Partículas
CAMPO ELÉCTRICO DE UNA DISTRIBUCIÓN CONTINUA DE CARGA
(ART. 1732-1766)
1. REQUIREMENT OFEXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
☛ Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each case (Art. 1733, in relation to Art.
1755)
☛ Rationale: The business of common carriers is impressed with a special public duty such that the public must of necessity rely on their skill and care over the goods and/or passengers transported. Also, with the development in science and invention, transportation has become more rapid, but
more complicated and hazardous, so the public is forced to trust all the more in the utmost diligence and foresight of common carriers. (Commission Report on the Proposed Civil Code)
☛ When the officers and the crew were aware of the typhoon but decided to proceed with the voyage believing that the weather was still “good,” although, according to the weather forecast, they were already within the typhoon zone, the sinking of the vessel proves that required extraordinary diligence was not duly observed. (Vasquez cs. CA, 138 SCRA 553)
☛ A common carrier neglects its duty to transport its passengers safely when a passenger died because the floor of its bus gave way after a tire blow out caused by overcrowding, overspeeding and weak flooring. (M. Ruiz Highway Transit, Inc. vs.
CA, 11 SCRA 98)
☛ The announcement by a train conductor of the next flag stop, three minutes ahead of time, causing the passengers to rise from their seats, and the subsequent fall by them as a consequence of the jerking, resulting in deaths and injuries to them, is negligence.
(Brinas vs. People, 125 SCRA 687)
☛ The mere fact that the bus was inspected the day before the accident is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence, where the bus was overloaded in spite of the fact that its route consisted of mountainous, circuitous and ascending roads. (Landingin vs. Pangasinan, 33 SCRA 284)
☛ Where a vessel’s departure was delayed by repairs, and on management’s instruction, the first port of call was bypassed, the event is not fortuitous to be exempt from liability.
(Sweet Lines vs. CA, 121 SCRA 769) 2. RULES ON PRESUMPTION OF
NEGLIGENCE
A. In the carriage of goods. In case of loss, destruction and deterioration of the goods, common carriers are presumed to be at fault or have acted negligently, unless they prove that they exercise extraordinary diligence.
☛ In the transport of goods, mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier 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. (Coastwise Lighterage Corp.
vs. CA, 245 SCRA 796
Page 52 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
32 33
34 35 36 37 38
40
3941 42 43
44
45 46
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
108 109
110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 4
B. In the carriage of passengers. The same presumption applies.
☛ The courts need not make an express finding of fault or negligence of common carriers, the law imposes upon common carriers strict liability, as long as it is shown that there exists a relationship between the passenger and the common carrier and that injury or death took place during the existence of the contract.
Reason for the presumption: Because as to when and how goods were damaged in transit is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the carrier and its employees. (Mirasol vs. Dollar, 53 PHIL 124) Also, the contract between the passenger and the carrier imposes on the latter to transport the passenger safely, hence the burden of explaining should fall on the carrier.
NOTE: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies.
3. DEFENSE OF COMMON CARRIERS
☛ Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
1. Flood, Storm, earthquake, lighting, or other natural disaster or calamity.
2. Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil
3. Act or omission of the shipper or the owner of goods
4. The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers.
5. Order or act of competent authority (Art1734, NCC).
Reason for the exceptions: Because the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers and is not absolutely and at all events to carry them safely and without injury.
(Santos vs. Dela Cruz, December 2, 1959) A. NATURAL DISASTER
Requisites for the Defense:
1. must be the proximate and only cause of the loss
2. carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during or after the occurrence of the disaster (Art.
1739, NCC)
3. carrier had not negligently incurred in delay in transporting the goods (Art. 1740, NCC) ACTS OF PUBLIC ENEMY
Requisites for the Defense:
1. the act must be the proximate and only cause of the loss
2. carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during or after the act causing the loss, deterioration or destruction of the goods (Art. 1739, NCC)
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIPPER
☛ If the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the proximate cause thereof being the negligence of the carrier, the carrier shall still be liable for damages, but such shall be equitably reduced.
☛ When the shipper declared an inaccurate weight of the equipment transported causing it to fall when it is being unloaded, the carrier was still held liable for damages because such accident could have been avoided if the carrier had exercised reasonable attention in overseeing the unloading of the equipment. However, the liability was reduced as the shipper was liable for contributory negligence. (Compania Maritima vs. CA, 164 SCRA 685)
C. 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, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.
☛ The carrier, knowing the fact of improper packing of the goods upon ordinary observation, still accepts the goods notwithstanding such condition, is not relieved of liability or loss or injury resulting therefrom. (Southern Lines, Inc. vs. CA, 4 SCRA 258)
D. ORDER/ACT OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY
☛ Said public authority must have the power to issue the order. Consequently, where the officer acts without legal process, the common carrier will be held liable.
NOTE: Diligence in the selection and supervision of employees under Articles 2180-2181, NCC, cannot be interposed by the common carrier to prevent damages because the liability of the carriers arises from the breach of the contract of carriage. The defense under said articles is applicable to negligence in quasi-delicts. (Del Prado vs. Manila Electric Co., 52 PHIL 900)
E. STIPULATIONS LIMITING LIABILITY OF COMMON CARRIERS 1. IN THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS- the
common carrier and the shipper may agree Page 53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
46
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
58
59 60 61 62
63 64 65 66 67 68
69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
89 90 91
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103
104
105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119
120 121
122 123 124 4
on the carriers observance of diligence to a degree less than extraordinary provided it be
a) In writing, signed by the shipper or owner;
b) Supported by a valuable consideration other than the service rendered by the carriers; and
c) Reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy. (Art. 1744).
☛ The following stipulations are considered unjust, unreasonable and contrary to public policy:
1. the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper
2. the carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods 3. the carrier need not observe any diligence in
the custody of the goods
4. the carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a family over the movable transported
5. the carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of his or its employees 6. the carrier’s liability for acts committed by
thieves or robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force is dispensed with or diminished
7. the carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods on account of the defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship or other equipment used in the contract of carriage.
Other Valid stipulations limiting the carrier’s liability:
1. A stipulation that the common carrier’s liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value (HEACOCCK VS MACONDRAY, 42 PHIL 205)
2. A contract fixing the sum to be recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances and has been fairly and freely agreed upon (Art. 1750, NCC)
3. An agreement limiting the common carrier’s liability for delay on account of strikes or riots (Art. 1748, NCC)
2. IN THE CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS
☛ The extraordinary responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers imposed by law cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by posting of notices, by statements on tickets or otherwise (Art. 1757, NCC).
☛ When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting the common carrier’s liability for negligence is valid, but not for
willful acts on gross negligence (Art. 1758, NCC).
NOTE:The diligence required in the carriage of the goods may be reduced by only one degree, from extraordinary to ordinary diligence or diligence of a good father of a family. (Art. 1744, Art. 1745, no.4, NCC)
☛ In the transport of passengers, the diligence required may be reduced by two degrees from extraordinary to ordinary diligence or even to simple negligence but ot to gross negligence. (Art. 1758, NCC)
G. DURATION OF RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMON CARRIERS
1. GOODS.
☛ The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from 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 who has the right to receive them. (Art.
1736, NCC)
☛ It remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit unless the shipper or owner has made use of the right of stoppage in transitu.
(Art. 1737, NCC)
☛ It continues to be operative even during the time the goods are stored in a warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination until the consignee has bee advised of the arrival of the goods and has had reasonable opportunity thereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of them. (Art. 1738, NCC) 2. PASSENGERS.
Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carrier’s conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises.
All persons who remain on the premises within a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances, and includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure. (La Mallorca vs CA, July 27 1966; Abiotiz Shipping Corporation vs CA, November 6, 1989)
In case of flight diversion due to bad weather or other circumstances beyond the pilot’s control, the relation between the carrier and the passenger continues the latter has been landed at the port of Page 54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104
105
106 107 108 109 110
111
112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121
122
123 124 125 126 4
destination and has left the carrier’s premises. The carrier should necessarily exercise extraordinary diligence in safeguarding the comfort, convenience and safety of its stranded passengers until they have reached their final destination.
(PHILIPPINE AIRLINES VS CA, 226 SCRA 423)
H. LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER FOR ACTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND OTHER PASSENGERS
1. For acts of Employees
☛ Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. This liability does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. (1759, NCC)
☛ The liability of the carrier for the personal violence of its employees or agents upon its passengers extends only to those acts that the carrier could foresee or avoid through the exercise of the degree of diligence required.
☛ The carrier is not liable for acts of employee not on duty or in the line of duty. (DE GILLACO VS MRR, 97 PHIL884;
MARANAN VS PEREZ, 20 SCRA 412) 2. For acts of other Passengers
☛ A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier’s employees, through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act.
