Case Facts Issue Held Principle Similarities Difference

DEFINITION
Crisostomo
vs CA
The lawyer who failed to join the Jewels of
Europe tour because her niece, who was
the ticketing manager, told her that her
departure is June 15, when her real flight
date is June 14. She had another tour,
Beauty Pageant, but she paid only a portion
and wanted the travel agency to set-off the
remaining cost with the amount she paid
for the Jewels of Europe.
Is a travel
agency a
carrier?
NO
A contract of carriage or transportation is one whereby a certain person or association of persons obligate themselves to transport
persons, things, or news from one place to another for a fixed price
Travel agencies do not undertake to transport petitioner from one place to another since its covenant with its customers is simply to
make travel arrangements in their behalf.
TEST AND CHARACTERISTICS
De Guzman
vs CA
Junk dealer from Pangasinan brings goods
of businessmen from Manila to Dagupan.
One incident caused the hijacking of one of
his trucks so he was made liable for the loss
of the goods.
Is he a
common
carrier?
YES
Common carrier even though he merely "back-hauled" goods for other merchants
, although such back-hauling was done on a periodic or occasional rather than
regular or scheduled manner, and even though private respondent's principal
occupation was not the carriage of goods for others. Requisites are present, there
is a fee.
A certificate of public convenience is not a requisite for the incurring of liability
under the Civil Code provisions governing common carriers. That liability arises the
moment a person or firm acts as a common carrier, without regard to whether or
not such carrier has also complied with the requirements of the applicable
regulatory statute and implementing regulations and has been granted a certificate
of public convenience or other franchise.
Occasional
transport =
common carrier
Common
Carrier

Calvo vs
UCPB
General
Insurance Co
Calvo contracted to transmit good for SMC
but when SMC received the goods, these
were damaged. Calvo did not inspect good
prior receipt from the arrastre.
Is she a
common
carrier?
Yes
Common carrier WON principal or ancillary
Common carrier because transportation of goods is an integral part of her
business.
When Calvo's employees withdrew the cargo from the arrastre operator, they did
so without exception or protest either with regard to the condition of container
vans or their contents
Calvo must do more than merely show the possibility that some other party could
be responsible for the damage. It must prove that it used "all reasonable means to
ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for transport and that it
exercised due care in the handling
Not relieved of liability/damage if he accepts damaged good for transport w/o
reservation.
Principak or
ancillary = common
carrier
Common
Carrier

Loadstar
Shipping vs
CA
MV Cherokee sank of Limasawa Island. CA
found it not seaworthy because itw as
undermanned. Loadstar claims it is a
private carrier because there is only one
shipper during the voyage of the ship.
Is it a private
carrier?
NO
Common carrier does not require Cert of Public Convenience
The bills of lading failed to show any special arrangement, but only a general
provision to the effect that the M/V"Cherokee" was a "general cargo carrier."
The bare fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for one
shipper (which appears to be purely coincidental) is not reason enough to convert
the vessel from a common to a private carrier, especially where, as in this case, it
was shown that the vessel was also carrying passengers.

Common
Carrier

Case Facts Issue Held Principle Similarities Difference
FPIC vs CA
FPIC is a pipeline concessionaire that the
LGU would like to tax but claims exception
under Section 133 of the LGC since it is a
common carrier.

Yes
4 Tests of Common Carrier (see reviewer)
It is engaged in the business of transporting or carrying goods, i.e. petroleum
products, for hire as a public employment. It undertakes to carry for all persons
indifferently, that is, to all persons who choose to employ its services, and
transports the goods by land and for compensation. The fact that petitioner has a
limited clientele does not exclude it from the definition of a common carrier.
Not required that transportation should be via motor vehicle
4 Tests of Common
Carrier + motor
vehicle not required
Common
Carrier

Asia
Lighterage vs
CA
Barge went aground, eventually sank in
Pasig River so some of the goods to be
delivered were not delivered and some
were damaged. Claims that it is not a
common carrier because it has no fixed and
publicly known route, no terminals and
issues not ickets and not obliged to carry
indiscriminately for any person.
Is it a common
carrier?
Yes
In the case at bar, the principal business of the petitioner is that of lighterage and
drayage[22] and it offers its barges to the public for carrying or transporting goods
by water for compensation. Petitioner is clearly a common carrier.
Common carrier WON with/without limited clientel or with/without fixed
schedule. A common carrier need not have fixed and publicly known routes.
Neither does it have to maintain terminals or issue tickets.
Schedule + Fixed
routes + Terminals
+ Issuance of tickets
= not required for
common carrier
Common
Carrier

FGU
Insurance vs
Sarmiento
Trucking
Corp
Delivery of Condura Aircon. Truck collided
with another truck in Bamban, Tarlac.
Insurance Company paid company for the
losses and now wants to collect from the
trcuking company. Trucking company
claims it is a private carrier because it has
been Concepcion Industries' exclusive
contractor.
Is it a common
carrier?
NO
It only offersits services to Concepcion Industries.
The true test of a common carrier is the carriage of passengers or goods,
providing space for those who opt to avail themselves of its transportation service
for a fee.
Test: Space for
those who wants to
avail of transport
services

x Common
Carrier
Bascos vs CA
Ciptrade subcontracted Jibfair in hauling
goods but Jibfair failed to deliver cargo
because the truck was hijacked. Jibfair
claims exception from liability because
hijacking is force majeure.
Is it a common
carrier that
negligence is
presumed?
Yes
Offering her trucks to those with cargo to move, therefore common carrier.
Regardless of principal or sideline.
Loss of the goods was not due to force majeure. In De Guzman vs. Court of
Appeals, the Court held that hijacking, not being included in the provisions of
Article 1734, must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 1735 and thus, the
common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or negligent. To exculpate the
carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must prove that the robbers or the
hijackers acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force.
Common carriers
are presumed
negligent, see Art
1735.
Common
Carrier

Case Facts Issue Held Principle Similarities Difference
Fabre vs CA
Minibus hired by World Christian
Fellowship. Bus met accident at a cruve in
Lingayen. Driver held guilty, owners said
they were diligent in employing the driver
so they shouldn't be liable for the accident.
Driver was driving at 50 kms/hr when the
speed should have been 30 kms/hr.
Extent of
negligence
o Negligence of employee gives rise to negligence of employers
o Due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied by mere possession of a
drivers license because it requires the formulation of rules and regulations for the
guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions as well as actual
implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules.
o A person who hires a public automobile and gives the driver directions as to the
place to which he wishes to be conveyed, but exercises no other control over the
conduct of the driver, is not responsible for acts of negligence of the latter or
prevented from recovering for injuries suffered from a collision between the
automobile and a train, caused by the negligence either of the locomotive engineer
or the automobile driver
o 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.
Carrier and driver are jointly and severally liable because their separate and
distinct acts concurred to produce the same inquiry.
Extraordinary
diligence +
negligence of
employees give rise
to negligence of
employers
Common
Carrier

DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATE CARRIER, TOWAGE, ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING
Home
Insurance vs
American
Steamship
Cargo is fish meal and discharge at the
lighters of Luzon StevedoringCompany.
There were shortages in the cargo so SMC
tried to claim insurance. Only Home
Insurance paid so it tried to claim from
Luzon and American Steamship. Luzon said
it delivered with due diligence while
American Steamship said it exercised due
diligence and not liable for losses based on
the bills of lading.
Is it a private
carrier?
YES
American steamship was acting as a private carrier
.The stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for
loss due to the negligence of its agent would be void only if the strict public
policy governing common carriers is applied. Such policy has no force where
the public at large is not involved, as in the case of a ship totally chartered for
the use of a single party.
In a charter of the entire vessel, the bill of lading issued by the master to the
charterer, as shipper, is in fact and legal contemplation merely a receipt and a
document of title not a contract, for the contract is the charter party.
Private carrier = entire
ship even crew is
manned by the shipper

x Common
Carrier
Planters
Products vs
CA
Crago was damaged when received. The
ship claims it is a private carrierbecause of
charterer-party; therefore has no liability
based on the bill of lading and charterer
contract
Who has
liability? Ship?
Stevedoring?
Arrastre?
Delivery?
SHIP
A "charter-party" is defined as a contract by which an entire ship, or some
principal part thereof, is let by the owner to another person for a specified
time or use.
A contract of affreightment by which the owner of a ship or other vessel lets
the whole or a part of her to a merchant or other person for the conveyance
of goods, on a particular voyage, in consideration of the payment of freight.
Charter parties are of two types: (a) contract of affreightment which
involves the use of shipping space on vessels leased by the owner in part or as
a whole, to carry goods for others; and, (b) charter by demise or bareboat
charter, by the terms of which the whole vessel is let to the charterer with a
transfer to him of its entire command and possession and consequent control
over its navigation, including the master and the crew, who are his servants.
Contract of affreightment may either be time charter, wherein the vessel is
leased to the charterer for a fixed period of time, or voyage charter, wherein
the ship is leased for a single voyage. In both cases, the charter-party provides
for the hire of vessel only, either for a determinate period of time or for a
single or consecutive voyage, the shipowner to supply the ship's stores, pay
for the wages of the master and the crew, and defray the expenses for the
maintenance of the ship.
Shipowner remained to be in control of the ship even though it was
chartered. The charterer has no means of caring for his cargo nor control.
a public carrier
remains as such
despite the charter of
the whole or portion
of a vessel by one or
more persons,
provided that the
charter is limited to
the ship only (time-
charter or voyage-
charter).
Common
Carrier

Case Facts Issue Held Principle Similarities Difference
National
Steel
Corporation
vs CA
Cargo of tin plates were found to be rusty
and wet from sea water. Ship claims that it
was not negligent because it was merely an
accident since the waves were not calm
during their trip. RTC: The stevedores
hired by the plaintiff to discharge the cargo
of tinplates were negligent in not closing
the hatch openings of the MV "VLASONS I"
when rains occurred during the discharging
of the cargo thus allowing rainwater to
enter the hatches.
Is the ship a
common
carrier?
NO
Private carriage is undertaken by special agreement and the carrier does not
hold himself out to carry goods for the general public. The most typical,
although not the only form of private carriage, is the charter party, a maritime
contract by which the charterer, a party other than the shipowner, obtains the
use and service of all or some part of a ship for a period of time or a voyage or
voyages.Consequently, the rights and obligations of VSI and NSC, including
their respective liability for damage to the cargo, are determined primarily by
stipulations in their contract of private carriage or charter party. x x x in a
contract of private carriage, the parties may freely stipulate their duties and
obligations which perforce would be binding on them
NSC must prove that the damage to its shipment was caused by VSI's willful
negligence or failure to exercise due diligence in making MV Vlasons I
seaworthy and fit for holding, carrying and safekeeping the cargo. Ineluctably,
the burden of proof was placed on NSC by the parties' agreement.
Parties in private
carrier may include
stipulations and Civil
Cod will not apply on
negligence and
liabilities as long as
diligence of a good
father of family is
observed. Burden of
proof is on the one
alleging negligence.
Common
Carrier

Valenzuela
Hardwood
and
Industrial
Supply vs CA
Ship carrying the cargo logs sank. Accdg to
the charter party agreement the ship
would be exempted from liability in case of
loss.
Is the ship a
common
carrier for the
charter party
to be invalid?
NO
Validity of stipulation is lis mota
Lis Mota the cause of the suit or action
Seven Borthers acted as a private carrier and therefor, Article 1745 and
other Civil Code provisions on common carriers may not be applied unless
expressly stipulated by the parties in their charter party.
In a contract of private carriage, the parties may validly stipulate that
responsibility for the cargo rests solely on the charterer, exempting the
shipowner from liability for loss of or damage to the cargo caused even by the
negligence of the ship captain.
o Such is valid due to Art 1306 of the Civil Code because it is freely entred into
by the parties and the same is not contrary to law, moralsm good customs,
public order or public policy.
In a contract of
private carriage, the
parties may validly
stipulate that
responsibility for the
cargo rests solely on
the charterer,
exempting the
shipowner from
liability for loss of or
damage to the cargo
caused even by the
negligence of the ship
captain.

x Common
Carrier
GOVERNING LAWS
Samar
Mining Co vs
Nordeutsche
r Lloyd
Goods arrived in Manila but never reached
destination in Davao. under Section 1,
paragraph 3 of Bill of Lading No. 18: The
carrier shall not be liable in any capacity
whatsoever for any delay, loss or damage
occurring before the goods enter ship's
tackle to be loaded or after the goods leave
ship's tackle to be discharged, transshipped
or forwarded.
Does the ship
has any
liability?
NONE
The complex relationship of the parties is simplified as follows: THE
TRANSPORT OF GOODS from Bremen, Germany to Manila and THE
TRANSSHIPMENT OF THE SAME GOODS from Manila to Davao, the appellant
acting as agent of consignee. The moment the subject goods are discharged in
Manila, its personality changes from that of carrier to that of agent of the
consignee. Thus, the character of appellant's possession also changes, from
possession in its own name as carrier, into possession in the name of
consignee as the latter's agent. Such being the case, there was, in effect,
actual delivery of the goods from appellant as carrier to the same appellant as
agent of the consignee. Upon such delivery, the appellant, ceases to be
responsible for any loss or damage that may befall the goods from that point
onwards.
The liability of the common carrier for the loss, destruction or deterioration
of goods transported from a foreign country to the Philippines is governed
primarily by the New Civil Code. In all matters not regulated by said Code, the
rights and obligations of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of
Commerce and by special laws.
Transship: to transfer
for further
transportation from
one ship or
conveyance to
another.
Civil Code +
Code of
Commerce =
shipment of
goods

Case Facts Issue Held Principle Similarities Difference
Eastern
Shipping vs
IAC
MS Asiatica from Kobe, Japan caught fire
and sank while in foreign waters and
enroute to Manila. Eastern Shipping: loss
was due to an extraordinary fortuitous
event; hence, not liable. Eastern Shipping
on Nisshin and DOWA: the sinking of the
ship is an exempting circumstance under
Section 4(2) (b) of the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Act (COGSA); and that when the loss of
fire is established, the burden of proving
negligence of the vessel is shifted to the
cargo shipper
Which law
shall govern
to determine
liability?
1. Civil Code and Code of Commerce and Special laws shall be suppletory;
thus, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is only suppletory to the Civil Code
provisions
2. Fire may not be considered a natural disaster or calamity. This must be so
as it arises almost invariably from some act of man or by human means unless
caused by lightning. The burden then is upon Petitioner Carrier to prove that it
has exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law.
Law of the place of
destination shall
govern liability of the
ship.
Civil Code +
Special Laws
as suppletory
= shipment of
goods

National
Development
Co vs CA
Ship sank in foreign waters enroute to the
Philippines.
Which law
shall apply to
determine
liability?
Philippine Laws
The laws of the Philippines will apply and it is immaterial whether the
collision happened in foreign waters. The law of the country to which the
goods are to be transported governs the liability of the common carrier in case
of their loss, destruction or deterioration (Art. 1753).
Art 1735: in all other than those mentioned is Article 1734 thereof, the
common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless it proves that it has observed the extraordinary diligence
required by law. Collision not one of those enumerated under Art. 1734;
hence, carrier is presumed to beat fault or to have acted negligently.
the common carrier
shall be presumed to
have been at fault or
to have acted
negligently, unless it
proves that it has
observed the
extraordinary diligence
required by law
Civil Code
NATURE OF BUSINESS
Fisher vs
Yangco
Steamship
Ship company adopted a resolution that
they will not transport dynamite, gun
powder and other explosives.
Is the
resolution
valid?
NO
Duties and liabilities of common carriers are defined and fully set forth in Act
98 of the Philippine Commission.
Common carriers in this jurisdiction cannot lawfully decline to accept a
particular class of goods for carriage, to the prejudice of the traffic in those
goods, unless it appears that for some sufficient reason the discrimination
against the traffic in such goods is reasonable and necessary. Mere whim or
prejudice will not suffice. The grounds for the discrimination must be
substantial ones, such as will justify the courts in holding the discrimination to
have been reasonable and necessary under all circumstances of the case.
Common carriuers
cannot lawfully decline
to accept a particular
class of goods for
carriage, unless
reasonable and
necessary. Common
carriers exercise a sort
of public office, and
have duties to perform
in which the public is
interested. Their
business is, therefore,
affected with a public
interest, and is subject
of public regulation.
Civil Code +
Special Laws
as suppletory
= shipment of
goods

