2nd set digests-2-2

8/12/2019 2nd Set Digests-2-2

1/47

1 SARKIES TOURS PHILIPPINES, INC.petitionervs. HONORABLECOURT OF APPEALS (TENTH DIVISION), DR. ELINO G. FORTADES,MARISOL A. FORTADES and FATIMA A. FORTADES., respondent.

Characters:

Sarkies Tours Phils> petitioner-common carrier

Fatima Fortades> private respondent, angnawalan ng

mgagamit

Marisol Fortades> private respondent, nanayni Fatima

aul > !rother o" Fatima, tumulongkay Fatima mag-load

ng !aggage nyasa !us# e$tra langsyadito

%ature o" the Case: &amage suit against petitioner "or !reach o"contract o" carriage allegedly attended !y !ad "aith'

FACTS:

Fatima !oarded petitioner(s !us )&e *u$e +us %o' in

Manila on her way to *ega.pi City' /er !rother aul helped her load three pieces o" luggage

containing all o" her optometry review !ooks, materials ande0uipment, trial lenses, trial contact lenses, passport and visa,as well as her mother Marisol(s 1'S' immigration )green card,among other important documents and personal !elongings'

/er !elongings were kept in the !aggage compartment o"

the !us, !ut during a stopover at &aet, it was discovered thatonly one !ag remained in the open compartment' The others,including Fatima(s things, were missing and could have

dropped along the way' Some o" the passengers suggested retracing the route to

try to recover the lost items, !ut the driver ignored them andproceeded to *ega.pi City'

2""orts were then made on the part o" private respondents

to recover the lost !aggage'

Marisol went petitioner(s o""ice in *ega.pi, then inManila' )Petitioner here o""ered them P3k "or eachluggage lost, w4c o""er Marisol turned down'

5sked assistance "rom radio stations'

5sked helped o" Philtranco !us drivers who plied thesame route'

eported the incident to the %+6 "ield o""ice in *ega.pi

City and local police' 7ne o" Fatima(s !ags was recovered'

espondents, through counsel, "ormally demanded

satis"action o" their complaint "rom petitioner' Petitioner,through a letter, apologi.ed "or the delay and said that a teamhas !een sent out to +icol "or the purpose o" recovering or atleast getting the "ull detail8o" the incident'

espondents "iled the case a"ter nine months o" "ruitless

waiting'

espondent(s Contention: The loss was due to petitioner(s "ailure

to o!serve e$traordinary diligence in the care o" Fatima(s luggageand that petitioner dealt with them in !ad "aith "rom the start'

Petitioner(s &e"ense: &isowned any lia!ility "or the loss on theground that Fatima allegedly did not declare any e$cess !aggageupon !oarding its !us'

Trial Court ruled in "avor o" private respondents ordering petitionerto pay respondents the value o" the personal !elongings )plustranspo e$penses, moral 9 e$emplary damages, attorney(s "ees,litigation e$penses'

C5 a""irmed trial court )!ut deleted moral 9 e$emplary damages'

ISSUE:5s a common carrier, is petitioner responsi!le "or theloss

HELD:7" course'

1nder the Civil Code, ;)common carriers, "rom the nature o" their!usiness and "or reasons o" pu!lic policy, are !ound to o!servee$traordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods $ $$transported !y them,8 and this lia!ility ;lasts "rom the time thegoods are unconditionally placed in the possession o", andreceived !y the carrier "or transportation until the same aredelivered, actually or constructively, !y the carrier "or


2/47

transportation until the same are delivered, actually orconstructively, !y the carrier to $ $$ the person who has a right toreceive them,8 unless the loss is due to any o" the e$ceptedcauses under 5rticle 3


3/47

+he Bills of 'ading contained the following pertinent provision,

"One of the Bills of Lading must be surrendered duly endorsed in

exchange for the goods or delivery order"

+he shipment was bound for ong.ong with !&*#S+&N B&N* asconsignee and /reat !rospect Company of *owloon" ong.ong

%hereinafter /!C( as notify party$

0pon arrival in ong.ong" the shipment was delivered by

respondent &''EM directly to /!C" not to !&*#S+&N B&N*"

and without the re1uired bill of lading having been surrendered$

Subse1uently" /!C failed to pay !&*#S+&N B&N* such that the

latter" still in possession of the original bills of lading" refused topay petitioner through SO'#2B&N*$ Since SO'#2B&N* already

pre-paid petitioner the value of the shipment" it demanded

payment from respondent &''EM through five %3( letters but

was refused$

!etitioner was thus allegedly constrained to return the amount

involved to SO'#2B&N*" then demanded payment from

respondent &''EM in writing but to no avail$

!etitioner sought collection of the value of the shipment from

respondents before the 4+C Manila" based on delivery of the

shipment to /!C without presentation of the bills of lading and

ban. guarantee$

!etitoner5s contention,

6$ the fact that the shipment was not delivered to the consignee as

stated in the bill of lading or to a party designated or named by

the consignee constitutes a misdelivery thereof$

7$ that from the te)t of the tele)" assuming there was such an

instruction" the delivery of the shipment without the re1uired bill of

lading or ban. guarantee should be made only to the designated

consignee" referring to !&*#S+&N B&N*$

4espondents5 defense,

6$ the shipment was delivered to /!C without presentation of thebills of lading and ban. guarantee per re1uest of petitioner himself

because the shipment consisted of perishable goods$

7$ that it is a standard maritime practice" when immediate delivery is

of the essence" for the shipper to re1uest or instruct the carrier to

deliver the goods to the buyer upon arrival at the port of

destination without re1uiring presentation of the bill of lading as

that usually ta.es time$

8$ &s proof thereof" respondents apprised the trial court that for the

duration of their two-year business relationship with petitioner

concerning similar shipments to /!C deliveries were effected

without presentation of the bills of lading$

4+C, in favor of Macam" respondents to pay" 9ointly and severally thecosts$

C&, 4E:E4SE2


4/47

ISSUES:

6$ ON the respondents are liable for the shipped goods

7$ ON respondents are liable to petitioner for releasing the goods to

/!C without the bills of lading or ban. guarantee

SC, &ffirmed C&

HELD:

6$ &rticle 6;8< of the Civil Code provides -

!rt #$% &he extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lastsfrom the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of'and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered'

actually or constructively' by the carrier to the consignee' or to the person(ho has a right to receive them' (ithout pre)udice to the provisions ofarticle #$*

+he e)traordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts until actualor constructive delivery of the cargoes to the consignee or to the person who hasa right to receive them$ !&*#S+&N B&N* was indicated in the bills of lading asconsignee whereas /!C was the notify party$ owever" in the e)port invoices/!C was clearly named as buyer=importer$ !etitioner also referred to /!C assuch in his demand letter to respondent &''EM and in his complaint before thetrial court$ +his premise draws us to conclude that the delivery of the cargoes to

/!C as buyer=importer which" conformably with &rt$ 6;8< had" other than theconsignee" the right to receive them was proper$

7$ 4espondents submitted in evidence a tele) dated 3 &pril 6>?> asbasis for delivering the cargoes to /!C without the bills of ladingand ban. guarantee$ +he tele) instructed delivery of variousshipments to the respective consignees without need of

presenting the bill of lading and ban. guarantee per therespective shipper5s re1uest since @for prepaid shipt ofrt chargesalready fully paid$A !etitioner was named therein as shipper and/!C as consignee with respect to Bill of 'ading Nos$ */ >>67

and */ >>68$ !etitioner disputes the e)istence of suchinstruction and claims that this evidence is self-serving$

rom the testimony of petitioner" we gather that he has been transactingwith /!C as buyer=importer for around two %7( or three %8( years already$hen mangoes and watermelons are in season" his shipment to /!Cusing the facilities of respondents is twice or thrice a wee.$ +he goodsare released to /!C$ #t has been the practice of petitioner to re1uest theshipping lines to immediately release perishable cargoes such as

watermelons and fresh mangoes through telephone calls by himself or his

@people$A #n transactions covered by a letter of credit" ban. guarantee isnormally re1uired by the shipping lines prior to releasing the goods$ Butfor buyers using telegraphic transfers" petitioner dispenses with the ban.guarantee because the goods are already fully paid$ #n his several yearsof business relationship with /!C and respondents" there was not asingle instance when the bill of lading was first presented before therelease of the cargoes$

&dditional,

5llegation o" complaint does not deal with misdelivery o" cargoes

The su!mission o" Macam that ;the "act that the shipment was notdelivered to the consignee asstated in the +ill o" *ading or to a party designated or named !ythe consignee constitutes a misdeliverythereo"8 is a deviation "rom his cause o" action !e"ore the trialcourt' 6t is clear "rom the allegation in hiscomplaint that it does not deal with misdelivery o" the cargoes !uto" delivery to DPC without the re0uired !ills o" lading and !ank


5/47

guarantee, i'e' ;) The goods arrived in /ongkong and werereleased !y the de"endant @allem directly to the !uyer4noti"yparty, Dreat Prospect Company and not to the consignee, the%ational +ank o" Pakistan, /ongkong, without the re0uired !ills o"lading and !ank guarantee "or the release o" the shipment issued

!y the consignee o" the goods'8

Misdelivery never an issue when Macam wrote @allem "or thepayment o" the value o" theCargoes

/erein, when Macam wrote @allem demanding payment o" thevalue o" the cargoes, misdelivery o"the cargoes did not come into the picture' The letter, in part, states;@e are writing you on !ehal" o" our client, +en-Mac 2nterprises

who in"ormed us that +ills o" *ading %o' EE3G and EE3= with a

total value o" 1SHG,GG=' were released to Dreat Prospect,/ongkong without the necessary !ank guarantee' @e were "urtherin"ormed that the consignee o" the goods, %ational +ank o"Pakistan, /ongkong, did not release or endorse the original !ills o"lading' 5s a result thereo", neither the consignee, %ational +ank o"Pakistan, /ongkong, nor the importer, Dreat Prospect Company,/ongkong, paid our client "or the goods'8

MAERSK LINE,

&!!n&',

/%.COURT OF APPEALS AND EFREN V. CASTILLO, d!n" #$%!n&%%$nd&' & na*& and %+& 3 E&"a La#'a'!&%,'&%nd&n%.

Bidin, J (baka tanungin eh #Insurance)

2li *illy, 6nc - shipperM52SI *ine J carrier, engaged in the !usiness o"transportation o" goods !y seaCompania Deneral de Ta!acos de Filipinas J agent o"M52SI

2"ren Castillo J consignee, manu"acturer o" pharmaceuticalproducts

F5CTS:- 7n %ovem!er 3G, 3E


6/47


7/47

shipment on the sole determination and will o" the carrier'

6t is esta!lished that without any stipulation o" date, the

delivery o" shipment or cargo should !e made within a

reasonable time. 6n the case at !ar, SC declared that a

delay in the delivery o" the goods spanning o" G monthsand < days "alls !eyond the realm o" reasona!leness

there"ore, the petitioner is lia!le "or such delay and

damages'

- Petition denied, C5 ruling a""irmed'

4 SPOUSES TEODORO1and NANETTE PERENA,P&!!n&'%,/%.SPOUSES TERESITA PHILIPPINE NICOLAS and L. 5ARATE,NATIONAL RAILA6S, and & COURT OF APPEALSR&%nd&n%.

Characters:

a. Sps' Teodoro and %anette Perena J petitioner, operator o" a

School +us on which it transports students "rom Parana0ue

City to &on +osco, Makati'

b. Sps' Narate J respondents, parents o" 5aron Narate

)deceased, who contracted the services o" the petitioners as

school service

c. P% J operator o" the commuter train %o' =G that hit the

school service Ban !y the petitioners

d. 5aron Narate J a high school student o" &on +osco, Makati,

who was killed during the col lision o" his school !us and the

train o" P%

e. Clement 5l"aro J employee o" the petitioners and driver o"

I65 Ceres Ban used as a school service

f. Lhonny 5lano J operator4 driver o" the commuter train that hit

the van o" the petitioners

FACTS:

The Narates contracted the petitioner to transport their

child 5aron to and "rom &on +osco, Makati'

The school !us have )3 "ourteen passenger students'

5M is the usual time that the school service picks up the

child "rom the Narates( residence as he us seated in the

le"t corner , near the door o" the school !us'

&uring the day o" the accident, they were running late

since students were due !y


8/47


9/47

3' es' The Court considered them as a common carrier and

shall !e governed !y the provisions o" common carriers in the

%ew Civil Code with regard to their duty and lia!ility to the

pu!lic' The de"ense o" the Perenas was no considered sinceit is inappropriate in an action "or !reach o" contract o"

carriage' The standard o" care was e$traordinary diligence,

not ordinary diligence o" a good "ather o" a "amily'

2S' School !us is a common carrier' 5s ruled in this case:

;5lthough in this ?urisdiction the operator o" a school !us servicehas !een usually regarded as a private carrier, primarily !ecausehe only caters to some speci"ic or privileged individuals, and hisoperation is neither open to the inde"inite pu!lic nor "or pu!lic

use, the e$act nature o" the operation o" a school !us service hasnot !een "inally settled' This is the occasion to lay the matter torest'8

DEFINITION 3 a Ca''!&';

!A carrier is a person or corporation who undertakes to transportor convey goods or persons from one place to another,gratuitously or for hire The carrier is classified either as aprivate"special carrier or as a common"public carrier#

DEFINITION 3 a P'!/a& Ca''!&';

;5 private carrier is one who, without making the activity avocation, or without holding himsel" or itsel" out to the pu!lic asready to act "or all who may desire his or its services, undertakes,!y special agreement in a particular instance only, to transportgoods or persons "rom one place to another either gratuitously or"or hire' The provisions on ordinary contracts o" the Civil Codegovern the contract o" private carriage' The diligence re0uired o"

a private carrier is only ordinary, that is, the diligence o" a good"ather o" the "amily'8

6" the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part o"

the general !usiness or occupation engaged in, asadvertised and held out to the general pu!lic, the

individual or the entity rendering such service is a

private, not a common, carrier'

DEFINITION 3 a C**n Ca''!&';

;6n contrast, a common carrier is a person, corporation, "irm

or association engaged in the !usiness o" carrying or transporting

passengers or goods or !oth, !y land, water, or air, "orcompensation, o""ering such services to the pu!lic' Contracts o"common carriage are governed !y the provisions on commoncarriers o" the Civil Code, the Pu!lic Service 5ct, and otherspecial laws relating to transportation' 5 common carrier isre0uired to o!serve e$traordinary diligence, and is presumed to!e at "ault or to have acted negligently in case o" the loss o" thee""ects o" passengers, or the death or in?uries to passengers'8

The true test "or a common carrier is not the 0uantity ore$tent o" the !usiness actually transacted, or the num!er and

character o" the conveyances used in the activity, !ut whether theundertaking is a part o" the activity engaged in !y the carrier thathe has held out to the general pu!lic as his !usiness oroccupation'

The 0uestion must !e determined !y the character o" the

!usiness actually carried on !y the carrier, not !y any secretintention or mental reservation it may entertain or assert whencharged with the duties and o!ligations that the law imposes'


10/47

P$#!9 U%&;

OPu!lic useO is the same as Ouse !y the pu!licO' The essential

"eature o" the pu!lic use is not con"ined to privileged individuals,!ut is open to the inde"inite pu!lic' 6t is this inde"inite orunrestricted 0uality that gives it its pu!lic character'

To determine whether a use is pu!lic:

3' we must look not only to the character o" the

!usiness to !e done# !ut also

G' to the proposed mode o" doing it'

To determine i" not "or pu!lic use:

6" the use is merely optional with the owners, or the pu!lic!ene"it is merely incidental, it is not a pu!lic use,authori.ing the e$ercise o" the ?urisdiction o" the pu!licutility commission' There must !e, in general, a right

which the law compels the owner to give to the generalpu!lic' 6t is not enough that the general prosperity o" thepu!lic is promoted'

Pu!lic use is not synonymous with pu!lic interest'

The true criterion !y which to ?udge the character o"

the use is whether the pu!lic may en?oy it !y right or

only !y permission'

T


11/47


12/47

"or short 3E packages o" hot rolled steel sheets, weighingK' metric tons' 7n or a!out %ovem!er G, 3EE3, the 3Epackages were loaded on !oard the vessel MB R6ndian eliance(at the Port o" Ddynia, Poland, "or transportation to the Philippines,under +ill o" *ading %o' G D&3&n%&: Gd% ?&'& a'&ad+ da*a"&d #&3'&'an%'.

SC R$!n": P&!!n&'@% a'"$*&n% !n %$' 3 & a%%!"n&d&'''% a'& n a$%!#&. E/&n "'an!n", 3' & %a>& 3a'"$*&n, a & %$#


13/47


14/47


15/47

/ence this petition'

ISSUES: @4%

a' 5%C7 "ailed to e$ercise the e$traordinary degree

o" diligence re0uired !y the law to e$culpate them"rom lia!ility "or the loss o" the cargoes

!' The loss was due to a caso fortuitoor forcemajeure

HELD:

a'

- es' since it is the duty o" the de"endant to e$ercise ando!serve e$traordinary diligence in the vigilance over thecargo o" the plainti"", the patron or captain o" M4T 5%C7,

representing the de"endant could have placed &4+ *ucio ina very sa"e location !e"ore they le"t knowing or sensing atthat time the coming o" a typhoon' The presence o" !ig

waves and dark clouds could have warned the patron orcaptain o" M4T 5%C7 to insure the sa"ety o" &4+ *ucioincluding its cargo' &4+ *ucio !eing a !arge, without itsengine, as the patron or captain o" M4T 5%C7 knew, couldnot possi!ly maneuver !y itsel"'

- /ad the patron or captain o" M4T 5%C7, the representativeo" the de"endants o!served e$traordinary diligence inplacing the &4+ *ucio in a sa"e place, the loss to the cargo

o" the plainti"" could not have occurred

- 5%C7(s representatives had "ailed to e$ercisee$traordinary diligence re0uired o" common carriers in theshipment o" SMC(s cargoes' Such !latant negligence !eingthe pro$imate cause o" the loss o" the cargoes

- de"endants through their representatives, "ailed to o!servethe degree o" diligence re0uired o" them under theprovision o" A'. 1 3 & C!/! Cd& 3 &P!!!n&%

A'. 1' Common carriers, "rom the nature o" their !usiness and"or reasons o" pu!lic policy are !ound to o!serve e$traordinarydiligence in the vigilance over the goods and "or the sa"ety o" thepassengers transported !y them, according to all thecircumstances o" each case'

Such e$traordinary diligence in vigilance over the goods is "urthere$pressed in 5rticles 3


16/47

A'. 14' Common carriers are responsi!le "or the loss,destruction, or deterioration o" the goods, unless the same is dueto any o" the "ollowing causes only:

)3 Flood, storm, earth0uake, lightning, or other natural disaster or

calamity#

A'. 1' In order that the common carrier may be exemptedrom responsibility, the natural disaster must have been the

proximate and only cause o the loss' /owever, the commoncarrier must e$ercise due diligence to prevent or minimi.e loss!e"ore, during and a"ter the occurrence o" "lood, storm, or othernatural disaster in order that the common carrier may !ee$empted "rom lia!ility "or the loss, destruction, or deterioration o"the goods

The SC "urther said that:

;taking into account the circumstances present in the instant case,concludes that the !latant negligence o" 5%C7(s employees is o"such gross character that it amounts to a wrong"ul act which muste$onerate FD1 "rom lia!ility under the insurance contract8

DISPOSITIVE: &ecision o" the Court o" 5ppeals here!y5FF6M2& with M7&6F6C5T67% dismissing the third-partycomplaint

DSR-SENATOR LINES AND C.F. SHARP AND COMPAN6,INC., &!!n&'%, /%.FEDERAL PHOENI ASSURANCE CO., INC., '&%nd&n.

DSR S&na' L!n&% /. F&d&'a, GR 1=. O9#&' , 2

FACTS:+erde Plants delivered arti"icial trees to CF Sharp, thegeneral ship agent o" &S-Senator *ines, a "oreign shippingcorporation, "or transportation and delivery to consignee, 5l-Mohr

6nt(l Droup, in iyadh' 1nder the +o*, the port o" discharge "or thecargo was at the Ihor Fakkan port and the port o" delivery wasiyadh via Port &ammam' The cargo was loaded in MS 5ra!ianSenator and was insured !y Federal Phoeni$ 5ssurance' Thevessel le"t Manila "or Saudi 5ra!ia with the cargo on !oard' @hen

the vessel arrived in Ihor Fakkan Port, the cargo was reloaded on!oard &S-Senator *ines( "eeder vessel, M4B OIapitan Sakharov,O!ound "or Port &ammam, Saudi 5ra!ia' /owever, while in transit,the vessel and all its cargo caught "ire' &S-Senator *inesin"ormed +erde Plants a!out the incident' Conse0uently, FederalPhoeni$ 5ssurance paid +erde Plants PE3,GE'3 correspondingto the amount o" insurance "or the cargo' 6n turn +erde Plantse$ecuted in its "avor a OSu!rogation eceipt8' Federal Phoeni$5ssurance sent a letter to C'F' Sharp demanding payment o"PE3,GE'3 on the !asis o" the Su!rogation eceipt' C'F' Sharpdenied any lia!ility on the ground that such lia!ility was

e$tinguished when the vessel carrying the cargo was gutted !y"ire' Federal Phoeni$ 5ssurance "iled with the TC-Manila acomplaint "or damages against &S-Senator *ines and C'F'Sharp, praying that the latter !e ordered to pay actual damages o"PE3,GE'3, compensatory damages o" P3,' and costs'

RTC:The TC rendered a &ecision in "avor o" Federal Phoeni$5ssurance'

CA:O6n the present recourse, the appellant carrier was presumedto have acted negligently "or the "ire that gutted the "eeder vesseland the conse0uent loss or destruction o" the cargo' /ence, theappellant carrier is lia!le "or appellee(s claim under the %ew CivilCode o" the Philippines' OContrary to C'F' Sharp and Co', 6nc'(spose, its lia!ility as ship agent continued and remained until thecargo was delivered to the consignee' The status o" the appellantas ship agent su!sisted and its lia!ility as a ship agent was co-terminous with and su!sisted as long as the cargo was notdelivered to the consignee under the terms o" the +ill o" *ading'

ISSUE:@o% petitioner should !e held lia!le "or the loss o" thecargo due to a "ire'


17/47

RULING:es' Fire is not one o" those enumerated under 5rt'3


18/47

PD56 contention: averred that M6C had no cause o" action

against it, *oadstar !eing the party insured# was later droppedas a party de"endant a"ter it paid the insurance proceeds to*75&ST5

TC: ruled in "avor o" M6C

7n appeal C5: a""irmed the TC in toto

*oadstar cannot !e considered a private carrier on the

sole ground that there was a single shipper on that"ate"ul voyage' The court noted that the charter o" thevessel was limited to the ship, !ut *oadstar retainedcontrol over its crew

*oadstar was not a private carrier' The charter o" the

vessel was limited to the ship, *oadstar maintainingcontrol over its crew'

The vessel was not seaworthy' There was a !reach o" contract when the goods "ailed

to reach its destination and the de"ense o" diligence o"a good "ather o" a "amily is unavailing in culpacontractual'

ISSUES: 0N

a' 6s the petitioner a private or common carrier'

!' 6s the limited lia!ility rule applica!le in the case'

HELD:

a'

Common carrier )as de"ined !y 5rt 3


19/47


20/47

late, party supposed to "etch them had already le"t, Drino!ecame ill and was una!le to participate in the tournament

1pon his return to the Philippines, private respondent, sent

a demand letter to P5* on G &ecem!er 3EE= and another toSingapore 5irlines on G3 March 3EE, !oth airlines disowned

lia!ility and !lamed each other "or the "iasco

3EE


21/47

/ad the present case merely consisted o" claims incidental

to the airlines( delay in transporting their passengers, theprivate respondent(s Complaint would have !een time-!arredunder 5rticle GE o" the @arsaw Convention' /owever, thepresent case involves a special species o" in?ury resulting "rom

the "ailure o" P5* and4or Singapore 5irlines to transport privaterespondent "rom Singapore to Lakarta J the pro"ound distress,"ear, an$iety and humiliation that private respondente$perienced when, despite P5*(s earlier assurance thatSingapore 5irlines con"irmed his passage, he was prevented"rom !oarding the plane and he "aced the daunting possi!ilitythat he would !e stranded in Singapore 5irport !ecause theP5* o""ice was already closed

These claims are covered !y the Civil Code provisions on

tort, and not within the purview o" the @arsaw Convention'/ence, the applica!le prescription period is that provided

under A'!9& 114 3 & C!/! Cd&:

5rt' 33' The "ollowing actions must !e instituted within"our years:

)3 1pon an in?ury to the rights o" the plainti""#

)G 1pon a 0uasi-delict'

Private respondent(s Complaint was "iled with the TC on

3 5ugust 3EE


22/47

heirs o" amon 5' 5cuesta alleging that petitioners were guilty o"gross negligence, recklessness, violation o" tra""ic rules andregulations, a!andonment o" victim, and attempt to escape "rom acrime' Petitioners "iled an 5nswer wherein they alleged thatpetitioner Philtranco e$ercised the diligence o" a good "ather o" a

"amily in the selection and supervision o" its employees, includingpetitioner Manilhig who had e$cellent record as a driver and hadundergone months o" rigid training !e"ore he was hired' PetitionerManilhig had always !een a prudent pro"essional driver,religiously o!serving tra""ic rules and regulations' 6n drivingPhiltrancos !uses, he e$ercised the diligence o" a very cautiousperson' The petitioners "urther claimed that it was the negligenceo" the victim in overtaking two tricycles, without taking precautionssuch as seeing "irst that the road was clear, which caused thedeath o" the victim' The latter did not even give any signal o" hisintention to overtake'

RTC:The trial court handed down a decision ordering thepetitioners to ?ointly and severally pay the private respondents'

CA:The Court o" 5ppeals a""irmed the decision o" the trial court'@e cannot help !ut accord with the lower courts "inding onappellant Manilhigs "ault' The doctrine o" last clear chancetheori.ed upon !y appellants, is inapplica!le under the premises!ecause the victim, who was !umped "rom !ehind, o!viously, didnot o" course anticipate a Philtranco !us !eing pushed "rom aperpendicular street'

ISSUE:@o% Philtranco can !e held lia!le "or the death o" the

victim'RULING:Civil Case %o' =


23/47


24/47

G' That at the time o" the accident, said passenger ?eepney wasdriven !y Conrado o0ue#

=' That the contract !etween Conrado o0ue and de"endant&el"in +ernardo was that o0ue was to pay to de"endant the sumo" PK', which he paid to said de"endant, "or privilege o" driving

the ?eepney on 7cto!er G, 3E, it !eing their agreement thatwhatever earnings o0ue could make out o" the use o" the?eepney in transporting passengers "rom one point to another inthe City o" Manila would !elong entirely to Conrado o0ue#

