Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Sotero Cailipan, Jr and Sotero opposed the motion to dismiss; he testified that be is the
Zenaida Lopez andGeorge Cailipan father of George, who atthe time of the incident was a student,
G.R. No. 80447 January 31, 1989 living with his parents and totally dependent onthem for their
Melencio-Herrera, J.
support; that the expenses for his hospitalization were
FACTS:
shouldered by hisparents; and that they had not signed the
George – was a paying passenger on a Baliwag bus “Release of Claims”
who suffered multiple serious physicalinjuries when he was
RTC dismissed the complaint (dismissal was predicated on
thrown off said bus driven in a careless and negligent manner
George’s execution of Releaseof Claims)
byLeonardo Cruz, the bus driver, along Brgy. Patubig, Marilao,
Bulacan; as a result, he wasconfined in the hospital for ISSUE:
treatment, incurring medical expenses, which were borne byhis
parents in the sum of about P200,000.00 plus other incidental e what is the legal effect of the Release of Claims executed by
xpenses of aboutP10,000.00 George
b. contract of carriage or of common carriage itself –real Mr. and Mrs. Engracio Fabre, Jr. and Porfirio Cabil v. CA, The
contract for not until thecarrier is actually used can the carrier be Word for the WorldChristian Fellowship, Inc., Amyline Antonio,
said to have already assumed the obligation of a carrier contract etc.
to carry was involved in the case; its elements are consent,
consideration andobject certain G.R. No. 111127 July 26, 1996
ISSUES: It filed a complaint for tax refund alleging that 1) the imposition
and collection of thebusiness tax on its gross receipts violates
1. WON petitioners (a. Cabil; b. employers Fabres) were neglige Section 133 of the Local Government Codewhich grants tax
nt; 2. WONpetitioners were liable for the injuries suffered exemption to common carriers; 2) the authority of cities to
by private respondents impose andcollect a tax on the gross receipts of “contractors
HELD: and independent contractors” under Sec.141 (e) and 151 does
not include the authority to collect such taxes on
1. On Cabil’s negligence: On the night of the accident, it was transportationcontractors for, as defined under Sec. 131 (h), the
raining, and as aconsequence, the road was slippery, and it was term “contractors” excludestransportation contractors; and, 3)
dark. Cabil drove his bus at the speed of 50kilometers per hour the City Treasurer illegally and erroneously imposedand
and only slowed down when he noticed the curve some 15 to 30 collected the said tax, thus meriting the immediate refund of
metersahead. By then it was too late for him to avoid falling off the tax paid.
the road. Given the conditions of the road and considering that
the trip was Cabil’s first one outside of Manila ISSUES:
RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin, Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or
complaint against LRT and Roman were dismissed for lack of injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of
merit the former’s employees, although such employees may have
acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the
CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and orders of the common carriers
Roman liable
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
ISSUE: W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the
contract of carriage 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 carrier’s
HELD: NO. Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages is employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father
DELETED (CANNOT co-exist w/ compensatory damages) (b) of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.
Roman is absolved.
Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by
Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieaved of the duty to
the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its
burdened with the duty off exercising utmost diligence in employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that
ensuring the safety of passengers the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure
Civil Code: Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of
an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task, the
Transpo Digested Cases (P. 1-2 of the Syllabus) 9
common carrier is NOT relieved of its responsibilities under the August 29, 2012
contract of carriage Bersamin, J.
GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and
related provisions in conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil FACTS:
Code. (Tort may arise even under a contract, where tort [quasi- Perenas were engaged in the business of transporting students
delict liability] is that which breaches the contract) to Don Bosco. The Zarates engaged Perenas services to
EX: if employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the transport their son, Aaron, to school.
employee, employer can be made liable on the basis of the While on the way to school, the van’s air-conditioned unit was
presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise turned on and the stereo playing loudly. The driver took a detour
diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of because they were running late due to the traffic in SLEX. The
its employees. detour was through a narrow path underneath the Magallanes
EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection and Interchange used as short cut into Makati. When the van was to
supervision of the employee traverse the PNR railroad crossing, the van was tailing a large
passenger bus so the driver’s view of the oncoming train was
Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the death of blocked. The train hit the van at the rear end and the impact
Nicanor for the reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOT threw 9 students including Aaron out of the van. Aaron landed in
proven the path of the train which dragged his body and severed his
head, instantaneously killing him.
NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or
omission, he must also be absolved from liability The Zarates filed for damages against Alfaro, Perenas, PNR,
and the train driver. The cause of action against Perena was for
Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical
contract of carriage while for PNR, quasi delict. Perena posited
relation bet. Nicanor and Roman
the defense of diligence of a good father in the selection and
Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence supervision of their driver
ISSUE/S: Were Perenas and PNR jointly and severally liable for
damages? Is the petitioner a common carrier?
A carrier is a person or corporation who undertakes to transport NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS
or convey goods from one place to another, gratuitously or for
hire. They may be private or common G.R. No. 112287 December 12, 1997
Private carrier is one who, without holding himself or itself out to Panganiban, J.
the public as ready to act for all who may desire his or its
Doctrine:
services, undertakes, by special agreement in a particular
instance only, to transport goods or persons from one place to The stringent provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers
another either gratutitously or for hire. The diligence required of protecting the general public cannot justifiably be applied to a
a private carrier is only ordinary private carrier.
Common Carrier is a person, corporation, firm or association Facts:
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers
or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, Plaintiff National Steel Corporation (NSC) as Charterer and
offering such services to the public. Diligence required is to defendant Vlasons Shipping, Inc. (VSI) as Owner, entered into a
observe extraordinary diligence, and is presumed to be at fault Contract of Voyage Charter Hire whereby NSC hired VSI’s
or to have acted negligently in case of the loss of effects of vessel, the MV Vlasons I to make one voyage to load steel
passengers, or death or injuries to passengers products at Iligan City and discharge them at North Harbor,
Manila. The handling, loading and unloading of the cargoes
The true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent were the responsibility of the Charterer.
of business actually transacted, or the number of conveyances,
BUT WHETHER the undertaking is a part of the activity that he The skids of tinplates and hot rolled sheets shipped were
has held out to the general public as his business or occupation. allegedly found to be wet and rusty. Plaintiff, alleging
negligence, filed a claim for damages against the defendant
The Perenas held themselves out as a ready transportation who denied liability claiming that the MV Vlasons I was
indiscriminately to the students of a particular school living seaworthy in all respects for the carriage of plaintiff’s cargo; that
Transpo Digested Cases (P. 1-2 of the Syllabus) 11
said vessel was not a “common carrier” inasmuch as she was Because the MV Vlasons I was a private carrier, the ship
under voyage charter contract with the plaintiff as charterer owner’s obligations are governed by the foregoing provisions of
under the charter party; that in the course its voyage, the vessel the Code of Commerce and not by the Civil Code which, as a
encountered very rough seas. general rule, places the prima facie presumption of negligence
on a common carrier.
Issue:
It has been held that the true test of a common carrier is the Espinas sued Filcar for damages. Filcar denied liability, claiming
carriage of passengers or goods, provided it has space, for all that the incident was not due to its fault or negligence since
who opt to avail themselves of its transportation service for a fee Floresca was not its employee but that of Atty. Flor.
[Mendoza vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836, 842-843
ISSUE: Whether or not Filcar, as registered owner of the
(1952)]. A carrier which does not qualify under the above test is motor vehicle which figured in an accident, may be held
deemed a private carrier. “Generally, private carriage is liable for the damages caused to the Espinas
undertaken by special agreement and the carrier does not hold
himself out to carry goods for the general public. HELD:
As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act or The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
omission. Thus, a person will generally be held liable only for persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the
the torts committed by himself and not by another. This general diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
rule is laid down in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which
provides to wit: Under Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil
Code, an action predicated on an employee's act or omission
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to may be instituted against the employer who is held liable for the
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the negligent act or omission committed by his employee.
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a Although the employer is not the actual tortfeasor, the law
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. makes him vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law
principle of pater familias for failure to exercise due care and
Based on the above-cited article, the obligation to indemnify vigilance over the acts of one's subordinates to prevent damage
another for damage caused by one's act or omission is imposed to another. In the last paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil
upon the tortfeasor himself, i.e., the person who committed the Code, the employer may invoke the defense that he observed
negligent act or omission. The law, however, provides for all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
exceptions when it makes certain persons liable for the act or
omission of another. It is well settled that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the
registered owner of the motor vehicle is considered as the
One exception is an employer who is made vicariously liable for employer of the tortfeasor-driver, and is made primarily liable
the tort committed by his employee. Article 2180 of the Civil for the tort committed by the latter under Article 2176, in relation
Code states: with Article 2180, of the Civil Code.
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is In so far as third persons are concerned, the registered owner
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also of the motor vehicle is the employer of the negligent driver,
for those of persons for whom one is responsible. and the actual employer is considered merely as an agent
of such owner.
ISSUES: 2) NO. The new law, R.A. No. 8556, notwithstanding developments in
1) Whether petitioner, as registered owner of a motor vehicle that foreign jurisdictions, do not supersede or repeal the law on compulsory
figured in a quasi-delict may be held liable, jointly and severally, with motor vehicle registration. No part of the law expressly repeals
the driver thereof, for the damages caused to third parties. Section 5(a) and (e) of R.A. No. 4136, as amended, otherwise known
2) Whether petitioner, as a financing company, is absolved from as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. Thus, the rule remains
liability by the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8556, or the the same: a sale, lease, or financial lease, for that matter, that is not
Financing Company Act of 1998. registered with the Land Transportation Office, still does not bind third
persons who are aggrieved in tortious incidents, for the latter need
RULING: only to rely on the public registration of a motor vehicle as conclusive
1) YES. The principle of holding the registered owner of a vehicle liable evidence of ownership. A lease such as the one involved in the
for quasi-delicts resulting from its use is well-established in instant case is an encumbrance in contemplation of law, which needs
jurisprudence. As explained in the case of Erezo v. Jepte, thus: to be registered in order for it to bind third parties. Under this policy,
Registration is required not to make said registration the the evil sought to be avoided is the exacerbation of the suffering of
operative act by which ownership in vehicles is victims of tragic vehicular accidents in not being able to identify a guilty
transferred, as in land registration cases, because the party. A contrary ruling will not serve the ends of justice. The failure to
administrative proceeding of registration does not bear register a lease, sale, transfer or encumbrance, should not benefit the
any essential relation to the contract of sale between parties responsible, to the prejudice of innocent victims.
the parties (Chinchilla vs. Rafael and Verdaguer, 39
Phil. 888), but to permit the use and operation of
the vehicle upon any public highway (section 5 [a], Act
Teja Marketing and/or Angel Jaucian v. IAC and Pedro Nale
No. 3992, as amended.) The main aim
Transpo Digested Cases (P. 1-2 of the Syllabus) 16
G.R. No. L-65510 March 9, 1987 defendant was hiding the motorcycle from him; Nale explained
that thoughthe ownership of the motorcycle was already
Paras, J. transferred to Jaucian, the vehicle was stillmortgaged with the
FACTS: consent of the Jaucian to the Rural Bank of Camaligan for the
reasonthat all motorcycle purchased from Nale on credit was
Jaucian bought from the Nale a motorcycle with complete rediscounted with the bank
accessories and a sidecar; out of the total purchase price the
Jaucian gave a downpayment of 1,700.00 with a promise thathe Because of the failure of Nale to register the motorcycle Jaucian
would pay Nale the balance within sixty days. The Jaucian, suffered damages
however, failed to complywith his promise and so upon his own whenhe failed to claim any insurance indemnity for the more tha
request, the period of paying the balance wasextended to one n two times that themotorcycle figured in accidents
year in monthly installments until January 1976 when he Nale filed an action for collection of sum of money with
stopped paying any more a chattel mortgage was constituted as damages against Nale
a security for the payment of the balance of thepurchase price
ISSUE:
It has been the practice of financing firms that whenever
there is a balance of thepurchase price the registration papers WON not respondent court erred in applying the doctrine of pari
of the motor vehicle subject of the sale are notgiven to the buyer delicto
ISSUE:
HELD:YES.
Transpo Digested Cases (P. 1-2 of the Syllabus) 19