Transpo; Fortuitous Events

8/13/2019 Transpo; Fortuitous Events

1/7

Necesito VS Paras

FACTS:

A mother and her son boarded a passenger auto-truck of the Philippine Rabbit Bus

Lines !hile entering a "ooden bridge# its front "heels s"er$ed to the right# the

dri$er lost control and the truck fell into a breast-deep creek The mother dro"ned

and the son sustained in%uries These cases in$ol$e actions e& contractu against the

o"ners of PRBL filed b' the son and the heirs of the mother Lo"er Court dismissed

the actions# holding that the accident "as a fortuitous e$ent

(SS)*:

!hether or not the carrier is liable for the manufacturing defect of the steering

knuckle# and "hether the e$idence discloses that in regard thereto the carrier

e&ercised the diligence re+uired b' la" ,Art .//# ne" Ci$il Code0

1*L2:

3es

!hile the carrier is not an insurer of the safet' of the passengers# the manufacturer

of the defecti$e appliance is considered in la" the agent of the carrier# and the goodrepute of the manufacturer "ill not relie$e the carrier from liabilit' The rationale of

the carrier4s liabilit' is the fact that the passengers ha$e no pri$it' "ith the

manufacturer of the defecti$e e+uipment5 hence# he has no remed' against him#

"hile the carrier has !e find that the defect could be detected The periodical#

usual inspection of the steering knuckle did not measure up to the 6utmost diligence

of a $er' cautious person7 as 6far as human care and foresight can pro$ide7 and

therefore the knuckle4s failure cannot be considered a fortuitous e$ent that e&empts

the carrier from responsibilit'

Calalas v. CA

Facts:

Pri$ate respondent *li8a 9u%eurche Sunga took a passenger %eepne' o"ned and

operated b' petitioner ;icente Calalas As the %eepne' "as alread' full# Calalas

ga$e Sunga an stool at the back of the door at the rear end of the $ehicle Along the

"a'# the %eepne' stopped to let a passenger off Sunga stepped do"n to gi$e "a'

"hen an (su8u truck o"ned b' Francisco Sal$a and dri$en b' (glecerio ;erena

bumped the %eepne' As a result# Sunga "as in%ured Sunga filed a complaint

against Calalas for $iolation of contract of carriage Calalas filed a third part'

complaint against Sal$a The trial court held Sal$a liable and absol$ed Calalas#

taking cognisance of another ci$il case for +uasi-delict "herein Sal$a and ;erena

"ere held liable to Calalas The Court of Appeals re$ersed the decision and found

Calalas liable to Sunga for $iolation of contract of carriage

(ssues:

, Condor 1ollo" Blocks and eneral @erchandise> "as loaded

"ith fire"ood in Bogo# Cebu and left for Cebu Cit' )pon reaching

Sitio Aggies# Poblacion Compostela# Cebu# %ust as the truck passed

o$er the bridge# one of its rear tires e&ploded The dri$er# Sergio

Pedrano# then parked along the right side of the bridge and remo$ed

the damaged tire to ha$e it $ulcani8ed at a nearb' shop Pedrano

left his helper# 9ose @ilitante 9r to keep "atch o$er the stalled

$ehicle# and instructed the latter to place a spare tire fathoms

behind the stalled truck to ser$e as a "arning for oncoming

$ehicles The truck=s tail lights "ere also left on

At abount D:D/ am# 2 rough Riders Passenger bus dri$en b'

;irgilio te Las Pinas "as crushing along the national high"a' of

Sitio Aggies also bound for Cebu Cit' Among its passengers "ere the

Sposes Pedro A Arriesgado and Felisa Pepito Arriesgado# "ho "ere

seated at the right side of the bus

As the bus "as approaching the bridge# Las Pinas sa" the

stalled truck 1e applied the brakes and tried to s"er$e to the left

to a$oid hitting the truck But it "as too late5 the bus rammed into

the truck=s left rear Pedro Arriesgado lost consciousness and

suffered a fracture in his colles 1is "ife Felisa died after being

transferred to (sland @edical Center Arriesgado then filed acomplaint against !iliam Tiu# operator of 2 Rough and his dri$er Las

Pinas for breach of contract of carriage

(SS)*:

!hether the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable as

the petitioner asserts

1*L2:

Contrar' to the petitioner=s contention# the principle of


2/7

last clear chance is inapplicable in the instant case# as it onl'

applies in a suit bet"een the o"ners and dri$ers of t"o colliding

$ehicles (t does not arise "here the passenger demands

responsibilit' from the carrier to enforce its contractual

obligations# for it "ould be ine+uitable to e&empt the negligent

dri$er and its o"ner on the ground that the other dri$er "as

like"ise guilt' negligence The common la" notion of last clear

chance permitted courts to grant reco$er' to a plaintiff "ho has

also been negligent pro$ided that the defendant had the last clear

chance to a$oid the casualt' and failed to do so

Philippine Charter nsurance VS !n"no#n $#ner o% &V 'onor

FACTS:

Petitioner Philippine Charter (nsurance Corporation ,PC(C0 is the insurer of a

shipment on board the $essel @E; 6ational 1onor#7 represented in the Philippines

b' its agent# ational Shipping Corporation of the Philippines ,SCP0

The @E; 6ational 1onor7 arri$ed at the @anila (nternational Container Terminal

,@(CT0 The (nternational Container Terminal Ser$ices# (ncorporated ,(CTS(0 "as

furnished "ith a cop' of the crate cargo list and bill of lading# and it kne" the

contents of the crate The follo"ing da'# the $essel started discharging its cargoes

using its "inch crane The crane "as operated b' Glegario Balsa# a "inchman fromthe (CTS(# e&clusi$e arrastre operator of @(CT

2enasto 2au8# 9r# the checker-inspector of the SCP# along "ith the cre" and the

sur$e'or of the (CTS(# conducted an inspection of the cargo The' inspected the

hatches# checked the cargo and found it in apparent good condition Claudio

Cansino# the ste$edore of the (CTS(# placed t"o sling cables on each end of Crate

o o sling cable "as fastened on the mid-portion of the crate (n 2au84s

e&perience# this "as a normal procedure As the crate "as being hoisted from the

$essel4s hatch# the mid-portion of the "ooden flooring suddenl' snapped in the air#

about fi$e feet high from the $essel4s t"in deck# sending all its contents crashing

do"n hard# resulting in e&tensi$e damage to the shipment

PC(C paid the damage# and as subrogee# filed a case against @E; ational 1onor#

SCP and (CTS( Both RTC and CA dismissed the complaint

(SS)*:

!hether or not the presumption of negligence is applicable in the instant case

1*L2:

o

!e agree "ith the contention of the petitioner that common carriers# from the nature

of their business and for reasons of public polic'# are mandated to obser$e

e&traordinar' diligence in the $igilance o$er the goods and for the safet' of the

passengers transported b' them# according to all the circumstances of each case

he Court has defined e&traordinar' diligence in the $igilance o$er the goods as

follo"s:

The e&traordinar' diligence in the $igilance o$er the goods tendered for shipment

re+uires the common carrier to kno" and to follo" the re+uired precaution for

a$oiding damage to# or destruction of the goods entrusted to it for sale# carriage and

deli$er' (t re+uires common carriers to render ser$ice "ith the greatest skill and

foresight and 6to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic

of goods tendered for shipment# and to e&ercise due care in the handling and

sto"age# including such methods as their nature re+uires7

The common carrier4s dut' to obser$e the re+uisite diligence in the shipment of

goods lasts from the time the articles are surrendered to or unconditionall' placed in

the possession of# and recei$ed b'# the carrier for transportation until deli$ered to#

or until the lapse of a reasonable time for their acceptance# b' the person entitled to

recei$e themH I!hen the goods shipped are either lost or arri$e in damaged

condition# a presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to obser$e that

diligence# and there need not be an e&press finding of negligence to hold it liable

To o$ercome the presumption of negligence in the case of loss# destruction or

deterioration of the goods# the common carrier must pro$e that it e&ercised

e&traordinar' diligence

1o"e$er# under Article .JD of the e" Ci$il Code# the presumption of negligence

does not appl' to an' of the follo"ing causes:

Flood# storm# earth+uake# lightning or other natural disaster or calamit'5


3/7

to abandonment The CA affirmed the RTC4s decision stating that there "as lack of

e$idence to establish that PKS Shippine "as a common carrier and that the peculiar

method of the shipping compan'4s carr'ing of goods for others "as not generall'

held out as a business but as a casual occupation The Court again goes back to

the 2e u8man doctrine that Article .J< of the Ci$il Code makes no distinction

bet"een one "hose principal business is the carr'ing of persons or goods or both#

and on "ho does such carr'ing onl' as an ancillar' acti$it' ,in local idiom# as a

6sideline70 Article .J< also carefull' a$oids making an' distinction bet"een a

person or enterprise offering transportation ser$ice on a regular or scheduled basis

and one offering such ser$ice on an occasional# episodic or unscheduled basiseither does Article .J< distinguish bet"een a carrier offering its ser$ices to the

6general public7# ie# the general communit' or population# and one "ho offers

ser$ices or solicits business onl' from a narro" segment of the general population

