Quiz 2 Questions Flashcards
Discussion:
Differentiate franchises from certifications.
Franchises are given by Congress.
Franchises give rights.
Certifications are given by Agencies.
Certifications give license or privilege, not rights.
Discussion:
Provide a situation showing the difference between the need to show ordinary diligence v. extraordinary diligence.
Ordinary diligence is needed when driving a common carrier, with the driver ensuring that he is not harming a person who is not a passenger.
Extraordinary diligence is needed when driving a common carrier, with the driver ensuring that he is not harming the passenger.
G.R. No. 213088
- If a private property is offered for public utility, will the public acquire a right to control the private property?
Yes.
When private property is “affected with a public interest it ceases to be Juris privati only.” Property becomes clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. “When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but so long as he maintains the use he must submit to control.”
G.R. No. 213088
- Was the suspension of the CPC a violation of the vested right of the respondent? Explain.
No. There was no vested right given to the respondent in the first place.
A certificate of public convenience constitutes neither a franchise nor a contract, confers no property right, and is a mere license or privilege. The holder of such certificate does not acquire a property right in the route covered thereby. Nor does it confer upon the holder any proprietary right or interest of franchise in the public highways. Revocation of this certificate deprives him of no vested right.
G.R. No. 213088
- Was the penalty of a 6-month suspension reasonable?
Yes.
Contrary to its contention, this is not simply a case of one erring bus unit. Instead, the series or combination of violations it has committed with respect to the ill-fated bus is indicative of its design and intent to blatantly and maliciously defy the law and disregard, with impunity, the regulations imposed by petitioner upon all holders of CPCs. Thus, the Court finds nothing irregular in petitioner’s imposition of the penalty of six months suspension of the operations of respondent’s 28 CPCs. In other words, petitioner did not commit grave abuse of discretion in imposing the questioned penalty.
Lastly, the suspension of respondent’s CPCs finds relevance in light of the series of accidents met by different bus units owned by different operators in recent events. This serves as a reminder to all operators of public utility vehicles that their franchises and CPCs are mere privileges granted by the government. As such, they are sternly warned that they should always keep in mind that, as common carriers, they bear the responsibility of exercising extraordinary diligence in the transportation of their passengers. Moreover, they should conscientiously comply with the requirements of the law in the conduct of their operations, failing which they shall suffer the consequences of their own actions or inaction.
G.R. No. 145804
- What part of the trip is a common carrier obligated to provide safety to its passengers?
Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.
G.R. No. 145804
- What are the situations in which the common carrier is liable to the death or injury to passengers as provided by law?
The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or willful acts of its employees or b) on account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.
G.R. No. 145804
- Is LRTA liable to pay Navidad’s heirs? Why?
Yes. Due to breach of contract.
