1|Page

TRANSPORTATION LAW
Case Doctrines
De Guzman vs. Art. 1732 of the Civil Code makes no distinctions between a person or
CA enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis
and such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis.

A certificate of public convenience is not a requisite for the incurring of

liability under the Civil Code provisions governing common carriers.
That liability arises the moment a person or firm acts as a common carrier,
without regard to whether or not such carrier has also complied with the
requirements of the applicable regulatory statute and implementing
regulations and has been granted a certificate of public convenience or
other franchise.

Common carriers, “by the nature of their business and for reasons of
public policy,” are held to a very high degree of care and diligence
(“extraordinary diligence”) in the carriage of goods as well as of
passengers.

Common carriers are not made absolute insurers against all risks of travel
and of transport of goods, and are not held liable for acts or events which
cannot be foreseen or are inevitable, provided that they shall have
complied with the rigorous standard of extraordinary diligence.

Calvo vs. UCPB There is greater reason for holding petitioner to be a common carrier
because the transportation of goods is an integral part of her business.

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of
public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported
by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

To prove the exercise of extraordinary diligence, a customs broker must

do more than merely show the possibility that some other party could be
responsible for the damage. It must prove that it used “all reasonable
means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for
transport and that it exercised due care in the handling thereof.”

If the improper packing or the defects in the container are known to the
carrier or his employees or apparent upon ordinary observation, but he
nevertheless accepts the same without protest or exception
notwithstanding such condition, he is not relieved of liability for damage
resulting therefrom.

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
2|Page

A.F. Sanchez Article 1732 does not distinguish between one whose principal business
Brokerage, Inc. vs. activity is the carrying of goods and one who does such carrying only as
CA an ancillary activity.

The rule is that if the improper packing is known to the carrier or his
employees or is apparent upon ordinary observation, but he nevertheless
accepts the same without protest or exception notwithstanding such
condition, he is not relieved of liability for the resulting damage.

First Philippine A “common carrier” is one who holds himself out to the public as engaged
Industrial in the business of transporting persons or property from place to place,
Corporation vs. for compensation, offering his services to the public generally.
CA
The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is:
1. He must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a
public employment, and must hold himself out as ready to engage in the
transportation of goods for person generally as a business and not as a
casual occupation;
2. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is
confined;
3. He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is
conducted and over his established roads; and
4. The transportation must be for hire.

The definition of “common carriers” in the Civil Code makes no

distinction as to the means of transporting, as long as it is by land, water
or air. It does not provide that the transportation of the passengers or
goods should be by motor vehicle.

FGU Insurance A trucking company which is an exclusive contractor and hauler of

Corporation vs. another company, rendering or offering its services to no other individual
G.P. Sarmiento or entity, cannot be considered a common carrier.
Trucking
Corporation

Crisostomo vs. CA By definition, a contract of carriage or transportation is one whereby a

certain person or association of persons obligate themselves to transport
persons, things, or news from one place to another for a fixed price. Such
person or association of persons are regarded as carriers and are classified
as private or special carriers and common or public carriers.

For reasons of public policy, a common carrier in a contract of carriage

is bound by law to carry passengers as far as human care and foresight
can provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons and with
due regard for all the circumstances.

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
3|Page

There is no fixed standard of diligence applicable to each and every

contractual obligation and each case must be determined upon its
particular facts. The degree of diligence required depends on the
circumstances of the specific obligation and whether one has been
negligent is a question of fact that is to be determined after taking into
account the particulars of each case.

Loadstar Shipping A voyage-charter agreement does not in any way convert a common
Co., Inc. vs. carrier into a private carrier.
Pioneer Asia
Insurance Corp. A public carrier shall remain as such, notwithstanding the charter of the
whole or portion of a vessel by one or more persons, provided the charter
is limited to the ship only, as in the case of a time-charter or voyage-
charter. It is only when the charter includes both the vessel and its crew,
as in a bareboat or demise that a common carrier becomes private, at least
insofar as the particular voyage covering the charter-party is concerned.
Indubitably, a shipowner in a time or voyage charter retains possession
and control of the ship, although her holds may, for the moment, be the
property of the charterer.