@uch of the distinction bet"een a >common or public carrier> and a >pri$ate or

special carrier> lies in the character of the business# such that if the undertaking is

an isolated transaction# not a part of the business or occupation# and the carrier

does not hold itself out to carr' the goods for the general public or to a limited

clientele# although in$ol$ing the carriage of goods for a fee# the person or

corporation pro$iding such ser$ice could $er' "ell be %ust a pri$ate carrier Contrar'

to the conclusion made b' the CA# factual findings indicate that PKS Shipping has

engaged itself in the business of carr'ing goods for others# although for a limited

clientele# undertaking to carr' such goods for a fee The regularit' of its acti$ities in

this area indicates more than %ust a casual acti$it' on its part Still# the Supreme

Court held that the sinking of the barge could not ha$e been pre$ented b' both the

barge4s or tugboat4s cre"# hence# PKS Shipping should be absol$ed of liabilit'

+astern Shipping ,ines VS AC

Facts: Gn 9une# .. @ES AS(AT(CA# a ;essel operated b' *astern Shipping Lines

"as bound for @anila from Kobe# 9apan (t loaded # /#??? pieces of colori8ed lance

pipes in natural disaster> "ithin the meaning of Article .JD of

the Ci$il Code# it is re+uired under Article .J of the same Code that the >natural

disaster> must ha$e been the >pro&imate and onl' cause of the loss#> and that the

carrier has >e&ercised due diligence to pre$ent or minimi8e the loss before# during or

after the occurrence of the disaster > This Petitioner Carrier has also failed to

establish satisfactoril' The' are bound to pa' the insurance companies as "ell as

/K for attorne'4s fees

Phil.A(erican )en ns VS &C)

Petitioner insurance compan' insured the cargo belonging to San @iguel

Corporation and loaded on @E; Peathera' Patrick-# o"ned b' respondents# to be

transported from @andaue Cit' to Bislig# Surigao del Sur The ship sunk# and

petitioner paid the amount insured to San @iguel Corporation Petitioner sued

respondent for collection to reco$er the amount it paid on the insured cargo The

trial court rendered %udgment in fa$or of petitioner finding respondents solidaril'

liable for the loss The Court of Appeals# in rendering its decision re$ersing the

%udgment of the trial court# relied on the findings of the Board of @arine (n+uir' that

the loss of the cargo "as due solel' to the attendance of strong "inds and huge

"a$es# a fortuitous e$ent# "hich caused the $essel to accumulate "ater# tilt to theport side and to e$entuall' keel o$er

Common carriers are re+uired to obser$e e&traordinar' diligence in the $igilance

o$er the goods transported b' them and are presumed to be at fault or negligent if

the goods are lost# destro'ed or damaged This presumption does not arise "here

the pro&imate and onl' cause of the loss is a fortuitous e$ent (n the case at bar# the

Court of Appeals did not err in rel'ing on the factual findings# supported b'

substantial e$idence# of the Board of @arine (n+uir'# an administrati$e bod' "hich is

an e&pert in matters concerning marine casualties The assailed decision of the

Court of Appeals "as affirmed

C(;(L LA!5 GBL(AT(GS A2 CGTRACTS5 CG@@G CARR(*RS5

PR*S)@*2 AT FA)LT GR *L(*T (F GG2S TRASPGRT*2 AR* LGST#

2*STRG3*2 GR 2A@A*2 M Common carriers# from the nature of their

business and for reasons of public polic'# are mandated to obser$e e&traordinar'

diligence in the $igilance o$er the goods and for the safet' of the passengers

transported b' them G"ing to this high degree of diligence re+uired of them#

common carriers# as a general rule# are presumed to ha$e been at fault or negligent

if the goods transported b' them are lost# destro'ed or if the same deteriorated


4/7

destruction# or deterioration of the goods# unless the same is due to an' of the

follo"ing causes onl': ,0 Flood# storm# earth+uake# lightning or other natural

disaster or calamit'5 ,


5/7

0ortune +1press VS CA

Petitioner Fortune *&press# (nc is a bus compan' in orthern @indanao Gn

o$ember # # one of its buses collided "ith a %eepne' o"ned b' a @aranao

"hich resulted in the death of se$eral passengers of the %eepne' including t"o

@aranaos (n relation thereto# the Philippine Constabular' of Caga'an de Gro

"arned the petitioner# through its operations manager 2iosdado Bra$o# that the

@aranaos "ere planning to take re$enge on the petitioner b' burning some of its

buses Bra$o assured them that the necessar' precautions to ensure the safet' of

li$es and properties of the passengers "ould be taken Gn o$ember


6/7


7/7

- The Cit' of (loilo re+uisitioned for rice from the ational Rice and Corn

Corporation ,AR(C0

- AR(C shipped #.

Documents

Transpo; Fortuitous Events