1)

PERENA VS. ZARATE

NATURE:
This is a petition for review on certiorari, Spouses Teodoro and Nanette Perefia (Perefias) appeal the
adverse decision promulgated by the CA affirming the decision of RTC with modification that had
decreed them jointly and severally liable with PNR to Spouses Zarate for the death of their 15-year old
son.

FACTS:
Perenas were engaged in the business of transporting students to Don Bosco. The Zarates engaged
Perenas services to transport their son, Aaron, to school.

While on the way to school, the van’s air-conditioned unit was turned on and the stereo playing loudly.
The driver took a detour because they were running late due to the traffic in SLEX. The detour was
through a narrow path underneath the Magallanes Interchange used as short cut into Makati. When the
van was to traverse the PNR railroad crossing, the van was tailing a large passenger bus so the driver’s
view of the oncoming train was blocked. The train hit the van at the rear end and the impact threw 9
students including Aaron out of the van. Aaron landed in the path of the train which dragged his body
and severed his head, instantaneously killing him.

The Zarates filed for damages against Alfaro, Perenas, PNR, and the train driver. The cause of action
against Perena was for contract of carriage while for PNR, quasi delict. Perena posited the defense of
diligence of a good father in the selection and supervision of their driver

ISSUE/S: Were Perenas and PNR jointly and severally liable for damages? Is the petitioner a common
carrier?

RULING:

YES. A school bus operator is a common carrier. Perena’s defense of diligence of a good father in the
selection and supervision of their driver is unavailable for breach of contract of carriage. Perenas
operated as a common carrier; and their standard of care was extraordinary diligence, not only diligence
of a good father.

A carrier is a person or corporation who undertakes to transport or convey goods from one place to
another, gratuitously or for hire. They may be private or common.

The true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of business actually transacted, or the
number of conveyances, BUT WHETHER the undertaking is a part of the activity that he has held out to
the general public as his business or occupation.

The Perenas held themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to the students of a
particular school living within or near where they operated the service and for a fee. Perena, being a
common carrier, was already presumed to be negligent at the time of the accident because death
occurred to their passenger. The omissions of care on the part of the driver constituted negligence.
2) LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES v. GLODEL BROKERAGE G.R. No. 179446
January 10, 2011

NATURE:
This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the CA which held petitioner
Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. liable to respondent Glodel Brokerage Corporation representing the
insurance indemnity which R&B Insurance Corporation paid to the insured-consignee, Columbia Wire
and Cable Corporation.

FACTS:
R&B Insurance issued a Marine Policy in favor of Columbia to insure the shipment of 132 bundles of
electric copper cathodes against All Risks.

Columbia engaged the services of Glodel for the release and withdrawal of the cargoes from the pier
and the subsequent delivery to its warehouses/plants. Glodel, in turn, engaged the services of
Loadmasters for the use of its delivery trucks to transport the cargoes to Columbia’s warehouses/plants
in Bulacan and Valenzuela City.

The goods were loaded on board twelve trucks owned by Loadmasters, driven by its employed drivers
and accompanied by its employed truck helpers. The cargoes in six truckloads for Valenzuela City were
duly delivered. However, of the six trucks en route to Bulacan, only five reached the destination. One
truck failed to deliver its cargo.

The said truck was later recovered but without the copper cathodes. Columbia filed with R&B Insurance
a claim for insurance indemnity. R&B Insurance paid Columbia the amount of ₱1,896,789.62 as
insurance indemnity.

R&B Insurance, thereafter, filed a complaint for damages against both Loadmasters and Glodel, seeking
reimbursement of the amount it had paid to Columbia for the loss of the subject cargo.

The RTC held Glodel liable for damages for the loss of the subject cargo and was ordered to pay R&B
Insurance. On appeal, the CA rendered the assailed decision holding Loadmasters liable to appellant
Glodel for the insurance indemnity which Glodel had to pay to R&B Insurance Corporation. Hence,
Loadmasters filed the present petition.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Glodel and Loadmasters are common carriers.

RULING:
Loadmasters is a common carrier because it is engaged in the business of transporting goods by land,
through its trucking service. It is a common carrier as distinguished from a private carrier wherein the
carriage is generally undertaken by special agreement and it does not hold itself out to carry goods for
the general public.

The distinction is significant in the sense that “the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract of
private carriage are governed principally by their stipulations, not by the law on common carriers.”

In the present case, there is no indication that the undertaking in the contract between Loadmasters
and Glodel was private in character. There is no showing that Loadmasters solely and exclusively
rendered services to Glodel.
In fact, Loadmasters admitted that it is a common carrier.