Home Insurance The Civil Code provisions on common carriers should not apply where
Co. vs. American the common carrier is not acting as such but as a private carrier.
Steamship
Agencies, Inc. The stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for
loss due to the negligence of its agent would be void only if the strict
public policy governing common carriers is applied. Such policy has no
force where the public at large is not involved, as in the case of a ship
totally chartered for the use of a single party. The stipulation exempting
the owner from liability for the negligence of its agent is not against
public policy and is deemed valid.

Valenzuela As a private carrier, Article 1745 and other Civil Code provisions on
Hardwood and common carriers may not be applied unless expressly stipulated by the
Industrial Supply, parties in their charter party.
Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals In a contract of private carriage, the parties may freely stipulate their
duties and obligations which perforce would be binding on them. Unlike
in a contract involving common carrier, private carriage does not involve
the general public.

As a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability for

the negligence of its agent is not against public policy, and is deemed
valid.

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
4|Page

A charterer, in exchange for convenience and economy, may opt to set

aside the protection of the law on common carriers. When the charterer
decides to exercise this option, he takes a normal business risk.
In the case of a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from
liability even for the negligence of its agent is valid.

Insurance Co. of Both as to the nature of the functions and the place of their performance,
North America vs. the arrastre operator’s services are not maritime. They are no different
Manila Port from those of a depositary or warehouseman. As custodian of the goods
Service received, it is the arrastre operator’s duty like that of any ordinary
depository, to take good care of said goods and to turn the same over to
the party entitled to its possession, subject to such qualification as may
have validly been imposed in the contract between the parties concerned.

Belgian Overseas Well-settled is the rule that common carriers, from the nature of their
Chartering and business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe
Shipping N.V. vs. extraordinary diligence and vigilance with respect to the safety of the
Philippine First goods and the passengers they transport.
Insurance Co., Inc.
The extraordinary responsibility lasts from the time the goods are
unconditionally placed in the possession of and received for
transportation by the carrier until they are delivered, actually or
constructively, to the consignee or to the person who has a right to receive
them.

Owing to the high degree of diligence required of them, common carriers,

as a general rule, are presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the
goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or destroyed. In order to
avoid responsibility for any loss or damage, therefore, they have the
burden of proving that they observed such diligence.

Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier

and of their arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes a prima
facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no adequate
explanation is given as to how the deterioration, the loss or the destruction
of the goods happened, the transporter shall be held responsible.

The exemption provided in Article 1734(4) of the Civil Code refers to

cases when goods are lost or damaged while in transit as a result of the
natural decay of perishable goods or the fermentation or evaporation of
substances liable therefor, the necessary and natural wear of goods in
transport, defects in packages in which they are shipped, or the natural
propensities of animals.

Even if the fact of improper packing was known to the carrier or its crew
or was apparent upon ordinary observation, it is not relieved of liability

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
5|Page

for loss or injury resulting therefrom, once it accepts the goods

notwithstanding such condition.

Light Rail Transit The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the
Authority vs. utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all
Navidad circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its
passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so
long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be
in pursuance to the contract of carriage.

The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or

injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or willful acts of its
employees or b) on account of willful acts or negligence of other
passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the
exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or
omission.

In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault

or been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved
of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its
employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury
is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.

Republic vs. Extraordinary diligence is that extreme measure of care and caution
Lorenzo Shipping which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use for securing
Corporation and preserving their own property or rights; The presumption of fault or
negligence, may be overturned by competent evidence showing that the
common carrier has observed extraordinary diligence over the goods.

Gillaco, et al. vs. While a passenger is entitled to protection from personal violence by the
MRR Co. carrier or its agents or employees, since the contract of transportation
obligates the carrier to transport a passenger safely to his destination, the
responsibility of the carrier extends only to those acts that the carrier
could foresee or avoid through the exercise of the degree of care and
diligence required of it.

Where the crime was committed by a train guard who had no duties to
discharge in connection with the transportation of the victim, the crime
stands on the same footing as if committed by a stranger or co-passenger,
since the killing was not done in line of duty.