Case Facts Issue Held Principle Similarities Difference
KMU Labor
Center vs
Garcia Jr
Assails memoranda and circulars of LTFRB,
DOTC, etc on the freedom given to bus
companies to determine fare based on +/-
20% of the old/current passenger fare.
Are the orders
constitutional
?
NO
Sec16 of the Public Service Act: The Commission shall have power, upon
proper notice and hearing in accordance with the rules and provisions of this
Act
LTFRB is vested with the same responsibility under EO 202 dated June 19,
1987, section 5c
The authority given by the LTFRB to the provincial bus operators to set a fare
range over and above the authorized existing fare, is illegal and invalid as it is
tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative authority.
The policy of allowing the provincial bus operators to change and increase
their fares at will would result not only to a chaotic situation but to an
anarchic state of affairs.
This would leave the riding public at the mercy of transport operators who
may increase fares every hour, every day, every month or every year,
whenever it pleases them or whenever they deem it "necessary" to do so.
One veritable consequence of the deregulation of transport fares is a
compounded fare. If transport operators will be authorized to impose and
collect an additional amount equivalent to 20% over and above the authorized
fare over a period of time, this will unduly prejudice a commuter who will be
made to pay a fare that has been computed in a manner similar to those of
compounded bank interest rates.
This would leave the
riding public at the
mercy of transport
operators who may
increase fares every
hour, every day, every
month or every year,
whenever it pleases
them or whenever
they deem it
"necessary" to do so.

Public Service
Act
REGISTERED OWNER RULE
Gelisan vs
Alday
Gelisan and Espiritu entered into a contract
wherein Espiritu hired Gelisan's truck.
Alday contracted Espiritu to haul fertilizers
but the cargo was never delivered. Espriitu
was later arrested for theft. Truck was
impounded so Gelisan paid to have it back.
Gelisan: disowned responsibility; no
knowledge of contract between Alday and
Espiritu
Is Gelisan
libale to
Alday?
YES
The registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages
that may arise from consequences incident to its operation or that may be
caused to any of the passengers therein
Lease contract, since not approved by the PSC, is not binding to third
persons
It is settled in our jurisprudence that if the property covered by a franchise is
transferred or leased to another without obtaining the requisite approval, the
transfer is not binding upon the public and third persons.
Liability only subsidiary
Registered owner
responsible since lease
contract was not
approved by the PSC.

Benedicto vs
IAC
Truck to deliver cargo of lumber never
reached it destination. The driver stole it.
Truck was registered to Benedicto but she
sold it already but wasn't able to transfer
Registration because Tee has not yet paid
her the entire amount.
Is she liable?
Yes
Benedicto is a common carrier.
The prevailing doctrine on common carriers makes the registered owner
liable for consequences flowing from the operations of the carrier, even
though the specific vehicle involved may already have been transferred to
another person.
This doctrine rests upon the principle that in dealing with vehicles registered
under the Public Service Law, the public has the right to assume that the
registered owner is the actual or lawful owner thereof.
It would be very difficult and often impossible as a practical matter, for
members of the general public to enforce the rights of action that they may
have for injuries inflicted by the vehicles being negligently operated if they
should be required to prove who the actual owner is.
A common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for insistent
reasons of public policy, is burdened by the law with the duty of exercising
extraordinary diligence not only in ensuring the safety of passengers but also
in caring for goods transported by it.
Registered owner
responsible +
negligence presumed
in theft cases

Case Facts Issue Held Principle Similarities Difference
Philtranco
Service
Enterprise vs
CA
Bicycle rider was hit by a bus that was
restarted by "tulak'.
Is the bus
company also
liable?
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their
functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks even though
the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father
of a gamily to prevent damage.
The S.C. consistently held that the liability of the registered owner of a
public service vehicle, like petitioner, Philtranco, for damages arising from the
tortuous acts of the driver is primary, direct, and joint and several or solidary
with the driver. As to solidarity, Article 2194 expressly provides:

Since the employers liability is primary, direct and solidary, its only recourse
if the judgment for damages is satisfied by it is to recover what it has paid
from its employee who committed the fault or negligence which gave rise to
the action based on quasi-delict. Article 2181 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or
employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in
satisfaction of the claim
Diligence of employer
= diligence of a good
father of a family

KABIT SYSTEM
Santos vs
Sibug
Santos was in a kabit system under Sibug.
One of sibug's drivers met an accident, so
Santos' property was attached to pay for
the damages. Santos claims that court is
attaching stranger's property.
Can Santos'
jeepney be
attached?
Yes
Legally speaking, it was not a "stranger's property" that was levied upon by
the Sheriff
Although SANTOS, as the kabit was the true owner as against VIDAD, the
latter, as the registered owner/operator and grantee of the franchise, is
directly and primarily responsible and liable for the damages caused to SIBUG,
the injured party, as a consequence of the negligent or careless operation of
the vehicle. This ruling is based on the principle that the operator of record is
considered the operator of the vehicle in contemplation of law as regards the
public and third persons, even if the vehicle involved in the accident had been
sold to another where such sale had not been approved by the then Public
Service Commission.
registered
owner/operator and
grantee of the
franchise, is directly
and primarily
responsible and liable
for the damages
caused to the injured
property.

Lita
Enterprise vs
CA

Teja
Marketing vs
IAC
Motorcycle under kabit system because it
ha snot yet been fully paid.
Are they
barred by in
pari delicto
because of
the kabit
system?
YES: "kabit system" whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of
public convenience allows another person who owns motor vehicles to
operate under such franchise for a fee.
A certificate of public convenience is a special privilege conferred by the
government. Abuse of this privilege by the grantees thereof cannot be
countenanced. The "kabit system" has been Identified as one of the root
causes of the prevalence of graft and corruption in the government
transportation offices.
K kabit system is invariably recognized as being contrary to public policy and,
therefore, void and in existent under Article 1409 of the Civil Code. It is a
fundamental principle that the court will not aid either party to enforce an
illegal contract, but will leave both where it finds then.
Pari Delicto
Case Facts Issue Held Principle Similarities Difference
Abelardo Lim
vs CA
Gonzales bought jeep from Vallarta and
under kabit system. It collided with truck
owned by Gunnaban. Gunnaban wanted to
pay for the fixing of the jeep but Gonzales
want payment equivalent to a brand new
jeep.

Yes
One of the primary factors considered in the granting of a certificate of
public convenience for the business of public transportation is the financial
capacity of the holder of the license, so that liabilities arising from accidents
may be duly compensated. The kabit system renders illusory such purpose
and, worse, may still be availed of by the grantee to escape civil liability
caused by a negligent use of a vehicle owned by another and operated under
his license.
It would seem then that the thrust of the law in enjoining the kabit system
is not so much as to penalize the parties but to identify the person upon
whom responsibility may be fixed in case of an accident with the end view of
protecting the riding public. The policy therefore loses its force if the public at
large is not deceived, much less involved.
In the present case it is at once apparent that the evil sought to be
prevented in enjoining the kabit system does not exist. First, neither of the
parties to the pernicious kabit system is being held liable for damages.
Second, the case arose from the negligence of another vehicle in using the
public road to whom no representation, or misrepresentation, as regards the
ownership and operation of the passenger jeepney was made and to whom
no such representation, or misrepresentation, was necessary. Thus it cannot
be said that private respondent Gonzales and the registered owner of the
jeepney were in estoppel for leading the public to believe that the jeepney
belonged to the registered owner. Third, the riding public was not bothered
nor inconvenienced at the very least by the illegal arrangement. On the
contrary, it was private respondent himself who had been wronged and was
seeking compensation for the damage done to him. Certainly, it would be the
height of inequity to deny him his right.
Registered owner rule
will only apply if there
is damage to 3rd
persons.

Neither of
the parties to
the
pernicious
kabit system
is being held
liable for
damages
BOUNDARY SYSTEM
Magboo vs
Bernardo
Magboo spouses are parents of Cesar, the
child killed in a motor vehicle accident.
Boundary system observed by the two
men.
WON
Bernardo,
owner of Jeep
can be held
liable?
Yes
"boundary system" namely, the fact that the driver does not receive a fixed wage but gets only the excess of the receipt of fares
collected by him over the amount he pays to the jeep-owner and that the gasoline consumed by the jeep is for the account of the driver
are not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and employee.
Having failed to take this step and the accused having been declared guilty by final judgment of the crime of homicide thru reckless
imprudence, there appears no more way for the defendant to escape his subsidiary liability as provided for in Article 103 of the Revised
Penal Code.