TRANSPORTATION LAW
INTRODUCTION
Public Utility
Implies public use and service to the
public.
Public Service
Does not necessarily mean that the
whole public or all the people in the certain
area. It means that individuals in general
without restriction or selection to the extent
that the capacity of the utility may admit of
such service or use. (Anyone may avail of the
service)
Transportation
Movement of things or persons from
one place to another which includes waiting
time, loading and unloading stopping in
transit and all other accessorial services in
connection with the loaded movement.
I. COMMON CARRIERS IN GENERAL
A. DEFINITION:
Requisites for an entity to be classified as a
common carrier (1996, 1997, 2000, 2002
Bar)
(PBL-FP)
1. Must be a Person, corporation, firm
or association 
 and control of the ship, although her
2. Engaged in the Business of carrying
or transporting passengers or goods
or both; 

3. The carriage or transport must either
be by Land, water or air; 
 vs. CA, 300 scra 661
4. The service is for a Fee; 

5. The service is offered to the Public
(Art. 1732, 
NCC). 
 means of transporting, as long as it is by
NOTE: A pipeline operator who carries oil
and other petroleum products through
pipes/pipelines is a common carrier. The law
does not distinguish as to the means by
which transportation is carried out, as long
as it is by land, water, or air. Neither does the
law require that transportation be through a
motor vehicle (First Phil. Industrial Corp. v.
CA, G.R. No. 125948, December 29, 1998).
Ø DE GUZMAN vs. CA, 168 scra 612
Art. 1732 of the New Civil Code avoids any
distinction between one whose principal
business activity is the carrying of persons
or goods or both and one who does such
carrying only as an ancillary activity
(sideline). It also avoids a 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.
Neither does the law distinguish between
a carrier offering its services to the
general public that is the general
community or population and one who
offers services or solicits business only
from a narrow segment of the general
population.
A person or entity is a common carrier
Ø PLANTERS PRODUCTS vs. CA, 226 scra
476 (1993)
A public carrier shall remain as such,
notwithstanding the charter of the whole
or portion of a vessel by one or more
persons, provided the charter is limited to
the ship only, as in the case of a time-
charter or voyage-charter. It is only when
the charter includes both the vessel and
its crew, that a common carrier becomes
private, at least insofar as the particular
voyage covering the charter-party is
concerned. Indubitably, a shipowner in a
time or voyage charter retains possession
holds may, for the moment, be the
property of the charterer.
Ø FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORP.
Art. 1732 makes no distinction as to the
land, water or air. It does not provide that
the transportation should be by motor
vehicle.
Ø BASCOS vs. CA, 221 scra 318
The test to determine a common carrier is
“whether the given undertaking is a part
of the business engaged in by the carrier
which he has held out to the general
public as his occupation rather than the
quantity or extent of the business
transacted”. Bascos made the admission
that she was in the trucking business,
offering her trucks to those with cargo to
move. Judicial admissions are conclusive
and no evidence is required to prove the
same.
TRANSPORTATION LAW
(NOTE: same ruling is applied in Calvo vs. COMMON
UCPB Gen. Insurance, GR 148496) PRIVATE CARRIER
CARRIER
TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CARRIER
IS PRIVATE OR COMMON 1. As to availability

Ø FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORP.

Holds himself out Contracts with
vs. CA
for all people particular individuals
1. It must be engaged in the business of indiscriminately or groups only
carrying goods for others as a public
employment and must hold itself out as
2. As to required diligence
ready to engage in the transportation of
goods generally as a business and not as a
casual occupation; Extraordinary
Ordinary diligence is
diligence is
2. It must undertake to carry goods of the required
required
kind to which its business in confined; 

3. As to regulation
3. It must undertake to carry by the
Subject to State Not subject to State
method by which his business is
regulation regulation
conducted and over its established roads;
and 

4. Stipulation limiting liability

4. The transportation must be for hire.
 Parties may not Parties may limit the

Ø FGU INSURANCE CORP. vs. GP agree on limiting carrier’s liability,

SARMIENTO GR 141910 the carrier’s provided it is not
liability except contrary to law,
The court held that GPS, being an
exclusive contractor and hauler of when provided morals or good
Concepcion Industries., rendering or by law customs
offering its services to no other individual
or entity, cannot be considered a
5. Exempting circumstance
common carrier.

LIABILITY OF A REGISTERED OWNER Prove

extraordinary caso fortuito, Art.
Ø BA FINANCE CORP vs. CA GR 98275
diligence and Art. 1174 NCC
Registered owners of any vehicle is liable 1733, NCC
to the public for the injuries or damages
suffered by passengers caused by the
6.Presumption of negligence
operation of said vehicle, even though the
same had been transferred to a third
person. Much so when the vehicle is There is a
merely leased since the registered owner presumption of No presumption of
retains ownership over the vehicle. fault or fault or negligence
negligence

DIFFERENCE OF COMMON CARRIER AND 7.Governing law

PRIVATE CARRIER (2002 BAR)
Law on common Law on obligations
carriers and contracts
TRANSPORTATION LAW
B. LAWS APPLICABLE Q: Why is the defense of due diligence in
the selection and supervision of an
A. Domestic/inter-island/coastwise
 employee not available to a common
Applicable to Land, Water, and Air carrier? (2002 Bar)
transportation
A: The defense of due diligence in the
1. Civil Code - primary
 selection and supervision of an employee
is not available to a common carrier
2. Code of Commerce (Arts. 349, 379, because the degree of diligence required
573-734, 580, 806-845) - suppletory of a common carrier is not the diligence
of a good father of a family but
B. International/foreign/overseas (Foreign
extraordinary diligence, i.e., diligence of
country to Philippines)
 Applicable to the greatest skill and utmost foresight.
Water/maritime and Air transportation

The law of the country of destination
generally applies.
Q: Are common carriers liable for injuries
1. Civil Code - primary
 to passengers even if they have observed
ordinary diligence and care? Explain.
2. Code of Commerce - suppletory (2015 Bar)
3. Others - suppletory A: YES, common carriers are liable to
injuries to passengers even if the carriers
a. Water/maritime: Carriage of Goods
observed ordinary diligence and care
by Sea Act (COGSA)
because the obligation imposed upon
b. Air: Warsaw Convention them by law is to exercise extraordinary
diligence. Common carriers are bound to
I. NEW CIVIL CODE (Arts. 1732-1766) carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide,
using the utmost diligence of very
REQUIREMENT OF EXTRAORDINARY
cautious persons with a due regard for all
DILIGENCE FOR COMMON CARRIERS
 the circumstances.

Rendition of service with the greatest skill

and utmost foresight. (Davao Stevedore Co.
v. Fernandez) Ø PAL vs. CA 207 scra 100

The liability of a common carrier for the

Rationale:
loss, destruction, or deterioration of the
goods transported from a foreign
1. From the nature of the business and
country to the Philippines is governed
for reasons of public policy (Art. 1733) primarily by the NCC. In all matters. Not
regulated by the code, the Code of
2. Relationship of trust 
 Commerce and Special laws will govern
the rights and obligations of the
common carrier.
3. Business is impressed with a special
public duty 
 Art. 1733, 1735 and 1753 governs. Since
the passenger’s destination in the case
was the Philippines, the PH law will
4. Possession of the goods 
 govern the liability of the carrier for the
loss of the passenger’s luggage, not the
5. Preciousness of human life 
 Warsaw Convention claimed by the
passenger.

NOTE: A common carrier is not an absolute In this case, the petitioner failed to
insurer of all risks of travel. overcome, not only the presumption,
TRANSPORTATION LAW
but more importantly, the private
respondent's evidence, proving that the
carrier's negligence was the proximate
cause of the loss of his baggage.
Ø NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
vs. CA 164 scra 593
Under the provisions of the Code of
Commerce, particularly Articles 826 to
839, the shipowner or carrier, is not
exempt from liability for damages arising
from collision due to the fault or
negligence of the captain. Primary liability
is imposed on the shipowner or carrier in
recognition of the universally accepted
doctrine that the shipmaster or captain is
merely the representative of the owner
who has the actual or constructive control
over the conduct of the voyage.
Both owner and agent should be declared
jointly and severally liable since the
obligation which is the subject of the
action had its origin in a fortuitous act and
did not arise from contract.
C. STATE REGULATION OF COMMON
CARRIERS
Ø PAL vs CAB 207 scra 538
The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) has
the authority to issue Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity, or
Temporary Operating Permit to a
domestic air transport operator who has
met the requirements prescribed by
law.
D. Nature and Basis of Liability
Ø PAL vs. CA 106 scra 391
The duty to exercise the utmost
diligence on the part of the common
carrier is for the safety of the passengers
as well as for the members of the crew
or the complement operating the
carrier. This covers any omission, lapse
or neglect thereof which will certainly
result to the damage, prejudice, injuries
and even death to all aboard the carrier,
both passengers and crew members.
Ø LOADSTAR SHIPPING vs. CA GR 131621
Loadstar was at fault or negligent in not
maintaining a seaworthy vessel and in
having allowed its vessel to sail despite
knowledge of an approaching typhoon.
In any event, it did not sink because of
any storm that may be deemed as
force majeure, inasmuch as the wind
condition in the area where it sank was
determined to be moderate. Since it
was remiss in the performance of its
duties, Loadstar cannot hide behind
the “limited liability” doctrine to
escape responsibility for the loss of the
vessel and its cargo.
Ø CALVO vs. UCPB GEN. INSURANCE GR
148496
The rule is that if the improper packing
or, in this case, the defect/s in the
container, is/are known to the carrier or
his employees or apparent upon
ordinary observation, but he
nevertheless accepts the same without
protest or exception notwithstanding
such condition, he is not relieved of
liability for damage resulting therefrom.
In this case, Calvo accepted the cargo
without exception despite the apparent
defects in some of the container vans.
Hence, for failure of Calvo to prove that
she exercised extraordinary diligence in
the carriage of goods in this case or that
she is exempt from liability, the
presumption of negligence as provided
under Art. 1735 holds.
TRANSPORTATION LAW

II. COMMON CARRIERS OF GOODS

& PASSENGERS

CARRIAGE OF GOODS CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS

Parties

1. Common carrier 1. Common carrier

2. Shipper
 2. Passenger

3. Consignee

Cause of liability

Delay in delivery, loss, destruction, or Death or injury to the passengers

deterioration of the goods

Duration of liability

The duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its

passengers so obligates it not only during the course of
From the time the goods are the trip, but for so long as the passengers are within its
unconditionally placed in the possession premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to
of, and received by the carrier for the contract of carriage. (LRTA v. Navidad, [2003])
transportation until the same are
delivered actually or constructively by
the carrier to the consignee or to the
person who has the right to receive them.
(Art. 1736)
All persons who remain on the premises within a
reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be
deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable time or a
It remains in full force and effect even reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined
when they are temporarily unloaded or from all the circumstances, and includes a reasonable
stored in transit unless the shipper or time to see after his baggage and prepare for his
owner has made use of the right of departure. (La Mallorca v. CA, 17 SCRA 739 ; Abiotiz
stoppage in transitu. (Art. 1737) Shipping Corporation v. CA, 179 SCRA 95)

It is the duty of common carriers of passengers to stop

their conveyances a reasonable length of time in order
It continues to be operative even during to afford passengers an opportunity to enter, and they
the time the goods are stored in a are liable for injuries suffered from the sudden starting
warehouse of the carrier at the place of up or jerking of their conveyances while doing so. The
destination until the consignee has bee duty which the carrier of passengers owes to its
advised of the arrival of the goods and patrons extends to persons boarding the cars as well as
has had reasonable opportunity to those alighting therefrom (Dangwa Trans Co., Inc. vs.
thereafter to remove them or otherwise CA 202 SCRA 574).
dispose of them. (Art. 1738)
The relation of carrier and passenger continues until
the latter has been landed at the port of destination
and has left the carrier’s premises. Hence, PAL
Delivery of goods to the custom necessarily would still have to exercise due diligence in
authorities is not delivery to the safeguarding the comfort, convenience and safety of its
consignee. (Lu Do v. Binamira, 101 Phil stranded passengers until they have reached their final
120) destination
TRANSPORTATION LAW
Presumption of negligence

Common carriers, from the nature of A Common carrier is bound to carry the passengers
their business and for reasons of public safely as far as human care and foresight can provide,
policy, are bound to observe using utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance due regard for all the circumstances (Art.1755)
over the goods and for the safety of the
passengers transported by them In case of death or injury to passengers, common
according to all the circumstances of carriers are presumed to have been at fault or have
each case.(Art.1735) acted negligently UNLESS they prove that they
observed extraordinary diligence prescribed above.
Reason: As to when and how goods (Art. 1756)
were damaged in transit is a matter
peculiarly within the knowledge of the Reason: The contract between the passenger and the
carrier and its employees. (Mirasol v. carrier imposes on the latter the duty to transport the
Dollar, 53 PHIL 124) passenger safely; hence the burden of explaining
should fall on the carrier.
Mere proof of delivery of goods to a
carrier in good order and the
subsequent arrival of the same goods at
the place of destination in bad order
makes for a prima facie case against the
carrier. (Coastwise Lighterage Corp. v.
CA, 245 SCRA 796)

