Transpo notes 11/22

FGU Ins. V. G.P Sarmiento Trucking

Catering exclusively hence not a common carrier
Reliance Interest/ Interest of the Promisee
Note: that the promisee has a choice as to what remedy she will use
a) Expectation Interest
Which is his interest in having the benefit of his bargain by being put in as good a
position as he would have been in had the contract been performed
b) Reliance Interest
Which is his interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by
being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract not been
made.
c) Restitution Interest
Which is his interest in having restored to him any benefit that he has conferred on the
other party (defendant).
Example:
If GPS has conferred some value on Concepcion industries and promise that it
will carry the good safely.
o Under the restitution interest; what it ought to prevent is unjust enrichment on
the part of the carrier or in the case at bar GPS Trucking.
There are two elements:
a) Reliance
b) What the promisor gained in the transaction or in the case at bar,
what GPS received or gained from the promise?
o Ans.: freight, despite that GPS car was destroyed he
shall still be oblige to return the said payment tendered
for the cost of freight.
On the Issue of Res Ipsa loquitor:
Definition of Res ipsa loquitor
Three elements must be met:
a)
b)
c)

RCPI v. Verchez
The effect of every infraction is to create a new duty, that is, to make recompense to the one
who has been injured by the failure of another to observe his contractual obligation unless he
can show extenuating circumstances, like proof of his obligation unless he can show extenuating
circumstances, like proof of his exercise of due diligence or of the attendance of fortuitous event
to excuse him from his ensuing liability.
The Court Ruled:
When the effect is found to be partly the result of a persons participationwhether by
active intervention, neglect or failure to actthe whole occurrence is humanized and removed
from the rules applicable to acts of God.
Art. 1174 of the Civil Code
States that no person shall be responsible for a fortuitous event that could not be
foreseen or, though foreseen, was inevitable. In other words, there must be an exclusion of
human intervention from the cause of injury or loss.

Phil. First Insurance Co. Inc. v. Wallem Phils. Shipping Inc.
Facts:
The shipment was an exercise of international trade, the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Act (COGSA), together with the Civil Code and the Code of Commerce, shall apply.


The standards for determining the existence or absence of the respondents liability will be
gauged on the degree of diligence required of a common carrier.
COGSA: Period of Responsibility (Shipment is from other country to Philippines)
The responsibility of the carrier shall commence from the time when the goods are
loaded on board the vessel and shall cease when they are discharged from the vessel.
o The Carrier shall not be liable of loss of or damage to the goods before loading
and after discharging from the vessel, howsoever such loss or damage arises.
Civil Code: Period of Responsibility (Shipment is within the country)
Or Duration of Duty to Exercise Extraordinary Diligence [Carriage of Goods]
Case: Wallem Company (1999)
Art. 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in
the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the
carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738.
Art. 1737. The common carrier's duty to observe extraordinary diligence over the goods remains in full force and effect even
when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, unless the shipper or owner has made use of the right of stoppage in
transitu.
Art. 1738. The extraordinary liability of the common carrier continues to be operative even during the time the goods are
stored in a warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination, until the consignee has been advised of the arrival of the goods
and has had reasonable opportunity thereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of them.

Duration of Duty to Exercise Extraordinary Diligence [Carriage of Passengers]
For Trains:
For Jeepneys:

When Contract of Carriage Ends?
The relation of carrier does not cease at the moment the passenger alights after a
reasonable time to leave
Case: La Mallorca v. C.A. Jul. 27 1966
Facts: daughter died
Theres no dispute as to the existence of contract of carriage between the father and the
bus liner or carrier
Issue: is on the daughter
Held:
The father and the daughters presence was reasonable, hence; treated as passenger
(contract still exist and hence the bus liner can be held liable under Art. 1755 of the Civil
Code)
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 cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

Case: Aboitiz Shipping v. C.A.
Facts:
Passenger jump before the boat docked the port and forgot his cargoes. When he returned to get his
cargoes he was hit by an lifter and died.
Held: His presence is not without a cause and hence the aboitiz company can still be held liable.