When the bus is not in motion there is no necessity for a person who
A. CONCEPT, PARTIES, PERFECTION wants to ride the same to signal his intention to board. A public utility bus,
DANG WA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. vs. CA
The victim herein, by stepping and standing on the platform of the bus, is
already considered a passenger and is entitled to all the rights and
protection pertaining to such a contractual relation. Hence, it has been
held that the duty which the carrier of passengers owes to its patrons
extends to persons boarding the cars as well as to those alighting
therefrom.
FACTS:
Pedro Cudiamat (victim) was trying to board the bus owned by Dangwa
Corp. Inc. while he did so, the bus was at a full stop (as found by the CA
and as was upheld by SC) and it was this precise moment where a
certainMs. Abenoja alighted from the same. He indicated his intention to
board the bus. When he was on board, Cudiamat was closing his umbrella
at the platform of the bus when the latter made a sudden jerk movement
when the driver prematurely stepped on the accelerator and did not wait
for Cudiamat to first secure his seat especially so when the platform of the
bus was at that time slippery and wet because of a drizzle. After the
premature acceleration, Cudiamat fell from the platfrom and was ran over
by the rear right tire of the bus.
So the spouse of Pedrito, together with his heirs sued for damages.
On the other hand, Dangwa Corp. maintained that they had observed and
continued to observe the extraordinary diligence required in the operation
of the transportation company and the supervision of the employees, even
as they add that they are not absolute insurers of the safety of the public
at large. Further, it was alleged that it was the victim's own carelessness
and negligence which gave rise to his own death for lack of an intention to
board the bus.
ISSUE:
Are Dangwa and Theodore liable?
RULING:
YES. By the contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express
obligation to transport the passenger to 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. This is an exception to
the general rule that negligence must be proved, and it is therefore
incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary
diligence.
once it stops, is in effect making a continuous offer to bus riders. The
victim herein, by stepping and standing on the platform of the bus, is
already considered a passenger and is entitled to all the rights and
protection pertaining to such a contractual relation.
B(3) PRIVATE CARRIAGE
FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. GP SARMIENTO
TRUCKING CORPORATION, ET AL
In such a situation, a default on, or failure of compliance with, the
obligation in this case, the delivery of the goods in its custody to the place
of destination - gives rise to a presumption of lack of care and
corresponding liability on the part of the contractual obligor the burden
being on him to establish otherwise.
FACTS:
GP Sarmiento Trucking Corporation (GPS) undertook to deliver 18 units of
Condura SD white refrigerators aboard one of its Isuzu truck, driven by
Lambert Eroles from the plant site of Concepcion Industries Inc. to the
Central Luzon Appliances in Dagupan City.
While the truck was traversing the North diversion road along McArthur
highway in Barangay Anupol, Bamban, Tarlac, it collided with an
unidentified truck causing it to fall into a deep canal, resulting in damage
to the cargoes.
FGU Insurance Corp. (FGU), an insurer of the shipment, paid to
Concepcion Industries, the value of the covered cargoes in the sum of
P204,450. FGU, in turn, being the subrogee of the rights and interests of
Concepcion Industries, Inc., sought reimbursement of the amount it had
paid to the latter from GPS. Since the trucking company failed to heed the
claim, FGU filed a complaint for damages and breach of contract of
carriage against GPS and its driver Lambert Eroles in the RTC.
In its answer, respondents asserted that GPS was the exclusive hauler
only of Concepcion Industries, Inc., since 1988, and it was not so engaged
in business as a common carrier. Respondents further claimed that the
cause of damage was purely accidental.
ISSUE:
1. Whether respondent GPS may be considered as a common carrier
as defined under the law and existing jurisprudence
2. Whether respondent GPS, either as a common carrier or a private
carrier, may be presumed to have been negligent when the goods
 it undertook to transport safely were subsequently damaged while
in its protective custody and possession

RULING:

IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMMON CARRIER.

On the first issue, the Court finds the conclusion of the trial court and the
Court of Appeals to be amply justified. GPS, being an exclusive contractor
and hauler of Concepcion Industries, Inc., rendering or offering its services
to no other individual or entity, cannot be considered a common carrier.
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged
in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by
land, water, or air, for hire or compensation, offering their services to the
public, whether to the public in general or to a limited clientele in
particular, but never on an exclusive basis. The true test of a common
carrier is the carriage of passengers or goods, providing space for those
who opt to avail themselves of its transportation service for a fee. Given
accepted standards, GPS scarcely falls within the term common carrier.

Respondent trucking corporation recognizes the existence of a contract of

carriage between it and petitioners assured, and admits that the cargoes it
has assumed to deliver have been lost or damaged while in its custody. In
such a situation, a default on, or failure of compliance with, the obligation
in this case, the delivery of the goods in its custody to the place of
destination - gives rise to a presumption of lack of care and corresponding
liability on the part of the contractual obligor the burden being on him to
establish otherwise. GPS has failed to do so.

Respondent driver, on the other hand, without concrete proof of his

negligence or fault, may not himself be ordered to pay petitioner. The
driver, not being a party to the contract of carriage between petitioners
principal and defendant, may not be held liable under the agreement. A
contract can only bind the parties who have entered into it or their
successors who have assumed their personality or their juridical position.
Consonantly with the axiom res inter alios acta aliis neque nocet prodest,
such contract can neither favor nor prejudice a third person. Petitioners
civil action against the driver can only be based on culpa aquiliana, which,
unlike culpa contractual, would require the claimant for damages to prove
negligence or fault on the part of the defendant.