' That as a conse0uence o" the accident and as a result o" thedeath o" Cesar Mag!oo in said accident, Conrado o0ue wasprosecuted "or homicide thru reckless imprudence !e"ore theCourt o" First 6nstance o" Manila, the in"ormation having !eendocketed as Criminal Case %o' =


25/47


26/47


27/47

the ?eepney' 5s a result o" the collision, three passengers o"the ?eepney died while the other ?eepney passengerssustained physical in?uries'

Causes o" death Pakitignannalangsa case

mgatipong"racture o" the upper third o" the right ti!ia and

"illnea J anoyun Parte !a ng katawan ng taoyun'

Police investigation'

5t the time and in the vicinity o" the accident, there were

no vehicles "ollowing the ?eepney, neither were thereoncoming vehicles e$cept the !us' The weather condition o"that day was "air'

5"ter conducting the investigation, the police "iled with the

Municipal Court o" San Manuel, Tarlac, a criminal complaintagainst the two drivers "or Multiple /omicide' )&elos eyes(case was dismissed# Manalo convicted

Complaints were then "iled w4 the Pangasinan trial court'

Cross claim:

Phil a!!it v Spouses

Spouses v Phil a!!it

Trial Court "ound Manalo negligent and ordered Spouses 9Manalo to pay de"endants in solidum!ased on unre!uttedtestimonies:

- The ?eepney was Orunning "astO that his passengerscautioned driver Manalo to slow down !ut did not heed the

warning'- Police investigators

- Conviction o" Manalo "or the crimes o" Multiple /omicideand Multiple Serious Physical 6n?uries with &amage toProperty thru eckless 6mprudence# and

- The application o" the doctrine o" res-ipsa lo0uitur attestingto the circumstance that the collision occurred on the righto" way o" the Phil' a!!it +us'

65C reversed trial court applying primarily )3 the doctrine o" lastclear chance, )G the presumption that drivers who !ump the rearo" another vehicle guilty and the cause o" the accident unlesscontradicted !y other evidence, and )= the su!stantial "actor testand concluded that delos eyes was negligent'

ISSUE:@ho is lia!le "or the death and physical in?uries su""ered!y the passengers o" the ?eepney

HELD:Spouses 6sidro Mangune, Duillerma Carreon and FilritersDuaranty 5ssurance Corporation, 6nc' are lia!le to the victims ortheir heirs'

Reason?The pro$imate cause o" the accident was the negligenceo" Manalo and spouses Mangune and Carreon' They all "ailed toe$ercise the precautions that are needed preciselypro hac vice.)@ag kakalimutanang term na pro hac vice dahil "avorite termkoyan

Basis? 6n culpa contractual, the moment a passenger dies or is

in?ured, the carrier is presumed to have !een at "ault or tohave acted negligently, and this disputa!le presumption mayonly !e overcome !y evidence that he had o!served e$tra-ordinary diligence as prescri!ed in A'!9&% 1, 1== and1=o" the %ew Civil Code or that the death or in?ury o" thepassenger was due to a "ortuitous event'

river !analo cannot "e held jointly and severally lia"le w# theSpouses $remem"er trial court%s ruling&. 'hy?

The driver cannot !e held ?ointly and severally lia!le withthe carrier in case o" !reach o" the contract o" carriage'F!'%+, the contract o" carriage is !etween the carrier and thepassenger, and in the event o" contractual lia!ility, the carrieris e$clusively responsi!le there"ore to the passenger, even i"such !reach !e due to the negligence o" his driver' S&9nd+,i" @e make the driver ?ointly and severally lia!le with thecarrier, that would make the carriers lia!ility personal insteado" merely vicarious and conse0uently, entitled to recover only


28/47

the share which corresponds to the driver, contradictory to thee$plicit provision o" 5rticle G3K3 o" the %ew Civil Code'

(ote that mag)ai"aang findings of facts ng trial at appellate courtsat findings ng trial court ang in-adopt ng SC.Bali)anang findingsng trial court a"ove.

&6SP7S6T6B2: Petition D5%T2&' 65C decision S2T 5S6&2'Trial court 26%ST5T2& w4 modi"ication that only the Spousesand 6nsurer are lia!le'

7T/2S:

I. On IAC@% *!%a!9a!n 3 & a?%:)see again 65C(s ruling

&octrine o" *ast Clear Chance: The principle a!out Othe

last clearO chance, would call "or application in a suit !etweenthe owners and drivers o" the two colliding vehicles' 6t does notarise where a passenger demands responsi!ility "rom thecarrier to en"orce its contractual o!ligations' For it would !e

ine0uita!le to e$empt the negligent driver o" the ?eepney andits owners on the ground that the other driver was likewiseguilty o" negligence'

7n the presumption that drivers who !ump the rear o"

another vehicle guilty and the cause o" the accident, unlesscontradicted !y other evidence: @ould have !een correct wereit not "or the undisputed "act that the 1-turn made !y the

?eepney was a!rupt' delos eyes could not have anticipatedthe sudden 1-turn e$ecuted !y Manalo' The respondent courtdid not reali.e that the presumption was re!utted !y this pieceo" evidence'

Su!stantial Factor Test: 5ccording to the 65C, ;6t is the rule

under the su!stantial "actor test that i" the actors conduct is asu!stantial "actor in !ringing a!out harm to another, the "actthat the actor neither "oresaw nor should have "oreseen thee$tent o" the harm or the manner in which it occurred does notprevent him "rom !eing lia!le )estatement, Torts, Gd' /ere,@e "ind de"endant !us running at a "ast speed when theaccident occurred and did not even make the slightest e""ort toavoid the accident, ' ' ' ' The !us drivers conduct is thus a

su!stantial "actor in !ringing a!out harm to the passengers o"the ?eepney, not only !ecause he was driving "ast and did noteven attempt to avoid the mishap !ut also !ecause it was the!us which was the physical "orce which !rought a!out thein?ury and death to the passengers o" the ?eepney'8 +1T the

Supreme Court was not convinced stating that the !us wasrunning w4in the speed limit and that delos eyes had littletime to react to the situation' To re0uire delos eyes to avoidthe collision is to ask too much "rom him' 5side "rom the timeelement involved, there were no options availa!le to him'

II. Ind&*n!+ 3' L%% 3 L!3&: 1nder 5rticle 3


29/47

Malaria "ever' /e asked the de"endant i" he can ride his pick up!ound "or &avao since there were no means o" transportation thatcould take him, on which the latter agreed'

The pick up has )E nine passengers including the de"endant as a

driver' The passengers were not asked to pay' The de"endant eveninvited the &emetrio to sit with him !ut the latter declined since it

would !e convenient "or him to sit on a !ag and travel in a recliningposition considering his "everish condition' 1n"ortunately, &emetrio*ara 3&while he was hal" asleep upon reaching Im' E, +arrioCatidtuan and su""ered serious physical in?uries' /e was !rought tothe nearest hospital with a doctor, !ut to no avail, until they reachedSt' Loseph(s Clinic o" Iidapawan were he is considered dead onarrival'

Case was "iled in the CF6 J &avao "or damages "rom the

negligence o" the de"endant'

CFI 7 Da/a D&9!%!n:

Favored *55 and ordered the de"endant to pay

damages'

BOTH a&a&d & SC:

*55 J court a 0uo erred "or disregarding actual and

compensatory damages

B5*2%C65 )&e"endant

3' The accident was due to the negligence o" &emetrio

*ara'

G' The accident was due to an unavoida!le accident'

6SS12:

' @4% the de"endant is lia!le "or the death o" the deceased,

&emetrio *ara Sr'

' @4% the de"endant should have e$ercised e$traordinary

diligence to his passengers

SC HELD:

The Court held in "avor o" B5*2%C65, the de"endant' The accidentoccurred not due to the negligence o" the de"endant !ut tocircumstances !eyond his control and so he should !e e$empt "romlia!ility'

3' %o' The de"endant is not lia!le "or the death o" the de"endant'

The deceased was invited to sit !eside the de"endant during theirride going to &avao !ut an un"ortunate happening was only due to anun"oreseen accident caused !y the "act that &emetrio was hal"asleep and must have "allen "rom the pick-up when it run into stones'The kms4hr was not considered an unreasona!le speedconsidering they travelled in a national road and tra""ic was not heavy!y then'

;The deceased desire to !e at the !ack so that he couldsit on a !ag and travel in a reclining position !ecausesuch was more convenient "or him due to his "everishcondition' 5ll the circumstances there"ore clearly indicatethat de"endant had done what a reasona!le prudent man

would have done under the circumstances'8

Such accident was rather attri!uted to the lack o" care on the part o"the deceased' The law even provides that ;5 passenger musto!serve the diligence o" a good "ather o" a "amily to avoid in?ury tohimsel"8: )5rt 3


30/47

G' %o' The de"endant merely accommodated the passengers

and did no charge them any "ee "or the service' They are

considered invited guests within the meaning o" the law'

7rdinary care is only re0uired as the de"endant is not duty

!ound to e$ercise e$traordinary diligence as re0uired !y o" a

common carrier'

;5s accommodation passengers or invited guests, thede"endant as owner and driver o" the pick-up owes tothem merely the duty to e$ercise reasona!le care so thatthey may !e transported sa"ely to their destination' Thus,;The rule is esta!lished !y the weight o" authority that theowner or operator o" an automo!ile owes the duty to aninvited guest to e$ercise reasona!le care in its operation,and not unreasona!ly to e$pose him to danger and in?ury

!y increasing the ha.ard o" travel' This rule, as "re0uentlystated !y the courts, is that an owner o" an automo!ileowes a guest the duty to e$ercise ordinary or reasona!lecare to avoid in?uring him' Since one riding in anautomo!ile is no less a guest !ecause he was asked "orthe privilege o" doing so, the same o!ligation o" care isimposed upon the driver as in the case o" one e$presslyinvited to ride8'

1APAN AIRLINES,&!!n&',/%.THE COURT OF APPEALS, ENRIUE AGANA., MARIA ANGELANINA AGANA, ADALIA B. FRANCISCO and OSEMIRANDA,'&%nd&n%.

!omero, J )+aka itanong kung sinong ponente Zinsurance

Lapan 5irlines J CarrierPassengers:2nri0ue 5gana J L5* Flight %o' 3Maria 5ngela %ina 5gana J L5* Flight %o' 3

5dalia +' Francisco J L5* Flight %o' 3Lose Miranda J L5* Flight %o' L*3

F5CTS:

- The passengers !oarded Lapan 5irlines in San Francisco,Cali"ornia !ound "or Manila on Lune 3=, 3EE3 and as

incentive "or travelling with L5*, they were to make an

overnight stop over at %arita, Lapan at the airlines(

e$pense !e"ore proceeding to Manila the ne$t day'

- /owever, on the "inal leg o" their ?ourney to Manila their trip

was cancelled due to Mt' Pinatu!o eruption that

unrelenting ash"all !lanketed %565 rendering it

inaccessi!le to airline tra""ic'

- To accommodate the needs o" the stranded passengers o"

L5* they re!ooked all the Manila-!ound passengers to

Lune 3 "light and paid "or their hotel e$penses "or their

une$pected overnight stay'

- 5gain, the Lune 3 "light was cancelled due to %565(s

inde"inite closure and L5* in"ormed the passengers that it

would no longer de"ray their hotel and accommodation

e$penses during their stay in %arita' @ith that, the

passengers "orced to pay "or their e$penses "rom their

personal "unds until Lune G3'

- Still reeling "rom the e$perience, private respondents onLune G commenced an action "or damages against L5*

!e"ore the TC o" UC +ranch alleging that L5* "ailed to

live up to its duty to provide care and com"ort to its

stranded passengers when it re"used to pay "or their

e$penses "rom Lune 3 to G3 at %arita, Lapan'

L5* &2F2%S2:


31/47

- 5irline passengers have no vested right to these amenities

in case a "light is cancelled due to "orce ma?eure'

TC 1*6%D:- uled in "avor o" the passengers and ordered L5* to pay

actual, moral and e$emplary damages:

2nri0ue 5gana, 5dalia +' Francisco and Maria 5ngela

%ina 5gana JPhp 3,G,E= Lose Miranda J Php=G,3'=3

5ttorney(s Fees J PhpG,

C5 1*6%D:- 5""irmed the TC ruling with e$ception o" lowering the

damages awarded:

Moral damages J PhpG, per plainti"" 2$emplary damages J Php=,

5ttorney(s Fees J Php3,

6SS12:@hether L5* as common carrier has the o!ligation to

shoulder the hotel and meal e$penses o" its stranded passengersuntil they have reached their "inal destination even i" delay werecaused !y "orce ma?eure'

SC 1*6%D:

- %o, the SC ruled that though we sympathi.e with theprivate respondents( plight we are una!le to accept their

contention'

- @e are not unmind"ul o" the "act that in plethora o" cases

we have consistently ruled that a contract to transport

passengers is "uite dierent in kind and degree rom

any other contractual relation. It is sae to conclude

that it is a relationship imbued with public interest.

Failure on the part o" the common carrier to live up to the

e$acting standards o" care and diligence renders it lia!le

"or any damages that may !e sustained !y its passengers'

/owever, this is not to say that common carriers are

a!solutely responsi!le "or all the in?uries or damages even

i" the same were caused !y a "ortuitous event' To rule

otherwise would render the de"ense o" ;"orce ma?eure8 as

an e$ception "rom any lia!ility, illusory and ine""ective'

- There is no 0uestion that when a party is una!le to "ul"ill

his o!ligation !ecause o" ;"orce ma?eure8 the general rule

is that he cannot !e held lia!le "or damages "or non-

per"ormance' /ence, when L5* was prevented "rom

resuming its "light to Manila due to the e""ects o" Mt'

Pinatu!o eruption, whatever losses or damages in the "orm

o" hotel and meal e$penses the stranded passengersincurred, cannot !e charged to L5*' et it is undenia!le

that L5* assumed the hotel e$penses o" respondents "or

their une$pected stay on Lune 3''

- 5dmittedly, to !e stranded "or almost one week in a "oreign

land was an e$asperating e$perience "or the private

respondents' To !e sure, they underwent distress and

an$iety during their unanticipated stay in %arita, !ut their

predicament was not due to the "ault or negligence o" L5*

!ut the closure o" %565 to international "lights' 6ndeed, to

hold L5*, in the a!sence o" !ad "aith or negligence, lia!le

"or the amenities o" its stranded passengers !y reason o"

"ortuitous event is too much o" a !urden to assume'

- /owever, L5* is not completely a!solved "rom any lia!ility'

6t must !e noted that private respondents !ought tickets

"rom the 1nited States with Manila as their "inal

destination' @hile L5* was no longer re0uired to de"ray

private respondents( living e$penses during their stay in


32/47

%arita on account o" "ortuitous event, L5* had the duty to

make the necessary arrangements to transport private

respondents on the "irst availa!le connecting "light to

Manila' L5* reneged on its o!ligation to look a"ter the

com"ort and convenience o" its passengers when it

declassi"ied private respondents "rom ;transit passengers8

to ;new passengers8 as a result o" which private

respondents were o!liged to make the necessary

arrangements themselves "or the ne$t "light to Manila'

- C5 ruling is here!y modi"ied' L5* is ordered to pay each

o" the private respondents nominal damages in the sum o"

Php3, each including attorney(s "ees o" Php,'

1 ABELARDO LIM and ESMADITO GUNNABAN,&!!n&'%,/%.

COURT OF APPEALS and DONATO H. GON5ALES,'&%nd&n%.

2 FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION,&!!n&',/%.G.P. SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORPORATION and LAMBERT M.EROLES,'&%nd&n%.

21 PEDRO T. LA6UGAN,&!!n&',/%.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, GODOFREDO ISIDRO, andTRAVELLERS MULTI-INDEMNIT6 CORPORATION,'&%nd&n%.

Ca'a9&'%:3' P&d' T. La+$"an 7 a truck helper who sustained in?uries

during such occupation a"ter his truck was hit !y anotherG' Gd3'&d I%!d' 7the owner o" the truck that caused the

accident=' Dan!& S&''an 7 the accused driver o" the truck'' T'a/&&'% M$!-Ind&*n!+ C''a!n 7 the insurer "or

Dodo"redo 6sdiro

Fa9%: Pedro T' *ayugan "iled an action "or damages againstDodo"redo 6sidro, alleging that on May 3, 3E


33/47

I%!d'@% D&3&n%&: R&%nd&n I%!d' %!% a an+ !**#!& a a'>&d '$9>, %&% %&'!$%dan"&' a */!n" /&!9& ?!9 a% & '!" #& n &!"?a+. H& a'"$&% a %!n9& & a'>&d 9a'" '$9> !n !%9a%& ?a% a '&a !3& and !*# and '&'+, ! ?a%

!n9$*#&n $n & d'!/&' a% ?& a% & &!!n&', ?9a!*% #& a &&' 3 & '$9> d'!/&', &&'9!%& &'&*&9a'& % a & *'!% n&"!a!n" & 'ad ?$d #&'&'+ 3'&?a'n&d 3 & &'! 3 a a'>&d /&!9&. I%!d'%$#*!% a & #$'d&n 3 '/!n" a 9a'& and d!!"&n9&?&'& #%&'/&d !% %!3&d & &!!n&', 3', a% '&/!$%+9a!*&d, !% (I%!d'%) I%$$ '$9> ad a '!" #& n &'ad, ?!& & !**#!& 9a'" '$9> ad n #$%!n&%%, % %&a>, #& &'&. L!>&?!%&, I%!d' '33&'% a & &!!n&'*$% %? & %a!%3a9!n 3 a '&a%na#& *!nd a &d'!/&' and & (&!!n&') !*%&3, '/!d&d an &a'+ ?a'n!n"

d&/!9&, !>& a '&8$!'&d #+ a?, ', #+ %*& &' ad&8$a&*&an% a ?$d '&'+ 3'&?a'n /&!9&% 3 &!*&nd!n" dan"&' a & a'>&d /&!9& %&d 9n%!d&'!n"& !*&, a9&, and &' &9$!a' 9!'9$*%an9&% 3 &99a%!n. A#%&n %$9 '3 3 9a'&, a% !n & 9a%& a #a',I%!d' 9n9$d&%, ?$d, $nd&' & d9'!n& 3 R&% !%a8$!$', &/>& & '&%$*!n 3 n&"!"&n9& n & a' 3& d'!/&' 3 & a'>&d 9a'" '$9> a% ?& a% !% &&', &&!!n&' &'&!n, ? ?a% 3!!n" & 3a !'& 3 & %a!d '$9>.

SC R$!n": N&"!"&n9& !% & *!%%!n d %*&!n"?!9 a '&a%na#& *an, "$!d&d #+ %& 9n%!d&'a!n%?!9 'd!na'!+ '&"$a& & 9nd$9 3 $*an a33a!'%, ?$dd, ' & d!n" 3 %*&!n" ?!9 a '$d&n and'&a%na#& *an ?$d n d 24 ' a% $d"& C&+ d&3!n&%!, (T)& 3a!$'& #%&'/& 3' & '&9!n 3 & !n&'&%%3 an&' &'%n, a d&"'&& 3 9a'&, '&9a$!n, and/!"!an9& ?!9 & 9!'9$*%an9&% &d an" & 'ad ' n a3& %$d&' 3 & '!" %!d& 3 & 'ad ?$d #& 3 n**&n a>!n" !n a99$n & ?a'n!n" d&/!9& 9n%!%!n" 3& !"&d >&'%&n& a* a9&d '&& ' 3$' *&&'% 3'*& #a9> 3 & '$9>. B$ d&%!& !% ?a'n!n" ?!9 ?&'$& a% %$33!9!&n, & I%$$ '$9> d'!/&n #+ Dan!& S&''an, an&*+&& 3 & '!/a& '&%nd&n, %! #$*&d & '&a' 3& a'>&d 9a'" '$9>. A% a d!'&9 9n%&8$&n9& 3 %$9a99!d&n & &!!n&' %$%a!n&d !nn? !% '&%n%!#!!!&% #&9a$%& & aa'&n+ d!d n9&9> !% /&!9& #&3'& & > ! n & 'ad. I3 & d!d &


34/47

9$d a/& d!%9/&'&d &a'!&' a & #'a>& 3$!d !& n &'!" ?a% 9$, and 9$d a/& '&a!'&d ! and $% &a99!d&n 9$d a/& #&&n a/!d&d. M/&/&', $' *!nd,& 3a9 a & '!/a& '&%nd&n $%&d !n'$9 !% d'!/&' #& 9a'&3$ !n !% d'!/!n", a & d'!/&' ?a% !9&n%&d, and

& 3a9 a & ad n '&9'd 3 an+ a99!d&n, a% 3$nd #+& '&%nd&n 9$', a'& n %$33!9!&n d&%'+ & 3!nd!n"3 n&"!"&n9& 3 & R&"!na T'!a C$' "!/&n & 3a9%&%a#!%&d a & '!a 4 T& '!/a& '&%nd&n ' !%*&9an!9, ? *$% #& 9*&&n, %$d a/& 9nd$9&d a'$" !n%&9!n 3 !% /&!9& #&3'& a?!n" !% d'!/&' d'!/& !. In & !" 3 & 9!'9$*%an9&% #a!n!n" !n &9a%&, ?& d a I%!d' 3a!&d '/& a & d!!"&n9& 3 a"d 3a&' 3 a 3a*!+ !n & %$&'/!%!n 3 !% &*+&&%?!9 ?$d &9$a& !* 3'* %!da'+ !a#!!+ ?! !%d'!/&' & &!!n&'. B$ &/&n !3 ?& 9n9&d& a &

d!!"&n9& 3 a "d 3a&' 3 a 3a*!+ ?a% #%&'/&d #+ I%!d'!n & %$&'/!%!n 3 !% d'!/&', &'& !% n an !a 3&/!d&n9& n '&9'd 3 & #%&'/an9& #+ I%!d' 3 & %a*&8$an$* 3 d!!"&n9& !n & %$&'/!%!n 3 !% *&9an!9, !3an+, ? ?$d #& d!'&9+ !n 9a'"& !n *a!na!n!n" & 'ad?'!n&%% 3 !% (I%!d'%) '$9>. B$ a !% n a. T&'& !%a$9!+ 3 '3 a I%!d' &&'9!%&d & d!!"&n9& 3 a "d3a&' 3 a 3a*!+ !n & %&&9!n 3 !% d'!/&', Dan!&S&''an, a% ?& a% !n & %&&9!n 3 !% *&9an!9, !3 an+, !n'd&' !n%$'& & %a3& &'a!n 3 !% '$9> and $%'&/&n da*a"& &'%. A99'd!n"+, & '&%n%!#!!+ 3

I%!d' a% &*+&' '&a&d !n A'!9& 21, a'a"'a =, 3 &C!/! Cd& a% n 9&a%&d.

22 LA MALLORCA, &!!n&', /%.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARIANO BELTRAN, ETAL., '&%nd&n%.

2 ABOITI5 SHIPPING CORPORATION, &!!n&', /%.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ELEVENTH DIVISION, LUCILA C.VIANA, SPS. ANTONIO VIANA and GORGONIA VIANA, andPIONEER STEVEDORING CORPORATION, '&%nd&n%.

A#!! S!!n" C. /%. C$' 3 A&a%, 1 SCRA =

(1))Same eto nung sa 3st

Set ng assignment' 1ng timaan ngcrane pagkatapos sumampa uli sa !arko para kunin ung naiwang!agahe'

Ca'a9&'%: 5nacleto Biana J passenger o" MB 5ntiona whodied a"ter having !een hit !y a crane while pointingto the crew o" said vessel the place where hiscargoes were loaded'

5!oiti. Shipping *ines J owner o" MB 5ntoniawhere 5nacleto dies' Sued !y the respondents "ordamages'

Pioneer Stevedoring J the company with which5!oiti. had contracted with to take care o" theship(s cargoes' 7wner o" the crane used in thevessel'

Private espondents J parents and wi"e o"5nacleto'

PLOT:5nacleto !oarded MB 5ntonia in Mindoro, !ound "orManila' The vessel arrived in Manila and the passengers thereindisem!arked' 5"ter said vessel has landed, Pioneer took controlover its cargoes' 5n hour a"ter the passengers had disem!arked,a crane started to unload the vessel(s cargoes' &uring the

operation, 5nacleto, a"ter remem!ering that his cargoes were stillon!oard returned to the vessel and pointed out to the vessel(screw the place where his cargoes were loaded when the crane hithim' /e was !rought to the hospital where he later e$pired = daystherea"ter' Private respondents "iled a complaint "or damagesagainst 5!oiti. "or !reach o" contract o" carriage'

D&3&n%&:5!oiti. denied responsi!ility contending that at the timeo" the accident, the vessel was completely under the control o"


35/47

Pioneer' 6t also averred that since the crane operator was not theiremployee, they cannot !e held vicariously lia!le'

'd Pa'+ C*:5 third party complaint was "iled !y 5!oiti.against Pioneer imputing lia!ility "or 5nacleto(s death as having!een allegedly caused !y the crane(s operator, Pioneer(s

employee'P!n&&'@% D&3:5!oiti. had no cause o" action since it is !eingsued "or !reach o" contract o" carriage to which Pioneer is not aparty and that it o!served diligence !oth in the selection andsupervision o" their employees and that it was 5nacleto(s grossnegligence which was the pro$imate cause o" his death'

RTC:7rdered 5!oiti. to pay respondents "or damages incurredand Pioneer was ordered to reim!urse 5!oiti.' 7n M, Pioneer

was a!solved "or "ailure o" the respondents and 5!oiti. topreponderantly esta!lish a case o" negligence against the craneoperator in which the TC ruled that it was never presumed'

CA:5""irmed with modi"ication as to the amount o" damagesawarded'

ISSUE:@o% 5nacleto was still a passenger at the time o" theaccident to make 5!oiti. lia!le'

RULING:6t has !een recogni.ed as a rule that the relation o"carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment thepassenger alights "rom the carriers vehicle at a place selected !ythe carrier at the point o" destination, !ut continues until thepassenger has had a reasona!le time or a reasona!le opportunityto leave the carriers premises' 5nd, what is a reasona!le time or

a reasona!le delay within this rule is to !e determined "rom all thecircumstances' Berily, petitioner cannot categorically claim,through the !are e$pedient o" comparing the period o" timeentailed in getting the passengers cargoes, that the ruling in *aMallorca is inapplica!le to the case at !ar' 7n the contrary, i" weare to apply the doctrine enunciated therein to the instant petition,

we cannot in reason dou!t that the victim 5nacleto Biana was stilla passenger at the time o" the incident' @hen the accidentoccurred, the victim was in the act o" unloading his cargoes, which

he had every right to do, "rom petitioners vessel' 5s earlier stated,a carrier is duty !ound not only to !ring its passengers sa"ely totheir destination !ut also to a""ord them a reasona!le time to claimtheir !aggage' 6n consonance with common shipping procedureas to the minimum time o" one )3 hour allowed "or the passengers

to disem!ark, it may !e presumed that the victim had ?ust gotteno"" the vessel when he went to retrieve his !aggage' et, even i"he had already disem!arked an hour earlier, his presence inpetitioners premises was not without cause' The victim had toclaim his !aggage which was possi!le only one )3 hour a"ter thevessel arrived since it was admittedly standard procedure in thecase o" petitioners vessels that the unloading operations shallstart only a"ter that time' Conse0uently, under the "oregoingcircumstances, the victim 5nacleto Biana is still deemed apassenger o" said carrier at the time o" his tragic death' Thepresumption is, there"ore, esta!lished !y law that in case o" a

passengers death or in?ury the operator o" the vessel was at "aultor negligent, having "ailed to e$ercise e$traordinary diligence, andit is incum!ent upon it to re!ut the same' This is in consonance

with the avowed policy o" the State to a""ord "ull protection to thepassengers o" common carriers which can !e carried out only !yimposing a stringent statutory o!ligation upon the latter'Concomitantly, this Court has likewise adopted a rigid posture inthe application o" the law !y e$acting the highest degree o" careand diligence "rom common carriers, !earing utmost in mind the

wel"are o" the passengers who o"ten !ecome hapless victims o"indi""erent and pro"it-oriented carriers' @e cannot in reason deny

that petitioner "ailed to re!ut the presumption against it' 1nder the"acts o!taining in the present case, it cannot !e gainsaid thatpetitioner had inade0uately complied with the re0uired degree o"diligence to prevent the accident "rom happening'


