Bar Q and A #12

GCash Donate

Gcash Donate

Collapsable Answer Just click the plus sign.

1.) Marino was passenger on a train. Another passenger, Juancho, had taken a gallon of gasoline placed in a plastic bag into the same coach where Marino was riding. The gasoline ignited and exploded causing injury to Marino who filed a civil suit for damages against the railway company claiming that Juancho should have been subjected to inspection by its conductor. The railway company disclaimed liability resulting from the explosion contending that it was unaware of the contents of the plastic bag and invoking the right of Juancho to privacy. a. Should the railway company be held liable for damages? b. If it were an airline company involved, would your answer be the same? Explain briefly.

a. NO. The railway company is not liable for damages. In overland transportation, the common carrier is not bound nor empowered to make an examination on the contents of packages or bags, particularly those handcarried by passengers.

b. NO. In case of air carriers, it is not lawful to carry flammable materials in passenger aircrafts, and airline companies may open investigate suspicious packages and cargoes (R.A. 6235).

Textbox

2.) X brought 7 sacks of palay to the PNR. He paid his freight charges and was issued Way Bill No. 1. The cargo was loaded on the freight wagon of the train. Without any permission, X boarded the freight wagon and not the passenger coach. Shortly after the train started, it was derailed. The freight wagon fell on its side, killing X. There is no evidence that X bought a ticket or paid his fare at the same time that he paid the freight charges for his cargo. Is X passenger of PNR?

NO. X was not a “passenger”. A “stowaway”, being a trespasser, has been held to assume the risk of damage.

Textbox

3.) During the elections last May, AB, a congressional candidate in Marinduque, chartered the helicopter owned by Lode Mining Corporation (LMC) for use in the election campaign. AB paid LMC the same rate normally charged by companies regularly engaged in the plane chartering business. In the charter agreement between LMC and AB, LMC expressly disclaimed any responsibility for the acts or omissions of its pilot or for the defective condition of the plane’s engine. The helicopter crashed killing AB. Investigations disclosed that pilot error was the cause of the accident. LMC now consults you on its possible liability for AB’s death in the light of the above findings. How would you reply to LMC’s query?

I would reply to LMC’s query as follows: LMC may not be held liable for the death of AB. A stipulation with a private carrier that would disclaim responsibility for simple negligence of the carrier’s employees is a valid stipulation. Such a stipulation, however, will not hold in cases of liability for gross negligence or bad faith.

Textbox

4.) X, an 80-year-old epileptic, boarded the S/S Tamaraw in Manila going to Mindoro. To disembark, the passengers have to walk thru a gang plant. While negotiating the gang plank, X slipped and fell into the waters. X was saved from drowning, brought to a hospital but after a month died from pneumonia. Except for X, all the passengers were able to walk thru the gang plank. What is the liability of the owner of S/S Tamaraw?

The owner of S/S Tamaraw is liable for the death of X in failing to exercise utmost diligence in the safety of passengers. Evidently, the carrier did not take the necessary precautions in ensuring the safety of passengers in the boarding of and disembarking from the vessel. Unless shown to the contrary, a common carrier is presumed to have been negligent in cases of death or injury to its passengers. Since X has not completely disembarked yet, the obligation of the shipowner to exercise utmost diligence still then subsisted and he can still be held.

Textbox

5.) Johnny owns a Sarao jeepney. He asked his neighbor Van if he could operate the said jeepney under Van’s certificate of public convenience. Van agreed and, accordingly, Johnny registered his jeepney in Van’s name. On June 10, 1990, one of the passengers jeepneys operated by Van bumped Tomas. Tomas was injured and in due time, he filed a complaint for damages against Van and his driver for the injuries he suffered. The court rendered judgment in favor of Tomas and ordered Van and his driver, jointly and severally, to pay Tomas actual and moral damages, attorney’s fees, and cost. The Sheriff levied on the jeepney belonging to Johnny but registered in the name of Van. Johnny filed a third-party claim with the Sheriff alleging ownership of the jeepney levied upon and stating that the jeepney was registered in the name of Van merely to enable Johnny to make use of Van’s certificate of public convenience. May the Sheriff proceed with the public auction of Johnny’s jeepney? Discuss the reasons.

YES, the Sheriff may proceed with the auction sale of Johnny’s jeepney. In contemplation of law as regards the public and third persons, the vehicle is considered the property of the registered operator.

