Transpo Cases (1st Batch)

7/29/2019 Transpo Cases (1st Batch)

1/6

La Mallorca v. CA

Facts:

Mariano Beltran and his family rode a bus owned by petitioner. Upon reaching their desireddestination, they alighted from the bus. But Mariano returned to get their baggage. His youngestdaughter followed him without his knowledge. When he stepped into the bus again, it suddenly

accelerated. Marianos daughter was found dead. The bus ran over her.

Issue:

Whether the liability of a common carrier extends even after the passenger had alighted

Held:

The relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from thecarriers vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until

the passenger has had a reasonable time or reasonable opportunity to leave the current premises.

La Mallorca v. Court of Appeals (17 SCRA 739)Post undercase digests,Civil LawatThursday, February 23, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: Plaintiffs husband and wife, together with theirminor children, boarded a La Mallorca bus. Upon arrival attheirdestination, plaintiffs and their children alighted from

the bus and the father led them to a shaded spot about 5meters from the vehicle. The father returned to the bus toget a piece of baggage which was not unloaded. He wasfollowed by her daughter Raquel. While the father was stillon the running board awaiting for the conductor to give hisbaggage, the bus started to run so that the father had to

jump. Raquel, who was near the bus, was run over and

killed.

Lower court rendered judgment for the plaintiff which wasaffirmed by CA, holding La Mallorca liable for quasi-delictand ordering it to pay P6,000 plus P400. La Mallorcocontended that when the child was killed, she was no
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/la-mallorca-v-court-of-appeals-17-scra.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/Civil%20Lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/Civil%20Lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/Civil%20Lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/la-mallorca-v-court-of-appeals-17-scra.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/la-mallorca-v-court-of-appeals-17-scra.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/Civil%20Lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/la-mallorca-v-court-of-appeals-17-scra.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/la-mallorca-v-court-of-appeals-17-scra.html


2/6

longer a passenger and therefore thecontract of carriageterminated.

Issue: Whether or not the contractual obligation betweenthe parties ceases the moment the passenger alightedform the vehicle.

Held: On the question whether the liability of the carrier,as to the child who was already led a place 5 meters fromthe bus under thecontract of carrier, still persists, we rulein the affirmative. It is a recognized rules that the relation

between carrier and passengers does not cease at themoment the passenger alights from the carriers premises,to be determined from the circumstances. In this case,there was no utmost diligence. Firstly, the driver,although stopping the bus, did not put off the engine.Secondly, he started to run the bus even before the busconductor gave him the signal and while the latter was

unloading cargo. Here, the presence of said passengernear the bus was not unreasonable and the duration ofresponsibility still exists. Averment of quasi-delict ispermissible under the Rules of Court, althoughincompatible with the contract of carriage. The Rules ofCourt allows the plaintiffs to allege causes of action inthe alternative, be they compatible with each other or not(Sec. 2, Rule 1). Even assuming arguendo thatthe contract of carriage has already terminated, hereinpetitioner can be held liable for the negligence ofits driver pursuant to Art. 2180 of NCC. DecisionMODIFIED. Only question raised in the briefs can bepassed upon, and as plaintiffs did not appeals the award


3/6

of P3,000.00 the increase by the CA of the award toP6,000.00 cannot be sustained.

CASE DIGEST (Transportation Law): Philippine Charter

Insurance Corp. vs. Unknown OwnerPHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. UNKNOWN OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V NATIONALHONOR, NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and INTERNATIONAL CONTAINERSERVICES, INC.[G.R. No. 161833. July 8, 2005]

FACTS:Petitioner Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC) is the insurer of a shipment on board thevessel M/V National Honor, represented in the Philippines by its agent, National Shipping Corporationof the Philippines (NSCP).

The M/V National Honor arrived at the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT). TheInternational Container Terminal Services, Incorporated (ICTSI) was furnished with a copy of the crate

cargo list and bill of lading, and it knew the contents of the crate. The following day, the vesselstarted discharging its cargoes using its winch crane. The crane was operated by Olegario Balsa, awinchman from the ICTSI, exclusive arrastre operator of MICT.

Denasto Dauz, Jr., the checker-inspector of the NSCP, along with the crew and the surveyor of theICTSI, conducted an inspection of the cargo. They inspected the hatches, checked the cargo and foundit in apparent good condition. Claudio Cansino, the stevedore of the ICTSI, placed two sling cables oneach end of Crate No. 1. No sling cable was fastened on the mid-portion of the crate. In Dauzsexperience, this was a normal procedure. As the crate was being hoisted from the vessels hatch, themid-portion of the wooden flooring suddenly snapped in the air, about five feet high from the vesselstwin deck, sending all its contents crashing down hard, resulting in extensive damage to the shipment.

PCIC paid the damage, and as subrogee, filed a case against M/V National Honor, NSCP and ICTSI. Both

RTC and CA dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE:Whether or not the presumption of negligence is applicable in the instant case.

HELD:No.We agree with the contention of the petitioner that common carriers, from the nature of their businessand for reasons of public policy, are mandated to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance overthe goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstancesof each case. he Court has defined extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods as follows:

The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires the common

carrier to know and to follow the required precaution for avoiding damage to, or destruction of thegoods entrusted to it for sale, carriage and delivery. It requires common carriers to render service withthe greatest skill and foresight and to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature andcharacteristic of goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage,including such methods as their nature requires.

The common carriers duty to observe the requisite diligence in the shipment of goods lasts from thetime 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 theiracceptance, by the person entitled to receive them.] >When the goods shipped are either lost or arrive


4/6

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 presumptionof negligence in the case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the common carrier mustprove that it exercised extraordinary diligence.

However, under Article 1734 of the New Civil Code, the presumption of negligence does not apply to

any of the following causes:

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;4. The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;5. Order or act of competent public authority.

It bears stressing that the enumeration in Article 1734 of the New Civil Code which exempts thecommon carrier for the loss or damage to the cargo is a closed list. To exculpate itself from liability forthe loss/damage to the cargo under any of the causes, the common carrier is burdened to prove any ofthe aforecited causes claimed by it by a preponderance of evidence. If the carrier succeeds, theburden of evidence is shifted to the shipper to prove that the carrier is negligent.

Defect is the want or absence of something necessary for completeness or perfection; a lack orabsence of something essential to completeness; a deficiency in something essential to the proper usefor 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 otherwords, defectiveness is not synonymous with inferiority.

x x x

In the present case, the trial court declared that based on the record, the loss of the shipment wascaused by the negligence of the petitioner as the shipper:

The same may be said with respect to defendant ICTSI. The breakage and collapse of Crate No. 1 andthe total destruction of its contents were not imputable to any fault or negligence on the part of said

defendant in handling the unloading of the cargoes from the carrying vessel, but was due solely to theinherent defect and weakness of the materials used in the fabrication of said crate.

The crate should have three solid and strong wooden batten placed side by side underneath or on theflooring of the crate to support the weight of its contents. x x x

LRTA v Natividad

FACTS:

October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor) entered the EDSA

LRT station after purchasing a token.

o While Nicanor was standing at the platform near the LRT tracks, the guard

Junelito Escartin approached him.

o Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight

Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed instantaneously upon being hit by

a moving train operated by Rodolfo Roman


5/6

December 8, 1994: The widow of Nicanor, along with her children, filed a complaint

for damages against Escartin, Roman, LRTA, Metro Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent

(agency of security guards) for the death of her husband.

o LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and a cross-claim

against Escartin and Prudent

Prudent: denied liability averred that it had exercised due diligence

in the selection and surpervision of its security guards

LRTA and Roman: presented evidence

Prudent and Escartin: demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to

prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task

RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin, complaint against LRT

and Roman were dismissed for lack of merit

CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and Roman liable

ISSUE: W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the contract of carriage

HELD: NO. Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages is DELETED (CANNOT co-exist

w/ compensatory damages) (b) Roman is absolved.

Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its

business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty off exercising

utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers

Civil Code:

o Art. 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 a due regard for all the circumstances

o Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are

presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they

prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles

1733 and 1755

o Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to

passengers through the negligence or wilful 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

This liability of the common carriers does NOT cease upon proof that they

Exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and

supervision of their employees


6/6

o Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a

passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or

of strangers, if the common carriers employees through the exercise of the

diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act

or omission.

Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple proof of injury, the

passenger is relieaved 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

Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an

independent firm to undertake the task, the common carrier is NOT relieved of its

responsibilities under the contract of carriage

GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and related provisions in

conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. (Tort may arise even under a contract,

where tort [quasi-delict liability] is that which breaches the contract)o EX: if employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee,

employer can be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum

that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the

selection and supervision of its employees.

o EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of

the employee

Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the death of Nicanor for the

reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOT proven

NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must

also be absolved from liabilityo Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relation bet.

Nicanor and Roman

Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence.

Transpo Cases (1st Batch)

Documents

Transcript of Transpo Cases (1st Batch)