La Mallorca v.

CA
Facts: Mariano Beltran and his family rode a bus owned by petitioner. Upon reaching their desired destination, they alighted from the bus. But Mariano returned to get their baggage. His youngest daughter followed him without his knowledge. When he stepped into the bus again, it suddenly accelerated. Marianos daughter was found dead. The bus ran over her. Issue: Whether the liability of a common carrier extends even after the passenger had alighted Held: The relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carriers vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or reasonable opportunity to leave the current premises.

La Mallorca v. Court of Appeals (17 SCRA 739)

Post under case digests, Civil Law at Thursday, February 23, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: Plaintiffs husband and wife, together with their minor children, boarded a La Mallorca bus. Upon arrival at theirdestination, plaintiffs and their children alighted from the bus and the father led them to a shaded spot about 5 meters from the vehicle. The father returned to the bus to get a piece of baggage which was not unloaded. He was followed by her daughter Raquel. While the father was still on the running board awaiting for the conductor to give his baggage, the bus started to run so that the father had to jump. Raquel, who was near the bus, was run over and killed. Lower court rendered judgment for the plaintiff which was affirmed by CA, holding La Mallorca liable for quasi-delict and ordering it to pay P6,000 plus P400. La Mallorco contended that when the child was killed, she was no

longer a passenger and therefore thecontract of carriage terminated. Issue: Whether or not the contractual obligation between the parties ceases the moment the passenger alighted form the vehicle. Held: On the question whether the liability of the carrier, as to the child who was already led a place 5 meters from the bus under thecontract of carrier, still persists, we rule in the affirmative. It is a recognized rules that the relation between carrier and passengers does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carriers premises, to be determined from the circumstances. In this case, there was no utmost diligence. Firstly, the driver, although stopping the bus, did not put off the engine. Secondly, he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal and while the latter was unloading cargo. Here, the presence of said passenger near the bus was not unreasonable and the duration of responsibility still exists. Averment of quasi-delict is permissible under the Rules of Court, although incompatible with the contract of carriage. The Rules of Court allows the plaintiffs to allege causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible with each other or not (Sec. 2, Rule 1). Even assuming arguendo that the contract of carriage has already terminated, herein petitioner can be held liable for the negligence of its driver pursuant to Art. 2180 of NCC. Decision MODIFIED. Only question raised in the briefs can be passed upon, and as plaintiffs did not appeals the award

of P3,000.00 the increase by the CA of the award to P6,000.00 cannot be sustained.

CASE DIGEST (Transportation Law): Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. vs. Unknown Owner

PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. UNKNOWN OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V NATIONAL HONOR, NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. [G.R. No. 161833. July 8, 2005] FACTS: Petitioner Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC) is the insurer of a shipment on board the vessel M/V National Honor, represented in the Philippines by its agent, National Shipping Corporation of the Philippines (NSCP). The M/V National Honor arrived at the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT). The International Container Terminal Services, Incorporated (ICTSI) was furnished with a copy of the crate cargo list and bill of lading, and it knew the contents of the crate. The following day, the vessel started discharging its cargoes using its winch crane. The crane was operated by Olegario Balsa, a winchman from the ICTSI, exclusive arrastre operator of MICT. Denasto Dauz, Jr., the checker-inspector of the NSCP, along with the crew and the surveyor of the ICTSI, conducted an inspection of the cargo. They inspected the hatches, checked the cargo and found it in apparent good condition. Claudio Cansino, the stevedore of the ICTSI, placed two sling cables on each end of Crate No. 1. No sling cable was fastened on the mid-portion of the crate. In Dauzs experience, this was a normal procedure. As the crate was being hoisted from the vessels hatch, the mid-portion of the wooden flooring suddenly snapped in the air, about five feet high from the vessels twin deck, sending all its contents crashing down hard, resulting in extensive damage to the shipment. PCIC paid the damage, and as subrogee, filed a case against M/V National Honor, NSCP and ICTSI. Both RTC and CA dismissed the complaint. ISSUE: Whether or not the presumption of negligence is applicable in the instant case. HELD: No. We agree with the contention of the petitioner that common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are mandated to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. he Court has defined extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods as follows: The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires the common carrier to know and to follow the required precaution for avoiding damage to, or destruction of the goods entrusted to it for sale, carriage and delivery. It requires common carriers to render service with the greatest skill and foresight and to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such methods as their nature requires. The common carriers duty to observe the requisite diligence in the shipment of goods lasts from the time the articles are surrendered to or unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by, the carrier for transportation until delivered to, or until the lapse of a reasonable time for their acceptance, by the person entitled to receive them.] >When the goods shipped are either lost or arrive

in damaged condition, a presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that diligence, and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold it liable. To overcome the presumption of negligence in the case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence. However, under Article 1734 of the New Civil Code, the presumption of negligence does not apply to any of the following causes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity; Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers; Order or act of competent public authority.

It bears stressing that the enumeration in Article 1734 of the New Civil Code which exempts the common carrier for the loss or damage to the cargo is a closed list. To exculpate itself from liability for the loss/damage to the cargo under any of the causes, the common carrier is burdened to prove any of the aforecited causes claimed by it by a preponderance of evidence. If the carrier succeeds, the burden of evidence is shifted to the shipper to prove that the carrier is negligent. Defect is the want or absence of something necessary for completeness or perfection; a lack or absence of something essential to completeness; a deficiency in something essential to the proper use for the purpose for which a thing is to be used. On the other hand, inferior means of poor quality, mediocre, or second rate. A thing may be of inferior quality but not necessarily defective. In other words, defectiveness is not synonymous with inferiority. xxx In the present case, the trial court declared that based on the record, the loss of the shipment was caused by the negligence of the petitioner as the shipper: The same may be said with respect to defendant ICTSI. The breakage and collapse of Crate No. 1 and the total destruction of its contents were not imputable to any fault or negligence on the part of said defendant in handling the unloading of the cargoes from the carrying vessel, but was due solely to the inherent defect and weakness of the materials used in the fabrication of said crate. The crate should have three solid and strong wooden batten placed side by side underneath or on the flooring of the crate to support the weight of its contents. x x x

LRTA v Natividad
FACTS: October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor) entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token. o While Nicanor was standing at the platform near the LRT tracks, the guard o Junelito Escartin approached him. Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed instantaneously upon being hit by a moving train operated by Rodolfo Roman

December 8, 1994: The widow of Nicanor, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, Roman, LRTA, Metro Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent (agency of security guards) for the death of her husband. o LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent Prudent: denied liability averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and surpervision of its security guards LRTA and Roman: presented evidence Prudent and Escartin: demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task

RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin, complaint against LRT and Roman were dismissed for lack of merit CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and Roman liable

ISSUE: W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the contract of carriage HELD: NO. Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages is DELETED (CANNOT co-exist w/ compensatory damages) (b) Roman is absolved. Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty off exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers Civil Code: o Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very o cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles o 1733 and 1755 Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the formers employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers

This liability of the 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

Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carriers employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieaved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure

Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task, the common carrier is NOT relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage

GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and related provisions in conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. (Tort may arise even under a contract, where tort [quasi-delict liability] is that which breaches the contract) o EX: if employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee, employer can be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the o selection and supervision of its employees. EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee

Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the death of Nicanor for the reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOT proven NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability o Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relation bet. Nicanor and Roman Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence.