REGALA, MARY LICEL I.

Whether or not Grab, Uber or Angkas are considered common carriers?

OPPOSITION: Research

 When can one be considered as common carrier?

Art 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, they are bound to
observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
them, according to all the circumstances of each case.” (CC)
Art 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide,
using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.” (CC)

 Nature of Grab, Uber or Angkas

The operator or driver of an Uber or Grab Vehicle is an independent contractor with respect to its passengers. Uber
and Grab are referred to as transportation network companies (TNCs), being “an organization, whether a
corporation, partnership, sole proprietor or other form, that provides pre-ranged transportation services for
compensation using the online-enabled application or platform technology to connect passengers with drivers using
their personal vehicles.” (DOTC Department Order No. 2015-011)
In its January 2017 press release, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) said that
Angkas is “considered as another form of transport network company (TNC).” Angkas is registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as “a software application provider that matches users with third party
service providers like passengers and bikers.”
Under the rules and regulations to govern the accreditation of TNCs: “The TNC shall exercise due diligence and
reasonable care in accrediting drivers. The TNC shall be liable for failure to exercise due diligence and reasonable
care, except if such non-compliance is due to acts or omissions outside of the TNC’s control. However, such liability
shall not extend to actions of drivers, who are independent contractors who provide the transportation service
directly to passengers.” (LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2015-015)

 Comparison of the nature of business of gua and “common carrier” as defined by law:
The liability of the TNC to third parties is limited by the Memorandum Circular no. 2015-015. In the event of an
accident resulting in injury or death or the damage to property of a third party, the driver is accountable for civil and
criminal liability. The Civil Code holds him civilly liable to the heirs of the deceased for the death caused by his
fault or negligence. He is obliged to pay damages to the heirs for the resulting death. Such fault or negligence is
called a quasi-delict or tort.

The TNC and the operator, however is not liable under the Revised Penal Code. The RPC holds the driver
criminally liable to the public at large, represented by the State, for the damage to property or death caused by his
fault or negligence. Such a crime is called reckless imprudence, and is punishable by imprisonment and a fine.
Reckless imprudence consists of voluntarily failing to do, without malice, an act from which material damage or
death results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to
perform such act.

See articles for reference:

 https://divinalaw.com/ride-sharing-apps-government-regulation-amidst-disruptive-technology-3/

 https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/top-gear-philippines/20170501/282007557307375

 https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/amp.rappler.com/move-ph/187903-netizens-ltfrb-reaction-angkas-beat-
traffic
 https://amp.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/road-safety/177014-angkas-crash-accident-passenger-in-coma