Philippine Railroad Companies; Railroad companies owe to the public a duty of

National Railways exercising a reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to persons and
vs. Court of property at railroad crossings, which duties pertain both to the operation
Appeals of trains and to the maintenance of the crossings.

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
6|Page

While it is true that a person driving an automobile must use his faculties
of seeing and hearing when nearing a railroad crossing, the obligation to
bring to a full stop vehicles moving in public highways before traversing
any “through street” only accrues from the time the said “through street”
or crossing is so designated and sign-posted.

The failure of a railroad company to install a semaphore or at the very

least, to post a flagman or watchman to warn the public of the passing
train amounts to negligence.

Marikina Auto Under Section 37 of Republic Act No. 4136, as amended, otherwise
Line Transport known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, motorists are
Corporation vs. mandated to drive and operate vehicles on the right side of the road or
People highway.

Unless a different course of action is required in the interest of the safety

and the security of life, person or property, or because of unreasonable
difficulty of operation in compliance herewith, every person operating a
motor vehicle or an animal-drawn vehicle on a highway shall pass to the
right when meeting persons or vehicles coming toward him, and to the
left when overtaking persons or vehicles going the same direction, and
when turning to the left in going from one highway to another, every
vehicle shall be conducted to the right of the center of the intersection of
the highway.

Philippine Charter The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for
Insurance shipment requires the common carrier to know and to follow the required
Corporation vs. precaution for avoiding damage to, or destruction of the goods entrusted
Unknown Owner to it for sale, carriage and delivery—it requires common carriers to render
of the Vessel M/V service with the greatest skill and foresight and to use all reasonable
“National Honor” means to ascertain the nature and characteristics of goods tendered for
shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including
such methods as their nature requires.

The common carrier’s duty to observe the requisite diligence in the

shipment of goods lasts from the time the articles are surrendered to or
unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by, the carrier
for transportation until delivered to, or until the lapse of a reasonable time
for their acceptance, by the person entitled to receive them. When the
goods shipped are either lost or arrive in damaged condition, a
presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that
diligence, and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold
it liable. To overcome the presumption of negligence in the case of loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods, the common carrier must prove
that it exercised extraordinary diligence.

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
7|Page

“Defect” is the want or absence of something necessary for completeness

or perfection; a lack or absence of something essential to completeness;
a deficiency in something essential to the proper use for the purpose for
which a thing is to be used. On the other hand, inferior means of poor
quality, mediocre, or second rate. A thing may be of inferior quality but
not necessarily defective. In other words, “defectiveness” is not
synonymous with “inferiority.”

The statement in the Bill of Lading, that the shipment was in apparent
good condition, is sufficient to sustain a finding of absence of defects in
the merchandise, but such statement will create a prima facie presumption
only as to the external condition and not to that not open to inspection.

Philippine Owing to the high degree of diligence required of them, common carriers,
American General as a general rule, are presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the
Insurance Co., goods transported by them are lost, destroyed or if the same deteriorated.
Inc. vs. MGG
Marine Services, In order that a common carrier may be absolved from liability where the
Inc. loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods is due to a natural disaster
or calamity, it must further be shown that such natural disaster or calamity
was the proximate and only cause of the loss; Even in cases where a
natural disaster is the proximate and only cause of the loss, a common
carrier is still required to exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize
loss before, during and after the occurrence of the natural disaster, for it
to be exempt from liability under the law for the loss of the goods.

A fortuitous event has been defined as one which could not be foreseen,
or which though foreseen, is inevitable.

Central Shipping Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence over the
Company, Inc. vs. goods they transport, according to all the circumstances of each case; In
Insurance all other cases not specified under Article 1734 of the Civil Code,
Company of North common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
America negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence.

The defense of fortuitous event or natural disaster cannot be successfully

made when the injury could have been avoided by human precaution.

Doctrine of Limited Liability does not apply to situations in which the

loss or the injury is due to the concurrent negligence of the shipowner and
the captain.

Aboitiz Shipping From the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,
Corporation vs. common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence over the
New India goods they transport according to all the circumstances of each case.