Defenses
1. Ordinary circumstance: Exercise of 1. Exercise of extraordinary diligence (Art. 1756)
extraordinary diligence (Art. 1735)
2. Caso fortuito
2. Special circumstances:
FA2CO

A. Flood, storm, earthquake, lighting,

or other natural disaster or calamity
(plus force majeure)


B. Act of the public enemy in war,

whether international or civil


Req. to be exempt:

a. Must be the proximate and only

cause of the loss


b. Exercise of due diligence to

prevent or minimize the loss
before, during or after the
occurrence of the disaster (Art.
1739)

(XPN to the XPN:

If negligently incurs in delay in

transporting the goods, a
natural disaster shall not free
the carrier from responsibility.
(Art. 1740)

NOTE:
TRANSPORTATION LAW
Fire is not considered a natural
disaster or calamity as it arises
almost invariably from some act of
man. (Eastern Shipping Lines Inc.
vs. IAC)

A mechanical defect is not

fortuitous event

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 (De Guzman v. CA, supra).

Typhoon as a fortuitous event

GR: If all the elements of a natural

disaster or calamity concur and
there was no contributory
negligence or delay, the
occurrence of a typhoon is a
fortuitous event. This holds true
especially if the vessel was
seaworthy at the time it undertook
that fateful voyage and that it was
confirmed with the Coast Guard
that the weather condition would
permit safe travel of the vessel to
its destination (Philippine
American General Insurance Co.,
Inc. v. MGG Marine Services, Inc.,
G.R. No. 135645, March 8, 2002).

The loss of cargoes due to the

sinking of a seaworthy tugboat
which was suddenly tossed by
waves of extraordinary height is
due to a force majeure (Philippine
American General Insurance
Company v. PKS Shipping
Company, G.R. 149038, April 9,
2003).

XPN: If a vessel sank due to a

typhoon, and there was failure to
ascertain the direction of the
storm and the weather condition
of the path they would be
traversing, it constitutes lack of
foresight and minimum vigilance
over its cargoes taking into
account the surrounding
circumstances of the case. Thus,
the common carrier will still be
liable (Arada v. CA, G.R. No. 98243,
July 1, 1992).
TRANSPORTATION LAW
However, where a vessel
encountered stormy weather and
the coils of wire it was
transporting became rusty
because rain entered the hatch of
the vessel, the damage was not
due to a fortuitous event, because
heavy rains are foreseeable and
rain would not have entered the
hatch if it was closed properly
(Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA, G.R.
No. 97412, July 12, 1994).

Other invalid defenses

Explosion. Damage to cargo from

explosion of another cargo is not
ordinarily attributable to peril of
the sea or accidents of navigation
particularly where it occurs after
the vessel has ended its voyage
and is finally moored to unload.

Worms and Rats. Whenever the

ship is damaged by worms
resulting in damage to the cargo,
the carrier cannot cite the same as
an excuse. The same is true with
respect to damage of the cargo by
rats whether the cargo was
directly damaged by the rats or by
the water let in through holes
gnawed by rats in the ship or her
fixtures.

Water Damage. Damage by

seawater is not a valid excuse
where the water gains entrance
through a port that had been left
open or insufficiently fastened on
sailing.

Barratry. The ship owner cannot

escape liability to third persons if
the cause of damage is barratry. It
is an act committed by the master
or crew of the ship for some
unlawful or fraudulent purpose,
contrary to their duty to the owner

C. Act or omission of the shipper or

the owner of goods


Req. to be exempt:

a. Sole and proximate cause:

absolute defense
TRANSPORTATION LAW
b. Contributory: partial defense.
(Art. 1741)

D. The character of the goods or

defects in the packing or in the
containers

Even if the damage should be

caused by the inherent
defect/character of the goods, the
common carrier must exercise due
diligence to forestall or lessen the
loss. (Art. 1742)

The carrier which, knowing the

fact of improper packing of the
goods upon ordinary observation,
still accepts the goods
notwithstanding such condition, is
not relieved of liability or loss or
injury resulting therefrom.
(Southern Lines, Inc. v. CA, 4 SCRA
258)

E. Order or act of competent public

authority (Art. 1734)

