You are on page 1of 96

A. WHAT IS A “COMMON CARRIER”?

- 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. (Art. 1732, Civil Code). - One that holds itself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire as a public employment and not as a casual occupation. (De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-47822, December 22, !88" B. CHARACTERISTICS OF A COMMON CARRIER • Art. 173 of the !ivil !ode avoids any distinction between one whose principal business is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity "sideline#. • $t also avoids a distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. 173 does not distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the general public, that is the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. A person or entity is a common carrier even if he did not secure a !ertificate of Public !onvenience %he !ivil !ode ma&es no distinction as to the means of transporting, as long as it is by land, water or air. %he !ivil !ode does not provide that the transportation should be by motor vehicle. A person or entity may be a common carrier even if he has no fi'ed publicly &nown route, maintains no terminals, and issues no tic&ets. (nderta&es to carry for all people indifferently and thus is liable for refusal without sufficient reason (Last#moso vs. Dol#ente, $ %C&A , ' !( )"* !annot lawfully decline to accept a particular class of goods for carriage to the pre)udice of the traffic in these goods* +o monopoly is favored (+atan,as -rans. vs. .rlanes, /2 01#l. 4//"* Provides public convenience.

•Article

• • • •


C. TESTS WHETHER A PARTY IS A COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS: • $t must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a public employment and must hold itself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods generally as a business and not as a casual occupation* $t must underta&e to carry goods of the &ind to which its business is confined* 1

TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ),e-. M/-a,% Me#an$e Pa,c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en,e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an(


$t must underta&e to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and over its established roads* and %he transportation must be for hire. (2#rst 01#l#pp#ne 3n4ustr#al Corp. v. CA, $55 %C&A (( , ' !!8"

Test whether a party is a common carrier FIRST PHILIPPINE IND2STRIAL CORP. 3S. CO2RT OF APPEALS 4565 SCRA 775% 5889: Fac*,: Petitioner is a grantee of a pipeline concession under ,.A. +o. 3-7, as amended, a contract, install and operate oil pipelines. %he original pipeline concession was granted in 1./7 and renewed by the 0nergy ,egulatory 1oard in 1.. . 2ometime in 3anuary 1..4, petitioner applied for a mayor5s permit with the Office of the 6ayor of 1atangas !ity. 7owever, before the mayor5s permit could be issued, the respondent !ity %reasurer re8uired petitioner to pay a local ta' based on its gross receipts for the fiscal year 1..3 pursuant to the 9ocal :overnment !ode. %he respondent !ity %reasure assessed a business ta' on the petitioner amounting to P.4/,;7/.;< payable in four installments based on the gross receipts for products pumped at :P2-1 for the fiscal year 1..3 which amounted to P1-1,/-1,141.;;. in order not to hamper its operations, petitioner paid the ta' under protest in the amount of P 3., ;1..;1 for the first 8uarter of 1..3. On 3une 14, 1..<, petitioner filed with the ,%! of 1atangas !ity a complaint for ta' refund with prayer for writ of preliminary in)unction against respondents !ity of 1atangas and Adoracion Arellano in her capacity as !ity %reasurer. $n its complaint, petitioner alleged, inter alia, that= "1# the imposition and collection of the business ta' on its gross receipts violates 2ec. 133 of the 9ocal :overnment !ode* " # the authority of cities to impose and collect a ta' on the gross receipts of >contractors and independent contractors? under 2ec. 1<1"e# and 141 does not include the authority to collect such ta'es on transportation contractors for, as defined under 2ec. 131"h#, the term >contractors? e'cludes transportation contactors* and "3# the !ity %reasurer illegally and erroneously imposed and collected the said ta', thus meriting the immediate refund of the ta' paid. %raversing the complaint, the respondents argued that petitioner cannot be e'empt from ta'es under 2ec. 133 "3# of the 9ocal :overnment !ode as said e'emption applied only to >transportation contractors and persons engaged in the transportation by hire and common carriers by air land and water.? ,espondents assert that pipelines are not included in the term >common carrier? which refers solely to ordinary carriers as truc&s, trains, ships and the li&e. ,espondents further posit that the term >common carrier? under the said !ode pertains to the mode or manner by which a product is delivered to its destination. I,,/e: @hether or not the petitioner is a common carrier so that in the affirmative, he is not liable to pay the carriers ta' under the 9ocal :overnment !ode of 1..1A He#&: Petitioner is a common carrier. A >common carrier? may be defined, broadly, as one who holds himself out to the public as engaged in the business of transporting persons or
TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ),e-. M/-a,% Me#an$e Pa,c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en,e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an(

property from place to place, for compensation, offering his services to the public generally. Article 173 of the !ivil !ode defines a >common carrier? as >any person, corporation, firm or association 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. %he test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is= 1. 7e must be engaged in the carrying of goods for others as a public employment, and must hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods or persons generally as a business and not as a casual occupation. . 7e must underta&e to carry goods of the &ind to which his business is confined* 3. 7e must underta&e to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and over his established roads* and <. %he transportation must be for hire. D. Ca,e,: 5. DE G2;MAN 3S. CO2RT OF APPEALS 4579 SCRA 75<: Fac*,: !endena was a )un& dealer and was engaged in buying used bottles and scrap materials in Pangasinan and brought these to 6anila for resale. 7e used two /-wheeler truc&s. On the return trip to Pangasinan, he would load his vehicles with cargo which various merchants wanted delivered to Pangasinan. Bor that service, he charged freight lower than regular rates. :eneral 6il& !o. contacted with him for the hauling of 74; cartons of mil&. On the way to Pangasinan, one of the truc&s was hi)ac&ed by armed men who too& with them the truc& and its cargo and &idnapped the driver and his helper. Only 14; cartons of mil& were delivered. %he 6il& !o. sued to claim the value of the lost merchandise based on an alleged contract of carriage. !endena denied that he was a common carrier and contended that he could not be liable for the loss it was due to force ma)eure. %he trial court ruled that he was a common carrier. %he !A reversed. I,,/e: @hether or not !endena is a common carrierA He#&: Ces, !endena is properly characteriDed as a common carrier even though he merely bac&hauled goods for other merchants, and even if it was done on a periodic basis rather than on a regular basis, and even if his principal occupation was not the carriage of goods. Article 173 ma&es no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity. $t also avoids ma&ing a distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation services on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. +either does it ma&e a distinction between a carrier offering its services to the general public and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of population. <. PLANTERS PORD2CTS 3S. CA 4<<7 SCRA: Fac*,: Planters Product $nc. purchased from 6itsubishi international corporation metric tons of (rea fertiliDer, which the latter shipped aboard the
TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ),e-. M/-a,% Me#an$e Pa,c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en,e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an(

3

a time charter-party on the vessel respondent entered into between 6itsubishi as shipperEcharterer and GGGG as ship owner. the goods were inspected by 6arine !argo 2urveyors. notwithstanding the charter of the whole or part of the vessel by one or more persons. As such. Planters filed an action for damages. (pon arrival at petitioner5s warehouse a survey conducted over the cargo revealed a shortage and the most of the fertiliDer was contaminated with dirt.3. After < hours. On 3uly 4. provided the charter is limited to the ship only. metal vans. contained in 3. 6anila.. either for a determinate time or for a single or consecutive voyage.e-.... as in the case of a time-charter or voyage-charter.cargo vessel 6EF 2un Plum owned by private respondent Gyosei Gisen Gabushi&i Gaisha. %he cargo was insured by respondent (!P1 :eneral $nsurance !o. 2CPB GENERAL INS2RANCE 4G. Brom 3uly 3 to 4. (pon arrival of vessel at port.. 1. %he damages cost P. 5>9>87 MARCH 58% <66<: Fac*. =. owner of %ransorient !ontainer %erminal 2ervices. wherein the ship is leased for a single voyage. pursuant to her contract with 26!./e= @hether or not the charter-party contract between the ship owner and the charterer transforms a common carrier into a private carrierA He#&: A charter party may either her be time charter wherein the vessel is leased to the charterer. reported that 14 reels of the semi-chemical fluting paper were >wetEstainedEtorn? and 3 reels of &raft liner board were also torn. the petitioner unloaded the cargo pursuant to the terms and conditions of the charter-party. On 3uly 1<. $nc. they were unloaded from vessel to the custody of the arrastre operator. I.. arrived in 6anila on board >6EF 7aya&awa 6aru?. 6anila Port 2ervices. 1..11 . After the (rea fertiliDer was loaded in bul& by stevedores hired by and under the supervision of the shipper. petitioner. $t is therefor imperative that such common carrier shall remain as such. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( < . CAL3O 3. the charter party provides for the hire of the vessel only.. wherein the ship is leased to the charterer for a fi'ed period of time or voyage charter. and a custom bro&er. entered into a contract with 2an 6iguel !orporation "26!# for the transfer of 11< reels of semi-chemical fluting paper and 1 < reels of &raft liner board from the port area to the %abacalera !ompound. the steel hatches were closed with heavy iron lids. in %o&yo.R. %he defendant argued that the public policy governing common carriers do not apply to them because they have become private carriers by reason of the provisions of the charter-party..% Me#an$e Pa. NO. 0rmita. withdrew the cargo from the arrastre operator and delivered it to 26!5s warehouse in 6anila. $nc. Prior to its voyage. 1efore loading the fertiliDer aboard the vessel.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. a shipowner in a time or voyage charter retains in possession and control of the ship.: Petitioner Firgines !alvo. $nc.. "%!%2$#. %he hatches remained open throughout the duration of the discharge. M/-a.. $n both cases. "<# of her holds were presumably inspected by the charterer5s representative and found fit to ta&e a load of urea in bul&. (ndoubtedly. $t is only when the charter includes both ship and its crew as in bareboat or demise that it becomes a private carrier. although her holds may be the property of the charterer. 3apan.

.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. or control in the Philippines. for hire or compensation. 6a&ati !ity.eneral or l#m#te4 cl#entele.. street railway. 61et1er permanent. an7 common carr#er. as a subrogee of 26!. 1. 9a (nion was through !armen. ep#so4#c or unsc1e4ule4 bas#s.. heat and power. water supply and power petroleum. brought a suit against petitioner in .ular or sc1e4ule4 bas#s and one offering such service on an occas#onal. sewerage system. "@@!B# arranged with the petitioners for the transportation of 33 members of its Coung Adults 6inistry from 6anila to 9a (nion and bac& in consideration of which private respondent paid petitioners the amount of P3.e r. operate..% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 4 . +either does Article 173 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the I. CA 4<?8 SCRA ><7 G. and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. I. with or without fi'ed route and whatever may be its classification.% Me#an$e Pa. !A. 7owever. shipyard.. occas#onal or acc#4ental. so that petitioner !abil.26! collected the said amount from respondent (!P1 under its insurance contract. e'press service. wire or wireless communications systems. .%! rendered )udgment finding petitioner liable for the damage to the shipment. canal. ice plant.-< private respondent @ord for the @orld !hristian Bellowship $nc./e: @hether or not !alvo is a common carrierA He#&: $n this case the contention of the petitioner. On Hecember . under the Public 2ervice Act which partially supplements the law on common carrier. 5555<@% 2LY <7% 5887: Fac*. /.. and one who does such carrying only as ancillary activity. %hey used the bus principally in connection with a bus service for school children which they operated in 6anila. steamboat. manage. either for freight or passenger.eneral bus#ness purposes. subway motor vehicle. 6#t1 . Article 173 ma&es no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both. 1. M/-a. @e thin& that Article 1733 deliberately refrained from ma&ing such distinction. wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other similar public services.%!. has no merit. FABRE 3S..R.: Petitioners 0ngracio Babre. On +ovember ..A /1 # %e concept of >common carrier? under Article 173 coincide with the notion of >public service?. ferries and water craft. or both. %he decision was affirmed by the !A. irrigation system.. or steamship line.I i. gas. ' ' '? >. railroad. "He :uDman v. the general community or population. that he is not a common carrier but a private carrier. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). pontines. Article 173 also carefully avoids ma&ing any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a re. icerefrigeration plant. Pangasinan.. 3r. engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight or both.e.eneral publ#c. paragraph "b# of the Public 2ervice Act. an4 4one for ..e-. marine repair shop. NO. traction railway. the bridge at !armen was under repair. %he usual route to !aba. it includes= > ' ' ' every person that now or hereafter may own. and his wife were owners of a 6aDda minibus. $t was driven by Porfirio !abil. freight or carrier service of any class.espondent on the other hand. electric light. (nder 2ection 13. wharf or doc&. the .4.2!.

Pangasinan. did not have to be engaged in the business of public transportation for the provisions of the !ivil !ode on common carriers to apply to them.e. episodic or unscheduled basis. corporations. I. %he 2upreme !ourt held that this case actually involves a contract of carriage.. firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both. I. %he bus came to rest off the road. %he road was slippery because it was raining.%! of 6a&ati ruled in favor of the plaintiff and the defendants were ordered to pay )ointly and severally to the plaintiffs. by land. !riminal complaint was filed against the driver and the spouses were also made )ointly liable. As this !ourt has held= 1. that night. +either does Article 173 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the Igeneral public. GARCIA 4<>5 SCRA ==>% GR. M/-a.. NO. 0H2A 9. or air for compensation. 55><<<. !ommon carriers are persons. causing the bus. a foreign corporation was awarded the contract to build.e r. to s&id to the left road shoulder. several passengers were in)ured particularly Amyline Antonio. &ilometers per hour. TATAD 3S. was forced to ta&e a detour through the town of 1a-ay in 9ingayen. 9td.e-..: HO%! planned to construct a light railway transit line along 0dsa. 173 . lease and transfer the said light railway. 1ecause of the mishap./e: @hether the spouses Babre are common carriersA He#&: Petition was denied. Art. %he above article ma&es no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both. and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. the Babres. ?. there is no TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). then turned over and landed on its left side. petitioner !abil came upon a sharp curve on the highway. A coconut tree which it had hit fell on it and smashed its front portion. APRIL 7% 588?: Fac*. @e thin& that Article 173 deliberately refrained from ma&ing such distinctions.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( / .c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. $s admittedly a foreign corporation >duly incorporated and e'isting under the laws of 7ong Gong?. as Ia sidelineI#. coming to a full stop only after a series of impacts. Article 173 also carefully avoids ma&ing any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional. a public utility as it violates the !onstitution. %he !ourt of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. 2pouses Babre are common carriers. %he . 7owever. %he bus hit the left traffic steel brace and sign along the road and rammed the fence of one 3esus 0scano. water.% !orporation. 9td.I i.% !orporation. 2pouses Babre on the other hand contended that they are not liable since they are not a common carrier. and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity "in local idiom./e: @hether or not an owner and lessor of the facilities used by a public utility constitute a public utilityA He#&: 0H2A 9.. the general community or population. %he said award was 8uestioned by the petitioners on the basis that a foreign corporation cannot own the 0H2A 9. offering their services to the public.% $$$.% Me#an$e Pa. Petitioners.who was unfamiliar with the area "it being his first trip to 9a (nion#. At 11=3. which was running at the speed of 4.

$t follows that a refusal by a particular vessel engage as a common carrier of merchandise in coastwise trade in the Philippine $sland to accept such e'plosives for carriage constitutes a violation. loadstar received on board its 6EF >!hero&ee? bales of lawanit hardwood. 7owever. FISHER 3S. 1./e: @hether the refusal of the owner and officer of a steam vessel. agents an d servants of the company from offering to carry.e-. and e'pressly prohibiting the officers.-<. duly licensed to engage in the coastwise trade of the Philippine $sland* that on or about 3une 1. 1. 17-. for the latter to operate the system and pay rentals for the said use. powder or other e'plosives. @hat constitutes a public utility in not their ownership but their use to serve the public. @hile a franchise is needed to operate these facilities to serve the public. rail stations. adopted a resolution which was thereafter ratified and affirmed by the stoc&holders of the company >e'pressly declaring and providing that the classes of merchandise to be carried by the company in its business as common carrier do not include dynamite. terminals and the power plant. there is a clear distinction between the >operation? of a public utility and the ownership of the facilities and the e8uipment used to serve the public.dispute that once the 0H2A 9. not a public utility.? I. they do not themselves constitute a public utility. CA 4=5? SCRA ==8% 5888: Fac*. the owner of the large steam vessels. %he goods..: On +ovember 1./7. tilewood and Apitong 1olideniDed for shipment. as lessor. will turn it over to HO%! as lessee. accepting for carriage or carrying said dynamite. powder or other e'plosives. %he !onstitution. 7. @ere insured for the same TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).= %he complained alleges that plaintiff is a stoc&holder in Cangco 2teamship !ompany. rolling stoc&s. M/-a.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 7 . amounting to P/. @.eal and substantial danger of disaster necessarily involved in the courage of any or all of this article of merchandise as to render such refusal a due or unnecessary or a reasonable e'ercise or prudence and discreation on the part of the ship owner. LOADSTAR SHIPPING 3S.% Me#an$e Pa. the private respondent. YANGCO STEAMSHIP 4=5 PHIL 5: Fac*. in no uncertain terms. powder or other e'plosives for carriage can be held to be a lawful actA He#&: %he traffic in dynamite gun powder and other e'plosive is vitally essential to the material and general welfare of the inhabitants of this islands and it these products are to continue in general use throughout the Philippines they must be transported from water to port to port in various island which ma&e up the Archipelago. the directors of the company.e r. $n law. @hat private respondent owns are the rail trac&s.. to accept for carriage dynamite. unless it can be shown that there is so .1 . re8uires a franchise for the operation of a public utility. %he prohibition against discrimination penaliDed under the statute..c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. it does not re8uire a franchise before one can own the facilities needed to operate a public utility so long as it does not operate them to serve the public.% $$$ is constructed..

