Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Transportation Law
Public Service includes every person who owns, operates, manages or control
in the Phils for hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele,
whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business
purposes, any common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway,
subway motor, either for freight or passenger, or both with or without fixed
route and may be classified as freight or carrier service of any class, express
service, steamboat or steamship line, pentanes, ferries and water craft,
engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight or both, shipyard
marine railways, marine repair shop, wharf or dock. (Sec 13b) other services
of gas, electric light, heat power, wireless communication)
Common carriers are persons engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers of goods or both, by land, sea/water or air
transportation offering their services to the public (Art 1732 NCC)
The concept of common carrier under Art 1732 NCC coincides neatly
with the notion of public service under CA 146 as held in De Guzman vs Ca,
168 SCRA 612, 88 case of Junkman Candana who after bringing his
materials to Manila in his six-wheeler truck let the truck on the return trip to
Pangasinan to merchants with goods to be delivered or carried. One of these
merchants was Pedro de Guzman with cartoons of Liberty Filled Milk who
hired Cendanan to haul the goods from Makati to Urdaneta, Pang. at a charge
lower than the commonly regular freight rates. On the way, the truck was
hijacked and the goods were lost. De Guzman sued to reover the value of the
lost goods asserting that Cendana as a common carrier is liable for having
failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of him by law. Cendana
denied that he is a common carrier and thus he could not be held liable for
the loss which was a force majeur.
Held:
In Calvo vs UCPB Gen Ins Co. Mar 19, 2003 a custom broker who
offers her service to a selot clientele with whom she contract in the conduct
of her business was held as a common carrier.
In First Phil Industrial Corp vs CA, Aug 19, 2003, a common carrier is
not limited to the transportation of goods by motor vehicle, ship or plane. In
this case a pipe transporting liquid is considered as common carrier.
Public utility is a business or service engaged in regularly supplying
the public with some commodity or service of public consequence, such as
electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or telegraphic service. The
term implies public use and service. (National Power Corp vs CA, 279 SCRA
408)
QUARE: A hotel which transport its guest free of charge from airport
to hotel and back be considered engaged in public utility or common carrier?
Under its Police Power, the state may regulate business affected with
public interest. Since the prime characteristic of Public Utilities is public
service or public use, it falls under the States control and regulation to
protect the public interest and promote the comfort, convenience, health,
safety and welfare of the people. (Laguna Tayabas Bus Co vs PSC, GR No.
47332, Dec 5, 1940)
In Tatad vs Garcia Jr. 243 SCRA 436, 95 held that the mere
formation of a public utility corp does not ipso facto characterized the corp as
one operating a public utility. Its only when it applies for a franchise that it is
necessary to determine the requisite Filipino nationality.
Likewise mere owner of the facilities used by a public utility is not a
public utility.
CA 146 created the Phil Service Commission (PSC) charged with the
supervision and control over all public service and their franchises,
equipments and other properties. (Sec 13.a) However, its powers are now
distributed among the following reference to transportation services.
Rates and Regulation by the state is for the protection of the public against
arbitrary and excessive rates charged while maintaining the efficiency and
quality of service rendered (Sec. 15, o :Republic of the Phil Vs Manila Electric
Corp)
The power to fix rates of public utility is a legislative power that has been
delegated to the regulatory agencies, and such cannot be further delegated
by such administrative regulatory agency (KMU Labor Center vs Garcia, 239
SCRA 386)
However RA 9295 of 2004 Domestic Shipping Development Act provides
for the deregulation of Marina over domestic ship operators who are
authorized to establish their own domestic shipping rates, provided that
effective competition is fostered and public interest is served. This is to
encourage investments in the domestic shipping industry and attract new
investment. (Sec. 8: Sec 11 provides also that every ship operator shall have
the right to fix its own passenger or cargo rates or both. NB the law also
provided in Sec 14 for a compulsory insurance coverage for passengers and
cargo)
Standard in fixing rates = Reasonable and just (Rep of the Phil vs Manila
Electric Corp, Nov 15, 2002)
Ex. The MARINA have the power and authority to issue certificates of public
convenience to qualified domestic ship operators. (Sec 7, RA 9295 =
Domestic Shipping Dev Act of 2004)
The LTFRB have the power to issue, amend, revise, suspend or cancel
certificates of public convenience or permits authorizing the operation of
public land transportation services provided by motorized vehicles (Sec 5 b,
Executive Order No 202 of 1987)
The Civil Aeronautics Board have the power to authorize to issue certificate of
public convenience and necessity which is a permit authorizing a person to
engage in air commerce and /or air transportation, domestic or foreign. No
person shall engage in air commerce unless there is in force a permit issued
by the board. (Sec 11, RA 776-1952 = The Civil Aeronautics Act of the
Philippines).
Common Carrier
The concept of common carriers under Art 1732 NCC coincides with
the notion of public service under Sec 13.b of the Public Service Act which
supplements the Civil Codes provisions on common carriers.
Cases:
Facts:
Customs broker Calvo was contracted by consignee to transport shipment in
the Manila Port Area to the SMC Warehouse at Ermita, Manila. Goods were
insured by UCPB and were unloaded from the vessel M/V Hayakawa Maru
by the Arrastre Operator on July 14, 1990. Calvo get the shipment on July 23,
1990 from the Arrastre operator and delivered them to SMC warehouse. The
goods were found in bad condition upon inspection. Insurer paid when the
ship owner refused to pay the damages. As subrogee, insurer sued Calvo who
raised the defense that (a) it is not a common carrier but a private carrier
offering services to limited selected parties and (b) Art 1734 NCC does not
apply-exempting cause of character of goods or defects in the packaging or
container.
Held:
(b) For Art 1734 NCC to apply, it must be shown that the defect in the
package or container is known to the carrier or is apparent upon ordinary
observation. In this case, it was shown that (i) Calvo took the goods from the
Arrastre Operator.
Hence, the presumption of negligence was not rebutted for failing to prove
having exercised the extra ordinary diligence required by Art 1735 NCC. Art
1734 was not applied to Calvo because Calvo has knowledge of the defect in
the goods when she received it without protest from the arrestre operator.
Held:
A corp engaged in the business of transporting oil and other products
through its pipers is considered as a common carrier as the transportation is
for hire, offering its services to the public.
is the carriage of passengers or goods or both offered for all who opt to
avail themselves of the service for a fee? A carrier which does not qualify
under the above test is deemed a private carrier which undertakes a service
by special agreement and the carrier does not hold itself out to carry for the
general public. (National Steel Corp vs CA, 283 SCRA 51, 97)
must undertake the carry goods of the kind to which the businesses is
confined
Private Carriers are those who does not transport cargo or shipment for the
general public and whose services available only to specific persons who
enter into special contract (bareboat or demise charter party). (National Steel
Corp vs CA, 283 SCRA 484)
The bare fact that the vessel was carrying a particular cargo for one shipper,
in the absence of a special contract to carry or a charter party to special
person, the carriage of the goods is purely incidental and is not a reason
enough to convert the vessel from a common carrier into a private carrier,
especially where it was shown that the vessel was also carrying passengers.
(Loadstar Shipping Co vs CA, 283 SCRA 315, 99)
Case:
Facts:
Facts:
GPS asserted that it is not engaged as a common carrier and that the
cause of the damages was purely accidental.
Held:
Distinctions between
Common Carrier
Private Carrier
1. Offered to specific
4. Contract of adhesion
6. Shipowners obligation to show the ship is sea worthy. (National Steel Corp
vs CA)
Land Transportation
Duty: Obligation
Presumption
Facts: MMTCs bus ran over a predistrian crossing the streen when the traffic
light turned red.
MTCC is a public utility organized and owned by the Govt for public
transportation service, hence is liable under Art 2180 NCC.
Facts:
A minibus while running produced a snapping sound and later caused the
minibus to swerve bumping a cement flower pot on the road side and went
off the road turning turtle and fell into ditch.
Held:
The accident was caused by a mechanical defect which has been cinsistently
held as not falling within the ambit of caso fortuito. While it may be so,
however, there is human intervention or participation in the form of carriers
failure to look into and to maintain the vehicle in Roadworthy condition,
aside from the fact that the driver did not heed the passengers cry of alarm
to stop the bus after hearing the snapping sound. The drivers act of
continuing to drive constituted wanton disregarded for the safety of its
passengers, which shown a failure in the exercise of extra ordinary diligence
to prevent the mishap.
