DE LARNA, STELLA MARIZ D.

G.R. No. 213088, June 28, 2017

LTFRB vs. G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC.

Principle: The right to enter the public employment as a common carrier and to offer one's services
to the public for hire does not carry with it the right to conduct that business as one pleases, without
regard to the interests of the public and free from such reasonable and just regulations as may be
prescribed for the protection of the public from the reckless or careless indifference of the carrier
as to the public welfare and for the prevention of unjust and unreasonable discrimination of any
kind whatsoever in the performance of the carrier's duties as a servant of the public.

G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016

TRANSIMEX CO., vs. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP.

Principle: The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability
of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration. The Code takes precedence as
the primary law over the rights and obligations of common carriers with the Code of Commerce
and Carrier of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) applying suppletorily.

G.R. No. 208802, October 15, 2015

G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC. vs. HEIRS OF ROMEO L. BATTUNG, JR.,
REPRESENTED BY ROMEO BATTUNG, SR.

Principle: Fairness demands that in measuring a common carrier's duty towards its passengers,
allowance must be given to the reliance that should be reposed on the sense of responsibility of all
the passengers in regard to their common safety. It is to be presumed that a passenger will not take
with him anything dangerous to the lives and limbs of his co-passengers, not to speak of his own.

G.R. No. 167837, March 11, 2015

JAIME SABENIANO, JR., vs. CA

Principle: The impossibility of determining the amount of actual damage caused to the goods of
the consignee while they were in the possession of the shipper and the amount of the actual damage
incurred while the goods were in the hands of the petitioner was due to the petitioner's failure to
exercise the degree of diligence required of it.

G.R. No. 184513, March 09, 2016

DESIGNER BASKETS, INC., vs. AIR SEA TRANSPORT, INC. AND ASIA CARGO
CONTAINER LINES, INC.,

Principle: Received by the Carrier in apparent good order and condition unless otherwise
indicated hereon, the Container(s) and/or goods hereinafter mentioned to be transported and/or
otherwise forwarded from the Place of Receipt to the intended Place of Delivery upon and [subject]
to all the terms and conditions appearing on the face and back of this Bill of Lading. If required
by the Carrier this Bill of Lading duly endorsed must be surrendered in exchange for the
Goods of delivery order.

G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., vs.
BPI/MS INSURANCE CORP., & MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO., LTD.,

Principle: The bills of lading represent the formal expression of the parties’ rights, duties and
obligations. It is the best evidence of the intention of the parties which is to be deciphered from
the language used in the contract, not from the unilateral post facto assertions of one of the parties,
or of third parties who are strangers to the contract. Thus, when the terms of an agreement have
been reduced to writing, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between
the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the
written agreement.

G.R. No. 203902, July 19, 2017

SPOUSES DIONISIO ESTRADA and JOVITA R. ESTRADA vs. PHILIPPINE RABBIT
BUS LINES, INC. and EDUARDO R. SA YLAN

Principle: Article 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in
accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to
the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier.

G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016

SULPICIO LINES, INC., vs. NAPOLEON SESANTE, et al.

Principle: Article 1754 of the Civil Code does not exempt the common carrier from liability in
case of loss, but only highlights the degree of care required of it depending on who has the custody
of the belongings. Hence, the law requires the common carrier to observe the same diligence as
the hotel keepers in case the baggage remains with the passenger; otherwise, extraordinary
diligence must be exercised.41 Furthermore, the liability of the common carrier attaches even if the
loss or damage to the belongings resulted from the acts of the common carrier's employees, the
only exception being where such loss or damages is due to force majeure.

G.R. No. 194121, July, 11, 216

TORRES-MADRID BROKERAGE, INC., vs. FEB MITSUI MARINE INSURANCE CO.,
INC. and BENJAMIN P. MANALAST AS, doing business under the name of BMT
TRUCKING SERVICES

Principle: A brokerage may be considered a common carrier if it also undertakes to deliver the
goods for its customers.
 G.R. No. 206468, August 2, 2017
JUDITH D. DARINES and JOYCE D. DARINES vs. EDUARDO QUIÑONES and
ROLANDO QUITAN

Principle: This case is one for breach of contract of carriage (culpa contractual) where it is
necessary to show the existence of the contract between the parties, and the failure of the common
carrier to transport its passenger safely to his or her destination. An action for breach of contract
differs from quasi-delicts (also referred as culpa aquiliana or culpa extra contractual) as the latter
emanate from the negligence of the tort feasor including such instance where a person is injured
in a vehicular accident by a party other than the carrier where he is a passenger.

G.R. No. 226345, August 2, 2017

PIONEER INSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION vs. APL CO. PTE. LTD.

Principle: In the Bill of Lading, it was categorically stated that the carrier shall in any event be
discharged from all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods, unless suit is brought in the proper
forum within nine (9) months after delivery of the goods or the date when they should have been
delivered. The same, however, is qualified in that when the said nine-month period is contrary to
any law compulsory applicable, the period prescribed by the said law shall apply.

G.R. No. 199455, June 27, 2018

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION vs. LUWALHATI R. ANTONINO AND ELIZA
BETTINA RICASA ANTONINO

Principle: The duty of common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence in shipping goods does
not terminate until delivery to the consignee or to the specific person authorized to receive the
shipped goods. Failure to deliver to the person authorized to receive the goods is tantamount to
loss of the goods, thereby engendering the common carrier's liability for loss. Ambiguities in
contracts of carriage, which are contracts of adhesion, must be interpreted against the common
carrier that prepared these contracts.

G.R. No. 185565, April 26, 2017

LOADSTAR SHIPPING COMPANY, INCORPORATED AND LOADSTAR
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING COMPANY, INCORPORATED vs. MALAYAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED

Principle: As common carriers, the petitioners are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in
their vigilance over the goods they transport, as required by the nature of their business and for
reasons of public policy. Extraordinary diligence is that extreme measure of care and caution which
persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use for securing and preserving their own
property or rights.
 G.R. No. 205090, October 17, 2016
GREENSTAR EXPRESS, INC. AND FRUTO L. SAYSON, JR. vs. UNIVERSAL ROBINA
CORPORATION AND NISSIN UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION

Principle: The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident,
the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is
chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently, the rule is that the
antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the
supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm
by the exercise of due diligence.

G.R. No. 197908, July 4, 2018

VISITACION R. REBULTAN, CECILOU R. BAYONA, CECILIO REBULTAN, JR.,
AND VILNA R. LABRADOR vs. SPOUSES EDMUNDO DAGANTA AND MARVELYN
P. DAGANTA, AND WILLIE VILORIA

Principle: It is, nevertheless, a well-recognized principle of law that the negligence of a driver,
who, in turn, is guilty of contributory negligence, cannot be imputed to a passenger who has no
control over him in the management of the vehicle and with whom he sustains no relation of master
and servant.

G.R. No. 188144, August 30, 2017

F.F. CRUZ & COMPANY, INC. vs. PHILIPPINE IRON CONSTRUCTION AND
MARINE WORKS, INC., AND/OR ANCHOR METALS CORP.

Principle: It does not in any way operate to absolve the common carrier from its civil liabilities
arising from its failure to exercise extraordinary diligence, the determination of which properly
belongs to the courts.

G.R. No. 160206, July 15, 2015

M/V "DON MARTIN" VOY 047 vs. HON. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, et al.

Principle: Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, including cargo, which shall be used unlawfully in the
importation or exportation of articles or in conveying and/or transporting contraband or smuggled
articles in commercial quantities into or from any Philippine port or place. The mere carrying or
holding on board of contraband or smuggled articles in commercial quantities shall subject such
vessel, vehicle, aircraft or any other craft to forfeiture; Provided, That the vessel, or aircraft or any
other craft is not used as duly authorized common carrier and as such a carrier it is not chartered
or leased.
 G.R. No. 188118, November 23, 2015
FEDERAL PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD. vs. FORTUNE SEA CARRIER, INC.

Principle: M/V Ricky Rey was converted into a private carrier notwithstanding the existence of
the Time Charter Party agreement with Northern Transport since the said agreement was not
limited to the ship only but extends even to the control of its crew. Despite the denomination as
Time Charter by the parties, their agreement undoubtedly reflected that their intention was to enter
into a Bareboat Charter Agreement.

G.R. No. 220400, March 20, 2019

ANNIE TAN, PETITIONER vs. GREAT HARVEST ENTERPRISES, INC.

Principle: Common carriers are mandated to internalize or shoulder the costs under the contracts
of carriage. This is so because a contract of carriage is structured in such a way that passengers or
shippers surrender total control over their persons or goods to common carriers, fully trusting that
the latter will safely and timely deliver them to their destination. In light of this inherently
inequitable dynamics— and the potential harm that might befall passengers or shippers if common
carriers exercise less than extraordinary diligence— the law is constrained to intervene and impose
sanctions on common carriers for the parties to achieve allocative efficiency.

G.R. No. 212107, January 28, 2019

KEIHIN-EVERETTFORWARDING CO., INC., vs. TOKIO MARINE MALAYAN
INSURANCE CO., INC. AND SUNFREIGHT FORWARDERS & CUSTOMS
BROKERAGE, INC.,

Principle: Article 1733 of the Civil Code, extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods
it transports according to all the circumstances of each case. In the event that the goods are lost,
destroyed or deteriorated, it is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless
it proves that it observed extraordinary diligence.