SINGAPORE VS.

FERNANDEZ

FACTS:

The herein respondent Andion Fernandez is an acclaimed soprano here in

the Philippines and abroad. She was invited to sing before the Royal Family of Malaysia. For
this singing engagement, an airline passage ticket was purchased from the herein petitioner
Singapore Airlines Limited which would transport her to Manila
from Frankfurt, Germany. From Manila, she would proceed to Malaysia on the next day.[4] It
was necessary for the respondent to pass by Manila in order to gather her wardrobe; and to
rehearse and coordinate with her repertoire for the aforesaid performance.
When the aircraft left Germany, it arrived in Singapore two hours late. By then, the
aircraft bound for Manila had left as scheduled, leaving the respondent stranded in
the Singapore Airport.
Andion made several attempts with Singapore Airlines to transport her to Manila, but to
no avail. Instead, she was treated rudely by the personnel of the Airline. Were it not for her
efforts to contact her mother in Manila, she would have spent her night in the Airport.
Eventually, she never made it to Manila and was forced to take a direct flight
from Singapore to Malaysia. Also, Andion’s mother had to travel to Malaysia to bring the
former’s wardrobe and personal things needed for the performance that caused them to
incur expenses.
As a result of this incident, the respondent’s performance in Malaysia was below
par. Because of the rude and unkind treatment she received from the petitioners personnel
in Singapore, the respondent was engulfed with fear, anxiety, humiliation and
embarrassment causing her to suffer mental fatigue and skin rashes. She was thereby
compelled to seek immediate medical attention upon her return to Manila for acute
urticaria.[12]
The petitioner airline alleged that it exercised the extraordinary diligence required by
law and that the delay of the aircraft in arriving in Singapore was due to a fortuitous event
which was beyond its control. It further contended that it did not act in bad faith because its
personnel were very accommodating to the needs and interests of the passengers including
the respondent. That it was respondent’s choice not to accept its offer of free hotel
accommodation and flight booking for the next day.
The RTC rendered in favour of respondent which was affirmed by the CA.
Thus, this instant petition for review.

ISSUES:
 1. Whether or not Singapore Airlines Limited breached its contract of carriage with
Andion Fernandez, its passenger;
2. Whether or not the delay of the Aircraft in arriving in Singapore was due to a
fortuitous event;
3. Whether or not Singapore Airlines Limited acted in bad faith when its employees did
not accord its passenger, Andion Fernandez, the attention and treatment warranted
to every passenger.

HELD:
On the first issue, the Court held that Singapore Airlines Limited breached its contract of
carriage with Andion Fernandez, its passenger.
When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a particular flight on a
certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The passenger then has every right to expect that
he be transported on that flight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens
itself to a suit for a breach of contract of carriage.[19]
In an action for breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to
prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that is necessary to prove is
the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier.[21]
In the case at bar, Andion had a contract of carriage with Singapore Airline as confirmed
by the tickets it issued to the former. Since the petitioner did not transport the respondent
as covenanted by it on said terms, the petitioner clearly breached its contract of carriage
with the respondent. The respondent had every right to sue the petitioner for this breach.
On the second issue, the delay of the aircraft in arriving in Singapore was not a
fortuitous event.
Petitioner was not without recourse to enable it to fulfill its obligation to transport the
respondent safely as scheduled as far as human care and foresight can provide to her
destination. Tagged as a premiere airline as it claims to be and with the complexities of air
travel, it was certainly well-equipped to be able to foresee and deal with such situation. But
the petitioner was indifferent and negligent by its absence and insensitivity to its
passengers.
The petitioner should have diligently communicated to its passengers the consequences
of the delay in their flights.
When a passenger contracts for a specific flight, he has a purpose in making that choice
which must be respected. This choice, once exercised, must not be impaired by a breach on
the part of the airline without the latter incurring any liability.[25]
On the issue of bad faith, the Court was convinced that petitioner acted so.
 Bad faith means a breach of known duty through some motive of interest or ill will. Self-
enrichment or fraternal interest, and not personal ill will, may well have been the motive;
but it is malice nevertheless.[26]
The inattentiveness and rudeness of petitioner’s personnel to respondent’s plight was
gross enough amounting to bad faith.

Dangwa vs. CA

FACTS:

The herein petitioner Theodore M. Lardizabal was driving a passenger bus belonging
to petitioner Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. , in a reckless and imprudent manner and
without due regard to traffic rules and regulations and safety to persons and property, it ran
over its passenger, Pedrito Cudiamat. However, instead of bringing Pedrito immediately to
the nearest hospital, the said driver, in utter bad faith and without regard to the welfare of
the victim, first brought his other passengers and cargo to their respective destinations
before banging said victim to the Lepanto Hospital where he expired.

As a result of the vehicular accident, the herein respondents filed a complaint for
damages against petitioners for the death of Pedrito Cudiamat .

On their contention, petitioners alleged 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. Also, petitioners averred that the victim
was careless and negligent because he did not manifest any intention of boarding the bus.

The RTC rendered a decision in favour of petitioners but was reversed by the CA.

Thus, this instant petition.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the victim Theodore M. Lardizabal was guilty of negligence as a

passenger; and
2. Whether or not Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. exercised extraordinary diligence in
its operation of public transportation of passengers and in the supervision of its
employees.

Held:

On the first issue, the deceased victim was not guilty of negligence. Based on the
records, the victim fell from the platform of the bus when it suddenly accelerated forward
and was run over by the rear tires of the vehicle.

When the bus is not in motion there is no necessity for a person who wants to ride
the same to signal his intention to board. 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. The premature
acceleration of the bus in this case was a breach of such duty.

Further, even assuming that the bus was moving, the act of the victim in boarding the
same cannot be considered negligent under the circumstances. The bus had "just started"
and "was still in slow motion" at the point where the victim had boarded and was on its
platform.
 It is not negligence per se, or as a matter of law, for one attempt to board a train or
streetcar which is moving slowly. An ordinarily prudent person would have made the
attempt board the moving conveyance under the same or similar circumstances.

On the second issue, petitioners did not exercise extraordinary diligence in

transporting their passenger which resulted to the death of Theodore. The premature
acceleration of the bus while the deceased victim was attempting to board the same was
negligence.

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.

The victim herein, by stepping and standing on the platform of the bus, is already
considered a passenger and is entitled all the rights and protection pertaining to such a
contractual relation. Hence, it was held that the duty which the carrier of passengers owes
to its patrons extends to persons, boarding cars as well as to those alighting therefrom.

Moreover, the circumstances under which the driver and the conductor failed to
bring the gravely injured victim immediately to the hospital for medical treatment is a
patent and incontrovertible proof of their negligence. It defies understanding and can even
be stigmatized as callous indifference.
Aboitiz vs. CA

FACTS:

Anacleto Viana boarded the vessel M/V Antonia, owned by herein petitioner Aboitiz
Shipping Corporation, bound for Manila. Said vessel arrived at Manila, and the passengers
therein disembarked including Anacleto Viana. The herein respondent Pioneer Stevedoring
Corporation took over the exclusive control of the cargoes loaded on said vessel pursuant to
the MOA between the Pioneer and petitioner. One hour after the passengers of said vessel
had disembarked, the crane operator started operation by unloading the cargoes from said
vessel. While the crane was being operated, Anacleto who had already disembarked from
said vessel remembered that some of his cargoes were still loaded therein. He went back to
the vessel to get his cargoes but unfortunately he was hit by the crane resulting to his death.

The widow of Anacleto filed a complaint for damages against petitioner for breach of
contract of carriage.

Aboitiz denied responsibility contending that at the time of the accident, the vessel
was completely under the control and supervision of respondent Pioneer which handled the
unloading of cargoes from the vessel of Aboitiz. It is also averred that since the crane
operator was not an employee of Aboitiz, the latter cannot be held liable under the fellow-
servant rule. Further, the victim had already ceased to be a passenger upon disembarkation
from the vessel.

In its answer, Pioneer insisted that it had observed the diligence of a good father of a
family both in the selection and supervision of its employees as well as in the prevention of
damage or injury to anyone including the victim Anacleto Viana. It also alleged that the
proximate cause of the victim’s death was his gross negligence.

The RTC ruled in favour of the Vianas, ordering Aboitiz to pay the former, and
absolving Pioneer from liability. The CA affirmed such finding of the trial court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the relationship of the carrier Aboitiz Shipping Corporation and
passenger Anacleto Viana had already ceased upon the latter’s disembarkation
form the former’s vessel;
2. Whether or not the deceased Anacleto Viana was guilty of contributory negligence
which was the proximate cause of his death; and
3. Whether or not Aboitiz Shipping Corporation exercised extraordinary diligence;

HELD:
 On the first issue, victim Anacleto Viana is still deemed a passenger of Aboitiz
Shipping Corporation at the time of his tragic death.

The rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has
been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel owner's dock or
premises. 11 Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger
has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carrier's conveyance or had a
reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. All persons who remain on the
premises a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and
what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all
the circumstances, and includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for
his departure.12 The carrier-passenger relationship is not terminated merely by the fact that
the person transported has been carried to his destination if, for example, such person
remains in the carrier's premises to claim his baggage.13

The primary factor to be considered is the existence of a reasonable cause as will justify the
presence of the victim on or near the petitioner's vessel. The court believed that there
existed such a justifiable cause. As earlier stated, a carrier is duty bound not only to bring its
passengers safely to their destination but also to afford them a reasonable time to claim
their baggage.

On the second issue, victim Anacleto Viana was found guilty of contributory negligence but
it was not the proximate cause of his death.

On the last issue, Aboitiz Shipping Corporation failed to safeguard its passengers with
extraordinary diligence. It failed to rebut the presumption of negligence against it. The
evidence showed that there were cordon of drums loosely placed around the unloading
area which exposed the deceased to danger. Such existence of danger to life was not
stopped by petitioner by means of taking precautionary measures to prevent entry in the
forbidden area. Thus, such failure to exercise extraordinary diligence was the proximate and
direct cause of the victim’s death.