By: Winnie Anne Cuerdo, San Beda College TRANSPORTATION CASES

1. De Guzman v. CA Art 1732 makes no distintion between principal business activity and ancillary business or sideline Hi-jacking is caso fortuito, making the carrier not liable for any damages incurred. Hi-jacking , not being included in the provisions of Article 1734, must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 1735 and thus, common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or negligent. To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must prove that the robbers or the hijackers acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force. This is in accordance with Article 1745 of the Civil Code. 2. Baliwag Transit v. CA Contract of carriage is between the carrier and passenger only. Passenger is the only proper party. Parents have no right to file a complaint against the carrier, unless the passenger died. 3. LRTA v. Navidad When there is a contact of carriage in railways? a. There is purchase of ticket or token made by passenger and possessed sufficient fare to pay for passage. b. Present himself at the proper place and in a proper manner to be transported. c. There is bonafide intention to use the facilities of the carrier Due diligence in selecting employees is not a valid defense

4. British Airways v. CA Contract to carry is a future contract of carriage and perfected by mere consent even if no tickets were issued 5. Asia Lighterage and Shipping v. CA Art 1732 makes no distinction between a carrier offering its service to the general public or one who has limited clientele EOD NOT exercised! 6. Fabre v. CA EOD needed to be exercised by common carriers 7. First Phil. Industrial Corp. v. CA Pipeline concessionaires are considered common carriers. Tests were laid out by SC for the determination of w/n one is a common carrier.

By: Winnie Anne Cuerdo, San Beda College a. Engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as public employment, and must hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for person generally as business and not a casual occupation b. Undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is confined c. Undertake to carry by the method which his business is conducted and over his established roads d. Transportation must be for hire 8. Planters Product Inc. v. CA Charter party Contract of affreightment is still a public carrier. If charter by demise or bareboat, carrier is becomes private. NO EOD therefore not liable under 1734 9. FGU Insurance Exclusive hauler is not a common carrier as it scarcely falls within the definition of common carrier under Art. 1732 but still is liable for breach of contract of carriage. 10. Crisostomo v. CA Respondent travel agency is not a common carrier, there is no breach of contract of carriage. Petitioner is a lawyer and well-travelled person and the one being negligent in the case. 11. Erezo v. Jepte Registered owner rule One has the right to assume that the registered owner is the actual owner of the vehicle. Registered owner id primarily responsible to third persons in case of accidents 12. Lita Enterprises Kabit System is an illegal contract being contrary to public policy though not outrightly penalized. The court will aid either party under the in pari delicto rule and no action aries out from an illicit bargain. 13. Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA Having same SSS ID no. does not necessarily mean that BT and BTI are using the Kabit System. 14. Lim v. CA Kabit Sytem paries were the victims Exception to the Kabit System: a. Neither of the parties to the kabit system is being held liable for damages b. The cas arose from neglingence of another vehicle, to whom no misrepresentation was made as to the ownership c. Riding public was not bothered nor inconvenienced at the very least by the illegal arrangement

By: Winnie Anne Cuerdo, San Beda College d. Generally kabit system is not illegal as long as there is no injured third person 15. Santos v. CA 16. FC Fisher v. Yangco Right to refuse explosives. Main issue: Constitutionality of Act 98 of the Philippine Commission forcing carriers to carry explosive goods a. Taking of private property without just compensation b. Imposing excessive penalties and c. Involuntary servitude SC: Act 98 should not be strictly construed facts are lacking, such refusal shall be construed as undue, unnecessary or unreasonable. Act 98 is constitutional, for it will cause traffic if all carriers will refuse carriage of explosive materials. 17. Trans-Asia Shipping v. CA If there is failure to transport to passengers destianation, liabilities of carrier? The vessel is unseaworthy for it ran only on one engine 18. Dangwa v. CA a. Boarding a slowly moving vehicle is a common practice in the Philippines (custom) carrier is still negligent for two reasons i. Bus prematurely accelerated (10 meters) ii. Bus accelerated without conductors signal iii. Bus driver delivered did not immediately deliver the injured to the hospital, he was negligent -No EOD

19. La Mallorca v. CA When EOD exercised, overland transportation. Facts: 4 year old girl was ran over by a bus Doctrine the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carriers 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 carriers premises. 20. Aboitiz Shipping v. CA When EOD exercised, coastwise transportation. La Mallorca doctrine applies though different vessels are concerned, 5 minutes reasonable time in this case 1 hour

By: Winnie Anne Cuerdo, San Beda College Person was hit by a train.

21. Pilapil v. CA stone throwing incident was considered as caso fortuito Doctrine: The requisites for fortuitous events: 1. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will. 2. It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the case fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid. 3. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. 4. The obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in or the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. 22. Fortune Express vs. CA (Not a fortuitous event, it is forseeable-there was warning given by PC about Maranao attack)

23. Juntilla vs. Fontanar Tire exploded causing the jeep to turn turtle, the tire was only slightly used at that time The cause of the blowing up of the tire was not independent of the human will so it is considered as caso fortuito for the jeep was speeding and was overloaded by 3 passengers

24. Gacal vs. PAL (Airplane hijack) A common carrier may held liable for failing to prevent a hijacking by frisking passengers and inspecting their baggage It was not caso fortuito for the airport was negligent, PAL did not use metal detectors which is the most effective way of discovering potential sky jackers. *Note during that time, under the country was under martial law, but that does not mean that they are excused from exerting due diligence in inspecting people riding their airport **Note 6 MNLF passengers were responsible for the high jack 25. Ganzon vs. CA (under order of competent public authority) The petitioner carrier was not excused from liability because the Supreme Court did not consider the order of an acting mayor as a valid order of public authority. In other words, the

By: Winnie Anne Cuerdo, San Beda College Supreme Court requires that the public authority who issued the order must be duly authorized to issue the orders provided for in the proviso in Article 1743 26. Maranan vs. Perez (driver killed taxi cab passenger)

27. Gillaco vs. MRC (assault of an employee to a passenger) Difference with Maranan case: Gillaco under the Old Civil Code whereas the New Civil Code covers Maranan

28. Necesito vs. Paras (under mechanical defects) No caso fortuito Doctrine: The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that the passenger has neither choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier. Having no privity whatever with the manufacturer or vendor of the defective equipment, the passenger has no remedy against him, while the carrier usually has. It is but logical, therefore, that the carrier, while not in insurer of the safety of his passengers, should nevertheless be held to answer for the flaws of his equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable.