TRANSPO CASES Chapter 2 Flashcards
Ganzon v. Court of Appeals
161 SCRA 646
It will readily be seen that plaintiff seeks in these proceedings to enjoin the steamship company from accepting for carriage on any of its vessels, dynamite, powder or other explosives, under any conditions whatsoever; to prohibit the Collector of Customs and the prosecuting officers of the government from all attempts to compel the company to accept such explosives for carriage on any of its vessels under any conditions whatsoever; and to prohibit these officials from any attempt to invoke the penal provisions of Act No. 98, in any case of a refusal by the company or its officers so to do; and this without regard to the conditions as to safety and so forth under which such explosives are offered for carriage, and without regard also to any question as to the suitableness for the transportation of such explosives of the particular vessel upon which the shipper offers them for carriage; and further without regard to any question as to whether such conduct on the part of the steamship company and its officers involves in any instance an undue, unnecessary or unreasonable discrimination to the prejudice of any person, locality or particular kind of traffic.
There are no allegations in the complaint that for some special and sufficient reasons all or indeed any of the company’s vessels are unsuitable for the business of transporting explosives; or that shippers have declined or will in future decline to comply with such reasonable regulations and to take such reasonable precautions as may be necessary and proper to secure the safety of the vessels of the company in transporting such explosives. Indeed the contention of petitioner is that a common carrier in the Philippine Islands may decline to accept for carriage any shipment of merchandise of a class which it expressly or impliedly declines to accept from all shippers alike, because as he contends “the duty of a common carrier to carry for all who offer arises from the public profession he has made, and limited by it.”
HELD: The power of the Philippine legislator to prohibit and to penalize all and any unnecessary or unreasonable discriminations by common carriers may be maintained upon the same reasoning which justified the enactment by the Parliament of England and the Congress of the United States of the above mentioned statutes prohibiting and penalizing the granting of certain preferences and discriminations in those countries. As we have said before, we find nothing confiscatory or unreasonable in the conditions imposed in the Philippine statute upon the business of common carriers. Correctly construed they do not force him to engage in any business his will or to make use of his facilities in a manner or for a purpose for which they are not reasonably adapted. It is only when he offers his facilities as a common carrier to the public for hire, that the statute steps in and prescribes that he must treat all alike, that he may not pick and choose which customer he will serve, and, specifically, that he shall not make any undue or unreasonable preferences or discriminations whatsoever to the prejudice not only of any person or locality but also of any particular kind of traffic.
As we construe the Philippine statute, the mere fact that violent and destructive explosions can be obtained by the use of dynamite under certain conditions would not be sufficient in itself to justify the refusal of a vessel, duly licensed as a common carrier of merchandise, to accept it for carriage, if it can be proven that in the condition in which it is offered for carriage there is no real danger to the carrier, nor reasonable ground to fear that his vessel or those on board his vessel will be exposed to unnecessary and unreasonable risk in transporting it, having in mind the nature of his business as a common carrier engaged in the coastwise trade in the Philippine Islands, and his duty as a servant of the public engaged in a public employment. So also, if by the exercise of due diligence and the taking of unreasonable precautions the danger of explosions can be practically eliminated, the carrier would not be justified in subjecting the traffic in this commodity to prejudice or discrimination by proof that there would be a possibility of danger from explosion when no such precautions are taken.
The traffic in dynamite, gunpowder and other explosives is vitally essential to the material and general welfare of the people of these Islands. If dynamite, gunpowder and other explosives are to continue in general use throughout the Philippines, they must be transported by water from port to port in the various islands which make up the Archipelago. We are satisfied therefore that the refusal by a particular vessel, engaged as a common carrier of merchandise in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands, to accept any or all of these explosives for carriage would constitute a violation of the prohibitions against discriminations penalized under the statute, unless it can be shown by affirmative evidence that there is so real and substantial a danger of disaster necessarily involved in the carriage of any or all of these articles of merchandise as to render such refusal a due or a necessary or a reasonable exercise of prudence and discretion on the part of the shipowner.
