Commercial and Taxation Laws › Transportation Law › Safety of Passengers

1. Under the Civil Code

Safety of Passengers

Civil Code, Articles 1755-1763

Article 1755.1 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 a due regard for all the circumstances.

Article 1756.2 In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 17333 and 1755.

Article 1757.4 The responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers as required in articles 1733 and 1755 cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise.

Article 1758.5 When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability for negligence is valid, but not for wilful acts or gross negligence.

The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier's liability.

Article 1759.6 Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.

This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.

Article 1760.7 The common carrier's responsibility prescribed in the preceding article cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on the tickets or otherwise.

Article 1761.8 The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself.

Article 1762.9 The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced.

Article 1763.10 A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

Common Carriers are bound to carry passengers as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. (Civil Code, Art. 1755)11

Despite the requirement of the exercise of the highest degree of diligence, common carriers should not be considered as insurers of the absolute safety of the passengers (Pilapil v. CA)12

Passenger

One who travels under an express or implied contract of carriage with a common carrier, whether for a fare or gratuitously. (Civil Code, Art. 1758; Jesusa Vda. De Nueca v. Manila Railroad Company, G.R. No. 31731-R)14

Presumption of Negligence

Common Carriers are presumed to be negligent in cases of death or injuries to passengers, unless they prove extraordinary diligence. (Civil Code, Art. 1756)15

Presumption of negligence applies so long as:

  • A contract exists between the passenger and the common carrier; and
  • The injury or death took place during the existence of the contract (Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Sesante, G.R. No. 172682, 27 July 2016)16

DURATION OF LIABILITY

The duty to exercise extraordinary diligence commences when the passenger places himself in the care and control of the common carrier who accepts him/her as a passenger

NOTE: Do not confuse perfection of the contract of carriage with the commencement of the duty to exercise extraordinary diligence. The contract of carriage may be perfected in January while the duty to exercise extraordinary diligence may only start or commence in March.

a. Waiting for carrier or boarding of carrier

A public vehicle, once it stops, is in effect making a continuous offer to prospective passengers. Hence, it becomes the duty of the drivers and conductors to do no act which would have the effect of increasing the peril to a passenger while he/she was attempting to board the vehicle. (Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA)17

It is the duty of common carriers to stop their conveyances at a reasonable length of time in order to afford the passengers an opportunity to board and enter. Carriers become liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers resulting from the starting up or jerking of the vehicle while boarding. (Id.)

b. Arrival at destination

The duty to exercise extraordinary diligence terminates, when the passenger alights from the vehicle at the place of destination and has reasonable opportunity to leave the common carrier’s premises. (Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. CA)18

All persons who remain on the premises a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are deemed passengers. What constitutes as a “reasonable time” is to determined from all the circumstances, which includes a reasonable time to see after his/her baggage and prepare for his/her departure. (Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. CA)

For passengers of ships, the reasonable time to pick up baggage and leave is determined from the circumstances; an hour after arrival is not a universal limit. (Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. CA)

a. Employees

Common carriers are liable for the death or injuries to passengers through its employees’ negligence or willful acts. This liability exists even if the employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of their orders of the common carriers. (Civil Code, Art. 1759)19

A common carrier’s liability for injuries caused by its employees’ negligence or willful acts does not cease even if it proves diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. (Civil Code, Art. 1759)

Art. 1759 of the Civil Code20 does not establish a presumption of negligence similar to Art. 175621. Instead, it makes the common carrier explicitly liable for deaths and injuries caused by the fault or negligence of the carrier’s employees. (Sulpicio Lines, Inc.)22

b. Other passengers and strangers

Common Carriers are responsible for injuries to passengers caused by other passengers or strangers if the carrier’s employees could have prevented or stopped the act causing the injury through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family. (Civil Code, Art. 1763)23

Common carriers should be given sufficient leeway in assuming that the passengers they take in will not bring in anything that would prove dangerous to himself/herself or to other passengers unless there is something that will require a more stringent search. (Nocum v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, G.R. No. L-23733, 31 October 1969)24

Nocum v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company is a landmark case in Philippine transportation law concerning the liability of common carriers for passenger safety.

Summary of the Case

Facts:

  • Incident: Agapito Nocum was a passenger on a bus operated by Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (LTBC). During the trip, an explosion involving a co-passenger’s inflammable cargo injured Nocum.
  • Lawsuit: Nocum sued LTBC for damages, claiming that the bus company failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers to ensure the safety of its passengers.

Issue:

  • The main issue was whether LTBC, as a common carrier, was liable for the injuries sustained by Nocum due to the explosion involving a co-passenger’s cargo.

Ruling:

  • Trial Court: The trial court ruled in favor of Nocum, awarding him damages. LTBC appealed the decision.
  • Supreme Court: The Supreme Court absolved LTBC of liability for Nocum’s injuries: in the circumstances, its employees could not have prevented the injury through the diligence required under Article 1763.

Legal Principles:

  • Extraordinary Diligence: The Supreme Court reiterated that common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of their passengers. Whether LTBC was liable for the injury caused by a co-passenger’s cargo depended on whether its employees could have prevented it through the diligence required under Article 1763.
  • Presumption of Negligence: The Court emphasized that when a passenger is injured, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the common carrier. For an injury caused by another passenger or a stranger, liability under Article 1763 depends on whether the carrier’s employees could have prevented or stopped the act through the diligence of a good father of a family. In Nocum, the employees could not have discovered and prevented the danger under that standard.
  • Duty to Protect Passengers: The Court found no basis to require LTBC’s employees to have discovered the danger posed by the co-passenger’s cargo and prevented Nocum’s injury through the diligence required under Article 1763 in the circumstances.

LIABILITY FOR DEFECTS IN EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES

The carrier will be liable for the accident if the cause of the accident is a mechanical defect of the conveyance or the fault of the equipment which was easily discoverable if the vehicle had been subjected to more thorough or rigid inspections. (LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-21486, 14 May 1966)25)

EXTENT OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES

Damages can be awarded in cases of injuries suffered by or deaths of passengers in accordance to the provisions of the Civil Code on Damages. (Civil Code, Art. 176426)

Kinds of Damages

  • Actual or Compensatory Damages
  • Moral Damages
  • Exemplary Damages
  • Nominal Damages
  • Temperate Damages
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Attorney’s Fees

Rule on Moral Damages

General Rule: Moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract of carriage.

Exceptions: Moral Damages may be awarded in a breach of contract caused by the common carrier where:

  • There is death of a passenger (Civil Code, Art. 1764)27 or
  • The carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith even if there is no death. (Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Curso, G.R. No. 157009, 17 March 2010)28

Authorities

  • Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. CA
  • Civil Code, Sec. 1733
  • Civil Code, Sec. 1755
  • Civil Code, Sec. 1756
  • Civil Code, Sec. 1757
  • Civil Code, Sec. 1758
  • Civil Code, Sec. 1759
  • Civil Code, Sec. 1760
  • Civil Code, Sec. 1761
  • Civil Code, Sec. 1762
  • Civil Code, Sec. 1763
  • Civil Code, Sec. 1764
  • Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA
  • Jesusa Vda. De Nueca v. Manila Railroad Company, G.R. No. 31731-R
  • La Mallorca v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-21486, 14 May 1966
  • Nocum v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, G.R. No. L-23733, 31 October 1969
  • Pilapil v. CA
  • Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Curso, G.R. No. 157009, 17 March 2010
  • Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Sesante, G.R. No. 172682, 27 July 2016