c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en./e: @hether or not 6EF !hero&ee was a private carrier so as to e'empt it from the provisions covering !ommon !arrierA He#&: 9oadstar is a common carrier. 7owever. the general community or population. is a common carrier.e-. 1. the respondent !ity %reasurer re8uired petitioner to pay a local ta' based on its gross receipts for the fiscal year 1.7/.. and there was only >one shipper. loadstar maintained that the vessel was a private carrier because it was not issued a !ertificate of Public !onvenience... prompting loadstar to elevate the matter to the !ourt of Appeals. and this public character is not altered by the fact that the carriage of the goods in 8uestion was periodic. 6$! thereafter filed a complaint against loadstar alleging that the sin&ing of the vessel was due to fault and negligence of loadstar and its employees...4/. I.. CA 4=66 SCRA 775: Fac*./7 and renewed by the 0nergy ..e r. $t is not necessary that the carrier be issued a certificate of public convenience. one consignee for a special crago?.% Me#an$e Pa. install and operate oil pipelines. petitioner applied for a mayor5s permit with the Office of the 6ayor of 1atangas !ity. 6$! paid to the insured in full settlement of its claim.3 pursuant to the 9ocal :overnment !ode. 3-7. . before the mayor5s permit could be issued. and the latter e'ecuted a subrogation receipt therefor. 2ometime in 3anuary 1. a contract. episodic or unscheduled basis. %he original pipeline concession was granted in 1. which however. %he !ourt held that 9OAH2%A. as in this case./-1. Burther. 9oadstar denied any liability for the loss of the shipper5s goods and claimed that the sin&ing of its vessel was due to force ma)eure. agreed with the trial court and affirmed its decision in toto. As the insurer.egulatory 1oard in 1. Agusan Hel +orte. Article 173 also carefully avoids ma&ing any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional. and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population.. $n its answer. on its way to 6anila from the port of +asipit.3 which amounted to P1-1. it did not have a regular trip or schedule nor a fi'ed route. the bare fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for one shipper..% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( - . especially where. On appeal. $n order not to hamper its TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). %he respondent !ity %reasure assessed a business ta' on the petitioner amounting to P. as amended. episodic or unscheduled..-<. +either does Article 173 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the Igeneral public.. M/-a. it was shown that the vessel was also carrying passengers. ignored the same. which appears to be purely co-incidental* it is no reason enough to convert the vessel from a common to a private carrier. the vessel.4. 9. FIRST PHILIPPINES IND2STRIAL CORP. occasional.A.amount with the 6anila $nsurance !ompany against various ris&s including >%otal 9oss by %otal 9oss of the Fessel?.: Petitioner is a grantee of a pipeline concession under .< payable in four installments based on the gross receipts for products pumped at :P2-1 for the fiscal year 1. %he court a 8uo rendered )udgment in favor of 6$!.I i.e.141. On +ovember . along with its cargo... As a result of the total loss of its shipment. san& off 9imasawa $sland.. the consignee made a claim with loadstar which. +o. however. 3S.

@hen the same was delivered to the consignee..<. %his cost was brought by the former to recover TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). AMEARICAN STEAMSHIP 4<= SCRA <>: Fac*. On 3une 14.espondents further posit that the term >common carrier? under the said !ode pertains to the mode or manner by which a product is delivered to its destination. $nc.: %he !onsorcio Pes8uero del Peru of 2outh America shipped )ute bags of Peruvian fishmeal through 22 !rowborough. consigned to 2an 6iguel 1rewery. Petitioner is a common carrier. . for compensation. an oil pipeline operator is a common carrier.1. corporation.-4.e r.1 for the first 8uarter of 1.% Me#an$e Pa. %he transportation must be for hire. 133"3# of the 9ocal :overnment !ode as said e'emption applied only to >transportation contractors and persons engaged in the transportation by hire and common carriers by air land and water. broadly.operations. for compensation.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( .? . 1ased on the above definition and re8uirements. . %he cargo.7e must underta&e to carry goods of the &ind to which his business is confined* 3. trains. as one who holds himself out to the public as engaged in the business of transporting persons or property from place to place..c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. M/-a. 7ome $nsurance paid 2an 6iguel the insurance value loss. 1. ships and the li&e.espondents assert that pipelines are not included in the term >common carrier? which refers solely to ordinary carriers as truc&s. 7e must be engaged in the carrying of goods for others as a public employment../e: @hether the petitioner. which was insured by 7ome $nsurance !ompany. offering his services to the public generally. there is no doubt that the petitioner is a common carrier. Article 173 of the !ivil !ode defines a >common carrier? as >any person. by land.3. . %he test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is= 1. . %raversing the complaint. arrived at the port of 6anila and was discharged to the lighters of the 9uDon 2tevedoring !orporation.%! of 1atangas !ity a complaint for ta' refund with prayer for writ of preliminary in)unction against respondents !ity of 1atangas and Adoracion Arellano in her capacity as !ity %reasurer. or air. 1ecause the others denied liability.. and therefore e'empted from paying local ta'esA He#&: Ces.e-. water. petitioner filed with the .33... I. prompting the latter to pay against 9uDon 2tevedoring !o. HOME INS2RANCE 3S. offering their services to the public. petitioner paid the ta' but under protest in the amount of P 3. and must hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods or persons generally as a business and not as a casual occupation* . 7e must underta&e to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and over his established roads* and <. the respondents argued that petitioner cannot be e'empt from ta'es under 2ec. A >common carrier? may be defined. firm or association engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both. there were shortages amounting to P 1 . 8.

the charter.A+!O claims that it can operate a ferry service in connection with its franchise for bus operation in the highway from Pasay !ity to %acloban !ity Ifor the purpose of continuing the highway. it claimed to have e'ercised due diligence in stowing the goods and as a mere forwarding agent.A+!O nevertheless ac8uired the vessel 6+ I1lac& HoubleI on 6ay 7.. of 1O% ordered PA+%.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. Acting !hairman 3ose !. 0pitacio 2an Pablo "now represented by his heirs# and !ardinal 2hipping !orporation who are franchise holders of the ferry service in this area interposed their opposition.e-.-1 PA+%. PA+%. !ampos.A+!O through its counsel wrote to 6aritime $ndustry Authority "6A./e: @hether or not the stipulation in the charter party to owner5s nonliability was valid as to absolve the American 2teamship from liability lossA He#&: %he !ivil !ode provision on common carriers should not be applied where the carrier is not acting as such but as a private carrier. that it proposes to operate a ferry service to carry its passenger buses and freight truc&s between Allen and 6atnog in connection with its trips to %acloban !ity.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 1. %hey claim they ade8uately service the TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). hereinafter referred to as PA+%. 2uch policy has no force where the public at large is not involved.A+!O not to operate its vessel until the application for hearing on Oct. 6e'ican 2teamship Agencies denied liability on the ground that the charter party referred to in the bills of lading. 1. $nc.A+!O is a domestic corporation engaged in the land transportation business with P(1 service for passengers and freight and various certificates for public conveniences "!P!# to operate passenger buses from 6etro 6anila to 1icol . 3r. I. PA+%. was responsible for any loss or damage of the cargo.-1.$+A that it cannot give due course to the re8uest.-. SAN PABLO 3S.egion and 0astern 2amar. PANTRANCO 45?= SCRA 588: Fac*. $n another order 1O% en)oined PA+%. Burthermore. the said proposed ferry operation is merely a necessary and incidental service to its main service and obligation of transporting its passengers from Pasay !ity to %acloban !ity. 1. 9uDon 2tevedoring raised the defense that it deliver with due diligence in the same from the carrier.% Me#an$e Pa.1. 56. as in the case of a ship totally chartered for the use of a single party.indemnity from 9uDon 2tevedoring and the ship owner. 1. not the ship owner. . On 6arch 7. 2orsogon and Allen. it was not responsible for losses or damages to the cargo. $n a reply of April .1. 2uch being the case there is no need to obtain a separate certificate for public convenience to operate a ferry service between Allen and 6atnog to cater e'clusively to its passenger buses and freight truc&s. @ithout awaiting action on its re8uest PA+%. $t wrote the !hairman of the 1oard of %ransportation "1O%# through its counsel. PA+%.A+!O started to operate said ferry service.$+A# re8uesting authority to leaseEpurchase a vessel named 6+ I1lac& HoubleI Ito be used for its pro)ect to operate a ferryboat service from 6atnog..A+!O was informed by 6A. M/-a. 2amar that will provide service to company buses and freight truc&s that have to cross 2an 1ernardo 2trait. which is interrupted by a small body of water.-1 for P3 6illion pesos.. %he stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for loss due to the negligence of its agent is void only if the strict public policy governing common carriers is applied.e r.: %he Pantranco 2outh 0'press.A+!O from operating the 6+ I1lac& HoubleI otherwise it will be cited to show cause why its !P! should not be suspended or the pending application denied.

