Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

`
TRANSPORTATION LAW
Atty. Frederick I. Anciano

Distinction: Private vs. Common carrier (Sps. Perena vs. Sps. Teresita, et.al., 2012)

Distinction Common carrier Private carrier

Nature as carrier A person, corporation, firm or A private carrier is one who, without
association engaged in the business of making the activity a vocation, or without
carrying or transporting passengers or holding himself or itself out to the public
goods or both, by land, water, or air, for as ready to act for all who may desire
compensation, offering such services to his or its services, undertakes, by
the public. special agreement in a particular
instance only, to transport goods or
● PCAF persons from one place to another either
● Engaged in the business of gratuitously or for hire.
carrying or transporting ● Not a vocation
● Carries/transports passengers ● Not holding itself/himself out to
or goods, or both the public as ready to act as
● Transports by land, water, or air carrier for ALL those who want
● Transports for compensation to avail of its services
● It offers its services to the public ● By special agreement
● For a particular instance
(gratuitously or for hire)

Governing law ● Provisions on common carriers Civil code

of the Civil Code
● Public Service Act and
● Other special laws relating to
transportation

Diligence Extraordinary/utmost diligence Ordinary diligence of a good father of a

family (OGFF)
Article 1755 of the Civil Code specifies
that the common carrier should "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."

No device, whether by stipulation,

posting of notices, statements on tickets,
or otherwise, may dispense with or
lessen the responsibility of the common
carrier as defined under Article 1755.

Presumption of It is presumed to be at fault or to have No presumption of fault or negligence.

1
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

fault acted negligently in case of the loss of

the effects of passengers, or the death
or injuries to passengers.

Private
- If there is an accident, there is no presumption of fault or negligence.
● Note: If there is presumption, the burden is on the common carrier or defendant. The rule
that he who alleges must prove will not apply.
● Diligence required – good father of a family only; lesser diligence required

Public/common
- judgmental, why? If it causes injury on a passenger, there is a PRESUMPTION that it
has fault or negligence, so always check if loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods vs.
injury or death
■ Common defenses:
● NOT a common carrier
● Common carrier, but the victim is NOT A PASSENGER
■ There is a certain diligence being required by law →
● Carriage of things – extraordinary diligence
● Carriage of persons – utmost diligence
■ Atty: It is not required that the business, corporation, or firm owns the vehicles to
be used. As long as it meets the requirements under Art. 1732.

ARTICLE 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,
are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the
passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735,
and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further
set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.

Definition
A common carrier is defined under the Philippine Civil Code as
1) persons, corporations, firms or associations
2) engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both,
3) by land, water, or air,
4) for compensation,
5) offering their services to the public. (MEMORIZE) Art. 1732

● Primarily about public carriers or common carriers.

○ No traffic rules and regulations
● Is a jeep, bus, or tricycle a common carrier? YES.

Importance of determining whether the carrier is a common or private carrier?

1) Diligence required

2
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

2) Presumption of fault/negligence
3) Governing laws
4) Burden of proof
5) Cause of action

● The SC clarified that 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 basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish
between a carrier offering its services to the ‘general public,’ i.e., the general community or
population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the
general population. (De Guzman vs. CA)
○ Regardless if: (IMPORTANT)
■ Carrying persons or goods, or both
■ Sideline business only | ancillary
■ On a regular or scheduled basis
■ Occasional, episodic, or scheduled
■ Offering its services to the general public or to a narrow segment of the general
population only

Diligence required of common carriers

● Article 1733 of the Civil Code requires common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods they carry. In case of loss, destruction or deterioration of goods,
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, and the burden
of proving otherwise rests on them.

Exemption from liability:

The provisions of Article 1733, notwithstanding, common carriers are exempt from liability for loss,
destruction, or deterioration of the goods due 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; and

(5) Order or act of competent public authority.

● Extraordinary diligence is that extreme measure of care and caution which persons of
unusual prudence and circumspection use for securing and preserving their own property
or rights. (IMPORTANT)

● Atty: if there is contributory negligence on the part of the passenger, the liability of the common
carrier may be lessened.

3
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

Governing laws
● Common carrier – New Civil Code – 1732 to 1766
○ Note: What law is used?
■ Public carrier
● Over land transportation → 1) NCC; 2) If none in NCC, Code of Commerce
(pero rare instances)
● Maritime transportation → Considerations:
● Coast wide ba? Island to island → NCC; COC
● Inbound ba? Foreign port to ph ports → NCC; COC; COGSA (Carriage of
Goods by Sea Act)
● Outbound ba? From Ph ports to foreign ports → law of the country where the
goods will be shipped will govern.
● Air transportation →
● International airlines → NCC; Warsaw Convention

■ Private carrier – New Civil Code → Obligations and Contracts

Constitutional limitation
● 60% owned by Filipinos
● Ownership of facilities vs. operation of public utility

Vigilance over goods

○ Duration –
duration during which the common carrier should exercise the diligence required. Kailan nag-
uumpisa and kailan nag-e-end → From the time the common carrier received the goods,
until the same are actually or constructively delivered.

○ Temporary unloading of goods –

kailangan pa rin ba ang extraordinary diligence at this time? E.g. Stop over muna para
ibaba saglit yung goods | What if binaba na sa warehouse?

○ Fortuitous event – laging defense ni common carrier

■ For private carrier - Oblicon will apply → NO LIABILITY
■ For common carrier (Art. 1739) - He will not be immediately free from
liability.
a) The fortuitous event must be the only and proximate cause of the
destruction of the goods.
b) The common carrier should not negligently incur in delay in
transporting the goods.
c) Due diligence by the carrier BDA to minimize or prevent the loss

Requisites of fortuitous events: (Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v. Transport Venture, Inc.)
1. the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtor to
comply with his obligation, must be independent of human will
2. it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitute the caso fortuito, or if it
can be foreseen it must be impossible to avoid

4
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

3. the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in any manner
4. the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury
resulting to the creditor.

Considerations for the common carrier to NOT BE liable:

Fortuitous event - flood, earthquake, storm, natural calamity/disaster [usual bar questions] - common
carrier is not automatically excused unless:

a) Art. 1739 - the natural disaster must be the proximate and only cause of the loss, destruction,
deterioration of the goods AND the CC must prove exercise of extraordinary diligence to stop,
minimize, forestall the loss, deterioration, destruction of natural disaster before during and after
occurrence of natural calamity

b) Act of God doctrine - there must be exclusion of human agency; the act must be occasioned
solely by the violence of act of nature; SC ruled that CC must prove it did not contribute to the
occurrence of the act of nature; otherwise, Act of God doctrine - not applicable. EXCLUSION OF
HUMAN AGENCY. NOTE: if there's human intervention the act will be "humanized" this will not
be a valid defense.

c) Art. 1740 - there must be no delay. The delay must NOT be negligently incurred by CC.
i) Thus, if the delay is justified, he is not considered liable for such delay.

Stipulation limiting liability – Two kinds: → FOR GOODS ONLY

■ Reduction of liability – E.g. may nakalagay sa contract that the carrier will only
exercise the diligence of GFOF
● REQUISITES: (Art. 1744, CC)
1) In writing, signed by the shipper/owner
2) Supported by a valid consideration other than the service
3) It must be reasonable, just, and not contrary to public policy
■ Fixing the liability – E.g. may nakalagay na hanggang 10K lang ang sasagutin
ni carrier in case of damage
■ For PASSENGERS - there shall be no reduction of diligence.
● Safety of passenger -
○ Presumption of fault or negligence
○ Common excuse → 1) NOT a common carrier; 2) They are no longer responsible as the event
happened beyond or not even in the beginning of duration – HINDI PA PASAHERO si person.
■ Landmark case: Mere stepping on the platform of the jeep or bus. Isang paa pa
lang yung naipatong, umandar na agad ang bus. Once the passenger manifested
his intention to board + if the common carrier manifests his intention to accept =
the person is already considered a passenger, and from that moment, the carrier
should exercise utmost diligence. Dangwa principle
■ Eg. Taxi, tumigil sayo, binuksan ang bintana, (intention to accept) sinabi mo san
ka pupunta (intention to board), pero di doon ang way nya. Pinaandar yung taxi,
tapos na injure ka. You are already a passenger. He is liable.

5
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

● Ang ifafile na kaso → breach of contract, not quasi-delict. Because there is

already a contract of carriage.
■ LRTA vs. Navidad – Passenger bought a token, sumakay sa LRT, medyo lasing
sya and nagwawala. Dumating si guard para icontain siya, pagsapak ni guard,
nalalaglag siya sa railing and namatay. LRT said that it is not yet a passenger.
SC: YES, passenger already. The common carrier should observe utmost
diligence not only during the course of the trip, but also when he/she is within the
premises of the common carrier and he is there to ride.
■ Art. 1763 of the Civil Code provides that a common carrier is responsible for
injuries suffered by a passenger on account of wilful acts of other
passengers, if the employees of the common carrier could have prevented
the act through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family.

