P. 1
50532571 Transportation Law Reviewer

50532571 Transportation Law Reviewer

|Views: 2|Likes:
Published by Jb Jm Pia

More info:

Published by: Jb Jm Pia on Jul 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/17/2013

pdf

text

original



  

TRANSPORTATION LAW REVIEWER Public utility ² business or service which is engaged in regularly supplying the public with some commodity or service of public consequences; implies public use and service to an indefinite public which has a legal right to demand and receive service. Transportation ² movement of things or person from one place to another Police power ² basis for State to regulate public utilities but does not extend beyond: Ƅ Regulation of rates and charges Ƅ Prevention of discrimination as to availability of service Ƅ Orders the conduct of public utility(safety rules) Art XII, 1987 Consti Ƅ Sec 11 ² issuance of franchise Ƅ Sec 17 ² temporarily take over public utility Ƅ Sec 18 ² permanent transfer of ownership to public from private Ƅ Sec 19 ² prohibit monopoly, restraint of trade, and unfair competition

y y

National Steel vs CA ² plaintiff is a private carrier. Its services are available only to specific persons who enter into a special contract of charter party with its owner.

First Philippine vs CA ² The definition of CC in the civil code does not make distinctions as to the means of tranportin as long as its by land, water or air, pipeline operators are considered CC. Convert CC to PC

y

Home Insurance vs ASA ² a CC undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only becomes a private carrier. A stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the negligence of its agent is valid with regards to private carriers.

Bareboat or demise ² charterer provides food, fuel, crew Time charter ² vessel charter for a period or duration of voyage Voyage or trip charter ² for one or more series of voyage Contract of freightage

COMMON CARRIERS IN GENERAL Liability of Registered Owners Art. 1732²Common carriers are 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.

y

Planters products vs CA ² it is only when the charter includes both the vessel and teh crew, as in a bareboat or demise that a common carrier becomes private, at least insofar as the particular voyage covering the charter-party is concerned. Loadstar vs CA ² It is not necessary that a carrier be issued a CPC, and this character is not altered by the fact that the carriage of goods was periodic, occasional, episodic, or unscheduled. Benedictovs IAC ² Registered owner is liable for the consequences flowing from the operations of the carrier, even though the specific vehicle involved may already
TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 1

Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC)

y

Bascosvs CA ² test to determine a CC is WON the given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted. ² carriage of goods is an integral part of the business (Calvo v. UCPB)

y

Registered owners liability

y

according to all the circumstances of each case. y Pantrancovs PSC ² the right of state to regulate public utilities is founded upon its police power and statutes for the control and regulation of utilities are a legitimate excuse thereof. destruction. CC is presumed negligent and therefore liable. 1735 ² In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. after due hearing.The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy.have been transferred to another person. (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers. the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. Art 1765 . y Art 1753 . or deterioration of the goods. (5) Order or act of competent public authority. earthquake. Exemption from liability. destroyed or deteriorated.Common carriers. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. 4. for the protection of the public as well as of the utilities themselves. are bound to observe Ynchaustivs Dexter ² without a showing that the loss of damage suffered by the goods while in the carriers hands for transportation resulted from some other cause thanits own fault of negligence. the rights and obligations of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws. cancel the certificate of public convenience granted to any common carrier that repeatedly fails to comply with his or its duty to observe extraordinary diligence as prescribed in this Section. from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. earthquake. unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood.The Public Service Commission may. It is presumed that registered owner is actual owner. extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. on its own motion or on petition of any interested party. 1734 ² Common carriers are responsible for the loss. (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods. whether international or civil. destruction or deterioration. the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before. 2. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733. during and after the occurrence of flood. Art 1734 (1) ² Flood. 1. (2) Act of the public enemy in war. or other natural disaster or calamity. are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. Art 1733 . storm. or other natural disaster or calamity. and 5 of the preceding article. Art 1739 ² In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility. lightning. y Cangcovs Manila Railroad ² failure to perform a contract cannot be excused upon the ground that the breach was due to negligence of a servant of the obligor. 3. if the goods are lost. storm. and that the latter exercised due diligence in the selection and control of servant. Art 1766 . according to all the circumstances of each case.In all matters not regulated by this Code. lightning. However. storm or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 2 . COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS 1733 ² Common carriers.

y y Belgian vs Phil First Ins² Equipped with proper knowledge of the nature of the goods. which in this case. or deterioration of the goods. Art 1741 ² If the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss. The act of the owner contributed to the damage thus it only mitigates the liability of the CC.be exempted from liability for the loss. and (2) the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before. or deterioration of the goods should be caused by the character of the goods. But none was taken. It does not fall within the category of an act of God unless caused by other natural disaster or calamity. y Eastern Shipping Lines vs IAC ² Fire cannot be considered a natural disaster or calamity. Art 1734(4) ² The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers. The petitioner was not duty bound to obey the illegal order to dump into the sea the scrap iron. y Philam General Ins vs CA ² the cc cannot be for the delay in discharging the cargo for the delay was not due to the negligence of the carrier but to several factors independent from the will of the cc. The natural disaster must have been the (1) proximate and only cause of the loss. Art 1734(5) ² Order or act of competent public authority Art 1743 ² If through the order of public authority the goods are seized or destroyed. storm or other natural disaster. Quisumbingvs CA ² Hijacking is considered force majeure because no amount of sophisticated technology can TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 3 y CompaniaMaritimavs CA ² CC is liable for damage caused to machinery because it could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable skill and attention in Other cases of Force Majeure y . there is absence of sufficient proof that the issuance of the same order was attended with such force or intimidation as to completely overpower the will of the petitioner·s employees. which however. Art 1740 ² If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the goods. Ganzonvs CA ² the intervention of municipal officials was not of a character that would render impossible the fulfilment by the carrier of its obligation. The same duty is incumbent upon the common carrier in case of an act of the public enemy referred to in article 1734. plaintiff failed to do so. destruction. destruction. Art 1742 ² Even if the loss. Also. destruction or deterioration of the goods. the proximate cause thereof being the negligence of the common carrier. the common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss. Hence the CC shall be presumed to have been at fault unless it proves observance of extraordinary diligence. provided said public authority had power to issue the order. during and after the occurrence of flood. a natural disaster shall not free such carrier from responsibility. Art 1744(5) ² That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees y Art 1734(3) ² Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods. or the faulty nature of the packing or of the containers. the latter shall be liable in damages. 2 overseeing the unloading of heavy equipment. it is not relieved of liability once it accepts the goods despite its condition. shall be equitably reduced. Even if the fact of improper packing was shown. No. the cc should have undertaken precautionary measures to avoid possible damage. the common carrier is not responsible.

This is a situation where the carrier loses control of the goods because of a custom regulation and it is unfair that it be made responsible for any loss or damage that may be caused to the goods during the interregnum. ART 1745. ART1738 ² The extraordinary liability of the common carrier continues to be operative even during the time the goods are stored in a warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination. Hijackers do not board the plane through blatant display of firepower. (2) Supported by a valuable consideration other than the service rendered by the common carrier. ship. signed by the shipper or owner. or deterioration of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence shall be valid. Agreement limiting to liability ART 1744. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable. Also.prevent truly determined hijacking from doing so. It is the airport authority who is in charge of the security. and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered. by the carrier to the consignee. or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat. Duration of Liability ART 1736 ² The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of. airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage. (6) That the common carrier·s liability for acts committed by thieves. is dispensed with or diminished. or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car. unjust and contrary to public policy: (1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper. or deterioration of the goods. until the consignee has been advised of the arrival of the goods and has had reasonable opportunity thereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of them. or to the person who has a right to receive them. (2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss. (4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a family. violence or force. they do it surreptitiously. vehicle. TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 4 . the airline does not have any say on the security before the passengers get into the plane. destruction. (5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees. unless the shipper or owner has made use of the right of stoppage in transitu. (7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss. ART 1737 ² The common carrier·s duty to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit. or of a man of ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported. actually or constructively. destruction. (3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods. destruction. and (3) Reasonable. A stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the former for the loss. without prejudice to the provisions of article 1738. y Lu Do vsBinamira ² Stipulation limiting liability considering the goods have to go through inspection is not contrary to morals or public policy. provided it be: (1) In writing. just and not contrary to public policy.

y Everette Steamship vs CA ² pursuant to 1749 and 1750. As to other baggage. and has been fairly and freely agreed upon. is binding. ART1750. the contract limiting the common carrier·s liability cannot be availed of in case of the loss. just and in consonance with public policy. An agreement limiting the common carrier·s liability may be annulled by the shipper or owner if the common carrier refused to carry the goods unless the former agreed to such stipulation. and the shipper failed to declare value of the goods. delivery of shipment or cargo should at least be made within reasonable time. It is responsible for the consequent loss of the baggage. ART 1751. or deterioration of the goods. The provisions of articles 1733 to 1753 shall apply to the passenger·s baggage which is not in his personal custody or in that of his employee. the rules in articles 1998 and 2000 to 2003 concerning the responsibility of hotel-keepers shall be applicable. delays the transportation of the goods or changes the stipulated or usual route. its failure to collect the freight charge is the common carrier·s own lookout. destruction. or deterioration of the goods is valid. An agreement limiting the common carrier·s liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss. ART 1752. Everette does not know the exact value of the goods. Sarkiesvs CA ² where the common carrier accepted its passenger·s baggage for transportation and even had it placed in the vehicle by its own employee. if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances. the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss. without just cause. or a part thereof.As to amount of liability ART1749. ART 1747. and persons are not vested with the right to prompt delivery unless CC assumes the obligation to deliver at a given date or time. it is required that the stipulation limiting liability for loss must be reasonable and just. Maresklinevs CA ² While it is true that common carriers are not obligated by law to carry and to deliver merchandise. y Presumption of negligence ² factors affecting agreement ART 1746.A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. If the common carrier. CC is liable for gross negligence amounting to bad faith. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods. In this case. COMMON CARRIER OF PASSENGER Delay in delivery of cargo y ART 1733 ² extraordinary diligence is required from CC in delivery of goods and passengers ART 1755 . to which the contract refers shall be taken into consideration on the question of whether or not a stipulation limiting the common carrier·s liability is reasonable. using TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 5 . Delay for a period of 2 months and 7 days falls way beyond the realm of reasonableness. unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value. Everette is only liable pursuant to clause 18 of the bill of lading. destruction or deterioration Passenger·s baggage ART 1754. A stipulation that the common carrier·s liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading. ART 1748. destruction. The fact that the common carrier has no competitor along the line or route.

the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. by the posting of notices. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. RPC) against driver of V with subsidiary liability of owner of V and against driver of CC Limitations of liability. Macawilivs PAB Co. CC did not exercise utmost diligence of a very cautious person in inspecting their equipment and cannot therefore be held as fortuitous event. La Mallorca vs CA ² relation between carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier·s premises PAL vs CA ² the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the latter has been landed at the port of destination and has left the carrier·s premises. which in natural and continuous sequence. The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier·s liability. validity of stipulations y Bataclanvs Medina ² Proximate cause is the overturning of the bus thus leaking of gasoline is not unexpected. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. The driver and conductor could have warned the men carrying the torches to stand back. NecesitovsParas ² CC are to be held liable to answer for flaws of its equipment if such defects were discoverable. with a due regard for all the circumstances. Breach of Contract against CC(ex to 1756) 2. Strong vs Iloilo-Negros Air ² Airline is not liable for an accident which rarely happens due to defects in ignition cables since cables are purchased from a competent and reputable manufacturer. In this case. Quasi-delict (2176) against owner of V or driver of V ² there has to be finding of facts proving fault or negligence 3. Exception to 1756 y Lasamvs Smith ² the accident was not a fortuitous event and was cause either by defects in automobile or through the negligence of its driver. a stipulation limiting the common carrier·s liability for negligence is valid. Presumptionof Negligence ART 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers. CC is liable. Syvs Malate Taxicab ² the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the defendant in order to hold it responsible if the action initiated is based on a contract of carriage and not on tort. by statements on tickets. the court found them negligent under the NCC provision. TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 6 . or otherwise. When a passenger is carried gratuitously. ² While it is true that it is not incumbent upon the passenger to show the negligence of the driver. Remedies available: 1. Criminal Case (Art 365. Defect in automobile is not considered fortuitous event. ART 1758. and without which the result would not have occurred. but not for wilful acts or gross negligence.produces the injury. By failing to do so. The responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers as required in articles 1733 and 1755 cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation. it is nevertheless axiomatic that the driver has the right to prove his prudence and care to be absolved from liability. y y y y Duration of Responsibility Proximate cause ² that cause. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. y y ART 1757.

y MRR vs Ballesteros ² A common carrier is liable for damages arising from the negligence of its driver in allowing another person to drive his vehicle. and although such cannot relieve the carrier but only mitigates liability. If caused by defendant·s negligence. y De Gillacovs MRR ² While a passenger is entitled to protection from personal violence by the carrier or its agents or employees.(old civil code) y Cangco v Manila Railroad ² In Rakes vs AG & P. Devesa had no duties to discharge since he is off duty. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former·s employees. If the accident was caused by plaintiff·s own negligence. a stranger also wanting transportation and not of an employee assigned to discharge duties. this is a circumstance which further militates against plaintiff·s position. by the posting of notices. if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier. ART 1760. When the crime took place. and plaintiff·s negligence merely contributed to his injury. The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself. effect of contributory negligence ART 1761. TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 7 y Marananvs Perez ² the carrier is liable as long as the assault occurs within the course of the performance of the employee·s duty. The shooting was therefore a casofortuito. The carrier·s liability is absolute in the sense that it practically secured the passenger from assaults committed by its own employees. It is not negligent per se for a traveller to alight from a slowly moving train. Isaac vs AL AMMEN ² By placing his left arm on the window. if the common carrier·s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. he is guilty of contributory negligence. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries. The common carrier·s responsibility prescribedin the preceding article cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation. the responsibility of the carrier extends only to those acts the carrier could foresee or avoid through the exercise of the degree of diligence required of it. but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced. Duty of passengers. although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. no liability is imposed. This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. damages are apportioned. by statements on the tickets or otherwise. It is no defense for the carrier that the act was done in excess of authority or in disobedience of y . Responsibility for acts of employees ART 1759. the ´doctrine of comparative negligenceµ was discussed. (new civil code) Responsibility for acts of strangers. co-passengers ART 1763.y Lara vs Valencia ² The rule is that an owner of an automobile owes a guest the duty to exercise ordinary diligence or reasonable care to avoid injuring him. carrier·s order. ART 1762. The extraordinary diligence imposed on common carriers is not required. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers. His position would be a passenger.

may demand support from the person causing the death. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. ART 2201. and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. by his negligence. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. (2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit. Except as provided by law or by stipulation. the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. bad faith. ART 2206.Liability for Quasi-delict y China Airlines vs CA ² All that is required is that employee. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. (5) Liquidated. ART 2205. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. DAMAGES RECOVERABLE FROM COMMON CARRIERS Liability of CC for Injury of Stevedores y ART 1764. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. Sulpicio Lines vsCa² the stevedores was there with the consent and knowledge of the owner of the vessel. Damages may be recovered: (1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. Actual or Compensatory Damages ART 2199. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. (3) Nominal. malice or wanton attitude. Damages may be: (1) Actual or compensatory. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. (3) The spouse. one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.In case of fraud. and this suffices to hold the employer primarily and solidarily responsible for the tortuous act of the employee. In contracts and quasi-contracts. ART 2197. Despite the absence of a passenger-carrier relationship. (2) Moral. for a period not exceeding five years. (4) Temperate or moderate. the patron is liable as a common carrier. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of article 291. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 8 . or (6) Exemplary or corrective. the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. committed a quasi-delict which caused damage to another. (1107a) ART 2203. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. concerning Damages.

Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff. the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral. according to the circumstances of each case. may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 9 . The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. In contracts and quasi-contracts. social humiliation. and similar injury. 28. in addition to the moral. Nominal. (3) Seduction. liquidated damages ART 2221. fright. referred to in No. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right. (7) Libel. the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. ART 2224. and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. may be vindicated or recognized. ART 2216. ART 2233. ART 2219. temperate. moral shock. (4) Adultery or concubinage. temperate. ascendants. moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. serious anxiety. besmirched reputation. liquidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated. under the circumstances. or malevolent manner. 29. such damages are justly due. ART 2217. 9 of this article. temperate. reckless. (10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21. In addition: (3) The spouse. is left to the discretion of the court. may also recover moral damages. Wilful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that. by way of example or correction for the public good. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest. 30. The parents of the female seduced. or abused.damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. (8) Malicious prosecution. which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed. abduction. (9) Acts mentioned in article 309. (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. 27. Moral Damages ART 2206. rape. (6) Illegal search. abducted. 32. descendants. except liquidated ones. mental anguish. The assessment of such damages. The spouse. Exemplary Damages ART 2229. or other lascivious acts. which has been violated or invaded by the defendant. 26. nominal. 3 of this article. and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. Moral damages include physical suffering. and 35. raped. Though incapable of pecuniary computation. Temperate or moderate damages. 34. fraudulent. oppressive. ART 2220. in the order named. liquidated or compensatory damages. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. slander or any other form of defamation. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. wounded feelings. ART 2232.

to be paid in case of breach thereof. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract. from the nature of the case. ART 2226. be provided with certainty.been suffered but its amount can not. TranspoLawReviwer ² bgmtinapao2011 10 .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->