Standar

 Vacuum  Oil  Company  v.  Luzon  Stevedoring  

 
Plaintiff  entered  into  a  contract  with  defendant  to  transport  between  the  ports  of  
Manila  and  Iloilo  barrels  of  bulk  gasoline.    The  gasoline  was  delivered  in  accordance  
with  the  contract  but  defendant  failed  to  transport  it  to  its  palce  of  destination  and  
so  plaintiff  brough  this  action.  
 
The  defendant  pleaded  that  its  failure  to  deliver  the  gasoline  was  due  to  fortuitous  
event  or  caused  by  circumstances  beyond  its  control.    The  court,  found  that  the  
engine  of  the  tugboat  came  to  a  dead  stop;  that  the  engineer  on  board  the  tugboat  
found  out  the  trouble  was  due  to  a  broken  idler.    A  message  was  then  sent  to  the  
defendant’s  radio  station  in  manila  informing  its  official  fo  the  engine  trouble.    Upo  
the  receipt  of  the  message,  the  defendant  called  up  several  shipping  companies  to  
find  out  if  they  had  any  vessels  in  the  vicity  where  the  “Snapper”  had  stalled  but  no  
company  replied.      
 
The  master  of  the  Snapper  attempted  to  case  anchor  but  the  water  areas  were  so  
deep  that  the  nachor  did  not  touch  the  bottom.    The  weather  became  worse  and  due  
to  the  rough  condition  of  the  sea  the  ancor  chains  of  the  Snapper  and  the  four  barges  
broke  one  by  one  and  as  a  consequence  thereof,  they  were  drifted  and  were  finally  
dashed  against  the  rocks  a  hole  was  opened  in  the  hull  of  the  Snapper,  which  
ultimately  caused  it  to  sink.      
 
ISSUE:  
Has  defendant  proven  that  its  failure  to  deliver  the  gasoline  to  its  place  of  
destination  is  due  to  accident  or  force  majeure  or  to  a  cause  beyond  its  control?  
 
HELD:  
NO.    the  tugboat  was  put  into  oepreationwihtout  first  submitting  it  to  an  overhaul  in  
a  dry-­‐dock.    It  also  appears  that  this  tugboat  had  previously  made  several  trips  and  
each  time  it  had  to  obtain  a  special  permit  from  the  BOC  because  it  had  never  been  
dry-­‐dock  and  did  not  have  complete  equipment  to  be  able  to  obtain  the  permanent  
permit.      
 
The  fact  that  the  tugboat  was  a  surplus  property,  has  not  been  dry-­‐docked,  and  was  
not  provided  with  the  requisite  equipment  to  make  it  seaworthy,  shows  that  
defendant  did  not  use  reasonable  diligence  in  putting  the  tugboat  in  such  a  
condition  as  would  make  its  use  safe  for  operation.      
 
Also,  the  tugboat  failed  to  carry  on  board  the  necessary  spare  parts.    When  the  idler  
was  broke,  the  enginner  of  the  tugboat  examined  it  for  the  first  time  and  it  was  only  
that  he  found  that  there  were  no  spare  parts  to  use  except  a  worn  out  spare  driving  
chain.    Another  circumstance  refers  to  the  deficeinty  or  incomplete  in  the  man  
power  of  the  tug  boat.    It  was  only  manned  by  one  master,  who  was  merely  licenses  
as  a  bay,  river  and  lake  petron,  one  second  mate,  who  was  licensed  as  a  third  mate,  
one  chief  engineer  who  was  lciecnes  as  third  moto  enginnger,  one  assistant  
enginner  who  was  licensed  as  a  bay,  rive  and  lake  motoer  engihher,  one  second  
assistant  engineer,  who  was  unlicensed.      
 
As  to  the  Tamban  that  was  ordered  to  extend  help,  it  was  fully  inadequate  for  the  
purpose.    It  wa  a  small  vessel  that  was  authorized  to  operate  only  within  Manila  Bay  
and  did  not  even  have  any  map  of  the  Visayan  Islands.    A  public  utility  engaged  in  
sea  transportation  even  for  a  limited  service  with  a  fleet  of  140  tugboats  should  
have  competent  tug  to  rush  for  towing  or  repairs  in  the  event  of  untoward  
happening  overseas.      
 
