Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
3. By drawing on the ship agent. 7. For those arising by reason of his voluntarily entering
a port other than that of his destination, outside of the
4. By borrowing the amount required by means of a loan cases or without the formalities referred to in Article 612.
on bottomry.
8. For those arising by reason of non-observance of the
5. By selling a sufficient amount of the cargo to cover the provisions contained in the regulations on situation of
sum absolutely indispensable for the repair of the vessel lights and maneuvers for the purpose of preventing
and to enable it to continue its voyage. collisions.
In these two last cases he must apply to the
judicial authority of the port, if in the Philippines, and to ARTICLE 620. The captain shall not be liable for the
the consul of the Republic of the Philippines if in a damages caused to the vessel or to the cargo by force
foreign country, and where there is none, to the local majeure; but he shall always be so for those arising
authority, proceeding in accordance with the provisions through his own fault, no agreement to the contrary
of Article 583, and with the provisions of the law of civil being valid. Neither shall he be personally liable for the
procedure. obligations he may have contracted for the repair,
equipment, and provisioning of the vessel, which shall
ARTICLE 616. If the provisions and fuel of the vessel devolve upon the ship agent, unless the former has
should be consumed before arriving at the port of
2
expressly bound himself personally or has signed a bill 3. Repeated incapacity and negligence in the fulfillment
of exchange or promissory note in his name. of the service he should render.
ARTICLE 637. Neither may the captain discharge a 5. The inability of the vessel to navigate.
seaman during the time of his contract except for just
cause, the following being considered as such:
3
ABOITIZ SHIPPING V. CA (G.R. NO. 84458) Consequently, under the foregoing circumstances, the
victim Anacleto Viana is still deemed a passenger of said
Facts: carrier at the time of his tragic death.
Anacleto Viana boarded the vessel M/V Antonia
owned by petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Corp at the port at
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, bound for Manila. The
vessel arrived at Pier 4, North Harbor, Manila and was
taken over by Pioneer Stevedoring for the latter to
unload the cargoes from the said vessel pursuant to their
Memorandum of Agreement. An hour after the
passengers and Viana had disembarked the vessel the
crane operator began its unloading operation. While the
crane was being operated, Viana who had already
disembarked the vessel remembered that some of his
cargoes were still loaded there. He went back and while
he was pointing to the crew where his cargoes were, the
crane hit him pinning him between the side of the vessel
and the crane resulting to his death. A complaint for
damages was filed against petitioner for breach of
contract of carriage. Petitioner contends that Viana
ceased to be a passenger when he disembarked the
vessel and that consequently his presence there was no
longer reasonable. CA affirmed the trial courts order
holding Aboitiz liable. Hence the petition.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is still responsible as a
carrier to Viana after the latter had already disembarked
the vessel.
Ruling:
YES.
The rule is that the relation of carrier and
passenger continues until the passenger has been
landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel
owners dock or premises. Once created, the
relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the
passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely
alighted from the carriers conveyance or had a
reasonable opportunity to leave the carriers premises.
All persons who remain on the premises 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. The carrier-passenger relationship is not
terminated merely by the fact that the person transported
has been carried to his destination if, for example, such
person remains in the carriers premises to claim his
baggage.
The primary factor to be considered is the existence of a
reasonable cause as will justify the presence of the
victim on or near the petitioners vessel. We believe
there exists such a justifiable cause. When the accident
occurred, the victim was in the act of unloading his
cargoes, which he had every right to do, from petitioners
vessel. As earlier stated, a carrier is duty bound not only
to bring its passengers safely to their destination but also
to afford them a reasonable time to claim their baggage.