Examples:
● Is a pipeline a common carrier? First Philippine Industry case
● Is a school bus a common carrier? No, because the carrier is the OPERATOR/OWNER, not the
vehicle? Perena vs. Serate
● Is a resort operator a common carrier? Consider that resort operators use ferries/boats to bring
the customers to the island or resort, and nakalagay na “free” siya. Yes. Cruz vs. Sun Holidays
● Is a custom broker a common carrier? Torres Madrid Brokerage
● Group of manananggals met and they talked about initiating a business of delivery of goods (like
shoppee or Lazada). Nagdala si M1 from their office ng package, nagtaka sya nalalaglag, kasi
mga krus pala so na-damage yung goods worth 10K. Are the manananggals common carriers?
● MV Princess of the Stars – the defense of the common carrier was that the accident was caused
by a fortuitous event
○ E.g. (related to remedial law) Nag file ng class suit yung mga victims. Will it prosper? NO,
because of the different damages per person. In order for it to prosper, there must be a
commonality/generality of the interests of the persons over the subject matter |
number | representative. Why is there no commonality? Hindi pare-parehas ng damages,
like yung namatay ay tambay lang, doktor, lawyer, etc.
○ MV Dona Paz case – (related to remedial law)the MV carried 5k passengers when its
capacity was only 1,500. Binagga sila ng oil tanker. Will the MV be exonerated? Ano ang
COA sa oil tanker? - quasi-delict; Ano COA sa MV? - contract of carriage.
● Airline - sinosobrahan yung number of passengers ng 10% kasi studies show daw that not all
passengers confirm their trip. Here, nagconfirm yung 100% plus the 10% na additional. Usually,
may ex-deal sila. Pag sumobra, “bump-off”.
● Reynera case – What if a vehicle in front of you suddenly stopped then the vehicle behind
bumped the one in front. Who shall be liable?
● May bumato sa tren, may natamaan. Is the carrier liable? Art. 1763

Reference: Anciano book – Prof will inform the beadle, magpapaprint muna si sir. Prof will give 8 cases.
READ IN FULL TEXT.

● Res ipsa loquitur will not apply in an action for breach of contract of carriage, because negligence
is presumed.
● Private carrier - magic word: By special agreement.
Public service (Section 13(b), Public Service Act)

6
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

● (b) The term "public service" includes every person that now or hereafter may own, operate,
manage, or control in the Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele,
whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business purposes, any
common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway, sub-way motor vehicle, either for freight
or passenger, or both with or without fixed route and whether may be its classification, freight or
carrier service of any class, express service, steamboat or steamship line, pontines, ferries, and
water craft, engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight or both, shipyard, marine
railways, marine repair shop, [warehouse] wharf or dock, ice plant, ice-refrigeration plant, canal,
irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and power water supply and power, petroleum,
sewerage system, wire or wireless communications system, wire or wireless broadcasting
stations and other similar public services: Provided, however, That a person engaged in
agriculture, not otherwise a public service, who owns a motor vehicle and uses it personally
and/or enters into a special contract whereby said motor vehicle is offered for hire or
compensation to a third party or third parties engaged in agriculture, not itself or themselves a
public service, for operation by the latter for a limited time and for a specific purpose directly
connected with the cultivation of his or their farm, the transportation, processing, and marketing of
agricultural products of such third party or third parties shall not be considered as operating a
public service for the purposes of this Act.

Duration of diligence of the carrier:

START and END:
● GOODS - From the unconditional placing of the goods until the time of delivery to the consignee.
● PASSENGERS -
a) START - From the time the passenger is in the carrier’s premises.
○ E.g. along the road, when does it start? When the passenger signifies its intent to board, and when
the carrier showed his intent to accept the person. → During this time, the carrier must give the
passenger reasonable time to ride and to get off from the carrier.
○ In this instance, the carrier SHOULD STOP, and not merely slow down to let the
passenger board.
○ E.g. Airplane? When the passenger is within the carrier’s premises.

b) END - reasonable time to leave the premises of the carrier, considering the type of
carrier.
● “Not an insurer of all risks” - will only apply if:
1) EEs of the common carrier observed due diligence in providing the safety of the
passengers
2) There should be no negligence on the part of the common carrier.