The complaint in the case at bar lacking the necessary allegations under this ruling, the demurrer must be sustained on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute a cause of action.
A number of interesting questions of procedure are raised and discussed in the briefs of counsel. As to all of these questions we expressly reserve our opinion, believing as we do that in sustaining the demurrer on the grounds indicated in this opinion we are able to dispose of the real issue involved in the proceedings without entering upon the discussion of the nice questions which it might have been necessary to pass upon had it appeared that the facts alleged in the complaint constitute a cause of action.
We think, however, that we should not finally dispose of the case without indicating that since the institution of these proceedings the enactment of Acts No. 2307 and No. 2362 (creating a Board of Public Utility Commissioners and for other purposes) may have materially modified the right to institute and maintain such proceedings in this jurisdiction. But the demurrer having been formallly submitted for judgment before the enactment of these statutes, counsel have not been heard in this connection. We therefore refrain from any comment upon any questions which might be raised as to whether or not there may be another adequate and appropriate remedy for the alleged wrong set forth in the complaint. Our disposition of the question raised by the demurrer renders that unnecessary at this time, though it may not be improper to observe that a careful examination of those acts confirms us in the holding upon which we base our ruling on this demurrer, that is to say “That whatever may have been the rule at the common law, common carriers in this jurisdiction cannot lawfully decline to accept a particular class of goods for carriage, to the prejudice of the traffic in those goods, unless it appears that for some sufficient reason the discrimination against the traffic in such goods is reasonable and necessary. Mere prejudice or whim will not suffice. The grounds of the discrimination must be substantial ones, such as will justify the courts in holding the discrimination to have been reasonable and necessary under all the circumstances of the case.”
Unless an amended complaint be filed in the meantime, let judgment be entered ten days hereafter sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint with costs against the complainant, and twenty days thereafter let the record be filed in the archives of original actions in this court. So ordered.
Benedicto v. Intermediate Appellate Court
187 SCRA 547
- In the present Petition for Review, the sole issue raised is whether or not under the facts and applicable law, the appellate court was correct in finding that petitioner, being the registered owner of the carrier, should be held liable for the value of the undelivered or lost sawn lumber.
- In her answer, 6 petitioner Benedicto denied liability alleging that she was a complete stranger to the contract of carriage, the subject truck having been earlier sold by her to Benjamin Tee, on 28 February 1980 as evidenced by a deed of sale. 7 She claimed that the truck had remained registered in her name notwithstanding its earlier sale to Tee because the latter had paid her only P50,000.00 out of the total agreed price of P68,000.00 However, she averred that Tee had been operating the said truck in Central Luzon from that date (28 February 1980) onwards, and that, therefore, Licuden was Tee’s employee and not hers.
ISSUE: In the present Petition for Review, the sole issue raised is whether or not under the facts and applicable law, the appellate court was correct in finding that petitioner, being the registered owner of the carrier, should be held liable for the value of the undelivered or lost sawn lumber.
DOCTRINE:The prevailing doctrine on common carriers makes the registered owner liable for consequences flowing from the operations of the carrier, even though the specific vehicle involved may already have been transferred to another person. This doctrine rests upon the principle that in dealing with vehicles registered under the Public Service Law, the public has the right to assume that the registered owner is the actual or lawful owner thereof It would be very difficult and often impossible as a practical matter, for members of the general public to enforce the rights of action that they may have for injuries inflicted by the vehicles being negligently operated if they should be required to prove who the actual owner is. 11 The registered owner is not allowed to deny liability by proving the identity of the alleged transferee. Thus, contrary to petitioner’s claim, private respondent is not required to go beyond the vehicle’s certificate of registration to ascertain the owner of the carrier. In this regard, the letter presented by petitioner allegedly written by Benjamin Tee admitting that Licuden was his driver, had no evidentiary value not only because Benjamin Tee was not presented in court to testify on this matter but also because of the aforementioned doctrine. To permit the ostensible or registered owner to prove who the actual owner is, would be to set at naught the purpose or public policy which infuses that doctrine.
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
196 SCRA 570
While it is true the cargo was delivered to the arrastre operator in apparent good order condition, it is also undisputed that while en route from Kobe to Manila, the vessel encountered “very rough seas and stormy weather”, the coils wrapped in burlap cloth and cardboard paper were stored in the lower hatch of the vessel which was flooded with water about one foot deep; that the water entered the hatch; that a survey of bad order cargo which was conducted in the pier in the presence of representatives of the consignee and E. Razon, Inc., showed that seven coils were rusty on one side (Exhibits F and 10-Razon); that a survey conducted at the consignee’s warehouse also showed that the “wetting (of the cargo) was caused by fresh water” that entered the hatch when the vessel encountered heavy rain en route to Manila (Exhibit G); and that all thirteen coils were extremely rusty and totally unsuitable for the intended purpose.5
Consequently, based on these facts, the appellate court made the following findings and conclusions:
Plainly, the heavy seas and rains referred to in the master’s report were not caso fortuito, but normal occurrences that an ocean-going vessel, particularly in the month of September which, in our area, is a month of rains and heavy seas would encounter as a matter of routine. They are not unforeseen nor unforeseeable. These are conditions that ocean-going vessels would encounter and provide for, in the ordinary course of a voyage. That rain water (not sea water) found its way into the holds of the Jupri Venture is a clear indication that care and foresight did not attend the closing of the ship’s hatches so that rain water would not find its way into the cargo holds of the ship.
Moreover, under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, common carriers are bound to observe “extra-ordinary vigilance over goods . . . .according to all circumstances of each case,” and Article 1735 of the same Code states, to wit:
Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, 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.
Since the carrier has failed to establish any caso fortuito, the presumption by law of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier applies; and the carrier must present evidence that it has observed the extraordinary diligence required by Article 1733 of the Civil Code in order to escape liability for damage or destruction to the goods that it had admittedly carried in this case. No such evidence exists of record. Thus, the carrier cannot escape liability.
The Court agrees with and is bound by the foregoing findings of fact made by the appellate court. The presumption, therefore, that the cargo was in apparent good condition when it was delivered by the vessel to the arrastre operator by the clean tally sheets has been overturned and traversed. The evidence is clear to the effect that the damage to the cargo was suffered while aboard petitioner’s vessel.
The last assigned error is untenable. The interest due on the amount of the judgment should commence from the date of judicial demand.6
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, with costs against petitioner.1âwphi1
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
280 SCRA 58
FACTS:The case arose from a damage suit filed by private respondents Elino, Marisol, and Fatima Minerva, all surnamed Fortades, against petitioner for breach of contract of carriage allegedly attended by bad faith.
On August 31, 1984, Fatima boarded petitioner’s De Luxe Bus No. 5 in Manila on her way to Legazpi City. Her brother Raul helped her load three pieces of luggage containing all of her optometry review books, materials and equipment, trial lenses, trial contact lenses, passport and visa, as well as her mother Marisol’s U.S. immigration (green) card, among other important documents and personal belongings. Her belongings were kept in the baggage compartment of the bus, but during a stopover at Daet, it was discovered that only one bag remained in the open compartment. The others, including Fatima’s things, were missing and might have dropped along the way. Some of the passengers suggested retracing the route of the bus to try to recover the lost items, but the driver ignored them and proceeded to Legazpi City.
Fatima immediately reported the loss to her mother who, in turn, went to petitioner’s office in Legazpi City and later at its head office in Manila. Petitioner, however, merely offered her P1,000.00 for each piece of luggage lost, which she turned down. After returning to Bicol, disappointed but not defeated, mother and daughter asked assistance from the radio stations and even from Philtranco bus drivers who plied the same route on August 31st. The effort paid off when one of Fatima’s bags was recovered. Marisol further reported the incident to the National Bureau of Investigation’s field office in Legazpi City and to the local police.