Said public authority must have

the power to issue the order (Art.
1743). Consequently, where the
officer acts without legal process,
the common carrier will be held
liable. (Ganzon v. CA 161 SCRA
646)

Valid stipulations

1. Reduction of degree of diligence to Stipulation limiting liability when a passenger is carried

ordinary diligence, provided it be: gratuitously, but not for willful acts or gross negligence.
(Art. 1758)
a) In writing, signed by the shipper or
owner; 


b) Supported by a valuable
consideration other than the service
rendered by the carriers; and 


c) Reasonable, just and not contrary

to public policy. (Art. 1744) 


2. Fixed amount of liability: A contract

fixing the sum to be recovered by the
owner or shipper for the loss,
destruction or deterioration of the
TRANSPORTATION LAW
goods, if it is reasonable and just under
the circumstances and has been fairly
and freely agreed upon. (Art. 1750)

3. Limited liability for delay: An

agreement limiting the common carrier’s
liability for delay on account of strikes or
riots (Art. 1748)

4. Stipulation limiting liability to the

value of the goods appearing in the bill
of lading, unless the shipper or owner
declares a greater value. (Art. 1749)

The diligence required in the carriage

of the goods may be reduced by only
one degree, from extraordinary to
ordinary diligence or diligence of a good
father of a family. (Art. 1744, Art. 1745,
no. 4)

Void stipulations

1. That the goods are transported at the 1. That the goods are transported at the risk of the
risk of the owner or shipper;
 common carrier for the safety of passengers imposed
by law by stipulation, by posting of notices, by
2. That carrier will not be liable for any statements on tickets or otherwise. (Art. 1757)
loss, destruction or deterioration of the
goods;


3. That the carrier need not observe any

diligence in the custody of the goods;


4. That the carrier shall exercise a

degree of diligence less than that of a
good father of a family over the movable
transported;


5. That the carrier shall not be

responsible for the acts or omissions of
his or its employees;


6. That the carrier’s liability for acts

committed by thieves or robbers who do
not act with grave or irresistible threat,
violence or force is dispensed with or
diminished;


7. That the carrier is not responsible for

the destruction or deterioration of the
goods on account of the defective
condition of the car, vehicle, ship or
other equipment used in the contract of
carriage. (Art. 1745)
TRANSPORTATION LAW
SPECIAL RULES ON LIABILITES OF AIRLINE
CARRIERS
 ticket limiting liability only to its own
1. In case of flight diversion due to bad
weather or other circumstances beyond the
pilot’s control, the relation between the
carrier and the passenger continues until the
latter has been landed at the port of
destination and has left the carrier’s
premises. The carrier should necessarily
exercise extraordinary diligence in
safeguarding the comfort, convenience and
safety of its stranded passengers until they
have reached their final destination.
(Philippine Airlines vs. CA, 226 SCRA 423)
other carrier. A printed provision in the
conduct is not enough to rebut that liability.
(KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. CA, 65 SCRA
237)
Who are not considered passengers
(WAMU)
1. One who has boarded a Wrong vehicle,
has been properly informed of such
fact, and on alighting, is injured by the
carrier. 

2. Invited guests and Accommodation

2. Even where overbooking of passengers is passengers. 


allowed as a commercial practice, the airline
company would still be guilty of bad faith
and still be liable for damages if it did not
properly inform passenger that it could
breach the contract of carriage even if they
were confirmed passengers. (Zalamea vs.
CA, 228 SCRA 23)
3. An open-dated ticket constitutes a
complete contract between the carrier and
passenger. Hence, the airline company is
liable if it refused to confirm a passenger’s
flight reservation. (Singson vs. CA, 282 SCRA
149)
3. One who attempts to board a Moving
vehicle, although he has a ticket, unless
the attempt be 
with the knowledge
and consent of the carrier. 

4. One who remains on a carrier for an
Unreasonable length of time after he
has been 
afforded every safe
opportunity to alight. 

The carrier is thus NOT obliged to exercise
extraordinary diligence but only ordinary
diligence in these instances.

