7. Which Carrier Requires A "Type Of Service Code"?

The diligence required of a private carrier is merely ordinary, that is, the diligence of a skilful father of the family. In contrast, a mutual carrier is a person, corporation, firm or clan engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering such services to the public.[1] Contracts of common carriage are governed by the provisions on common carriers of the Ceremonious Code, the Public Service Deed,[ii] and other special laws relating to transportation. A common carrier is required to detect extraordinary diligence, and is presumed to be at error or to have acted negligently in example of the loss of the effects of passengers, or the decease or injuries to passengers.[3] (Sps Pereña vs. Sps Zarate, G.R. No. 157917, Baronial 29, 2012, [Bersamin, J.])

Fine art. 1755. A mutual carrier is bound to deport the passengers safely every bit far as homo care and foresight tin provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

Art. 1755. A mutual carrier is spring to deport the passengers safely equally far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

Fine art. 1756. In example of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to take been at error or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed boggling diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.

The Code Committee, in justifying this extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier, says the following:

A common carrier is jump to carry the passengers safely as far every bit human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost deligence of very cautions persons, with due regard for all circumstances. This extraordinary diligence required of common carriers is calculated to protect the passengers from the tragic mishaps that often occur in connexion with rapid modern transportation. This high standard of care is imperatively demanded by the precariousness of homo life and by the consideration that every person must in every style be safeguarded against all injury. (Report of the Lawmaking Commission, pp. 35-36)" (Padilla, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. Iv, 1956 ed., p. 197).

From the to a higher place legal provisions, we can make the following restatement of the principles governing the liability of a common carrier: (ane) the liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. In that location is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of each instance; (ii) a carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, having due regard for all the circumstances; (3) a carrier is presumed to be at error or to have acted negligently in case of death of, or injury to, passengers, it being its duty to bear witness that it exercised extraordinary diligence; and (4) the carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel. (Isaac vs. A.50. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., 1000.R. No. Fifty-9671, Baronial 23, 1957, [J., Bautista-Angelo])

Common carriers are obliged to notice extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported past them.[4] Appropriately, they are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the appurtenances are lost, destroyed or deteriorated.[5] There are very few instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach and these instances are enumerated in Article 1734.[half-dozen] In those cases where the presumption is applied, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in order to overcome the presumption. (Bascos vs. CA, G.R. No. 101089, April 7, 1993, [Campos, Jr., J])

[1]Article 1732 of the Civil Code states:

Commodity 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business organization of conveying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by state, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.

[two]Commonwealth Human activity No. 146, every bit amended, particularly past PD No. one, Integrated Reorganization Plan and East.O. 546.

[three]Article 1756 of the Civil Lawmaking reads:

Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to accept been at mistake or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed boggling diligence as prescribed in manufactures 1733 and 1755.

[4]"Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are leap to find extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in vigilance over the appurtenances is farther expressed in manufactures 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. v, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set along in articles 1755 and 1756."

[5] "Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, two, 3, iv, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at mistake or to have acted negligently, unless they show that they observed extraordinary diligence every bit required in article 1733."

[6]"Art. 1734. Mutual carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the appurtenances, unless the same is due to whatsoever of the following causes but:

(1) Inundation, tempest, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or cataclysm;

(two) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or ceremonious;

(3) Act or omission of the shipper or possessor of the goods;

(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;

(5) Society or act of competent public dominance."

Atty. Mark P. Piad Master of Laws, San Beda Graduate Schoolhouse of Police, 2011-2012 (unfinished) Available of Laws, University of Iloilo, Class of 2006 Bachelor of Arts, Major in Political Science, Grade of 2002 Work Experience: Metropolis Legal Office Attorney III, Iloilo Urban center, Apr 2017 – Present Spokesperson, Mayor Jed Patrick East. Mabilog, Iloilo City, Jan 2016 - Oct 2017 Founding Partner, Piad Porras & Panizales Law Office, Jul 2016 – Present Executive Assistant II, Role of the City Mayor, Iloilo Urban center, Jun 2016 – Mar 2017 Executive Banana I, Part of the City Mayor, Iloilo City, Jan 2016 – Jun 2016 Partner, Alobba Librero & Piad Police Offices, Jan 2012 – Jun 2016 Mid-Size Law Firm engaged in Civil and Criminal Litigation, Corporate Retainer, Contract Drafting, Estate Planning, Labor Disputes, Administrative Cases, Appellate Exercise, and Notarial Services. Kinesthesia, Colegio de la Purisima Concepcion College of Law, November 2013 – November 2015 Handles the following subjects (Negotiable Instruments Constabulary, Special Proceedings, Law on Transportation, Intellectual Property Police force) Faculty, Western Establish of Technology, Nov 2007 – Mar 2014 Handles Business Police force Subjects (Obligations & Contracts, Negotiable Instruments, Partnerships & Corporations, Police on Sales and Special Commercial Laws) Acquaintance, Alobba Porras & Associates, May 2007 – December 2011 Kinesthesia, Academy of Iloilo College of Law, Jun 2008 – Mar 2009 Handles Legal Research and Legal Profession Legal Researcher, Alobba & Porras Law Office, Feb 2005 – Apr 2007 Bookish Works: Author, Basic Principles and Jurisprudence in the Negotiable Instruments Police, published in 2012 View all posts past attymarkppiad