Published — July 8, 2018
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 your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if 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.
Read Also: Why Insurance is Good for Business
Any person or entity engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers, goods or both, offering their services to the public for compensation are legally known as “common carriers”. It does not matter whether the mode of transportation is by land, water or air [See: Art. 1732, Civil Code]. With this, anyone engaged in the transport business has to be aware of the legal aspects involved in operating as a common carrier, especially on matters of observing the required level of diligence in order to prevent, or at least minimize, possible liability.
Level of diligence in transport of passengers
Because of the nature of their business, and for reasons of public policy, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in maintaining the safety of the goods or passengers that they transport [See: Art. 1733]. In fact, in transporting passengers, the law even declares that the common carrier is bound to carry such 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 [See: Art. 1755]. This responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation between the carrier and passenger, or by posting of notices, or by statements on tickets. The reduction of fare also does not justify limiting the common carrier’s liability [See: Art. 1757, 1758].
In case of death 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 [See: Sec. 1756]. It must be noted, however, that since it creates a mere presumption of negligence, the same is rebuttable by proof that the common carrier had exercised extraordinary diligence as required by law in the course of transporting its passengers, or that the injury suffered by a passenger was solely due to an event that is beyond the control of the common carrier [See: G.R. No. 52159].
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, because 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 [See: G.R. No. 166640]. Thus, when a sleeping passenger of a bus was shot dead by a co-passenger during a provincial trip, the bus company was cleared from any liability, as it was established that the death was caused not by the negligence of the carrier or its employees, but by strangers over which the carrier had no control of, or even prior knowledge to prevent it [See: G.R. No. 208802].
In contrast, in a case where the carrier already received tropical cyclone warnings before its ferry left the coast, it was held that the carrier is liable for failure to exercise extraordinary diligence. It is so because a very cautious person exercising utmost diligence would not brave such stormy weather and put other people’s lives at risk. In such case, the carrier cannot claim that the injuries and death of its passengers were caused by an event beyond its control, because in order for an event to be considered fortuitous, the occurrence must have been unforeseen or unexpected, or if foreseeable, it must be impossible to avoid. Considering that the unfavorable weather forecasts have already been received even before the ferry left the coast, the occurrence of squalls that made the ferry capsize was already very much expected. Thus, it cannot be said that the event is impossible to avoid [See: G.R. No. 186312].
Vigilance in transportation of goods
Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods they are transporting, unless it is due to any of the following causes only:
- Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
- Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
- Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
- The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
- Order or act of competent public authority [See: Art. 1735].
The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until they are delivered to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them [See: Art. 1736]. In fact, the carrier’s duty to exercise extraordinary diligence over the goods even continues while the goods are already stored in the carrier’s warehouse in the place of destination, until the consignee has been advised of the arrival of the goods and has had reasonable opportunity thereafter to take the goods [See: Art. 1738].
Even if the shipper himself contributed to the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods being transported, but the proximate cause thereof was still the negligence of the common carrier, the carrier shall still be liable for damages. However, the carrier’s liability shall be equitably reduced [See: Art. 1741].
Unlike in transportation of passengers, the carrier’s liability in transportation of goods may be limited by stipulation of the parties, provided that the following conditions are complied with:
- It must be in writing, signed by the shipper or owner;
- Supported by a valuable consideration other than the carrier’s service; and
- Reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy [See: Art. 1744].
The owner cannot completely waive the carrier’s liability for loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, as the carrier is allowed only to limit its liability. Any stipulation that the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper is considered unreasonable. Moreover, any stipulation that the carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods is likewise considered by law as unreasonable [See: Art. 1745].
With these in mind, it is easy to see that common carriers, whether of goods or of passengers, are obliged to safely deliver them to their destinations, unharmed (for passengers) and in good condition (for goods). Failure to perform such obligation shall be considered as breach of contract of carriage, where the carrier is presumed negligent, subject to presentation of proof to the contrary. It is therefore imperative for those who engage, or plan to engage, in the transport industry to understand the carrier’s legal obligations, in order to know what to do, and how to proceed in its operations.
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.