Short answer. The standard is the highest the law imposes. The Civil Code requires a common carrier to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances — as far as human care and foresight can provide. This is not ordinary care or even reasonable care; it is the utmost care.
What the law says
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
Civil Code, Article 1755 — Utmost Diligence for Passengers. Read the full provision →
What the standard actually means
Article 1755 sets the passenger safety standard at the very top of the scale. "Utmost diligence of very cautious persons" is not the same as ordinary reasonable care. It demands that the carrier do everything that human care and foresight can provide — meaning everything that a highly vigilant, safety-conscious operator would do to protect passengers, given the specific circumstances of each trip. A common carrier cannot argue that it did what most carriers do, or that it met a general industry practice. The question is whether it did everything possible that was within human capacity to prevent harm.
Who counts as a common carrier
The standard applies to common carriers — entities that offer transportation services to the public for compensation. This includes buses, jeepneys, taxis, boats, ships, aircraft, and similar services that carry passengers as part of their regular business. Private vehicles and car-pool arrangements are generally not common carriers. The distinction matters because private persons are held only to ordinary diligence in negligence claims, while a common carrier is held to this much higher standard. When in doubt, the test is whether the service is offered to the general public for a fee.
How this standard affects accident claims
When a passenger is injured or killed while in the care of a common carrier, the law presumes the carrier failed to observe extraordinary diligence. The carrier must prove it exercised the required level of care — not the passenger who has to prove the carrier was careless. This reversal of the burden of proof is significant. A carrier that argues it was not at fault must produce affirmative evidence that it took every precaution that very cautious persons would take under the circumstances. General statements about safety policies or equipment maintenance are not enough if the accident itself suggests something went wrong.
What the carrier must consider in meeting this standard
The phrase "with a due regard for all the circumstances" confirms that the standard is contextual. A carrier operating during typhoon weather, on a mountain road, with elderly or disabled passengers, or during peak hours faces heightened obligations compared to routine conditions. The carrier must assess each situation and calibrate its precautions accordingly. Route conditions, vehicle maintenance history, driver qualifications, passenger load, and weather are all relevant to whether the utmost diligence was actually observed. A one-size-fits-all approach to safety is unlikely to satisfy the standard in situations where the circumstances called for extra care.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. vs. Heirs of Romeo L. Battung, Jr., represented by Romeo Battung, Sr, G.R. No. 208802, October 14, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Teodorico and Nanette Pereña vs. Spouses Nicolas and Teresita L. Zarate, et al, G.R. No. 157917, August 29, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 118126, March 4, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- People of the Philippines vs. Edgar S. Go, G.R. No. 210816, December 10, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →