negligence. However, the reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier’s liability. (Art.
1758)
Q: What are void stipulations in a contract of carriage of goods?
A:
1. That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper
2. That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods
3. That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods
4. That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a family, or a man of ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported
5. That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of his or its employees
6. That the common carrier’s liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished
7. That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage
8. Any similar stipulation that is unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy. (Art. 1745)
Q: What is the effect of the agreement on limiting the liability to the presumption of negligence of the carrier?
A: Even if there is an agreement limiting the
liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is still disputably presumed to have been negligent in
case of its loss, destruction or deterioration. (Art.
1752)
Q: When is the limitation of the amount of liability valid?
A: When it is reasonable and just under the
circumstances, and has been freely and fairly agreed upon. (Art.1750)
Q: Is the liability limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading when stipulated?
A:
GR: A stipulation that the common carrier’s
liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading is binding.
XPN: the shipper or owner declares a greater
value and pays corresponding freight. (Art.
1749). D. LIABILITY FOR BAGGAGE OF PASSENGERS Q: What rule will apply on checked‐in baggage of passengers? A: The provisions of Articles 1733 to 1753 of the Civil Code shall apply.
Q: What rule will apply when the baggage is in the personal custody of the passengers of their employees?
A:
1. The common carrier shall be responsible for shipper’s baggage as depositaries, provided that notice was given to them, or to their employees, of the effects brought by the guests and that, on the part of the shipper, they take the precautions which said common carriers or their substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects. (Art. 1998,
NCC)
2. The responsibility shall include the loss of, or injury to the personal property of the shipper caused by the employees of the common carrier as well as strangers; but not that which may proceed from any force majeure. (Art.
2000, NCC)
3. The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the carrier is not deemed force
majeure, unless it is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force.
(Art. 2001, NCC)
4. The common carrier is not liable for compensation if the loss is due to the acts of the shipper, his family, or servants, or if the loss arises from the character of the things brought into the carrier. (Art. 2002, NCC)
5. The common carrier cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by the passenger. Any stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in Articles 1998 to 2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void. (Art. 2003,
NCC)
Q: Could a common carrier be held liable for the loss of a valuable item stolen by other passenger when the victim told the driver that he has valuable item?
A: Yes. Ordinarily, the common carrier is not
liable for acts of other passengers. But the common carrier cannot relieve itself from liability if the common carrier’s employees could have prevented the act or omission by exercising due diligence. In this case, the passenger asked the driver to keep an eye on the bag which was placed beside the driver’s seat. If the driver exercised due diligence, he could have prevented the loss of the bag. (1997 Bar Question) III. SAFETY OF PASSENGERS A. VOID STIPULATIONS Q: Are stipulations limiting the common carrier’s responsibility for the safety of passengers valid? A: No. The responsibility of a common carrier for
the safety of passengers as required in Articles 1733 and 1755 cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise. (Art. 1757)
Q: What is the rule in case of non‐paying passengers or if the fare is reduced?
A: When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a
stipulation limiting the common carrier’s liability for negligence is valid, but not for willful acts or gross negligence.
However, the reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier’s liability.
(Art. 1758) B. DURATION OF LIABILITY Q: When does this duty begin to exist?
A: The duty exists from the moment the person
offers to be transported places himself in the care and control of the common carrier who accepts him as such passenger. The duty continues until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carrier’s conveyance or has had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises and to look after his baggage and prepare for his departure.
Q: When a Public Utility Vehicle is not in motion, is there a necessity for a person who wants to ride the same to signal his intention to board? A: No. When the bus is not in motion there is no
necessity for a person who wants to ride the same to signal his intention to board. A public utility bus, once it stops, is in effect making a continuous offer to bus riders. Hence, it becomes the duty of the driver and the conductor, every time the bus stops, to do no act that would have the effect of increasing the peril to a passenger while he was attempting to board the same. The premature acceleration of the bus in this case was a breach of such duty. (Dangwa vs. CA, G.R.
No. 95582, October 7, 1991)
Q: If the bus started moving slowly when the passenger is boarding the same, is the passenger negligent?
A: No. Further, even assuming that the bus was
moving, the act of the victim in boarding the same cannot be considered negligent under the circumstances. As clearly explained in the testimony of the aforestated witness for petitioners, Virginia Abalos, the bus had "just started" and "was still in slow motion" at the point where the victim had boarded and was on its platform. (Dangwa vs. CA, G.R. No. 95582,
October 7, 1991)
Q: What is the duty of the common carriers in boarding of passengers?
A: It is the duty of common carriers of
passengers, including common carriers by railroad train, streetcar, or motorbus, to stop their conveyances a reasonable length of time in order