icardo Puno rendered an opinion to the effect that there is no need for bus operators to secure a separate !P! to operate a ferryboat service. truc&s and passengers. not as a common carrier for its e'clusive use in the ferrying of its passenger buses and cargo truc&s is absurd.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 11 . payment of the fees. when as in this case the two terminals. @hile a ferryboat service has been considered as a continuation of the highway when crossing rivers or even la&es. considering that the authority granted to PA+%. 1.e-. 1O% then as&ed the legal opinion from the 6inister of 3ustice whether or not a bus company with an e'isting !P! between Pasay !ity and %acloban !ity may still be re8uired to secure another certificate in order to operate a ferry service between two terminals of a small body of water.. On October . +evertheless.A+!O does not deny that it charges its passengers separately from the charges for the bus trips and issues separate tic&ets whenever they board the 6+ I1lac& HoubleI that crosses 6atnog to Allen. 6atnog and Allen are separated by an open sea it can not be considered as a continuation of the highway. 2an Pablo filed the herein petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary in)unction see&ing the revocation of said decision. among others.e r./e: @hether or not the ferry boat is a common carrierA He#&: !onsidering the environmental circumstances of the case. as provided by law. the conveyance of passengers.% Me#an$e Pa. M/-a. it must comply with the usual re8uirements of filing an application.-1.A+!O is to operate a private ferry. %hus the !ourt holds that the water transport service between 6atnog and Allen is not a ferryboat service but a coastwise or interisland shipping service. %he contention of private respondent PA+%. truc&s and cargo from 6atnog to Allen is certainly not a ferryboat service but a coastwise or interisland shipping service. it can still assert that it cannot be held to account as a common carrier towards its passengers and cargo.. publication. 7ence. (nder no circumstance can the sea between 6atnog and Allen be considered a continuation of the highway. adducing evidence at a hearing and affording the oppositors the opportunity to be heard. !ardinal 2hipping !orporation and the heirs of 2an Pablo filed separate motions for reconsideration of said decision and 2an Pablo filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration that were denied by the 1O% on 3uly 1. PA+%.A+!O by ferrying its buses. %hus on October 3.-1 the 1O% rendered its decision holding that the ferryboat service is part of its !P! to operate from Pasay to 2amarE9eyte by amending PA+%. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). 2uch an anomalous situation that will )eopardiDe the safety and interests of its passengers and the cargo owners cannot be allowed. and pending consideration of the petition the issuance of a restraining order or preliminary in)unction against the operation by PA+%.PA+%. which are small body of waters separating the land. 1.A+!O of said ferry service I. 1efore private respondent may be issued a franchise or !P! for the operation of the said service as a common carrier. however.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.A+!OJs !P! so as to reflect the same. 1.A+!O that its ferry service operation is as a private carrier.-1 then 6inister of 3ustice .

e8uires only ordinary diligence. #res!mption as to fa!lt and negligence Presumption of fault or negligence +o fault or negligence is presumed.$#$--$ne P)r*. morals or good customs. As to stip!lation on limiting lia"ility Parties may not agree on limiting the Parties may agree on limiting the carrier5s liability e'cept when provided carrier5s liability. Pr$Aa*e Carr$er people !ontracts with particular individuals or groups only.1732&17'') K primary law C !ode of !ommerce K suppletory law 0.-)r*a*$)n a.$#$--$ne P)r*. Tran. contrary to law.Dlaws of the country to which the goods are to be transported. A$r Tran. T) F)re$(n P)r*.173 -17//# K primary law C !ode of !ommerce K suppletory law $ote% !arriage of :oods by 2ea Act K inapplicable even if the parties e'pressly provide for it. !ivil !ode K primary law !ode of !ommerce K all matters not regulated by the !ivil !arriage of :oods by 2ea Act "!O:2A# K suppletory to the !ivil !ode.*$c Tran. C C !ode.-)r*a*$)n 5.% Me#an$e Pa. <. As to laws applica"le on damages 9aw on common carriers. Carr$a(e !r)' F)re$(n P)r*.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.-)r*a*$)n !ivil !ode !ode of !ommerce 1 TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).E.e r. As to state reg!lation 2ub)ect to regulation. 9aw on obligations and contracts.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( . Lan& Tran. T) P. As to re !ired diligence . DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN COMMON CARRIER AND PRI3ATE CARRIER C)'')n Carr$er As to passengers 7olds himself out for all indiscriminately. C =. Pr$Aa*e Carr$er.   D)'e. F.e C !ivil !ode "Arts. Ob)ect merchandise C !ode of !ommerce K primary law C !ivil !ode K suppletory law C. prov#4e4 not by law.e-. C !ivil !ode (Arts.*w$. . GO3ERNINGB APPLICABLE LAW A. C)'')n Carr$er. C)a. M/-a. applies. +ot sub)ect to regulation.-)r*a*$)n 0" Sea 5. B.e8uires e'traordinary diligence. Carr$a(e !r)' P.

%he >place of destinations? whose law shall be deemed to be the governing law in so far as the liability of common carrier is concerned refers to the place of >ultimate destination? not an agreed stopping place. (%antos 333 vs. %his is particularly true in so far as the warsaw convention used the term to determine the country where the suit against the international carrier should be filled. +!!# LLL %he liability of the carrier is governed primarily by the !ivil !ode and in all matters not regulated by the said !ode. defendants may recoup whatever they may pay 2amar 6ining by enforcing the )udgment against third party defendant A6!C9. 1743. %he goods never reached Havao and were never delivered to or received by the consignee.e-. %he place of departure and the place of destination are within the territory of a single contracting party if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory sub)ect to the sovereignty. 7ence.ere I. the !O:2A Ea special law is merely supppletory to the provisions of the !ivil !ode?.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.e r. $n +ational Hevelopment !o. 7(( NCC".% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 13 . %he shipment was unloaded in 6anila into a barge for transshipment to Havao and temporarily stored in a bonded warehouse owned by A6!C9. %he place of departure and the place of destination are within the territories of two high contracting parties.7.r#ent A#rl#nes. NORDE2TSCHER LLOYD 45=< SCRA ?<8: Fac*. vs. 7owever. CA. (8apa v.In*erna*$)na# Tran. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). 2amar 6ining !o.e. M/-a. even though the power is not a party to the convention. $t does not preclude the operation of the !ivil !ode and other laws.: 2amar 6ining imported 1 crate optima welded wire "amounting to around (2H < < or PhP 1.en: 1.# from :ermany. T. <. 3S. C 2ignatories to the @arsaw !onvention and those which subse8uently adhered to it.  %he liability of the carrier for the loss. Nort19est .-)r*a*$)n K @arsaw !onvention  @hile the @arsaw !onvention has the force of law in the Philippines. mandate or authority of another power.% INC. destruction or deterioration "Art. which was shipped on a vessel owned by +ordeutscher 9loyd "6E2 2chwabenstein#. !B$ ruled in favor of 2amar 6ining holding +ordeutscher 9loyd liable. 2 5 %C&A 2/( Ca. is primarily governed by the !ivil !ode not by the @arsaw !onvention which applies only to simple loss of baggage. 2. 27/ %C&A ' !!7)" H$(. In*erna*$)na# Tran. the rights and obligations of common carriers shall be governed by the code of !ommence and by special laws (Art. !A ( (4 %C&A /!$". destruction or deterioration of goods transported to the Philippines from a foreign country.-)r*a*$)n W. it does not have an e'clusive enumeration of a carrier5s liability for contractual breach or absolute limit of liability..% Me#an$e Pa. >%he law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs the liability of the common carrier in case of loss.: SAMAR MINING CO. C)n*rac*$n( Par*$e. regardless of whether or not there was a brea& in the transportation or transshipment.

%his resulted to the loss of the ship and its cargoes. M/-a. 3apan for transportation to 6anila loaded 4. deceit or if there is a conflict of interest between him and the principal... (nder the !ivil !ode provisions governing Agency. $nc. which was consigned to Philippine 1looming 6ills !o. %he 1ill of 9ading in 8uestion stipulated that +ordeutscher 9loyd only undertoo& to transport the goods in its vessel only up to the port of discharge from ship.: 2ometime in or prior to 3une 1.I.4-3. a vessel operated by petitioner 0astern 2hipping 9ines $nc.. containers of garment fabrics were also loaded which was consigned to 6ariveles Apparel !orp worth M</. the 6E2 Asiatica. the character of possession of +ordeutscher 9loyd shifted from common carrier to agent of 2amar 6ining !o.e r.. loaded at Gobe. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE Fac*. the appellant was acting within the contractual stipulations contained in the 1ill of 9ading..74 consigned to !entral %e'tile 6ills.. Another cargo loaded to the vessel was the surveying instruments consigned to Aman 0nterprises and :eneral 6erchandise and insured against respondent Howa Bire N 6arine $nsurance for M1./e: @hether +ordeustscher 9loyd is liable for the loss of the goods as common carrierA He#&: +o. (nder the same law an agent is li&ewise liable if he appoints a substitute when he was not given the power to appoint one or otherwise appoints one that is notoriously incompetent or insolvent. %hese facts were not proven in the record. an agent can only be held liable in cases where his acts are attended by fraud. petitioner contends that it is not liable on the ground that the loss was due to an e'traordinary fortuitous event. pieces of caloriDed pipes valued at P 4/.77. 1oth sets of goods were inured against marine ris& for their stated value with respondent Hevelopment $nsurance and 2urety !orp. I.% Me#an$e Pa. %he said cargoes were consigned to +isshin Bire and 6arine $nsurance.3./e: @hether the !ivil !ode provisions on !ommon !arriers or the !arriage of the :oods by 2ea Act will govern the case at barA TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). CO2RT 45?6 SCRA >7=: 3S. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES INC. At the time of the loss of the goods.3-4. 6E2 Asiatica caught fire and san&.. %he 1ill of 9ading further stipulated that the goods were to be transshipped by the carrier from 6anila to the port of destination K Havao.. which is 6anila. $t is a contract and is therefore the law between the parties. 1y unloading the shipment in 6anila and delivering the goods to the warehouse of A6!C9. $n the same vessel. and 7 cases of spare parts valued at P.. %he insurers filed a suit against the petitioner carrier for recovery of the amounts paid to the insured.. Article 173/ of the !ivil !ode relives the carrier of responsibility over the shipment as soon as the carrier ma&es actual or constructive delivery of the goods to the consignee or to the person who has a right to receive them.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 1< . On the way to 6anila...c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. 7owever. 3/1. . negligence. %he 1ill of 9ading is serves both as a receipt of goods and is li&ewise the contract to transport and deliver the same as stipulated..e-. %he respective $nsurers paid the corresponding marine insurance values and were thus subrogated to the rights of the insured.

