You do not give full possession to the carrier So what are the provisions that

You do not give full possession to the carrier so

This preview shows page 16 - 17 out of 26 pages.

handcarried items are under the custody of the passengers. You do not give full possession to the carrier. So, what are the provisions that will apply? 1754. So what if you have a handcarried item, like your laptop? You know, the seats in Economy Class are very tiny. You will not put your laptop on your lap, because you cannot sleep. What are you going to do? There are overhead lockers provided. So you put the laptop n the overhead locker and then you go to sleep. Your seatmate also has the same idea, so she puts her make-up suitcase which is so heavy, on top of your laptop. So upon arrival in the United States, when you get your laptop, sira na. So can you hold the airline liable? The answer is no. Because to hold the airline liable, what must the passenger do? Give notice to them or their employees, regarding the handcarried items and the passenger took precautions that the carrier advised him regarding the vigilance over their effects. What is the proof required? Testimonial evidence. Now, the case of Sarkies Tours v CA [see digest uploaded], Fatima (student) boarded a Sarkies Tours bus from Manila to Legaspi. Inside of her suitcases were books, pasalubong for her relatives. So somebody helped her load her three suitcases in the belly of the bus. When the bus was en route to Legaspi, the compartment door opened and one by one, the baggage fell off. When they reached the destination, the compartment was already empty. She sued the carrier, pero sabi ng carrier “These suitcases are the responsibility of passengers. They do not pay freight for that. They place the suitcases there themselves, so we could not be held liable. There is no full custody in our case” but the Supreme Court said that when the carrier accepts passenger's baggage for transportation and people are putting the baggage in, its failure to collect freight charge is its own omission. Besides, included in the provisions of 1753 are check-in baggages, whether it's an airplane, bus, etc. The question is, what about taxi? Pwede i-argue ng taxi it's the passenger who puts it there and takes it out himself. Can we apply the ruling in Sarkies Tours? I haven't encountered a case regarding that. Who has custody? Actually, no one. But anyway, take note of this case. Now, you remember your Consti 2? Bill of Rights, section 1? Equal Protection clause. What was the first requisite? Substantial distinction. Are there substantial distinctions between common carriers of passengers and common carriers of goods? Obviously. Otherwise, we will not have a separate discussion. Let's go to common carrier of passengers. We go back to the provisions of 1733, which says “the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.” Under 1755, A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. So, generally speaking under 1733, all kinds of common carriers are bound to observe XOD. But 1755 is taking it a step higher. If you are a common carrier of passengers, then you
Image of page 16
Image of page 17

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 26 pages?

  • Summer '20
  • Contract Law, carrier, common carrier, Commercial item transport and distribution, Contract of carriage

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture