Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/269356820/Transportation-Laws-Reviewer
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:53:48
Document Index: 8106950

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art.1732', 'Art. 1732', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 17551763', 'Art. 1739', 'Art.1739', 'Art. 1738', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 1735', 'Art.4', 'Art 1744', 'Art. 2180']

Transportation Laws. Reviewer | Common Carrier | Negligence
Rights Duties and Liabilities Of Auditor.pdf
Eastern Shipping Lines vs IAC (1987)
Torts and Damages Case List and Jurisprudence
62687-1992-Rights of Persons Arrested Detained or Under
Torts Codal Provisions
TRANSPORTATION LAWS (BEDA
TRANSPORTATION/CARRIAGE
A contract whereby a person,
natural or juridical, obligates to transport
persons, goods, or both, from one place to
another, by land, air or water, for a price
Persons, corporations, firms or
goods or both, by land, water, or air for
compensation, offering their services to
the public. (Art.1732, Civil Code)
 Art. 1732 of the New Civil Code
avoids any distinction between one
whose principal business activity is
the carrying of persons or goods or
both and one who does such
carrying only as an ancillary
activity (sideline). It also avoids a
distinction between a person or
enterprise offering transportation
service on a regular basis and one
offering such service on an
 Neither does the law distinguish
between a carrier offering its
services to the general public that
is the general community or
population and one who offers
services or solicits business only
from a narrow segment of the
 A person or entity is a common
carrier even if he did not secure a
(De Guzman vs CA)
 It makes no distinction as to the
means of transporting, as long as it
is by lamd, water or air. It does not
provide that the transportation
should be by motor vehicle. (First
Phil. Industrial Corp. vs CA)
One is a common carrier even if he
has no fixed and publicly known
route, maintains no terminals, and
issues no tickets (Asia Lighterage
Shipping, Inc. vs CA)
(Lastimoso vs. Doliente)
particular class of goods for
carriage to the prejudice of the
traffic in these goods
Trans. Vs Orlanes)
One which, without being engaged
in the business of carrying as a public
employment, undertakes to deliver goods
or passengers for compensation. (Home
Insurance Co. vs American Steamship
 TESTS WHETHER CARRIER IS
COMMON OR PRIVATE:
The SC in First Phil Industrial Co. vs
CA (1995) reiterated the following
1. It must be engaged in the
business of carrying goods for
others as a public employment
and must hold itself out as
generally as a business and not
2. It must undertake to carry
goods of the kind to which its
business is confined;
3. It must undertake to carry by
the method by which his
business is conducted and over
its established roads; and
4. The transportation must be for
1.As to availability
Holds himself out
peopleindiscrimanat
Others. express or implied. One who attempts to board a moving vehicle.Presumption of Negligence There is a No presumption of presumption of fault fault or negligence or negligence 7. has been properly informed of such fact. Business is impressed with a special public duty 4. Relationship of trust 3. One who remains on a carrier for an unreasonable length of time after he has been afforded every safe opportunity to alight. Civil Code-primary 2. Domestic/interisland/coastwise Applicable to land. stealth. WARSAW) NEW CIVIL CODE (ARTS. Rationale: 1. is injured by the carrier. 1733) 2. COVERAGE 1. NCC 6.suppletory (COGSA. From the nature of the business and for reasons of public policy. International/foreign/overseas (Foreign country to Philippines) The law of country of destination generallr applies. 1174 NCC 1733. Others.suppletory (COGSA. Invited guests and accommodation passengers (Lara vs Valencia) g.ely groups only 2. 17341754) 2. e. provided it except when is not cintrary to provided by law law. Civil Code-primary 2. 1732-1766) REQUIREMENT DILIGENCE OF EXTRAORDINARY Rendition of service with the greatest skill and utmost foresight. Preciousness of human life A common carrier is not an absolute insurer of all risks of travel. Code of Commerce-suppletory 3. One who has boarded by fraud. Vigilance over goods (Arts.Exemting circumstance Prove extraordinary Caso fortuito. One who has boarded a wrong vehicle. or deceit. Safety of passengers (Arts.Stipulation limiting liability Parties may NOT Parties may limit agree on limiting the carrier’s the carrier’s liability liability. and on alighting. Code of Commerce-suppletory 3. As to required diligence Extraordinary Ordinary diligence diligence is required is required 3. morals or good customs 5. As to regulation Subject to State Not subject to State regulation regulation 4. One who rides any part of the vehicle which is unsuitable or dangerous or which he knows is not designed or intended for passengers. They are entitled to extraordinary diligence from the common carrier. water. d. c. . with the carrier. f. although he has a ticket. WARSAW) B. unless the attempt be with the knowledge and consent of the carrier.Governing Law Law on carrier common Law on obligations and contracts GOVERNING LAWS A. (Art. diligence and Art. 1. Possession of the goods 5. and air transportation 1. Art. 17551763) PASSENGER A person who has entered into a contract of carriage.  The following are NOT considered passengers and are entitled to ordinary diligence only: a. One who has NOT yet boarded any part of the vehicle regardless of whether or not he has purchased a ticket b.
(Del prado vs Manila Electric Co. 1742) The carrier which. (Maranan vs Perez) LIABILITY OF A COMMON CARRIER FOR DEATH OR INJURIES TO PASSENGERS DUE TO ACTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND OTHER PASSENGERS OR STRANGERS. Caso fortuito/force majeure Requisites: a. Must be the proximate and only cause of the loss b. (Southern Lines Inc. (Art. however Not absolute. vs CA) 5. Exercise of due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before. The defense under said articles is applicable to negligence in quasi-delicts undet Art. the common carrier will be held liable. Must be the proximate and only cause of the loss b. Exercise of due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before. 2176. must be on duty 1763 at the time of the act. CARRIAGE OF GOODS Parties CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS .DEFENSES OF A COMMON CARRIER IN THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS 1. during or after the act causing the loss. Order or Act of Public Authority Said public authority must have the power to issue the order (Art.) FOR ACTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES FOR ACTS OF OTHER PASSENGERS OR STRANGERS Required diligence and defense Extraordinary Ordinary Diligence diligence Nature of Liability Tort. vs IAC) Mechanical defects are not force majeure if the same was discoverable by regular and adequate inspections 2. 2180 of the Civil Code cannot be interposed as a defense by the common carrier because the liability of the carriers arises from the breach of the contract of carriage. Acts of Public Enemy Requisites: a. Carrier has not negligently incurred in delay in transporting the goods. 1740)   Fire is not considered a natural disaster or calamity as it arises almost invariably from some act of man (Eastern Shipping lines Inc. 1743). (Ganzon vs CA) Deligence in the selection and supervision of employees under Art. (Art. 1739) 3. deterioration or destruction of the goods. the common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss. where the officer acts without legal process. Contributory: partial defense (Art. is not relieved of liability or loss or injury resulting therefrom.1741) 4. the employee limited by Art. Negligence of the Shipper or Owner a. during or after the occurrence of the disaster (Art. knowing the fact of improper packing of the goods upon ordinary observation. still accepts the goods notwithstanding such condition. Sole and proximate cause: absolute defense b. Consequently. Character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the container Even if the damage should be caused by the inherent defect/character of the goods. (Art.1739) c.
(Dangwa Trans Co. ( La Mallorca vs CA) It is the duty of common carriers of passengers to stop their conveyances a reasonable length of time in order to afford passengers an opportunity to enter. Passenge 3. and owner has made what is a use of the right reasonable time of stoppage in or a reasonable transit. Common 1. 1735. or passengers deterioration of the goods Duration of Liability From the The duty of time the goods a common are carrier to unconditionally provide safety placed in the to its possession of. passengers so and received by obligates it NOT the carrier for ONLY during the transportation course of the until the same trip. Consigne r e Cause of liability Delay in Death or injury delivery. delay within this (Art. BUT for so are delivered long as the actually or passengers are constructively within its by the carrier to premises and the consignee or where they to the person ought to be in who has the pursuance to right to received the contract of them. and includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure. to the destruction. Common Carrier Carrier 2. CC Reason: The contract between the passenger and the carrier imposes on the . The duty which the carrier of passengers owes to its patrons extends to persons boarding the cars as well as to those alighting therefrom.1737) rule is to be It continues determined to be operative from all the 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 them.1. (LTRA 1736) vs Natividad) It remains All persons in full force and who remain on effect even the premises when they are within a temporarily reasonable time unloaded or after leaving the stored in transit conveyance are unless the to be deemed shipper or the passengers. vs CA) Negligence Art. loss. and they are liable for injuries suffered from the sudden starting up or jerking of their conveyances while doing so. (Lu Do vs Binamira) Presumption of Art. 1738) Delivery of goods to the custom authorities is not delivery to the consignee. carriage. ( Art. (Art. CC Reason: As to when and how goods were damaged in transit is a matter circumstances. 1755. Shipper 2.