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
8|Page

Assurance Where the shipowner fails to overcome the presumption of negligence,

Company, Ltd. the doctrine of limited liability cannot be applied.

Asia Lighterage The test to determine a common carrier is “whether the given undertaking
and Shipping, Inc. is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out
vs. Court of to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent
Appeals of the business transacted.”

Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted

negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated.

Lea Mer Charter parties are classified as contracts of demise (or bareboat) and
Industries, Inc. vs. affreightment, which are distinguished as follows: “Under the demise or
Malayan bareboat charter of the vessel, the charterer will generally be considered
Insurance Co., Inc. as owner for the voyage or service stipulated. The charterer mans the
vessel with his own people and becomes, in effect, the owner pro hac
vice, subject to liability to others for damages caused by negligence. To
create a demise, the owner of a vessel must completely and exclusively
relinquish possession, command and navigation thereof to the charterer;
anything short of such a complete transfer is a contract of affreightment
(time or voyage charter party) or not a charter party at all.”

The distinction is significant, because a demise or bareboat charter

indicates a business undertaking that is private in character.
Consequently, the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract of
private carriage are governed principally by their stipulations, not by the
law on common carriers.

Extraordinary diligence requires rendering service with the greatest skill

and foresight to avoid damage and destruction to the goods entrusted for
carriage and delivery; Common carriers are presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently for loss or damage to the goods that they
have transported.

To excuse the common carrier fully of any liability, the fortuitous event
must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss.

Ganzon vs. Court The petitioner-carrier’s extraordinary responsibility for the loss,
of Appeals destruction, or deterioration of the goods commenced, Pursuant to Art.
1736, such extraordinary responsibility would cease only upon the
delivery, actual or constructive, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the
person who has a right to receive them. The fact that part of the shipment
had not been loaded on board the lighter did not impair the said contract
of transportation as the goods remained in the custody and control of the
carrier, albeit still unloaded.

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
9|Page

The intervention of the municipal officials was not of a character that

would render impossible the fulfillment by the carrier of its obligation.
The petitioner was not duty bound to obey the illegal order to dump into
the sea the scrap iron. Moreover, there is absence of sufficient proof that
the issuance of the same order was attended with such force or
intimidation as to completely overpower the will of the petitioner’s
employees. The mere difficulty in the fulfillment of the obligation is not
considered force majeure.

Cebu Salvage From the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,
Corporation vs. common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence over the
Philippine Home goods they transport according to the circumstances of each case.
Assurance
Corporation The fact that a carrier does not own the vessel it uses to consummate the
contract of carriage does not negate its character and duties as a common
carrier.

While it is true that a bill of lading may serve as the contract of carriage
between the parties, it cannot prevail over the express provision of the
voyage charter that the carrier and the charterer executed.

The fact that the parties stipulated that the cargo insurance was for the
charterer’s account does not exculpate the carrier from liability for the
breach of its contract of carriage—it simply meant that the charterer
would take care of having the goods insured.

To permit a common carrier to escape its responsibility for the goods it

agreed to transport (by the expedient of alleging nonownership of the
vessel it employed) would radically derogate from the carrier’s duty of
extraordinary diligence.

Sarkies Tours Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of
Philippines, Inc. public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vs. Court of vigilance over the goods transported by them, and this liability “lasts from
Appeals the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and
received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered,
actually or constructively, by the carrier to the person who has a right to
receive them.”

Edgar Cokaliong A common carrier is presumed to have been negligent if it fails to prove
Shipping Lines, that it exercised extraordinary vigilance over the goods if transported.
Inc. vs. UCPB A stipulation that limits liability is valid as long as it is not against public
General Insurance policy.
Company, Inc.
Petitioner should not be held liable for more than what was declared by
the shippers/consignees as the value of the goods in the bills of lading.

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
10 | P a g e

Everett Steamship A stipulation in the bill of lading limiting the common carrier’s liability
Corporation vs. for loss or destruction of a cargo to a certain sum, unless the shipper or
CA owner declares a greater value, is sanctioned by law.

Contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready-made form of

contract on the other x x x are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one
who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he
adheres he gives his consent.’ In the present case, not even an allegation
of ignorance of a party excuses non-compliance with the contractual
stipulations since the responsibility for ensuring full comprehension of
the provisions of a contract of carriage devolves not on the carrier but on
the owner, shipper, or consignee as the case may be.”

Even if the consignee is not a signatory to the contract of carriage between

the shipper and the carrier, the consignee can still be bound by the
contract.

When the consignee formally claims reimbursement for the missing

goods from the common carrier and subsequently files a case against the
latter based on the very same bill of lading, it accepts the provisions of
the contract and thereby makes itself a party thereto.

Fortune Express, A common carrier can be held liable for failing to prevent a hijacking by
Inc. vs. Court of frisking passengers and inspecting their baggage.
Appeals

Quisumbing, Sr. PAL’s failure to take certain steps that a certain passenger in hind sight
vs. Court of believes should have been taken is not the negligence or misconduct
Appeals which mingles with force majeure as an active and cooperative cause.

Delsan Transport Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
Lines vs. vigilance over the goods transported by them. They are presumed to have
American Home been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed
Assurance Corp. or deteriorated. To overcome the presumption of negligence in case of
loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the common carrier must
prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence.

There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Article 1734 of the Civil Code
enumerates the instances when the presumption of negligence does not
attach: Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss,
destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any
of the following causes only:
1) Flood storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or
calamity;
2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
11 | P a g e

4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the

containers;
5) Order or act of competent public authority.

The extraordinary responsibility of common carrier lasts from the time

the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received
by, the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or
constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to a person who has the
right to receive them.

La Mallorca vs. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the carrier’s agent had
Court of Appeals exercised to utmost diligence of a very cautions person required by
Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be observed by a common carrier in the
discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers. In the first
place, the driver, although stopping the bus, nevertheless did not put off
the engine. Secondly, he started to run the bus even before the bus
conductor gave him the signal to go and while the latter was still
unloading part of the baggage of the passengers Mariano Beltran and
family. The presence of said passengers near the bus was not
unreasonable and they are, therefore, to be considered still passengers of
the carrier, entitled to protection under their contract of carriage.

Vda. de Bataclán, The burning of the bus wherein some of the passengers were trapped can
et al. vs. Medina also be attributed to the negligence of the carrier, through the driver and
conductor who were on the road walking back and forth. They should and
must have known that in the position in which the overturned bus was,
gasoline could and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked
the area in and around the bus, this aside from the fact that gasoline when
spilled, specially over a large area, can be smelt and detected even from
a distance.

Japan Airlines vs. Common carriers are not absolutely responsible for all injuries or
Court of Appeals damages even if the same were caused by a fortuitous event.

There is no question that when a party is unable to fulfill his obligation

because of “force majeure,” the general rule is that he cannot be held
liable for damages for non-performance.

If the fortuitous event was accompanied by neglect and malfeasance by

the carrier’s employees, an action for damages against the carrier is
permissible.

Landingin vs. A common carrier is duty bound to carry its passengers "safely as far as
Pangasinan human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very
Transportation cautious .persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances' (Article
Co. 1755, Civil Code.)

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
12 | P a g e

An accident caused by defects in the automobile is not a caso fortuito.

The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that "the passenger has
neither the choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of
the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier.

When a passenger dies or is injured, the presumption is that the common

carrier is at fault or that it acted negligently, This presumption is only
rebutted by proof on the carrier's part that it observed the "extraordinary
diligence" required in Article 1733 and the "utmost diligence of very
cautious persons" required in Article 1755.

Baliwag Transit, The “Kabit System” has been defined by the Supreme Court as an
Inc. vs. Court of arrangement “whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of
Appeals convenience allows another person who owns motor vehicles to operate
under such franchise for a fee.” The determining factor, therefore, is the
possession of a franchise to operate which negates the existence of the
“Kabit System” and not the issuance of one SSS ID Number for both bus
lines from which the existence of said system was inferred.

Zulueta vs. Pan A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree
American World from any other contractual relation. And this, because of the relation
Airways, Inc. which an air-carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with
the travelling public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and
advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a
relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the
carrier’s employees, naturally, could give ground for an action for
damages.

Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to

be treated by the carrier’s employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and
due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal
misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such
employees. So it is, that any rude or discourteous conduct on the part of
employees towards a passenger give the latter an action for damages
against the carrier.

Alitalia Airways When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular

vs. Court of flight, on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises and the passenger
Appeals has every right to expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date.

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.

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
13 | P a g e

Common carriers, like commercial airlines, are in the business of

rendering service, which is the primary reason for their recognition in our
law. They cannot be allowed to disregard our laws as if they are doing the
passengers any favor by accommodating them.

The passengers in a contract of carriage do not contract merely for

transportation, they have a right to be treated by the carrier’s employees
with kindness, respect, courtesy, and consideration. Hence the
justification why passengers must be spared from the indignity and
inconvenience of being refused a confirmed seat on the last minute.
Inattention to and lack of care for the interest of its passengers who are
entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as to their convenience
amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to the award of moral
damages.

Korean Airlines The contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a public
Co., Ltd. vs. Court duty and any discourteous conduct on the part of the carrier’s employees
of Appeals toward a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the
carrier.

Maranan vs. Perez Unlike the old Civil Code, the New Civil Code expressly makes the
common carrier liable for intentional assaults committed by its employees
upon its passengers (Art. 1759). This rule was adopted from Anglo-
American law, where the majority view, as distinguished from the
minority view based on respondeat superior, is that the carrier is liable as
long as the assault occurs within the course of the performance of the
employee's duty. It is no defense for the carrier that the act was done in
excess of authority or in disobedience of the carrier's orders. The carrier's
liability is absolute in the sense that it practically secures the passengers
from assaults committed by its own employees.

The special undertaking of the carrier requires that it furnish its

passengers that full measure of protection afforded by the exercise of the
high degree of care prescribed by law, inter alia, from violence and insults
at the hands of strangers and other passengers, but above all from the acts
of the carrier's own servants charged with the passenger's safety. The
performance of that undertaking is confided by the carrier to its
employees. As between the carrier and the passenger, the former must
bear the risk of wrongful acts of the former's employees against
passengers, since the carrier, not the passengers, has the power to select
and remove them.

Where a passenger in a taxicab was killed by the driver, the cab owner is
liable to the heir of the deceased passenger for damages on the basis of
breach of the contract of carriage. The driver is not liable to the heir

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW
14 | P a g e

because the driver was not a party to the contract of carriage. His civil
liability is covered by the judgment of conviction in the criminal case.

Fortune Express, A common carrier can be held liable for failing to prevent a hijacking by
Inc. vs. Court of frisking passengers and inspecting their baggage.
Appeals

Bachelor Express, The sudden act of the passenger who stabbed another passenger in the bus
Incorporated vs. is within the context of force majeure.
Court of Appeals
In order that a common carrier may be absolved from liability in case of
force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was caused by force
majeure. The common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in
causing the injuries resulting from such accident.

Phil. Rabbit Lines, In culpa contractual, the moment a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier
Inc. vs. is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, and this
Intermediate disputable presumption may only be overcome by evidence that he had
Appellate Court observed extra-ordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733, 1755
and 1756 of the New Civil Code or that the death or injury of the
passenger was due to a fortuitous event.

In any event, in an action for damages against the carrier for his failure to
safely carry his passenger to his destination, an accident caused either by
defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver, is not a
caso fortuito which would avoid the carrier’s liability for damages.

The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the carrier in
case of breach of the contract of carriage. The rationale behind this is
readily discernible. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between the carrier
and the passenger, and in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is
exclusively responsible therefor to the passenger, even if such breach be
due to the negligence of his driver.

In other words, the carrier can neither shift his liability on the contract to
his driver nor share it with him, for his driver’s negligence is his.
Secondly, if We make the driver jointly and severally liable with the
carrier, that would make the carrier’s liability personal instead of merely
vicarious and consequently, entitled to recover only the share which
corresponds to the driver, contradictory to the explicit provision of Article
2181 of the New Civil Code.

KLTA Case Digests

TRANSPORTATION LAW