This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, common carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passenger or goods, or both by land, water or air for compensation, offering their services to the public. On the other hand, a private carrier is one wherein the carriage is generally undertaken by special agreement and it does not hold itself out to carry goods for the general public.[28] A common carrier becomes a private carrier when it undertakes to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only.[29] For all intents and purposes, therefore, Reputable operated as a private/special carrier with regard to its contract of carriage with Wyeth. | |||||
|
2011-07-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Therefore, even if the contract is for a bareboat or demise charter where possession, free administration and even navigation are temporarily surrendered to the charterer, dominion over the vessel remains with the shipowner. Ergo, the charterer or the sub-charterer, whose rights cannot rise above that of the former, can never set up the Limited Liability Rule against the very owner of the vessel. Borrowing the words of Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, "Indeed, where the reason for the rule ceases, the rule itself does not apply." [33] | |||||
|
2006-01-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner heavily relies on Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc.[18] and Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[19] The said cases involved a private carrier, not a common carrier. Moreover, the issue in both cases is not the effect of a voyage-charter on a common carrier, but the validity of a stipulation absolving the private carrier from liability in case of loss of the cargo attributable to the negligence of the private carrier. | |||||