QUESTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION LAW

2015
I.
Are common carriers liable for injuries to passengers even if they have observed ordinary diligence and care?
Explain. (2%)

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)

2016
I.
Nautica Shipping Lines (Nautica) bought a second hand passenger ship from Japan. It modified the design of the
bulkhead of the deck of the ship to accommodate more passengers. The ship sunk with its passengers in Tablas
Strait due to heavy rains brought by the monsoon. The heirs of the passengers sued Nautica for its liability as a
common carrier based on the reconfiguration of the bulkhead which may have compromised the stability of the
ship. Nautica raised the defense that the monsoon is a fortuitous event and, at most, its liability is prescribed by
the Limited Liability Rule. Decide with reasons. (5%)

The limited liability rule will not apply in this case because there was contributory negligence on the part of the
shipowner. The reconfiguration of the bulkhead of the deck of the ship to accommodate more passengers made
the vessel unseaworthy. (Philippine General Insurance Company vs Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 262)

II.
A railroad track of the Philippine National Railway (PNR) is located near a busy intersection of Puyat Avenue and
Osmefia Highway. One afternoon, the intersection was heavily congested, as usual. Juan, the driver of a public
utility jeepney (PUJ), drove onto the railroad tracks but could go no farther because of the heavy traffic at the
intersection. After the jeepney stopped right on the railroad track, it was hit and overturned by a PNR train,
resulting in the death of Kim, a passenger of the PUJ, and injuries to Juan and his other passengers. Juan, the
injured passengers and Kim's family sued the PNR for damages for its negligence. It was established that the
steel pole barrier before the track was broken, and that the PNR had the last clear chance of avoiding the
accident. On the other hand, the PNR raised the defense that the track is for the exclusive use of the train and
that motorists are aware that it is negligence per se to stop their vehicles on the tracks. Decide the case and
explain. (5%)

PNR should be held liable. PNR had the last clear chance of avoiding the injury but did not exercise the diligence
expected of it under the circumstances.

2017
I.
Wisconsin Transportation Co., Inc. (WTC) owned and operated an inter-island deluxe bus service plying the
Manila-Batangas-Mindoro route. Three friends, namely: Aurelio, Jerome, and Florencio rode on the same WTC
bus from Manila bound for Mindoro. Aurelio purchased a ticket for himself. Jerome, being a boyhood friend of
the bus driver, was allowed a free ride by agreeing to sit during the trip on a stool placed in the aisle. Florencio,
already penniless after spending all of his money on beer the night before, just stole a ride in the bus by hiding
in the on-board toilet of the bus.

During the trip, the bus collided with another bus coming from the opposite direction. The three friends all
suffered serious physical injuries. What are WTC’s liabilities, if any, in favor of Aurelio, Jerome, and Florencio?
Explain your answer. (4%)
WTC, as a common carrier, is liable to Aurelio for breach of contract of carriage. In case of death or injury to
passenger, there is a presumption of fault on the part of the common carrier unless it exercised extraordinary
diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers. WTC is also liable to Jerome for breach of contract although
Jerome was carried gratuitously. However, for Jerome, a stipulation limiting the liability of WTC for negligence is
valid but not for wilful acts or gross negligence (Article 1758 of the Civil Code). WTC is not liable to Florencio there
being no contract of carriage between the two.

II.
Onassis Shipping, Inc. (Onassis) operated passenger vessels and cargo trucks, and offered its services to the
general public. In line with its vision and mission to protect the environment, Go-Green Asia (Go-Green), an NGO
affiliated with Greenpeace, entered into a contract with Onassis whereby Go-Green would operate with its own
crew the M/V Dolphin, an ocean-going passenger vessel of Onassis.

While on its way to Palawan carrying Go-Green’s invited guests who were international and local observers
desirous of checking certain environmental concerns in the area, the M/V Dolphin encountered high waves and
strong winds caused by a typhoon in the West Philippine Sea. The rough seas led to serious physical injuries to
some of the guests.

Discuss the liabilities of Onassis and Go-Green to the passengers of the M/V Dolphin. Explain briefly your
answer. (3%)

The contract that Onassis and Greenpeace entered into is a bareboat or demise charter because Greenpeace was
not only given possession of the vessel but also the command and control of the navigation as a result of its
authority to hire its own crew who will man the vessel. The bareboat charter effectively converts Onassis from a
common carrier to a private carrier. (Federal Phoenix Assurance vs Fortune Sea Carrier, GR no. 188118 November
23, 2015). Being a mere lessor and having ceased to be the owner of the vessel with respect to the navigation,
Onassis has no liability to the passengers who contracted with Greenpeace. Greenpeace is the one liable to the
passengers for the injuries they sustained in the course of the navigation.

2018
I.
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? (2.5%)
(b) What kind of diligence is required of common carriers like Yatco for the protection of its passengers?
(2.5%)

(c) (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? (2.5%)