prima facia case of
fault or negligence. The notation on the Bill of
lading (that the metal envelopes had rust and were
slightly dented) does not negate the fact that
carrier did not exercise due diligence to forestall
or lessen the loss. Proper storage was not made.

Mecenas v CA

There is no off-duty hours for the master of a

vessel at sea. Playing mah-jong constitutes
unacceptable behaviour on the part of the master,
and observance of the route prescribed by
International Rules of the Road will not relieve
him of his negligence. Moreover, the officer-onwatch also failed to inform captain of impending
collision. Carrier is liable for its employees.

Bayasen CA

Proximate cause of the incident was the skidding

of the rear wheels of the jeep and not the
unreasonable speed of the petitioner. Greasy or
slippery roads can cause such and petitioner was
able to attempt to avert the consequences, but the
fortuitous event was inevitable.

Mallari v CA

The collision happened when Mallari overtook a

vehicle in front of it while traversing a curve,
which is punishable under RA 4136, the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code. The driver failed
to see to it that the road is clear, so the proximate
cause of the collision is him. According to Article
21865, a driver is presumed to be negligent if at
the time of the mishap, a traffic regulation is
being violated.

Pestano v Sumayang

The argument that the person on the motorcycle

had given way to the bus driver does not remove
his obligation to slow down when overtaking,
knowing that a junction was near. The defective
speedometer is imputable to the owner of the bus,
and is vicariously liable for the acts of the driver.

Nocum Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v CA

Passenger declared that the fireworks in his box

were clothes. The bus owner is not liable because
there is no circumstances that should cause the
employees to be suspicious of the box carried by
the passenger. This must be the ruling because
carriers are also prohibited from conducting
unusual searches against passengers in respect of
their right to privacy.

Korean Airlines v CA

A waitlist passenger who was entered in the

passenger manifest and allowed to undergo
immigration check is a passenger in all respects.
When the airline informed Lapuz that he was not
going to be able to ride the plane, it was done in a
rude manner by the employees. KAL is liable as
the common carrier.

Philippine Airlines v Court of Appeals

PAL must be responsible for its pilot, who was

already needing medical attention even before. Its
negligence in not giving the pilot medical
attention resulted to his poor judgement and slow
reaction. Nevertheless, PAL must be responsible
for the acts of its employee.

Zalamea v Court of Appeals

Overbooking is not a common and accepted

practice in the United States. The passengers who
paid only 25% of the ticket prices did so because

of the discount, and they cannot be waitlisted just

because there are passengers who paid in full.