./e: @hether or not the Provincial 1us Operators has the power to reduce and increase fare rated based on the circular order issued by the 9%B.% Me#an$e Pa. in all matters not regulated by the !ivil !ode.. 5. I. hence this petition..% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 14 . that the proposed rate were e'orbitant and unreasonable and that the application contained no allegation on the rate o return on Hecember 1<.-4 and again it was reduced to P.1 granted the fare rate increase on 6arch 1/. >Potestas delegata non delegari protest? what has been delegated further delegation of such power would indeed constitute a negation of the duty in violation of the trust reposed in the delegate inandated to discharged it directly.. 2ecretary of HO%!. On Hecember 4.1 opposing the upward ad)ustment of bus fares. it was dismissed for lac& of merit..c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.He#&: %he law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs the liability of common carrier in case of their loss. %he application was opposed by the Philippine !onsumer Boundation $nc. private respondent P1OAP filed an application for fare rate increase to P. Alday met 0spiritu at the gate of Pier < and the latter offered the use of his truc& with the driver and helper at .1.1A He#&: 2upreme !ourt held that the authority given by the 9%B. Orbos issued memorandum circular +o.emedios A.. !hairman . %he fertiliDer was delivered to the TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). to its @arehouse in 6andaluyong.e r. %herefore !O:2A is suppletory to the provisions of the !ivil !ode.1 to the provincial bus operators to set a fare range over and above the authoriDed e'isting fare is illegal and invalid as it is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative authority.. ALDAY 45?> SCRA =99# Fac*. %he offer was accepted by plaintiff Alday and he instructed his chec&er !elso 7enson to let ..= On 3une /.-3.. the 9%B. Bernando allowing provincial buses operators to charge passengers within a range of 14O above and 14O below. Petitioner G6( filed a petition before the 9%B. 1M2 LABOR CENTER 3S.1.eB.oberto 0spiritu haul the fertiliDer. GO3ERNMENT REG2LATION Ca. M/-a.: 1ienvenido :elisan and . bags of fertiliDer per trip. %he liability of petitioner is governed primarily by the !ivil !ode however.oberto 0spiritu entered into a contract where the former hired the truc& of :elisan for the purpose of transporting goods at the price of P1-.... REGISTERED OWNER R2LE GELISAN 3S. destruction or deterioration. .. 0spiritu made two hauls of . Public respondent 9%B. Oscar 6. a truc&ing operator.... +orth 7arbor. the !ode of !ommerce and 2pecial 9aws will govern with respect to the rights and obligations of the carrier. 1.<../4 per &ilometer rate.2.1 official rate for a period of one "1# year.4 to then 9%B. $t is also agreed that 0spiritu shall bear and pay all losses and damages attending the carriage of the goods to be hauled by him. 1enito Alday.e-. Burthermore rate fi'ing or ma&ing is a delicate and sensitive government function that re8uires de'terity of )udgment and sound discretion with the settle goal at arriving at a )ust and reasonable rate acceptable to both public utility and the public. GARCIA 4<=8 SCRA =97: Fac*. centavos per bag of fertiliDer. 1.. had a contract to haul the fertiliDers of the Atlas BertiliDer !orporation from Pier <. 1.. G.

adverted to. the registered owner. $t is settled in our )urisprudence that if the property covered by a franchise is transferred or leased to another without obtaining the re8uisite approval. !risto 2t. with the main office in 1. on 1 Bebruary 1.e r..7.-. M/-a. he "Alday# filed a complaint against . bags of fertiliDer. had not been approved by the Public 2ervice !ommission./ .-. 0spiritu. the proprietor of 6acoven %ruc&ing. 7omes. and he notified the 6anila Police Hepartment. %his cargo truc& was registered in the name of petitioner 6a.e-. ParaQa8ue.driver and helper of 0spiritu with the necessary way bill receipts.CA 459@ SCRA ?>@: Fac*. %o effect its first delivery.. %he claim of the petitioner that he is not able in view of the lease contract e'ecuted by and between him and . did not deliver the fertiliDer to the Atlas BertiliDer bodega at 6andaluyong.oberto 0spiritu and 1ienvenido :elisan with the !B$ 6anila 1ienvenido :elisan. is valid and binding between the contracting parties. 2ubse8uently. Puirino. 1ulacan.3. plaintiff Alday saw the truc& in 8uestion on 2to. board feet of sawn lumber with the understanding that the initial delivery would be made on 14 6ay 1.. in the amount of P4. Hominador !ruD..% Me#an$e Pa. I.oberto 0spiritu for the amount that he may be re8uired to pay as damages for the in)ury caused to 1enito Alday. 1.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 1/ . 9uis 1enedicto.. 1enito Alday was compelled to pay the value of the <. however. As a result of the impounding of the truc& according to :elisan and that for the release of the truc& he paid the premium of P3. $nc.33. 0'hibits A and 1. 7e has a right to be indemnified by . private respondent bound himself to sell and deliver to 1luestar 6ahogony..c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. a lumber manufacturing firm in Hagupan !ity. upon the other hand. to the surety company./e: @hether :elisan being a registered owner is responsible for damagesA He#&: %he !ourt has invariably held in several decisions that the registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages that may arise from conse8uences incident to its operation or that may be caused to any of the passengers therein. and it was impounded by the police. is not however without recourse. cannot be sustained because it appears that the lease contract. operates a sawmill in 6addela. $nc.: Private respondent :reenhills @ood $ndustries !ompany. private respondent5s resident manager in 6addela. although not effective against the public for not having been approved by the Public 2ervice !ommission... 1ienvenido :elisan. $n 6ay 1. claimed that he had no contractual relations with the plaintiff 1enito Alday. BENEDICTO 3S. business enterprise engaged in hauling freight.. the transfer is not binding upon the public and third persons..B.oberto 0spiritu which e'empts him from liability to third persons. $t was claimed by 1ienvenido :elisan. the driver of a cargo truc& to transport its sawn lumber to the consignee 1lue 2tar in FalenDuela. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). since the lease contract in 8uestion. contracted Firgilio 9icuden. to Atlas BertiliDer !orporation so that.

%hus. for members of the general public to enforce the rights of action that they may have for in)uries inflicted by the vehicles being negligently operated if they should be re8uired to prove who the actual owner is. Abraham 2ibug was bumped by the said passenger )eep. contrary to petitioner5s claim.: SANTOS 3S. even though the specific vehicle involve may already have been transferred to another person. the public has the right to assume that the registered owner is the actual or lawful owner thereof. Fidad e'ecuted a re-transfer document presumably to be registered it and when it was decided that the passenger )eep of 2antos was to be withdrawn from &abit arrangement. M/-a. private respondent is not re8uired to go beyond the vehicle5s certificate of registration to ascertain the owner of the carrier.. supervised the loading of 7.eB. . %his doctrine rests upon the principle that in dealing with vehicles registered under the Public 2ervice 9aw. board feet of sawn lumber with invoice value of P1/.. %he cargo never reached 1lue 2tar.. to permit a common carrier to escape its responsibility for the passengers or goods transported by its proving a prior sale of the vehicle or means of transportation to an alleged vendee would be to attenuate drastically the carrier5s duty of e'traordinary diligence.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 17 . even though the specific vehicle involved may already have been transferred to another person. the public has the right to assume that the registered owner is the actual or lawful owner thereof. the government or any person affected by the representation that said vehicle is registered under the name of the particular person had the right to rely on his TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).e-.: Petitioner Adolfo 2antos was the owner of a passenger )eep./e: @hether the Fidad is liable being the registered owner of the )eepneyA He#&: As the )eep in 8uestion was registered in the name of Fidad. $t would be very difficult and often impossible as a practical matter.-.% Me#an$e Pa. !ruD in the presence and with the consent of driver 9icuden. %he prevailing doctrine on common carriers ma&es the registered owner liable for conse8uences flowing from the operations of the carrier. aboard the cargo truc&. !learly..e r. SIB2G 456> SCRA ?<6: Fac*./.. 1ABIT SYSTEM Ca.On 14 6ay 1. 2antos became what is &nown as &abit operator. On the accident date.1-. %he registered owner is not allowed to deny liability by proving the identity of the alleged transferee. 2antos then transferred his )eep to the name of Fidad so that it could be operated under the latter5s certificate of public convenience. <. I. I.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. $n other words. %his doctrine rest upon the principle that in dealing with the vehicles registered under the Public 2ervice 9aw.. but he had no certificate of public conveyance for the operation of the vehicle as a public passenger )eep./e: @hether the registered owner is liable even though the vehicle have been transferred to another personA He#&: 2upreme !ourt held that the prevailing rule on common carrier ma&es the registered owner liable for conse8uences flowing from the operations of the common carrier.

