8/21/2019 Common Carrier CASES

1/1

Common Carrier; Damages;

Mechanical defects in a common

carrier (e.g. boats, vehicles) are not

considered fortuitous events

SWEET LINES V. CA 121 SCRA 769

(1983)

FACTS:For having by-passed a port

of call without previous notice,

petitioner shipping company and

the ship captain were sued for

damages by four of its passengers.

Private respondents, having first

class tickets, boarded the M/V

Sweet Grace to Catbalogan. The

vessel had some engine problems

which led to a change of schedule

and they were thus delayed for a

substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, the vessel brought

them to Tacloban instead of

Catbalogan. This led the passengers

to purchase another set of tickets

and to ride another ferryboat going

to Catbalogan. The private

respondents then sued the

petitioner carrier for damages for

the breach of contract of carriage.

ISSUE: W/N the petitioner is liable

for damages.

HELD: The Court held that the

petitioner is liable for damages.

Under Article 2220 of the Civil

Code, moral damages are justly due

in breaches of contract where the

defendant acted fraudulently or in

bad faith.

The governing provisions

are found in the Code of

Commerce: Articles 614, 698. The

voyage of Catbalogan was

interrupted by the captain upon the

instruction of management. The

interruption was neither due to

fortuitous event or force majeure

nor to disability of the vessel.

Having been caused by the captain

upon instruction of management,

the passengers right to indemnity

is evident. The owner of a vessel

and the ship agent shall be civilly

liable for the acts of the captain,

Article 586, Code of Commerce.

Judgment MODIFIED.

BOUNDARY SYSTEM

MAGBOO V. BERNARDO 7 SCRA 952

FACTS: The action of the spouses

Urbano and Emilia Magboo against

Delfin Bernardo is for enforcement

of his subsidiary liability as

employer. Spouses are the parentsof Cesar Magboo, a child of 8 years

old, who lived with them and was

then under their custody until his

death when he was killed in a

motor vehicle accident, the fatal

vehicle being a passenger jeepney

owned by Delfin Bernardo. At the

time of the accident, said passenger

jeepney was driven by Condrado

Roque. The contract between

Roque and Bernardo was that

Roque was to pay to Bernardo the

sum of P8.00, for the privilege of

driving the jeepney, it being their

agreement that whatever earnings

Roque could make out of the use of

the jeepney in transporting

passengers from one point to

another would be entirely to

Roque. As a consequence of the

accident and as a result of the

death of Cesar Magboo, Roque was

prosecuted for homicide thru

reckless imprudence. Pursuant to

said judgment Roque served his

sentence but he was not able to

pay the indemnity because he was

insolvent.

ISSUE:W/N an employer-employee

relationship exists between the

jeep- operator and the driver.

HELD: Under a boundary system

arrangement an employer-

employee relationship exists

between a jeep-owner and a driver.

The fact that the driver does not

receive a fixed wage but gets only

the excess of the amount of fares

collected by him over the amount

he pays to the jeep-owner, and the

gasoline consumed by the jeep is

for the amount of the driver- are

not sufficient to withdraw the

relationship between them from

that of employee and employer.

Consequently, the jeep-owner is

subsidiary liable as employer in

accordance with Art.103, RPC.

SAMAR MINING COMPANY V.

NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD AND C.F. SHARP

& COMPANY, INC.

132 SCRA 529 OCTOBER 23, 1984

FACTS: An importation was made by

Samar Mining Co. Inc. Of 1 crate Optima

welded wedge wire sieves through the

M/S Schwabenstein, a vessel owned byNordeutscher Lloyd, (represented in the

Philippines by its agent, C.F. Sharp Co.,

Inc.), which shipment is covered by Bill

of Lading 18 duly issued to consignee

Samar Mining. Upon arrival of the vessel

at the port of Manila, the importation

was unloaded and delivered in good

order and condition to the bonded

warehouse of AMCYL. The goods were

however never delivered to, nor

received by, the consignee at the port of

destination-Davao. Samar Mining filed a

suit to enforce payment. Nordeutscher

Lloyd and C.F. Sharp & Co. brought in

AMCYL as third party defendant. Thetrial court rendered judgment in favour

of Samar Mining ordering defendants to

pay the amount plus attorneys fees and

costs. However, the Court stated that

appellants may recoup whatever they

may pay Samar Mining by enforcing the

judgment against third party defendant

AMCYL, which earlier been declared in

default. Nordeutscher Lloyd and C.F.

Sharp & Co. appealed from said

decision.

ISSUE:W/N appellants are liable, under

the bill of lading 18 covering the subject

shipment.

HELD: The stipulations in bill of

lading 18 is valid and in conformity

with the provisions of the NCC on

common carriers, agency and

contracts, they incur no liability for

the loss of the goods in question.

Article 1736 is applicable to the

instant suit. The carrier may be

relived of the responsibility for loss

or damage of the goods upon

actual or constructive delivery of

the same by the carrier to the

consignee, or the person who has a

right to receive them. There isactual delivery in contracts for

transport of goods when possession

has been turned over to the

consignee or to his duly authorized

agent and a reasonable time is

given him to remove the goods.

Decision reversed. Complaint

DISMISSED.