Key Legal Doctrines in Transportation Cases
Uploaded by
ShanaKey Legal Doctrines in Transportation Cases
Uploaded by
ShanaTRANSPO SET 1 DOCTRINES
1) Planters vs CA
- When PPI chartered the vessel M/V "Sun Plum", the ship captain, its
officers and compliment were under the employ of the shipowner and
therefore continued to be under its direct supervision and control. Hardly
then can we charge the charterer, a stranger to the crew and to the ship,
with the duty of caring for his cargo when the charterer did not have any
control of the means in doing so carrier has sufficiently overcome, by clear
and convincing proof, the prima facie presumption of negligence.
2) Fabre vs CA
- School bus for children. (WWCF) arranged with petitioners for the
transportation of members of young adult ministry from Manila to La
Union and back. While travelling, they met an accident. The bus hit a
fence and a coconut tree that caused passengers to be injured including
respondent Antonio.
- The Supreme Court held that this case actually involves a contract of
carriage. Petitioners, the Fabres, did not have to be engaged in the
business of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code on
common carriers to apply to them.
- Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the
"general public," i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services
or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population.
3) Erezo vs Jepte
- The registered owner, the defendant-appellant herein, is primarily
responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle of the plaintiff-appellee,
but he (defendant-appellant) has a right to be indemnified by the real or
actual owner of the amount that he may be required to pay as damage for
the injury caused to the plaintiff-appellant.
- The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that
if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the
vehicles on the public highways, responsibility therefore can be fixed on a
definite individual, the registered owner.
4) Santos vs Sibug
- In asserting his rights of ownership to the vehicle in question, SANTOS
candidly admitted his participation in the illegal and pernicious practice in
the transportation business known as the kabit system. Although SANTOS,
as the kabit, was the true owner as against VIDAD, the latter, as the
registered owner/operator and grantee of the franchise, is directly and
primarily responsible and liable for the damages caused to SIBUG, the
injured party, as a consequence of the negligent or careless operation of
the vehicle. This ruling is based on the principle that the operator of
record is considered the operator of the vehicle in contemplation of law as
regards the public and third persons even if the vehicle involved in the
accident had been sold to another where such sale had not been approved
by the then Public Service Commission.
5) Lita Enterprises vs CA, Ocampo
- Although not outrightly penalized as a criminal offense, the kabit system
is invariably recognized as being contrary to public policy and, therefore,
void and inexistent under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, It is a
fundamental principle that the court will not aid either party to enforce an
illegal contract, but will leave them both where it finds them. Upon this
premise, it was flagrant error on the part of both the trial and appellate
courts to have accorded the parties relief from their predicament. Article
1412 of the Civil Code denies them such aid. Having entered into an illegal
contract, neither can seek relief from the courts, and each must bear the
consequences of his acts.
6) PCI Leasing vs UCPB
- PCI liable as a registered owner of the truck. Cited Erezo vs Jepte.
7) Teja Marketing vs IAC
-