Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SUN
HOLIDAYS, INC.
Facts:
Spouses Dante and Leonora Cruz lodged a Complaint on January 25,
2001 against Sun Holidays, Inc. with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pasig City for damages arising from the death of their son Ruelito C.
Cruz who perished with his wife on September 11, 2000 on board the
boat M/B Coco Beach III that capsized en route to Batangas from
Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro where the couple had stayed at Coco
Beach Island Resort owned and operated by respondent Sun Holiday.
The
above
article
makes no
distinction between one
whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods
or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary
activity (in local idiom, as "a sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully
avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise
offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and
one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled
That respondent does not charge a separate fee or fare for its
ferry services is of no moment. It would be imprudent to suppose
that it provides said services at a loss. The Court is aware of the
practice of beach resort operators offering tour packages to factor
the transportation fee in arriving at the tour package price. That
guests who opt not to avail of respondents ferry services pay the
same amount is likewise inconsequential. These guests may only be
deemed to have overpaid.
ISSUE:
Whether or not OFII, a customs broker, is considered as a
common carrier and is liable for the damaged containers.
November 15,2013
Peralta, J:
FACTS:
On August 23, 1993, Kinsho-Mataichi Corp shipped 197 metal
containers of tin-free steel for delivery to the consignee, San Miguel
HELD:
Yes. A customs broker has been regarded as a common
carrier because transportation of goods is an integral part of its
business. Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, common carriers are
persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business
of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land,
water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.
Article 1732 does not distinguish between one whose
principal business activity is the carrying of goods and one who does
such carrying only as an ancillary activity. The contention, therefore,
of petitioner that it is not a common carrier but a customs broker
FACTS:
Davao Union Marketing Corporation (DUMC) contracted the services
of PKS Shipping Company (PKS Shipping) for the shipment to
Tacloban City of 75,000 bags of cement worth P3,375,000. DUMC
insured the goods for its full value with Philippine American General
Insurance Company (Philamgen). The goods were loaded aboard the
distinction between:
o
vs.
SPOUSES TERESITA NICOLAS and L. ZARATE, PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL RAILWAYS, and the COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 157917
FACTS:
In June 1996, Nicolas and Teresita Zarate contracted Teodoro and
Nanette Perea to transport their (Zarates) son, Aaron Zarate, to
and from school. The Pereas were owners of a van being used for
private school transport.
At about 6:45am of August 22, 1996, the driver of the said private
van, Clemente Alfaro, while the children were on board including
Aaron, decided to take a short cut in order to avoid traffic. The usual
short cut was a railroad crossing of the Philippine National Railway
(PNR).
Alfaro saw that the barandilla (the pole used to block vehicles
crossing the railway) was up which means it was okay to cross. He
then tried to overtake a bus. However, there was in fact an oncoming
train but Alfaro no longer saw the train as his view was already
blocked by the bus he was trying to overtake. The bus was able to
cross unscathed but the vans rear end was hit. During the collision,
Aaron, was thrown off the van. His body hit the railroad tracks and
his head was severed. He was only 15 years old.
It turns out that Alfaro was not able to hear the train honking from
50 meters away before the collision because the vans stereo was
playing loudly.
The Zarates sued PNR and the Pereas (Alfaro became at-large).
Their cause of action against PNR was based on quasi-delict. Their
cause of action against the Pereas was based on breach of contract
of common carriage.
5.SPOUSES TEODORO1 and NANETTE PERENA, Petitioners,
sure that he had a drivers license and that he was not involved in
any accident prior to his being hired. In short, they observed the
diligence of a good father in selecting their employee.
For its part, PNR tended to show that the proximate cause of the
collision had been the reckless crossing of the van whose driver had
not first stopped, looked and listened; and that the narrow path
traversed by the van had not been intended to be a railroad crossing
for motorists.
The RTC ruled in favor of the Zarates. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the RTC. In the decision of the RTC and the CA, they awarded
damages in favor of the Zarates for the loss of earning capacity of
their dead son.
The Pereas appealed. They argued that the award was improper as
Aaron was merely a high school student, hence, the award of such
damages was merely speculative. They cited the case of People vs
Teehankee where the Supreme Court did not award damages for the
loss of earning capacity despite the fact that the victim there was
enrolled in a pilot school.