Brinas  v.  People  of  the  Philippines  
 
Juanito  Gesmundo  bought  a  train  ticket  at  the  railroad  station  in  Tagkawayan,  
Quezon  for  his  55-­‐year  old  mother  Martina  Book  and  3  yr  old  daughter  Emelita  
Gesmundo.    The  train  left  Tagkawayan  with  theold  woman  and  her  granddaugheter  
among  the  passengers.    At  Hondagua  the  train’s  complement  were  relieved,  with  
Victor  Milan  taking  over  as  engineman,  Clemente  Brinas  as  conductor  and  
Hermogenes  Buecamino  as  assistant  conductor.    Upon  apparoaching  Tiaong,  the  
same  night,  the  train  slowed  down  and  the  conductor  shouted  “Lusacan,  Lusacan!”.    
Thereupon,  the  old  woman  wlaked  towards  the  left  front  door  facing  the  direction  
ofTiaong  carrying  the  child  with  on  ehand  and  holding  her  baggage  with  the  other.    
The  train  suddenly  picked  up  speed.    The  wold  woman  and  the  child  stumbled  and  
there  were  seen  no  more.      
 
The  next  morning  Tiaong  police  received  a  report  that  two  corpses  wre  found  along  
the  railroad  tracks.    Upon  investigation,  they  found  the  lifeless  body  of  a  femal  child,  
sprawled  to  the  round  with  her  belly  down,  the  hadn  resting  on  the  forehead  and  
with  the  back  portion  of  the  head  crushed.    They  also  found  the  corpse  of  an  old  
woman  with  head  and  both  legs  severed  and  the  left  hand  missing.      
 
Clemente  Brinas  was  conviceted  for  double  homicide  thru  reckless  imprudence.      
 
ISSUE:  
Can  Brinas  be  held  liable?  
 
HELD:  
YES.    It  wa  negligence  on  the  conductor’s  part  to  announce  the  next  flag  stop  when  
said  stop  was  still  a  full  three  minutes  ahead.    That  the  announcement  was  
premature  and  erroneous  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  immediately  after  the  train  
slowed  down,  it  unexpectedly  accelerated  to  full  speed.    Petitioner-­‐appellant  failed  
to  show  any  reason  why  the  train  suddenly  resumed  its  reqular  speed.      
 
The  announcement  prompted  the  victims  to  stand  and  proceed  to  the  nearest  exit.    
Without  said  announcement,  the  victims  wuld  have  been  safely  seated  in  their  
respective  sets  when  the  train  jerked  as  it  picked  up  speed.    The  connection  between  
premature  and  erroneous  annoucment  of  petitioner-­‐appellant  and  the  deaths  of  the  
victims  is  direct  and  antural,  unbroken  by  intervening  efficient  causes.      
 
Planters  Products,  Inc.  v.  Court  of  Appeals  
 
FACTS:  
 
  Planters  Products,  Inc  (PPI),  purchased  from  Mitsubishi  International  
Corporation  of  New  York,  USA  9,329.7069  metric  tons  of  Urea  46%  fertilizer  which  
the  latter  shipped  in  bulk  on  June  16  1974  aboard  the  cargo  vessel  M/V  Sun  Plum  
owned  by  private  respondent  Kyosei  Kisen  Kabushiki  Kaisha  (KKKK)  from  Kenai,  
Alaska,  U.S.A.,  to  Poro  Point,  San  Fernando,  La  Union,  Philippines,  as  evidenced  by  
Bill  of  Lading  signed  by  the  master  of  the  vessel  and  issued  on  the  date  of  departure.  
 
  On  May  17,  1974,  or  prior  to  its  voyage,  a  time  charter-­‐part  on  the  vessel  M/V  
Sun  Plum  pursuant  to  the  Uniform  General  Charter  was  entered  into  between  
Mitsubishi  as  shipper/charter  and  KKKK  as  shipowner,  in  Tokyo,  Japan.    Before  
loading  the  fertilizer  aboard  the  vessel,  four  of  her  holds  were  all  presumably  
inspected  by  the  charterer’s  representative  and  found  fir  to  take  a  load  of  urea  in  
bulk  pursuant  to  paragraph  16  of  the  charter-­‐party.      
 
  After  the  Urea  fertilizer  was  loaded  in  bulk  by  stevedores  hired  by  and  under  
the  supervision  of  the  shipper,  the  steel  hatches  were  closed  with  heavy  iron  lids,  
covered  with  3  layers  of  tarpaulin,  and  then  tied  with  steel  bonds.    The  hatches  
remained  closed  and  tightly  sealed  throughout  the  entire  voyage.    Upon  arrival  of  
the  vessel  at  her  port  of  call  on  July  3,  1974,  the  steel  pontoon  hatches  were  opened  
with  the  use  of  the  vessels  boom.    Petitioner  unloaded  the  cargo  from  the  hold  into  
its  steel  bodied  dump  trucks  which  were  parked  alongside  the  berth,  using  metal  
scoops  attached  to  the  ship,  pursuant  to  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  charter-­‐
party  (F.I.O.S.  clause).    The  hatches  remained  open  throughout  the  duration  of  the  
discharge.      
 
  Each  time  a  dump  truck  was  filled  up;  its  load  of  Urea  was  covered  with  
tarpaulin  before  it  was  transported  to  the  consignee’s  warehouse  located  some  50  
meters  from  the  wharf.    Midway  to  the  warehouse,  the  trucks  were  made  to  pass  
through  a  weighing  scale  where  they  were  individually  weighed  for  the  purpose  of  
ascertaining  the  net  weight  of  the  cargo.    The  port  area  was  windy,  certain  portions  
of  the  route  to  the  warehouse  were  sandy  and  the  weather  was  variable,  raining  
occasionally  while  the  discharge  was  in  progress.    The  petitioner’s  warehouse  was  
made  of  corrugated  galvanized  iron  sheets,  with  an  opening  at  the  front  where  the  
dump  trucks  entered  and  unloaded  the  fertilizer  to  the  warehouse  floor.    Tarpaulins  
and  GI  sheets  were  placed  in-­‐between  and  alongside  the  trucks  to  contain  spillages  
of  the  fertilizer.      
 
  It  took  11  days  for  PPI  to  unload  the  cargo,  from  July  5  to  July  18,  1974  
(except  12,  14,  and  18).    A  private  marine  and  cargo  surveyor,  Cargo  
Superintendents  company,  Inc.  (CSCI)  was  hired  by  PPI  to  determine  the  outturn  of  
the  cargo  shipped,  by  taking  draft  readings  of  the  vessel  prior  to  and  after  discharge.    
The  survey  report  revealed  a  shortage  in  the  cargo  of  106.726  M/T  and  that  a  
portion  of  the  Urea  fertilizer  approximating  18  M/T  was  contaminated  with  dirt.    
The  same  results  were  contained  in  a  Certificate  of  Shortage/Damaged  Cargo  which  
showed  that  the  cargo  delivered  was  indeed  short  of  94.839  and  about  23  M/T  were  
rendered  unfit  for  commerce,  having  been  polluted  with  sand,  rust  and  dirt.  
 
  PPI  sent  a  claim  letter  to  Soriamont  Steamship  Agencies  (SSA),  the  resident  
agent  of  the  carrier,  KKKK,  for  P245,969.31  representing  the  cost  of  the  alleged  
shortage  in  the  goods  shipped  and  value  of  that  portion  said  to  have  been  
contaminated  with  dirt.  
 
  SSA  alleged  that  what  they  received  was  just  a  request  for  shortlanded  
certificate  and  not  a  formal  claim  and  that  this  request  was  denied  by  them  because  
they  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  discharge  of  the  shipment.    Hence,  on  July  18,  1975,  
PPO  filed  an  action  for  damages  with  CFI  of  Manila.    The  defendant  carrier  argued  
that  the  strict  public  policy  governing  common  carriers  does  not  apply  to  the  
because  they  have  become  private  carriers  by  reason  of  the  provisions  of  the  
charter-­‐party.  
 
  The  court  a  quo  sustained  the  claim  of  the  plaintiff  against  defendant  carrier  
for  the  value  of  the  goods  lost  or  damaged.    CA  reversed  the  lower  court  and  
absolved  the  carrier  from  liability.      
 
ISSUE:  
 
  WON  the  shipowner  in  the  instant  case  is  private  carrier  by  reason  of  a  
charter-­‐party.  
 
HELD:  
 
  NO.    It  is  not  disputed  that  respondent  carrier,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  
business,  operates  as  a  common  carrier,  transporting  goods  indiscriminately  for  all  
persons.    When  petitioner  chartered  the  vessel  M/V  Sun  Plum,  the  ship  captain,  its  
officers  and  compliment  were  under  the  employ  of  the  shipowner  and  therefore  
continued  to  be  under  its  direct  supervision  and  control.    Hardly  then  can  we  charge  
the  charterer,  a  stranger  to  the  crew  and  to  the  ship,  with  the  duty  of  caring  for  his  
cargo  when  the  charterer  did  not  have  any  control  of  the  means  in  doing  so.    The  
steering  of  the  ship,  the  manning  of  the  decks,  the  determination  of  the  course  of  
voyage  and  other  technical  incidents  of  maritime  navigation  were  all  consigned  to  
the  officers  and  crew  who  were  screened,  chosen  and  hired  by  the  shiphowner.      
 
  It  is  therefore  imperative  that  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  carrier  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.      
 
  The  rule  in  the  United  States  that  a  ship  charted  by  a  single  shipper  to  carry  
special  cargo  is  not  a  common  carrier,  does  not  fined  in  our  jurisdiction,  for  we  have  
observed  that  the  growing  concern  for  safety  in  the  transportation  of  passengers  
and/or  carriage  of  goods  by  sea  requires  a  more  exacting  interpretation  of  
admiralty  laws,  more  particularly,  the  rules  governing  common  carriers.      
 
On  Liability  
  To  our  mind,  respondent  carrier  has  sufficiently  overcome,  by  clear  and  
convincing  proof,  the  prima  facie  presumption  of  negligence.  
 
  Captain  Lee  Tae  Bo,  in  his  deposition,  testified  that  before  the  fertilizer  was  
loaded,  the  4  hatches  of  the  vessel  were  cleaned,  dried  and  fumigated.    After  
completing  the  loading  of  the  cargo  in  bulk  in  the  ship’s  holds,  the  steel  pontoon  
hatches  were  closed  and  sealed  with  iron  lids,  then  covered  with  3  layers  of  
serviceable  tarpaulins  which  were  tied  with  steel  bonds.    The  hatches  remained  
close  and  tightly  sealed  while  the  ship  was  in  transit  as  the  weight  of  the  steel  covers  
made  it  impossible  for  a  person  to  open  without  the  use  of  the  ship’s  boom.      
  It  was  also  shown  during  the  trial  that  the  hull  of  the  vessel  was  in  good  
condition,  foreclosing  the  possibility  of  spillage  of  the  cargo  into  the  sea  or  seepage  
of  water  inside  the  hull  of  the  vessel.    The  stevedores  unloaded  the  cargo  under  the  
watchful  eyes  of  the  shipmates  who  were  overseeing  the  whole  operation  on  
rotation  basis.      
 
  The  period  during  which  private  respondent  was  to  observe  the  degree  of  
diligence  required  of  it  as  a  public  carrier  began  from  the  time  the  cargo  was  
unconditionally  placed  in  its  charge  after  the  vessel’s  hold  were  duly  inspected  and  
passed  scrutiny  by  the  shipper,  up  to  and  until  the  vessel  reached  its  destination  and  
its  hull  was  re-­‐examined  by  the  consignee,  but  prior  to  unloading.    This  is  clear  from  
the  limitation  clause  agreed  upon  by  the  parties  in  the  Addendum,  which  provided  
for  an  F.I.O.S,  meaning  that  the  loading,  stowing,  trimming  and  discharge  of  the  
cargo  was  to  be  done  by  the  charterer,  free  from  all  risk  and  expense  to  the  carrier.      
 
  Mr.  Estanislao  Chupugco,  a  chemical  engineer  working  with  Atlas  Fertilizer,  
described  Urea  as  a  chemical  compound  consisting  mostly  of  ammonia  and  carbon  
monoxide  compounds  which  are  used  as  fertilizer.    Urea  also  contains  46%  nitrogen  
and  is  highly  soluble  in  water.    However  during  storage,  nitrogen  and  ammonia  do  
not  normally  evaporate  even  on  a  long  voyage,  provided  that  the  temperature  inside  
the  hull  does  not  exceed  80  degrees  centigrade.    He  further  added  that  in  unloading  
fertilizer  in  bulk  with  the  use  of  a  clamped  shell,  losses  due  to  spillage  during  such  
operation  amounting  to  1%  against  he  bill  of  lading  is  deemed  normal  or  tolerable.    
The  primary  cause  of  the  spillages  is  the  clamped  shell  which  does  not  seal  very  
tightly.    Also,  the  wind  tends  to  blow  away  some  of  the  materials  during  the  
unloading  process.    The  dissipation  of  quantities  of  fertilizer  or  its  deterioration  in  
value,  is  caused  either  by  an  extremely  high  temperature  in  its  place  of  storage,  or  
when  it  comes  in  contact  with  water.  
 
  The  evidence  of  respondent  carrier  showed  that  it  was  highly  improbable  for  
sea  water  to  seep  into  the  vessel’s  holds  since  the  hull  of  the  vessel  was  in  good  
condition  and  her  hatches  were  tightly  closed  and  firmly  sealed  making  the  M/V  sun  
Plum  in  all  respects  seaworthy  to  carry  the  cargo.    If  there  was  loss  or  contamination  
of  the  cargo,  it  was  more  likely  to  have  occurred  while  the  same  was  being  
transported  from  the  ship  to  the  dump  trucks  and  finally  to  the  consignee’s  
warehouse.      
 
  The  court  notes  that  it  was  in  the  month  of  July  when  the  vessel  arrived  port  
and  unloaded  her  cargo.    It  rained  from  time  to  time  at  the  harbor  area  while  the  
cargo  was  being  discharged  according  to  the  supply  officer  of  PPI,  who  also  testified  
that  it  was  windy  at  the  waterfront  and  along  the  shoreline  where  the  dump  trucks  
passed  enroute  to  the  consignee’s  warehouse.      
 
  Clearly,  respondent  carrier  has  sufficiently  proved  the  inherent  character  of  
the  goods  which  makes  it  highly  vulnerable  to  deterioration;  as  well  as  the  
inadequacy  of  its  packaging  which  further  contributed  to  the  loss.  
 

BLTB  vs  IAC    

Facts:    

  A  collision  took  place  between  Batangas  Laguna  Tayabas  Bus  Company  

(BLTB)  driven  by  Armando  Pon  and  the  bus  of  Superlines  Transportation  driven  by  
Ruben  Dasco.  The  accident  took  place  in  Tayabas  Quezon,  resulting  in  the  death  and  
injury  of  several  passengers  of  the  BLTB  bus.  Evidence  shows  that  BLTB  bus  was  
negotiating  the  bend  of  the  highway,  when  it  tried  to  overtake  a  car  in  front  of  it.  
However,  as  it  crossed  the  opposite  lane,  the  Supreline  bus  was  coming  from  the  
opposite  direction.  Although  BLTB  made  a  belated  attempt  to  slacken  its  speed  and  
return  to  its  lane,  it  was  unsuccessful  as  the  two  busses  collided  with  each  other.    

 
   The  surviving  heris  of  the  deceased  filed  a  complaint  against  both  bus  
companies  together  with  their  respective  drivers,  praying  for  damages,  attorney’s  
fees  and  litigation  expense  plus  costs.  The  defendant  bus  companies  denied  liability  
by  trying  to  shift  the  fault  against  each  other.  Deciding  on  the  merits  of  the  case,  the  
lower  court  exonerated  Superlines  and  its  drive  from  liability,  and  attributed  sole  
responsibility  to  BLTB  and  its  driver  Pon.  The  court  ordered  BLTB  and  its  driver  to  
pay  jointly  and  severally  the  damages  to  the  plaintiff.  The  CA  affirmed  the  decision  
of  the  trial  court  hence  plaintiff  BLTB  filed  a  petition  of  review  by  certiorari  to  the  
Supreme  Court.    

