Kim Zeus Ga-an LLB-IITransportation LawJanuary 6, 2015

ARTICLE 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy: (1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper; (2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods; (3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods; (4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a family, or of a man of ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported; (5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees; (6) That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished; (7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage. > The law itself provides that the above stipulations are unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy. Under Article 1745(6), a common carrier is held responsible even for acts of strangers like thieves or robbers except where such thieves or robbers acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force. ARTICLE 1746. An agreement limiting the common carrier's liability may be annulled by the shipper or owner if the common carrier refused to carry the goods unless the former agreed to such stipulation. ARTICLE 1747. If the common carrier, without just cause, delays the transportation of the goods or changes the stipulated or usual route, the contract limiting the common carrier's liability cannot be availed of in case of the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. Effect of delay in transportation, etc

The common carrier cannot avail of the contract limiting his liability in these cases:

(1) where the common carrier delays the transportation of the goods;(2) where the common carrier changes the stipulated or usual route [in both cases, the delay or change of route must be without just cause] (Art. 1747)ARTICLE 1748. An agreement limiting the common carrier's liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid. ARTICLE 1749. A stipulation that the common carrier's liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value, is binding. ARTICLE 1750. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered. by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed upon. ARTICLE 1751. The fact that the common carrier has no competitor along the line or route, or a part thereof, to which the contract refers shall be taken into consideration on the question of whether or not a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability is reasonable, just and in consonance with public policy. A common carrier cannot limit its liability for injury or loss where such is caused by its own negligence, unskillfulness or carelessness of its employees. The rule rests on public policy. The shipper and common carrier are not on equal terms; the shipper is entirely at the mercy of the common carrier unless protected by the law.

Three kinds of stipulations have often been made in a bill of lading.

First, one exempting the carrier from any and all liability for loss or damage occasioned by its own negligence.

Second, one providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agree valuation.

Third, one limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight.

The first and second stipulations are invalid as contrary to public policy. The third is valid and enforceable. A stipulation in the bill of lading limiting the liability of the CC to a specified amount unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher freight is valid and enforceable. If a common carrier gives to a shipper the choice of 2 rates, the lower of them conditioned upon his agreeing to a stipulated valuation of his property in case of loss, even by the carrier's negligence, if the shipper makes the choice understandingly and freely, and names his valuation, he cannot thereafter recover more than the value which he thus places upon his property.

ARTICLE 1752. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration. When stipulation limiting liability valid

The shipper or owner and the CC may stipulate to limit the liability of the CC for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods to a degree less than extra-ordinary diligence :

1. the stipulation must be in writing and signed by both parties;2. the stipulation must be supported by valuable consideration other than the service rendered by the common carrier;

3. the stipulation must be reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy. (Art. 1744)

It is what is known as a contract of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other; it is not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent. A contract limiting liability upon an agree valuation does not offend against the policy of the law forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence.ARTICLE 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration. Applicable Law in foreign trade

The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration. (Art. 1753)

The Civil Code governs the liability of the common carrier in case of loss, damage or deterioration. Under 1766, in all matters not regulated by the Civil Code, the rights and obligations of the common carrier shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws which are suppletory to the provisions of the Civil Code.

ARTICLE 1754. The provisions of articles 1733 to 1753 shall apply to the passenger's baggage which is not in his personal custody or in that of his employee. As to other baggage, the rules in articles 1998 and 2000 to 2003 concerning the responsibility of hotel-keepers shall be applicable.

Rules on Passenger Baggage

Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods of the passengers transported by them.

The rules concerning the responsibility of hotelkeepers shall be applicable to common carriers.

The deposit of effects made by passengers in common carriers shall be regarded as necessary. The common carrier shall be responsible for them as depositaries, provided that notice was given to them, or to their employees, of the effects brought by the passengers and that, on the part of the latter, they take the precautions which said common carriers or their employees advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects.

The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the common carrier is not deemed force majeure, unless it is done with the use of arms or through irresistible force.

The common carrier is not liable for compensation if the loss is due to the acts of the passenger, or if the loss arises from the character of the things brought into the common carrier.

The common carrier cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by the passenger. Any stipulation between the common carrier and the passenger where the responsibility of the former is suppressed or diminished shall be void.

3