Short answer. A common carrier owes the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. Article 1755 requires it to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, with due regard for all the circumstances — a markedly higher standard than the ordinary diligence expected in most other relationships.
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 →
The standard is 'utmost diligence,' not ordinary care
Article 1755 does not measure a common carrier's obligation against ordinary or reasonable care. It requires the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. That phrase sets the bar deliberately high — a common carrier is not judged by what an average operator might do, but by the standard of a person who is exceptionally careful, applied to the specific business of transporting passengers.
'As far as human care and foresight can provide'
The article frames the safety obligation in terms of what is humanly achievable: the carrier must carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. This does not demand the impossible — it ties the duty to what genuinely careful foresight could have anticipated and guarded against, rather than to outcomes no amount of caution could have prevented. But within that boundary, the obligation reaches everything human care and foresight can realistically address.
'Due regard for all the circumstances'
Article 1755 closes with a due regard for all the circumstances, which ties the utmost-diligence standard to the actual conditions the carrier is operating under — the route, the vehicle, the passengers, the road or weather conditions, and anything else relevant to the specific trip. The standard is not applied in the abstract; it is measured against what utmost diligence would actually require given everything happening at the time.
Why this standard is set so high
A bus, jeepney, or similar operator falls within this article because it is a common carrier — a business that holds itself out to transport the public for a fare, with passengers who have no real ability to inspect the vehicle, verify the driver's competence, or otherwise protect themselves during the trip. Article 1755 places the burden of safety squarely on the carrier, precisely because the passenger has so little control once the ride begins.
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 →