What are the defenses of common carriers in loss or deterioration of goods? FAACO

General rule: CC are responsible for the loss, destruction, deterioration of goods
Exceptions (FAA CO):

1. Fortuitous event - flood, earthquake, storm, natural calamity/disaster [usual bar questions] - common
carrier is not automatically excused unless:
a. Art. 1739 - the natural disaster must be the proximate and only cause of the loss,
destruction, deterioration of the goods AND the CC must prove exercise of extraordinary diligence to stop,
minimize, forestall the loss, deterioration, destruction of natural disaster before during and after
occurrence of natural calamity

7
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

b. Act of God doctrine - there must be exclusion of human agency; the act must be
occasioned solely by the violence of act of nature; SC ruled that CC must prove it did not contribute to the
occurrence of the act of nature; otherwise, Act of God doctrine - not applicable. EXCLUSION OF HUMAN
AGENCY.. NOTE: if there's human intervention the act will be "humanized" this will not be a valid
defense.
c. Art. 1740 - there must be no delay. The delay must NOT be negligently incurred by
CC.
2. Act of or omission of shipper or owner
3. Act of a public enemy during war
4. Character of the goods or improper packing
5. Order / act of a competent authority

● Is theft or robbery of goods a valid defense of a common carrier?

○ YES, if attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence or force" (De Guzman vs. CA)
Defenses of common carrier

1. Fortuitous event and public enemy

2. Improper packing
3. Order of public authority

Stipulation limiting the liability of the carrier; reducing diligence (Art. 1744)

● This is VALID, provided that these requisites are met:

1) In writing, signed by the shipper or owner
2) Supported by a valuable consideration other than the services rendered by the common
carrier
3) Reasonable, just, and not contrary to public policy

● Nonetheless: Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the
vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in
case of their loss, destruction or deterioration. (Art. 1452)

● Note: There shall be NO REDUCTION of diligence in the carriage of passengers.

Stipulation fixing the amount of liability (Art. 1750)

● VALID, provided that the sum fixed must be reasonable and just under the circumstances and
fairly and freely agreed upon (Art. 1750)

Contributory negligence
● If the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods,
the proximate cause thereof being the negligence of the common carrier, the latter shall be liable
in damages, which however, shall be equitably reduced. (Art. 1741)

Invalid stipulations (Art. 1745)

1. That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;

8
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

2. That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods;
3. That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods;
4. That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a
family, or of a man of ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported;
5. That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees;
6. That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with
grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished;
7. That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods on
account of the defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in
the contract of carriage.

Defenses of common carrier

1. Fortuitous event and public enemy

2. Improper packing
3. Order of public authority

Temporary unloading or storage in transitu

● The common carrier's duty to observe extraordinary diligence over the goods remains in full force
and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, unless the shipper or
owner has made use of the right of stoppage in transitu. (Art. 1737)

Stored in a warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination

● The extraordinary liability of the common carrier continues to be operative even during the time
the goods are stored in a warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination, until the consignee
has been advised of the arrival of the goods and has had reasonable opportunity thereafter to
remove them or otherwise dispose of them. (Art. 1738)

Jurisprudence where SC ruled held that it is NOT A COMMON CARRIER

1) Freight forwarder
2) Arrastre operator
3) Stevedore
4) Travel agency
5) Customs broker - It can be a common carrier if it engages in the carriage of goods.

Safety of Passengers

Diligence required (Art. 1755)

● A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers:

○ Safely as human care and foresight can provide,
○ Using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons,
○ With a due regard for all circumstances
● There shall be NO REDUCTION of diligence in the carriage of passengers. No device, whether
by stipulation posting of notices, statements on tickets, or otherwise, may dispense with or lessen
the responsibility of the common carrier. (Sps. Perena vs. Zarate, 2012)

9
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

When does it start?

● La Mallorca – The status of being a passenger does not cease when the passenger has alighted,
but after he/she had reasonable opportunity to leave the premises.
○ When does it end? Paano kung nakababa na, bumalik lang para kunin yung naiwang
bag, sumunod yung anak then umandar yung bus, namatay yung bata. Is the child still a
passenger? NO, because he is no longer a passenger.

Presumption of negligence

Requisites:
1. Contract between the passenger and the common carrier
2. Injury or death took place during the existence of such contract

● How can a common carrier be absolved from liability for force majeure? (Sulpicio Lines vs.
Sesante, 2016) It must prove that it did not contribute to the occurrence of the incident due to its
own or its employees’ negligence.