4. An airline company which issued a

confirmed ticket to a passenger covering
successive trips on different airlines can be
held liable for damages occasioned by
“bumping off” by one of the successive
airlines. (Lufthansa German Airlines vs. CA,
238 SCRA 290)

5. An airline ticket providing that carriage by

successive air carriers is to be regarded as a
“single operation” is to make the issuing
carrier liable for the tortuous conduct of the
TRANSPORTATION LAW

LIABILITY OF A COMMON CARRIER FOR passengers. (MRR vs. Ballesteros, 16 SCRA

641)
DEATH OR INJURIES TO PASSENGERS DUE
TO ACTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND OTHER
RULES ON PASSENGER’S BAGGAGE
PASSENGERS OR STRANGERS

FOR ACTS OF OTHER IN THE CUSTODY IN THE CUSTODY

FOR ACTS OF ITS
PASSENGER S OR OF THE OF THE
EMPLOYEES
STRANGERS PASSENGERS COMMON
(HAND- CARRIER
Required diligence and defense CARRIED) (CHECKED- IN)

Extraordinary Legal nature of the baggage

Ordinary diligence
diligence
Necessary Considered as
Nature of liability deposit “goods”

Tort; however, Required diligence by the common

The employee carrier
Not absolute; limited by
must be on duty at
Art. 1763 (if the
the time of the Diligence of a
common carrier's
act. (Maranan v. depositary Extraordinary
employees through the
Perez) (ordinary diligence
exercise of the diligence
diligence)
Diligence of a of a good father of a
good father of a family could have Applicable rules
family in the prevented or stopped
Arts. 1998 and
selection and the act or omission.) Arts. 1733- 1753
2000-2003
supervision of its
employees must
be proven.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Contributory negligence is the failure of a

The carrier is liable when its personnel
person who has been exposed to injury by
allowed a passenger to drive the vehicle
the fault or negligence of another, to use
causing it to collide with another vehicle
such degree of care for his safety and
resulting to the injuries suffered by the other
TRANSPORTATION LAW
protection an ordinarily prudent man would
use under the circumstances (Martin, 1989,
citing Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf Co., G.R. No.
1719, January 23, 1907).
The passenger must observe the diligence
of a good father of a family to avoid injury
to himself. (Art. 1761)
Q: Nelson owned and controlled the
Sonnel Construction Company. Acting for
the company, Nelson contracted the
construction of a building.
Without first installing a protective net
atop the sidewalks adjoining the
construction site, the company
proceeded with the construction work.
One day, a heavy piece of lumber fell
from the building. It smashed a taxicab
which at that time had gone off-road and
onto the sidewalk in order to avoid the
traffic. The taxicab passengers died as a
result.
If you were the counsel for Sonnel
Construction, how would you defend
your client? What would be your theory?
Could the heirs hold the taxicab owner
and driver liable? Explain. (2008 Bar) 
 G.R. No. 52159, Dec. 22, 1989).
A: I shall raise the affirmative defense of

contributory negligence. The proximate
cause of death is the violation of the taxi
driver of traffic rules and regulations
when it drove off- road to avoid heavy
traffic. The lumber that fell from the
building was only the immediate cause of
death of the victims. Further, Sonnel
Construction, exercised due diligence in
the selection and supervision of its
employees. 
 usually accompanied the driver on his
YES. Both taxicab owner and driver may be
held liable based on breach of contract of
carriage and negligence in the selection
and supervision of employees for quasi-
delict. The driver can be held criminally
liable for reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide and for damages under quasi-
delict as provided in Article 2180— an
employer may be held solidarily liable for
the negligent act of his employee. Hence,
in this case, the taxicab owner is
exempted from liability while the taxi cab
driver is liable solely and personally for
criminal prosecution. 

Assumption of risk on the part of
passengers
Passengers must take such risks incident to
the mode of travel. The passenger must
observe the diligence of a good father of a
family to avoid injury to himself (Art. 1761,
NCC).
Carriers are not insurers of any and all risks
to passengers and goods. It merely
undertakes to perform certain duties to the
public as the law imposes, and holds itself
liable for any breach thereof (Pilapil v. CA,
Q: One of the passenger buses owned by
Continental Transit Corporation (CTC),
plying its usual route, figured in a
collision with another bus owned by
Universla Transport Inc. (UTI). Among
those injured inside the CTC bus were:
Romeo, a stow away; Samuel, a
pickpocket then in the act of robbing his
seatmate when the collision occurred;
Teresita, the bus driver’s mistress who
TRANSPORTATION LAW
trips for free; and Uriel, a holder of a free
riding pass he won in a raffle held by CTC.
Will a suit for breach of contract of
carriage filed by Romeo, Samuel,
Teresita, and Uriel against CTC prosper?
Explain. (2008 BAR)
A: Romeo cannot sue for breach of
contract of carriage. A stowaway like
Romeo, who secures passage by fraud, is
not a passenger.
Samuel and Teresita cannot sue for
breach of contract of carriage. The
elements in the definition of a passenger
are: an undertaking of a person to travel
in the conveyance provided by the carrier
and an acceptance by the carrier of the
person as a passenger. Samuel did not
board the bus to be transported but to
commit robbery. Teresita did not board
the bus to be transported but to
accompany the driver while he was
performing his work
Uriel can sue for breach of contract of
carriage. He was a passenger although he
was being transported gratuitously,
because he won a free riding pass in a
raffle held by CTC.
NOTE: As accommodation passengers or
invited guests, defendant as owner and
driver of the pick- up owes to them merely
the duty to exercise reasonable care so that
they may be transported safely to their
destination. Thus, "The rule is established
by the weight of authority that the owner
or operator of an automobile owes the duty
to an invited guest to exercise reasonable
care in its operation, and not unreasonably
to expose him to danger and injury by
increasing the hazard of travel. This rule, as
frequently stated by the courts, is that an
owner of an automobile owes a guest the
duty to exercise ordinary or reasonable care
to avoid injuring him. Since one riding in an
automobile is no less a guest because he
asked for the privilege of doing so, the same
obligation of care is imposed upon the
driver as in the case of one expressly invited
to ride" (5 Am. Jur., 626-627). Defendant,
therefore, is only required to observe
ordinary care, and is not in duty bound to
exercise extraordinary diligence as required
of a common carrier by our law (Articles
1755 and 1756, new Civil Code, Lara v.
Valencia, G.R. No. L-9907, June 30, 1958).
EXTENT OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
Kinds of damages that may be recovered in
case of death of a passenger
1. An indemnity for the Death of the
victim 

2. An indemnity for loss of Earning
capacity of the 
deceased; 
(Art.
2205)
Damages for Death caused by a crime
or quasi delict is atleast 3,000.00
pesos. Liability for loss of earning
capacity is awarded by the court
UNLESS the deceased had no earning
capacity at the time of his death or
such loss of earning capacity was not
caused by the common carrier. (Art.
2206)
3. Moral damages; 

Amount should be atleast 3,000 pesos.
It includes physical suffering, mental
TRANSPORTATION LAW
anguish, fright, serious anxiety attack,
besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury.
4. Exemplary damages; 
 contract of transportation
It cannot be recovered as a matter of
right. The court will decide if the
defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner.
5. Attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation; 
 contractual relation between the parties”
6. Interest in proper cases (Briñas v.
People, G.R. 
No. L-30309, Nov. 25,
1983). 
 XPNs: Moral damages may be recovered
7. Hospital and funeral expenses 
 transportation in the following cases:
Carrier is not liable for exemplary
damages where there is no proof that it
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner.
NOTE: In case of death, the plaintiff is
entitled to the amount he spent during the
wake and funeral of the deceased.
However, it has been ruled that expenses
after the burial are not compensable
(Victory Liner, Inc. v. Heirs of Andres
Malecdan, G.R. No. 154278).
Damages in Personal Injury Cases
Personal injury and even death entitles
claimant to all medical expenses as well as
other reasonable expenses that he incurred
to treat his or his relative’s injuries. Medical
expenses may even include the amount
spent for plastic surgery of the plaintiff or
any procedure to restore the part of the
body that was affected (Spouses Renato
Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117103,
January 21, 1999)
Moral damages in case of breach of
GR: Moral damages are not recoverable in
breach of contract of transportation
because such contract cannot be
considered included in the “analogous
cases” used in Article 2219 of the NCC. Also,
Art. 2176 of the NCC expressly excludes the
cases where there is a “pre-existing
(Versoza vs. Baytan, et al., G.R. L-14092,
April 29, 1960).
even in case of breach of contract of
1. Where the mishap results in the
death of the passenger (M. Ruiz
Highway Transit, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. L-
16086, May 29, 1964). 

2. Where it is proved that the carrier
was guilty of fraud or bad faith, even
if death does not result (Rex Taxicab
Co. vs. Bautista, GR No. L-15392,
September 30, 1960). 

Although the relation of passenger and
carrier is "contractual both in origin and
nature" nevertheless “the act that breaks
the contract may be also a tort" when said
act is done with gross negligence or with
bad faith (Air France v Carrascoso, G.R. No.
L-21438, September 28, 1966).