DUTY TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE.

The
shipper or passenger is bound by his contractual
obligation. The shipper or the carrier is bound to
pay the consideration in the form of freight or
fare. In addition, the shipper and the passenger
are also bound to exercise due diligence in
avoiding damage or injury.
NEGLIGENCE OF SHIPPER OR
PASSENGER. The obligation to exercise due
diligence is not limited to the carrier. The shipper
is obliged to exercise due diligence in avoiding
damage to the goods that are being shipped or
injury to his person. This obligation to exercise
due care is likewise basic in all forms of
obligations.
a. However, the carrier cannot impute the
negligence of its own employee (like its driver) to
the person or entity that hired the carrier. In Sps.
Fabre v. Court of Appeals, for valuable
consideration, respondent Word for the World
Christian Fellowship Inc. (WWCF) arranged with
petitioners for the transportation of 33 members
of its Young Adults Ministry from Manila to La
Union and back. The group was scheduled to
leave on November 2, 1984, at 5:00 o'clock in the
afternoon. However, as several members of the
party were late, the bus did not leave the Tropical
Hut at the comer of Ortigas Avenue and EDSA
until 8:00 o'clock in the evening. The bus met an
accident in Lingayen, Pangasinan resulting in
injuries to the passenger. Petitioners argued that
they are not liable because (1) an earlier
departure (made impossible by the congregations
meeting) could have averted the mishap and (2)
under the contract, the WWCF was directly
responsible for the conduct of the trip. The Court
ruled that neither of these contentions hold water.
The hour of departure had not been fixed. Even if
it it had been, the delay did not bear directly on
the cause of the accident. With respect to the
second contention, the Court adopted the rule
that 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 or the automobile
driver.
SHIPPER'S LOAD AND COUNT. It may be
stipulated in the Bill of Lading that the shipper

has the sole responsibility for the quantity,

description and condition of the cargoes shipped
in container vans. This is known as "Shipper's
Load and Count" arrangement. Under this
agreement, the contents are not required to
be checked and inventoried by the carrier at the
port of loading or before said carrier enters the
port of unloading in the Philippines since it is the
shipper who has the sole responsibility for the
quantity, description and condition of the cargoes
shipped in container vans. As such, the carrier
cannot be held responsible for any discrepancy if
the description in the bill of lading is different
from the actual contents of the container. For
example, the carrier is liable only for the lost/
damaged 17 pallets although 19 pallets are stated
in the bill of lading if the arrangement is
"Shipper's Load and Count.
a. A shipment under this arrangement is
not inspected or inventoried by the carrier whose
duty is only to transport or deliver the containers
in the same condition as when the carrier
received and accepted the containers for
transport.
TRAVEL DOCUMENTS. It is the obligation of the
passenger, not the carrier, to secure the
appropriate travel documents. Hence, it is not the
obligation of the carrier to secure the necessary
visa for a passenger.
a. It is incumbent upon the passenger to
take ordinary care of his concerns. This requires
the passenger to read the travel documents in
order to assure herself of the important details
regarding the trip. For instance, there would be
negligence if the passenger did not even check
the date of departure.
b. However, the airline may be held liable
if the loss of documents was due to the
negligence of its employee. In Philippine Airlines,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals28 the airline agreed to
transport two minors from Manila to San
Francisco and later to transport them from San
Francisco to Los Angeles via Northwest Airlines.
However, the minors were not able to board the
Northwest Airlines flight because the indemnity
bond which was required to be with the minors
was lost through the negligence of the petitioner
airlines personnel. Hence, the petitioner airline
was made liable for its breach of its obligation.
Tramp Service
RA 9515 defines it as the operation of a
contract carrier which has no regular and fixed

routes and schedules but accepts cargo wherever

and whenever the shipper desires, is hired on
contractual basis, or chartered by any one or few
shippers under mutually agreed terms and usually
carrier bulk or break bulk cargoes. Tramps offer
their capacity for the carriage of bulk cargoes as
desired by the shipper, who ordinarily engages
the whole of the ship; each voyage is thus a
matter of special arrangement between the
shipowner and the shipper. The tramp seeks and
usually gets a full cargo loaded by a single
shipper and such cargoes are more often in bulk
or in standard packages and typically consist of
raw materials, fuels and unprocessed foods so
vital to the world economy.
While RA 9515 refers to an entity engage
in Line Service as a common carrier, an entity
that provides Tramp Service is only referred to
as a contract carrier. Nevertheless, those
engaged in Tramp Service may also be
considered common carriers depending on the
circumstances.
If for any cause carrier cannot complete voyage,
it is under obligation to transport passenger at
carrier's expense including free meals and
lodging.
If due to negligence of carrier, passenger may opt
to have his ticket refunded.
If due to fortuitous event, an amount that will
suffice to defray transportation cost at shortest
possible route towards his destination
If carrier is delayed in arrival at port of
destination, carrier shall provide meals free of
charge during mealtime
If cause of delay of departure at port of origin is
due to negligence of carrier, provide meals to
ticketed passenger for the particular voyage. If it
is caused by fortuitous event, no obligation to
provide meals.
10 written
6 not written
4 quasi delict
2 Warsaw (air transport)
1 COGSA

Materiality of ownership of vessel vis-a-vis liability

(which is after effects of charter party):
Cebu Salvage Corp. v. Phil. Home Assurance
The fact that it did not own the vessel it decided
to use to consummate the contract of carriage did
not negate its character and duties as a common
carrier. The MCCII (respondents subrogor) could
not be reasonably expected to inquire about the
ownership of the vessels which petitioner carrier
offered to utilize.
As a practical matter, it is very difficult and often
impossible for the general public to enforce its
rights of action under a contract of carriage if it
should be required to know who the actual owner
of the vessel is. In fact, in this case, the voyage
charter itself denominated petitioner as the
owner/operator of the vessel.