36/47


37/47


38/47

o" the "ormers employees' This lia!ility o" the commoncarrier does not cease upon proo" that it e$ercised all thediligence o" a good "ather o" a "amily in the selection o" itsemployees'

Clearly, !y the contract o" carriage, the carrier ?eepney

owned !y Mallari Sr' assumed the e$press o!ligation totransport the passengers to their destination sa"ely and too!serve e$traordinary diligence with due regard "or all thecircumstances, and any in?ury or death that might !esu""ered !y its passengers is right away attri!uta!le to the"ault or negligence o" the carrier'

DISPOSITIVE:Petition is &2%62& and the &ecision o" the Courto" 5ppeals reversing the decision o" the trial court !eing in accord

with law and evidence is 5FF6M2&' Petitioners are ordered

?ointly and severally to pay Claudia eyes

2= CORNELIA A. DE GILLACO, ET AL., a!n!33%-a&&&%,/%.MANILA RAILROAD COMPAN6,d&3&ndan-a&an.

2 ANTONIA MARANAN,a!n!33-a&an,/%.PASCUAL PERE5, ET AL.,d&3&ndan%.PASCUAL PERE5,d&3&ndan a&an.

Characters:

5ntonia Maranan> mother o" deceased ogelio Corachea Pascual Pere. > ta$i owner and operator

Simeon Balen.uela > ta$i driver

ogelio > ta$i passenger# deceased

FACTS:

ogelio was sta!!ed and killed !y Balen.uela'

Balen.uela was prosecuted and "ound guilty "or homicide

in +atangas TC' 5ppeal o" this ?udgment was taken to the

C5, w4c su!se0uently a""irmed trial court(s ?udgment o"conviction'

@hile appeal was pending, Maranan "iled action in

+atangas TC to recover damagegs "rom Pere. andBalen.uela "or the death o" her son'

&e"endants asserted that the deceased was killed in sel"-de"ense, since he "irst assaulted the driver !y sta!!ing him"rom !ehind' &e"endant Pere. "urther claimed that the death

was a casofortuito "or which the carrier was not lia!le'

Trial court "ound "or the plainti"" Maranan and awarded her

P=k as damages against de"endant Pere. while the claimagainst Balen.uela was dismissed' +oth parties appealed tothe SC )SC talaga to hindi C5'

Pere. &e"ense: ruling in Dillaco v Manila ailroad Co'

6SS12S:

a' @hether the Dillaco case is applica!le in the instant case'

!' @4% Pere. can !e held lia!le to the heir o" a passenger killed!y its driver'

/2*&:

a' %o' The killing here was perpetrated !y the driver o" the veryca! transporting the passenger, in whose hands the carrierhad entrusted the duty o" e$ecuting the contract o" carriage' 6nother words, unlike the +illaco case, the killing o" thepassenger here took place in the course o" duty o" the guiltyemployee and when the employee was acting within the scope

o" his duties'Moreover, the +illaco case was decided under the provisionso" the Civil Code o" 3KKE which, unlike the present Civil Code,did not impose upon common carriers a!solute lia!ility "or thesa"ety o" passengers against wil"ul assaults or negligent actscommitted !y their employees' The death o" the passenger inthe +illaco case was truly a "ortuitous event which e$emptedthe carrier "rom lia!ility'


39/47

1nlike the old Civil Code, the new Civil Code o" the Philippinese$pressly makes the common carrier lia!le "or intentionalassaults committed !y its employees upon its passengers, !ythe wording o" A'. 1='

!' es' it is the carriers strict o!ligation to select its drivers and

similar employees with due regard not only to their technicalcompetence and physical a!ility, !ut also, no less important, totheir total personality, including their patterns o" !ehavior,moral "i!ers, and social attitude'

The Civil Code provisions on the su!?ect o" Common Carriers3are new and were taken "rom 5nglo-5merican *aw' There, the!asis o" the carriers lia!ility "or assaults on passengerscommitted !y its drivers rests either on (1)the doctrine o"respondeat superior or (2)the principle that it is the carriersimplied duty to transport the passenger sa"ely'

1nder the "irst, which is the minority view, the carrier is lia!leonly when the act o" the employee is within the scope o" hisauthority and duty' 6t is not su""icient that the act !e within thecourse o" employment only'

1nder the second view, upheld !y the ma?ority and also !y thelater cases, it is enough that the assault happens within thecourse o" the employees duty' 6t is no de"ense "or the carrierthat the act was done in e$cess o" authority or in diso!edienceo" the carriers orders' The carriers lia!ility here is a!solute inthe sense that it practically secures the passengers "romassaults committed !y its own employees'

5rt 3


40/47

+he train did not stop despite the alarm raised by the other passengers

that somebody fell from the t rain$ #nstead" the train conductor !erfecto

&braDado" called the station agent at Candelaria" ueDon" and

re1uested for verification of the information$

!olice authorities of 'ucena City were dispatched to the #yam Bridge

where they found the lifeless body of inifredo+upang$

inifredo+upang died of cardio-respiratory failure due to massive

cerebral hemorrhage due to traumatic in9ury

0pon complaint filed by the deceaseds widow" 4osario +upang" the

then Court of irst #nstance of 4iDal

4+C, held the petitioner !N4 liable for damages for breach of contract of

carriage and ordered to pay the plaintiffC&, ME2!N45s defense

+he doctrine of state immunity from suit"it alleged that it is a mere

agency of the !hilippine government without distinct or separate

personality of its own" and that its funds are governmental in character

and" therefore" not sub9ect to garnishment or e)ecution$

ISSUE

ON !N4 is liable

HELD

ES

!N4 has the obligation to transport its passengers to their destinations and toobserve e)traordinary diligence in doing so$ 2eath or any in9ury suffered by anyof its passengers gives rise to the presumption that it was negligent in theperformance of its obligation under the contract of carriage$ !N4 failed to

overthrow such presumption of negligence with clear and convincing evidence"inasmuch as !N4 does not deny" %6( that the train boarded by the deceasedinifredo +upang was so overcrowded that he and many other passengers hadno choice but to sit on the open platforms between the coaches of the train" %7(that the train did not even slow down when it approached the #yam Bridge which

was under repair at the time" and %8( that neither didthe tr ai n st op " desp it ethe alarm raised by other passengers that a person had fal len offthe t rain a t # yamBridge$

But while petitioner failed to e)ercise e)traordinary diligence as re1uired bylaw" 8it appears that the deceased was chargeable with contributory negligence$Since he opted to sit on the open platform between the coaches of the train" heshould have held tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal bar found at theside of said platform to avoid falling off from the speeding train$ Such contributorynegligence" while not e)empting the !N4 from liability" nevertheless 9ustified thedeletion of the amount ad9udicated as moral damages

&s to immunity from suit,

+ h e ! N 4 w a s c r e a t e d u n d e r & G 6 3 < " a s a m e n d e d $ S e c t i o n Gof th e sa id &c t pr ov id es th at @t he !hilippine National 4ailways shallhave the following powers, %a( +o do all such other things and to transact all suchbusiness directly or indirectly necessary" incidental or conducive to theattainment of the purpose of the corporation and %b( /enerally" to e)ercise allpowers of a corporation under the Corporation 'aw$A 0nder the foregoingsection" the !N4 has all the powers" the characteristics and attributes of acorporation under the Corporation 'aw$ !N4 may sue and be sued andmay be sub9ected to court processes 9ust li.e any other corporation '

2 CESAR L. ISAAC,a!n!33-a&an,/%.A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.,d&3&ndan-a&&&.

Bautista, ngelo J

+us =3, 5'*' 5mmen Transportation Co', 6nc J CarrierCesar 6saac J passenger


41/47


42/47

- From the given legal provisions the "ollowing are the

principles governing the lia!ility o" the common carrier:

3' The lia!ility o" a carrier is contractual and arises upon

!reach o" its o!ligation' There is !reach i" it "ails to

e$ert e$traordinary diligence according to all

circumstances o" each case'

