Article 1761 The passenger must respect the care of a good father to avoid any injury. If the destination is not designated by the common carrier, the contract terminates when the passenger safely disembarks from the carrier`s vehicle. That makes sense, since the common carrier has no control over what happens next. Perhaps near-negligence is still possible if the driver subsequently becomes negligent, but the action is not based on the Culpa contract. This extraordinary care in terms of vigilance with regard to goods is also expressed in Articles 1734, 1735 and 1745, Nos. 5, 6 and 7, while the extraordinary care given to the safety of passengers is also set out in Articles 1755 and 1756. (3) the common carrier is not required to exercise caution in the preservation of the goods; Viluan v. Court of Appeal and Bulante v. Chu Liante, the court refused to seek moral damages in the breach of contract actions because it was not proven that the joint airline had committed fraud or bad faith in performing its obligation.
Similarly, in Verzosa v Baytan, the General Court did not award non-pecuniary damages in an action for breach of contract, since there was no allegation or evidence that the joint airline had committed fraud or bad faith. The court stated that ”the award of moral damages for breach of contract, i.e. without proof of bad faith or malice on the part of the defendant, as required [article 2220 of the Civil Code], would violate the clear provisions of the law and constitute unjustified judicial legislation. An example of ”backed by valuable consideration” is a fee discount. In other words, shippers pay less than the usual costs and, in return, the ordinary carrier will no longer exercise extraordinary care, but only a lesser degree of care, but no less than the ”care of a man of ordinary prudence in vigilance towards the movable property carried” (this can be called simply ”ordinary care”). For checked baggage: The common carrier must show exceptional attentionFor ”hand luggage”: the same care as that of the hotel owners This responsibility of the joint carriers does not expire with proof that they have applied the care of a good father in the selection and supervision of their employees. We will learn more about negligence related to vehicle collisions when we commit a crime. But as far as the ordinary airlines law and the contract of carriage are concerned, we have pretty much covered the essentials. But wait, what if the cause of the accident was a defect in the equipment or mechanical structure of the vehicle? Should the common carrier be held liable? YES! As long as the defects can be found:”The predominance of the authority supports the doctrine that a passenger is entitled to claim damages from a carrier for an injury resulting from a defect in an aircraft purchased from a manufacturer, if it turns out that the defect would have been discovered by the carrier if he had exercised care, which was incumbent upon him in the given circumstances, with regard to the inspection and application of the necessary tests.x X The reason for the carrier`s liability is the fact that the passenger has neither choice nor control over the carrier in the choice and use of the equipment and equipment used by the carrier. Since the passenger has no privacy with the manufacturer or seller of the defective equipment, he has no recourse against him, whereas the carrier has generally done so. It is therefore logical that, although the carrier is not an insurer for the safety of its passengers, it is nevertheless held responsible for defects in its equipment, if such defects could be found.
» – Necesito v Paragraphs, 1958 As already mentioned, for reasons of public policy (e.B. to protect the travelling public from reckless drivers), there is a presumption of negligence on the part of ordinary carriers in the event of death or injury of passengers, in which case the victim or his heir must prove only the existence of a contract of carriage between the victim (passenger) and the common carrier. This presumption of negligence can only be rebutted if the ordinary carrier can prove that it has exercised exceptional diligence in the carriage of its passengers. These are the objectives of such a distinction:1. Know which law governs the relationship between the carrier and the customerFor joint carriers: provisions on joint carriers of the Civil Code, the Law on Public Service, other special laws relating to transport For private carriers: provisions on ordinary contracts of the Civil Code. In other words, the provisions of the Treaty, as long as they do not violate the law, morality, morality, public order or public order. Sources: ”Public transport contracts are subject to the provisions relating to ordinary carriers of the Civil Code, the Civil Service Act and other special transport laws.” – Spouse Teodoro v. .