Bar Q and A #10 – Mercantile Law Bar Question and Answer

GCash Donate

Collapsable Answer Just click the plus sign.

1.) Are common carriers liable for injuries to passengers even if they have observed ordinary diligence and care? Explain.

YES, common carriers are liable to injuries to passengers even if the carriers observed ordinary diligence and care because the obligation imposed upon them by law is to exercise extra-ordinary diligence. Common carriers are 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 1755 of the Civil Code)

Textbox

2.) In a court case involving claims for damages arising from death and injury of bus passengers, counsel for the bus operator files a demurrer to evidence arguing that the complaint should be dismisses because the plaintiffs did not submit any evidence that the operator or its employees were negligent. If you were the judge, would you dismiss the complaint?

NO. In the carriage of passengers, the failure of the common carrier to bring the passengers safely to their destination immediately raises the presumption that such failure is attributable to the carrier’s fault or negligence. In the case at bar, the fact of death and injury of the bus passengers raises the presumption of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier. The carrier must rebut such presumption. Otherwise, the conclusion can be properly made that the carrier failed to exercise extraordinary diligence as required by law.

Textbox

3.)Ysidro, a paying passenger, was on board Bus No. 904 owned and operated by Yatco Transportation Company (“Yatco”). He boarded the bus at Munoz, Nueva Ecija with Manila as his final destination. He was seated on the first row, window seat on the left side of the bus. As the bus was negotiating the national highway in front of the public market of Gerona, Tarlac, the bus came to a full stop because of the traffic. The driver of the bus took this opportunity to check on the tires of the bus and to relieve himself. As he was alighting from the bus to do these, an unidentified man standing along the highway hurled a huge rock at the left side of the bus and hit Ysidro between his eyes. He lost consciousness and immediately the driver, with the conductor, drove the bus to bring him to the nearest hospital. He expired before the bus could reach the hospital. Ysidro’s wife and children brought a civil action to collect damages from Yatco, alleging that, as a common carrier, it was required to exercise extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers. They contended that in case of injuries and/or death on the part of any of its passengers, the common carrier is presumed to be at fault. In its defense, Yatco alleged that it is not an absolute insurer of its passengers and that Ysidro’s death was not due to any defect in the means of transport or method of transporting passengers, or the negligent acts of its employees. Since the accident was due to the fault of a stranger over whom the common carrier had no control, or of which it did not have any prior knowledge to be able to prevent it, the cause of Ysidro’s death should be considered a fortuitous event and not the liability of the common carrier. a. Is a common carrier presumed to be at fault whenever there is death or injury to its passengers, regardless of the cause of death or injury? b. What kind of diligence is required of common carriers like Yatco for the protection of its passengers? c. Will your answer be the same as your answer in (b) above, if the assailant was another paying passenger who boarded the bus and deliberately stabbed Ysidro to death?

a. YES, by express provision of law, 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 exercised extraordinary diligence. (Art. 1756 of the Civil Code)

b. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person with a due regard for all the circumstances or simply put, with extraordinary diligence. (Art. 1755 of the Civil Code)

c. My answer will be different. A common carrier is responsible for death or injuries caused by wilfull acts of other passengers or strangers, only if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented the act. (Art 1763 of the Civil Code; GV. Florida Transport v. Heirs of Romeo Battung, Jr, (G.R. No. 208802, October 14, 2015).

Textbox

4.) Philip Mauricio shipped a box of cigarettes to a dealer in Naga City through Bicol Bus Company (BBC). When the bus reached Lucena City, the bus developed engine trouble. The driver brought the bus to a repair shop in Lucena where he was informed by the mechanic that an extensive repair was necessary, which would take at least 2 days. While the bus was in the repair shop, Typhoon Coring lashed Quezon Province. The cargoes inside the bus, including Mauricio’s cigarettes, got wet and were totally spoiled. Mauricio sued BBC for damage to his cargoes. Decide.

The BBC is liable for damages to the cargoes lost by Mauricio. A natural disaster would relieve liability if it is the proximate and only cause of the damage. The carrier itself, in this case, had been negligent. The presumption of negligence in culpa contractual is not overcome by engine trouble which does not preclude its having been due to the fault of the common carrier. The fact that an extensive repair work was necessary which, in fact, took 2 days to complete somehow justifies an impression that the engine trouble could have been detected, if not already known, well before the actual breakdown.