Injury caused by strangers or co-passengers

Contributory negligence
● Rule: The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his
death or injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the
amount of damages shall be equitably reduced. (Art. 1762)
○ Rationale: The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to
avoid injury to himself. (Art. 1761)

10
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

SUMMARY OF RULES: FOR QUASI-DELICT ONLY

Parties Can RO raise defense of DGFF; EE acted Notes
outside?

Situation 1: YES Why? Because the RO is Caravan case

RO who is actual ER | also the ER of the ND. →
Negligent driver | Victim This is the situation Why should the ER
(3 parties) embodied in Art. 2180. prove acted outside of
his authority? Then the
RO will be free from
liability. The driver-EE
is acting on his own.

RO | Actual ER | NO (Filcar case), RO rule applies here

Negligent driver | Victim because the Motor only.
(4 parties) Vehicle registration law

11
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

modified Art. 2180 such Filcar, MMTC cases

that those defenses
MAY NOT BE RAISED
by the RO.

Line of thought:
1. Determine if the victim is a passenger or a third person.
a. Passenger → breach of contract of carriage
b. Third person → action for quasi-delict

Registered owner rule PROBLEMS:

Situation: Due to negligence, the bus driver of the CC bumped another cement mixer truck. Passenger
(Mr. Passenger) hit his head and immediately went unconscious. When the passenger woke up, he
found himself in the hospital. Remembering the plate no. ,and after verifying with the LTO, he found out
that it was registered in the name of Balasu Bus Co., Pasahero then filed an action for damages based on
the registered owner rule against Balasu Bus Co. Decide.

What is the apparent confusion in MVL and Art. 2180?

→ Look first at the purpose of the MVL. → to identify the RO in case of damages caused to third persons.

Importance of the enactment of MVL:

1) For easy identification of the RO who shall be liable in case of damages, accident.
2) MVL modified Art. 2180 such that the ff defenses are NO LONGER available to the ER who is
ALSO the REGISTERED OWNER:
a) ER observed DGFF to prevent damage | selection and supervision of the EE
b) ER acted beyond the tasks assigned to him.
c) Atty: Anciano: There is no EE-ER relationship

Filcar, MMTC – RO can no longer use the defenses in Art. 2180.

Caravan – Yes, the ER can still use the defenses because the ER is ALSO THE REGISTERED OWNER. → Thus,
Art. 2180 will be strictly applied.

REVALIDA QUESTIONS:

Global Transport Services, Inc. (GTSI) operates a fleet of cargo vessels plying interisland routes. One of its vessels,
MV Dona Juana, left the port of Manila for Cebu laden with, among other goods, 10,000 television sets consigned to
Romualdo, a TV retailer in Cebu.
When the vessel was about ten nautical miles away from Manila, the ship captain heard on the radio that a typhoon
which, as announced by PAG-ASA, was on its way out of the country, had suddenly veered back into Philippine
territory.
Global Transport Services, Inc. (GTSI) operates a fleet of cargo vessels plying interisland routes. One of its vessels,
MV Dona Juana, left the port of Manila for Cebu laden with, among other goods, 10,000 television sets consigned to
Romualdo, a TV retailer in Cebu.
When the vessel was about ten nautical miles away from Manila, the ship captain heard on the radio that a typhoon
which, as announced by PAG-ASA, was on its way out of the country, had suddenly veered back into Philippine
territory.
Against whom does Romualdo have a cause of action for indemnity of his lost TV sets? Explain
Atty. Frederick Anciano7:28 PM

12
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

LMN, Inc. operates a beach resort in a secluded island off the coast of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. It operates
three (3) motorized boats to ferry its guests from the city proper to the island resort and vice-versa. During one rainy
morning, the guests were informed that the ferry services for that day were cancelled due to a storm forecast. In
order to appease the apparent dismay of most of the guests who will miss their flight back to Manila, the boat captain
of one of LMN, Inc.'s motorized
This prompted Mr. X's heirs to file a complaint for damages against LMN, Inc., which they alleged to be a common
carrier. In its defense, LMN, Inc. maintained that it is not a common carrier because its boats are not available to the
general public but only ferry resort guests and employees.

(a) May LMN, Inc. be considered a common carrier? Explain.

