2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW

Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

Common Carriers

Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of
carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation,
offering their services to the public. Art. 1732, NCC

As stated in the Public Service Act, the term ‘public service’ covers any person who owns,
operates, manages, or controls in the Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general or
limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business
purposes, any common carrier.

Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of
carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation,
offering their services to the public. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
(LTFRB) vs. Valenzuela, 896 SCRA 37, G.R. No. 242860 March 11, 2019

Test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods.

The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is: 1. He must be engaged
in the business of carrying goods for others as a public employment, and must hold himself out
as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for person generally as a business and not as a
casual occupation; 2. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is
confined; 3. He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and
over his established roads; and 4. The transportation must be for hire. First Philippine Industrial
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 661, G.R. No. 125948 December 29, 1998

The true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of the business actually
transacted, or the number and character of the conveyances used in the activity, but whether
the undertaking is a part of the activity engaged in by the carrier that he has held out to the
general public as his business or occupation.

The true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of the business actually
transacted, or the number and character of the conveyances used in the activity, but whether
the undertaking is a part of the activity engaged in by the carrier that he has held out to the
general public as his business or occupation. If the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

of the general business or occupation engaged in, as advertised and held out to the general
public, the individual or the entity rendering such service is a private, not a common, carrier. The
question must be determined by the character of the business actually carried on by the carrier,
not by any secret intention or mental reservation it may entertain or assert when charged with
the duties and obligations that the law imposes. Pereña vs. Zarate, 679 SCRA 208, G.R. No.
157917 August 29, 2012

As an entity engaged in the truck for hire business, it should have complied with the
requirements of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code and the issuances of the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB).

It is clear to Us that ES Trucking engaged in a truck for hire business, offering their vehicles to
transport the cargo of its customers. Noticeably, Edgardo Ruste admitted that they filed an
application to have the vehicle included in their Certificate of Public Convenience yet their
application was never granted. This is inconsistent with his own claim that ES Trucking does not
need to register with the LTFRB because it is not a common carrier but a private company. The
fact that they considered applying for the inclusion of the vehicle in their Certificate of Public
Convenience signifies that they are aware of the franchise requirement of the LTFRB. ES Trucking
cannot be excused simply because it is not registered with the LTFRB and it is a private company.
ES Trucking cannot be exonerated from liability and benefit from its own violation of the laws
and rules governing trucks for hire. As an entity engaged in the truck for hire business, it should
have complied with the requirements of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code and the
issuances of the LTFRB. Despite being registered as a private vehicle, the actual use of the vehicle
and the clientele to whom ES Trucking offers its services remain controlling. The failure to register
the vehicle as a public vehicle or a common carrier does not negate the true nature of the vehicle.
Heirs of Catalina P. Mendoza vs. ES Trucking and Forwarders, 932 SCRA 350, G.R. No. 243237
February 17, 2020

While DBDOYC further claims that another distinguishing factor of its business is that ‘[its]
drivers may refuse at any time any legitimate demand for service by simply not going online or
not logging in to the online platform,’ still when they do so log-in, they make their services
publicly available. In other words, when they put themselves online, their services are bound
for indiscriminate public consumption.

Again, as also-mentioned above, Article 1732 defining a common carrier ‘carefully avoids making
any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or
scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis.’

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board vs. Valenzuela, G.R. No. 242860, 11
March 2019

The fact that its drivers are not physically hailed on the street does not automatically render
Angkas-accredited drivers as private carriers.

In this relation, DBDOYC posits that its accredited bikers are private carriers as they do not hold
out their services generally to the public because they cannot just be hailed on the street as they
only contract via the Angkas online front. However, the Court is hard-pressed to rule — at least
at this point, and for the purpose of determining the validity of the writ of preliminary injunction
— that these bikers are only private carriers who may publicly ply their trade without any
regulation.

As the Court observes, the genius behind the Angkas app is that it removes the inconvenience of
having to physically hail for public transportation by creating a virtual system wherein practically
the same activity may now be done at the tip of one’s fingers. As it is the trend of modern
technology, previously cumbersome mundane activities, such as paying bills, ordering food, or
reserving accommodations, can now be accomplished through a variety of online platforms. By
DBDOYC’s own description, it seems to be that Angkas app is one of such platforms. As such, the
fact that its drivers are not physically hailed on the street does not automatically render Angkas
accredited drivers as private carriers. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
(LTFRB) vs. Valenzuela, 896 SCRA 37, G.R. No. 242860 March 11, 2019

At any rate, even if it is assumed that Angkas-accredited bikers are not treated as common
carriers and hence, would not make DBDOYC fall under the ‘public service’ definition, it does
not necessarily mean that the business of holding out private motorcycles for hire is a
legitimate commercial venture.

In the final analysis, the business of holding one's self out as a transportation service provider,
whether done through online platforms or not, appears to be one which is imbued with public
interest and thus, deserves appropriate regulations. Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board vs. Valenzuela, G.R. No. 242860, 11 March 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

Due to the public nature of their business, common carriers are compelled to exercise
extraordinary diligence since they will be burdened with the externalities or the cost of the
consequences of their contract of carriage if they fail to take the precautions expected of them.

Law and economics provide the policy justification of our existing jurisprudence. The
extraordinary diligence required by the law of common carriers is primarily due to the nature of
their business, with the public policy behind it geared toward achieving allocative efficiency
between the parties to the transaction. Allocative efficiency is an economic term that describes
an optimal market where customers are willing to pay for the goods produced. Thus, both
consumers and producers benefit and stability is achieved. The notion of common carriers is
synonymous with public service under Commonwealth Act No. 146 or the Public Service Act. Due
to the public nature of their business, common carriers are compelled to exercise extraordinary
diligence since they will be burdened with the externalities or the cost of the consequences of
their contract of carriage if they fail to take the precautions expected of them. Tan vs. Great
Harvest Enterprises, Inc., 897 SCRA 586, G.R. No. 220400 March 20, 2019

As common carriers, the petitioners are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in their
vigilance over the goods they transport, as required by the nature of their business and for
reasons of public policy.

As common carriers, the petitioners are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in their
vigilance over the goods they transport, as required by the nature of their business and for
reasons of public policy. ‘Extraordinary diligence is that extreme measure of care and caution
which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use for securing and preserving their
own property or rights.’ When the copper concentrates delivered were contaminated with
seawater, the petitioners have failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in the carriage thereof.
Loadstar Shipping Company, Incorporated vs. Malayan Insurance Company, Incorporated, 825
SCRA 14, G.R. No. 185565 April 26, 2017

OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES

Vigilance over goods

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound
to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the
passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. Art. 1733, NCC

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

Jurisprudence holds that a common carrier is presumed to have been negligent if it fails to prove
that it exercised extraordinary vigilance over the goods it transported.

Jurisprudence holds that a common carrier is presumed to have been negligent if it fails to prove
that it exercised extraordinary vigilance over the goods it transported. When the goods shipped
are either lost or arrived in damaged condition, a presumption arises against the carrier of its
failure to observe that diligence, and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold
it liable. To overcome the presumption of negligence, the common carrier must establish by
adequate proof that it exercised extraordinary diligence over the goods. It must do more than
merely show that some other party could be responsible for the damage. In the instant case,
considering that it is undisputed that the subject goods were severely damaged, the presumption
of negligence on the part of the common carrier, i.e., Unitrans, arose. Hence, it had to discharge
the burden, by way of adequate proof, that it exercised extraordinary diligence over the goods;
it is not enough to show that some other party might have been responsible for the damage.
Unitrans failed to discharge this burden. Hence, it cannot escape liability. Unitrans International
Forwarders, Inc. vs. Insurance Company of North America, 896 SCRA 595, G.R. No. 203865
March 13, 2019, J. Caguioa

Under Article 1736 of the Civil Code, a common carrier’s extraordinary responsibility over the
shipper’s goods lasts from the time these goods are unconditionally placed in the possession
of, and received by, the carrier for transportation, until they are delivered, actually or
constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.

In this light, Keihin-Everett, as a common carrier, is mandated to observe, under Article 1733 of
the Civil Code, extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods it transports according to
all the circumstances of each case. In the event that the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated,
it is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed
extraordinary diligence.

