Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    Fabre Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    PJA
    The Spouses Fabre owned a bus that they used for school transportation services in Manila. They arranged to transport members of the WWCF group from Manila to La Union for a fee. However, due to delays, the bus departed late and had to take a detour due to a bridge being closed for repairs. The driver was unfamiliar with the alternate route and had an accident, causing injuries. The Spouses Fabre argued they were not liable as common carriers. However, the Supreme Court found that under the Civil Code, the Spouses Fabre met the definition of common carriers as they engaged in the business of transportation services for compensation, regardless of being occasional. As common carriers, they owed a duty of extraordinary diligence and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Fabre Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    PJA
    123 views1 page
    The Spouses Fabre owned a bus that they used for school transportation services in Manila. They arranged to transport members of the WWCF group from Manila to La Union for a fee. However, due to delays, the bus departed late and had to take a detour due to a bridge being closed for repairs. The driver was unfamiliar with the alternate route and had an accident, causing injuries. The Spouses Fabre argued they were not liable as common carriers. However, the Supreme Court found that under the Civil Code, the Spouses Fabre met the definition of common carriers as they engaged in the business of transportation services for compensation, regardless of being occasional. As common carriers, they owed a duty of extraordinary diligence and

    Original Description:

    Fabre vs CA

    Original Title

    Fabre vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Spouses Fabre owned a bus that they used for school transportation services in Manila. They arranged to transport members of the WWCF group from Manila to La Union for a fee. However, due to delays, the bus departed late and had to take a detour due to a bridge being closed for repairs. The driver was unfamiliar with the alternate route and had an accident, causing injuries. The Spouses Fabre argued they were not liable as common carriers. However, the Supreme Court found that under the Civil Code, the Spouses Fabre met the definition of common carriers as they engaged in the business of transportation services for compensation, regardless of being occasional. As common carriers, they owed a duty of extraordinary diligence and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    123 views1 page

    Fabre Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    PJA
    The Spouses Fabre owned a bus that they used for school transportation services in Manila. They arranged to transport members of the WWCF group from Manila to La Union for a fee. However, due to delays, the bus departed late and had to take a detour due to a bridge being closed for repairs. The driver was unfamiliar with the alternate route and had an accident, causing injuries. The Spouses Fabre argued they were not liable as common carriers. However, the Supreme Court found that under the Civil Code, the Spouses Fabre met the definition of common carriers as they engaged in the business of transportation services for compensation, regardless of being occasional. As common carriers, they owed a duty of extraordinary diligence and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Fabre vs.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 111127 July 26, 1996

    The Spouses Fabre were owners of a Mazda minibus. They used the bus principally in
    connection with a bus service for school children which they operated in Manila. It was driven
    by Porfirio Cabil.
    On November 2, 1984 private respondent Word for the World Christian Fellowship Inc.
    (WWCF) arranged with the petitioners for the transportation of 33 members of its Young Adults
    Ministry from Manila to La Union and back in consideration of which private respondent paid
    petitioners the amount of P3,000.00. The group was scheduled to leave on November 2, 1984, at
    5pm in the afternoon. However, as several members of the party were late, the bus did not leave
    until 8pm in the evening
    The usual route to Caba, La Union was through Carmen, Pangasinan. However, the bridge at
    Carmen was under repair, so that petitioner Cabil, who was unfamiliar with the area (it being his
    first trip to La Union), was forced to take a detour through the town of Ba-ay in Lingayen,
    Pangasinan. At 11:30 that night, petitioner Cabil came upon a sharp curve on the highway. The
    road was slippery because it was raining, causing the bus to hit the left traffic steel brace and
    then turned over and landed on its left side, coming to a full stop only after a series of impacts.
    A criminal complaint was filed against the driver, and the spouses were also made jointly liable
    as Common Carriers. Spouses Fabre on the other hand contended that they are not liable since
    they are not a common carrier, they argued that they are not liable because (1) an earlier
    departure (made impossible by the congregation's delayed meeting) could have a averted the
    mishap and (2) under the contract, the WWCF was directly responsible for the conduct of the
    trip.

    Q; Are the Spouses Fabre liable as common carriers?


    The Spouses are liable as Common Carriers.
    Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or
    associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by
    land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public. As held by the Supreme
    Court, Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise
    offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on
    an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis.
    Here, the contract between the Spouses and WWCF was a Contract of Carriage, which required
    the Spouses to exercise extraordinary diligence as the standard of care required under the Civil
    Code. This duty of care is not excused by proof that they exercise the diligence of a good father
    of the family in the selection and supervision of their employee.
    Hence, the Spouses are liable as Common Carriers.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy