Anda di halaman 1dari 9

1

TRANSPORTATION LAWS Shipper- gives rise to contract


-Merchants spreading wares to sell Carrier/Conductee binds himself to
goods transport Passengers/ Thing/ News
-catalyst for law today -may be the one employed or engaged in the
delivery of goods (FOR HIRE)
Contract of Transportation Consignee- to whom goods are delivered by
-A contract whereby a person, natural carrier
or juridical, obligates to transport
persons, goods, or both, from one NOTE: Shipper and Consignee may be one and
place to another, by land, air or water, the same person
for a price or compensation.
Freight-
Classifications: 1) Payment/ price for carriage (Freightage)
1. Common or Private 2) May also mean goods which are carried
2. Goods or Passengers or to be delivered
3. For a fee (for hire) or Gratuitous
4. Land, Water/maritime, or Air CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ART XII Sec 11
5. Domestic/inter-island/coastwise or No Franchise, certificate, or any other form of
International/foreign It is a authorization for the operation of a public
relationship which is imbued with the utility shall be granted except to citizens of the
public interest Philippines or to corporations or associations
organized under the laws of the Philippines at
Parties to a Contract of Transportation least sixty per centum of whose capital is
General Parties SHIPPER & CARRIER owned by such citizens, nor shall such
franchise, certificate or authorization be
Shipper passenger exclusive in character or for a longer period
Carrier provider of Transportation than fifty years.
from point of Origin to the point of
Destination Neither shall any such franchise or right be
granted except under the condition that it
Transportation of Things shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or
1) Shipper repeal by the Congress when the common
2) Carrier good so requires. The State shall encourage
3) Consignee one who will receive equity participation in public utilities by the
things general public. The participation of foreign
investors in the governing body of any public
*Shipper and Consignee can be one utility enterprise shall be limited to their
and the same person proportionate share in its capital, and all the
*While there may be 3 parties there executive and managing officers of such
can only be 2 persons corporation or association must be citizens of
the Philippines.
Transportation of News
2-3 persons Q: May Foreign Corporation own Public Utility?
Shipper, Carrier, Consignee A: Tatad v Hon Garcia
EDSA LRT Owned by Foreign Corporation
Baliwag Transit v CA 169 S 849
George injured passenger SC: Ownership and Operation are different
Carrier was remiss in duties from point -the tracks, building, carriage are owned by
of origin to point of destination EDSA and not operate the LRT
-when accident occurs carrier is liable
for breach of contract 1. Any loss/damage due to the operation of the
LRT
George executed a waiver/release of -DOTC is liable
his claims and received 8k 2. Any loss/damage due to the defect of LRT
compensation Foreign Corporation is liable
Parents complained that 200k was
incurred as medical expenses they Transportation Laws in the Philippines
seeked moral damages ART 1732-1766 of Civil Code
Matters not regulated by the code,
COURT: Parents are not proper party common carriers are covered by the
in interest; Contract of Carriage is only Code of Commerce and special laws
between shipper and carrier such as the COGSA

Laws applicable to different kinds of


Transportation
LAND TRANSPORTATION

RLN
2

1. Civil Code
2. Code of Commerce (suppletory) A certificate of public convenience is not
3. Public Service Act necessary to incur liability as a common
4. RA 4136 created the Land carrier. As long as services for compensation
Transportation Commission is made one is deemed a common carrier.

AIR Characteristics of a Common Carrier


1. Civil Code 1) Undertakes to carry for all people
2. Code of Commerce (suppletory) differently
3. Warsaw Convention 2)Cannot lawfully decline to accept goods for
carriage Except for sufficient reasons (mere
SEA prejudice or whim will not suffice)
To Philippines (Inside Territory) 3) No monopoly is favored
1. Civil Code 4) It is for public convenience
2. Code of Commerce (suppletory)
3. Salvage Law PRIVATE CARRIER
From Philippines (Outside Territory) 1.undertakes transportation for particular
1. Law of Destination instance for hire
2. COGSA Carriage of Goods by Sea
Act NOTE: No one can consider himself as a
Common Carrier unless he held himself as a
Q: What is a common carrier? carrier liable for general public (offers
A: Art 1732 offers service to public services to anyone)

COMMON CARRIERS 2.Private carrier is not bound to carry goods


Article 1732. Common carriers are except if it enters into a special agreement
persons, corporations, firms or 3.
associations engaged in the A common carrier public service and subject
business of carrying or to regulation (ex. LTFRB)
transporting passengers or goods A Private carrier does not hold itself as
or both, by land, water, or air, for engaged in business for public
compensation, offering their 4. Diligence Required
services to the public. Common Carrier extraordinary diligence in
its obligation
Elements of Common CARRIER Private Carrier only exercise diligence of a
1. good father of a family
Person/Corporatttion/Association/Franc
hise Test to Determine nature of Carrier
2. Engaged in the business of carrying, 1) Engaged in the business of carriage of
transporting passengers, goods or goods for others
both 2)It must undertake to carry the goods
3. Means of Transportation is by Land, 3)It must undertake to carry by the method
Water, Air by which business is conducted and over its
4. For a fee or compensation established roads
5. Services rendered to public is 4) Transportation must be for hire
without distinction
ART 1733 Common Carriers, from the
De Guzman v CA - 168 S 612 nature of their business and for reasons
Occasional, episodic basis may be of public policy, are bound to observe
considered as Common carrier extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over goods and for the safety of the
SC: Art 1732 does not make any passengers transported by them,
distinction between a person or according to all the circumstances of
enterprise offering transportation each case.
service on a regular or scheduled basis
and one offering such service on an Such extraordinary diligence in vigilance
occasional, episodic or unscheduled over the goods is further expressed in
basis. Articles 1734, 1735, and 1745 Nos 5, 6
and 7, while the extraordinary diligence
Neither does Art 1732 distinguish for the safety of the passengers is
between a carrier offering its services further set forth in Articles 1755 and
to the general public and one who 1756.
offers services or solicits business only
from a narrow segment of the general
population.

RLN
3

EO Diligence going over and above

National Trucking and Forwarding


Corporation v. Lorenzo Shipping CARRIAGE OF GOODS
Corporation
G.R. No. 153563 Feb 07, 2005 Article 1734. Common carriers are
responsible for the loss,
ISSUE: Is respondent presumed at destruction, or deterioration of
fault or negligent as common carrier the goods, unless the same is due
for the loss or deterioration of the to any of the following causes
goods? only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake,
HELD: NO lightning, or other natural
disaster or calamity;
GR: Yes (2) Act of the public enemy in war,
However, the presumption of fault whether international or civil;
or negligence, may be overturned (3) Act or omission of the shipper
by competent evidence showing or owner of the goods;
that the common carrier has (4) The character of the goods or
observed extraordinary diligence defects in the packing or in the
over the goods. containers;
(5) Order or act of competent
Article 1733 of the Civil Code demands public authority.
that a common carrier observe
extraordinary diligence over the goods Liability on Goods (Common Carriers)
transported by it. GR: For Loss and deterioration, CC is
liable
Extraordinary diligence is that extreme -under Article 1735 the presumption is
measure of care and caution which CC is always at fault and acted
persons of unusual prudence and negligently
circumspection use for securing and
preserving their own property or rights Q: How do you rebut the presumption?
A: They observed Extraordinary
This exacting standard imposed on Diligence
common carriers in a contract of
carriage of goods is intended to tilt the Q: Who has the burden of proof?
scales in favor of the shipper who is at A: Shippers have the burden of proof
the mercy of the common carrier once that the goods are lost/destroyed/
the goods have been lodged for suffered deterioration
shipment. Hence, in case of loss of *The burden of proof is shifted to
goods in transit, the common carrier is Common Carriers where it must show
presumed under the law to have been that it exercised EO Diligence as
at fault or negligent. However, the required by law
presumption of fault or negligence,
may be overturned by competent Coastwise Lighterage Corporation
evidence showing that the common v. CA
carrier has observed extraordinary GR No. 1144167 July 12, 1995
diligence over the goods.
*Mere delivery of goods to point of
destination which is damaged brings
prima facie case against carrier.
Sps Dante Cruz v Sun Holidays CC is presumed already at fault
GR No. 186312; Jun 29, 2010 -May be rebutted by exercise of EO
Diligence
EO Diligence required of Common
Carrier demands that they take care of ARTICLE 1734 provides exemptions
goods or lives in their hand as if it is from liability
their own.
IMPORTANT:
Q: Why is Extraordinary Diligence CC has duty to properly ship, carry,
required? handle and exercise due care, consider
A: Because Common Carriage is a the nature of goods or equipment
public duty and impressed with public during voyage of shipment. CC may
interest. The public will rely on the skill ask for the value of goods.
and competence of Common carriers.

RLN
4

2)Exercise of Due diligence


preventing loss before, during and
Shipment made for valuable after
consideration 3)Carrier not negligently incurred
*CC can refuse if package is poorly delay in transporting goods
packed
IF he accepts CC is held liable if any *Proximate cause must be the
loss, damage or deterioration may fortuitous event
occur.

Regional Container Lines (RCL) of Article 1739. In order that the common
Singapore v The Netherlands carrier may be exempted from
Insurance Company responsibility, the natural disaster
GR. No. 168151 Sept 4, 2009 must have been the proximate and
Because of the presumption, there is only cause of the loss. However, the
no need for the express finding of common carrier must exercise due
negligence. diligence to prevent or minimize loss
-shipper need not prove that CC is at before, during and after the occurrence
fault because burden of proof in of flood, storm or other natural
showing EO diligence is shifted to CC. disaster in order that the common
VIGILANCE OVER GOODS carrier may be exempted from liability
Ways for common carrier to be for the loss, destruction, or
exempted from liability (1734) deterioration of the goods. The same
1. FORCE MAJURE duty is incumbent upon the common
2. ACTS OF PUBLIC ENEMY carrier in case of an act of the public
3. ACTS/OMISSIONS OF SHIPPER enemy referred to in article 1734, No.
4.CHARACTER OF GOODS 2.

1734 (1) Flood, storm, Q:What is the effect of delay?


earthquake, lightning, or other A: ART 1740
natural disaster or calamity; If the CC negligently incurs in
delay in transporting the goods, a
ELEMENTS OF FORTUITOUS EVENT natural disaster shall not free
-ART 1174 such carrier from responsibility.
a)the cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or the failure *To make CC liable it must be stated
of the debtors to comply with their that CC committed willful or negligent
obligations, must have been act
independent of human will;
(b) the event that constituted the caso EX.
fortuito must have been impossible to -Shipper wanted CC to ship boxes of
foresee or, if foreseeable, impossible goods
to avoid; -CC was expected to embark on Dec 4
(c) the occurrence must have been -Goods got wet by reason of a storm
such as to render it impossible for the
debtors to fulfill their obligation in a CC is not liable because it delivered
normal manner; and the goods on Dec 5.
(d) the obligor must have been free There was intervention from the willful
from any participation in the and negligent act of CC and the act of
aggravation of the resulting injury to god. Shipper did not contribute to the
the creditor loss, destruction or deterioration.

To fully free a common carrier from Q: is Fire a Fortuitous event?


any liability, the fortuitous event must A: No. Because fire arises almost
have been the proximate and only invariably from the act of man. It does
cause of the loss. And it should have not exempt CC from liability.
exercised due diligence to prevent or
minimize the loss before, during and Q: Mechanical defect a fortuitous
after the occurrence of the fortuitous event?
event. A: Not fortuitous event
(Sps Dante Cruz v Sun Holiday)
1734(2) Act of the public enemy in
Q: Defenses of Common Carriers war, whether international or civil;
A: ART1739 ACTS OF PUBLIC ENEMY
1)The proximate and only cause of 1) Must be the proximate cause and the
loss must be natural disaster only cause of loss

RLN
5

2) EO Diligence is exercised by the CC , Saludo v CA


before, during and after to minimize the loss GR No. 95536; March 22, 1992
SC: Carrier is entitled to fair representation
Q: Pirate a public enemy? of goods to be delivered. Statements made
A: Yes. Enemy of all mankind is taken as is by common carrier.
*There is no need for inspection; the
Q: Terrorist? representations made by shipper is
A: Yes. Civil and internationally relied upon and CC need not go
beyond
1734 (3) Act or omission of the
shipper or owner of the goods; * CC has no obligation inquire on the
ACTS/NEGLIGENCE OF SHIPPER correctness of the representations
-act or omission of Shipper or owner of made
goods is the proximate cause
Ex. Q: When does the duty to inspect arise?
Delay in transport of goods is caused A: In the event there is
by the owner shipper 1) Reason to doubt the veracity of
statement or representations made
Q: May CC be exempted by reason of 2) There exists proof that there is cause
contributory negligence of the owner? for inspection or there danger is present
A: Under article 1741 No.
1734 (5) Order or act of competent
Article 1741. If the shipper or public authority.
owner merely contributed to the ORDER/ACT OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY
loss, destruction or deterioration -due to the destruction or seizure of illegal
of the goods, the proximate cause goods
thereof being the negligence of Ex. Drugs; those infected with disease;
the common carrier, the latter *Those dangerous to life and property may
shall be liable in damages, which be recalled
however, shall be equitably
reduced. Article 1743. If through the order of
public authority the goods are seized
To fully exempt CC from liability due to or destroyed, the common carrier is
Shipper or owners negligence is willful not responsible, provided said public
or negligent authority had power to issue the
-if merely contributory under 1741 CC order.
will still be liable, however damages
will be equally reduced. REQTS:
1) Public officer issuing notice has
1734(4) The character of the authority under law
goods or defects in the packing or -public authority must have the right to
in the containers; issue such orders
CHARACTER OF GOODS/ PACKING
IN A CONTAINER *IF WITHOUT legal process, CC is liable
-to exempt CC form Liabilty
GR: By reason of goods/ packaging as IMPT:
long as the loss/damage/ deterioration Over and above contractual relations,
was due to the character of the goods, Police power prevails
CC will be exonerated or not liable
Q: Is Hijacking included in 1734?
Article 1742. Even if the loss, A: No.
destruction, or deterioration of Acts of thieves and robbers are not
the goods should be caused by included in 1734 which exonerate CC from
the character of the goods, or the liability
faulty nature of the packing or of
the containers, the common ****
carrier must exercise due Under ART 1735 CC is presumed to be at
diligence to forestall or lessen the fault unless proved he exercised
loss. extraordinary diligence.
REQTS:
1) Loss, damage, deterioration due Under ART 1745(6)
to character of goods or defects in GR: CC is liable for acts of thieves and
packaging robbers
2) CC must also exercise EO EXC: Act of robbers/thieves is with grave or
diligence to lessen or prevent loss irresistible threat, violence or force.
EX. Perishable goods

RLN
6

Article 1745. Any of the following A: CC is liable.


or similar stipulations shall be -includes concessionaires (peddlers of
considered unreasonable, unjust food etc)
and contrary to public policy: Q: One who boards wrong train or bus?
(1) That the goods are transported A: Presumption is that there is a
at the risk of the owner or shipper; contract of carriage entered into
(2) That the common carrier will Q: If with consent of employees an
not be liable for any loss, individual rides on a dangerous area?
destruction, or deterioration of the A: If with knowledge of the driver, person
goods; is deemed a passenger.
(3) That the common carrier need
not observe any diligence in the Q: Are CC still liable if passenger passed
custody of the goods; his point of destination?
(4) That the common carrier shall A: CC must provide safety to its
exercise a degree of diligence less passengers not only during the course of
than that of a good father of a the trip but for so long as passenger is
family, or of a man of ordinary within the premises, a contract of carriage
prudence in the vigilance over the exists.
movables transported; -contract of carriage continues and the
(5) That the common carrier shall persons is considered as a passenger
not be responsible for the acts or
omission of his or its employees; Contract of Carriage ends when passenger
(6) That the common carriers refused to go down and is given every
liability for acts committed by reasonable opportunity to alight from the
thieves, or of robbers who do not vehicle.
act with grave or irresistible
threat, violence or force, is Q: WHO ARE NOT PASSENGERS?
dispensed with or diminished; A:
(7) That the common carrier is not 1) Those who have not yet stepped on any
responsible for the loss, part of the vehicle
destruction, or deterioration of 2) Those who refuse to pay
goods on account of the defective
condition of the car, vehicle, ship, Q: Non payment of fare are they still
airplane or other equipment used considered passengers?
in the contract of carriage. A: It depends
a)If with intention to pay Passenger
ARTICLE 1734 EXCLUSIVE LIST b)Refused to pay/ No intention of paying
-if not found within 1734 refer to 1735 Not Passenger
EO diligence must be exercised
3) Those who employ fraud and deceit (even
SAFETY PASSENGERS with payment) as long as driver is not
ART 1755 Duty of CC aware of the on committing fraud or deceit
-bound to carry passengers safely Ex. Point of destination is supposed to be
-high degree of care and EO diligence is only until DAU , but passenger stayed until
required in carriage of passengers Manila
BECAUSE it is demanded by preciousness
of human beings 4) One who attempts to board moving vehicle
although purchased a ticket is not a
Article 1755. A common carrier is passenger ( IF W/O consent of CC)
bound to carry the passengers safely -unless there is knowledge or negligence
as far as human care and foresight found on the part of the driver
can provide, using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons, IMPT:
with a due regard for all the IF W/O Consent
circumstances. - Ordinary diligence of CC is only required
Ex. When boarding a moving vehicle
Q: What is a passenger?
A: Persons who enters into a contract of IF W/ Consent
carriage whether express/implied with -person who suffers damage/ injury may
carrier file an action for damages on the ground of
Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)
*Any injury or death of a passenger
constitutes breach of contract
Implications/ effects Q: What if wrong bus was boarded and
Q: If passenger boards with knowledge of person was informed. Is he still
driver? considered a passenger?

RLN
7

A: Yes. But if he suffers damage after, A:


