Day in and day out, whether it be on the news or social media, we hear dreadful stories of commuters and their horrific experiences with notorious taxi drivers. The usual complaints mostly consist of taxi drivers overcharging passengers, contracting higher fares, engaging in rude behavior, or driving recklessly.
The problems with these taxicabs have become so rampant that even Congress had, and rightfully so, taken notice. Just recently, Sen. Juan Edgardo “Sonny” M. Angara urged authorities to look into the alleged overcharging scheme by airport taxis at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Based on reports made by passengers, airport taxis would normally charge thousands of pesos for a trip that would normally cost around a couple hundreds only. Aside from airport taxis, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board had also been on the receiving end of numerous complaints regarding regular taxicabs. It is no wonder that app-based transport services, such as Uber and GrabCar, have been such a huge hit for the commuting public. Many would seem to agree that these app-based transport services have safer and more systematic operations. On top of that, the drivers of these services are more courteous and their cars smell better, too.
Nevertheless, despite what kind of public transport you hire, they all fall within the concept of “common carrier.” Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as 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. Simply put, a common carrier is one that holds itself out to the public as ready to engage in transporting passengers or goods for compensation as public employment and not as casual occupation.
Since a common carrier is a public service, it is subject to regulation by the government. As part of its regulation, the law imposes upon them a strict liability such that, in case of loss of effects of passengers or death or injuries to passengers, the common carrier is presumed to be at fault or have acted negligently, unless it can prove that it observed extraordinary diligence in the transport thereof.
It is, likewise, important to note that, in case of injuries or death of passengers, the liability can fall on both the common carrier and the driver. As regards the common carrier, the passenger has a contractual relationship with him to transport such passenger to safety. Failure to do so on the part of the common carrier entails a breach of contract, or culpa contractual. Meanwhile, as regards the driver, his act or omission in causing injuries or death to the passenger is a form of quasi-delict, or culpa aquiliana.
The common-carrier business must be closely monitored and properly regularized by the government. Every negligent common carrier allowed on land, air, or water puts to risk the life, limb or property of a person. Thus, complaints against common carriers that violate the law are most welcome if only to address the rising problems in the public transport business. These would not only make the public aware of the dangers and fraudulent schemes employed by defiant drivers, it would also make the people clamor for better services or transport alternatives. In turn, the common carriers should take the complaints as a challenge to raise their operation standards to more acceptable levels. After all, are we not deserving of a safer and more systematic public transport sector? Just as important, are we not entitled to have more courteous drivers and better smelling public transports, as well?
For comments, you may e-mail me at lpkapunan@kapunanlaw.com.