City Railways, Inc. (CRI) provides train services, for a fee, to commuters from Manila to Calamba, Laguna.

Commuters are required to purchase tickets and then proceed to designated loading ang unloading facilities to board the train. Ricardo Santos purchased a ticket for Calamba and entered the station. While waiting, he had an altercation with the security guard of CRI leading to a fistfight. Ricardo Santos fell on the railway just as a train was entering the station. Ricardo Santos was run over by the train. He died. In the action for damages filed by the heirs of Ricardo Santos, CRI interposed lack of cause of action, contending that the mishap occurred before Ricardo Santos boarded the train and that it was not guilty of negligence. Decide.(5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The contention of CRI is not tenable.

Under the law, the degree of care required of a common carrier is extraordinary diligence or the obligation to carry the passenger safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard to all the consequences. Thus, in case of death or injury to passengers, the common carrier is presumed negligent and upon him rests the burden of proof of exercise of extraordinary diligence. The duty to exercise extraordinary diligence attaches from the moment the person who purchases the ticket from the carrier presents himself at the proper place and in a proper manner to be transported.

In the given case, there is no doubt that CRI is a common carrier for the reason that it is engaged in the business of transporting passengers by land, for compensation, offering its services to the public. As such, it is required to exercise extraordinary diligence and this responsibility attached from the moment Ricardo Santos purchased the ticket and entered the station. When Ricardo died while he was within the premises of CRI, the latter is presumed to be at fault. This is true even if Ricardo has not yet boarded the train, so long as he has presented himself to the carrier at the proper place and in a proper manner.

Hence, CRI, as a common carrier, is liable to the heirs of Ricardo Santos. 1. Two vessels figured in a collision along the Straits of Gui m a r a s r e s u l t i n g i n considerable loss of cargo. The damaged vessels were safely conducted to the Port of Iloilo. Passenger A failed to file a maritime

protest. B. a non-passenger but a shipper who suffered damage to his cargo, likewise did not file a maritime protest at all.a.What is a maritime protest?Suggested Answer A Maritime protest is a document composed by the captain of a ship to announce the ships situation and measures the captain has taken to overcome the situation in order tolimit possible losses and protect the legitimate interests of the ship owner and other concerned parties. b.Can A and B successfully maintain an action to recover losses and damagesarising from the collision? Reason briefly.Suggested Answer T h e a c t i o n f o r r e c o v e r y o f damages arising from collisions cannot be admitted if a protest or declaration is not presented within twenty-four hours before the competentauthority of the point where the collision took place, or that of the first port of arrival of the vessel, if in Philippine territory, a n d t o t h e F i l i p i n o c o n s u l i f i t o c c u r r e d i n a foreign country (Art. 835). A f ailure to make a protest is not an impediment to themaintenance of a civil action based on quasi-delict.