respondent Ocampo decided to register his ta'icabs in his own name... should not be allowed to defeat the levy in his vehicle and to avoid his responsibility as a &abit owner for he had led the public to believe that the vehicle belongs to Fidad. driven by their employee. A year later..e r.declaration of his ownership and registration. He#&: >Gabit system? is defined as. A writ of e'ecution for the decision followed. it was flagrant error on the part of both trial and appellate courts to TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ )... %his is one way of curbing the pernicious &abit system that facilitates the commissions of fraud against the traveling public.73.. !riminal case was filed against 0meterio 6artin. one of the ta'icabs.% Me#an$e Pa. when a person who has been granted a certificate of convenience allows another person who owns a motor vehicle to operate under such franchise for a fee./e: @hether or not petitioner can recover from private respondent. On 6arch 1. (pon this premise. through its representative 6anuel !oncordia. as the &abit. $n the decision of the lower court 9ita 0nterprises was held liable for damages for the amount of P 4. but will leave them both where it finds them. however. %he manager of petitioner refused to give him the registration papers... Petitioner now prays that private respondent be held liable to pay the amount they have given to the heir of :alveD. and a monthly rental of P . $nc. ma&ing spouses file a complaint against petitioner... . Bor the agreement to ta&e effect. petitioner5s trade name. $n the decision..e-. IAC 45<8 SCRA >7>: Fac*.: 2pouses +icasio Ocampo and Brancisca :arcia "private respondents# purchased in installment from the Helta 6otor 2ales !orporation five "4# %oyota !orona 2tandard cars to be used as ta'i. .Eta'icab unit.. remains with spouses Ocampo and :arcia who operated and maintained the same under Acme %a'i. $nc.. I. $t is fundamental that the court will not aid either of the party to enforce an illegal contract. 2antos. %he possession. . %hus... and P7. collided with a motorcycle.. 0meterio 6artin. for the use of the latter5s certificate of public convenience for a consideration of P1.. Blorante :alveD died from the in)uries it sustained...c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. M/-a. for attorney5s fees. And the registered owner or any other person for that matter cannot be permitted to repudiate said declaration with the ob)ective of proving that the said registered vehicle is owned by another person and not by the registered owner. LITA ENTERPRISES 3S.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 1- . 2ince they had no franchise to operate ta'icabs. 9ita 0nterprise was ordered to return the three certificate of registration not levied in the prior case. they contracted with petitioner 9ita 0nterprise. (nfortunately the driver of the motorcycle... the cars were registered in the name of 9ita 0nterprises. while a civil case was filed by the heir of the victim against 9ita 0nterprises. &nowing they are in an arrangement &nown as >&abit system?. of the cars of the respondent5s spouses were levied and were sold to a public auction. %his system is not penaliDed as a criminal offense but is recogniDed as one that is against public policy* therefore it is void and ine'istent.

. 2pecifically Article 1<1 states that= >$f the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense... On his part. the total account of +ale was already P . 1 representing attorneyJs fees. 9astly.. as boundary fee beginning October 1.: Pedro +ale bought from %e)a 6ar&eting a motorcycle with complete accessories and a sidecar.7-.. for the more than times that the motorcycle figured in accidents aside from the loss of the daily income of P14. or to recover the property agreed to sold or delivered. the plaintiff also e'plained that though the ownership of the motorcycle was already transferred to the defendant. A chattel mortgage was constituted as a security for the payment of the balance of the purchase price. from an illegal contract* no suit can be maintained for its specific performance. 7. because it was made to appear that way only as the defendant had no franchise of his own and he attached the unit to the plaintiffJs 6!7 9ine.7.have accorded the parties relief from their predicament. the TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). however failed to register the motorcycle on that year on the ground that the defendant failed to comply with some re8uirements such as the payment of the insurance premiums and the bringing of the motorcycle to the 9%! for stenciling. the plaintiff said that the defendant was hiding the motorcycle from him...7/ to 7 Bebruary 1. is on the part of both contracting parties. 1 for attorneyJs fees and P1. %he records of the 9and %ransportation !ommission show that the motorcycle sold to the defendant was first mortgaged to the %e)a 6ar&eting by Angel 3aucian though the %e)a 6ar&eting and Angel 3aucian are one and the same. TE A MAR1ETING 3. for e'penses of litigation. dismissing the counterclaim.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. %he agreement also of the parties here was for the plaintiff to underta&e the yearly registration of the motorcycle with the 9and %ransportation !ommission. thus forcing %e)a 6ar&eting to consult a lawyer and file an action for damage before the !ity !ourt of +aga in the amount of P4</... the following rules shall be observed= >when the fault.. or damages for its property agreed to be sold or delivered.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 1. therefore no affirmative relief can be granted to them.. +ale suffered damages when he failed to claim any insurance indemnity which would amount to no less than P14. . +ale did not dispute the sale and the outstanding balance of P1.7/ when the motorcycle was impounded by the 9%! for not being registered. neither may recover what he has given by virtue of the contract.e-. in e8uity or at law. .ural 1an& of !amaligan for the reason that all motorcycle purchased from the plaintiff on credit was rediscounted with the ban&.% Me#an$e Pa. the vehicle was still mortgaged with the consent of the defendant to the .7-* a O service charge* and P4</. or damages for its violation.. M/-a. and ordered +ale to pay %e)a 6ar&eting On appeal to the !ourt of Birst $nstance of !amarines 2ur. %e)a 6ar&eting made demands for the payment of the motorcycle but )ust the same +ale failed to comply..4 as shown in a statement of account* includes not only the balance of P1. %he plaintiff. still payable to %e)a 6ar&eting* but contends that because of this failure of %e)a 6ar&eting to comply with his obligation to register the motorcycle.. %e)a 6ar&eting also claimed that as of ..? %he parties in this case are in pari delicto.e r.? %he principle of #n par# 4el#cto is evident in this case. but an additional 1 O interest per annum on the said balance from / 3anuary 1. 731. or demand the performance of the other5s underta&ing. IAC 45>9 SCRA =>@: Fac*.... %he !ity !ourt rendered )udgment in favor of %e)a 6ar&eting. >the proposition is universal that no action arises.. Bebruary 1..

void and in e'istent under Article 1<.o8ue was prosecuted for homicide thru rec&less imprudence before the !B$ 6anila. with the accessory penalties of the law* to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in. of the !ivil !ode. $t is a fundamental principle that the court will not aid either party to enforce an illegal contract. ..e r. I. but will leave both where it finds then.o8ue./e: @hether the defendant can recover damages against the plaintiffA He#&: (n8uestionably. as well as the counterclaim of +ale* without pronouncements as to costs. 7ence. A certificate of public convenience is a special privilege conferred by the government.. At the time of the accident.o8ue served his sentence but he was not able to pay the indemnity because he was insolvent.. %he contract between . BERNARDO @ SCRA 8?< Fac*. with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.% Me#an$e Pa. Although not out rightly penaliDed as a criminal offense. An action was filed by the spouses 6agboo against 1ernardo is for enforcement of his subsidiary liability.eB.. . commonly &nown as the I&abit systemI whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of public convenience allows another person who owns motor vehicles to operate under such franchise for a fee.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. which he paid to 1ernardo.: MAGBOO 3.o8ue and 1ernardo was that . who lived with them and was under their custody until his death on < October 1.o8ue could ma&e out of the use of the )eepney in transporting passengers from one point to another in the !ity of 6anila would belong entirely to . On 1.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( . the petition for review was filed by %e)a 6ar&eting andEor Angel 3aucian.o8ue was to pay to 1ernardo the sum of P-.. therefore. dismissed the complaint of %e)a 6ar&eting. =. the &abit system is invariably recogniDed as being contrary to public policy and.decision was affirmed in toto.e-.. %he I&abit systemI has been identified as one of the root causes of the prevalence of graft and corruption in the government transportation offices. for privilege of driving the )eepney.years old. +ale filed a petition for review with the $ntermediate Appellate !ourt. which certified the case to the 2upreme !ourt on the ground that only 8uestions of law are involved. and to pay the costs. BO2NDARY SYSTEM Ca.: (rbano and 0milia 6agboo are the parents of !esar 6agboo.3uly 1. the parties herein operated under an arrangement. a child of . I. As a conse8uence of the accident and as a result of the death of !esar 6agboo in said accident.o8ue. 1ernardo appealed to the !ourt of Appeals.-3. (pon this premise it would be error to accord the parties relief from their predicament. M/-a. . the fatal vehicle being a passenger )eepney owned by Helfin 1ernardo. Abuse of this privilege by the grantees thereof cannot be countenanced.4/ when he was &illed in a motor vehicle accident. the appellate court set aside the decision under review on the basis of doctrine of Ipari delicto.I and accordingly. Pursuant to said )udgment . it being their agreement that whatever earnings . %he trial court ordered 1ernardo to pay the. said passenger )eepney was driven by !onrado .o8ue was sentenced to / months of arresto mayor./e: @hether or not an employer-employee relationship between the )eepney operator and the driverA TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).

