Common carriers; standard of diligenceLoadmasters Customs Services, Inc. vs. Glodel Brokerage Corporation and R & B Insurance Corporation;G.R. No. 179446, January 10, 2011.

Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, common carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passenger or goods, or both by land, water or air for compensation, offering their services to the public. Acommon carrieris distinguished from aprivate carrierwherein 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.Loadmasters and Glodel, being both common carriers, are mandated from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, to observe the extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them according to all the circumstances of such case, as required by Article 1733 of the Civil Code. When the Court speaks of extraordinary diligence, it is that extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection observe for securing and preserving their own property or rights. This exacting standard imposed on common carriers in a contract of carriage of goods is intended to tilt the scales in favor of the shipper who is at the mercy of the common carrier once the goods have been lodged for shipment. Thus, in case of loss of the goods, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. This presumption of fault or negligence, however, may be rebutted by proof that the common carrier has observed extraordinary diligence over the goods.With respect to the time frame of this extraordinary responsibility, the Civil Code provides that the exercise of extraordinary diligence lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by, the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.Common carrier; cargoes while being unloaded generally remain under the custody of the carrier. It is settled in maritime law jurisprudence that cargoes while being unloaded generally remain under the custody of the carrier. As hereinbefore found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA based on the evidence presented, the goods were damaged even before they were turned over to ATI. Such damage was even compounded by the negligent acts of petitioner and ATI which both mishandled the goods during the discharging operations.Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp., and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co., Ltd.,G.R. No. 193986, January 15, 2014.Common carrier; extraordinary diligence.Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. Subject to certain exceptions enumerated under Article 1734 of the Civil Code, common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them. Owing to this high degree of diligence required of them, common carriers, as a general rule, are presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or destroyed. That is, unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods. In order to avoid responsibility for any loss or damage, therefore, they have the burden of proving that they observed such high level of diligence.Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp., and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co., Ltd.,G.R. No. 193986, January 15, 2014.

Common carrier; breach of contract of carriage.There existed a contract of carriage between G & S, as the owner and operator of the Avis taxicab, and Jose Marcial, as the passenger of said vehicle. As a common carrier, G & S is bound to carry [Jose Marcial] 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. However, Jose Marcial was not able to reach his destination safely as he died during the course of the travel. In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier is at fault or is negligent when a passenger dies or is injured. In fact, there is even no need for the court to make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence. Unfortunately, G & S miserably failed to overcome this presumption. Both the trial court and the CA found that the accident which led to Jose Marcials death was due to the reckless driving and gross negligence of G & S driver, Padilla, thereby holding G & S liable to the heirs of Jose Marcial for breach of contract of carriage.That the driver was acquitted in the criminal case for reckless imprudence is immaterial. Article 31 of the Civil Code provides,viz:When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.In this case, the action filed by the heirs is primarily for the recovery of damages arising from breach of contract of carriage allegedly committed by G & S. Clearly, it is an independent civil action arising from contract which is separate and distinct from the criminal action for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide filed by the heirs against Padilla by reason of the same incident. Hence, regardless of Padillas acquittal or conviction in said criminal case, same has no bearing in the resolution of the present case.Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa, namely: Ruby B. Ochoa, et al. v. G & S Transport Corporation/G & S Transport Corporation v. Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa, namely: Ruby B. Ochoa, et al.,G.R. No. 170071 & G.R. No. 170125,March 9, 2011.

Contract; contract of carriage; definition; common carrier; definition; breach of contract of carriage; entitlement to damages; contract of services; standard of care required; damages; when recoverable; quasi-delict; solidary liability of joint tortfeasors.A contract of carriage is defined as one whereby a certain person or association of persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news from one place to another for a fixed price. On its face, the airplane ticket is a valid written contract of carriage. This Court has held that when an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises, and the passenger has every right to expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for breach of contract of carriage.Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, this persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public is called a common carrier.In contrast, the contractual relation between Sampaguita Travel and respondents is a contract for services. Since the contract between the parties is an ordinary one or services, the standard of care required of respondent is that of a good father of a family under Article 1173 of the Civil Code. This connotes reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed when confronted with a similar situation. The test to determine whether negligence attended the performance of an obligation is: did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.For one to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, an award of moral damages, in breaches of contract, is in order upon a showing that the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. What the law considers as bad faith which may furnish the ground for an award of moral damages would be bad faith in securing the contract and in the execution thereof, as well as in the enforcement of its terms, or any other kind of deceit. In the same vein, to warrant the award of exemplary damages, defendant must have acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.Nominal damages are recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury oractual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown. Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered.The amount to be awarded as nominal damages shall be equal or at least commensurate to the injury sustained by respondents considering the concept and purpose of such damages. The amount of nominal damages to be awarded may also depend on certain special reasons extant in the case. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and taking into account the relevant circumstances, such as the failure of some respondents to board the flight on schedule and the slight breach in the legal obligations of the airline company to comply with the terms of the contract,i.e., the airplane ticket and of the travel agency to make the correct bookings.Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel acted together in creating the confusion in the bookings which led to the erroneous cancellation of respondents bookings. Their negligence is the proximate cause of the technical injury sustained by respondents. Therefore, they have become joint tortfeasors, whose responsibility forquasi-delict,under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, is solidary.Cathay Pacific Airways v. Juanita Reyes, et al.,G.R. No. 185891, June 26, 2013

Arrastre operator; functions; duty to take good care of goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their possession.The functions of an arrastre operator involve the handling of cargo deposited on the wharf or between the establishment of the consignee or shipper and the ships tackle. Being the custodian of the goods discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operators duty is to take good care of the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their possession. Handling cargo is mainly the arrastre operators principal work so its drivers/operators or employees should observe the standards and measures necessary to prevent losses and damage to shipments under its custody.Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Philam Insurance Co., Inc. (now Chartis Philippines Insurance Inc.)/ Philam Insurance Co., Inc. (now Chartis Philippines Insurance Inc.) v. Westwind Shipping Corporation and Asian Terminals, Inc./ Westwind Shipping Corporation v. Philam Insurance Co., Inc. and Asian Terminals, Inc.,G.R. Nos. 181163/181262/181319, July 24, 2013.

Common carrier; liability. Undoubtedly, UTI is liable as a common carrier. Common carriers, as a general rule, are presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or destroyed. That is, unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods. In order to avoid responsibility for any loss or damage, therefore, they have the burden of proving that they observed such diligence. Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes a prima facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no adequate explanation is given as to how the deterioration, loss, or destruction of the goods happened, the transporter shall be held responsible.Unsworth Transportation International (Phils.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation,G.R. No. 166250, July 26, 2010