Textbox

6.) A bus of GL Transit on its way to Davao stopped to enable a passenger to alight. At that moment, Santiago who had been waiting for a ride, boarded the bus. However, the bus driver failed to notice Santiago who was still standing on the bus platform and stepped on the accelerator. Because of the sudden motion, Santiago slipped and fell down suffering serious injuries. May Santiago hold GL Transit liable for breach of contract of carriage? Explain

YES, Santiago may hold GL Transit liable for breach of contract of carriage. It was the duty of the driver, when he stopped the bus, to do no act that would have the effect of increasing the peril to a passenger such as Santiago while he attempting to board the same. When a bus is not in motion there is no necessity for a person who wants to ride the same to signal his intention to board. A public utility bus, once it stops, is in effect making continuous offer to bus riders. It is the duty of common carriers of passengers to stop their conveyances while they are doing so. Santiago, by stepping and standing on the platform of the bus is already considered as a passenger and is entitled to all the rights and protection pertaining to a contract of carriage. (Dangwa Trans. Co. v. CA, Supra)

Textbox

7.) City Railways, Inc. (CRI) provides train service, for a fee, to commuters from Manila to Calamba, Laguna. Commuters are required to purchase tickets and then proceed to designated loading and unloading facilities to board the train. Ricardo Santos purchased the ticket for Calamba and entered the station. While waiting, he had an altercation with the security guard of CRI leading to a fistfight. Ricardo Santos fell on the railway just as a train was entering the station. Ricardo Santos was run over by the train. He died. In action for damages filed by the heirs of Ricardo Santos, CRI interposed lack of cause of action, contending that the mishap occurred before Ricardo Santos boarded the train and that it was not guilty of negligence. Decide.

The contention of CRI must fail. In the case of Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad (G.R. No. 145804, 2003), the Supreme Court held that the duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers is not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passenger are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage. Furthermore, the New Civil Code provision provides that the common carrier will still be liable even though its employees acted beyond the scope of their work. Therefore, CRI is liable for the damages the heirs of Ricardo Santos had suffered.

Textbox

8.) Antonio, a paying passenger, boarded a bus bound for Batangas City. He chose a seat at the front row, near the bus driver, and told the bus driver that he had valuable items in his hand-carried bag which he then placed beside the driver’s seat. Not having slept for 24 hours, he requested the driver to keep an eye on the bag should he doze off during the trip. While Antonio was asleep, another passenger took the bag away and alighted at Calamba, Laguna. Could the common carrier be held liable by Antonio for the loss?

YES. Ordinarily, the common carrier is not liable for acts of other passengers. But the common carrier cannot relieve itself from liability if the common carrier’s employees could have prevented the act or omission by exercising due diligence. In this case, the passenger asked the driver to keep an eye on the bag which was placed beside the driver’s seat.

If the driver exercised due diligence, he could have prevented the loss of the bag.

Textbox

9.) Discuss the “kabit system” in land transportation and its legal consequences

The “kabit system” is an agreement whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of convenience allows another person who owns motor vehicles to operate under such franchise for a fee. It has been identified as one of the root causes of the prevalence of graft and corruption in the government transportation offices. It is recognized as a contract which is against public policy and therefore void and inexistent under Art. 1409. (Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. L-64693, April 27, 1984)

As a consequence, both the owner of the certificate of public convenience and the actual owner of the motor vehicle should be held jointly and severally liable for damages to third persons as a consequence of the negligent operation of the motor vehicle.

Textbox

10.) Baldo is a driver of Yellow Cab Company under the boundary system. While cruising along the South Expressway, Baldo’s cab figured in a collision, killing his passenger, Pietro. The heirs of Pietro sued Yellow Cab Company for damages, but the latter refused to pay to the heirs, insisting that it is not liable because Baldo is not an employee. Resolve with reasons.

Yellow Cab Company is liable because there exists an employer-employee relationship between a jeepney owner and a driver under the boundary system arrangement in accordance with Art. 103 of the RPC. Indeed to exempt from liability the owner of a public vehicle who operates it under the “boundary system” on the ground that he is a mere lessor would not only to abet a flagrant violations of the Public Service Law but also to place the riding public at the mercy of reckless and irresponsible drivers reckless because the measure of their earnings depends largely on the number of trips they make and, hence, the speed at which they drive; and irresponsible because most, if not all of them, are in no position to pay the damages they might cause.

Textbox