(1763, NCC)
☛ The carrier is liable when its personnel allowed a passenger to drive the vehicle causing it to collide with another vehicle resulting to the injuries suffered by the other passengers.(MRR VS BALLESTEROS, 16 SCRA 641)
I. RULES ON PASSENGERS’
BAGGAGES
☛ As to baggage of passengers, the law makes a distinction between:
1. BAGGAGE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE PASSENGERS OR THEIR EMPLOYEE
☛ under this, the baggage is in the personal custody of the passenger or his employee in that the baggage while in transit will be considered as necessary deposits. The common carrier shall be responsible for the baggage as depositaries, provided that notice was given to them or its employees and the passenger took the necessary precautions which the carrier has advised them relative to the care and vigilance of their baggage.
☛ In case of loss due to the fault of the passenger, the carrier will not be liable . The act of thief will not be force majeure unless the same is committed by armed men an through irresistible force (Article 1754, NCC)
2. BAGGAGE NOT IN SUCH CUSTODY, BUT IN THAT OF THE CARRIER (Article 1733 to 1573 of the NCC)
☛ carrier who has in his custody the baggage of a passenger to be carried like any other goods is required to observe extraordinary diligence. In case of loss or damage the carrier is presumed negligent.
8) CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING FROM THE NEGLIGENT ACT OF THE CARRIER The injured passenger can avail of any of the three causes of action arising from the negligent act of the common carrier:
1)culpa contractual – Art.1759, NCC – only the carrier could be held liable, not the driver because the there is no privity between the driver and the passenger
2)culpa acquiliana – Art. 2180, NCC – the carrier and driver are solidarily liable as joint tortfeasors
3)culpa criminal – Art. 100, Revised Penal Code – the carrier could be held liable only if driver be convicted and declared insolvent, making him subsidiarily liable.
LIABILITY OF SUCCESSIVE AIR CARRIERS:
☛ An airline ticket providing that carriage by successive air carriers is to be regarded as a “single operation” is to make the (issuer carrier) liable for the tortious conduct of the other carrier. A printed provision in the ticket limiting liability only to its own conduct is not enough to rebut that liability (KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES VS. CA) BILL OF LADING- written acknowledgment of receipt of goods and agreement to transport them to a specific place to a person named or to his order. It is not indispensable for the creation Page 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10 9 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
56 57
58 59 60 61 62 63
64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112
113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122123
124 125 126 4
of a contract of carriage (COMPANIA MARITIMA vs. INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA, 12 SCRA 213)
ON BOARD BILL OF LADING- issued when the goods have been actually placed aboard the ship with very reasonable expectation that the shipment is as good as on its way.
FUNCTIONS OF A BILL OF LADING:
(MAGELLAN, MANUFACTURING vs. CA 201 SCRA 2021)
1. best evidence of the existence of the contract of carriage of cargo;
2. commercial document whereby, if negotiable, ownership may be transferred by negotiation; and
3. receipt of cargo.
LIMITATIONS AS TO CARRIERS LIABILITY
A stipulation in the bill of lading limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight is valid (ORG. VS. CA AND PAL, 91 SCRA 223).
☛ However, the carrier cannot limit is liability for injury to, or loss of, goods shipped where such injury or loss was caused by its own negligence (SHEWARAM VS.
PAL, 17SCRA 606).
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FROM CARRIER FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS-1. INTER-ISLAND- if goods arrived in
damaged condition: Art 366, CODE OF COMMERCE).
a. If damage is apparent, the shipper must file a claim immediately; or
b. If damage is not apparent, he should file a claim within 4 hours from delivery
☛ The filing of claim under either (1) or (2) is a condition precedent for recovery.
☛ If the claim is filed, but the carrier refuses to pay: enforce carrier’s liability in court by filing a case
a. within 6 year, if no bill of lading has been issued; or
b. within 10 years, if a bill of lading has been issued.
2. OVERSEAS- where goods arrived in a damaged condition from a foreign port to a Philippine port of entry;
a. upon discharge of goods, if the damage is apparent , claim should be filled immediately; or b. if damage is not apparent, claim should be filled within 3 days from delivery.
☛ Filing of claim is not condition precedent, but an action must be filed against the carrier within a period of 1 year from discharge; if there is no delivery, the undelivered or lost cargo), or from delivery to the arrastre (in case of damaged cargo).
EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY
☛ A common carrier may be freed from liability for loss or damage if it proves any of the following circumstances:
a. natural disaster;
b. act of the public enemy in war;
c. act or omission of the shipper;
d. character of the goods and defect in packaging;
e. order of competent public authority (MARITIME CO. VS. CA 171 SCRA 61).
DOCTRINE OF COMBINED/CONNECTING CARRIERS – Under Art. 373, Code of Commerce, the original carrier that entered into the contract of carriage shall be liable for damages caused by its connecting carriers.
Such carrier is liable if connecting carriers refuse to carry passengers. (KLM VS CA, 65 SCRA 237)