Safety of Passengers | General Principles of Common Carriers | TRANSPORTATION

Safety of Passengers: Common Carriers Under Philippine Mercantile and Taxation Law

Under Philippine law, common carriers are obligated to ensure the safety of their passengers with a very high degree of diligence. This duty is codified in the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386) under Article 1733 to 1753, covering obligations and liabilities related to transportation. Let’s examine this in detail:

---

I. Legal Duty of Common Carriers

Definition of Common Carriers:
Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, common carriers are defined as those engaged in the business of transporting goods or passengers for compensation, offering services to the public. This includes various modes of transportation: land, air, and sea, regardless of the frequency or size of the operation.

Standard of Care Required (Extraordinary Diligence):
The duty of common carriers extends beyond ordinary diligence. Article 1733 imposes extraordinary diligence upon common carriers, obliging them to exercise the utmost care and precaution in transporting passengers safely. This includes foresight to prevent foreseeable risks and circumstances that could cause harm.

Article 1755 clearly states:

"A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances."

II. Scope of Liability for Passenger Safety

The responsibility of common carriers for passenger safety is rooted in a presumption of negligence under Article 1756 of the Civil Code. The presumption applies unless the carrier can prove that:

• It exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the passenger.
• The injury or harm was due to a fortuitous event or force majeure.

In other words, in the event of an accident or injury, the common carrier is presumed liable unless it can present concrete evidence demonstrating that it exercised the highest level of care or that the incident was genuinely unavoidable.

III. Factors Affecting the Duty of Care

1. Condition of the Vehicle or Vessel: Common carriers are expected to maintain their vehicles or vessels in a condition fit for safe travel. Regular inspections, maintenance, and compliance with industry standards are necessary to fulfill the standard of extraordinary diligence.

2. Competence of Personnel: Under Article 1759, common carriers are liable for the negligent or willful acts of their employees. This includes conduct during and outside the scope of their official duties. Hence, carriers must ensure that their drivers, pilots, and other staff are adequately trained, qualified, and equipped to handle emergencies.

3. Safe Boarding and Disembarking: Carriers must ensure that the process of boarding and disembarking is safe for all passengers, taking precautions to avoid injury during these times. Failure to do so may expose the carrier to liability.

4. Dangerous Conditions and Foreseeable Hazards: Carriers must anticipate and mitigate foreseeable hazards, including inclement weather, mechanical failure, or hazards on the road or at sea. Failure to address foreseeable risks, such as navigating through dangerous waters or proceeding in unsafe weather, could constitute negligence.

IV. Circumstances Relieving Liability

While common carriers bear a heavy burden of proof to exonerate themselves, there are legally recognized circumstances that relieve them from liability:

1. Fortuitous Events: If the injury was solely caused by an "act of God" (i.e., natural events beyond human control such as extreme storms or earthquakes), the carrier may not be held liable, provided it took all reasonable precautions in light of the foreseeable risks.

2. Acts of Public Enemies: Damage or injury caused by acts of public enemies (e.g., war or terrorist activities) can exempt a common carrier from liability.

3. Passenger Contributory Negligence: Article 1757 provides that when the passenger’s own negligence contributes to the injury, the liability of the common carrier may be reduced or nullified, depending on the degree of contributory negligence.

4. Prior Waivers Are Void: Article 1757 also invalidates waivers exempting carriers from liability for negligence. Any pre-arranged agreement that limits or waives the liability of the carrier for negligence is void as it contravenes public policy.

V. Damages and Compensation

When a common carrier is found liable for failing to exercise the required level of care, it must compensate the passenger. Damages may cover:

• Actual damages (medical costs, lost wages, and repair costs for property damage).
• Moral damages (for psychological or emotional harm).
• Exemplary damages (punitive in nature, to serve as a deterrent for gross negligence).

In some cases, Philippine courts have allowed damages for loss of earning capacity, especially if the victim was the primary income earner in a family. Additionally, moral damages are awarded when the injury results in physical suffering, mental anguish, or serious anxiety due to the carrier’s negligence.

VI. Case Law Precedents

Several Philippine Supreme Court decisions underscore the strict interpretation of the duty of common carriers:

1. G.R. No. 164710, G.R. No. 164799 – The Supreme Court emphasized that the carrier’s liability is almost absolute unless it could prove due diligence, especially in passenger injury or death.
2. G.R. No. 121171 – The Court highlighted that maintenance and training records of carriers are scrutinized to determine if extraordinary diligence was observed.
3. G.R. No. 152628 – Held that carriers could be liable even for acts of their employees if related to passenger safety, underscoring that liability extends to acts within and beyond the scope of official duties.

VII. Regulatory Oversight

Philippine regulatory agencies, including the Land Transportation Office (LTO), Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA), and Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP), enforce safety standards for different types of carriers. These agencies set rules that common carriers must follow, including:

• Licensing requirements for operators and personnel.
• Periodic vehicle and vessel inspections.
• Compliance with safety protocols.
• Adherence to regulations concerning passenger capacities and load limits.

Failure to comply with these standards could subject the carrier to administrative penalties and sanctions, in addition to civil liabilities.

---

Summary

The principles governing the safety of passengers in Philippine law place a heavy duty on common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence. This heightened standard reflects the public policy to protect passengers and ensure that transportation services maintain the highest safety standards.

Vigilance over Goods | General Principles of Common Carriers | TRANSPORTATION

Vigilance Over Goods: General Principles of Common Carriers in Mercantile and Taxation Law

Under Philippine law, common carriers hold a distinct and crucial position due to their role in transporting goods and people. Common carriers are obligated to exercise extraordinary diligence over the goods entrusted to them. This high standard of care is governed by specific provisions in the Civil Code of the Philippines and various judicial decisions. Below is a comprehensive analysis of the responsibilities and legal implications associated with the vigilance over goods in the transportation sector:

---

1. Definition and Role of Common Carriers

Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, common carriers are defined as any person, corporation, firm, or association that offers to transport goods or passengers to the public for a fee. They are distinguished by their public service nature and, thus, are subject to regulatory oversight. This broad definition encompasses land, air, and sea carriers, regardless of whether the carrier operates on a large scale or is limited to a specific clientele.

Common carriers have the duty to safely transport goods from the point of origin to the designated destination. This entails not just safe handling but also timely delivery in compliance with agreed terms.

---

2. Duty of Extraordinary Diligence

A. Legal Foundation

The Civil Code imposes an obligation of extraordinary diligence on common carriers in the vigilance over goods. According to Article 1733, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in preserving and safeguarding the goods under their custody. This duty means that the carrier must take every necessary and possible measure to prevent damage or loss of the goods.

B. Scope of Extraordinary Diligence

Extraordinary diligence entails a level of care that goes beyond what is typically expected in ordinary business transactions. The common carrier must ensure:

• Safety of Goods: Proper packing, handling, and storing to prevent damage.
• Protection Against Loss and Theft: Preventing loss through strict security measures.
• Compliance with Contract Terms: Abiding by delivery deadlines and handling requirements.

Any failure to exercise extraordinary diligence that results in damage, loss, or delay may render the carrier liable for damages.

C. Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the high standard of extraordinary diligence. Even unforeseen events that cause damage or loss may not absolve the carrier of liability if it is shown that the carrier failed to employ the utmost precautions. Philippine courts interpret extraordinary diligence as a duty that, if breached, creates a presumption of negligence on the part of the carrier.

---

3. Presumption of Negligence

A. Application of the Presumption

Under Article 1735 of the Civil Code, if the goods are lost, damaged, or delayed, the law presumes the common carrier to be at fault. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the carrier to demonstrate that it exercised extraordinary diligence.

B. Rebuttal of Presumption

To rebut this presumption, the common carrier must show that:

1. It exercised extraordinary diligence in handling the goods.
2. The loss or damage was due to causes beyond its control, including any of the recognized exceptions under Article 1734.

C. Exceptions under Article 1734

While carriers are generally liable for any loss or damage to the goods, Article 1734 provides specific exceptions where liability may be limited:

• Natural Disaster or Calamity: Loss caused by natural disasters such as typhoons or earthquakes.
• Acts of the Public Enemy: Damage resulting from war or enemy actions.
• Acts or Omissions of the Shipper or Owner: Damages caused by the inherent defects of the goods or the negligence of the owner.
• Order of Public Authority: If the goods are seized or destroyed by lawful authority, liability may be avoided.

For a common carrier to invoke any of these exceptions, it must conclusively prove that the cause of damage falls within these categories.

---

4. Limitations on the Liability of Common Carriers

A. Stipulation Limiting Liability

In some cases, common carriers may include a stipulation in the contract limiting their liability. However, this is only valid if the limitation does not exempt the carrier from the duty of extraordinary diligence. Article 1744 allows the carrier to limit liability provided the shipper agreed to it knowingly and voluntarily.

B. Prohibited Stipulations

Certain stipulations are outright prohibited by law under Article 1745, including:

• Agreements that waive the carrier's obligation to observe extraordinary diligence.
• Clauses that limit the carrier's liability for gross negligence.
• Provisions exonerating the carrier from liability arising from acts of its employees.

Any stipulation that violates these prohibitions is void as it goes against public policy, which upholds the protection of shippers and the public.

---

5. Contract of Carriage and Liability for Delay

A. Timeliness and Delay

Under Article 1755, a common carrier is bound to transport the goods and complete delivery within the agreed time frame. Failure to comply with the stipulated timeline or causing unreasonable delay may result in liability. The carrier’s delay will not only constitute breach of contract but may also be treated as a quasi-delict, entitling the shipper to damages.

B. Remedies for Delay

If the carrier is responsible for delay in delivery, the shipper may:

• Demand specific performance if the goods are still deliverable.
• Sue for damages due to the delay, including consequential damages if the delay caused the shipper additional losses.

---

6. Liability for Loss or Damage During Transit

A. Custodial Duty

During transit, the common carrier must ensure that the goods are protected from any form of harm, including accidental damage, loss, and even theft. If the carrier cannot account for lost or damaged items upon delivery, it will be presumed negligent.

B. Liability for Gross Negligence or Bad Faith

If the common carrier exhibits gross negligence or acts in bad faith, it may be held liable for additional damages, including moral and exemplary damages. Gross negligence is characterized by willful disregard for the safety and preservation of the goods, while bad faith indicates deliberate wrongdoing or intent to harm.

---

7. Right of Recourse Against Third Parties

Should the damage or loss be caused by a third party, the carrier may seek recourse against the party responsible. However, this does not absolve the carrier from liability to the shipper or consignee. The shipper is entitled to full compensation from the carrier, after which the carrier may pursue a separate action against the third party responsible for the loss.

---

8. Jurisprudence on Vigilance Over Goods

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted these provisions to ensure that common carriers are held to the highest standards in safeguarding goods. Cases often reaffirm that any deviation from the standard of extraordinary diligence, even in good faith, will render the carrier liable. Philippine jurisprudence emphasizes the presumption of negligence in cases of loss or damage, underscoring the importance of the carrier's duty to actively monitor and protect goods under its care.

---

Conclusion

The law governing common carriers in the Philippines places the utmost importance on the duty of vigilance over goods. Common carriers are obligated to exercise extraordinary diligence, which the courts interpret stringently to protect the rights of the shipper. This principle embodies a policy that prioritizes the welfare of the public, ensuring that common carriers fulfill their responsibilities effectively.

Diligence Required | General Principles of Common Carriers | TRANSPORTATION

III. TRANSPORTATION LAW – General Principles of Common Carriers: Diligence Required

In the context of Philippine transportation and mercantile law, the general principles surrounding the diligence required of common carriers are well-established in both the Civil Code and case law. This area of law imposes stringent requirements on common carriers due to their duty to ensure the safety of their passengers and goods. Here, we break down the legal principles that define the required diligence of common carriers in the Philippines, as mandated by the Civil Code, jurisprudence, and regulatory standards.

---

A. Definition and Scope of Common Carriers

Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, a common carrier is defined broadly to include any person, corporation, firm, or association that transports passengers or goods for a fee, whether by land, water, or air. This definition covers not only traditional carriers such as bus companies, shipping lines, and airlines but also individuals and firms engaged in transportation for hire as a regular occupation.

B. Standard of Diligence Required

The standard of diligence expected of common carriers in the Philippines is one of extraordinary diligence. This heightened standard is specified in Article 1733 of the Civil Code, which requires that common carriers must exercise extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and the safety of passengers.

1. Extraordinary Diligence for Passengers

   • For passenger transport, extraordinary diligence requires that carriers must take all necessary precautions to prevent injury or harm to passengers. This is a higher level of care than what is ordinarily expected in other contracts.
   • The duty to exercise extraordinary diligence applies from the moment a passenger boards the carrier until they safely disembark. It includes maintaining the vehicle in good working order, hiring competent and trained personnel, and implementing safety protocols to avoid accidents.

2. Extraordinary Diligence for Goods

   • When transporting goods, common carriers are expected to take every reasonable measure to ensure the goods arrive in the condition in which they were received.
   • They are liable for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods unless caused by fortuitous events, force majeure, or other exceptions provided by law.

3. Duty to Exercise Extraordinary Diligence in Preventing Harm

   • This duty extends beyond mere transportation. Common carriers must act in anticipation of potential hazards, such as adverse weather conditions, technical malfunctions, or human error.
   • This diligence implies a proactive approach, where the carrier must address foreseeable risks that could compromise the safety of passengers or goods.

C. Basis for Liability: Presumption of Negligence

Under Article 1756 of the Civil Code, common carriers are presumed negligent if a passenger is injured or if there is loss, destruction, or damage to the goods they are carrying. This presumption can only be rebutted if the carrier can prove that they observed the extraordinary diligence required by law or that the damage or injury was due to any of the exceptions outlined by law.

1. Strict Liability

   • The law generally imposes a form of strict liability on common carriers, holding them responsible even for slight negligence due to the public interest involved in transportation.
   • This presumption of liability means that in cases of damage or loss, the carrier must provide clear evidence that extraordinary diligence was exercised or that one of the legal exemptions applies.

2. Exceptions to Liability

   • As an exception to this strict liability rule, common carriers may not be held liable if they can prove that the harm or loss resulted from:
     • Fortuitous Events or Force Majeure: Events that are unforeseen or inevitable, such as natural disasters, can exempt a carrier from liability.
     • Act of Public Enemy or War: Loss due to armed conflict may relieve the carrier from responsibility.
     • Act of Public Authority: Interference by government or legal authority that directly causes damage exempts the carrier.
     • Passenger's Own Negligence: If the injury or loss was due to the passenger’s negligence, liability may be reduced or waived.
     • Condition of Goods: Carriers are not liable if the damage is due to the inherent condition or defect of the goods transported.

D. Case Law on Extraordinary Diligence in the Philippines

Philippine jurisprudence has consistently underscored the duty of common carriers to exercise extraordinary diligence. Key cases have illustrated how courts interpret this requirement:

1. De Guzman v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 47822)

   • In this case, the Supreme Court held that common carriers are bound to exercise extraordinary diligence and that the presumption of negligence applies when a passenger is injured. The carrier must present clear evidence to overturn this presumption.

2. Juntilla v. Fontanar (G.R. No. 121366)

   • This case reaffirmed the strict duty of care required by common carriers. The court emphasized that even the slightest negligence could result in liability for passenger injuries.

3. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 119001)

   • This case underscored that carriers are responsible for delays in the transportation of goods unless they can prove the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control and that all precautions to avoid delay were taken.

4. Calvo v. UCPB General Insurance Co. Inc. (G.R. No. 174205)

   • In this case, the court held that if a carrier's negligence results in the loss or deterioration of goods, the carrier would be held liable, highlighting the responsibility to observe extraordinary diligence even in protecting goods from potential theft or damage.

E. Regulatory Standards and Compliance

The regulatory framework for common carriers in the Philippines is also reinforced by several agencies, including the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA), and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP), which impose strict standards to ensure safety and compliance:

1. LTFRB Regulations for Land Transportation

   • Buses, taxis, and jeepneys are required to maintain roadworthiness and observe specified operational protocols to safeguard passenger safety.
   • Failure to comply with LTFRB regulations can result in administrative penalties and suspension or cancellation of licenses.

2. MARINA for Water Transport

   • MARINA mandates seaworthiness for vessels and strict adherence to safety regulations to protect passengers and cargo.
   • Violations of MARINA standards can result in severe penalties, including revocation of permits and licenses.

3. CAAP for Air Transport

   • CAAP enforces stringent airworthiness standards and flight safety protocols to ensure the safety of passengers.
   • Airlines must comply with safety requirements, and failure to do so can lead to the suspension of operations or hefty fines.

F. Implications of Failing to Exercise Extraordinary Diligence

Failure to exercise the required level of diligence can expose common carriers to significant liabilities, including:

1. Civil Liability

   • Under the Civil Code, carriers can be held financially liable for injuries or losses resulting from their failure to meet the extraordinary diligence standard.
   • Civil damages may be claimed by passengers or cargo owners, and the carrier’s liability may extend to moral and exemplary damages in cases of gross negligence.

2. Criminal Liability

   • In severe cases where gross negligence results in significant injury or death, criminal charges may be filed under the Revised Penal Code, subjecting responsible personnel to fines or imprisonment.

3. Administrative Penalties

   • Regulatory bodies may impose administrative penalties for non-compliance with safety and operational standards, which may include fines, suspension of operations, and cancellation of permits.

Conclusion

The extraordinary diligence requirement for common carriers in the Philippines reflects the high value placed on public safety and the protection of passengers and goods. Philippine law imposes strict liability on common carriers, holding them accountable for any harm that arises from their operations, barring exceptions where the carrier can demonstrate that loss or injury was due to circumstances beyond their control. Compliance with both the Civil Code provisions and regulatory standards is essential for common carriers to avoid liability and continue operating within the bounds of Philippine law.

Common Carrier vs. Private Carrier | General Principles of Common Carriers | TRANSPORTATION

Common Carrier vs. Private Carrier: A Comprehensive Guide

1. Overview of Common and Private Carriers

In the field of transportation law, the distinction between common carriers and private carriers is fundamental. Understanding this distinction is crucial as it affects the rights, obligations, and liabilities of carriers under Philippine law. This area of law is governed primarily by the Civil Code of the Philippines and relevant jurisprudence, with additional regulations under the Philippine regulatory bodies.

2. Definition of Common Carrier and Private Carrier

Common Carrier

A common carrier is defined under Article 1732 of the Civil Code as any person, corporation, firm, or association that offers transportation services to the public for compensation. This definition encompasses various forms of carriers, including those involved in the transportation of goods, persons, or both, by land, air, or sea. Common carriers are generally available to the public, with the condition that the services must be offered indiscriminately to anyone willing to pay for them.

Private Carrier

In contrast, a private carrier does not offer transportation services to the general public but instead enters into specific, private transportation contracts with selected individuals or entities. A private carrier typically undertakes transportation for compensation on a voluntary basis, and the carriage is based on particular contractual terms agreed upon between the carrier and the client.

3. Key Differences between Common and Private Carriers

Aspect	Common Carrier	Private Carrier
Public Offering	Holds out service to the public indiscriminately	Offers services to select individuals/entities only
Regulation	Heavily regulated by law and government agencies	Not subject to stringent regulations as common carriers
Liability	Higher degree of liability due to public duty	Liability limited by specific contractual terms
Duty of Care	Extraordinary diligence required	Ordinary diligence as per contract
Contract Formation	Standardized terms often implied by law	Terms negotiated privately between parties

4. Legal Framework Governing Common Carriers

The legal framework governing common carriers in the Philippines is established under:

• Civil Code of the Philippines (Articles 1732-1766): This portion of the Civil Code mandates the responsibilities, liabilities, and scope of operations for common carriers. It imposes a higher standard of care on common carriers, given their public duty.
• Public Service Act (Common Carrier Regulations): For certain types of transport services (such as land transportation), the Public Service Act (Common Carrier Regulations) governs their operations and provides oversight.

5. Duties and Obligations of Common Carriers

1. Duty of Extraordinary Diligence (Article 1733): Common carriers are mandated by law to observe extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers and the proper handling of goods.
2. Presumption of Negligence (Article 1756): In cases of loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods, or injury to passengers, common carriers are presumed negligent unless they can prove that they took extraordinary diligence to prevent the loss or damage.
3. Strict Liability (Articles 1759-1763): Common carriers are generally liable for damages caused to passengers or goods, except in cases where the damage was caused by natural disasters or force majeure. However, even in cases of force majeure, the carrier may still be held liable if negligence is established.

6. Limitations on the Liability of Common Carriers

While common carriers have heightened liability, the Civil Code provides certain limitations:

• Force Majeure (Article 1739): If a loss is due to unforeseen events or acts of God (force majeure), a common carrier is not liable unless they are negligent.
• Acts of the Public Enemy (Article 1740): Losses or damages due to acts of a public enemy absolve the carrier of liability.
• Fault of Shipper or Passenger (Article 1741): If the loss or injury is caused by the fault of the shipper or passenger, the common carrier may not be held liable.

