1. DEFINE TRANSPORTATION.

In generic terms, transportation, as its etymology indicates, is defined as

a movement if things or persons from one place to another; a carrying
across; and it is immaterial whether the carrying be by rail, by water, or by
air.
In legal parlance, transportation is a contract where a person obligates
himself to transport persons, or property from one place to another for a
consideration.
2. NAME THE PARTIES TO A CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION; DEFINE
EACH.

1. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS
a. common carrier - as persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in

the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land,

water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.

b. passenger2. CARRIAGE OF GOODS

a. shipper
b. carrier- as persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the

business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land,

water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.
3. DEFINE COMMON CARRIERS.(5 pts.)
Article 1732 of the New Civil Code defines common carriers as persons,
corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for
compensation, offering their services to the public.
Based from the statutory provision and jurisprudence on this matter, the
following are the elements for one to constitute a common carrier:
a. Any persons, corporations, firms, or associations;
b. Such persons, corporations, firms, or associations must be
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or
goods or both;
c. The means of carriage or transporting passengers, goods, or both
is by land, water, or air;
d. The carrying or transporting of passengers or goods or both is for
a fee or compensation;
e. The services is offered to the public without distinction.
4. DISTINGUISH EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE FROM DILIGENCE OF A
GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY
DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY
That which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of person, time and place (Art. 1173, Civil Code). This is also called as
Ordinary Diligence or Diligence of a Good Father of the family or Diligence of a
prudent man. This is the diligence required of a private carrier in the carriage of
passengers or goods, or both. This does not create a presumption of negligence on
the part of the private carrier in case of breach of contract of carriage of passengers
or goods or both.

EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE

Under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, extraordinary diligence refers to diligence
required of common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the
passenger transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. The
requirement of extraordinary diligence imposed upon common carriers is restated in
Article 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 due regard for all the circumstances. In case of breach of contract of
carriage of passengers or goods or both, a presumption of negligence attaches on
the common carriers, which can only be rebutted by evidence showing that common
carrier exercised extraordinary diligence in carrying out the contract.

5. DEFINE KABIT SYSTEM

It refers to 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 --- contrary to public policy.
6. DISTINGUISH COMMON CARRIER FROM PRIVATE CARRIER

A common carrier refers to persons, corporations, firms, or associations

engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by
land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public (Article 1732,
New
Civil
Code).
On
the
other
hand,
a
private
carrier
is
a carrier who operates under a particular contract in each case and who may choose w
hether
to accept or
reject any request to carry. In the absence of a special term in the contract, a private ca
rrier probably has no lien over the goods of a consignor.
Distinctions between common carriers and private carriers
COMMON CARRIER
1. person, corporation, firm, association engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers, goods or both, by land, water, air, for compensation,
offering services to the public;
2. must exercise extraordinary diligence according to all the circumstances of such
case, as required by Article 1733 of the Civil Code;
3. he holds himself out as engaged in public service to all persons indifferently;
4. In case of breach of contract of carriage, common carrier is presumed to be
negligent in the carrying
out of the contract;
5. rights and obligations of the parties are subject to the law of common carriers.
PRIVATE CARRIER
1. is not engaged in the business of carrying for the public;
2. requires only ordinary diligence;
3. carries only for persons with whom he has initial contract and assumes no
obligation to carry for
the others;
4. there is no presumption of negligence attaching to the private carrier in case of
breach of contract;
5. rights and obligations of the parties are generally controlled by the agreement of
the parties.

7. MR. A, a junk dealer, was engaged in buying up used bottles and

scrap metal in Butuan City. Upon gathering sufficient quantities of
scrap material, Mr. A would bring such materials to Cagayan de Oro
for resale. He utilized two (2) six wheeler trucks which he owned for
hauling the material to Cagayan de Oro. On the return trip to Butuan
City, Mr. A would load his vehicles with cargo which various
merchants wanted delivered to different establishments in Butuan
and in the process charged freight rates which were commonly lower
than the regular commercial rates. Is Mr. A common carrier?
Yes, Mr A. is a common carrier under Art. 1732 which defines common
carriers as persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the
business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land,
water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.
In De Guzman v. CA, the Court ruled that:
The above article (Article 1732, Civil Code) makes no distinction between
one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or good or
both, and one who does such carrying only as ancillary activity (in local idiom,
sideline). Article 1732xxx avoids making any distinction between a person or
enterprise offering transportation service on a regular baisis and one offering
such service on an occasional, episodic, or unscheduled basis. Neither does it
distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the general public, and
one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the
general population.
Mr. A, albeit primarily a junk dealer, engages in the business of public
transport, and because he satisfies the following requirements:
a. Any persons, corporations, firms, or associations;
b. Such persons, corporations, firms, or associations must be
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or
goods or both;
c. The means of carriage or transporting passengers, goods, or both
is by land, water, or air;
d. The carrying or transporting of passengers or goods or both is for
a fee or compensation;
e. The services is offered to the public without distinction;
he is a common carrier.
8. Mr. X boarded a Rural Tours Bus bound for Butuan City bringing with
him 20 kilos of firecrackers which he bought in Cagayan de Oro City.
When asked by the Bus conductor at the Agora Bus Terminal as to
the contents of the box he said that it was used clothing.
Unfortunately, at the Balingoan Bus Terminal, the firecracker
exploded injuring several bus passengers as well as other bystanders
at the terminal. All the injured passengers filed a case against the
Bus Company under Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code? If you
were the lawyer for the Bus Company, how would you defend the
company?
Rural Tours cannot be held liable for the injuries inflicted to the other passengers
due to the explosion of the firecrackers. The extraordinary diligence required of a
common carrier under Article 1733 shall be according to all circumstances of each

case. In fact, Article 1755 repeats this same qualification: "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 due regard for all the
circumstances."
The defense that the company may avail of is the fact of inspection made by the
conductors on the cargoes by the passenger and the conductors reliance on the Mr. Xs
representation that what was contained by the box are only clothes, when in fact
firecrackers were inside. Fairness demands that allowance must be given to the
reliance that should be reposed on the sense of responsibility of all the passengers in
regard to their common safety. It is to be presumed that a passenger will not take with
him anything dangerous to the lives and limbs of his co-passengers, not to speak of his
own. Not to be lightly considered must be the right to privacy to which each passenger
is entitled. He cannot be subjected to any unusual search, when he protests the
innocuousness of his baggage and nothing appears to indicate the contrary, as in this
case. In other words, inquiry may be verbally made as to the nature of a passenger's
baggage when such is not outwardly perceptible, but beyond this, constitutional
boundaries are already in danger of being transgressed. (Nocum v. Laguna Tayabas
Bus Company, G.R. No. L-23733, October 31, 1969) This is the exact case.
Please read the full text.

9. Mr. A boarded a multicab from Nasipit to Butuan owned and

operated by Mr. X when he was stabbed and injured by the driver, Mr.
Y. Mr. A filed a case against Mr. X for damages. Mr. X claimed that the
injury was a fortuitous event for which he, as a carrier, was not
liable. Is Mr. X correct? Explain.
No, Mr. X is not correct. In the case of Maranan v. Perez (20 SCRA 412), the court
ruled that when the stabbing and killing of the passenger took place in the course of
duty of the guilty employee and when the employee was acting within the scope of
his duties, the common carrier is liable. As provided under Article 1759, common
carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or
willful acts of the formers employees, although such employees may have acted
beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common
carriers.
It is the carriers strict obligation to select its drivers and similar employees with
due regard not only to technical competence but also to their total personality, their
behavior, and their moral fiber.
In this case, Mr. X being the carrier, it is imcumbent upon him to prove the foregoing.
Absent any strong evidence to show diligence in selection and supervision of
employees, he is liable for the injuries inflicted by his driver upon the passenger
during the carrying out of the contract of carriage.

10. Mr. Pakyaw was an operator of Pacman bus being driven by Onyok
Espinosa. One morning, Mr. Meweder boarded the Pacman bus and
seated himself on the left side occupying the third seat with his left
arm resting on the railing of the window. While the bus stopped on
the right side to pick up passenger, Mr. Meweder cried in pain
because his left hand was hit by an oncoming truck that was
speeding from the opposite direction. Mr. Meweder filed a case
against the Pacman bus. If you were the judge, how would you rule
on the issue?
The question that arises in this case is: Has defendant Pacman Bus driven by
Onyok Espinosa observed extraordinary diligence or the utmost diligence of every

cautious person, having due regard for all circumstances, in avoiding the collision
which resulted in the injury caused to the plaintiff?
It is believed that the answer is in the affirmative.
The fact shows that Mr. Pakyaw seated himself on the left side thereof resting his
left arm on the window sill but with his left elbow outside the window, this being his
position in the bus when the collision took place. It is for this reason that the collision
resulted in the injury of said left arm from the body of appellant thus doing him a
great damage. It is therefore apparent that appellant is guilty of contributory
negligence. Had he not placed his left arm on the window sill with a portion thereof
protruding outside, perhaps the injury would have been avoided as is the case with
the other passenger. It is to be noted that appellant was the only victim of the
collision. (Isaac v. A.L. Ammen Transportation Co., G.R. No. L-9671, August
23, 1957)
It is true that such contributory negligence cannot relieve appellee of its liability but will
only entitle it to a reduction of the amount of damage caused (Article 1762, new Civil
Code), but this is a circumstance which further militates against the position taken by
appellant in this case.
It is the prevailing rule that it is negligence per se for a passenger on a railroad
voluntarily or inadvertently to protrude his arm, hand, elbow, or any other part of
his body through the window of a moving car beyond the outer edge of the
window or outer surface of the car, so as to come in contact with objects or
obstacles near the track, and that no recovery can be had for an injury which but
for such negligence would not have been sustained. (10 C. J. 1139)
Plaintiff, (passenger) while riding on an interurban car, to flick the ashes, from his
cigar, thrust his hand over the guard rail a sufficient distance beyond the side
line of the car to bring it in contact with the trunk of a tree standing beside the
track; the force of the blow breaking his wrist. Held, that he was guilty of
contributory negligence as a matter of law. (Malakia vs. Rhode Island Co., 89 A.,
337.)