7/29/2019 CD Transportation

1/3

Candida Virata vs Victorio Ochoa

In September 1975, Borilla was driving a jeep when he hit Arsenio Virata thereby causing the lattersdeath. Theheirs of Virata sued Borilla through an action for homicide through reckless imprudence in the CFI of Rizal.Viratas lawyer reserved their right to file a separate civil action the he later withdrew said motion. But in June1976, pending the criminal case, the Viratas again reserved their right to file a separate civil action. Borilla was

eventually acquitted as it was ruled that what happened was a mere accident. The heirs of Virata then suedBorilla and Ochoa (the owner of the jeep and employer of Borilla) for damages based on quasi delict. Ochoaassailed the civil suit alleging that Borilla was already acquitted and that the Viratas were merely trying to

recover damages twice. The lower court agreed with Ochoa and dismissed the civil suit.

ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs of Virata may file a separate civil suit.

HELD: Yes. It is settled that in negligence cases the aggrieved parties may choose between an action under theRevised Penal Code or of quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. What is prohibitedby Article 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to recover twice for the same negligent act. Therefore,under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonabledoubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal

negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. But said article forestalls a doublerecovery.

Sweet Lines, Inc. v. TevesLessons Applicable: Contract of Adhesion (Transportation)

FACTS:

Atty. Leovigildo Tandog and Rogelio Tiro bought tickets for Tagbilaran City via the port of Cebu Since many passengers were bound for Surigao, M/S "Sweet Hope would not be proceeding to Bohol They went to the proper brancg office and was relocated to M/S "Sweet Town" where they

were forced to agree "to hide at the cargo section to avoid inspection of the officers of the PhilippineCoastguard." and they were exposed to the scorching heat of the sun and the dust coming from theship's cargo of corn grits and their tickets were not honored so they had to purchase a new one

They sued Sweet Lines for damages and for breach of contract of carriage before the Court of FirstInstance of Misamis Oriental who dismissed the compalitn for improper venue

A motion was premised on the condition printed at the back of the tickets -dismissed instant petition for prohibition for preliminary injunction

ISSUE: W/N a common carrier engaged in inter-island shipping stipulate thru condition printed at the back ofpassage tickets to its vessels that any and all actions arising out of the contract of carriage should be filed onlyin a particular province or cityHELD: NO.petition for prohibition is DISMISSED. Restraining order LIFTED and SET ASIDE

contract of adhesiono not that kind of a contract where the parties sit down to deliberate, discuss and agree

specifically on all its terms, but rather, one which respondents took no part at all in preparingo just imposed upon them when they paid for the fare for the freight they wanted to ship

We find and hold that Condition No. 14 printed at the back of the passage tickets should be held asvoid and unenforceable for the following reasons

o circumstances obligation in the inter-island ship will prejudice rights and interests of innumerable passengers in different s of the

country who, under Condition No. 14, will have to file suits against petitioner only inthe City of Cebu

o subversive of public policy on transfers of venue of actions

7/29/2019 CD Transportation

2/3

philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer of venue of actions is theconvenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses and to promote 21 the ends ofjustice

LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY vs. VALENTIN DE JESUS, MANOLO TOLENTINO and COURT OFAPPEALS

G.R. No. L-21486. 14 May 1966.

Facts: The suit arose by reason of the death of Lolita de Jesus, 20-year old daughter of Valentin de Jesus andwife of Manolo Tolentino, in a head-on collision between petitioner's bus, on which she was a passenger, and afreight truck traveling in the opposite direction, in a barrio in Marilao Bulacan, in the morning of October 8,1959. The immediate cause of the collision was the fact that the driver of the bus lost control of the wheelwhen its left front tire suddenly exploded. The court a quo sentenced the defendant, now petitioner, to pay toplaintiffs actual, compensatory, and moral damages; and counsel fees. CA affirmed.

Issues: (1) WON the petitioners are liable for the consequences of the accident. (2) WON petitioners are liablefor moral damages.

Ruling: Judgment affirmed.

(1) Petitioner maintains that a tire blow-out is a fortuitous event and gives rise to no liability for negligence.Both the CFI and the CA found that the bus was running quite fast immediately before the accident.Considering that the tire which exploded was not new, petitioner describes it as "hindi masyadong kalbo," ornot so very worn out, the plea of caso fortuito by petitioner cannot be entertained. The cause of the blow-outwas a mechanical defect of the conveyance or a fault in its equipment which was easily discoverable if the bushad been subjected to a more thorough check-up before it took to the road. Hence, petitioners are liable forthe accident.

(2) The second issue raised by petitioner is already a settled one. In this jurisdiction moral damages arerecoverable by reason of the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract of a common carrier, asprovided in Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206, of the Civil Code.

Aboitiz Shipping Corp. vs. Court of Appeals(179 SCRA 95)

Facts: On May 11, 1975, Anacleto Viana boarded M/|V Antonio from Occidental Mindoro bound for Manila. Uponarrival on May 12, 1975, the passengers therein disembarked through a gangplank connecting the vessel to thepier. Viana, instead of disembarking through the gangplank, disembarked through the third deck, which was atthe same level with the pier. An hour after the passengers disembarked, Pioneer stevedoring started tooperate in unloading the cargo from the ship. Viana then went back, remembering some of his cargoes left atthe vessel. At that time, while he was pointing at the crew of the vessel to where his cargoes were loaded, thecrane hit him, pinning him between the crane and the side of the vessel. He was brought to the hospital wherehe died 3 days after (May 15). The parents of Anacleto filed a complaint against Aboitiz for breach of contractof carriage.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Then both Aboitiz and Pioneer filed a motion for reconsideration,upon which the trial court issued an order absolving Pioneer from liability but not Aboitiz. On appeal, CAaffirmed the trial court ruling. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not Viana is still considered a passenger at the time of the incident?

Held: Yes. The La Mallorca case is applicable in the case at bar.

7/29/2019 CD Transportation

3/3

The rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has been landed at the portof destination and has left the vessel owners dock or premises. Once created, the relationship will not

ordinarily terminate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carriersconveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carriers premises. All persons who remain on the

premises a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is areasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances, and

includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure. The carrier-passengerrelationship is not terminated merely by the fact that the person transported has been carried to hisdestination if, for example, such person remains in the carriers premises to claim his baggage.

The reasonableness of the time should be made to depend on the attending circumstances of the case, such asthe kind of common carrier, the nature of its business, the customs of the place, and so forth, and thereforeprecludes a consideration of the time element per se without taking into account such other factors.

Where a passenger dies or is injured, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have actednegligently. This gives rise to an action for breach of contract where all that is required of plaintiff is to provethe existence of the contract of carriage and its non-performance by the carrier, that is, the failure of thecarrier to carry the passenger safely to his destination, which, in the instant case, necessarily includes its failureto safeguard its passenger with extraordinary diligence while such relation subsists.

Dangwa Transportation Co. vs Court of Appeals GR No. 95582 October 1991

Facts:On March 25, 1985, Pedrito Cudiamat was ran over by a bus operated by Dangwa Transportation Company, anddriven by Theodore Lardizabal. Lardizabal, being reckless and negligent, has prematurely stepped on theaccelerator of the bus just as when Cudiamat boarded the same. The sudden jerk movement caused Cudiamatto fall from the platform and was ran over by they bus. Moreover, the driver did not immediately brought thevictim to the nearest hospital for medical attention.

Issue:Whether or not the driver and bus company are liable for the death of P. Cudiamat.

Held:They are liable.

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and reasons of public policy, are bound to observeextraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by the according to all the circumstancesof each case. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight canprovide, using the utmost diligence very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

It has also been repeatedly held that in an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not make anexpress finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible to pay thedamages sought by the passenger. By contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express obligation totransport the passenger to his destination safely and observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all

the circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by the passenger is right away attributable to thefault or negligence of the carrier. This is an exception to the general rule that negligence must be proved, and itis therefore incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed inArticles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/oct1991/gr_95582_1991.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/oct1991/gr_95582_1991.html