1. TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS a. Governing Law i. NCC, Article 1754 to 1763 SUBSECTION 2. Vigilance Over Goods Article 1754.

The provisions of articles 1733 to 1753 shall apply to the passenger's baggage which is not in his personal custody or in that of his employee. As to other baggage, the rules in articles 1998 and 2000 to 2003 concerning the responsibility of hotel-keepers shall be applicable. SUBSECTION 3. Safety of Passengers Article 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 cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. Article 1756. In case of death of 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 1733 and 1755. Article 1757. The responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers as required in articles 1733 and 1755 cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise. Article 1758. When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability for negligence is valid, but not for wilful acts or gross negligence. The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier's liability. Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former's 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. Article 1760. The common carrier's responsibility prescribed in the preceding article cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on the tickets or otherwise. Article 1761. The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself. Article 1762. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced. Article 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 carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. b. Extraordinary Diligence (NCC Art. 1755) i. PAL v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 621, G.R. No.120262, 17 July 1997.
PAL VS CA Facts: - On October 23, 1988, private respondent Pantejo,then City Fiscal of Surigao City, boarded a PAL plane in Manila and disembarked in Cebu City where he was supposed to take his connecting flight to Surigao City. However, due to typhoon Osang,

the connecting flight to Surigao City was cancelled. - To accommodate the needs of its stranded passengers, PAL initially gave out cash assistance of P100.00 and, the next day, P200.00, for their expected stay of two days in Cebu. Pantejo requested instead that he be billeted in a hotel at PAL's expense because he did not have cash with him at that time, but PAL refused. Thus, respondent Pantejo was forced to seek and accept the generosity of a co-passenger, an Engr.Andoni Dumlao, and he shared a room with the latter at Sky View Hotel with the promise to pay his share of the expenses upon reaching Surigao. - When the flight for Surigao was resumed, Pantejo came to know that the hotel expenses of his copassengers were reimbursed by PAL. At this point,Pantejo informed Oscar Jereza, PAL's Manager for Departure Services at Mactan Airport and who was incharge of cancelled flights, that he was going to sue the airline for discriminating against him. It was only then that Jereza offered to pay respondent Pantejo P300 which, due to the ordeal and anguish he had undergone, the latter decline. Thereafter, Pantejo filed an action for damages against PAL. - The RTC of Surigao City, rendered judgment against PAL, ordering the latter to pay Pantejo P300 for actual damages, P150,000 as moral damages, P100,000 as exemplary damages, P15,000.00 as attorney's fees, and 6% interest from the time of the filing of the complaint until said amounts shall have been fully paid, plus costs of suit. - On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the court a quo, but with the exclusion of the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Issue: WON PAL is liable Held: YES - It must be emphasized that a contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation, and this is because of the relation which an air carrier sustain with the public. Its business is mainly with the travelling public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public duty.Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees naturally could give ground for an action for damages. - In ruling for Pantejo, both the RTC and the CA found that PAL acted in bad faith in refusing to provide hotel accommodations for Pantejo or to reimburse him for hotel expenses incurred despite and in contrast to thefact that other passengers were so favored. Factors considered in computing damages> PAL acted in bad faith in disregarding its duties as acommon carrier to its passengers and in discriminatingagainst Pantejo. It was even oblivious to the fact that Pantejo was exposed to humiliation and embarrassment especially because of his government position and social prominence, which altogether necessarily subjected him to ridicule, shame andanguish. It remains uncontroverted that at the time of the incident, herein respondent was then the City Prosecutor of Surigao City, and that he is a member of the Philippine Jaycee Senate, past Lt. Governor of the Kiwanis Club of Surigao, a past Master of the Mount Diwata Lodge of Free Masons of the Philippines,member of the Philippine National Red Cross, SurigaoChapter,and past Chairman of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines,Surigao del Norte Chapter. - It is likewise claimed that the moral and exemplarydamages awarded to respondent Pantejo are excessiveand unwarranted on the ground that respondent is nottotally blameless because of his refusal to accept theP100 cash assistance which was inceptively offered tohim. It bears emphasis that respondent Pantejo hadevery right to make such refusal since it evidently couldnot meet his needs and that was all that PAL claimed itcould offer. - His refusal to accept the P300 proffered as an afterthought when he threatened suit was justified by his resentment when he belatedly found out that his co-passengers were reimbursed for hotel expenses and he was not. Worse, he would not even have known about it were it not for a co-passenger who verbally told him that she was reimbursed by the airline for hotel and meal expenses. It may even be said that the