In the same vein, Glodel is also considered a common carrier within the context of Article 1732. In its
Memorandum, it states that it “is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines and is engaged in the business of customs brokering.”

It cannot be considered otherwise because as held by this Court in Schmitz Transport & Brokerage
Corporation v. Transport Venture, Inc., a customs broker is also regarded as a common carrier, the
transportation of goods being an integral part of its business.

3)
PRECILLANO NECESITO, ETC. vs. NATIVIDAD PARAS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-10605
June 30, 1958

NATURE:
These cases involve ex contractu against the owners and operators of the common carrier known as
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, filed by one passenger, and the heirs of another, who injured as a result of
the fall into a river of the vehicle in which they were riding.

FACTS:
A mother and her son boarded a passenger auto-truck of the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines. While entering
a wooden bridge, its front wheels swerved to the right, the driver lost control and the truck fell into a
breast-deep creek. The mother drowned and the son sustained injuries. These cases involve actions ex
contractu against the owners of PRBL filed by the son and the heirs of the mother. Lower Court
dismissed the actions, holding that the accident was a fortuitous event.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the carrier is liable for the manufacturing defect of the steering knuckle, and whether
the evidence discloses that in regard thereto the carrier exercised the diligence required by law (Art.
1755, new Civil Code)

HELD:
Yes.
While the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of the passengers, the manufacturer of the defective
appliance is considered in law the agent of the carrier, and the good repute of the manufacturer will not
relieve the carrier from liability. The rationale of the carrier’s liability is the fact that the passengers has
no privity with the manufacturer of the defective equipment; hence, he has no remedy against him,
while the carrier has. We find that the defect could be detected. The periodical, usual inspection of the
steering knuckle did not measure up to the “utmost diligence of a very cautious person” as “far as
human care and foresight can provide” and therefore the knuckle’s failure cannot be considered a
fortuitous event that exempts the carrier from responsibility.

4)
Batangas Transportation Company vs. Caguimbal
G.R. No. L-22985
January 24, 1968
NATURE:
Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals sentencing the BTCO, Biñan and Ilagan to,
jointly and severally, pay to the plaintiffs.

FACTS: The deceased Pedro Caguimbal, Barrio Lieutenant of Barrio Calansayan, San Jose,
Batangas, was a paying passenger of BTCO bus, going south on its regular route from Calamba,
Laguna to Batangas, Batangas, driven by Tomas Perez, its regular driver. Caguimbal‘s destination was his
residence at Calansayan, San Jose, Batangas. As the BTCO bus was nearing a house, a passenger
requested the conductor to stop as he was going to alight, and when he heard the signal of the
conductor, the driver Tomas Perez slowed down his bus swerving it farther to the right in order
to stop; at this juncture, a calesa, then driven by Benito Makahiya was at a distance of several
meters facing the BTCO bus coming from the opposite direction; that at the same time the Biñan bus
was about 100 meters away likewise going northward and following the direction of the calesa;
that upon seeing the Biñan bus the driver of the BTCO bus dimmed his light as established by
Magno Ilaw, the very conductor of the Biñan bus atthe time of the accident; that as the calesa
and the BTCO bus were passing each other from the opposite directions, the Biñan bus following the
calesa swerved to its left in an attempt to pass between the BTCO bus and the calesa; that
without diminishing its speed of about seventy (70) kilometers an hour, the Biñan bus passed
through the space between the BTCO bus and the calesa hitting first the left side of the BTCO
bus with the left front corner of its body and then bumped and struck the calesa which was
completely wrecked.

ISSUE: Whether or not BTCO liable for damages.

HELD: In order to permit one of them to disembark, Perez drove his BTCO bus partly to the right
shoulder of the road and partly on the asphalted portion thereof. Yet, he could have and should
have seen to it —had he exercised "extraordinary diligence" —that his bus was completely outside the
asphalted portion of the road, and fully within the shoulder thereof, the width of which being more
than sufficient to accommodate the bus. When Perez slowed down his BTCO bus to permit said
passenger to disembark, he must have known, therefore, that the Biñan bus would overtake the
calesa at about the time when the latter and BTCO bus would probably be on the same line, on
opposite sides of the asphalted portions of the road, and that the space between the BTCO bus
and the "calesa" would not be enough to allow the Biñan bus to go through. Perez whose duty
was to exercise "utmost" or "extraordinary" diligence for their safety. Perez was thus under
obligation to avoid a situation which would be hazardous for his passengers, and, make their safety
dependent upon the diligence of the Biñan driver. Such obligation becomes more patent when
we considered the fact —of which the Court may take judicial cognizance —that our motor vehicle
drivers, particularly those of public service utilities, have not distinguished themselves for their concern
over the safety, the comfort or the convenience of others.

5)
RCJ BUS LINES VS. STANDARD INCURANCE CO.
G.R. No. 193629
Aug. 17, 2011

NATURE:
This is a petition for review assailing the Decision of the CA which affirmed with modification the
Decision of RTC dismissing Bus Lines’ appeal from the Decision of the MeTC which rendered judgment in
favor of Standard Insurance Company, Incorporated (Standard) and ordered Flor Bola Mangoba
(Mangoba) and RCJ Bus Lines, Incorporated (RCJ) to pay damages.
FACTS:
Standard Insurance Co., Inc. (STANDARD) filed a complaint against the petitioners Flor Bola Mangoba
and RCJ Bus Lines, Inc. The complaint was predicated upon an accident which involves the
Mitsubishi Lancer and the RCJ Bus Lines. Upon seeing a pile of gravel and sand on the road, the
Toyota Corolla, which is ahead of the Mitsubishi Lancer, stopped on its tracks. The Mitsubishi Lancer
followed suit and also halted. At this point, the bus hit and bumped the rear portion of the
Mitsubishi Lancer causing it to move forward and hit the Toyota Corolla in front of it. As a
result of the incident, the Mitsubishi Lancer sustained damages representing the costs of its
repairs.

Under the comprehensive insurance policy secured by Rodelene Valentino, owner of the Mitsubishi
Lancer, STANDARD reimbursed to the former the amount she expended for the repairs of her vehicle.
Rodelene then executed a Release of Claim and Subrogation Receipt, subrogating STANDARD to all
rights, claims and actions she may have against RCJ Bus Lines, Inc. and its driver, Flor Bola
Mangoba. In its answer, RCJ Bus Lines, Inc. maintained, among others, that the direct, immediate and
proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver of the Mitsubishi Lancer when, for no
reason at all, it made a sudden stop along the National Highway, as if to initiate and/or create an
accident. The MeTC rendered its decision in favor of Standard. The RTC affirmed with modification the
MeTC‟s Decision deleting the award for exemplary damages. The appellate court found that the
RTC committed no reversible error in affirming RCJ‟s liability as registered owner of the bus and
employer of Mangoba.

ISSUE:W/N the Court of Appeals erroneously disregarded the point that petitioner RCJ‟s defense
of extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervision of its driver was made as an alternative
defense.

HELD:
The petition has no merit. RCJ, by presenting witnesses to testify on its exercise of diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection and supervision of its bus drivers, admitted that Mangobais its
employee. Article 2180of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 2176,makes the employer
vicariously liable for the acts of its employees. When the employee causes damage due to his
own negligence while performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that
the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a
family. For failure to rebut such legal presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision
of employees, the employer is likewise responsible for damages, the basis of the liability being the
relationship of pater familias or on the employer’s own negligence. Mangoba, per testimony of his
conductor, was ten meters away from the Mitsubishi Lancer before the collision and was driving
60 to 75 kilometers per hour when the speed limit was 50 kilometers per hour. The presumption
under Article 2185of the Civil Code was thus proven true: Mangoba, as driver of the bus which collided
with the Mitsubishi Lancer, was negligent since he violated a traffic regulation at the time of the mishap.
We see no reason to depart from the findings of the MeTC, RTC and appellate court that
Mangoba was negligent.
6)
Nocum vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company
G.R. No. L-23733
October 31, 1969

Nature:
This is an appeal of the Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. from a judgment of the RTC sentencing it to pay
Herminio L. Nocum actual damages and attorney's fees with legal interest from the filing of the
complaint plus costs.

Facts:
Herminio L. Nocum was a passenger in appellant’s Bus No. 120 then making a trip within the barrio of
Dita, Municipality of Bay, Laguna, was injured as a consequence of the explosion of firecrackers,
contained in a box, loaded in said bus and declared to its conductor as containing clothes and
miscellaneous items by a co-passenger. The injuries suffered by Nocum were not due to mechanical
defects but to the explosion of firecrackers.

Issue:
WON the bus company was negligent, hence liable for the injuries suffered by Nocum.

Held:

No. The Bus Company has succeeded in rebutting the presumption of negligence by showing that it has
exercised extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers, “according to the circumstances of the
(each) case.”Article 1733 qualifies the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers for the safety
of the passengers transported by them to be “according to all the circumstances of each case.”

In this case, the circumstance that must be considered in measuring a common carrier’s duty towards its
passengers is 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. Not to be lightly
considered must be the right to privacy to which each passenger is entitled. He cannot be subjected to
any unusual search, when he protests the innocuousness of his baggage and nothing appears to indicate
the contrary, as in the case at bar. (Hence, the bus company’s failure to confiscate the baggage cannot
be considered as a negligent act, but in accord to the circumstance of the case.

7)
CESAR ISAAC vs. A.L. AMMEN TRANS. CO. INC.
G.R. No. L-9671
August 23, 1957

Facts:
Plaintiff boarded defendant’s bus as paying passenger from Albay. The bus collided with a pick-up truck
which was coming from opposite direction trying to swerve from a pile of gravel. As a result, his left arm
was completely severed .Plaintiff chose to hold defendant liable on its contractual obligation. Plaintiff
brought an action for damages which the lower court dismissed holding the driver of the pick-up car
negligent and not that of the bus.

Issue:
Whether or not the common carrier is liable.
Held:
The bus was running at a moderate speed. The driver of the bus upon the speeding pick-up truck
swerved the bus to the very extreme right of the road. Said driver would not move the bus further
without endangering the safety of his passengers. Notwithstanding all these efforts, the rear left side
was hit. This finding of the lower court was sustained.

Also, of the carrier’s employee is confronted with a sudden emergency, he is not held to the same
degree of care he would otherwise, he required in the absence of such emergency.

By placing his left arm on the window, he is guilty of contributory negligence cannot relieve the carrier
but can only reduce its liability (ART. 1762), this is a circumstance which further militates against
plaintiff’s position. It is a prevailing rule that it is negligence per se for passengers on a railroad to
protrude any part of his body and that no recovery can be had for an injury.”

8)
Tiu vs. Arriesgado
G.R. No. 138060
September 1, 2004

Facts:
At about 10:00 p.m., the cargo truck marked "Condor Hollow Blocks and General Merchandise" was
loaded with firewood in Bogo, Cebu and left for Cebu City. Upon reaching Sitio Aggie, one of its rear tires
exploded. The driver, Sergio Pedrano, then parked along the right side of the national highway and
removed the damaged tire to have it vulcanized at a nearby shop, about 700 meters away. Pedrano left
his helper, Jose Mitante, Jr. to keep watch over the stalled vehicle, and instructed the latter to place a
spare tire six fathoms away behind the stalled truck to serve as a warning for oncoming vehicles. The
trucks tail lights were also left on. It was about 12:00 a.m.

At about 4:45 a.m., D Rough Riders passenger bus which was also bound for Cebu City driven by Virgilio
Te Laspiñas was cruising along the national highway of Sitio Aggies. Among its passengers were the
Spouses Pedro A. Arriesgado and Felisa Pepito Arriesgado, who were seated at the right side of the bus,
about three (3) or four (4) places from the front seat.

As the bus was approaching, Laspiñas saw the stalled truck. He applied the breaks and tried to swerve to
the left to avoid hitting the truck. But it was too late; the bus rammed into the trucks left rear. The
impact damaged the right side of the bus and left several passengers injured. Pedro Arriesgado lost
consciousness and suffered a fracture in his right colles. His wife, Felisa, was brought to the hospital but
she died shortly after.

Respondent Pedro A. Arriesgado then filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage, damages and
attorneys fees before the RTC, against the petitioners, D Rough Riders bus operator William Tiu and his
driver, Virgilio Te Laspiñas. The respondent alleged that the passenger bus in question was cruising at a
fast and high speed along the national road, and that petitioner Laspiñas did not take precautionary
measures to avoid the accident.

The petitioners, for their part, filed a Third-Party Complaint against the following: respondent Philippine
Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. (PPSII), petitioner Tiu’s insurer; respondent Benjamin Condor, the
registered owner of the cargo truck; and respondent Sergio Pedrano, the driver of the truck. They
alleged that petitioner Laspiñas was negotiating the uphill climb along the national highway of Sitio
Aggies in a moderate and normal speed. It was further alleged that the truck was parked in a slanted
manner, its rear portion almost in the middle of the highway, and that no early warning device was
displayed. Petitioner Laspiñas promptly applied the brakes and swerved to the left to avoid hitting the
truck head-on, but despite his efforts to avoid damage to property and physical injuries on the
passengers, the right side portion of the bus hit the cargo truck’s left rear.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the owner and driver of the truck was liable due to negligence.

HELD:
The rules which common carriers should observe as to the safety of their passengers are set forth in the
Civil Code, Articles 1733, 1755and 1756. It is undisputed that the respondent and his wife were not
safely transported to the destination agreed upon. In actions for breach of contract, only the existence
of such contract, and the fact that the obligor, in this case the common carrier, failed to transport his
passenger safely to his destination are the matters that need to be proved. This is because under the
said contract of carriage, the petitioners assumed the express obligation to transport the respondent
and his wife to their destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with due regard for all
circumstances. Any injury suffered by the passengers in the course thereof is immediately attributable to
the negligence of the carrier. Upon the happening of the accident, the presumption of negligence at
once arises, and it becomes the duty of a common carrier to prove that he observed extraordinary
diligence in the care of his passengers. It must be stressed that in requiring the highest possible degree
of diligence from common carriers and in creating a presumption of negligence against them, the law
compels them to curb the recklessness of their drivers. While evidence may be submitted to overcome
such presumption of negligence, it must be shown that the carrier observed the required extraordinary
diligence, which means that the carrier must show the utmost diligence of very cautious persons as far
as human care and foresight can provide, or that the accident was caused by fortuitous event. As
correctly found by the trial court, petitioner Tiu failed to conclusively rebut such presumption. The
negligence of petitioner Laspiñas as driver of the passenger bus is, thus, binding against petitioner Tiu,
as the owner of the passenger bus engaged as a common carrier.

9)
Japan Airlines vs Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 118664
January 28,2005

Facts: Private respondents boarded a JAL flight in San Francisco, California bound for Manila. It included
an overnight stopover at Narita, Japan at JAL’s expense. Due to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, private
respondents’ trip to Manila was cancelled. JAL rebooked all the Manila-bound passengers and paid for
the hotel expenses of their unexpected overnight stay. The flight of private respondents was again
cancelled due to NAIA’s indefinite closure. JAL informed the respondents that it would no longer defray
their hotel and accommodation expense during their stay in Narita. The respondents were forced to pay
for their accommodations and meal expenses for 5 days.

Issues:
1. Whether or not JAL has the obligation to shoulder the hotel and meal expenses even if the delay
was caused by force majeure
2. Whether or not the award of damages was proper

Held:
1. When a party is unable to fulfill his obligation because of force majeure, the general rule is that he
cannot be held liable for damages for non-performance. When JAL was prevented from resuming its
flight to Manila due to the effects of the eruption, whatever losses or damages in the form of hotel
and meal expenses the stranded passengers incurred cannot be charged to JAL. The predicament of
 the private respondents was not due to the fault or negligence of JAL. JAL had the duty to arrange
the respondents’ flight back to Manila. However, it failed to look after the comfort and convenience
of its passengers when it made the passengers arrange their flight back to Manila on their own and
after waiting in the airport for a whole day.

2. Yes, the award of nominal damages is proper. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right
of a plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized
and not for the purpose of indemnifying any loss suffered by him.

10)
Cathay Pacific v. Vazquez
G.R. No. 150843
March 14, 2003

NATURE:
This petition seeks to reverse the decision and resolution of the CA in deleting the award for exemplary
damages; and it reducing the RTC’s awards for moral damages, nominal damages, attorney’s fees, and
litigation expenses.

Facts:
Sps. Dr. Daniel and Maria Luisa Vazquez, resposdents, together with their maid and two friends went to
Hongkong for pleasure and business. On their return flight, they booked Cathay Pacific Airways. While
boarding, they were advised that there was a seat change from Business Class to First Class. Dr. Vazquez
refused the upgrade for the reason that it would not look nice for them as hosts to travel First Class and
their guests, in the Business Class; and that they were going to discuss business matter during the flight.
Cathay informed the Vazquezes that the Business Class was fully booked, and that since they are Marco
Polo Club members, they had the priority to be upgraded to first class. Dr. Vazquez eventually gave in,
after being prohibited to take the flight if they would not avail themselves of the privilege. Upon their
return to Manila, the Vazquezes filed a complaint and demanded to be indemnified for the humiliation
and embarrassment caused by Cathay’s employees.

Issues:
Are the Vazquezes obliged to avail the privilege and take the First Class flight?

Held:
No. A contract of carriage existed between Cathay and the Vazquezes. They voluntarily and freely gave
their consent to an agreement whose object was the transportation of the Vazquezes from Manila to
Hong Kong and back to Manila, with seats in the Business Class Section of the aircraft, and whose cause
or consideration was the fare paid by the Vazquezes to Cathay. The Vazquezes should have been
consulted first whether they wanted to avail themselves of the privilege or would consent to a change of
seat accommodation before their seat assignments were given to other passengers. It should not have
been imposed on them over their vehement objection. By insisting on the upgrade, Cathay breached its
contract of carriage with the Vazquezes.

Art. 1244.
The debtor of a thing cannot compel the creditor to receive a different one, although the latter may be
of the same value as, or more valuable than that which is due.

In obligations to do or not to do, an act or forbearance cannot be substituted by another act or