A common carrier has a peculiar relationship with and an exacting responsibility to its passengers.  For reasons of public interest and policy, the ticket-issuing airline acts as principal in a contract of carriage and is thus liable for the acts and the omissions of any errant carrier to which it may have endorsed any sector of the entire, continuous trip.

An accomplice is one who, not being a principal, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. Thus, conviction as an accomplice entails that the accused be aware of the criminal intent of the principal and knowingly or intentionally cooperates with him towards the efficacious execution of the crime.

Time and again, it has been ruled that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed. Absent, therefore, a showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record, so that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand, for the Supreme Court is not expected or required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties.

Generally speaking, a person holding a public office may abandon such office by non-user or acquiescence. Non-user refers to a neglect to use a right or privilege or to exercise an office. However, nonperformance of the duties of an office does not constitute abandonment where such nonperformance results from temporary disability or from involuntary failure to perform. Abandonment may also result from an acquiescence by the officer in his wrongful removal or discharge, for instance, after a summary removal, an unreasonable delay by an officer illegally removed in taking steps to vindicate his rights may constitute an abandonment of the office.

From the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.  In the event of loss, destruction or deterioration of the insured goods, common carriers shall be responsible unless the same is brought about, among others, by flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity. In all other cases, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence.