Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Transpo Case Digest 1
Transpo Case Digest 1
Page 4 of 10
agreement". It then proceeds to cite the case of Home Ceres Van which had the capacity to transport 14
Insurance Company vs. American Steamship Agencies, students at a time, two of whom would be seated in
Inc. 2 wherein this Court held: ". . . a common carrier the front beside the driver, and the others in the rear,
undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a with six students on either side. They employed
special person only becomes a private carrier." Clemente Alfaro (Alfaro) as driver of the van.
Spouses Zarate engaged the services of spouses
Petitioner's reliance on the aforementioned case is Pereña for the adequate and safe transportation
misplaced. In its entirety, the conclusions of the court are carriage of the former spouses' son, Aaron, from their
as follows: residence in Parañaque to his school at the Don
Bosco Technical Institute in Makati City.
Accordingly, the charter party contract is one of
affreightment over the whole vessel. As such, the liability
On August 22, 1996, as on previous school days, the
of the shipowner for acts or negligence of its captain and
van picked Aaron up around 6:00 a.m. from the
crew would remain in the absence of stipulation. 3
Zarates’ residence. Aaron took his place on the left
A contract of affreightment is one in which the owner of side of the van near the rear door.
the vessel leases part or all of its space to haul goods for
others. It is a contract for special service to be rendered Considering that the students were due at Don Bosco
by the owner of the vessel and under such contract the by 7:15 a.m., and that they were already running late
general owner retains the possession, command and because of the heavy vehicular traffic on the South
navigation of the ship, the charterer or freighter merely Superhighway, Alfaro took the van to an alternate
having use of the space in the vessel in return for his route at about 6:45 a.m. by traversing the narrow path
payment of the charter hire. . . . . underneath the Magallanes Interchange that was
then commonly used by Makati-bound vehicles as a
. . . . An owner who retains possession of the ship though short cut into Makati. At the time, the narrow path was
the hold is the property of the charterer, remains liable as marked by piles of construction materials and parked
carrier and must answer for any breach of duty as to the passenger jeepneys, and the railroad crossing in the
care, loading and unloading of the cargo. . . . narrow path had no railroad warning signs, or
watchmen, or other responsible persons manning the
Although a charter party may transform a common carrier crossing.
into a private one, the same however is not true in a
contract of affreightment on account of the In fact, the bamboo barandilla was up, leaving the
aforementioned distinctions between the two. railroad crossing open to traversing motorists. He
then tried to overtake a bus. However, there was in
Petitioner admits that the contract it entered into with the fact an oncoming train but Alfaro no longer saw the
consignee was one of affreightment. 5 We agree. Pag- train as his view was already blocked by the bus he
asa Sales, Inc. only leased three of petitioner's vessels, in was trying to overtake. The train hit the rear end of
order to carry cargo from one point to another, but the the van, and the impact threw nine of the 12 students
possession, command and navigation of the vessels in the rear, including Aaron, out of the van. Aaron
remained with petitioner Coastwise Lighterage. landed in the path of the train, which dragged his
body and severed his head, instantaneously killing
Coastwise Lighterage, by the contract of affreightment,
him.
was not converted into a private carrier, but remained a
common carrier and was still liable as such.
Devastated by the early and unexpected death of
As a common carrier, petitioner is liable for breach of the Aaron, the Zarates commenced this action for
contract of carriage, having failed to overcome the damages against Alfaro, the Pereñas, PNR and
presumption of negligence with the loss and destruction Alano.
of goods it transported, by proof of its exercise of The Zarates’ claim against the Pereñas was upon
extraordinary diligence. breach of the contract of carriage for the safe
transport of Aaron; but that against PNR was based
6. SPOUSES TEODORO and NANETTE PERENA vs. on quasi-delict under Article 2176, Civil Code.
SPOUSES TERESITA and NICOLAS ZARATE
G.R. No. 157917 August 29, 2012 In their defense, the Pereñas adduced evidence to
show that they had exercised the diligence of a good
FACTS: father of the family in the selection and supervision of
Alfaro, by making sure that Alfaro had been issued a
The Pereñas were engaged in the business of driver’s license and had not been involved in any
transporting students from their respective vehicular accident prior to the collision; that their own
residences. In their business, the Pereñas used a KIA son had taken the van daily; and that Teodoro Pereña
Page 5 of 10
had sometimes accompanied Alfaro in the van’s trips observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
transporting the students to school. the goods and for the safety of the passengers
transported by them, according to all the
For its part, PNR tended to show that the proximate circumstances of each case." Article 1755 of the Civil
cause of the collision had been the reckless crossing Code specifies that the common carrier should "carry
of the van whose driver had not first stopped, looked the passengers safely as far as human care and
and listened; and that the narrow path traversed by foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of
the van had not been intended to be a railroad very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the
crossing for motorists. circumstances." To successfully fend off liability in an
action upon the death or injury to a passenger, the
common carrier must prove his or its observance of
The RTC ruled in favor of the Zarates. The CA
that extraordinary diligence; otherwise, the legal
affirmed the RTC
presumption that he or it was at fault or acted
negligently would stand. No device, whether by
ISSUE: Whether or not the defense of due diligence of a stipulation, posting of notices, statements on tickets,
good father by the Pereñas is untenable. or otherwise, may dispense with or lessen the
responsibility of the common carrier as defined under
RULING: Article 1755 of the Civil Code.
The defense of due diligence of a good father by the Being a common carrier, what is required of the
Pereñas is untenable. Pereñas is not mere diligence of a good father. What
The Pereñas are common carriers. They are not is specifically required from them by law is
merely private carriers. Private transports for schools extraordinary diligence – a fact which they failed to
are common carriers. prove in court. Verily, their obligation as common
carriers did not cease upon their exercise of diligently
The true test for a common carrier is not the quantity choosing Alfaro as their employee.
or extent of the business actually transacted, or the
number and character of the conveyances used in the 11. PEDRO DE GUZMAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS
activity, but whether the undertaking is a part of the and ERNESTO CENDANA
activity engaged in by the carrier that he has held out G.R. No. L-47822 December 22, 1988
to the general public as his business or occupation. If
the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of
the general business or occupation engaged in, as FACTS: Respondent Cendana, a junk dealer, was
advertised and held out to the general public, the engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in
individual or the entity rendering such service is a Pangasinan. He utilized two (2) six-wheeler trucks which
private, not a common, carrier. The question must be he owned for hauling the quantities of scrap material to
determined by the character of the business actually Manila. On the return trip to Pangasinan, respondent
carried on by the carrier, not by any secret intention would load his vehicles with cargo which various
or mental reservation it may entertain or assert when merchants wanted delivered to differing establishments in
charged with the duties and obligations that the law Pangasinan. For that service, respondent charged freight
imposes rates which were commonly lower than regular
commercial rates.
The Pereñas as the operators of a school bus service
were: (a) engaged in transporting passengers Petitioner de Guzman an authorized dealer of GMC
generally as a business, not just as a casual Philippines, contracted with respondent for the hauling of
occupation; (b) undertaking to carry passengers over 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse in
established roads by the method by which the Rizal, to petitioner's establishment in Urdaneta. On
business was conducted; and (c) transporting December 1970, respondent loaded in Makati the
students for a fee. Despite catering to a limited merchandise on to his trucks: 150 cartons were loaded on
clientèle, the Pereñas operated as a common carrier a truck driven by respondent himself, while 600 cartons
because they held themselves out as a ready were placed on board the other truck which was driven by
transportation indiscriminately to the students of a Manuel Estrada, respondent's driver and employee. Only
particular school living within or near where they 150 boxes of Liberty filled milk were delivered to
operated the service and for a fee. petitioner. The other 600 boxes never reached petitioner,
since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked
somewhere along Tarlac, by armed men who took with
The common carrier’s standard of care and vigilance them the truck, its driver, his helper and the cargo.
as to the safety of the passengers is defined by law.
Given the nature of the business and for reasons of
public policy, the common carrier is bound "to
Page 6 of 10
Petitioner then commenced an action against private governing common carriers. That liability arises the
respondent in the CFI of Pangasinan, demanding moment a person or firm acts as a common carrier,
payment of the claimed value of the lost merchandise, without regard to whether or not such carrier has also
plus damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner argued that complied with the requirements of the applicable
private respondent, being a common carrier, and having regulatory statute and implementing regulations and has
failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of been granted a certificate of public convenience or other
him by the law, should be held liable for the value of the franchise. To exempt private respondent from the
undelivered goods. In his Answer, private respondent liabilities of a common carrier because he has not
denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he secured the necessary certificate of public convenience,
could not be held responsible for the value of the lost would be offensive to sound public policy; that would be
goods, such loss having been due to force majeure. The to reward private respondent precisely for failing to
CA ruled that respondent Cendena is not a common comply with applicable statutory requirements. The
carrier because he held no certificate of public business of a common carrier impinges directly and
convenience. intimately upon the safety and well being and property of
those members of the general community who happen to
ISSUES: deal with such carrier. The law imposes duties and
liabilities upon common carriers for the safety and
protection of those who utilize their services and the law
1. Whether or not private respondent Ernesto
cannot allow a common carrier to render such duties and
Cendana may be properly characterized as a
liabilities merely facultative by simply failing to obtain the
common carrier.
necessary permits and authorizations.
2. Liability of the common carrier.
Page 7 of 10
Under Article 1745 (6), a common carrier is held Petitioner contends that the association was formed not
responsible — and will not be allowed to divest or to to complete with the respondent corporation in the latter's
diminish such responsibility — even for acts of strangers operation as a common carrier; that the same was
like thieves or robbers, except where such thieves or organized for the common protection of drivers from
robbers in fact acted "with grave or irresistible threat, abusive traffic officers who extort money from them, and
violence or force." In the instant case, armed men held for the elimination of the practice of respondent
up the second truck owned by private respondent which corporation of requiring jeepney owners to execute deed
carried petitioner's cargo. The record shows that an of sale in favor of the corporation to show that the latter is
information for robbery in band was filed in the CFI of the owner of the jeeps under its certificate of public
Tarlac, Branch 2. There, the accused were charged with convenience. Petitioner also argues that in organizing the
willfully and unlawfully taking and carrying away with association, the members thereof are merely exercising
them the second truck, driven by Manuel Estrada and their freedom or right to redress their grievances. It,
loaded with the 600 cartons of Liberty filled milk destined however, admitted that it is not authorized to transport
for delivery at petitioner's store in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. passengers
The decision of the trial court shows that the accused
acted with grave, if not irresistible, threat, violence or ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner usurped the
force. 3 Three (3) of the five (5) hold-uppers were armed property right of the respondent which shall entitle the
with firearms. The robbers not only took away the truck latter to the award of nominal damages.
and its cargo but also kidnapped the driver and his
helper, detaining them for several days and later RULING: YES. Under the Public Service Law, a
releasing them in Zambales. The hijacked truck was certificate of public convenience is an authorization
subsequently found by the police in Quezon City. The issued by the Public Service Commission for the
Court of First Instance convicted all the accused of operation of public services for which no franchise is
robbery, though not of robbery in band. 4 required by law. In the instant case, a certificate of public
convenience was issued to respondent corporation to
In these circumstances, we hold that the occurrence of operate a public utility jeepney service on the Cogeo-
the loss must reasonably be regarded as quite beyond Cubao route. As found by the trial court, the certificate
the control of the common carrier and properly regarded was issued pursuant to a decision passed by the Board of
as a fortuitous event. It is necessary to recall that even Transportation.
common carriers are not made absolute insurers against
all risks of travel and of transport of goods, and are not A certification of public convenience is included in the
held liable for acts or events which cannot be foreseen or term "property" in the broad sense of the term. Under the
are inevitable, provided that they shall have complied with Public Service Law, a certificate of public convenience
the rigorous standard of extraordinary diligence. can be sold by the holder thereof because it has
considerable material value and is considered as valuable
14. COGEO-CUBAO OPERATORS AND DRIVERS asset (Raymundo v. Luneta Motor Co., et al., 58 Phil.
ASSOCIATION vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS 889). Although there is no doubt that it is private property,
G.R. No. 100727 March 18, 1992 it is affected with a public interest and must be submitted
to the control of the government for the common good
FACTS: A certificate of public convenience to operate a (Pangasinan Transportation Co. v. PSC, 70 Phil 221).
jeepney service was to be issued in favor of Lungsod Hence, insofar as the interest of the State is involved, a
Silangan to ply the Cogeo-Cubao route in 1983. Petitioner certificate of public convenience does not confer upon the
Association, on the otherhand, was an organization which holder any proprietary right or interest or franchise in the
main purpose is representing respondents for whatever route covered thereby and in the public highways (Lugue
contract and/or agreement it will have regarding the v. Villegas, L-22545, Nov . 28, 1969, 30 SCRA 409).
ownership of units, and the like, of the members of the However, with respect to other persons and other public
Association. utilities, a certificate of public convenience as property,
which represents the right and authority to operate its
facilities for public service, cannot be taken or interfered
Perturbed by respondents Board Resolution No. 9,
with without due process of law. Appropriate actions may
adopting a Bandera' System under which a member of
be maintained in courts by the holder of the certificate
the cooperative is permitted to queue for passenger at the
against those who have not been authorized to operate in
disputed pathway in exchange for the ticket worth twenty
competition with the former and those who invade the
pesos, the proceeds of which shall be utilized for
rights which the former has pursuant to the authority
Christmas programs of the drivers and other benefits, and
granted by the Public Service Commission (A.L. Ammen
on the strength of defendants' registration as a collective
Transportation Co. v. Golingco. 43 Phil. 280).
body with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
petitioners, led by Romeo Oliva decided to form a human
barricade and assumed the dispatching of passenger In the case at bar, the trial court found that petitioner
jeepneys. association forcibly took over the operation of the jeepney
Page 8 of 10
service in the Cogeo-Cubao route without any 15. LUZON BROKERAGE CO., INC. vs. THE PUBLIC
authorization from the Public Service Commission and in SERVICE COMMISSION
violation of the right of respondent corporation to operate G.R. No. L-37661 November 16, 1932
its services in the said route under its certificate of public
convenience. These were its findings which were affirmed FACTS: Petitioner prays for a writ of prohibition ordering
by the appellate court: the respondents to desist and refrain from requiring the
petitioner to file an application for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity for the operation of its auto-
The Court from the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses as
trucks. Petitioner is a corporation conducting the business
well as the documentary evidences presented is
of customs broker. It maintains and operates a fleet of
convinced that the actions taken by petitioner herein
trucks designed and utilized exclusively for the carriage of
though it admit that it did not have the authority to
goods or cargo of its particular customers, which from
transport passenger did in fact assume the role as a
time to time are landed and received from vessels and
common carrier engaged in the transport of passengers
delivered to the consignees or owners thereof, or are
within that span of ten days when it unilaterally took upon
forwarded and delivered to such vessels for shipment. It
itself the operation and dispatching of jeepneys at St.
does not solicit nor accept from the public indiscriminately
Mary's St. The president, Romeo Oliva himself in his
goods or cargo for transportation on its aforesaid trucks;
testimony confirmed that there was indeed a takeover of
and that all the transporting, carrying, and delivering
the operations at St. Mary's St.
business conducted by the petitioner is limited and
confined to the articles, goods, and wares of its patrons
Article 21 of the Civil Code provides that any person who as customs broker. It is registered and licensed in the
wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is Bureau of Public Works under the so-called TH
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall denomination. Petitioner contended that it is not a "public
compensate the latter for the damage. The provision service" or "public utility" in contemplation of law even if it
covers a situation where a person has a legal right which receives compensation for its transportation and delivery
was violated by another in a manner contrary to morals, services in addition to its customary customs brokerage
good customs or public policy. It presupposes loss or fees.
injury, material or otherwise, which one may suffer as a
result of such violation. It is clear form the facts of this Respondents, on the other hand, insisted that
case that petitioner formed a barricade and forcibly took petitioner came well within the jurisdiction of the Public
over the motor units and personnel of the respondent Service Commission by virtue of the provisions of section
corporation. This paralyzed the usual activities and 13 of Act No. 3108, as amended. That, according to
earnings of the latter during the period of ten days and established practice and existing regulations of the
violated the right of respondent Lungsod Corp. To Bureau of Public Works, motor trucks may be registered
conduct its operations thru its authorized officers. in said bureau under either of the following
denominations: (a) T for trucks devoted exclusively to the
carriage of owner's goods or cargo; (b) TH for trucks
As to the propriety of damages in favor of respondent carrying cargo only, for compensation or hire; (c) TG for
Lungsod Corp., the respondent appellate court stated: trucks duly licensed as garage by the municipal or city
authorities concerned and authorized to be operated as
. . . it does not necessarily follow that plaintiff-appellee is such by Public Service Commission; and (d) TPU for
entitled to actual damages and attorney's fees. While trucks which are devoted to public use or service for the
there may have been allegations from plaintiff- carriage of passengers and freight or cargo and are
cooperative showing that it did in fact suffer some from of operated under certificate of public convenience.
injury . . . it is legally unprecise to order the payment of Respondents contend that under the wording of
P50,000.00 as actual damages for lack of concrete proof section 13 of Act No. 3108 made by Act No. 3316, any
therefor. There is, however, no denying of the act of person who operates a freight and or passenger motor
usurpation by defendants-appellants which constituted an vehicle with or without fixed route, for hire or
invasion of plaintiffs'-appellees' property right. For this, compensation, is now subject to the supervision,
nominal damages in the amount of P10,000.00 may be regulation, jurisdiction and control of the Public Service
granted. (Article 2221, Civil Code). Commission and must comply with all the provisions of
the Public Service Law. It contended that if the business
No compelling reason exists to justify the reversal of the enumerated in section 13 are carried on for "hire or
ruling of the respondent appellate court in the case at bar. compensation", that is all that is necessary to subject
Article 2222 of the Civil Code states that the court may them to the supervision, regulation and control of the
award nominal damages in every obligation arising from commission.
any source enumerated in Article 1157, or in every case
where any property right has been invaded. Considering
the circumstances of the case, the respondent Issue 1: Whether the petitioner’s business is one of a
corporation is entitled to the award of nominal damages. common carrier?
Page 9 of 10
Ruling: No. The petitioner had been operating for 20
years and even with the succeeding amendments in the
Public Utility Acts during those years in operation, the
respondents and the Government of the Philippine
Islands did not regard said trucks as common carriers or
a public utility. In other words, what was not a common
carrier business under Act No. 3108 is not a common
carrier business under its amendment, which is Act No.
3316.
Page 10 of 10