Will a common carrier’s liability be extinguished by reason of fire?

Answer: The common carrier’s liability will not be extinguished by reason of fire.

Article 1734 of the Civil Code provides, common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:

1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;

2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;

3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;

4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;

5) Order or act of competent public authority.

Fire is not one of those enumerated under the above provision which exempts a carrier from liability for loss or destruction of the cargo. Even if fire were to be considered a natural disaster within the purview of Article 1734, it is required under Article 1739 of the same Code that the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss, and that the carrier has exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during or after the occurrence of the disaster. (DSR-Senator Lines vs. Federal Phoenix Assurance Co., Inc., 413 SCRA 14. October 7, 2003.)

IV. G. V. Florida Transport, Inc. vs. Heirs of Romeo Battung, G. R. No. 208802, October 14, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe, ponente. DONE

Question: Is a common carrier always liable for all kinds of injuries sustained by a passenger?

Answer: While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers. Where the injury sustained by the passenger was (1) in no way due to any defect in the means of transport or in the method of transporting, or (2) to the negligent or willful acts of the common carrier’s employees with respect to the foregoing – such as when the injury arises wholly from causes created by strangers which the carrier had no control of or prior knowledge to prevent – there would be no issue regarding the common carrier’s negligence in its duty to provide safe and suitable care, as well as competent employees in relation to its transport business, as such, the presumption of fault negligence foisted under Article 1756 of the Civil Code does not apply. (G.

V. Florida Transport, Inc. vs. Heirs of Romeo Battung, G. R. No. 208802, October 14, 2015, J.

Perlas-Bernabe, ponente).

Facts: Battung was shot by a co-passenger while riding petitioner’s bus. While on their way, the bus driver stopped the vehicle, alighted and checked the tires. It is at that moment when a co-passenger shot the victim who was sitting at the first row and immediately went down the bus. The conductor informed the driver and they immediately brought Battung to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival. The heirs of Battung filed an action against the bus company, its driver and conductor for breach of the contract of carriage. Issue: Is the bus company liable for breach of contract of carriage ?

Answer: The carrier is not liable. While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers. Where the injury sustained by the passenger was (1) in no way due to any defect in the means of transport or in the method of transporting, or (2) to the negligent or willful acts of the common carrier’s employees with respect to the foregoing – such as when the injury arises wholly from causes created by strangers which the carrier had no control of or prior knowledge to prevent – there would be no issue regarding the common carrier’s negligence in its duty to provide safe and suitable care, as well as competent employees in relation to its transport business, as such, the presumption of fault negligence foisted under Article 1756 of the Civil Code does not apply. (G. V. Florida Transport, Inc. vs. Heirs of Romeo Battung, G. R. No.

208802, October 14, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe, ponente).

V. What is the registered owner rule? In registered owner rule, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the consequences which the motor vehicle may be involved. This rule is further elucidated by the ruling in the case of Filcar Transport vs. Espinas, which states that it is well settled that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered owner of the motor vehicle is considered as the employer of the tortfeasor driver, and is made primarily liable for the tort

committed by the latter. (Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Reynaldo Cuevas, et al., G.R. No.

167797, June 15, 2015). (DONE)

VI. Philam Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Heung A Shipping Corporation, 730 SCRA 512, July 23, 2014).

Prescriptive period under COGSA – The prescriptive period for filing an action for lost/damaged goods governed by contracts of carriage by sea to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade is governed by paragraph 6, section 3 of the COGSA which states: Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of discharge before or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery under the contract of carriage, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading. If the loss or damage is not apparent, the notice must be given within three days of the delivery.

(Philam Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Heung A Shipping Corporation, 730 SCRA 512, July 23, 2014).

VII. Designer Baskets, Inc. vs. Air Sea Transport, Inc., G. R. No. 184513, March 9, 2016.

Bill of lading defined. A bill of lading is defined as a “written acknowledgement of the receipt of goods and an agreement to transport and to deliver them at a specified place to a person named in the order”. It may also be defined as an instrument in writing, signed by a carrier or his agent, describing the freight so as to identify it, stating the name of the consignor, the terms of the contract of carriage and agreeing or dire4cting that the freight be delivered to bearer, to order, or to a specified person at a specified place. (Designer Baskets, Inc. vs. Air Sea Transport, Inc., G. R. No. 184513, March 9, 2016, J. Jardeleza, ponente).

May the common carrier release the goods to the consignee even without the surrender of the bill of lading? A carrier is allowed by law to release the goods to the consignee even without the latter’s surrender of the bill of lading. Article 363 of the Code of Commerce provides that - The legal evidence of the contract between the shipper and the carrier shall be the bills of lading, by the contents of which the disputes which may arise regarding their execution and performance shall be decided, no exceptions being admissible other than those of falsity and material error in the drafting. In case the consignee, upon receiving the goods, cannot return the bill of lading subscribed by the carrier, because of its loss or any other cause, he must give the latter a receipt for the goods delivered, this receipt producing the same effects as the return of the bill of lading.

The general rule is that upon receipt of the goods, the consignee surrenders the bill of lading to the carrier and their respective obligations are considered cancelled. The law however, provides two exceptions where the goods may be released without the surrender of the bill of lading because the consignee can no longer return it. These exceptions are when the bill of lading

gets lost or for other cause. In either case, the consignee must issue a receipt to the carrier upon the release of the goods. Such receipt shall produce the same effect as the surrender of the bill of lading. (Designer Baskets, Inc. vs. Air Sea Transport, Inc., G. R. No. 184513, March 9, 2016, J.

Jardeleza, ponente).