TRANSPORTATION LAW REVIEWER Convert CC to PC

 Public utility – business or service which is engaged in regularly  Home Insurance vs ASA – a CC undertaking to carry a special cargo
supplying the public with some commodity or service of public
or chartered to a special person only becomes a private carrier. A
consequences; implies public use and service to an indefinite public which
stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the negligence of its
has a legal right to demand and receive service.
agent is valid with regards to private carriers.
 Transportation – movement of things or person from one place to another
Bareboat or demise – charterer provides food, fuel, crew
 Police power – basis for State to regulate public utilities but does not Time charter – vessel charter for a period or duration of voyage
extend beyond: Voyage or trip charter – for one or more series of voyage
♠ Regulation of rates and charges Contract of freightage
♠ Prevention of discrimination as to availability of service
♠ Orders the conduct of public utility(safety rules)
 Planters products vs CA – it is only when the charter includes both the
vessel and teh crew, as in a bareboat or demise that a common carrier
 Art XII, 1987 Consti
becomes private, at least insofar as the particular voyage covering the
♠ Sec 11 – issuance of franchise
charter-party is concerned.
♠ Sec 17 – temporarily take over public utility Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC)
♠ Sec 18 – permanent transfer of ownership to public from private
♠ Sec 19 – prohibit monopoly, restraint of trade, and unfair competition  Loadstar vs CA – It is not necessary that a carrier be issued a CPC, and
this character is not altered by the fact that the carriage of goods was
periodic, occasional, episodic, or unscheduled.
COMMON CARRIERS IN GENERAL
Registered owners liability
Liability of Registered Owners
Art. 1732 – Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or  Benedicto vs IAC – Registered owner is liable for the consequences
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers flowing from the operations of the carrier, even though the specific
or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their vehicle involved may already have been transferred to another person.
services to the public. It is presumed that registered owner is actual owner.
 Bascos vs CA – test to determine a CC is WON the given undertaking Art 1765 - The Public Service Commission may, on its own motion or on
petition of any interested party, after due hearing, cancel the certificate of
is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out
public convenience granted to any common carrier that repeatedly fails to
to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or
comply with his or its duty to observe extraordinary diligence as prescribed
extent of the business transacted.
in this Section.
– carriage of goods is an integral part of the business (Calvo v.
UCPB)  Pantranco vs PSC – the right of state to regulate public utilities is
 National Steel vs CA – plaintiff is a private carrier. Its services are founded upon its police power and statutes for the control and
regulation of utilities are a legitimate excuse thereof, for the protection
available only to specific persons who enter into a special contract of
of the public as well as of the utilities themselves.
charter party with its owner.
 First Philippine vs CA – The definition of CC in the civil code does
not make distinctions as to the means of tranportin as long as its by
land, water or air, pipeline operators are considered CC.

TranspoLawReviwer – bgmtinapao2011 1
Art 1733 - Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for
 Ynchausti vs Dexter – without a showing that the loss of damage
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in
suffered by the goods while in the carriers hands for transportation
the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers
resulted from some other cause than its own fault of negligence, CC is
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.
presumed negligent and therefore liable.
 Cangco vs Manila Railroad – failure to perform a contract cannot be Exemption from liability.
excused upon the ground that the breach was due to negligence of a Art 1734 (1) – Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural
servant of the obligor, and that the latter exercised due diligence in the disaster or calamity;
selection and control of servant. Art 1739 – In order that the common carrier may be exempted from
Art 1753 - The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported responsibility, the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only
shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or cause of the loss. However, the common carrier must exercise due
deterioration. diligence to prevent or minimize loss before, during and after the
Art 1766 - In all matters not regulated by this Code, the rights and occurrence of flood, storm or other natural disaster in order that the
obligations of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of common carrier may be exempted from liability for the loss, destruction, or
Commerce and by special laws. deterioration of the goods. The same duty is incumbent upon the common
carrier in case of an act of the public enemy referred to in article 1734, No.
COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS 2
1733 – Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons
 Eastern Shipping Lines vs IAC – Fire cannot be considered a natural
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
disaster or calamity. It does not fall within the category of an act of
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
God unless caused by other natural disaster or calamity. Hence the CC
them, according to all the circumstances of each case.
shall be presumed to have been at fault unless it proves observance of
1734 – Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
extraordinary diligence, which in this case, plaintiff failed to do so.
deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following
causes only:  The natural disaster must have been the (1) proximate and only cause
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or of the loss, and (2) the common carrier must exercise due diligence to
calamity; prevent or minimize loss before, during and after the occurrence
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; of flood, storm or other natural disaster.
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; Art 1740 – If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the transporting the goods, a natural disaster shall not free such carrier from
containers; responsibility.
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.  Philam General Ins vs CA – the cc cannot be for the delay in
1735 – In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of
discharging the cargo for the delay was not due to the negligence of the
the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated,
carrier but to several factors independent from the will of the cc.
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
Art 1734(3) – Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
Art 1741 – If the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss,
required in article 1733.
destruction or deterioration of the goods, the proximate cause thereof being

TranspoLawReviwer – bgmtinapao2011 2
the negligence of the common carrier, the latter shall be liable in damages, authority who is in charge of the security. Hijackers do not board the
which however, shall be equitably reduced. plane through blatant display of firepower, they do it surreptitiously.
 Compania Maritima vs CA – CC is liable for damage caused to
Duration of Liability
ART 1736 – The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts
machinery because it could have been avoided by the exercise of
from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of,
reasonable skill and attention in overseeing the unloading of heavy
and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered,
equipment. The act of the owner contributed to the damage thus it only
actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person
mitigates the liability of the CC.
who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of
Art 1734(4) – The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the
article 1738.
containers;
ART 1737 – The common carrier’s duty to observe extraordinary diligence
Art 1742 – Even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods
in the vigilance over the goods remains in full force and effect even when
should be caused by the character of the goods, or the faulty nature of the
they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, unless the shipper or
packing or of the containers, the common carrier must exercise due
owner has made use of the right of stoppage in transitu.
diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.
ART1738 – The extraordinary liability of the common carrier continues to
 Belgian vs Phil First Ins – Equipped with proper knowledge of the
be operative even during the time the goods are stored in a warehouse of
nature of the goods, the cc should have undertaken precautionary
the carrier at the place of destination, until the consignee has been advised
measures to avoid possible damage. But none was taken. Even if the
of the arrival of the goods and has had reasonable opportunity thereafter to
fact of improper packing was shown, it is not relieved of liability once
remove them or otherwise dispose of them.
it accepts the goods despite its condition.
 Lu Do vs Binamira – Stipulation limiting liability considering the
Art 1734(5) – Order or act of competent public authority
goods have to go through inspection is not contrary to morals or public
Art 1743 – If through the order of public authority the goods are seized or
policy. This is a situation where the carrier loses control of the goods
destroyed, the common carrier is not responsible, provided said public
because of a custom regulation and it is unfair that it be made
authority had power to issue the order.
responsible for any loss or damage that may be caused to the goods
Art 1744(5) – That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts
during the interregnum.
or omission of his or its employees
 Ganzon vs CA – the intervention of municipal officials was not of a
character that would render impossible the fulfilment by the carrier of
Agreement limiting to liability
its obligation. The petitioner was not duty bound to obey the illegal
ART 1744. A stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or
order to dump into the sea the scrap iron. Also, there is absence of
owner limiting the liability of the former for the loss, destruction, or
sufficient proof that the issuance of the same order was attended with
deterioration of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence
such force or intimidation as to completely overpower the will of the
shall be valid, provided it be:
petitioner’s employees.
(1) In writing, signed by the shipper or owner;
Other cases of Force Majeure
(2) Supported by a valuable consideration other than the service
 Quisumbing vs CA – Hijacking is considered force majeure because
rendered by the common carrier; and
no amount of sophisticated technology can prevent truly determined
(3) Reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy.
hijacking from doing so. Also, the airline does not have any say on the
ART 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered
security before the passengers get into the plane. It is the airport
unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:

TranspoLawReviwer – bgmtinapao2011 3
 (1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper; ART 1747. If the common carrier, without just cause, delays the
(2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, transportation of the goods or changes the stipulated or usual route, the
or deterioration of the goods; contract limiting the common carrier’s liability cannot be availed of in case
(3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the of the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods.
custody of the goods; ART 1748. An agreement limiting the common carrier’s liability for delay
(4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less on account of strikes or riots is valid.
than that of a good father of a family, or of a man of ordinary prudence ART 1751. The fact that the common carrier has no competitor along the
in the vigilance over the movables transported; line or route, or a part thereof, to which the contract refers shall be taken
(5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or into consideration on the question of whether or not a stipulation limiting
omission of his or its employees; the common carrier’s liability is reasonable, just and in consonance with
(6) That the common carrier’s liability for acts committed by thieves, public policy.
or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence ART 1752. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the
or force, is dispensed with or diminished; common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is
(7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction, disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss,
or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the destruction or deterioration
car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of Passenger’s baggage
carriage. ART 1754. The provisions of articles 1733 to 1753 shall apply to the
passenger’s baggage which is not in his personal custody or in that of his
employee. As to other baggage, the rules in articles 1998 and 2000 to 2003
As to amount of liability concerning the responsibility of hotel-keepers shall be applicable.
ART 1749. A stipulation that the common carrier’s liability is limited to  Sarkies vs CA – where the common carrier accepted its passenger’s
the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or baggage for transportation and even had it placed in the vehicle by its
owner declares a greater value, is binding. own employee, its failure to collect the freight charge is the common
ART 1750. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner carrier’s own lookout. It is responsible for the consequent loss of the
or shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if baggage.
it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and Delay in delivery of cargo
freely agreed upon.  Mareskline vs CA – While it is true that common carriers are not
 Everette Steamship vs CA – pursuant to 1749 and 1750, it is required obligated by law to carry and to deliver merchandise, and persons are
that the stipulation limiting liability for loss must be reasonable and not vested with the right to prompt delivery unless CC assumes the
just. In this case, Everette does not know the exact value of the goods, obligation to deliver at a given date or time, delivery of shipment or
and the shipper failed to declare value of the goods. Everette is only cargo should at least be made within reasonable time. Delay for a
liable pursuant to clause 18 of the bill of lading. period of 2 months and 7 days falls way beyond the realm of
Presumption of negligence – factors affecting agreement reasonableness. CC is liable for gross negligence amounting to bad
ART 1746. An agreement limiting the common carrier’s liability may be faith.
annulled by the shipper or owner if the common carrier refused to carry the
goods unless the former agreed to such stipulation. COMMON CARRIER OF PASSENGER

TranspoLawReviwer – bgmtinapao2011 4
ART 1733 – extraordinary diligence is required from CC in delivery of  Macawili vs PAB Co. – While it is true that it is not incumbent upon
goods and passengers the passenger to show the negligence of the driver, it is nevertheless
ART 1755 - A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as axiomatic that the driver has the right to prove his prudence and care to
far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of be absolved from liability.
very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. Exception to 1756
 Lasam vs Smith – the accident was not a fortuitous event and was  Sy vs Malate Taxicab – the court need not make an express finding of
cause either by defects in automobile or through the negligence of its fault or negligence on the part of the defendant in order to hold it
driver. Defect in automobile is not considered fortuitous event. responsible if the action initiated is based on a contract of carriage and
 Strong vs Iloilo-Negros Air – Airline is not liable for an accident not on tort.
which rarely happens due to defects in ignition cables since cables are Remedies available:
purchased from a competent and reputable manufacturer. 1. Breach of Contract against CC (ex to 1756)
 Necesito vs Paras – CC are to be held liable to answer for flaws of its 2. Quasi-delict (2176) against owner of V or driver of V – there has
equipment if such defects were discoverable. In this case, CC did not to be finding of facts proving fault or negligence
exercise utmost diligence of a very cautious person in inspecting their 3. Criminal Case (Art 365, RPC) against driver of V with subsidiary
equipment and cannot therefore be held as fortuitous event. CC is liability of owner of V and against driver of CC
liable. Limitations of liability; validity of stipulations
Duration of Responsibility ART 1757. The responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of
Proximate cause – that cause, which in natural and continuous sequence, passengers as required in articles 1733 and 1755 cannot be dispensed with
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and or lessened by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on
without which the result would not have occurred. tickets, or otherwise.
 Bataclan vs Medina – Proximate cause is the overturning of the bus ART 1758. When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting
thus leaking of gasoline is not unexpected. The driver and conductor the common carrier’s liability for negligence is valid, but not for wilful acts
could have warned the men carrying the torches to stand back. By or gross negligence. The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of
failing to do so, the court found them negligent under the NCC the common carrier’s liability.
provision.  Lara vs Valencia – The rule is that an owner of an automobile owes a
 La Mallorca vs CA – relation between carrier and passenger does not guest the duty to exercise ordinary diligence or reasonable care to
cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier’s premises avoid injuring him. The extraordinary diligence imposed on common
 PAL vs CA – the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the carriers is not required.
latter has been landed at the port of destination and has left the carrier’s Responsibility for acts of employees
premises. ART 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to
passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former’s
Presumption of Negligence employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of
ART 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. This
are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they
prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
1733 and 1755. supervision of their employees.