CONTRACT2AL EFFECTS A.are not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employee and employer.namely the fact that the driver does not receive a fi'ed wage but gets only the e'cess of the amount of fares collected by him over the amount he pays to the )eep-owner. was a member of a group of <.Bilipino pilgrims that left 6anila for 9ourdes on 6arch 3. defendants were also negligent in the selection and supervision of their employee. CA <?8 SCRA ><7 4G. hence. Philippine Air 9ines.. there was a Iwhite manI. Air Brance. and told defendantJs 6anager that his seat would be ta&en over his dead body* a commotion ensued.evised Penal !ode. and the gasoline consumed by the )eep is for the amount of the driver .3. Brom 6anila to 1ang&o&. 1.. refused. and. %hey used the bus principally in connection with a bus service for school children which they operated in 6anila and was driven by Porfirio !abil. A criminal complaint was them filed against the driver. while defendant spouses were also made )ointly liable. %he features which characteriDe the boundary system . !onse8uently. On 6arch -. II. according to said 0rnesto :.4-. !arrascoso was having a hot discussion with the white man RmanagerS. the minibus caught an accident causing damages and in)ury to several passengers particularly Amyline Antonio.4-. but at 1ang&o&. 2ometime during +ovember private respondent @@!B arranged with petitioners for the transportation of 33 members of its ministry form 6anila to 9a (nion and bac& in consideration of which private respondent shall pay petitioners the stipulated amount. On the may to 9a (nion.R. as was to be e'pected. 6oreover.: Petitioner and his wife were owners of a minibus. the )eepney owner is subsidiary liable as employer in accordance with Art. in the words of the witness 0rnesto :. 5555<@% 2LY <7% 5887: Fac*. particularly.He#&: An employer-employee relationship e'ists between a )eepney owner and a driver under a boundary system arrangement. the driver was unable to see a sharp curve ahead of time for him to be able to avoid the mishap. through its authoriDed agent. @hen as&ed to vacate his Ifirst classI seat.e r. 1.1. CA2SE OF ACTION 5.ome. AIR FRANCE 3S CARRASCOSO 459 SCRA 5??: Fac*. plaintiff traveled in Ifirst classI. $nc. !uento.% Me#an$e Pa. the departure was delayed. the plaintiff. On the day of the trip. FABRE 3S./e: @hether or not defendant spouses failed to e'ercise diligence of a good father of the familyA He#&: !ourt ruled that defendant spouses were negligent in the e'ercise of their duties as owners of the minibus for it was clearly established by evidence that said vehicle was not properly chec& if it was fit for the long trip. who was only used to driving short distances. NO.. !uento.e-. several members of the ministry came in late. M/-a. I. a civil engineer. Apparently.: Plaintiff.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 1 . the defendant. . issued to plaintiff a Ifirst classI round trip airplane tic&et from 6anila to . 7is )ob was to ta&e school children to and from the school. the 6anager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the Ifirst classI seat that he was occupying because. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). <. Imany of the Bilipino passengers got nervous in the tourist class* when they found out that 6r. who. the 6anager alleged. had a Ibetter rightI to the seat.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. the driver.

$t is well settled in law. TI2 3S. must answer. !arrascoso. M/-a.=. !ompostela. respondent for moral and e'emplary damages as against the petitionerA He#&: %he court held in favor of the respondent. =. about three "3# or four "<# places from the front seat. !A decision affirmed. about 7..m.-7. %he driver.-7.m. %he captain of the plane.e r. when as&ed to intervene. !ebu. could give ground for an action for damages.m. Pedrano left his helper.. and instructed the latter to place a spare tire si' fathoms away behind the stalled truc& to serve as a warning for oncoming vehicles.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( .R. 3r. )ust as the truc& passed over a bridge. $t invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. %hey have a right to be treated by the carrierJs employees with &indness. and had come from 6aya. 1. refused to do so.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. +eglect or malfeasance of the carrierJs employees.. A contract to transport passengers is 8uite different in &ind and degree from any other contractual relation. the cargo truc& mar&ed I!ondor 7ollow 1loc&s and :eneral 6erchandiseI bearing plate number :1P-/74 was loaded with firewood in 1ogo. naturally. I. in)urious language. %he contract of air carriage.. meters away. %he passenger bus was also bound for !ebu !ity.. 2o it is that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier. 5=9676% SEPTEMBER 5% <66> Fac*.ough . %hey are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct.afael !arrascoso. one of its rear tires e'ploded. 1.iders passenger bus with plate number P1P-7 < driven by Firgilio %e 9aspiQas was cruising along the national highway of 2itio Aggies. Haanbantayan.. Arriesgado and Belisa Pepito Arriesgado.e-. courtesy and due consideration.they came all across to 6r. !arrascoso to give his seat to the white manI and plaintiff reluctantly gave his Ifirst classI seat in the plane after being threatened that he will be thrown out of the plane if he does not oblige. because of the relation which an air-carrier sustains with the public. $t was about 1 =. 3ose 6itante. !ebu and left for !ebu !ity.% Me#an$e Pa. generates a relation attended with a public duty. who were seated at the right side of the bus. !ebu. At about <=<4 a. NO.: At about 1. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). his employer. to &eep watch over the stalled vehicle. of 6arch 14. !ompostela. !ebu. then par&ed along the right side of the national highway and removed the damaged tire to have it vulcaniDed at a nearby shop. respect. Poblacion. petitioner. petitioner. ARRIESGADO G. H . Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. (pon reaching 2itio Aggies. Poblacion. indignities and abuses from such employees./e: @hether or not there was bad faith on the part of Air Brance. %he truc&s tail lights were also left on. %he responsibility of an employer for the tortious act of its employees need not be essayed. entitling . And this. !arrascoso and pacified 6r. $ts business is mainly with the traveling public. %he court held that the )udgment of the !ourt of Appeals does not suffer from reversible error. Among its passengers were the 2pouses Pedro A. a. 2ergio Pedrano. p. Bor the willful malevolent act of petitionerJs manager. therefore. 6arch 1/.

Petitioner 9aspiQas promptly applied the bra&es and swerved to the left to avoid hitting the truc& head-on. against the petitioners. 1ranch . was brought to the Hanao !ity 7ospital.iders bus operator @illiam %iu and his driver. 7is wife. and that no early warning device was displayed. the law compels them to curb the rec'lessness of their drivers. %he petitioners.e-. damages and attorneys fees before the . %pon the happening of the accident.egional %rial !ourt of !ebu !ity. Articles 1733. Firgilio %e 9aspiQas on 6ay 7.. . $nc. This is because under the said contract of carriage. "n actions for breach of contract. and that petitioner 9aspiQas did not ta&e precautionary measures to avoid the accident. binding against petitioner Tiu.As the bus was approaching the bridge.-7. for their part. H . which means that the carrier must show the utmost diligence of very cautious persons as far as human care and foresight can provide. in this case the common carrier. HELD: The rules which common carriers should observe as to the safety of their passengers are set forth in the Civil Code.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. 7e applied the brea&s and tried to swerve to the left to avoid hitting the truc&. Poblacion. B. "PP2$$#. Arriesgado then filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage. or that the accident was caused by fortuitous event. filed a %hird-Party !omplaint against the following= respondent Philippine Phoeni' 2urety and $nsurance. Any in$ury suffered by the passengers in the course thereof is immediately attributable to the negligence of the carrier. which was then about 4 meters away. Pedro Arriesgado lost consciousness and suffered a fracture in his right colles. %hey alleged that petitioner 9aspiQas was negotiating the uphill climb along the national highway of 2itio Aggies. the presumption of negligence at once arises. %he impact damaged the right side of the bus and left several passengers in)ured. $t was further alleged that the truc& was par&ed in a slanted manner. !ompostela.espondent Pedro A. only the e#istence of such contract. The negligence of petitioner )aspi*as as driver of the passenger bus is. Belisa. "t must be stressed that in re&uiring the highest possible degree of diligence from common carriers and in creating a presumption of negligence against them. petitioner %iu5s insurer* respondent 1en)amin !ondor. EETRAORDINARY DILIGENCE TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). 9aspiQas saw the stalled truc&. it must be shown that the carrier observed the re&uired e#traordinary diligence. and it becomes the duty of a common carrier to prove that he observed e#traordinary diligence in the care of his passengers. and the fact that the obligor. 1. petitioner Tiu failed to conclusively rebut such presumption. (hile evidence may be submitted to overcome such presumption of negligence. as the owner of the passenger bus engaged as a common carrier.% Me#an$e Pa.e r. 1ut it was too late* the bus rammed into the truc&s left rear. 17 and 17 !. M/-a. 2he was later transferred to the 2outhern $sland 6edical !enter where she died shortly thereafter. the registered owner of the cargo truc&* and respondent 2ergio Pedrano.ough . in a moderate and normal speed. but despite his efforts to avoid damage to property and physical in)uries on the passengers. thus. As correctly found by the trial court. "t is undisputed that the respondent and his wife were not safely transported to the destination agreed upon. the right side portion of the bus hit the cargo truc&5s left rear. failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination are the matters that need to be proved.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 3 . the driver of the truc&. its rear portion almost in the middle of the highway. %he respondent alleged that the passenger bus in 8uestion was cruising at a fast and high speed along the national road. the petitioners assumed the e#press obligation to transport the respondent and his wife to their destination safely and to observe e#traordinary diligence with due regard for all circumstances.