amounts, the time and the circumstances under which those amounts were offered could not salve the moral wounds inflicted by PAL on private respondent but even approximated insult added to injury. - The discriminatory act of petitioner against respondent ineludibly makes the former liable for moraldamages under Article 21 in relation to Article 2219(10) of the Civil Code. Such inattention to and lack of care by petitioner airline for the interest of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as to their convenience,amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to theaward of moral damages.- Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded only to allow the former to obtain means,diversion, or amusements that will serve to alleviate

VDA DE NUECA VS. MNL RAILROAD CO, CA Facts: -At 3 p.m. on Dec. 22, 1958, Fermin Nueca brought 7 sacks of palay to Manila Railroad Co. (MRC) at its station in Barrio del Rosario, Camarines Sur, tobe shipped to the municipality of Libmanan of the same province. -He paid P 0.70 as freight charge and was issued Way Bill No. 56515. -The cargo was loaded on the freight wagon of Train 537. Passengers boarded the train and shunting operations started to hook a wagon thereto. -Before the train reached the turnoff switch, its passenger coach fell on its side some 40 m from the station. The wagon pinned Nueca, killing himinstantly. -Nuecas widow and children bring this claim for damages, alleging that the Nueca was a passenger and his death was caused by MRCs negligence. -MRC disclaimed liability stating: (1) it exercised due care in safeguarding the passengers during the shunting operation, (2) Nueca was not a passenger but a trespasser, (3) even if Nuecawere a passenger, he illegally boarded the train without permission by not paying the fare, (4) the mishap was not attributable to any defect in MRC equipment, (5) that the accident happened due to force majeur. -MRC presented evidence showing there was no mechanical defect, but it did not explain why the accident occurred or show that force majeur caused the mishap. -The lower court absolved MRC of liability and held that Nueca was a trespasser since he did not buy any ticket, and in any case, was not in a proper place for passengers. Issue: 1.WON Nueca was a passenger? -- NO 2.WON MRC is liable? --YES 3.WON accident was due to MRCs negligence or force majeur? 4.WON Nueca liable for contributory negligence? Held:1.No, Nueca was not a passenger thus, MRC did not owe him extraordinary diligence.A passenger is one who travels in a public conveyance by virtue of a contract, express or implied, with the carrier as to the payment of the fare, or that which isaccepted as an equivalent. The relation of passenger and carrier commences when one puts himself in the care of the carrier, or directly under its control, with the bona fide intention of becoming a passenger, and is accepted as such by the carrier as where he makes a contract for transportation and presents himself at the proper place and in a proper manner to be transported.

ii. Jesusa Vda. De Nueca, v. The Manila Railroad Company, Court of Appeals C.A. No. 31731, January 30, 1968.

Even disregarding the matter of tickets, and assuming Nueca intended to be a passenger, he was never accepted as such by MRC as he did not present himself at the proper place and in a proper manner to betransported. 2.Yes, the liability of railroad companies to persons upon their premises is determined by the general rules of negligence relating to duties of owners/occupiers of property.While railroad companies are not bound to the same degree of care in regard to strangers who are unlawfully upon the premises of its passengers, it may still be liable to such strangers for negligent or tortious acts. Here, Nueca was not on the track, but either unlawfully inside the baggage car or beside the track. It is normal for people to walk on the track or roadbed when there is no oncoming train and to walk beside the track when a train passes. This practice is tolerated by MRC. Generally, MRCs stations are not enclosed, and is easily accessible to the public. 3.MRC is negligent; doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied. The train was under the complete control of the railroad company at the time of the accident. The baggage car would not have been derailed if the train had been properly operated. Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. 4. No. An invitation to stay in the premises is implied from the lack of prohibition to outsiders to keep off the premises,hence, a stranger who is injured by a derailed train while staying beside a railroad track is not guilty of contributory negligence. Note: Our law on common carriers is lifted from Anglo-American statutes