ISSUES: Whether or not the defense of due diligence of a good
father by the Pereas is untenable.
HELD: YES
Defense of Due Diligence of a Good Father
This defense is not tenable in this case. The Pereas are common
carriers. They are not merely private carriers. (Prior to this case, the
status of private transport for school services or school buses is not
well settled as to whether or not they are private or common carriers
but they were generally regarded as private carriers).
A private carrier is one who, without making the activity a vocation,
or without holding himself or itself out to the public as ready to act
for all who may desire his or its services, undertakes, by special
agreement in a particular instance only, to transport goods or
persons from one place to another either gratuitously or for hire. The
provisions on ordinary contracts of the Civil Code govern the contract
of private carriage.The diligence required of a private carrier is only
ordinary, that is, the diligence of a good father of the family. In
contrast, a common carrier is a person, corporation, firm or
association engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation,
offering such services to the public. Contracts of common carriage
are governed by the provisions on common carriers of the Civil Code,
the Public Service Act, and other special laws relating to
transportation. A common carrier is required to observe
extraordinary diligence, and is presumed to be at fault or to have
acted negligently in case of the loss of the effects of passengers, or
the death or injuries to passengers.
The true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of
the business actually transacted, or the number and character of the
conveyances used in the activity, but whether the undertaking is a
part of the activity engaged in by the carrier that he has held out 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 advertised and held out to the general public, the
individual or the entity rendering such service is a private, not a
common, carrier. The question must be determined by the character
of the business actually carried on by the carrier, not by any secret
intention or mental reservation it may entertain or assert when
charged with the duties and obligations that the law imposes.
Private transport for schools are common carriers. The Pereas, as
the operators of a school bus service were: (a) engaged in
transporting passengers generally as a business, not just as a casual
occupation; (b) undertaking to carry passengers over established
roads by the method by which the business was conducted; and (c)
transporting students for a fee. Despite catering to a limited clientle,
the Pereas operated as a common carrier because they held
themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to the
students of a particular school living within or near where they
operated the service and for a fee.
GR
No.
210621
Leonen, J.
Pacific personnel that nine (9) of them could not be admitted because
their tickets were for the 10:05 a.m. flight earlier that day. Jose
appealed to the CA, arguing that it was not at fault for the damages
tickets, they learned that only the first two (2) pages had the
appeal and reversing the Decisions of the MeTC and the RTC.
schedule Jose specified. They were left with no other option but to
rebook their tickets. They then learned that their return tickets had
carriers only applies to the carriage of passengers and not to the act
been purchased as part of the promo sales of the airline, and the cost
They offered to pay the amount by credit card but were informed by
the ground personnel that they only accepted cash. They then
offered to pay in dollars, since most of them were balikbayans and
ISSUE: Whether respondent Cebu Air, Inc. is liable for damages for
had the amount on hand, but the airline personnel still refused.
Eventually, they pooled enough cash to be able to buy tickets for five
schedule
(5) of their companions. The other four (4) were left behind in
Palawan and had to spend the night at an inn, incurring additional
four (4) tickets for the companions they left behind, which amounted
to 5,205.
obligation
and the rude treatment that his group encountered from the ground
safely on the date and time stated in the ticket. The contractual
of
the
airline
to
exercise
extraordinary
diligence
carriage, all three (3) pages were recapped to petitioner Jose. The
having the entire group on the 4:15 p.m. flight is petitioner Joses
self-serving testimony that the airline failed to recap the last page of
the tickets to him. They have neither shown nor introduced any other
Even assuming that the ticketing agent encoded the incorrect flight
7.
Facts:
Sec.141 (e) and 151 does not inc lude the authority to
collect such taxes on transport contractors for, as defined
under Sec. 131 (h), the term contrac tors excludes
transportation contractors and, 3) the City Treasurer
illegally and erroneously imposed and collected said tax,
thus meriting the immediate refund of the tax paid.
Respondents assert that pipelines are not included in the term
common carrier which refers solely to ordinary carriers or motor
vehicles.
The trial court dismissed the complaint, and such was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals. Petitioner claims that the respondent Court of
Appeals erred in holding that 1) the petitioner is not a common
carrier or a transportation contractor, and 2) the exemption sought
for by the petitioner is not clear under the law.
Issue:
Whether or not a pipeline business is included in the term common
carrier so as to entitle the petitioner to the exemption.
Held: YES
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a "common carrier" as "any
person, corporation, firm or association engaged in the business of
carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water,
or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public."
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
wants to, it cannot submit its own stipulations for the approval of the
common carrier. Thus, the law on common carriers extends its
protective mantle against one-sided stipulations inserted in tickets,
invoices or other documents over which the riding public has no
understanding or, worse, no choice. Compared to the general public,
a charterer in a contract of private carriage is not similarly situated.
It can -- and in fact it usually does -- enter into a free and voluntary
agreement. In practice, the parties in a contract of private carriage
can stipulate the carriers obligations and liabilities over the
shipments which, in turn, determine the price or consideration of the
charter. Thus, 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.
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person
would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence."
ISSUE:
Whether Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage with the
Wilfredos family? Yes
Whether Sampaguita breached its contract of services with Wilfredos
family? Yes
HELD:
Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage with the Reyeses
when it disallowed them to board the plane in Hong Kong going
to Manila on the date reflected on their tickets. Thus, Cathay
Pacific opened itself to claims for compensatory, actual, moral
and exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs of suit.
In contrast, the contractual relation between Sampaguita Travel
and respondents is a contract for services. The object of the
contract is arranging and facilitating the latters booking and
ticketing. It was even Sampaguita Travel which issued the
tickets.
Since the contract between the parties is an ordinary one for
services, the standard of care required of respondent is that of a
good father of a family under Article 1173 of the Civil Code. This
connotes reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily
prudent person would have observed when confronted with a
similar situation. The test to determine whether negligence
attended the performance of an obligation is: did the defendant
in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in
the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
There was indeed failure on the part of Sampaguita Travel to
exercise due diligence in performing its obligations under the
contract of services. It was established by Cathay Pacific, through
the generation of the PNRs, that Sampaguita Travel failed to
input the correct ticket number for Wilfredos ticket. Cathay
loss of the shipper's goods and claimed that sinking of its vessel was
due to force majeure.
RTC:
in favor of MIC
CA: affirmed RTCs decision in toto.
ISSUES:
(1)
(2)
NO
13. Eastern Shipping Lines Vs. The Nisshin Fire and Marine
Insurance Co. And Dowa Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Ltd.
G.R. No. L- 71478
Melenchio-Herrera, J:
FACTS:
On June 1977, M/S Asiatica, a vessel operated by Eastern
Shipping Lines, loaded at Kobe, Japan calorized lance pipes in 28
packages for transportation to Manila and were insured by
Development Insurance and Surety Corp.
During the same period, the same vessel took on board 128
cartons of garment fabrics and accessories, in 2 containers,
consigned to Mariveles Apparel Corp. and 2 cases of surveying
2.
Enroute for Kobe, Japan, to Manila, the vessel caught fire and
sank, resulting in the total loss of ship and cargo. The respective
Insurers paid the corresponding marine insurance values to the
consignees concerned and were thus subrogated unto the rights of
the latter as the insured. Said insurers filed a suit for the recovery of
the amount they paid before the CFI of Manila. The trial court ruled
in favor of the insurers. The CA affirmed the same on appeal. Eastern
Shipping Lines filed a petition for review on certiorari before the
Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
1.
2.
3.
HELD:
1.
No. Under the Civil Code, common carriers, from the nature
of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound
to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
goods, according to all the circumstances of each
case. Common carriers are responsible for the loss,
destruction, or deterioration of the goods unless the same is
due to flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural
disaster or calamity only.
3.
Yes. In this case, both the Trial Court and the CA, in effect,
found, as a fact, that there was "actual fault" of the carrier
shown by "lack of diligence" in that "when the smoke was
noticed, the fire was already big; that the fire must have
started 24 hours before the same was noticed; " and that
"after the cargoes were stored in the hatches, no regular
inspection was made as to their condition during the voyage."
The foregoing suffices to show that the circumstances under
which the fire originated and spread are such as to show that