To be sure, under Article 1736 of the Civil Code, a common carrier’s extraordinary responsibility
over the shipper’s goods lasts from the time these goods are unconditionally placed in the
possession of, and received by, the carrier for transportation, until they are delivered, actually or
constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.
Hence, at the time Keihin-Everett turned over the custody of the cargoes to Sunfreight
Forwarders for inland transportation, it is still required to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance of the goods. Failure to successfully establish this carries with it the presumption of fault
or negligence, thus, rendering Keihin-Everett liable to Honda Trading for breach of contract.
Keihin-Everett Forwarding Co., Inc. vs. Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., 891 SCRA 332,
G.R. No. 212107 January 28, 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

The responsibility of common carriers to exercise extraordinary diligence lasts from the time
the goods are unconditionally placed in their possession until they are delivered ‘to the
consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.’

The responsibility of common carriers to exercise extraordinary diligence lasts from the time the
goods are unconditionally placed in their possession until they are delivered ‘to the consignee,
or to the person who has a right to receive them.’ Thus, part of the extraordinary responsibility
of common carriers is the duty to ensure that shipments are received by none but ‘the person
who has a right to receive them.’ Common carriers must ascertain the identity of the recipient.
Failing to deliver shipment to the designated recipient amounts to a failure to deliver. The
shipment shall then be considered lost, and liability for this loss ensues. Federal Express
Corporation vs. Antonino, 868 SCRA 450, G.R. No. 199455 June 27, 2018

That common carriers should carefully observe the statutory standard of extraordinary
diligence in respect of their passengers, such diligence should similarly benefit pedestrians and
the owners and passengers of other vehicles who are equally entitled to the safe and
convenient use of our roads and highways.

While the immediate beneficiaries of the standard of extraordinary diligence are the passengers,
they are not the only persons the law seeks to benefit. If we were to solely require this standard
of diligence for a common carrier’s passengers, this would be incongruent to the State’s
responsibility to curb accidents on the road. That common carriers should carefully observe the
statutory standard of extraordinary diligence in respect of their passengers, such diligence should
similarly benefit pedestrians and the owners and passengers of other vehicles who are equally
entitled to the safe and convenient use of our roads and highways. Cacho vs. Manahan, 851
SCRA 483, G.R. No. 203081 January 17, 2018

In requiring compliance with the standard of extraordinary diligence, a standard which is, in
fact, that of the highest possible degree of diligence, from common carriers and in creating a
presumption of negligence against them, the law seeks to compel them to control their
employees, to tame their reckless instincts and to force them to take adequate care of human
beings and their property.

Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the
carrier’s employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to
be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such
employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier. In requiring compliance with
the standard of extraordinary diligence, a Standard which is, in fact, that of the highest possible
degree of diligence, from common carriers and in creating a presumption of negligence against
them, the law seeks to compel them to control their employees, to tame their reckless instincts
and to force them to take adequate care of human beings and their property. Fernando vs.
Northwest Airlines, Inc., 817 SCRA 233, G.R. No. 212038, G.R. No. 212043 February 8, 2017

Specific to a contract of carriage, the Civil Code requires common carriers to observe
extraordinary diligence in safely transporting their passengers. Article 1733 of the Civil Code
states: ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public
policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the
safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in Articles 1734,
1735 and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers
is further set forth in Articles 1755 and 1756. This extraordinary diligence, following Article 1755
of the Civil Code, means that common carriers have the obligation to carry passengers safely as
far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons,
with due regard for all the circumstances. Sanico vs. Colipano, 841 SCRA 141, G.R. No. 209969
September 27, 2017

DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO A COMMON CARRIER

Proof of negligence

In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Article 1734, if the goods
are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to
have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required
in article 1733. Art. 1735, NCC

An agreement limiting the common carrier's liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is
valid. Art. 1748, NCC

Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over
the goods, the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their
loss, destruction or deterioration. Art 1752, NCC

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault
or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. Art 1756, NCC

In case of death of or injury to their passengers, Article 1756 of the Civil Code provides that
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or negligent, and this presumption can be
overcome only by proof of the extraordinary diligence exercised to ensure the safety of the
passengers.