G' 5 carrier is o!liged to carry its passenger with the

utmost diligence o" a very cautious person, having due

regard "or all the circumstances'

=' 5 carrier is presumed to !e at "ault o" to have acted

negligently in case o" death o", or in?ury to, passengers,

it !eing its duty to prove that it e$ercised e$traordinary

diligence'

' The carrier is not an insurer against all risk'

- @hen a carrier(s employee is con"ronted with a suddenemergency, the "act that he is o!liged to act 0uickly and

without a chance "or deli!eration must !e taken into

account, and he is held to the some degree o" care that he

would otherwise !e re0uired to e$ercise in the a!sence o"

such emergency !ut must e$ercise only such care as any

ordinary prudent person would e$ercise under like

circumstances and conditions, and the "ailure on his part to

e$ercise the !est ?udgment the case renders possi!le does

not esta!lish lack o" care and skill on his part' Considering

all the circumstances, we are persuaded that the driver o"the !us has done what a prudent man could have done to

avoid the collision and in our opinion this relieves the

appellee "rom legi!ility under our law'

- 5 circumstance which militates against the stand o" 6saac

is the "act !orne out !y the evidence that when he !oarded

the !us, he seated himsel" on the le"t side resting his le"t

arm on the sill !ut with his le"t el!ow outside the window,

this !eing his position in the !us when the collision took

place' 6t is "or the reason that the collision resulted in the

severance o" said arm' 6s there"ore apparent that 6saac is

guilty o" contri!utory negligence' /ad he not placed his

le"t arm o" the window sill with a portion protruding outside,

perhaps the in?ury would have !een avoided as is the case

with the other passengers' 6t is to !e noted that he was

the only victim o" the collision' 6t is true that such

contri!utory negligence cannot relieve appellee o" its

lia!ility !ut will only entitle it to a reduction o" the amount o"

damages caused )5rt 3


43/47

' +ecause o" the in?ury, she was not a!le to enroll in the secondsemester o" that school year and said she had no more intentiono" continuing with her schooling, !ecause she could not walk anddecided not to pursue her degree, ma?or in Physical 2ducationO!ecause o" my leg which has a de"ect already'O

' Sunga "iled "or damages in violation o" Contract o" carriage#Calalas "iled a third party complaint against Salva and Berena'' 5dditionally, Calalas "iled a complaint "or 0uasi-delict againstSalva and Berena )ung decision dun, lia!le sila "or damages sa

?eep

RTC:5!solved Calalas# ruled against SalvaCA:eversed# Sungas cause o" action was !ased on a contracto" carriage, not 0uasi-delict, and that the common carrier "ailed toe$ercise the diligence re0uired

Caaa%:The !umping o" the ?eepney was a "ortuitous event'

ISSUE:3'whether petitioner is lia!le on his contract o" carriage'G' @7% moral damages may !e awarded'

1*6%D:3' es' Presumption o" negligence'- Calalas did not carry Sunga Osa"ely as "ar as human care and"oresight could provide, using the utmost diligence o" verycautious persons, with due regard "or all the circumstancesO'

- Leepney was not properly parked, its rear portion !eing e$poseda!out two meters "rom the !road shoulders o" the highway, and"acing the middle o" the highway in a diagonal angle# against 53= )7!struction o" Tra""ic'- Petitioners driver took in more passengers than the allowedseating capacity o" the ?eepney

- 6t is immaterial that the pro$imate cause o" the collision !etweenthe ?eepney and the truck was the negligence o" the truck driver'

The doctrine o" pro$imate cause is applica!le only in actions "or0uasi-delict, not in actions involving !reach o" contract'- 5 caso"ortuito is an event which could not !e "oreseen, or which,though "oreseen, was inevita!le' This re0uires that the "ollowingre0uirements !e present: )a the cause o" the !reach is

independent o" the de!tors will# )! the event is un"oreseea!le orunavoida!le# )c the event is such as to render it impossi!le "or thede!tor to "ul"ill his o!ligation in a normal manner, and )d thede!tor did not take part in causing the in?ury to thecreditor' Petitioner should have "oreseen the danger o" parkinghis ?eepney with its !ody protruding two meters into the highway'

Mentioned articles: 3


44/47

Conse0uently, in 0uasi-delict, the negligence or "ault should !eclearly esta!lished !ecause it is the !asis o" the action, whereasin !reach o" contract, the action can !e prosecuted merely !yproving the e$istence o" the contract and the "act that the o!ligor,

in this case the common carrier, "ailed to transport his passengersa"ely to his destination'

FORTUNE EPRESS, INC.,&!!n&',/%.COURT OF APPEALS, PAULIE U.CAORONG, and *!n'9!d'&n6ASSER KING CAORONG, ROSE HEINNI and PRINCEALEANDER, a %$'na*&d CAORONG, and '&'&%&n&d #+ &!'*&' PAULIE U. CAORONG,'&%nd&n%.

Characters:

5tty' Tali! Caorong> !us passenger, deceased

Paulie Caorong> widow o" 5tty' Caorong, plainti"" sa TC

asser, ose, Prince> minor children o" the Caorongs

Fortune 2$press > !us company, petitioner

%ature o" the case: Suit o" !reach o" contract o" carriage'

FACTS:

Fortune 2$press !us "igured in an accident with a ?eepney

in *anao del %orte, resulting in the death o" severalpassengers o" the ?eepney, including two Maranaos

Crisanto Deneralao, a volunteer "ield agent o" the

Consta!ulary egional Security 1nit, conducted aninvestigation o" the accident, and "ound out that the owner o"the ?eepney was a Maranao

Deneralao rendered a report on his "indings to Sgt'

eynaldo +astasa o" the Philippine Consta!ulary egional/ead0uarters at Cagayan de 7ro that certain Maranaos were

planning to take revenge on the petitioner !y !urning some o"its !uses

+astasa instructed Deneralao to see &iosdado

+ravo, operations manager o" petitioner in its main o""ice inCagayan de 7ro City' +ravo assured him that the necessary

precautions to insure the sa"ety o" lives and property would !etaken'

days later, = armed Maranaos who pretended to !e

passengers, sei.ed a !us o" petitioner while on its wayto 6ligan City' 5mong the passengers o" the !us was 5tty'Caorong' The leader o" the Maranaos, identi"ied as one+ashier Mananggolo, ordered the driver, Dodo"redo Ca!atuan,to stop the !us on the side o" the highway

Mananggolo shot Ca!atuan on the arm' 7ne o" the

companions o" Mananggolo started pouring gasoline inside the!us including the driver Ca!atuan' Mananggolo then orderedthe passenger to get o"" the !us'

5tty' Caorong returned to the !us to retrieve something

"rom the overhead rack' Ca!atuan, who had regainedconsciousness, heard 5tty' Caorong pleading with the armedmen to spare the driver as he was innocent o" any wrongdoing The armed men were, however, adamant as theyrepeated the warning that they were going to !urn the !usalong with its driver'

Ca!atuan clim!ed out o" the le"t window o" the !us /e

heard shots "rom inside the !us' *arry de la Cru., one o" the

passengers, saw that 5tty' Caorong was hit' Then the !us wasset on "ire' Some o" the passengers were a!le to pull 5tty'Caorong out o" the !urning !us and rush him to the MercyCommunity /ospital in 6ligan City, !ut he died whileundergoing operation

Paulie Caorong !rought suit "or each o" contract TC

6ligan'


45/47


46/47


47/47

Ode"endant shall !e lia!le "or the loss o" the earningcapacity o" the deceased, and the indemnity shall !e paidto the heirs o" the latter'O

Actual amages. Art' G3EE provides that Oe$cept as

provided !y law or !y stipulation, one is entitled to anade0uate compensation only "or such pecuniary losssu""ered !y him as has duly proved'O

!oral amages' 1nder 5rt' GG, the Ospouse, legitimate

and illegitimate descendants and ascendants o" thedeceased may demand moral damages "or mental anguish!y reason o" the death o" the deceased'O

/emplary amages' 5rt' GG=G provides that Oin contracts

and 0uasi-contracts, the court may award e$emplarydamages i" the de"endant acted in a wanton, "raudulent,reckless, oppressive, or malevolent reckless manner'O 6nthe present case, the petitioner acted in a wanton andreckless manner'

Attorney0s 1ees' Pursuant to 5rt' GGK, attorneys "ees may

!e recovered when, as in the instant case, e$emplarydamages are awarded'

Compensation for Loss of arning Capacity' A'. 14 3

& C!/! Cd&, !n '&a!n A'. 22 &'&3 , providesthat in addition to the indemnity "or death arising "rom the!reach o" contrtact o" carriage !y a common carrier, theOde"endant shall !e lia!le "or the loss o" the earningcapacity o" the deceased, and the indemnity shall !e paidto the heirs o" the latter'O

DISPOSITIVE: the decision o" the Court o" 5ppeals is here!y5FF6M2& with the M7&6F6C5T67% that petitioner Fortune

2$press, 6nc' is ordered to pay private respondents Paulie, asserIing, ose /einni, and Prince 5le$ander Caorong'

2nd set digests-2-2

Documents