Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
4. The transportation must be for hire. Parties may not Parties may limit the
NOTE: A common carrier is not an absolute In this case, the petitioner failed to
insurer of all risks of travel. overcome, not only the presumption,
TRANSPORTATION LAW
but more importantly, the private
respondent's evidence, proving that the Ø LOADSTAR SHIPPING vs. CA GR 131621
carrier's negligence was the proximate
cause of the loss of his baggage. Loadstar was at fault or negligent in not
maintaining a seaworthy vessel and in
Ø NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY having allowed its vessel to sail despite
vs. CA 164 scra 593 knowledge of an approaching typhoon.
In any event, it did not sink because of
Under the provisions of the Code of any storm that may be deemed as
Commerce, particularly Articles 826 to force majeure, inasmuch as the wind
839, the shipowner or carrier, is not condition in the area where it sank was
exempt from liability for damages arising determined to be moderate. Since it
from collision due to the fault or was remiss in the performance of its
negligence of the captain. Primary liability duties, Loadstar cannot hide behind
is imposed on the shipowner or carrier in the “limited liability” doctrine to
escape responsibility for the loss of the
recognition of the universally accepted
vessel and its cargo.
doctrine that the shipmaster or captain is
merely the representative of the owner
who has the actual or constructive control Ø CALVO vs. UCPB GEN. INSURANCE GR
over the conduct of the voyage. 148496
Both owner and agent should be declared The rule is that if the improper packing
or, in this case, the defect/s in the
jointly and severally liable since the
container, is/are known to the carrier or
obligation which is the subject of the his employees or apparent upon
action had its origin in a fortuitous act and ordinary observation, but he
did not arise from contract. nevertheless accepts the same without
protest or exception notwithstanding
C. STATE REGULATION OF COMMON such condition, he is not relieved of
CARRIERS liability for damage resulting therefrom.
In this case, Calvo accepted the cargo
Ø PAL vs CAB 207 scra 538 without exception despite the apparent
defects in some of the container vans.
The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) has Hence, for failure of Calvo to prove that
the authority to issue Certificate of she exercised extraordinary diligence in
Public Convenience and Necessity, or the carriage of goods in this case or that
Temporary Operating Permit to a she is exempt from liability, the
domestic air transport operator who has presumption of negligence as provided
met the requirements prescribed by under Art. 1735 holds.
law.
Parties
2. Shipper 2. Passenger
3. Consignee
Cause of liability
Duration of liability
Common carriers, from the nature of A Common carrier is bound to carry the passengers
their business and for reasons of public safely as far as human care and foresight can provide,
policy, are bound to observe using utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance due regard for all the circumstances (Art.1755)
over the goods and for the safety of the
passengers transported by them In case of death or injury to passengers, common
according to all the circumstances of carriers are presumed to have been at fault or have
each case.(Art.1735) acted negligently UNLESS they prove that they
observed extraordinary diligence prescribed above.
Reason: As to when and how goods (Art. 1756)
were damaged in transit is a matter
peculiarly within the knowledge of the Reason: The contract between the passenger and the
carrier and its employees. (Mirasol v. carrier imposes on the latter the duty to transport the
Dollar, 53 PHIL 124) passenger safely; hence the burden of explaining
should fall on the carrier.
Mere proof of delivery of goods to a
carrier in good order and the
subsequent arrival of the same goods at
the place of destination in bad order
makes for a prima facie case against the
carrier. (Coastwise Lighterage Corp. v.
CA, 245 SCRA 796)
Defenses
1. Ordinary circumstance: Exercise of 1. Exercise of extraordinary diligence (Art. 1756)
extraordinary diligence (Art. 1735)
2. Caso fortuito
2. Special circumstances:
FA2CO
Req. to be exempt:
NOTE:
TRANSPORTATION LAW
Fire is not considered a natural
disaster or calamity as it arises
almost invariably from some act of
man. (Eastern Shipping Lines Inc.
vs. IAC)
Req. to be exempt:
Valid stipulations
b) Supported by a valuable
consideration other than the service
rendered by the carriers; and
Void stipulations
1. That the goods are transported at the 1. That the goods are transported at the risk of the
risk of the owner or shipper;
common carrier for the safety of passengers imposed
by law by stipulation, by posting of notices, by
2. That carrier will not be liable for any statements on tickets or otherwise. (Art. 1757)
loss, destruction or deterioration of the
goods;
Uriel can sue for breach of contract of 2. An indemnity for loss of Earning
carriage. He was a passenger although he capacity of the
deceased;
(Art.
was being transported gratuitously, 2205)
because he won a free riding pass in a
raffle held by CTC. Damages for Death caused by a crime
or quasi delict is atleast 3,000.00
pesos. Liability for loss of earning
capacity is awarded by the court
NOTE: As accommodation passengers or UNLESS the deceased had no earning
invited guests, defendant as owner and capacity at the time of his death or
driver of the pick- up owes to them merely such loss of earning capacity was not
the duty to exercise reasonable care so that caused by the common carrier. (Art.
they may be transported safely to their 2206)
destination. Thus, "The rule is established
by the weight of authority that the owner 3. Moral damages;
or operator of an automobile owes the duty
to an invited guest to exercise reasonable Amount should be atleast 3,000 pesos.
care in its operation, and not unreasonably It includes physical suffering, mental
TRANSPORTATION LAW
anguish, fright, serious anxiety attack, body that was affected (Spouses Renato
besmirched reputation, wounded Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117103,
feelings, moral shock, social January 21, 1999)
humiliation, and similar injury.
Moral damages in case of breach of
4. Exemplary damages;
contract of transportation
Carrier is not liable for exemplary 1. Where the mishap results in the
damages where there is no proof that it death of the passenger (M. Ruiz
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, Highway Transit, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. L-
oppressive or malevolent manner. 16086, May 29, 1964).
NOTE: In case of death, the plaintiff is 2. Where it is proved that the carrier
entitled to the amount he spent during the was guilty of fraud or bad faith, even
wake and funeral of the deceased. if death does not result (Rex Taxicab
However, it has been ruled that expenses Co. vs. Bautista, GR No. L-15392,
after the burial are not compensable September 30, 1960).
(Victory Liner, Inc. v. Heirs of Andres
Malecdan, G.R. No. 154278). Although the relation of passenger and
carrier is "contractual both in origin and
Damages in Personal Injury Cases nature" nevertheless “the act that breaks
the contract may be also a tort" when said
Personal injury and even death entitles act is done with gross negligence or with
claimant to all medical expenses as well as bad faith (Air France v Carrascoso, G.R. No.
other reasonable expenses that he incurred L-21438, September 28, 1966).
to treat his or his relative’s injuries. Medical
expenses may even include the amount
spent for plastic surgery of the plaintiff or
any procedure to restore the part of the