[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
113 views1 page

Common Carrier's Duty of Care

Trans-Asia Shipping Lines v. CA is a case where plaintiff Atty. Arroyo sued Trans-Asia Shipping Lines for damages after the vessel he was traveling on from Cebu City to Cagayan de Oro City turned back due to passenger demands and he had to take another ship. The Court ruled that as a common carrier, Trans-Asia was bound by law to ensure Arroyo's safety using extraordinary diligence. The Court also found Trans-Asia liable because the vessel was unseaworthy, as repairs were not complete before it departed, causing it to stop adrift at sea.

Uploaded by

Laura R. Prado-Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
113 views1 page

Common Carrier's Duty of Care

Trans-Asia Shipping Lines v. CA is a case where plaintiff Atty. Arroyo sued Trans-Asia Shipping Lines for damages after the vessel he was traveling on from Cebu City to Cagayan de Oro City turned back due to passenger demands and he had to take another ship. The Court ruled that as a common carrier, Trans-Asia was bound by law to ensure Arroyo's safety using extraordinary diligence. The Court also found Trans-Asia liable because the vessel was unseaworthy, as repairs were not complete before it departed, causing it to stop adrift at sea.

Uploaded by

Laura R. Prado-Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Trans-Asia Shipping Lines v.

CA
GR No. 118126
March 4, 1996

Facts:
Plaintiff Atty. Arroyo was on board M/V Asia Thailand, a vessel owned by the defendant
Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, bound for Cagayan de Oro City from Cebu City. During the trip, the
vessel stopped near Kawit Island and after an hour of stillness, some passengers demanded that
they be allowed to return to Cebu City because they no longer wanted to continue their voyage to
Cagayan de Oro City. The Captain aceeded to the request and the vessel headed back to Cebu
City. Upon arrival in Cebu, several passengers including Arroyo boarded another Trans-Asia vessel
bound for Cagayan de Oro City. For the defendant’s failure to transport Arroyo and several other
passengers to their destination as contracted, Arroyo sued Trans-Asia for damages.

Issue: Whether or not Trans-Asia Shipping Lines was bound to observe extraordinary diligence in
ensuring the safety of Arroyo.

Ruling: YES. The Court held that there was a contract of common carriage between Trans-Asia and
Arroyo, therefore Trans-Asia was bound to observe extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of
Arroyo. Thus, pursuant to Art. 1755 of the Civil Code, Trans-Asia was bound to carry Arroyo safely
as far as human care and foresight could provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. In the case, the Court found that there was a
failure on part of Trans-Asia as a common carrier to maintain the vessel in seaworthy condition
hence there is a breach in contract of carriage and the duty imposed upon it by virtue of Art. 1755.
A vessel to be seaworthy must be adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with a sufficient
number of competent officers and crew. However in the case, the vessel was unseaworthy even
before the voyage because before the repairs on the vessel were completed, Trans-Asia allowed it
to leave the port causing it to stop and remain adrift at sea.

You might also like