COMMON CARRIER

Common Carrier

- a person, natural or juridical,

engaged in the business of carrying
or transporting passengers, or
goods or both, by land, water or air,
for compensation, offering its
services
Test to determine

- whether the person or entity, for

some business purpose and with
general or limited clientele offers the
service of carrying or transporting
passengers or goods or both for
compensation
Differentiated from Private Carrier

1) Obligation to Carry:
- CC: bound to carry all who
choose to employ it
- PC: can choose the persons
with whom it may contract
2) Diligence Required:
- CC: obliged to employ
extraordinary diligence
- PC: should employ ordinary
diligence
The stipulation in the charter party absolving
the owner from liability for loss due to the
negligence of its agents would be void 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 use of a single
party. The stipulation exempting the owner
from liability for the negligence of its agent is
not against public policy and is deemed valid.
(Home Insurance Company vs American
Steamship Agencies, Inc., 23 SCRA 24)
Status of a Driver under “Boundary
System” Arrangement

- employee of the operator for the

purpose of the latter’s liability to
passengers (subsidiary liability)
Registered Owner Rule

- regardless of who the actual owner is of a

motor vehicle might be, the registered owner is
the operator of the same with respect to the
public and 3rd persons, and as such, directly
and primarily responsible for the
consequences of its operation.

- the main purpose of the vehicle registration is

the easy identification of the owner who can be
held responsible for any accident, damage or
injury caused by the vehicle. (Villanueva vs
Domingo, G.R. No. 144274, September 20,
2004)
Diligence Required
of a Common Carrier

Goods:

- must observe extraordinary

diligence and responsible for loss or
damage to the goods unless they
show that the same was due to
fortuitous event or to a fault
traceable to the shipper
- fortuitous event may not excuse the carrier
from liability if it is shown that it was not the
proximate and only cause of the loss, or it is
shown that the carrier did not exercise due
diligence to prevent or minimize loss before,
during and after the occurrence of the
fortuitous event, or that it was already delayed
when the fortuitous event occurred.
A common carrier is not liable for
loss by fire of the goods stored in a
government warehouse, awaiting
pick-up by the consignee, the loss
here being due to fortuitous event.
(Servando, et. al. vs Phil. Steam
Navigation, 117 SCRA 832)
Failure of common carrier to deliver
luggage of passenger at designated
place and time constitutes a breach
of contract of carriage. A common
carrier has the obligation to carry its
passengers and their luggage safely
to their destination, which includes
the duty not to delay their
transportation. (Cathay Pacific
Airways, Ltd. vs CA, 218 SCRA 520)
Hijacking on land is not a fortuitous
event. The carrier is liable unless
proof is presented by the carrier that
the hijackers acted with irresistible
force, threat or violence. (Guzman
vs CA, 168 SCRA 612)
Liability for Loss
Due to Improper Packing

If the fact of improper packing is known to the

carrier or his servants, or apparent upon
ordinary observation, but he accepts the goods
notwithstanding such condition, he is not
relieved of liability for loss or injury resulting
therefrom.
In Carriage of Passengers

Degree of Diligence Required

- obliged to carry passengers safely

as human care and foresight can
provide, using the utmost diligence
of very cautious persons, with due
regard for all the circumstances.
(Sulpicio vs CA, 246 SCRA 376)
Justification:

- courts may take judicial notice of the

fact that our motor vehicle drivers,
particularly those of public utilities, have
not distinguished themselves for their
concern over the safety, comfort or the
convenience of others. (Batangas
Transportation Company vs Caguimbal,
22 SCRA 171)
Examples:

- where the driver improperly parked his

jeepney on the pavement, he was
negligent

- where one of its passengers died

because the floor of its bus gave way
after a tire blowout caused by
overcrowding, overspeeding and weak
flooring.
Examples:

- the announcement by a train conductor of the

next flag stop, three minutes ahead of time,
causing the passengers to rise from their
seats, and the subsequent fall by them as a
consequence of the jerking of the train,
resulting in deaths and injuries to them

- the sidesweeping of a jeepney by a truck

where both were running parallel to each other
to approach a narrow bridge which cannot
accommodate both vehicles
Obligation Extends to Employees

utmost diligence – safety of the passengers as

well as for the members of the crew or
complement operating the carrier
Presumption of Fault or Negligence

- the law presumes that the common carrier is

negligent

- the carrier assumes the express obligation to

transport the passenger to his destination
safely and to observe extraordinary diligence
with a due regard for all the circumstances,
and any injury that might be suffered by the
passenger is right away attributable to the fault
or negligence of the carrier.
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor

a) the contract between the carrier and the

passenger imposes on the carrier the
obligation to transport the passengers safely,
hence the burden of explaining should fall on
the carrier;
b) the cause of the accident is better known to
the carrier than to the passenger;
c) the accident could not have happened if due
care was exercised by the carrier
When Presumption Rebutted

a) natural disaster like flood, storm, lightning,

etc.
b) act or omission of the shipper
c) act of the public enemy in time of war
d) character of the goods or defect in their
packing
e) order of the competent authority
Duration of Exercise
of Extraordinary Diligence

- starts when the former gives to the latter the

opportunity to avail of its services without
need for said passenger to have boarded the
vehicle, to have seated himself or to have been
given a ticket

- if in the course of boarding a vehicle which

had slowed down to allow a prospective
passenger to board, the passenger suffers an
injury or is killed, the liability of the carrier is
contractual
Duration of Exercise
of Extraordinary Diligence

- the victim becomes a passenger from the moment he

steps on the platform of the bus and entitled to all rights as
such, including the observance by the common carrier of
extraordinary diligence

- the relationship ends when the passenger after reaching

destination safely alighted and had the reasonable
opportunity to leave the common carrier’s premises, which
includes the time to look for his baggage and claim them
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, together with their minor
daughters, 13 years old Milagros, 5 years old Rafaela and 2
years old Fe, boarded a Pambusco bus. Upon reaching
their destination, plaintiffs and their daughters alighted
from the bus and the father led them to a shaded spot
about 4 to 5 meters away from the vehicle. The father
returned to the bus to get a piece of baggage which was
not unloaded when he alighted from the bus. Rafaela,
child that she was must have followed her father.
However, although the father was still running board of the
bus waiting for the conductor to give him the bag, the bus
started to run, so that the father had to jump down from the
moving vehicle. It was at this instance that the child, who
must be near the bus, was run over and killed.

Held: CARRIER IS LIABLE

1) did not put off the engine

2) started to run the bus while unloading
3) they are still considered as passengers
Damages Recoverable

1) Actual and Consequential

Damages
2) Moral Damages
3) Exemplary Damages
4) Attorney’s Fees and Interest