Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION A. CONCEPT, PARTIES AND PERFECTION DANGWA TRANSPORTATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Private respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioners for the death of Pedrito Cudiamat as a result of a vehicular accident which occurred on March 25, 1985 at Marivic, Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet. Petitioner Theodore M. Lardizabal was driving a passenger bus belonging to petitioner corporation in a reckless and imprudent manner and without due regard to traffic rules and regulations and safety to persons and property, it ran over its passenger, Pedrito Cudiamat. Petitioners alleged that they had observed and continued to observe the extraordinary diligence and that it was the victim's own carelessness and negligence which gave rise to the subject incident. RTC pronounced that Pedrito Cudiamat was negligent, which negligence was the proximate cause of his death. However, Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the lower court, and ordered petitioners to pay private respondents damages due to negligence. ISSUE: WON the CA erred in reversing the decision of the trial court and in finding petitioners negligent and liable for the damages claimed. HELD: CA Decision AFFIRMED The testimonies of the witnesses show that that the bus was at full stop when the victim boarded the same. They further confirm the conclusion that the victim fell from the platform of the bus when it suddenly accelerated forward and was run over by the rear right tires of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased was guilty of negligence. It is not negligence per se, or as a matter of law, for one attempt to board a train or streetcar which is moving slowly. An ordinarily prudent person would have made the attempt board the moving conveyance under the same or similar circumstances. The fact that passengers board and alight from slowly moving vehicle is a matter of common experience both the driver and conductor in this case could not have been unaware of such an ordinary practice. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by the according to all the circumstances of each case. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. It has also been repeatedly held that in an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible to pay the damages sought by the passenger. By contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express obligation to transport the passenger to his destination safely and observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by the passenger is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier. This is an exception to the general rule that negligence must be proved, and it is therefore incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code. KOREAN AIRLINES CO. v. CA LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, versus MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY FACTS: Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a "token" (representing payment of the fare). While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard assigned to the area approached him. A misunderstanding or an altercation between the two apparently ensued that led to a fist fight. No evidence, however, was adduced to indicate how the fight started or who, between the two, delivered the first blow or how Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was killed instantaneously. The widow of Nicanor, Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent for the death of her husband. Trial court ruled in favor Navidads wife and against the defendants Prudent Security and Junelito Escartin . LRTA and Rodolfo Roman were dismissed for lack of merit. CA held LRTA and Roman liable, hence the petition. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a perfected contract of carriage between Navidad and LRTA HELD: AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but only in that (a) the award of nominal damages is DELETED and (b) petitioner Rodolfo Roman is absolved from liability Contract of carriage was deemed created from the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation. The appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Roman liable for the death of Navidad in failing to exercise
EH 405
Page 1
PEDRO DE GUZMAN vs.COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO CENDANA FACTS: Ernesto Cendana, a junk dealer, was engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan, and bring such material to Manila for resale. He utilized two (2) six-wheeler trucks which he owned for hauling the material to Manila. He charged freight rates which were commonly lower than regular commercial rates for the cargo loaded in his vehicle. Pedro de Guzman a merchant and authorized dealer of General Milk Company contracted with Cendana for the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse of General Milk in Makati, Rizal. 150 cartons were loaded on a truck driven by Cendana himself, while 600 cartons were placed on board the other truck which was driven by Manuel Estrada, Cendanas driver and employee. The other 600 boxes never reached de Guzman, since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked somewhere along the MacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac, by armed men who took with them the truck, its driver, his helper and the cargo. Having failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of him by
EH 405
Page 2
EH 405
Page 3
EH 405
Page 4
Mr. & Mrs. Engracio Fabre, Jr. vs. CA, et al. 259 SCRA 426 Facts: Petitioners Fabre and his wife were owners of a minibus which they used principally in connection with a bus
EH 405
Page 5
EH 405
Page 6
EH 405
Page 7
EH 405
Page 8
EH 405