No contract of Carriage exists 1) institute a civil case based on culpa
contractual (Breach of contract)
GR: When person alighted from 2) Institute a criminal case with the civil
vehicle not considered a passenger aspect based on culpa criminal OR waive
EXC: when still within the premises and file a separate civil action
3) Institute an Independent Civil Action
Presumption of Negligence based on the count of physical injuries
-death or injury on passenger, CC is received as found in Article 33 of the Civil
presumed at fault or acted negligently Code
BUT CC may rebut by proving exercise 4) Quasi Delict
of EO Diligence and that Fortuitous
event was the proximate cause of Fabre v CA
death or injury Gr No. 11127 ; July 26, 1996
Comoon Carrier and driver is jointly and
Q: Does CC exercise EO diligence with severally liable because of separate and
respect to its employees? disitinct acts in safety of passengers
A:
Philippine Airlines vs. CA 106 *Jointly and Severally anyone may be
SCRA 391 sought after
- yes it also extends to crew members
because any lapse of carriers can hold ART 2181 Whoever pays for the
them liable damage caused by his dependents or
employees may recover from the
SC said that PAL is liable, as a common latter what he has paid or delivered
carrier, even though this is not a breach in satisfaction of the claim.
of common carriage, because its duty to
exercise extraordinary diligence is not Q: May CC apply 2181 such that he
only for the safety of its passengers but exercised the diligence of a good father of
also for the crew. a family in selecting the proper
employees and supervising them properly
It let the main pilot fly even though he to be exonerated from liability?
had a nose tumor that affected his sinus, A: NO. Because the liability of CC arises
breathing and his eyes. As a result they out of breach of contract while ART 2181
almost hit Mayon and overshot the refers to acts culpa aquiliana.
runway. A co-pilot suffered injuries when
the aircraft they were on overshot its Therefore not a ground to exempt CC
landing, and afterwards he was not from liability.
referred to expert medical assistance, but BUTT CC has duty to teach drivers as part
rather left to suffer his dizziness spells of EO diligence - train crew, drivers and
and the airline denying that these were remind them of the proper rules for
ever brought by the crash landing. He driving
was then dismissed by the airline
because he couldn't pilot anymore as a KABIT SYSTEM person granted a
result of the disability. certificiate of public convenience allows
others to operate them; selling or lending
Q: When can CC be liable to passengers? franchises
A:
Driver recklessness, flagrant violation of *Not prohibited criminally but such is
elementary considerations of the road, contrary to public policy and deemed void
failure to maintain good working condition and inexistent
of vehicle
Q: In the event a person uses a
Pilapil v CA ; 180 SCRA 546 franchise and meets an accident. Who
While the law requires the highest degree is liable?
of diligence from Common Carriers, it A: Registered owner is liable even if
cannot make Common Carriers absolute vehicle used is sold or leased to other
insurers of passengers safety persons
*Registered owner and driver are
RATIONALE: Because not at all times are jointly and severally liable to injured
passengers safe due to unforeseeable parties or third persons
circuimstances
RATIONALE: If registered owners
Q: In case of injuries suffered by were allowed to evade liability, it
Passengers, what causes of action are would cause problems.
available to them?

RLN
8

There would be a transfer to indefinite HELD: YES. CA affirmed.


persons to one who possess no A public utility once it stops, is in effect
property and in effect may be a way to making a continuous offer to bus riders
circumvent liability (EVEN when moving as long as it is still
slow in motion)
Q: Recourse of the Registered owner?
A: File a 3rd party complaint against the -Duty of the driver: do NOT make acts that
owner of the vehicle to recover civil would have the effect of increasing peril to
liability a passenger while he is attempting to
board the same
Dangwa Transportation Co. Inc. V. -Premature acceleration of the bus in
CA Et Al. this case = breach of duty
GR No. 95582 ; Octover 7,1991 -Stepping and standing on the platform of
the bus is already considered a passenger
SC: and is entitled all the rights and protection
1) Stepping and standing on the pertaining to such a contractual relation
platform of the bus, he is entitled -Duty extends to boarding and alighting
to rights of a passenger and
deemed to have contractual GR: By contract of carriage, the carrier
relations of Common carriage assumes the express obligation to
2) If within Premises of Bus transport the passenger to his destination
Terminal safely and observe extraordinary diligence
-deemed a passenger when with a due regard for all the circumstances,
purchasing a ticket and any injury that might be suffered by
the passenger is right away attributable to
FACTS: the fault or negligence of the carrier
-May 13, 1985: Theodore M. EXC: carrier to prove that it has exercised
Lardizabal was driving a passenger extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Art.
bus belonging to Dangwa 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code
Transportation Co. Inc. (Dangwa)
-The bus was at full stop bet. Failure to immediately bring Pedrito to the
Bunkhouses 53 and 54 when Pedro hospital despite his serious condition =
alighted patent and incontrovertible proof of their
-Pedro Cudiamat fell from the negligence
platform of the bus when it suddenly (Digest from internet)
accelerated forward
-Pedro was run over by the rear right *CC has duty to stop when individual
tires of the vehicle boards moving vehicle
-Theodore first brought his other
passengers and cargo to their
respective destinations before
bringing Pedro to Lepanto Hospital
where he expired
-Private respondents filed a complaint Article 1736. The extraordinary
for damages against Dangwa for the responsibility of the common
death of Pedro Cudiamat carrier lasts from the time the
-Dangwa: observed and continued to goods are unconditionally placed
observe the extraordinary diligence in the possession of, and received
required in the operation of the co. by the carrier for transportation
and the supervision of the employees until the same are delivered,
even as they are not absolute actually or constructively, by the
insurers of the public at large carrier to the consignee, or to the
-RTC: in favour of Dangwa holding person who has a right to receive
Pedrito as negligent and his them, without prejudice to the
negligence was the cause of his death provisions of article 1738.
but still ordered to pay in equity P
10,000 to the heirs of Pedrito 1736 When goods are placed
-CA: reversed and ordered to pay unconditionally in the possession
Pedrito indemnity, moral damages, of CC
actual and compensatory damages
and cost of the suit Q: When control and possession of
goods passes to the carrier and
ISSUE: W/N Dangwa should be held nothing remains to be done by the
liable for the negligence of its driver shipper. Effect?
Theodore A: Goods are deemed to be in control
and possession of CC

RLN
9

Q: When may it be exercised?


Q: When does the responsibility to A: When buyer/purchaser becomes
deliver goods terminate? insolvent
A: When delivered to the consignee.
Q: What is the effect of Stoppage in
Q: When is there Constructive transitu?
Delivery? A: The exercise of Extraordinary Diligence
A: When notice has been given to the of Common Carrier cease
consignee that the goods have arrived -CC is only required to exercise diligence of
at the place of destination a good father of a family, as a
-It must be made known (DUE NOTICE) bailee/depositary
IMPLICATION:
Common Carrier is released from Article 1738. The extraordinary
exercising Extra Ordinary Diligence liability of the common carrier
continues to be operative even during
IMPT: the time the goods are stored in a
Because the CC is in control and warehouse of the carrier at the place
possession of goods, his obligation is of destination, until the consignee has
to deliver and not to delay the delivery been advised of the arrival of the
of goods. goods and has had reasonable
opportunity thereafter to remove
Q: If there is misdelivery. What is the them or otherwise dispose of them.
effect?
A: It is considered to be undelivered. Q: Obligation of CC once stored in
Responsibility still attaches to the warehouse?
Common Carrier until it has delivered A:
to the consignee or person who has a 1)Still exercise EO diligence because it is
right to receive them. placed in its possession until delivery is
made to the consignee
MISDELIVERY Prescriptive period 2)If placed in warehouse responsibility
1) If W/ contract 10 years ceases once notice is given consignee
2) If based on QDelict 4 years must be given a reasonable opportunity to
3) If there is loss of cargo 1 year dispose or hold of them or remove the
from cause of action accrued goods, otherwise liability of the Common
Carrier attaches as found under ART 1738.

Q: If the goods are with the Bureau of


Customs. Does the responsibility of
Extraordinary Diligence still attach?
Q: If there is temporary unloading.Is CC still A:
required to exercise EO diligence? Amparo Servando v Philippine Steam
A: YES. Even if temporary unloading of Navigation Co.
goods is undertaken, the responsibility of GR No. L-36481-2 ; October 23, 1982
EO diligence is in force and effect until CC will not be liable if goods are in
delivered to the consignee. warehouse of BOC
EXCEPT: if shipper exercises right of Case: consignee was in process of
stoppage in transitu redeeming goods when burned or
destroyed in the warehouse of BOC
Article 1737. The common carriers
duty to observe extraordinary
diligence over the goods remains in SC:
full force and effect even when they The storage of the goods in the Customs
are temporarily unloaded or stored in warehouse pending withdrawal thereof by
transit, unless the shipper or owner the appellees was undoubtedly made with
has made use of the right of stoppage their knowledge and consent. Since the
in transitu. warehouse belonged to and was
maintained by the government, it would be
* Stoppage in transitu unfair to impute negligence to the
- the act by which the unpaid vendor of appellant, the latter having no control
goods tops their progress and resumes whatsoever over the same.
possession of them

RLN

Anda mungkin juga menyukai