Photo from Unsplash | Victoria Paar
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:
While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers.
Article 1755 of the Civil Code qualifies the duty of extraordinary care, vigilance[,] and precaution in the carriage of passengers by common carriers to only such as human care and foresight can provide. What constitutes compliance with said duty is adjudged with due regard to all the circumstances.
In the realm of transportation, common carriers play a crucial role in providing public transport services. The role of common carriers in ensuring passenger safety is paramount, characterized by a high standard of care and adherence to rigorous safety protocols. However, it is essential to understand that while common carriers are responsible for maintaining high standards of safety, they are not insurers of the absolute safety of their passengers.
A common carrier is a person, corporation, firm, or association engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering its services to the public. (Art. 1732, NCC)
The case of G.V Florida Transport Inc. v. Heirs of Battung, Sr. (G.R. No. 208802, October 14, 2015) held:
The law exacts from common carriers (i.e., those 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) the highest degree of diligence (i.e., extraordinary diligence) in ensuring the safety of its passengers. Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code state:
Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.
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.
In this relation, Article 1756 of the Civil Code provides that “[i]n 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.” This disputable presumption may also be overcome by a showing that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event. The foregoing provisions notwithstanding, it should be pointed out that the law does not make the common carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers. In Mariano, Jr. v. Callejas (G.R. No. 166640, July 31, 2009), the Court explained that:
While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers.
Article 1755 of the Civil Code qualifies the duty of extraordinary care, vigilance[,] and precaution in the carriage of passengers by common carriers to only such as human care and foresight can provide. What constitutes compliance with said duty is adjudged with due regard to all the circumstances.
Article 1756 of the Civil Code, in creating a presumption of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier when its passenger is injured, merely relieves the latter, for the time being, from introducing evidence to fasten the negligence on the former, because the presumption stands in the place of evidence. Being a mere presumption, however, the same is rebuttable by proof that the common carrier had exercised extraordinary diligence as required by law in the performance of its contractual obligation, or that the injury suffered by the passenger was solely due to a fortuitous event.
In fine, we can only infer from the law the intention of the Code Commission and Congress to curb the recklessness of drivers and operators of common carriers in the conduct of their business.
Thus, it is clear that neither the law nor the nature of the business of a transportation company makes it an insurer of the passenger’s safety, but that its liability for personal injuries sustained by its passenger rests upon its negligence, its failure to exercise the degree of diligence that the law requires. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Therefore, it is imperative for a party claiming against a common carrier under the above-said provisions to show that the injury or death to the passenger/s arose from the negligence of the common carrier and/or its employees in providing safe transport to its passengers.
In Pilapil v. CA (G.R. No. 52159 December 22, 1989), the Court clarified that where the injury sustained by the passenger was in no way due (1) to any defect in the means of transport or in the method of transporting, or (2) to the negligent or willful acts of the common carrier’s employees with respect to the foregoing – such as when the injury arises wholly from causes created by strangers which the carrier had no control of or prior knowledge to prevent – there would be no issue regarding the common carrier’s negligence in its duty to provide safe and suitable care, as well as competent employees in relation to its transport business; as such, the presumption of fault/negligence foisted under Article 1756 of the Civil Code should not apply
In conclusion, the role of a common carrier extends far beyond the mere transportation of passengers from one point to another. These entities are entrusted with a significant responsibility to uphold a high standard of care, ensuring that safety protocols are followed and that their services meet rigorous safety standards. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that despite their extensive efforts to maintain and enhance safety, common carriers cannot guarantee absolute safety for their passengers.
In a world where transportation systems are increasingly sophisticated and interconnected, it is essential to strike a balance between safety expectations and practical constraints. Recognizing that common carriers are committed to high standards of care while acknowledging the limits of their liability enables a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and responsibilities involved in transportation.
Ultimately, while the assurance of absolute safety may remain an elusive ideal, the dedication of common carriers to minimizing risks and protecting passengers remains unwavering. By embracing this balance, we honor the commitment of those who transport us and contribute to a safer, more resilient transportation system for all.
Related Article/s:
DURATION WHEN THE COMMON CARRIER MUST OBSERVE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
DEFENSES AVAILABLE FOR A COMMON CARRIER
ARE COMMON CARRIERS LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF THEIR EMPLOYEES?
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.