Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. Court of Appeals

On May 11, 1975, Anacleto Viana boarded Aboitiz's vessel M/V Antonia at San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, bound for Manila. The vessel docked at Pier 4, North Harbor, on May 12, and passengers disembarked; Viana used the third deck, level with the pier, instead of the gangplank. Pioneer Stevedoring, Aboitiz's exclusive stevedoring contractor, then took control of the cargo, and about an hour after the passengers disembarked its crane began unloading. Viana went back to the vessel for cargo still aboard and, while pointing it out to the crew, was pinned by the crane against the side of the vessel; he died three days later. His widow and parents sued Aboitiz for breach of contract of carriage. Aboitiz blamed Pioneer and filed a third-party complaint against it. The trial court held Aboitiz liable but later absolved Pioneer for lack of proof of its crane operator's negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modified damages, applying La Mallorca v. Court of Appeals.

1. 1Whether Viana was still a passenger of Aboitiz when he was injured an hour after the vessel docked.
2. 2Whether Aboitiz was liable despite Viana's contributory negligence.
3. 3Whether Pioneer Stevedoring should reimburse Aboitiz.

Aboitiz is liable; Pioneer is not. Following the rule applied in La Mallorca, the carrier-passenger relationship continues until the passenger has been landed and has had a reasonable time or opportunity to leave the carrier's premises, including a reasonable time to see after his baggage. Reasonableness depends on all the circumstances, not on time alone: "The primary factor to be considered is the existence of a reasonable cause as will justify the presence of the victim on or near the petitioner's vessel." Ship passengers need longer than bus passengers to disembark and claim baggage, and unloading on Aboitiz's vessels started only an hour after arrival, so Viana, retrieving his cargo, was still a passenger; "a carrier is duty bound not only to bring its passengers safely to their destination but also to afford them a reasonable time to claim their baggage." Under Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the Civil Code, a common carrier must observe extraordinary diligence and is presumed negligent when a passenger dies or is injured. Aboitiz did not rebut the presumption: the cordon of drums and warning signs were not proven and, even if present, were insufficient and not strictly enforced. Viana was contributorily negligent, but Aboitiz's failure was the proximate cause, and Aboitiz had conceded the finding that it did not prove Viana's gross negligence. The Court was bound by the concurrent finding that Pioneer was not negligent; Pioneer is in any case outside the rule on extraordinary diligence, and Aboitiz, having joined Pioneer in blaming the victim, was estopped from blaming the crane operator. The petition was denied and the CA judgment affirmed in toto.