QUICKY DIGESTS

HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA namely: RUBY B. OCHOA, MICAELA B. OCHOA and JOMAR B. OCHOA, petitioners, vs. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, respondent. G.R. No. 170071. March 9, 2011. Avis Taxicab There is a contract of carriage between G & S and Jose Marcial, hence, 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. The acquittal of Padilla in the criminal case is immaterial to the instant case for breach of contract since a ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said independent civil action based on an entirely different cause of action, i.e., culpa contractual.

SPOUSES TEODORO and NANETTE PEREÑA, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES NICOLAS and TERESITA L. ZARATE, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. G.R. No. 157917. August 29, 2012. Transporting Students Parena and PNR are jointly and severally liable because both of them are negligent. Despite catering to a limited clientèle, the Pereñas operated as a common carrier because they held themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to the students of a particular school living within or near where they operated the service and for a fee. The Pereñas were liable for the death of Aaron despite the fact that their driver might have acted beyond the scope of his authority or even in violation of the orders of the common carrier.  PNR did not ensure the safety of others through the placing of crossbars, signal lights, warning signs, and other permanent safety barriers to prevent vehicles or pedestrians from crossing there.

SPOUSES JESUS FERNANDO and ELIZABETH S. FERNANDO, petitioners, vs. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., respondent. G.R. No. 212038. February 8, 2017. Elite Platinum World Perks Card – Linda-Linda In an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that he has to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. In spite of the confirmed tickets, Northwest did not allow the Fernandos to board their flight for Manila, hence, the former is in bad faith. Therefore, Northwest is liable.

ALFREDO MANAY, JR., FIDELINO SAN LUIS, ADRIAN SAN LUIS, ANNALEE SAN LUIS, MARK ANDREW JOSE, MELISSA JOSE, CHARLOTTE JOSE, DAN JOHN DE GUZMAN, PAUL MARK BALUYOT, and CARLOS S. JOSE , petitioners, vs. CEBU AIR, INC., respondent. G.R. No. 210621. April 4, 2016. Cebu Pacific roundtrip ticket – Manila to Palawan The common carrier's obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence in the issuance of the contract of carriage is fulfilled by requiring a full review of the flight schedules to be given to a prospective passenger before payment. It is incumbent upon the purchaser of the tickets to at least check if all the information is correct before making the purchase. Petitioners, in failing to exercise the necessary care in the conduct of their affairs, were without a doubt negligent. Thus, they are not entitled to damages.

LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB, petitioner, vs. G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC., respondent. G.R. No. 213088. June 28, 2017. Vehicular accident involving public utility bus - CPC The Public Service Act provides that the LTFRB has the power and function to issue, amend, revise, suspend or cancel a Certificate of Public Convenience or permit G.V. Florida us guilty of several violations of the law, hence, the suspension of the 29 CPC’s for a period of 6 months is justified. All operators of public utility vehicle franchises and CPC’s are mere privilege granted by the government.

TORRES-MADRID BROKERAGE, INC., petitioner, vs. FEB MITSUI MARINE INSURANCE CO., INC. and BENJAMIN P. MANALASTAS, doing business under the name of BMT TRUCKING SERVICES, respondents. G.R. No. 194121. July 11, 2016. Electronic Goods A brokerage may be considered a common carrier if it also undertakes to deliver the goods for its customers. The law does not distinguish between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of goods and one who undertakes this task only as an ancillary activity. Theft or the robbery of the goods is not considered a fortuitous event or a force majeure. a stipulation diminishing or dispensing with the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves or robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force is void under Article 1745 of the Civil Code for being contrary to public policy. TMBI and BMT are not solidarily liable to Mitsui: Culpa-contractual – The diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and...