Photo from Unsplash | Shedrack Salami
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:
(1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;
(2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods;
(3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods;
(4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a family, or of a man of ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported;
(5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees;
(6) That the common carrier’s liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished;
(7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage. (Article 1745, Civil Code)
A common carrier is engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods for compensation, offering their services to the public. (Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Napoleon Sesante, G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016)
The law says:
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public. (Article 1732, New Civil Code of the Philippines)
With regard to a contract of carriage’s liability, a contract of carriage generates a relation attended with public duty, neglect or malfeasance of the carrier’s employees and gives ground for an action for damages.
Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides that:
Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (Article 1174, Civil Code)
In the case of Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation (G.R. No. 102316, June 30, 1997), the Supreme Court ruled that i a contract of private carriage, the parties may validly stipulate that responsibility for the cargo rests on the charterer, exempting the shipowner from liability for loss or damage to the cargo caused even by the negligence of the ship captain. Parties may freely stipulate their duties and obligations which perforce would be binding on them. Unlike in a contract involving a common carrier, private carriage does not involve the general public.
Hence, the stringent provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers protecting the general public cannot justifiably be applied to a ship transporting commercial goods as a private carrier.
Consequently, the public policy embodied therein is not contravened by stipulations in a charter party that lessen or remove the protection given by law in contracts involving common carriers. (Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation, Id.)
Under Article 1745 of the Civil Code:
“Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:
(1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;
(2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods;
(3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods;
(4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a family, or of a man of ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported;
(5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees;
(6) That the common carrier’s liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished;
(7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage.”
Related Article/s:
Diligence Required of Common Carriers
Defenses available for a Common Carrier
Liabilities of Carriers for Baggage in Possession of Passengers
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.