On September 20, 1984, respondents, through counsel, formally demanded satisfaction of their complaint from petitioner. In a letter dated October 1, 1984, the latter apologized for the delay and said that “(a) team has been sent out to Bicol for the purpose of recovering or at least getting the full detail”1 of the incident.
After more than nine months of fruitless waiting, respondents decided to file the case below to recover the value of the remaining lost items, as well as moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. They claimed that the loss was due to petitioner’s failure to observe extraordinary diligence in the care of Fatima’s luggage and that petitioner dealt with them in bad faith from the start. Petitioner, on the other hand, disowned any liability for the loss on the ground that Fatima allegedly did not declare any excess baggage upon boarding its bus.
Petitioner’s receipt of Fatima’s personal luggage having been thus established, it must now be determined if, as a common carrier, it is responsible for their loss. Under the Civil Code, “(c)ommon 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 . . . transported by them,”6 and this liability “lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to . . . the person who has a right to receive them,”7 unless the loss is due to any of the excepted causes under Article 1734 thereof.8
The cause of the loss in the case at bar was petitioner’s negligence in not ensuring that the doors of the baggage compartment of its bus were securely fastened. As a result of this lack of care, almost all of the luggage was lost, to the prejudice of the paying passengers. As the Court of Appeals correctly observed:
. . . . Where the common carrier accepted its passenger’s baggage for transportation and even had it placed in the vehicle by its own employee, its failure to collect the freight charge is the common carrier’s own lookout. It is responsible for the consequent loss of the baggage. In the instant case, defendant appellant’s employee even helped Fatima Minerva Fortades and her brother load the luggages/baggages in the bus’ baggage compartment, without asking that they be weighed, declared, receipted or paid for (TSN, August 4, 1986, pp. 29, 34, 54, 57, 70; December 23, 1987, p. 35). Neither was this required of the other passengers (TSN, August 4, 1986, p. 104; February 5, 1988; p. 13).
Finally, petitioner questions the award of actual damages to respondents. On this point, we likewise agree with the trial and appellate courts’ conclusions. There is no dispute that of the three pieces of luggage of Fatima, only one was recovered. The other two contained optometry books, materials, equipment, as well as vital documents and personal belongings. Respondents had to shuttle between Bicol and Manila in their efforts to be compensated for the loss. During the trial, Fatima and Marisol had to travel from the United States just to be able to testify. Expenses were also incurred in reconstituting their lost documents. Under these circumstances, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals in awarding P30,000.00 for the lost items and P30,000.00 for the transportation expenses, but disagrees with the deletion of the award of moral and exemplary damages which, in view of the foregoing proven facts, with negligence and bad faith on the fault of petitioner having been duly established, should be granted to respondents in the amount of P20,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 13, 1993, and its resolution dated February 19, 1993, are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that** petitioner is ordered to pay respondents an additional P20,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against petitioner.**
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Valenzuela Hardwood & Industrial Supply, Inc. v. CA
274 SCRA 642
Compared to the general public, a charterer in a contract of private carriage is not similarly situated. It can — and in fact it usually does — enter into a free and voluntary agreement. In practice, the parties in a contract of private carriage can stipulate the carrier’s obligations and liabilities over the shipment which, in turn, determine the price or consideration of the charter. Thus, a charterer, in exchange for convenience and economy, may opt to set aside the protection of the law on common carriers. When the charterer decides to exercise this option, he takes a normal business risk.
Petitioner Valenzuela’s arguments resolve around a single issue: “whether or not respondent Court (of Appeals) committed a reversible error in upholding the validity of the stipulation in the charter party executed between the petitioner and the private respondent exempting the latter from liability for the loss of petitioner’s logs arising from the negligence of its (Seven Brothers’) captain.”
Petitioner Valenzuela adds that the stipulation is void for being contrary to Articles 586 and 587 of the Code of Commerce 14 and Articles 1170 and 1173 of the Civil Code. Citing Article 1306 and paragraph 1, Article 1409 of the Civil Code, 15 petitioner further contends that said stipulation “gives no duty or obligation to the private respondent to observe the diligence of a good father of a family in the custody and transportation of the cargo.”
The Court is not persuaded. As adverted to earlier, it is undisputed that private respondent had acted as a private carrier in transporting petitioner’s lauan logs. Thus, Article 1745 and other Civil Code provisions on common carriers which were cited by petitioner may not be applied unless expressly stipulated by the parties in their charter party. 16
In a contract of private carriage, the parties may validly stipulate that responsibility for the cargo rests solely on the charterer, exempting the shipowner from liability for loss of or damage to the cargo caused even by the negligence of the ship captain. Pursuant to Article 1306 17 of the Civil Code, such stipulation is valid because it is freely entered into by the parties and the same is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Indeed, their contract of private carriage is not even a contract of adhesion. We stress that in a contract of private carriage, the parties may freely stipulate their duties and obligations which perforce would be binding on them. Unlike in a contract involving a common carrier, private carriage does not involve the general public. Hence, the stringent provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers protecting the general public cannot justifiably be applied to a ship transporting commercial goods as a private carrier. Consequently, the public policy embodied therein is not contravened by stipulations in a charter party that lessen or remove the protection given by law in contracts involving common carriers.
The issue posed in this case and the arguments raised by petitioner are not novel; they were resolved long ago by this Court in Home Insurance Co. vs. American Steamship Agencies, Inc. 18 In that case, the trial court similarly nullified a stipulation identical to that involved in the present case for being contrary to public policy based on Article 1744 of the Civil Code and Article 587 of the Code of Commerce. Consequently, the trial court held the shipowner liable for damages resulting for the partial loss of the cargo. This Court reversed the trial court and laid down, through Mr. Justice Jose P. Bengzon, the following well-settled observation and doctrine:
The provisions of our Civil Code on common carriers were taken from Anglo-American law. Under American jurisprudence, a common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only, becomes a private carrier. As a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the negligence of its agent is not against public policy, and is deemed valid.
Such doctrine We find reasonable. The Civil Code provisions on common carriers should not be applied where the carrier is not acting as such but as a private carrier. The stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for loss due to the negligence of its agent would be void if the strict public policy governing common carriers is applied. Such policy has no force where the public at large is not involved, as in this case of a ship totally chartered for the used of a single party. 19 (Emphasis supplied.)
Indeed, where the reason for the rule ceases, the rule itself does not apply. The general public enters into a contract of transportation with common carriers without a hand or a voice in the preparation thereof. The riding public merely adheres to the contract; even if the public wants to, it cannot submit its own stipulations for the approval of the common carrier. Thus, the law on common carriers extends its protective mantle against one-sided stipulations inserted in tickets, invoices or other documents over which the riding public has no understanding or, worse, no choice. Compared to the general public, a charterer in a contract of private carriage is not similarly situated. It can — and in fact it usually does — enter into a free and voluntary agreement. In practice, the parties in a contract of private carriage can stipulate the carrier’s obligations and liabilities over the shipment which, in turn, determine the price or consideration of the charter. Thus, a charterer, in exchange for convenience and economy, may opt to set aside the protection of the law on common carriers. When the charterer decides to exercise this option, he takes a normal business risk.
Petitioner contends that the rule in Home Insurance is not applicable to the present case because it “covers only a stipulation exempting a private carrier from liability for the negligence of his agent, but it does not apply to a stipulation exempting a private carrier like private respondent from the negligence of his employee or servant which is the situation in this case.” 20 This contention of petitioner is bereft of merit, for it raises a distinction without any substantive difference. The case Home Insurance specifically dealt with “the liability of the shipowner for acts or negligence of its captain and crew” 21 and a charter party stipulation which “exempts the owner of the vessel from any loss or damage or delay arising from any other source, even from the neglect or fault of the captain or crew or some other person employed by the owner on
board, for whose acts the owner would ordinarily be liable except for said paragraph.” 22 Undoubtedly, Home Insurance is applicable to the case at bar.
The naked assertion of petitioner that the American rule enunciated in Home Insurance is not the rule in the Philippines 23 deserves scant consideration. The Court there categorically held that said rule was “reasonable” and proceeded to apply it in the resolution of that case. Petitioner miserably failed to show such circumstances or arguments which would necessitate a departure from a well-settled rule. Consequently, our ruling in said case remains a binding judicial precedent based on the doctrine of stare decisis and Article 8 of the Civil Code which provides that “(j)udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.”
In fine, the respondent appellate court aptly stated that “[in the case of] a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability even for the negligence of its agents is valid.” 24
Other Arguments
On the basis of the foregoing alone, the present petition may already be denied; the Court, however, will discuss the other arguments of petitioner for the benefit and satisfaction of all concerned.
Articles 586 and 587, Code of Commerce
Petitioner Valenzuela insists that the charter party stipulation is contrary to Articles 586 and 587 of the Code of Commerce which confer on petitioner the right to recover damages from the shipowner and ship agent for the acts or conduct of the captain. 25 We are not persuaded. Whatever rights petitioner may have under the aforementioned statutory provisions were waived when it entered into the charter party.
Article 6 of the Civil Code provides that “(r)ights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a person with a right recognized by law.” As a general rule, patrimonial rights may be waived as opposed to rights to personality and family rights which may not be made the subject of waiver. 26 Being patently and undoubtedly patrimonial, petitioner’s right conferred under said articles may be waived. This, the petitioner did by acceding to the contractual stipulation that it is solely responsible or any damage to the cargo, thereby exempting the private carrier from any responsibility for loss or damage thereto. Furthermore, as discussed above, the contract of private carriage binds petitioner and private respondent alone; it is not imbued with public policy considerations for the general public or third persons are not affected thereby.
Articles 1170 and 1173, Civil Code
Petitioner likewise argues that the stipulation subject of this controversy is void for being contrary to Articles 1170 and 1173 of the Civil Code 27 which read:
Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, shall apply.
If the law does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.
The Court notes that the foregoing articles are applicable only to the obligor or the one with an obligation to perform. In the instant case, Private Respondent Seven Brothers is not an obligor in respect of the cargo, for this obligation to bear the loss was shifted to petitioner by virtue of the charter party. This shifting of responsibility, as earlier observed, is not void. The provisions cited by petitioner are, therefore, inapplicable to the present case.
Moreover, the factual milieu of this case does not justify the application of the second paragraph of Article 1173 of the Civil Code which prescribes the standard of diligence to be observed in the event the law or the contract is silent. In the instant case, Article 362 of the Code of Commerce 28 provides the standard of ordinary diligence for the carriage of goods by a carrier. The standard of diligence under this statutory provision may, however, be modified in a contract of private carriage as the petitioner and private respondent had done in their charter party.
Cases Cited by Petitioner Inapplicable
Petitioner cites Shewaram vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. 29 which, in turn, quoted Juan Ysmael & Co. vs. Gabino Barreto & Co. 30 and argues that the public policy considerations stated there vis-a-vis contractual stipulations limiting the carrier’s liability be applied “with equal force” to this case. 31 It also cites Manila Railroad Co. vs. Compañia Transatlantica 32 and contends that stipulations exempting a party from liability for damages due to negligence “should not be countenanced” and should be “strictly construed” against the party claiming its benefit. 33 We disagree.
The cases of Shewaram and Ysmael both involve a common carrier; thus, they necessarily justify the application of such policy considerations and concomitantly stricter rules. As already discussed above, the public policy considerations behind the rigorous treatment of common carriers are absent in the case of private carriers. Hence, the stringent laws applicable to common carriers are not applied to private carries. The case of Manila Railroad is also inapplicable because the action for damages there does not involve a contract for transportation. Furthermore, the defendant therein made a “promise to use due care in the lifting operations” and, consequently, it was “bound by its undertaking”’; besides, the exemption was intended to cover accidents due to hidden defects in the apparatus or other unforseeable occurrences” not caused by its “personal negligence.” This promise was thus constructed to make sense together with the stipulation against liability for damages. 34 In the present case, we stress that the private respondent made no such promise. The agreement of the parties to exempt the shipowner from responsibility for any damage to the cargo and place responsibility over the same to petitioner is the lone stipulation considered now by this Court.
Finally, petitioner points to Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Lopez Costelo, 35 Walter A. Smith & Co. vs. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber Co., 36 N. T . Hashim and Co. vs. Rocha and Co., 37 Ohta Development Co. vs. Steamship “Pompey” 38 and Limpangco Sons vs. Yangco Steamship Co. 39 in support of its contention that the shipowner be held liable for damages. 40 These however are not on all fours with the present case because they do not involve a similar factual milieu or an identical stipulation in the charter party expressly exempting the shipowner form responsibility for any damage to the cargo.
Effect of the South Sea Resolution
In its memorandum, Seven Brothers argues that petitioner has no cause of action against it because this Court has earlier affirmed the liability of South Sea for the loss suffered by petitioner. Private respondent submits that petitioner is not legally entitled to collect twice for a single loss. 41 In view of the above disquisition upholding the validity of the questioned charter party stipulation and holding that petitioner may not recover from private respondent, the present issue is moot and academic. It suffices to state that the Resolution of this Court dated June 2, 1995 42 affirming the liability of South Sea does not, by itself, necessarily preclude the petitioner from proceeding against private respondent. An aggrieved party may still recover the deficiency for the person causing the loss in the event the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the loss. Article 2207 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff’s property has been insured, and he has received indemnity for the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency form the person causing the loss or injury.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for its utter failure to show any reversible error on the part of Respondent Court. The assailed Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
private carrier
a common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only, becomes a private carrier.
Yobido v. Court of Appeals
281 SCRA 1
In this petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals, the issue is whether or not the explosion of a newly installed tire of a passenger vehicle is a fortuitous event that exempts the carrier from liability for the death of a passenger.
FACTS: n this petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals, the issue is whether or not the explosion of a newly installed tire of a passenger vehicle is a fortuitous event that exempts the carrier from liability for the death of a passenger.
On April 26, 1988, spouses Tito and Leny Tumboy and their minor children named Ardee and Jasmin, bearded at Mangagoy, Surigao del Sur, a Yobido Liner bus bound for Davao City. Along Picop Road in Km. 17, Sta. Maria, Agusan del Sur, the left front tire of the bus exploded. The bus fell into a ravine around three (3) feet from the road and struck a tree. The incident resulted in the death of 28-year-old Tito Tumboy and physical injuries to other passengers.
On November 21, 1988, a complaint for breach of contract of carriage, damages and attorney’s fees was filed by Leny and her children against Alberta Yobido, the owner of the bus, and Cresencio Yobido, its driver, before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. When the defendants therein filed their answer to the complaint, they raised the affirmative defense of caso fortuito. They also filed a third-party complaint against Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. This third-party defendant filed an answer with compulsory counterclaim. At the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to a stipulation of facts.1
Upon a finding that the third party defendant was not liable under the insurance contract, the lower court dismissed the third party complaint. No amicable settlement having been arrived at by the parties, trial on the merits ensued.
ISSUE: whether or not the tire blowout was a caso fortuito, it found that “the falling of the bus to the cliff was a result of no other outside factor than the tire blow-out.”
HELD: Under the circumstances of this case, the explosion of the new tire may not be considered a fortuitous event. There are human factors involved in the situation. The fact that the tire was new did not imply that it was entirely free from manufacturing defects or that it was properly mounted on the vehicle. Neither may the fact that the tire bought and used in the vehicle is of a brand name noted for quality, resulting in the conclusion that it could not explode within five days’ use. Be that as it may, it is settled that an accident caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver is not a caso fortuito that would exempt the carrier from liability for damages.
