The concept of common carrier under Article 1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of

public service, under the commonwealth Act. No. 146, as amended, which at least partially supplements
the law on common carriers provided for in the new civil code. (Philippine American General Insurance
Company vs. PKS Shipping Co., G.R. No. 149038, 401 SCRA 222)

Common carrier is a person, corporation, firm or association engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering such
services to the public. Contracts of common carriage are governed by the provisions on common
carriers of the civil code, the Public Service Act, and other special laws relating to transporation. A
common carrier is required to observe extraordinary diligence, and is presumed to be at fault or to have
acted negligently in case of the loss of the effects of passengers, or the death or injuries to passengers.
(Perena v. Zarate, 679 SCRA 208, G.R. No. 157917, August 29, 2012)

Extraordinary Diligence is that extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unsual prudence
and circumspection use for securing and preserving their property or rights. This exacting standard
imposed on common carriers in a contract of carriage of goods is intended to tilt the scales in favor of
the shipper who is at mercy of the common carrier once the goods have been lodged for shipment.

The trial court is not required to make an express finding of the common carrier’s fault or negligence.
The presumption of negligence applies so long as there is evidence showing that: (a) a contract exists
between the passenger and the common carrier; and (b) the injury or death took place during the
existence of such contract. (Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Sesante, G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016)

However, the presumption or fault or negligence may be overturned by competent evidence showing
that the common carrier has observed extraordinary diligence over the goods and that an unforeseen
event or force majeure had caused the injury. ( Republic of the Philippines v. Lorenzo Shipping
Corporation, 450 SCRA 550);

The aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent; all
that he has to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its nonperformance by the carrier.
(Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd v. Spouses Arnulfo, G.R. No. 188283, July 20, 2016

In case of death or injuries to passengers, the presumption is that the common carrier is liable (Art.
1756, New Civil Code) In action for breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to
prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that is necessary to prove is the
existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier ( Singapore Airline Limited v.
Fernandez, 417 SCRA 474
When the bus is not in motion there is no necessity for a person who wants to ride the same to signal
his intention to board. A public utility bus, once it stops, is in effect making a continuous offer to bus
riders. Hence, it becomes the duty of the driver and the conductor, every time the bus stops, to do no
act that would have the effect of increasing the peril to a passenger while he was attempting to board
the same. The premature acceleration of the bus in this case was a breach of such duty.

It is the duty of common carriers of passengers, including common carriers by railroad train, streetcar,
or motorbus, to stop their conceyances to a reasonable length of time in order to afford passengers an
opportunity to board and enter, and they are liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers
resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking of their conveyances while they are doing so.

It is not negligence per se, or as a matter of law, for one attempting to board a train or streetcar, which
is moving slowly. An ordinarily prudent person would have made the attempt to board the moving
conveyance under the same similar circumstances. The fact that the passengers board and alight from
slowly moving vehicle is a matter common experience both the driver and conductor in this case could
not have been unaware of such an ordinary practice.

More than a hundred years after the Spanish Colonizers left this country, different means of
transportation proliferate. We travel by country, different means of transportation proliferate. We
travel by land, water, and air. Long Distance trade, through different means of transportation, is
common place. Every offering of technology brings about causes of discontent and the development of
new or improved means of transportation is inevitably coupled with the bane of hazards. It is precisely
for this reason that special rules are provided for in the New Civil Code. The imposition of a higher
degree of common carriers “ was calculated to protect the passengers from the tragic mishaps that
frequently occur in connection with rapid modern transportation. This high standard of care is
imperatively demanded by the preciousness of human life and by the consideration that every person
must in every way safeguarded against all injury.” ( Report of the code of Commission, reproduced in
Civil Code Reader, 2005 Ed., p. 582)

Contract of Transportation- There is a contract of transportation when a person obligates himself t