7. Private Carriers and Contractual Freedom

Private carriers, operating under specific private agreements, are governed more by contract law principles than the statutory requirements of the Civil Code concerning common carriers. Key characteristics include:

1. Ordinary Diligence: Private carriers are only required to observe the standard duty of care (ordinary diligence) as agreed upon in the contract. In the absence of specific terms, they are bound to act as a reasonable and prudent person would.
2. Contractual Limitations: Since private carriers are not bound by the same stringent regulations as common carriers, they are generally allowed to limit or exempt themselves from liability through contractual clauses, provided these limitations do not contravene public policy or involve gross negligence.
3. No Presumption of Negligence: Unlike common carriers, private carriers do not operate under a presumption of negligence in cases of loss or damage, and the burden of proving negligence rests on the claimant.

8. Key Philippine Jurisprudence

Philippine case law provides essential insights into the distinction between common and private carriers. Notable decisions include:

1. First Philippine Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 125948, 1998): The Supreme Court held that merely because a company transports goods as part of its operations does not automatically classify it as a common carrier. The key determinant is whether the company offers its services to the public indiscriminately.
2. Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 147246, 2003): The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that common carriers are bound to exercise extraordinary diligence due to their duty to the public.
3. De Guzman v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-47822, 1988): This case clarified that the nature of a carrier (common or private) is defined by its operational model, not merely by the type of service provided. A common carrier must, by definition, be engaged in transportation services for the public without discrimination.

9. Liability Differences and Damage Recovery

• Common Carriers: Due to their duty to the public, they are generally unable to limit their liability through contractual stipulations, particularly regarding injury to passengers or significant damage to goods. Courts have consistently held common carriers to a high standard of liability.
• Private Carriers: Often allowed to define the scope of their liability in their contracts with clients. In the event of loss or damage, liability is usually confined within the terms of the contract, allowing private carriers greater flexibility in managing risks.

10. Regulatory Implications and Oversight

• Common Carriers: Subject to government regulation, often requiring permits, licenses, and adherence to industry standards.
• Private Carriers: Typically less regulated, as they do not hold themselves out to the public indiscriminately. However, they may still be subject to general contractual obligations under the Civil Code and additional regulations if transporting hazardous or sensitive materials.

Conclusion

The distinction between common and private carriers in Philippine law is significant, impacting their obligations, liabilities, and regulatory oversight. Common carriers, due to their public offering, must adhere to stricter standards, including the duty of extraordinary diligence and presumption of negligence, unless adequately rebutted. In contrast, private carriers operate based on specific contractual agreements and are bound only by ordinary diligence. This distinction provides a framework for determining liability, the level of care expected, and the regulatory obligations of carriers in the Philippines, underscoring the critical role of legal classification in the realm of transportation law.

General Principles of Common Carriers | TRANSPORTATION

General Principles of Common Carriers in Mercantile and Taxation Law (Philippines)

I. Definition of Common Carrier

A common carrier is defined under Philippine law as any person, corporation, firm, or association engaged in the business of transporting goods or passengers for compensation, offering its services to the public. This definition can be found under Article 1732 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which covers all carriers operating by land, water, or air, whether publicly or privately owned.

1. Scope of Application: Common carriers encompass all businesses that offer transportation services to the public, regardless of whether the activity is regular or occasional, as long as it meets the “public service” criterion.
2. Business of Transport: Common carriers must transport goods or passengers as a regular business for compensation; incidental or isolated transport activities generally do not constitute common carriage.

II. Distinction from Private Carriers

The Philippine Civil Code distinguishes common carriers from private carriers. Unlike private carriers, common carriers do not have the right to choose whom they serve, as they offer their services indiscriminately to the general public. Private carriers, on the other hand, transport goods or passengers selectively and based on a private arrangement, typically under contract.

III. Nature of Liability of Common Carriers

The law presumes that a common carrier is liable for loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods entrusted to it, arising from its operation. The principles governing liability include:

1. Presumption of Negligence: Under Article 1735 of the Civil Code, in case of loss, destruction, or damage to goods, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the common carrier. The carrier can only be exempt from liability by proving that the damage or loss was due to causes that were unforeseen and beyond its control.

2. Duty of Extraordinary Diligence: Article 1733 mandates that common carriers exercise extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and safety of passengers. This higher degree of diligence is imposed due to the public service nature of their business and is integral to their contractual and quasi-contractual obligations.

3. Liability for Acts of Employees: Common carriers are liable for the negligent acts of their employees within the course and scope of employment. This includes both permanent employees and temporary agents acting under the carrier’s authority.

IV. Grounds for Exemption from Liability

Common carriers may be exempt from liability if they can establish that the loss, damage, or deterioration of goods was due to any of the following causes, as listed under Article 1734 of the Civil Code:

1. Natural Disasters (Force Majeure): Acts of God, such as earthquakes, floods, or typhoons.
2. Public Enemies: Loss or damage caused by war or civil commotion.
3. Neglect or Default of the Shipper: When the act or omission of the shipper or owner caused the damage.
4. Character of the Goods: If the goods were inherently defective or prone to damage (e.g., perishables).
5. Order or Act of Public Authority: If an official act directly results in the destruction or confiscation of the goods.

V. Limitations on Carrier’s Right to Limit Liability

Article 1744 of the Civil Code allows common carriers to limit their liability through contracts, but only for loss or damage arising from specific causes and not due to the carrier's negligence or willful acts. The general principles include:

1. Prohibition Against Waiver of Liability for Negligence: Article 1745 states that stipulations exempting a common carrier from liability for its negligence, or that of its employees, are considered void. Thus, any attempt to limit liability for acts or omissions amounting to negligence is against public policy.

2. Conformity with Public Policy: Contracts with limitations on liability must align with the principles of public policy, as common carriers are charged with the public duty of care.

VI. Rights and Obligations of Common Carriers

1. Right to Collect Freight and Other Charges: Common carriers are entitled to charge and collect fees for the transportation of goods or passengers. Freight rates are often regulated, especially for public transportation carriers, to protect public interests.
2. Obligation to Provide Safe Transportation: Carriers must provide safe, prompt, and secure transportation for goods or passengers. This includes maintaining equipment, abiding by legal standards, and ensuring adequate safety measures.

VII. Special Provisions for the Carriage of Passengers

1. Liability for Passenger Injuries: Under Article 1755, common carriers are bound to exercise extraordinary diligence to prevent injury or death to passengers. The presumption of negligence applies in cases of injury or death, thus placing a heavy burden of proof on the carrier to show due diligence.
2. Extent of Liability for Death or Injuries: Article 1764 specifies that common carriers are liable for the death or injury of passengers, unless they can prove that it was due to causes exempted by law, such as an act of God or fault of the passenger.

VIII. Taxation Aspects of Common Carriers

1. Common Carrier’s Tax: Under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), common carriers engaged in transporting goods or passengers within the Philippines are subject to a percentage tax based on gross receipts. This tax rate may vary and is in lieu of the value-added tax (VAT), but it applies only to certain types of domestic carriers.

2. Exemptions and Incentives: Certain carriers, especially those engaging in international or interisland shipping, may be eligible for tax exemptions or incentives, such as deductions on expenses or special tax rates, under the NIRC and related tax regulations.

3. Local Government Taxation: Local government units (LGUs) may also impose taxes on common carriers operating within their jurisdictions, although such local taxes must not duplicate or conflict with national taxes. However, the Local Government Code allows LGUs to impose taxes on the gross receipts of common carriers operating within their areas.

IX. Jurisdictional and Regulatory Oversight

1. Philippine Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB): For air carriers, the CAB regulates fare rates, safety standards, and operations, ensuring compliance with local and international aviation standards.

2. Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA): For waterborne transportation, MARINA is the key regulatory body, enforcing standards, approving routes, and issuing necessary certificates for compliance.

3. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB): The LTFRB oversees land-based transportation, granting franchises, approving rates, and ensuring safety regulations for common carriers operating within the Philippines.

X. Recent Developments and Case Law

Recent case law from the Supreme Court of the Philippines has further clarified the obligations of common carriers, particularly with respect to extraordinary diligence and the presumption of negligence. For example, courts continue to affirm that common carriers have an implied contractual obligation to prioritize the safety of passengers, and that contractual waivers do not absolve carriers from liabilities arising from negligence.

This encapsulation of common carrier principles under Philippine mercantile and taxation law underscores the stringent regulatory and statutory requirements imposed to protect the public interest, as well as the strict liability standards applied to carriers for the welfare and security of both goods and passengers in transit.