Caso Fortuito 2. (Art. 2. Defenses 1. . (Art.peculiarly within the knowledge of the carrier and its employees. Exercise of extraordinary diligence (Art. In writing.Special Cicumstances: a. if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances and has been fairly and freely agreed upon. Limited liability for delay: An agreement limiting the common carriers liability for delay on account of strikes or riots. signed by the shipper or owner b. Supported by a valuable consideration other than the service rendered by the carriers and c. Force majeure b. but not for willful acts or gross negligence. (Mirasol vs Dollar) Mere proof of delivery of goods to a carrier in good order and the subsequent arrival of the same goods at the place of destination in bad order makes for a prima facie case against the carrier. just and not contrary to public policy. destruction or deterioration of the goods. Order or act of public Authority Valid stipulations 1. provided it be: a. 1750) 3. Fixed amount of liability: A contract fixing the sum to be recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss. hence the burden of explaining should fall on the carrier. 1748) carried gratuitously. Reduction of Stipulation degree of limiting liability diligence to when a ordinary passenger is diligence . Reasonable. Act or omission of the shipper or the owner of goods d. 1756) 3.Ordinary circumstance: Exercise of extraordinary diligence (Art. 1735) latter the duty to transport the passenger safely. Act of public enemy in war c.
vehicle. 1745) RULES ON PASSENGER’S BAGGAGE IN THE IN THE CUSTODY OF CUSTODY OF THE THE COMMON PASSENGER CARRIER (HAND(CHECKED-IN) CARRIED) Legal nature of baggage Necessary Considered as deposit “goods” Required diligence by the common carrier Diligence of a Extra-ordinary depositary diligence (ordinary diligence) Applicable Rules Arts. (Art. carrier’s liability 1757) for acts committed by the thieves or robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat. (Art.4.1745. Stipulation limiting liability to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading. ship or other equipment used in the contract of carriage (Art. by omissions of his statements on or its employees tickets or -That the otherwise. violence or force is dispensed with or diminished. 1749) ``The diligence required in the carriage of the goods may be reduced by only one degree. -That the carrier is not responsible for the loss. unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value. (Art 1744. be responsible by posting of for the acts or notices. 1733-1753 2000-2003 CONCURRING CAUSES ACTION ARISING FROM OF THE . no 4) Void Stipulations -That the carrier Dispensing shall exercise a with or degree of lessening the diligence less extraordinary than that of a responsibility of good father of a a common family over the carrier for the movable safety of transported passengers That the imposed by law carrier shall not by stipulations. from extraordinary to ordinary diligence or diligence of a good father of a family. 1998 and Arts. destruction or deterioration of the goods on account of the defective condition of the car.
goods shipped where such injury or loss was caused by its owned negligence. NCC No defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. Culpa Contractual (breach of contract) . It makes no difference that the liability of the bus driver and the owner springs from contract while that of the owner and the driver of the other vehicle arises from quasidelict.Only the carrier is primarily liable and not the driver. Basis: Art. An unqualified limitation of liability to an agreed valuation However. . the carrier cannot limit its liability for injury to.The carrier and driver are solidarily as joint tortfeasors. One 1. The carrier is subsidiarily liable only if the driver is convicted and declared insolvent. 1759.  In case of injury to a passenger due to the negligence of the driver of the bus on which he is riding and of the driver of another vehicle. RPC. Exception: maritime tort resulting in collision. NCC Defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is available. 100. higher rate of freight. liability for unless the loss or shipper damage declares a occasioned higher value by its own and pays a negligence. 2. Basis: Art. 2180. the drivers as well as the owners of the two vehicles are jointly and severally liable for damages. 3. because there is no privity between the driver and the passenger. Basis: Art. (Fabre vs CA) LIMITATIONS AS TO CARRIER’S LIABILITY INVALID AS BEING VALID AND CONTRARY TO ENFORCEABLE PUBLIC POLICY 1.NEGLIGENT ACT OF THE COMON CARRIER 1. Culpa Criminal (criminal negligence) . 2. Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict) . or loss of. One limiting exempting the liability the carrier of the carrier from any to an agreed and all valuation.The driver is primarily liable.
Documents Similar To Transportation Laws. Reviewer
cpadiyar
Social Worker Requirements COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Gail Pipeline Blast Tragedy
pnsumamahesh