Issue:    

1. Whether  or  not  the  respondent  court  erred  in  adjudging  that  the  
actions  of  private  respondents  are  based  on  culpa  contractual.    
2. What  is  the  extent  of  plaintiff’s  liability,  if  there  is  any.    
 

Held:    

  The  main  argument  of  petitioners  is  that  if  the  intention  of  private  
respondent  were  to  file  an  action  based  on  culpa  contractual  it  should  have  
impleaded  BLTB  and  its  driver  alone.  However,  private  respondent  filed  an  action  
against  all  defendant,  basing  its  claim  on  culpa  aquilina.  The  court  did  not  give  merit  
to  the  argument  of  petitioner,  stating  that  the  plaintiffs  anchored  its  liability  both  on  
culpa  contractual  and  aquiline.  The  court  pointed  out  in  this  case  that  there  is  
liability  on  the  part  of  BLTB  as  carrier  to  observe  the  extraordinary  diligence  
required  of  it  by  the  law  in  transporting  its  passengers,  as  it  is  clear  from  the  facts  of  
the  case  that  the  BLTB  bus  attempted  to  overtake  the  vehicle  in  front  of  it  even  
though  there  is  a  continuous  yellow  line,  which  is  a  signal  of  no  overtaking.  Failing  
to  observe  these  precautions,  BLTB  failed  to  act  with  diligence.    

  As  regard  to  the  liability,  the  Court  stated  that  Pon  is  primarily  liable  for  
driving  the  bus  of  his  employer  negligently.  On  the  other  hand  ,the  Court  also  ruled  
that  the  liability  of  BLTB  is  also  primary,  direct  and  immediate  in  view  of  the  fact  
that  the  death  or  injuries  to  passenger  was  a  result  of  the  negligence  of  its  
employees.  The  court  also  stated  that  the  liability  does  not  cease  upon  proof  that  
BLTB  exercise  the  diligence  of  a  good  father  of  a  family  in  the  selection  of  its  
employees.  The  Court  also  noted  that  the  liability  of  BLTB  is  solidarily  with  that  of  
the  bus  driver  even  though  the  basis  of  claim  against  BLTB  is  due  to  culpa  
contractual,  while  culpa  aquilina  for  the  bus  driver.    

  The  Court  then  reiterated  that  in  transport  of  passengers,  the  court  has  no  
duty  to  make  an  express  finding  regarding  the  fault  or  negligence  of  the  carrier  in  
order  to  hold  it  responsible  for  payment  of  damages,  for  undergoing  a  contract  of  
carriage,  the  carrier  has  the  obligation  to  transport  its  passenger  with  extraordinary  
diligence.  Any  injury  or  death  that  may  be  suffered  by  the  passenger  during  the  
course  of  the  voyage  is  attributable  to  the  carrier.    

Nocum  v.  Laguna  Tayabas  Bus  Company  

Hermhinio  Nocum,  who  was  a  passenger  in  appellant’s  Bus  then  making  a  trip  
within  the  barrio  of  Dita,  Laguna  was  injured  as  a  consequence  of  the  explosion  of  
firecrackers,  contained  in  a  box,  loaded  in  said  bus  and  declared  to  its  conductor  as  
containing  clothes  and  miscellaneous  items  by  a  co-­‐passenger.      

ISSUE:  

Should  LTBC  be  held  liable  for  the  explosion  of  firecrackers  contained  in  a  package?  

HELD:  

NO.    It  is  undisputed  that  before  the  box  containing  the  firecrackers  were  allowed  to  
be  loaded  in  the  bus  by  the  conductor,  inquiry  was  made  with  the  passenger  
carrying  the  same  as  tow  aht  was  in  it,  since  its  opening  was  folded  and  tied  with  
abaca.    The  law  does  not  require  proper  and  rigid  inspection.    aRticle  1733  is  not  
unbending  for  it  reaonsably  qualifies  the  extraordinary  diligence  required  of  
common  carriers  for  the  safety  of  the  passengers  transported  by  them  to  be  
“according  to  all  the  circumstances  of  each  case.”    In  fact,  Article  1755  repeats  this  
same  qualifiaciton:    “A  common  carrier  is  bound  to  carry  the  passengers  safely  as  far  
as  human  care  and  foresigtht  can  provide,  using  the  utmost  diligence  of  a  very  
cautious  persons,  with  due  regard  for  all  the  circumstances.”  