Being an operator and owner of a common carrier, Sanico was required to observe extraordinary
diligence in safely transporting Colipano. When Colipano’s leg was injured while she was a
passenger in Sanico’s jeepney, the presumption of fault or negligence on Sanico’s part arose and
he had the burden to prove that he exercised the extraordinary diligence required of him. He
failed to do this. Sanico vs. Colipano, 841 SCRA 141, G.R. No. 209969 September 27, 2017

When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a particular flight on a certain
date, a contract of carriage arises; In an action for breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved
party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent—all that
is necessary to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the
carrier.

When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a particular flight on a certain date,
a contract of carriage arises. The passenger then has every right to expect that he be transported
on that flight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for a breach
of contract of carriage. The contract of air carriage is a peculiar one. Imbued with public interest,
the law requires common carriers to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all
the circumstances. In an action for breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not
have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that is necessary to prove
is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier. Singapore
Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez, 417 SCRA 474, G.R. No. 142305 December 10, 2003

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

Due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees

Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or
wilful 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 of the common carriers 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. Art.
1759, NCC

The common carrier's responsibility prescribed in the preceding article cannot be eliminated or
limited by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on the tickets or otherwise. Art.
1760, NCC

The only defenses available to common carriers are (1) proof that they observed extraordinary
diligence as prescribed in Article 1756, and (2) following Article 1174, of the Civil Code, proof
that the injury or death was brought about by an event which ‘could not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable,’ or a fortuitous event.

Sanico’s attempt to evade liability by arguing that he exercised extraordinary diligence when he
hired Castro, who was allegedly an experienced and time-tested driver, whom he had even
accompanied on a test-drive and in whom he was personally convinced of the driving skills, are
not enough to exonerate him from liability — because the liability of common carriers 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. This is the express mandate of Article 1759 of the Civil Code:
ART. 1759. 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 of the common carriers 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. The only defenses
available to common carriers are (1) proof that they observed extraordinary diligence as
prescribed in Article 1756, and (2) following Article 1174 of the Civil Code, proof that the injury
or death was brought about by an event which ‘could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen,
were inevitable,’ or a fortuitous event. Sanico vs. Colipano, 841 SCRA 141, G.R. No. 209969
September 27, 2017, J. Caguioa

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

Article 1759 of the Civil Code does not establish a presumption of negligence because it
explicitly makes the common carrier liable in the event of death or injury to passengers due to
the negligence or fault of the common carrier’s employees.

Article 1759 reads: Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death 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 of the common carriers 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. The liability of common carriers under Article 1759 is demanded by the duty of
extraordinary diligence required of common carriers in safely carrying their passengers. On the
other hand, Article 1756 of the Civil Code lays down the presumption of negligence against the
common carrier in the event of death or injury of its passenger, viz.: Article 1756. In case of death
of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles
1733 and 1755. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Sesante, 798 SCRA 459, G.R. No. 172682 July 27, 2016

Fortuitous event

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, lightning, 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 owner of the goods;
4. The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
5. Order or act of competent public authority. Art 1734, NCC

In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility, the natural disaster must
have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. However, the common carrier must exercise
due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before, during and after the occurrence of flood, storm
or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be exempted from liability for the
loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The same duty is incumbent upon the common
carrier in case of an act of the public enemy referred to in article 1734, No. 2. Art. 1739, NCC

If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the goods, a natural disaster shall
not free such carrier from responsibility. Art 1740, NCC

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

The hijacking of the goods is not considered a fortuitous event or a force majeure.

It bears to stress that the hijacking of the goods is not considered a fortuitous event or a force
majeure. Nevertheless, a common carrier may absolve itself of liability for a resulting loss caused
by robbery or hijacked if it is proven that the robbery or hijacking was attended by grave or
irresistible threat, violence or force. In this case, Keihin-Everett failed to prove the existence of
the aforementioned instances. Keihin-Everett Forwarding Co., Inc. vs. Tokio Marine Malayan
Insurance Co., Inc., 891 SCRA 332, G.R. No. 212107 January 28, 2019

A common carrier may absolve itself of liability for a resulting loss: (1) if it proves that it
exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting and safekeeping the goods; or (2) if it
stipulated with the shipper/owner of the goods to limit its liability for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence.

However, a stipulation diminishing or dispensing with the common carrier’s liability for acts
committed by thieves or robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or
force is void under Article 1745 of the Civil Code for being contrary to public policy. Jurisprudence,
too, has expanded Article 1734’s five exemptions. De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 612
(1988), interpreted Article 1745 to mean that a robbery attended by ‘grave or irresistible threat,
violence or force’ is a fortuitous event that absolves the common carrier from liability. Torres
Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc., 796 SCRA 142, G.R. No. 194121
July 11, 2016

Contributory negligence

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 common carrier, the latter shall be liable
in damages, which however, shall be equitably reduced. Art 1741, NCC

The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself.
Art. 1761, NCC

The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death or
injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount
of damages shall be equitably reduced. Art. 1762, NCC

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

Concurring negligence

The concurring negligence of Lomotos, as the driver of the Kia Ceres wherein Rebultan, Sr. was
the passenger, does not foreclose the latter’s heirs from recovering damages from Viloria. As
early as 1933, in Junio v. Manila Railroad Co., we already clarified that the contributory negligence
of drivers does not bar the passengers or their heirs from recovering damages from those who
were at fault. Rebultan vs. Daganta, 870 SCRA 427, G.R. No. 197908 July 4, 2018

Had petitioner exercised due diligence in the conduct of her affairs, there would have been no
reason for her to miss the flight.

This Court, while ruling that a travel agency was not a common carrier and was not bound to
exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligations also laid down the degree
of diligence concurrently required of passengers: Contrary to petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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. Had petitioner exercised due diligence in the
conduct of her affairs, there would have been no reason for her to miss the flight. Needless to
say, after the travel papers were delivered to petitioner, it became incumbent upon her to take
ordinary care of her concerns. This undoubtedly would require that she at least read the
documents in order to assure herself of the important details regarding the trip. Manay, Jr. vs.
Cebu Air, Inc., 788 SCRA 155, G.R. No. 210621 April 4, 2016

The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the
incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to
do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom.

The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent but the negligent

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who
had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with
the consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently, the rule is that the antecedent
negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening
negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the
exercise of due diligence. Greenstar Express, Inc. vs. Universal Robina Corporation, 806 SCRA
125, G.R. No. 205090 October 17, 2016

EXTENT OF LIABILITY

Recoverable damages

When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability for
negligence is valid, but not for wilful acts or gross negligence.

The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier's liability. Art. 1758,
NCC

A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful 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 or
omission. Art. 1763, NCC

Liability for acts of strangers/passengers

Since Battung’s death was caused by a co-passenger, the applicable provision is Article 1763 of
the Civil Code, which states that ‘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 or omission.’

Notably, for this obligation, the law provides a lesser degree of diligence, i.e., diligence of a good
father of a family, in assessing the existence of any culpability on the common carrier’s part. G.V.
Florida Transport, Inc. vs. Heirs of Romeo L. Battung, Jr., G.R. No. 208802 October 14, 2015

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 13 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

Stipulations limiting liability

A stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the
former for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary
diligence shall be valid, provided it be:

1. In writing, signed by the shipper or owner;

2. Supported by a valuable consideration other than the service rendered by the common
carrier; and
3. Reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy. Art. 1744, NCC

Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and
contrary to public policy:
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 of 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 omission 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;
cdi
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. Art. 1745, NCC

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, is binding. Art 1749, NCC

A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction,
or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has
been fairly and freely agreed upon. Art. 1750, NCC

The fact that the common carrier has no competitor along the line or route, or a part thereof, to
which the contract refers shall be taken into consideration on the question of whether or not a
stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability is reasonable, just and in consonance with
public policy. Art. 1751, NCC

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 14 of 15
 2022 BAR REVIEW COMMERCIAL LAW
Handout No. 32
TRANSPORTATION LAW

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 the posting of notices, by
statements on tickets, or otherwise. Art. 1757, NCC

Limitation under the Warsaw Convention

The carrier shall be liable for damages sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a
passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the
damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of
embarking or disembarking. Art. 17, WC

The carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of, or of
damage to, any checked baggage, or any goods, if the occurrence which caused the damage so
sustained took place during the transportation by air. Art 18 (1), WC

The carrier shall be liable for damage occasioned by delay in the transportation by air of
passengers, baggage, or goods. Art. 19, WC

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 15 of 15