Textbox

5.) Mr. Villa, a franchise holder and the registered owner of a truck for hire, entered into a lease contract with Mrs. Santos for the lease by the latter of said truck. The lease contract was not brought to the knowledge of the Land Transportation, Franchising, and Regulatory Board and was therefore not approved by the Land Transportation, Franchising, and Regulatory Board. One stormy night, the said truck which was speeding along EDSA, skidded and ran over X who died on the spot. The parents of X brought an action for damages against Mr. Villa for the death of their son. a. Will the action against Mr. Villa prosper? Reasons. b. What recourse, if any, does X have?

a. YES, the action will prosper. Both the registered owner and the actual user or operator of a motor vehicle are liable for damages sustained in the operation thereof. Hence, the action against Villa can prosper.

b. The heirs of X may likewise bring an action for tort against Mrs. Santos and/or the driver of the vehicle. The latter may also be charged criminally.

Textbox

6.) Peter so hailed a taxicab owned and operated by Jimmy Cheng and driven by Hermie Cortez. Peter asked Cortez to take him to his office in Malate. On the way to Malate, the taxicab collided with a passenger jeepney, as a result of which Peter was injured i.e. he fractured his left leg. Peter sued Jimmy for damages, based upon a contract of carriage, and Peter won. Jimmy wanted to challenge the decision before the SC on the ground that the trial court erred in not making an express finding as to whether or not Jimmy was responsible for the collision and, hence, civilly liable to Peter. He went to see you for advice. What will you tell him? Explain.

I will advise Jimmy to desist from challenging the decision. The action of Peter being based in culpa contractual, the carrier’s negligence is presumed upon the breach of contract. The burden of proof instead would lie in Jimmy to establish that despite an exercise of utmost diligence the collision could not have been avoided.

Textbox

7.) Marites, a paying bus passenger, was hit above her left eye by a stone hurled at the bus by an unidentified bystander as the bus was speeding through the National Highway. The bus owner’s personnel lost no time in bringing Marites to the provincial hospital where she was confined and treated. Marites wants to sue the bus company for damages and seeks your advice whether she can legally hold the bus company liable. What will you advise her?

As counsel, I will advise her that the company is not liable. As a general rule, if the death or injury was due to a cause beyond the control of the carrier, it will not be liable to the passenger. However, it must do everything in its power to try to prevent any passenger from getting hurt. Article 1763 provides that although a common carrier is responsible for the death or injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers, such is not applicable in this case. The driver has no control over the situation. It happened while the bus was speeding through the national highway and such event occurred haphazardly, without any contributory negligence on the part of the carrier nor even if extraordinary diligence be exercised, the same would not prevent the event from happening because such is independent and out of control of the driver.

More to the point, the carrier cannot be faulted and be liable for damages because it immediately responded to the injury suffered by the passenger. Furthermore, as held in the case of Pilapil v. CA, there is no showing that any such incident previously happened so as to impose an obligation on the part of the personnel of the bus company to warn the passengers and to take the necessary precaution. Such hurling of a stone constitutes fortuitous event in this case. The bus company is not an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers.

Textbox

8.) What is a mutual insurance company or association?

A mutual insurance company is a cooperative enterprise where the members are both the insurer and the insured. In it, the members all contribute, by a system of premiums or assessments, to the creation of a fund from which all losses and liabilities are paid, and where the profits are divided among themselves, in proportion of their interest.

Textbox

9.) What are the defenses available to any common carrier to limit or exempt it from liability?

Article 1734 provides the following defenses available to limit or exempt the carrier from liability:

1. Observance of extraordinary diligence is also a valid defense.
2. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity;
3. Act of public enemy during war, whether international or civil
4. Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
5. The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
6. Order or act of competent authority.

Textbox

10.) Why is the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of an employee not available to a common carrier?

Article 1733 provides that 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. It must be emphasized that extraordinary diligence is required. The defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of an employee cannot prevail over the clear intention of the law that extraordinary diligence be exercised instead. Further, liability is based on contract, and diligence in the selection is a defense for quasi-delict, not for breach of contract.

Textbox