Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Court of Appeals
(179 SCRA 95)
Facts: On May 11, 1975, Anacleto Viana boarded M/|V Antonio
from Occidental Mindoro bound for Manila. Upon arrival on May
12, 1975, the passengers therein disembarked through a
gangplank connecting the vessel to the pier. Viana, instead of
disembarking through the gangplank, disembarked through the
third deck, which was at the same level with the pier. An hour
after the passengers disembarked, Pioneer stevedoring started
to operate in unloading the cargo from the ship. Viana then went
back, remembering some of his cargoes left at the vessel. At
that time, while he was pointing at the crew of the vessel to
where his cargoes were loaded, the crane hit him, pinning him
between the crane and the side of the vessel. He was brought
to the hospital where he died 3 days after (May 15). The parents
of Anacleto filed a complaint against Aboitiz for breach of
contract of carriage.
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Then both Aboitiz
and Pioneer filed a motion for reconsideration, upon which the
trial court issued an order absolving Pioneer from liability but not
Aboitiz. On appeal, CA affirmed the trial court ruling. Hence, this
petition.
Issue: Whether or not Viana is still considered a passenger at
the time of the incident?
Held: Yes. The La Mallorca case is applicable in the case at
bar.
The rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues
until the passenger has been landed at the port of destination
and has left the vessel owners dock or premises. Once created,
the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger
has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the
carriers conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave
the carriers premises. All persons who remain on the premises
a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be
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.
PAL vs. CA and ZAPATOS
G.R. No. L-82619 September 15, 1993
Facts: Private respondent was among the 21 passengers of
Flight 477 that took off from Cebu bound for Ozamiz City. The
routing of this flight was Cebu-Ozamiz-Cotabato. The pilot
received a radio message that Ozamiz airport was closed due to
heavy rains and inclement weather and that he should proceed
to Cotabato City instead.
Upon arrival at Cotabato City, the PAL Station Agent informed
the passengers of their options to return to Cebu on the same
day and then to Ozamiz, or take the next flight to Cebu the
following day, or remain at Cotabato and take the next available
flight to Ozamiz City. Flight 560 bound for Manila would make a
When the jeepney reached Mandaue City, the right rear tire
exploded causing the vehicle to turn turtle. Roberto Juntilla was
sitting at the front seat was thrown out of the vehicle.
FACTS
- Rogelio Carachea rode a taxi owned and operated by Pascual
Perez when he was stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon
Valenzuela
- Valenzuela was found guilty for homicide in the CFI
- While appeal was pending in CA, Maranan (Rogelios mom)
filed an action in CFI to recover damages from Perez (taxi
owner) and Valenzuela for her sons death
- Perez and Valenzuela assert that Rogelio was killed in selfdefense since he first assaulted driver from behind. Perez also
claimed that the death was a caso fortuito for which the
carrier was not liable.
- CFI ruled in favour of plaintiff Maranan
- CA affirmed
ISSUE: WoN Perez, taxi owner and operator, should be held
liable for the death of the taxi passenger? YES.
Perez relies on the ruling in Gillaco v. Manila Railroad Co.
where it held that the carrier is under no absolute liability for
assaults of its employees upon the passengers.
HELD
1. In the Gillaco1 case, the passenger was killed outside the
scope and the course of duty of the guilty employee. In this
case, the killing was done by the driver of the taxi transporting
the passenger, in whose hands the carrier had entrusted the
duty of executing the contract of carriage. Unlike in the Gillaco
case, the passengers killing here happened in the course of
duty of the guilty employee and within the scope of his duties.
Moreover, the Gillaco case was decided under the Civil Code
of 1889 provisions, which (unlike the new Civil Code) did
not impose upon common carriers absolute liability for the
1
When the crime happened, the guard had no duty to discharge in connection with
the transportation of the deceased.
Held: The Supreme Court held that while the law requires the
highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe
transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of
negligence against them, it does not however, make the carrier
an insurer of absolute safety of its passengers. A tort,
committed by a stranger which causes an injury to a passenger
does not accord the latter a cause of action against the carrier.
The negligence for which a common carrier is responsible is the
negligent omission by the carriers employees to prevent the tort
from being committed when the same could have been foreseen
and prevented by them. Further, it is to be noted that when the
violation of the contract is due to the willful acts of strangers, as
in the instant case, the degree of care essential to be exercised
by the common carrier for the protection of its passenger is only
that of a good father of the family.
Mapa v. CA
October 2, 1992 / Davide, Jr., J.
Facts
o
Defendants were also declared in default for failiure to file
an answer.
o
TC thereafter declared defendats jointly and severally
liable on the notes.
In Civil Case 1:
o
TC declared defendants in default for failure to file an
answer and allowed LBP to present evidence es parte.
o
Thereafer, TC rendered a decision in Civil Case 1,
against the defendants, finding them jointly and severally liable
for the amound adjudged
o
Mapa filed a Motion to Dismiss and Set Aside Judgment
assailing the vailidity of the service of summons as to him.
o
o
CA affirmed, finding that the substituted service of
summons pursuant to Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
was properly effected. MR was also denied.
In Civil Case 2:
o
Mapa filed a Motion to Dismiss and Set Aside Judgment,
also assailing the validity of service of summons upon him.
o
TC set aside the decision, ruling that jurisdiction was not
acquired over both Mapa petitioner and High Peak. The court
held that there is no showing that efforts were exerted by the
sheriff to serve the summons personally upon the petitioner and
instead immediately resorted to substituted service. LBPs MR
was denied.
o
LBP went to CA on certiori. CA granted the petition and
set aside the TC decision. Mapas MR was denied.
Issues/Held:
1.
NO.
2.
WON there was valid service of summons upon High
Peak. YES.
Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the
defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
Philippines or a partnership duly registered, services may be
made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or
any of its directors. The rule is meant to bring home to the
corporation notice of the filing of the action.
In his separate motions to dismiss, while petitioner categorically
admits that this Susan O. dela Torre is an employee of the
corporation, he does not disclose her specific duties and
responsibilities. He does not even deny the statement, made in
the said returns, that Susan is "authorized to receive processess
(sic) of this nature." Until rebutted by competent evidence, the
returns would have to stand in the meantime for they enjoy the
presumption of regularity. Susan O. dela Torre may thus be
Before Chiok his trip, the trips covered by the ticket were prescheduled and confirmed by the former. When petitioner arrived
in Taipei, he went to CAL to confirm his Hong Kong- Manila trip
on board PAL. The CAL office attached a yellow sticker
indicating the status was OK.
When Chiok reached Hong Kong, he then went to PAL office to
confirm his flight back to Manila. The PAL also confirmed the
status of his ticket and attached a ticket indicating a status OK.
Chiok proceeded to Hong Kong airport for his trip to Manila.
However, upon reaching the PAL counter, he was told that the
flight to Manila was cancelled due to typhoon. He was informed
that all confirmed flight ticket holders of PAL were automatically
booked for the next flight the following day.
The next day, Chiok was not able to board the plane because
his name did not appear on the computer as passenger for the
said flight to Manila.
Issue: Whether or not CAL is liable for damages?