Shipping Co. v. Pioneer Asia Ins.)

Transportation Law
The question must be determined by the character of the

Definition of Common Carrier business actually carried on by the carrier, not by any
secret intention or mental reservation it may entertain or
A “common carrier” is a person, corporation, firm or assert when charged with the duties and obligations that
association, engaged in the business of carrying or the law imposes”. (Sps. Teodoro and Nanette Perena vs.
transporting passengers and/or goods, by land, water, or Sps. Nicolas and Teresita Zarate, PNR, et. al.)
air, for compensation, offering their services to the
public. (Art. 1732, Civil Code). Contributory Negligence and its effect on the liability of
negligent party
One engaged in the business of transporting goods by
land, through its trucking service, is a common carrier, Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the
as distinguished from a private carrier wherein the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm
carriage is generally undertaken by special agreement he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which
and it does not hold itself out to carry goods for the he is required to conform for his own protection.
general public. Also, a customs broker where the (Sealoader Shipping Corp. vs. Grand Cement Mfg.
transportation o goods is an integral part of its business, Corp., et. al., G.R. No. 167363 Dec. 15, 2010)
is also regarded as a common carrier (Loadmaster
Shipping Co. v. Pioneer Asia Ins.) When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover
Difference between a common carrier and a private damages. But if his negligence was only contributory,
carrier the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being
the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may
A private carrier is one who, without making the activity recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the
a vocation, or without holding himself or itself out to the damages to be awarded. (Art. 2179, New Civil Code)
public as ready to act for all who may desire his or its
services, undertakes, by special agreement in a particular To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it
instance only, to transport goods or persons from one must be shown that he performed an act that brought
place to another either gratuitously or for hire. about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an
impending danger to health and body. To prove
In contrast, a common carrier is a person, corporation, contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish
firm or association engaged in the business of carrying a causal link, although not proximate, between the
or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. In a
water, or air, for compensation, offering such services to legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it
the public. (Sps. Teodoro and Nanette Perena vs. Sps. contributes proximately to the injury, and not simply a
Nicolas and Teresita Zarate, PNR, et. al.) condition for its occurrence. (Al Dela Cruz vs. Capt.
Octa Viano)
Significance of distinguishing common carrier from
private carrier Doctrine of Vicarious Liability
Distinguishing common carrier from private carrier is The principle of vicarious liability in transportation law
necessary in order to determine: presupposes that when an injury is caused by the
1) Determine the law applicable to the negligence of a servant or employee, there instantly
case; arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on
2) Standard of diligence required of the the part of the master or employer either in the selection
carrier; and of the servant or employee (culpa in eligiendo) or in the
3) Burden of proof applicable to the case. supervision over him after the selection (culpa
(National Steel Corp. vs. Court of vigilando), or both. (Mariano Mendoza and Elvira Lim
Appeals) vs. Sps. Gabriel Gomez G.R. No. 160110, June 18,
2014)
True test if a transport carrier is a common carrier
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
The true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or
extent of the business actually transacted, or the number The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where
and character of the conveyances used in the activity, both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is
but whether the undertaking is a part of the activity appreciably later in point of time than that of the other,
engaged in by the carrier that he has held out to the or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
general public as his business or occupation. If the negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident,
undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of the the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
general business or occupation engaged in, as advertised impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with
and held out to the general public, the individual or the the consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently,
entity rendering such service is a private, not a common, the rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person
carrier. does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the
supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last prudence in the vigilance over the
fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the movables transported;
exercise of due diligence. (Greenstar Express, Inc. v. 5) That the common carrier shall not be
Universal Robina Corp.) responsible for the acts or omission of his
or its employees;
The following are causes which may exempt a common 6) That the common carrier's liability for acts
carrier from liability for loss or damage to cargoes: committed by thieves, or of robbers who
do not act with grave or irresistible threat,
1. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or violence or force, is dispensed with or
other natural disaster or calamity; diminished;
2. Act of the public enemy in war, 7) That the common carrier is not responsible
whether international or civil; for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of
3. Act of omission of the shipper or goods on account of the defective
owner of the goods; condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane
4. The character of the goods or defects in or other equipment used in the contract of
the packing or in the containers; carriage. (Art. 1745, New Civil Code)
5. Order or act of competent public
authority. (Art. 1734, New Civil Code) In case of loss of earning capacity due to the negligence
of the common carrier, how should the indemnity be
Will the presence of natural disasters free the carrier computed?
from liability for loss or damaged goods?
Net Earning Capacity is computed as follows:
No. In order that the common carrier may be exempted
from responsibility, the natural disaster must have been Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual Income — Living
the proximate and only cause of the loss. “Else stated, for Expenses (50% of gross annual income)
a common carrier to be absolved from liability in case of
force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was
caused by a fortuitous event. The common carrier must *Life expectancy is (2/3 x the age of the deceased)
still prove that it did not contribute to the occurrence of
the incident due to its own or its employees' negligence”. (Sanico v. Colipano, G.R. No. 209969, September
(Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Napoleon Sesante, et. al.) 27, 2017)
Registered Owner Rule Moral damages in breach of contract of carriage
The Registered-Owner Rule states that the registration of Moral damages arising from breach of contract of
motor vehicles was necessary "not to make said carriage may be awarded only in cases where:
registration the operative act by which ownership in
vehicles is transferred, but to permit the use and
1) an accident results in the death of a passenger;
operation of the vehicle upon any public highway. Its
"main aim is to identify the owner so that if any accident or
happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the 2) the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith.
vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor
can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered (Darines v. Quiñones citing Article 1764 in relation
owner. (Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. vs. to Article 2206(3) and Article 2220 of the Civil
Ermilinda R. Abejar, citing Erezo, et al. v. Jepte) Code)
Stipulations that are considered void Warsaw Convension — Limitation of Liability
Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be Liability to Passengers

considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public
policy: GR: The carrier shall be liable for 250, 000 francs for
each passenger.
1) That the goods are transported at the risk
of the owner or shipper; XPN: By special contract, the carrier and the passenger
2) That the common carrier will not be liable may agree to a higher limit of liability (Art. 22, WC).
for any loss, destruction, or deterioration
of the goods; Liability for Checked Baggage
3) That the common carrier need not observe
any diligence in the custody of the goods; GR: Two hundred and fifty (250) francs per kilogram
4) That the common carrier shall exercise a
degree of diligence less than that of a good XPN: The passenger or consignor has made, at the time
father of a family, or of a man of ordinary when the package was handed over to the carrier, a
special declaration of interest in delivery at destination
and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so
requires.
Defenses against limit of liability
1. Willful misconduct;
2. Gross negligence;
3. Absence of baggage check;
4. If there was waiver on the part of the carrier; and
5. If the carrier is estopped from invoking the provision
on limit of liability.
Kabit System
It is an arrangement whereby a person who has been

granted a certificate of public convenience allows other
persons who own motor vehicles to operate them under
his license, sometimes for a fee or percentage of the
earnings.
Although the parties to such an agreement are not

outrightly penalised by the law, the kabit system is
invariably recognised as being contrary to public policy
and therefore void and inexistent nuder Article 1409 of
the Civil Code (Lim vs. CA).
The registered owner is liable for culpa contractual or

culpa aquiline, as the case may be. Although registered
owner is always liable, nevertheless the actual operator
can be held solidarily liable with the owner as joint
tortfeasors.

Shipping Co. v. Pioneer Asia Ins.)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shipping Co. v. Pioneer Asia Ins.)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shipping Co. v. Pioneer Asia Ins.)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Law

The question must be determined by the character of the

Registered Owner Rule Moral damages in breach of contract of carriage

Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be Liability to Passengers

Defenses against limit of liability

It is an arrangement whereby a person who has been

Although the parties to such an agreement are not

The registered owner is liable for culpa contractual or

You might also like