(b) Assuming LMN, Inc. is a common carrier, may it be absolved from liability on the ground of fortuitous event?
Explain.
Atty. Frederick Anciano7:36 PM
AA entered into a contract with BB for the latter to transport ladies wear from Manila to France with transhipment via
Taiwan. Somehow the goods were not loaded in Taiwan on time, hence, these arrived in France "off-season." AA was
only paid for onehalf (1/2) the value by the buyer.
AA claimed damages from BB. BB invoked prescription as a defense under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.
Considering the "loss of value" of the ladies wear as claimed by AA, is BB’s defense tenable? Explain.
Atty. Frederick Anciano7:58 PM
The seller of goods delivered the same to a carrier for transmission to the buyer who bought the same on credit,
While the goods were in transit and before the carrier had delivered the goods to the buyer, the seller stopped the
goods on the ground that the buyer became insolvent. After stop-page of the goods, (a) what obligation does the
carrier have? (b) when will the required extraordinary diligence of the carrier cease?
Atty. Frederick Anciano8:05 PM
Wisconsin Transportation Co., Inc. (WTC) owned and operated an inter-island de luxe bus service plying the Manila-
Batangas-Mindoro route. Three friends, namely: Aurelio, Jerome and Florencio rode on the same WTC bus from
Manila bound for Mindoro. Aurelio purchased a ticket for himself. Jerome, being a boyhood friend of the bus driver,
was allowed a free ride by agreeing to sit during the trip on a stool placed in the aisle. Florencio, already penniless
after spending all of his money on beer the
night before, just stole a ride in the bus by hiding in the on-board toilet of the bus.
During the trip, the bus collided with another bus coming from the opposite direction. The three friends all suffered
serious physical injuries.
What are WTC's liabilities, if any, in favor of Aurelio, Jerome and Florencio? Explain your answer.
Atty. Frederick Anciano8:13 PM
A railroad track of the Philippine National Railway (PNR) is located near a busy intersection of Puyat Avenue and
Osmenia Highway. One afternoon, the intersection was heavily congested, as usual. Juan, the driver of a public utility
jeepney (PUJ), drove onto the railroad tracks but could go no farther because of the heavy traffic at the intersection.
After the jeepney stopped right on the railroad track, it was hit and overturned by a
PNR train, resulting in the death of Kim, a passenger of the PUJ, and injuries to Juan and his other passengers.
Juan, the injured passengers and Kim's family sued the PNR for damages for its negligence. It was established that
the steel pole barrier before the track was mulfunctioning, and that the PNR had the last clear chance of avoiding the
accident.
On the other hand, the PNR raised the defense that the track is for the exclusive use of the train and that motorists
are aware that it is negligence per se to stop their vehicles on the tracks. Decide the case and explain.
Ka Shipping Lines bought a second hand passenger ship from Japan. It modified the design of the bulkhead of the
deck of the ship to accommodate more passengers. The ship sunk with its passengers in Tablas Strait due to heavy
rains brought by the monsoon.
The heirs of the passengers sued Ka Shipping for its liability as a common carrier based on the reconfiguration of the
bulkhead which may have compromised the stability of the ship.

Ka Shipping raised the defense that the monsoon is a fortuitous event? Decide with reasons.

13
Transportation Law Diao, Kairene

AA entered into a contract with BB for the latter to transport ladies wear from Manila to France with
transhipment via Taiwan. Somehow the goods were not loaded in Taiwan on time, hence, these arrived in
France "off-season." AA was only paid for onehalf (1/2) the value by the buyer.

City Railways, Inc. (CRI) provides train services, for a fee, to commuters from Manila to Calamba, Laguna.
Commuters are required to purchase tickets and then proceed to designated loading ang unloading
facilities to board the train. Joseph purchased a ticket for Calamba and entered the station. While waiting,
he had an altercation with the security guard of CRI
leading to a fistfight. Joseph fell on the railway just as a train was entering the station. Joseph was run
over by the train. He died.
In the action for damages filed by the heirs of Joseph, CRI interposed failure to state a cause of action,
contending that the mishap occurred before Joseph boarded the train and that it was not guilty of
negligence. Decide.
While a Bachelor Express bus was on its way to Cagayan de Oro City, a passenger at the rear portion of
the bus suddenly stabbed a PC soldier which caused commotion and panic among the passengers such
that the passengers started running to the sole exit of the bus. The passengers shoved each other, as a
result of which, two passengers fell off the bus and died.
The bus driver did not immediately stop the bus at the height of commotion so that the victims fell while
the bus was still running. The bus company denied liability on the ground that it was not an insurer of its
passengers and that the death of the passengers was caused by force majeure over which the common
carrier did not have any control. Was the carrier liable?

14