Photo from Unsplash | Ash Gerlach
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:
When it comes to contracts for the transportation of goods or passengers, common carriers have specific defenses at their disposal:
For Contracts of Goods Transportation:
- The damage, loss, or deterioration resulted from one of the situations specified in Article 1734 of the New Civil Code;
- The carrier exercised extraordinary diligence in fulfilling the terms of the contract for carriage; and,
- The goods were seized or destroyed through the order of public authority.
For Contracts of Passenger Transportation:
- Observance of extraordinary diligence;
- Doctrine of Respondeat Superior; and,
- Doctrine of Last Clear Chance.
A contract of carriage not only establishes a business relationship but also imposes public duties on the carrier. The negligence or malfeasance of carrier employees can lead to liability for damages. However, common carriers have avenues to defend themselves against such claims.
At the outset, 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. (Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Napoleon Sesante, G.R No. 172682, July 27, 2016)
As such, in cases of breach of contract of carriage (culpa contractual) the liability of the common carrier or employer is direct and immediate, not merely subsidiary or secondary, while in cases of quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana), the liability of the common carrier (employer) and the negligent driver (employee) is direct, primary, and solidary. Thus, in a case of breach of contract of carriage, the common carrier is the person liable and not the driver, while in a case of quasi-delict, both the common carrier and the driver are liable. (Spouses Dionisio Estrada vs. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 203902, July 19, 2017)
But the question is, how can a common carrier defend itself?
In a catena of cases, it is ruled that common carrier is required to observe extraordinary diligence, and is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of the loss of the effects of passengers, or the death or injuries to passengers. (SpousesTeodoro and Nanette Perena vs. Spouses Nicolas and Teresita Zarate, G.R No. 157917, August 29, 2012)
Article 1735 of the Civil Code states that if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.
Hence, jurisprudence holds that a common carrier is presumed to have been negligent if it fails to prove that it exercised extraordinary vigilance over the goods it transported. When the goods shipped are either lost or arrived in damaged condition, a presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that diligence, and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold it liable. To overcome the presumption of negligence, the common carrier must establish by adequate proof that it exercised extraordinary diligence over the goods. It must do more than merely show that some other party could be responsible for the damage. (Unitrans International Forwarders, Inc. vs. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No. 203865, March 13, 2019)
The defenses available for a common carrier depends on whether the contract is a contract of carriage of goods or a contract of carriage of passengers.
If it concerns a contract for the transportation of goods, there are only a few potential defenses:
- The damage, loss, or deterioration resulted from one of the situations specified in Article 1734 of the New Civil Code (the list being exhaustive);
- The carrier exercised extraordinary diligence in fulfilling the terms of the contract for carriage; and,
- The goods were seized or destroyed through the order of public authority.
Note: If the defense does not fall within the aforementioned parameters, the common carrier will be held accountable.
The law says:
Article 1734, New Civil Code. 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:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.
Article 1742, New Civil Code. Even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods should be caused by the character of the goods, or the faulty nature of the packing or of the containers, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.
Article 1743, New Civil Code. If through the order of public authority the goods are seized or destroyed, the common carrier is not responsible, provided said public authority had power to issue the order.
On the other hand, if it concerns a contract for the transportation of passengers, the following are the potential defenses:
- Observance of extraordinary diligence;
- Doctrine of Respondeat Superior; and,
- Doctrine of Last Clear Chance.
The law says:
Article 1733, New Civil Code. 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.
Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.
Article 1755, New Civil Code. 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.
Article 1756, New Civil Code. In 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.
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the carrier is liable only when the act of the employee is within the scope of his authority and duty. It is not sufficient that the act be within the course of employment only. (Antonia Maranan vs. Pascual Perez, et al., G.R. No. L-22272, June 26, 1967)
The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently, the rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. (Philippine National Railways Corporation vs. Purificacion Vizcara, G.R. No. 190022, February 15, 2012)
The defenses available to common carriers are crucial in mitigating liability in cases of loss, damage, or injury during transportation.
Related Article/s:
Diligence Required of Common Carriers
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 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.