This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-08-29 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Given the breadth of the aforequoted characterization of a common carrier, the Court has considered as common carriers pipeline operators,[18] custom brokers and warehousemen,[19] and barge operators[20] even if they had limited clientèle. | |||||
|
2006-08-15 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. They are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated.[6] To overcome the presumption of negligence in case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Article 1734 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach:Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: | |||||
|
2004-09-20 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Even if the weather encountered by the ship is to be deemed a natural disaster under Article 1739 of the Civil Code, petitioner failed to show that such natural disaster or calamity was the proximate and only cause of the loss. Human agency must be entirely excluded from the cause of injury or loss. In other words, the damaging effects blamed on the event or phenomenon must not have been caused, contributed to, or worsened by the presence of human participation.[27] The defense of fortuitous event or natural disaster cannot be successfully made when the injury could have been avoided by human precaution.[28] | |||||