2. Acts of public enemy in war time, civil or international. However the carrier
must still exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss. (Art 1739)
3. Acts or Omission of the shipper or owner of the goods provided such act is
the proximate cause. If contributory, the carriers liability will be equitably
reduced.
Case: Cia Maritima vs CA, 164 SCRA 685
Ship Agent accepted a cargo contained in an old sacks which boke during the
trip causing its content of rice to spill out. Carrier is held liable
Custom broker Calvo accepted cargo from the Arrastre operator without
protest or objection on the apparent bad condition of the cargo. Incident is
not covered by Art 1734 NCC.
5. Order or Acts of Compentent Authority who has the power to issue the
order.
Acting Mayonr issued an order to the ship captain to dump the scrap
iron on board the ship into the sea. As the order was not validly legal, the
captain of the ship was not duty to bound to obey. If he did, his act will not
exempt from liability for the loss of the cargo
Highjaking
While not included in the exempting causes under Art 1734 had been
held as caso fortuito under Art 1735. which provides for acts committed by
robbers or thieves with grave irresistible force, threat or violence that
exonerate the carrier. (note this exception to void stipulation contract of
carriage) (De Guzman vs CA)
Almost the same fact as De Guzman, except that Basco was held
liable because she failed to adduce evidence establishing that the hijacking
was committed by robbers acting with grave, irresistible force. She merely
presented her drivers affidavit without the affiant. Affidavit not considered
the best evidence alone.
The failure of the carrier to look into and to maintain their vehicles
Roadworthiness and safety of their passengers. (Gatchalian vs Delim)
Held: For caso fortuito to exempt the carrier from liability, it must have the
following characteristics:
(b) occurrence renders it impossible for the carrier to fulfill its obligation in a
normal course
Explosion of the bus tire had been consistently held as not a caso fortuito
because of the human intervention or participation manifested in its failure to
check the vehicles roadworthiness, neglected to check tire which has too
much air pressure, overloading of the bus, overspeeding and disregarded of
the rough condition of the road which is winding and wet due to rain.
Held: The liability of a common carrier for damages arising from the tortuous
act of its drivers is direct, primary and solidary.
Held: The mere fact that an employee is driving the companys car at the
time of the accident is not itself sufficient to charge the employer liable for
the negligent operation of the car unless the employee is acting within the
scope or course of his employment. vicarious liability of employer for acts of
its employees.
Kabit System
A person with CPC allows other owner of vehicle to operate under his
CPC for a fee or percentage of the earnings (Dizon vs Octavio, OG No 8, p
4059)
The person with the CPC is liable for the injury suffered by the
passenger or third person caused by the KABIT operator, with right to
recover from the real owner unless they are considered in pari delicto. i.e. no
recovery (Lita Enterprises vs IAC, 129 SCRA 79; Benedicto vs IAC, 187 SCRA
547)
Registered Owner
Facts: ELC is the registered owner of a tractor which was sold in 1992 to
Ecatine Corp which had not registered the sale. In 1994 the tractor driven an
employee of Ecatine Corp rammed a house cum store causing damages to
property and death and bodily injuries.
Held: The sale of the vehicle is not binding the third party until and unless the
sale is registered. In case of accident the victim may sue the registered
owner who is liable for the acts of the driver or employee of the unregistered
new owner.
Held: Registered owner of motor vehicle is primarily and directly liable for the
death or bodily injuries caused by the operation of the vehicle which he no
longer own.
Acts of Passengers
It was shown that the buss door is not properly kept in that the mere
push makes it opens easily causing some of the passengers fell during the
commotion and despite of the panic inside the bus caused by the stabbing,
the conductor failed to blow his whistle to signal the driver to stop and the
driver continued driving unminding the commotion going on. Clearly the
carriers employees failed to exercise the extra ordinary diligence in
preventing or minimizing the injuries during and after the incident. The
carrier failed to rebut the presumption of being at fault or acted negligently.
Contributory Negligence
Facts: Bus passengers placed his elbow outside the window railing of the bus.
An oncoming bus hit his elbow.
Held: Carrier is not held liable because the proximate cause of the injury was
the passengers own contributory negligence which serves as complete
defense to the carrier and absolves it from liability.
Common carriers are liable for the acts of stranger if the employee
failed or had not taken measures which could have prevented or minimized
stopped the act or omission. (Art 1763)
Held: While the law requires the highest degree of diligence extraordinary
from common carrier in the safe transport of its passengers and creates a
presumption of fault or negligence against them, it does not, however, makes
the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of the passengers.
Hijackers
Case: De Guzman vs CA, 168 SCRA 612: Basco vs CA, 221 SCRA 318
Facts: PALs plane was hijacked by MNLF during the martial law regime.
Held: PAL was not held liable because the responsibility for the safety of the
passenger was placed with the military in frisking passengers and checking
cargoes.
Stipulation printed bill of lading limiting the carriers liability for loss or
damage or destruction of a cargo to certain sum, unless the shipper or owner
declares a higher or greater value is sanction by law (Art 1749) provided such
stipulations are reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been
freely and fairly agreed upon. (Everett Steamship Corp Vs CA. 297 SCRA 496,
98)
reasonable, just, fair and not contrary to law, moral and public policy etc
not responsible for act of robbers or thieves who did not act with grave,
irresistible force, threat or violence
Void because they are unjust, unreasonable and contrary to law, customs,
morale, public policy or public order.
Attorneys fees
Cost of suit
Negligence
Emergency Rule
Facts: Two boys suddenly darted before McKees car forcing McKee to
swerve the car to avoid hitting the boys and in the process entered into the
opposite lane and collided with the oncoming cargo truck in the opposite
lane.
Applicability of Laws
Foreign laws - the law of the port of destination shall govern the rights and
liabilities of the carriers for the loss, damages, destruction or deterioration of
goods carried. (Art 1753)
Cases:
Facts: Ship bound for the Phils while in Japanese water bumped another ship
resulting to losses.
Held: The Phil Law applies, the civil code provisions on common carrier
relating to the diligence of the carrier in the carriage of the cargoes and the
code of commerce provisions on Maritime Commerce relating
Held: The law of the place where the contract was made governs the nature,
validity obligation and interpretation of the contract. (Doctrine of Lex Loci
Celebrationis)
Held: The rewriting of the ticket in America did not change the nature of the
original contract of carriage entered into by the parties in Manila. The CA
erred in applying American Law instead of Philippine Law.
(b) Financial Capacity and willingness to pay such claims and other
contingies during the operation.
(c) Public need, public interest and the common good are decisive and
overriding-principal consideration
This rule is applied where there are no prior operator issued CPC or
CPCN and there are many applications at the same time for authorization to
operate public utility. When all the applications have meet equally the
requirements for the issuance of the CPC or CPCN, the first to have filed his
application will be granted.
The fact that an operator of public utility has no facilities of its own is
disqualified, nor that the fact that the owner of facilities for public utility is
qualified to be issued a CPC or CPCN.
Case: Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs Garcia Jr. 239 SCRA 386, 94
Held:
Liabilities of Carriers
Facts: Bus passengers placed his elbow outside the window railing of the bus.
An oncoming bus hit his elbow.
Held: Carrier is not held liable because the proximate cause of the injury was
the passengers own contributory negligence which serves as complete
defense to the carrier and absolves it from liability. (Note the bus was only a
victim of the collision)
Fortuitous event
Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following
causes only:
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
3. the carrier must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the
injury resulting
4. the event must be the proximate and only cause of the loss
Fire This is not considered a natural disaster or calamity as that caused by
lightning, earthquake, tempest or public enemy. (Eastern Shipping Lines vs
IAC, 150 SCRA 469) because fire is generally caused by man.
Facts:
Held:
The presence of the strong winds and enormous waves at the time of
the sinking of the ship was the proximate cause and thus the shipowner may
not be held liable for the loss of the cargo. (As for the hole in the hull, it was
not accessible for the crew to check and control the flow of sea water into the
ship aggravated by the pounding of strong wind and huge waves)