 
While  it  is  true  the  passengers  of  appellant’s    bus  should  not  be  made  to  suffer  for  
something  over  which  they  had  no  control,  fairness  demands  that  in  measureing  a  
common  carrier’s  duty  towards  its  passengers,  allowance  must  be  given  to  the  
reliance  that  should  be  reposed  on  the  sense  of  responsibility  of  all  the  psasengers  
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  unusual  search,  when  he  protests  the  innocuousness  of  
his  baggage  and  nothing  appears  to  indicate  the  contrary,  as  in  the  case  at  bar.    In  
other  words,  inquiry  may  be  made  verbally  as  to  the  nature  of  a  passenger’s  baggage  
when  such  is  not  outwardly  perceptipble  but  beyond  this,  constitutional  boundaries  
are  already  in  danger  of  being  transgressed.      

Abeto  vs  PAL    

Facts:    

  Plaintiff  in  this  case  are  the  heirs  of  Judge  Quirico  Abeto.  Judge  Abeto  
boarded  a  PAL  plane  at  Mandurriao  Airport,  Iloilo  City  for  Manila.  Unfortunately,  the  
plane  did  not  reacht  its  destination.  All  the  passengers  were  killed  instantly  and  the  
remains  were  scattered  around  the  area  of  Mt.  Baco  province  of  Mindoro,  where  the  
plane  crashed.  As  such,  plaintiff  filed  a  complaint  for  damages  against  PAL,  alleging  
that  the  latter  failed  to  exercise  extraordinary  diligence  in  the  carriage  of  its  
passengers.    

  Appellant  on  the  other  hand  tried  to  prove  that  the  plane  crash  was  beyond  
the  control  of  the  pilot.  It  presented  as  evidence  a  certification  of  airworthiness  
issued  by  Civil  Aeronautics  Administration  (CAA).  There  was  a  navigational  error  
but  no  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  pilot.  Furthermore,  appellant  contended  that  the  
plane  went  its  regular  pre-­‐flight  checkups.  It  also  explained  that  the  deviation  of  the  
route  was  due  to  the  bad  weather  condition  back  then.  The  trial  court,  weighing  the  
arguments  of  both  parties  found  for  plaintiff.  The  RTC  pointed  out  that  the  pilot  of  
the  plane  disobeyed  the  instruction  given  regarding  its  route.  Furthermore,  it  was  
also  found  out  that  defendant  failed  to  perform  pre-­‐flight  test  to  detect  possible  
defect  of  plane.  Also,  it  allowed  a  student  pilot  to  sit  on  the  plane’s  cockpit.  Lastly,  
the  pilot  also  failed  to  report  its  position  over  Romblon,  which  is  a  compulsory  
reporting  point.  These  facts  demonstrate  that  defendant  failed  to  exercise  the  
extraordinary  diligence  required  of  it.  The  case  is  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court.    

Issue:    

Whether  or  not  defendant  was  liable  for  violation  of  its  contract  of  carriage.    

Held:    

  The  court  stated  that  with  respect  to  carriage  of  passengers,  the  Court  has  no  
duty  to  make  an  express  finding  concerning  the  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  carrier.  
By  the  contract  of  carriage,  the  carrier  assumes  the  express  obligation  to  transport  
the  passenger  to  his  destination  safely  and  to  observe  extraordinary  diligence  in  
doing  so.  Any  injury  that  might  be  suffered  by  the  passenger  is  directly  attributable  
to  the  fault  or  negligence  of  the  carrier.  In  the  case  at  bar,  the  court  pointed  out  that  
beside  from  the  fact  that  the  pilot  deviated  from  its  assigned  route,  there  is  no  
satisfactory  explanation  offered  by  defendant  appellant  on  how  the  accident  
occurred,  therefore  the  presumption  that  the  carrier  is  at  fault  remains.