SakayNa, Inc., a corporation engaged in pre-arranged transportation services for a fee using an online-enabled platform, connects passengers with drivers who use their own vehicles to transport them. Sarah, a passenger, was connected by SakayNa, Inc. to Manny. On the way to their destination, they were involved in an accident, and Sarah suffered serious injuries. Sarah sued SakayNa, Inc. for breach of contract of carriage for being a common carrier. Is SakayNa, Inc. liable for breach of contract of carriage as a common carrier? Explain.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, SakayNa, Inc. is not liable for breach of contract of carriage as a common carrier. Under Philippine law and jurisprudence, a Transportation Network Company (TNC) that provides an online platform technology to connect passengers with third-party drivers is not a
Unlock the full Commercial and Tax Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Philippine transportation law, what is the legal classification of a Transportation Network Company (TNC) that provides an online platform to connect passengers with drivers?
A Transportation Network Company is a technology provider that provides an online platform to connect passengers with drivers, rather than a common carrier undertaking actual carriage.
Who is considered the common carrier and party to the contract of carriage in a ridesharing arrangement using an online platform?
The accredited TNVS driver or operator who provides the vehicle and performs the physical transportation is the common carrier and party to the contract of carriage.
Why will an action for breach of contract of carriage (culpa contractual) fail against a Transportation Network Company (TNC)?
An action for culpa contractual requires privity of contract, and a TNC is not a party to the contract of carriage between the passenger and the driver.
What degree of diligence is required of a common carrier, such as an accredited TNVS driver, toward passengers under the Civil Code?
Choices available with full access.
If an injured passenger cannot sue a Transportation Network Company for breach of contract of carriage, on what legal ground may a direct claim against the TNC potentially be based?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. TNC Status
A Transportation Network Company is a technology provider operating an online platform that matches passengers with independent drivers rather than a common carrier under Article 1732 of the Civil Code. Because a technology company merely facilitates bookings and arranges transportation without undertaking actual physical carriage or operating its own vehicles, it is not bound by the extraordinary diligence imposed on public transport providers. Instead, common carrier status and strict liability attach to the Transportation Network Vehicle Service driver or operator who accepts the passenger and directly executes the contract of carriage once online.
2. Privity of Contract
An action for breach of contract, or culpa contractual, requires privity of contract between the injured plaintiff and the defendant carrier. The contract of carriage is formed exclusively between the passenger and the actual transport operator who undertakes the obligation to convey the passenger safely to the destination. Because a platform provider is not a party to the contract of carriage, an injured passenger cannot hold the technology company directly liable for contractual breach resulting from a vehicular accident. Any cause of action against the platform company must instead be grounded on quasi-delict or independent tortious negligence.
3. Accreditation Diligence
Although a Transportation Network Company is exempt from common carrier liability, it owes a statutory duty to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in accrediting and supervising its drivers. A platform provider remains legally obligated to conduct thorough background checks, verify driving credentials, and monitor driver compliance with safety standards before allowing access to its network. If a technology company negligently accredits an unfit driver or fails to enforce safety regulations, it may be held vicariously or directly liable under Article 2176 of the Civil Code for damages caused by the driver's negligence.