Contract of carriage: From beginning to end
The relationship between the passenger and the common carrier is a contractual one, the contract being the transport of passenger from one point to another for a fee
Public utility vehicles (PUV) play an important role in the country’s economy. With the relaxation of community quarantine restrictions, PUV, which are the main mode of transportation for most Filipinos, are now back on the road although with limited seating capacity.
Under the law, PUV are called common carriers. Article 1732 of the Civil Code of the Philippines [CCP] defines a common carrier as a person, corporation, firm 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.
Passengers entrust their lives to PUV drivers/operators with the expectation that they will safely arrive at their destination. Article 1733 of the CCP requires a common carrier to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers. In this regard, Article 1755 of the CCP states that extraordinary diligence means that a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard for all circumstances. In case of accidents causing death or injuries to passengers, Article 1766 of the CCP presumes the common carrier to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless extraordinary diligence has been proven.
The relationship between the passenger and the common carrier is a contractual one, the contract being the transport of passenger from one point to another for a fee. The question is: when does this relationship start and end?
The Supreme Court (SC) answered this question in the case of Dangwa Transportation Co. v CA [G.R. 95582 (1991)] and La Mallorca v CA [G.R. L-20761 (1966)]. This case involved a passenger who attempted to board the bus from the bus platform just as the driver accelerated. The bus consequently ran over the passenger who died from the incident.
The SC ruled that, as a common carrier, the bus driver had the duty to stop for a reasonable length of time to allow passengers to board and enter. Failure to do so would constitute negligence, making the common carrier liable for any death or injury. The SC said the act of the passenger of stepping and standing on the bus platform meant that the contract of carriage had already commenced. At that point, the passenger already became entitled to all the rights and protection under the contract of carriage.
In case of accidents causing death or injuries to passengers, Article 1766 of the CCP presumes the common carrier to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless extraordinary diligence has been proven.
The La Mallorca case, on the other hand, involved a family who had just alighted from a bus. The father took his family to a shaded area and returned to the bus to unload their baggage. Unknown to him, his daughter followed him. While waiting for the conductor to hand him the baggage, the bus suddenly moved forward, running over the daughter.
The SC ruled that the mere fact of alighting from the bus did not automatically end the contract of carriage between the passenger and the carrier. Such contract is effective until the passenger has had reasonable time or opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises which is circumstantial in character.
It is important to understand that every time the passenger is transported by a common carrier, they both have obligations to fulfill in favor of the other. However, the bigger chunk of these obligations rests on the carrier considering that the lives of the passengers they carry are in their hands.