SYNTHESIS

A contract of transportation is present when a person obligates himself to transport persons

or property from one place to another for a consideration. A contract of transportation can be a
contract of carriage of goods or a contract of carriage of passengers.
In a contract of carriage off passengers, the parties are the common carrier and the passenger.
A passenger is defined as one who travels in a public conveyance by virtue of contract, express or
implied, with the carrier subject to payment fare or an equivalent thereof.
In the case of Dangwa Transportation vs Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court established
that a public utility bus, once it stops, is in effect making a continuous offer to bus riders. Hence, it
becomes the duty of the driver and the conductor, every time the bus stops, to do no act that would
have the effect of increasing the peril to a passenger while he was attempting to board the same. It is
the duty of common carriers of passengers, including common carriers by railroad train, streetcar,
or motorbus, to stop their conveyances a reasonable length of time in order to afford passengers an
opportunity to board and enter, and they are liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers
resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking of their conveyances while they are doing so. By the
contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express obligation to transport the passenger to his
destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances,
and any injury that might be suffered by the passenger is right away attributable to the fault or
negligence of the carrier.
In the remaining cases, the rules of contract of common carriage are as follows:
A standby passenger status is changed to a confirmed status when his name is entered into
the passenger manifest, as established in the case of Korean Airlines vs Court of Appeals. There is a
perfected contract of carriage between a passenger and an airline if it can be established that the
passenger had checked in at the departure counter, passed through customs and immigration,
boarded the shuttle bus and proceeded to the ramp of the aircraft and that his baggage had already
been loaded in the aircraft to be flown with the passenger to his destination. The contract of air
carriage generates a relation attended with a public duty. Passengers have the right to be treated by
the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to
be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such
employees. So it is that any discourteous conduct on the part of these employees toward a passenger
gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier. Moral damages depend upon the discretion
of the court based on the circumstances of each case. This discretion is limited by the principle that
the "amount awarded should not be palpably and scandalously excessive". Damages are not intended
to enrich the com are awarded only to alleviate the moral suffering that the injured party had
undergone by reason of the defendant's culpable action.
In the case of Light Rail Transit Authority vs Marjorie Navidad, common carriers to carry
passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all
circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not
only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where
they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage. The moment the passenger purchased a
token and was in the place designated for boarding the train with the intention of riding the
oncoming train. In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may
choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm
to undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under
the contract of carriage.

The case of MOF COMPANY Vs SHIN YANG BROKERAGE CORPORATION established that
although the consignee was not a signatory to the contract of carriage between the shipper and the
carrier, becomes a party to the contract by reason of either a) the relationship of agency between the
consignee and the shipper/consignor; b) the unequivocal acceptance of the bill of lading delivered to
the consignee, with full knowledge of its contents or c) availment of the stipulation pour autrui, i.e.,
when the consignee, a third person, demands before the carrier the fulfillment of the stipulation made
by the consignor/shipper in the consignee's favor, specifically the delivery of the goods/cargoes
shipped.

But in the case of EVERRET STEAMSHIP vs COURT OF APPEAL the consignee can still be bound by
the contract even if the consignee was not a signatory to the contract of carriage if it was shown that
he accepted the same and is trying to enforce the agreement. The stipulation in the Bill of Lading or
the limited-liability clause limiting the liability of the carrier is valid as provided under Article 1749
and 1750 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provided such stipulation must be reasonable and just
under the circumstances, and has been freely and fairly agreed upon.