Page 9
EH 405
Page 10
EH 405
Page 11
EH 405
Page 12
Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies 23 SCRA 24 FACTS: "Consorcio Pesquero del Peru of South America" shipped freight pre-paid at Chimbate, Peru, 21,740 jute bags of Peruvian fish meal through SS Crowborough. The cargo, consigned to San Miguel Brewery, Inc., now San Miguel Corporation, and insured by Home Insurance Company for $202,505, arrived in Manila and was discharged into the lighters of Luzon Stevedoring Company. When the cargo was delivered to consignee San Miguel Brewery Inc., there were shortages amounting to P12,033.85, causing the latter to lay claims against Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, Home Insurance Company and the American Steamship Agencies, owner and operator of SS Crowborough. Because the others denied liability, Home Insurance Company paid the consignee P14,870.71. Having been refused reimbursement by both the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation and American Steamship Agencies, Home Insurance Company, as subrogee to the consignee, filed against them before the Court of First Instance a complaint for recovery of P14,870.71 with legal interest, plus attorney's fees. In answer, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation alleged that it delivered with due diligence the goods in the same quantity and quality that it had received the same from the carrier. It also claimed that plaintiff's claim had prescribed under Article 366 of the Code of Commerce stating that the claim must be made within 24 hours from receipt of the cargo. American Steamship Agencies denied liability by alleging that under the provisions of the Charter party referred to
EH 405
Page 13
The Court of First Instance declared the contract as contrary to Article 587 of the Code of Commerce making the ship agent civilly liable for indemnities suffered by third persons arising from acts or omissions of the captain in the care of the goods and Article 1744 of the Civil Code under which a stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the former for loss or destruction of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence is valid provided it be reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy. The release from liability in this case was held unreasonable and contrary to the public policy on common carriers. o Under American jurisprudence, a common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only, becomes a private carrier.8 As a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the
EH 405
Page 14
EH 405
Page 15
EH 405
Page 16
Menors negligence concurred with the negligence of petitioner and resultantly caused damage to the latter. Contrary to petitioners claim, the evidence on record shows that respondent exercised due diligence in performing its obligations under the contract and followed standard procedure in rendering its services to petitioner. As correctly observed by the lower court, the plane ticket. issued to petitioner clearly reflected the departure date and time, contrary to petitioners contention. The travel documents, consisting of the tour itinerary, vouchers and instructions, were likewise delivered to petitioner two days prior to the trip. Respondent also properly booked petitioner for the tour, prepared the necessary documents and procured the plane tickets. It arranged petitioners hotel accommodation as well as food, land transfers and sightseeing excursions, in accordance with its avowed undertaking. Therefore, it is clear that respondent performed its prestation under the contract as well as everything else that was essential to book petitioner for the tour. Hence, petitioner cannot recover and must bear her own damage.
4. 5. 6.
Distinction from towage, arrester and stevedoring Governing Laws Registered Owner Rule and Kabit System
C. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES AND DEFENSES 1. Duties of Common Carrier COMPAIA MARITIMA v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA G.R. No. L-18965 October 30, 1964 FACTS: Macleod and Company of the Philippines contracted the services of the Compaia Maritima, a shipping corporation, for the shipment of 2,645 bales of hemp from the former's Sasa private pier at Davao City to Manila and for their subsequent transhipment to Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. on board the S.S. Steel Navigator. This oral contract was later on confirmed by a formal and written booking issued by Macleod's branch office in Sasa and handcarried to Compaia Maritima's branch office in Davao in compliance with which the latter sent to Macleod's private wharf on which the loading of the
EH 405
Page 17
EH 405
Page 18
MACAM vs. CA [G.R. No. 125524. August 25, 1999] FACTS: On 4 April 1989 petitioner Macam shipped on board the vessel Nen Jiang, owned and operated by respondent China Ocean Shipping Co., through local agent respondent WALLEM, 3,500 boxes of watermelons and 1,611 boxes of fresh mangoes; the two sets of fruits were covered by two bills of lading and were exported through their respective Letters of Credit both issued by Pakistan Bank. The shipment was bound for Hongkong with PAKISTAN BANK as consignee and Great Prospect Company of Kowloon, Hongkong (GPC) as notify party. On 6 April 1989, per letter of credit requirement, copies of the bills of lading and commercial invoices were submitted to petitioner's depository bank, Consolidated Banking Corporation (SOLIDBANK), which paid petitioner in advance the total value of the shipment of US$20,223.46. Upon arrival in Hongkong, the shipment was (1) delivered by respondent WALLEM directly to GPC (the buyerimporter), not to PAKISTAN BANK, (2) and without the required bill of lading having been surrendered. Subsequently, GPC failed to pay PAKISTAN BANK such that the latter, still in possession of the original bills of lading, refused to pay petitioner through SOLIDBANK. Since SOLIDBANK already pre-paid petitioner the value of the shipment, it demanded payment from respondent WALLEM through five (5) letters but was refused. Petitioner was thus allegedly constrained to return the amount involved to SOLIDBANK; petitioner then demanded payment from respondent WALLEM in writing but to no avail. On 25 September 1991 petitioner sought collection of the value of the shipment of US$20,223.46 or its equivalent of P546,033.42 from respondents before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, based on delivery of the shipment to GPC without presentation of the bills of lading and bank guarantee. On 14 May 1993, the trial court favored Pet, ordering China Ocean Shipping and Wallem to pay, jointly and severally. The Court of Appeals appreciated the
EH 405
Page 19
DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC vs. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION G.R. No. 149019, August 15, 2006 FACTS: Delsan is a domestic corporation which owns and operates the vessel MT Larusan. On the other hand, respondent American Home Assurance Corporation (AHAC for brevity) is a foreign insurance company duly. It is engaged, among others, in insuring cargoes for transportation within the Philippines. Unloading operations commenced, discharging of the diesel oil. The discharging had to be stopped on account of the discovery that the port bow mooring of the vessel was intentionally cut or stolen by unknown persons. Because there was nothing holding it, the vessel drifted westward, ultimately caused the diesel oil to spill into the sea. As a result of spillage and backflow of diesel oil, Caltex sought recovery of the loss from Delsan, but the latter refused to pay. As insurer, AHAC paid Caltex. AHAC, as Caltexs subrogee, instituted Civil Case against Delsan. caused by the spillage. It likewise prayed that it be indemnified for damages suffered Delsan insists that the rule on contributory negligence against Caltex, the shipper-owner of the cargo, and the diesel oil was already completely delivered to Caltex. ISSUE: W.O.N. Delsan is liable based on Article 1734 of the NCC and W.O.N. the rule on contributory negligence should be applied against Caltex. HELD: Petition is DENIED. CA is affirmed.
EH 405
Page 20
DSR-SENATOR LINES AND C.F. SHARP AND COMPANY, INC. vs. FEDERAL PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., INC. G.R. No. 135377. October 7, 2003 Facts: Berde Plants, Inc. (Berde Plants) delivered 632 units of artificial trees to C.F. Sharp and Company, Inc. (C.F. Sharp, for transportation and delivery to the consignee. The cargo was loaded in M/S "Arabian Senator." Federal Phoenix Assurance Company, Inc. (Federal Phoenix Assurance) insured the cargo against all risks in the amount of P941,429.61. M/S "Arabian Senator" left the Manila South Harbor for Saudi Arabia with the cargo on board. When the vessel arrived in Khor Fakkan Port, the cargo was reloaded on board DSR-Senator Lines' feeder vessel, bound for Port Dammam, Saudi Arabia. However, while in transit, the vessel and all its cargo caught fire.
EH 405
Page 21
PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, SORIAMONT STEAMSHIP AGENCIES AND KYOSEI KISEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA G.R. No. 101503 September 15, 1993 FACTS: Planters Products, Inc. (PPI), purchased from Mitsubishi International Corporation (MITSUBISHI) of New York, U.S.A., 9,329.7069 metric tons (M/T) of Urea 46% fertilizer which the latter shipped in bulk on 16 June 1974 aboard the cargo vessel M/V "Sun Plum" owned by private respondent Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha (KKKK) from Kenai, Alaska, U.S.A., to Poro Point, San Fernando, La Union, Philippines, as evidenced by Bill of Lading No. KP-1 signed by the master of the vessel and issued on the date of departure. Prior to its voyage, a time charter-party on the vessel M/V "Sun Plum" pursuant to the Uniform General Charter was entered into between Mitsubishi as shipper/charterer and KKKK as shipowner, in Tokyo, Japan. Before loading the fertilizer aboard the vessel, four (4) of her holds were all presumably inspected by the charterer's representative and found fit to take a load of urea in bulk pursuant to par. 16 of the charter-party . After the Urea fertilizer was loaded in bulk by stevedores hired by and under the supervision of the shipper, the steel hatches were closed with heavy iron lids, covered with three (3) layers of tarpaulin, then tied with steel bonds. The hatches remained closed and tightly sealed throughout the entire voyage. Petitioner unloaded the cargo from the holds into its steelbodied dump trucks which were parked alongside the berth, using metal scoops attached to the ship, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the charter-partly (which provided for an F.I.O.S. clause). However, the hatches remained open throughout the duration of the discharge. Each time a dump truck was filled up, its load of Urea was covered with tarpaulin. The port area was windy, certain portions of the route to the warehouse were sandy and the weather was variable, raining occasionally while the discharge was in progress. It took eleven (11) days for PPI to unload the cargo. A private marine and cargo surveyor, Cargo Superintendents Company Inc. (CSCI), was hired by PPI to determine the "outturn" of the cargo shipped, by taking draft readings of the vessel prior to and after discharge. The survey report submitted by CSCI to the consignee (PPI) revealed a shortage in the cargo of 106.726 M/T and that a portion of the Urea fertilizer
EH 405
Page 22
EH 405
Page 23
EH 405
Page 24