TranspoLawReviwer – bgmtinapao2011 5
ART 1760. The common carrier’s responsibility prescribed in the defendant’s negligence, and plaintiff’s negligence merely contributed
preceding article cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by the to his injury, damages are apportioned. It is not negligent per se for a
posting of notices, by statements on the tickets or otherwise. traveller to alight from a slowly moving train.
 De Gillaco vs MRR – While a passenger is entitled to protection from  Isaac vs AL AMMEN – By placing his left arm on the window, he is
personal violence by the carrier or its agents or employees, the guilty of contributory negligence, and although such cannot relieve the
responsibility of the carrier extends only to those acts the carrier could carrier but only mitigates liability, this is a circumstance which further
foresee or avoid through the exercise of the degree of diligence militates against plaintiff’s position.
required of it. The shooting was therefore a caso fortuito. When the Liability for Quasi-delict
crime took place, Devesa had no duties to discharge since he is off  China Airlines vs CA – All that is required is that employee, by his
duty. His position would be a passenger, a stranger also wanting negligence, committed a quasi-delict which caused damage to another,
transportation and not of an employee assigned to discharge duties. (old and this suffices to hold the employer primarily and solidarily
civil code) responsible for the tortuous act of the employee.
 Maranan vs Perez – the carrier is liable as long as the assault occurs Liability of CC for Injury of Stevedores
within the course of the performance of the employee’s duty. It is no  Sulpicio Lines vs Ca – the stevedores was there with the consent and
defense for the carrier that the act was done in excess of authority or in knowledge of the owner of the vessel. Despite the absence of a
disobedience of carrier’s order. The carrier’s liability is absolute in the passenger-carrier relationship, the patron is liable as a common carrier.
sense that it practically secured the passenger from assaults committed
by its own employees. (new civil code) DAMAGES RECOVERABLE FROM COMMON CARRIERS
Responsibility for acts of strangers; co-passengers ART 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded
ART 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article
passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of
or of strangers, if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of contract by a common carrier.
the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped ART 2197. Damages may be:
the act or omission. (1) Actual or compensatory;
 MRR vs Ballesteros – A common carrier is liable for damages arising (2) Moral;
from the negligence of its driver in allowing another person to drive his (3) Nominal;
vehicle. (4) Temperate or moderate;
Duty of passengers; effect of contributory negligence (5) Liquidated; or
ART 1761. The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a (6) Exemplary or corrective.
family to avoid injury to himself. Actual or Compensatory Damages
ART 1762. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar ART 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to
recovery of damages for his death or injuries, if the proximate cause an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as
thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount of he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or
damages shall be equitably reduced. compensatory damages.
 Cangco v Manila Railroad – In Rakes vs AG & P, the “doctrine of ART 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the
comparative negligence” was discussed. If the accident was caused by obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural
plaintiff’s own negligence, no liability is imposed. If caused by and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the

TranspoLawReviwer – bgmtinapao2011 6
 parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the
obligation was constituted. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.
attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be ART 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish,
reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. (1107a) fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
ART 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the
or omission in question. proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.
ART 2205. Damages may be recovered: ART 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or analogous cases:
permanent personal injury; (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit. (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
ART 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi- (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have (4) Adultery or concubinage;
been mitigating circumstances. In addition: (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of (6) Illegal search;
the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless (8) Malicious prosecution;
the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by (9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death; (10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29,
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the 30, 32, 34, and 35.
provisions of article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred
decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession, may to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse,
demand support from the person causing the death, for a period not descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action
exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court; mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants ART 2220. Wilful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding
of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such
of the death of the deceased. damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract
Moral Damages where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
ART 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi- Exemplary Damages
delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have ART 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of
been mitigating circumstances. In addition: example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral,
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason ART 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award
of the death of the deceased. exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
ART 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated. ART 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right;
the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated.

TranspoLawReviwer – bgmtinapao2011 7
Nominal, temperate, liquidated damages
ART 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
ART 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal
but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court
finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not,
from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.
ART 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a
contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.

TranspoLawReviwer – bgmtinapao2011 8