c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. common carriers are presumed to be at fault or have acted negligently. One who has boarded by fraud. %hey are entitled to e'traordinary diligence from the common carrier. One who remains on a carrier for an unreasonable length of time after he has been afforded every safe opportunity to alight* 3.)n. unless the attempt be with the &nowledge and consent of the carrier* 4. R2LES ON PRES2MPTION OF NEGLIGENCE: A. (Calalas v.. stealth. 2. are bound to observe e'traordinary diligence on the vigilance over goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each case. although he has a tic&et. One who boarded a wrong vehicle.7($" Pa. One who rides any part of the vehicle which is unsuitable or dangerous or which he &nows is not designed or intended for passengers. *. $8$ %C&A. C#v#l Co4e" C)Aera(e 1. mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier and the subse8uent arrival of the same goods at the place of destination in bad order ma&es for a prima facie case against the carrier. 7$4.7/4" 2afety of passengers (Arts. One who attempts to board a moving vehicle. with the carrier. as long as it is shown that there e'ists a relationship between the passenger and the common carrier and that in)ury or death too& place during the e'istence of the contract.REF2IREMENT OF EETRAORDINARY DILIGENCE !ommon !arriers. (n the Carriage of )oods% C $n case of loss. Pa.. M/-a. Figilance over goods (Arts. CA.% Me#an$e Pa. (Art. %he law imposes upon common carriers strict liability. '2552)" DEFENSES OF COMMON CARRIERS )eneral -!le% !ommon carriers are responsible for the loss. 7//. 7$$. destruction or TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). destruction and deterioration of goods.NCC" C %he court need not ma&e an e'press finding of fault or negligence of common carriers. and on alighting. .$&ere& A.imate Ca!se K is +O% applicable to contract of carriage • %he in)ured passenger or owner of goods need not prove causation to establish his case. e'press or implied. N)* C)n.en(er D A person who has entered into a contract of carriage. has been properly informed of such fact. common carriers are presumed to be at fault or have acted negligently. CA et al. unless they prove that they e'ercise e'traordinary diligence.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( < . C $n the transport of goods. (0#lap#l vs.e r. is in)ured by the carrier* or /. C %he common carrier is not an absolute insurer against all possible ris&s of transportation or travel. Per. One who has not yet boarded any part of a vehicle regardless of whether or not he has purchased a tic&et* . from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. or deceit* <. 1. 7//.(Art. (n the Carriage of #assengers% C $n case of death or in)ury to passengers. unless they prove that they e'ercise e'traordinary diligence.en(er.e-. %he presumption arises upon the happening of the accident. 85 %C&A /4(" +octrine of #ro.

' !87)" 6echanical defects are not force ma)eure if the same was discoverable by regular and ade8uate inspections. $f not one of those enumerated is present.) F)r*/$*) B F)rce MaHe/re -e !isites% a.$Ae.ome 3nsurance.0. 2#rst 3nsurance Co. storm. (Art. %he common carrier must have e'ercised e'traordinary diligence before. vs. the common carrier must prove that it e'ercised e'traordinary diligence.. destroyed or deteriorated. L#nes 3nc.% Me#an$e Pa. 255(" a. lightning or other natural disaster or calamity* b. o Bire is not considered a natural disaster or calamity as it arises almost invariably from some act of man or by human means unless caused by lightning or by natural disaster or calamity. (A=u#no -. %here must have been no undue delay on the part of the common carrier* <. p.e-. %he event must be unforeseen or even if it can be foreseen. Notes an4 Cases on t1e La6 on -ransportat#on an4 0ubl#c ?t#l#t#es. 25. Au.ceptions% %he same is due to any of the following causes only= a. 7$4.22" o B. whether international or civil* c. -rans. C#v#l Co4e"   %he above enumeration is eGc#/. an4 %1#pp#n. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). Ca. 0vent independent of human will* c. 6ust be the pro'imate and only cause of the loss* b. however. the in)ury to the debtor* and e. Obligor must be free of participation in. v.:. 01#l. &. destruction or deterioration of the goods.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 4 . Ac* )! G)& -e !isites% 1. %o overcome the presumption of negligence in case of loss. 2554 e4. 3AC. $mpossible to foresee or impossible to avoid. !ommon carriers are bound to observe e'traordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. Act of public enemy in war. /5 %C&A 4(!. Amer#can . Order or act of competent authority. (Delsan v. Article 173< of the !ivil !ode enumerates the instance when the presumption of negligence does not attach. $8$ %C&A. Blood.#an C1arter#n.e r. %here are. N. $t may even be caused by the actual fault or privity of the common carrier.. Act or omission of the shipper or the owner of the goods* d. . 2552" %he e'ceptions in Art 173< must be proven whether the presumption of negligence applies. M/-a. or aggravation of. (+el.ernan4o. %hey are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost. e'ceptions to this rule. (<astern %1#pp#n. during and after the time of the accident* ..3nc.ust /. %he pro'imate cause must not be committed by the common carrier. > . earth8ua&e.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. . Occurrence ma&es it impossible for debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner* d..deterioration of the goods. %he character of the goods or defects in the pac&ing or in the containers* e. it cannot be avoided* 3. the carrier is liable.

e-. %he natural disaster must have been the pro'imate cause of the loss.e S. however. destruction or deterioration of the goods. 7$!. Acts of Public 0nemy $n @ar -e !isites% 1. destruction or deterioration of goods caused by TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).$--er )r Owner )! G))&. Gulf an4 0ac#f#c Co. the common carrier must e'ercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss. 3. Atlant#c. $t must have been the cause of the loss.. shall be e8uitably reduced.% Me#an$e Pa. %he act or omission of the shipperEowner must have been the sole and pro'imate cause of the loss. (Art. the pro'imate cause thereof being the negligence of the common carrier. %he common carrier must have e'ercised due diligence to prevent or minimiDe the damage or loss before.$)n )! *. to use such degree of care for his safety and protection as ordinarily prudent men would use under the circumstances. $/! ' !57)" %he common carrier shall be liable even if the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss. C. C#v#l Co4e" %he rule is that if the improper pac&ing is &nown to the carrier or his employee or is apparent upon ordinary observation.A. M/-a.e G))&. (Art. CA.. 45! %C&A.1tera. %he common carrier must have e'ercised due diligence to prevent or minimiDe the loss before. during and after the natural disaster. . )r Ca#a'$*$e. !. 74 . C. %he act of the public enemy must have been the pro'imate and only cause of the loss* and 2.a. destruction or deterioration was caused by the character of the goods or the faulty pac&ing or containers. '255$)"  EGe'-*$)n *) L$a0$#$*" Fr)' Na*/ra# D$. 74 . 742.e Pac+$n( )r $n *. 3nc. %anc1ez +ro@era.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. Or&er )r Ac* )! P/0#$c A/*. C#v#l Co4e"  E. C#v#l Co4e" D. (&a@es v. %his is an absolute defense. 2. the latter shall be liable in damages. <. %he common carrier has not negligently incurred delay in transporting the goods. 7 01#l.. during or after the act causing the loss.e an4 %1#pp#n.e r.e C)n*a$ner C %hat the loss. )r De!ec*. he is not relieved of liability for the resulting damage. Ac* )r O'$. (Art..arac*er )! *. $n *. (A. deterioration or destruction of the goods (Art. v.Bortuitous event must be established to be the pro'imate cause of the loss. C#v#l Co4e " D)c*r$ne )! C)n*r$0/*)r" Ne(#$(ence  Bailure of a person who has been e'posed to in)ury by the fault or negligence of another. vs.*er. !ontributory +egligence= partial defense. but he nevertheless accepts the same without protest or e'ception notwithstanding such condition.: 1. (As#a L#.e 3nc. 447 %C&A 427. C 0ven if the damage should be caused by the inherent defectEcharacter of the goods..2.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( / . which. et al.)r$*" C %he common carrier is not ipso facto relieved from liability due to the loss. 1. '2554)" o E.

$t continues to tilt causing the captain and the crew to abandon ship. Civil Code).uste re8uested Abdurahman to surrender the originals of the 1ill of 9ading.: %he .. (pon reaching the port of Tamboanga. !onse8uently.e-. ac&nowledgment of the delivery by signing the receipt suffices.ound 9ogs and undertoo& to transport said shipment to 6anila for delivery to Alas&a 9umber !o. 3S.. destruction or deterioration of he goods at the time of the accident.uste 2hipping Agency unloaded the said mil&s.. due to the shifting of the logs in the hold. LOREN.O SHIPPING LINES 4@ FEBR2ARY <66?: Fac*. degrees to its side. . $n turn. the petitioner alleged that they did not receive anything and they filed a claim against the herein respondent.. %he latter shipped <.. the vessel starts its voyage.. against total lost under respondents 6arine!argo Policy. C %he common carrier must e'ercise e'traordinary diligence to prevent or minimiDe the loss.bags of non-fat dried mil& from 2ept-Hec 1. $f the surrender is not possible. $nc. I.. . 0fren .0# wherein it would ac8uire from the (2 government donations of +on-Bat Hried 6il& and other food products. 37/ pieces of . %he ship san&..epublic of the Philippines signed an agreement through the Hepartment of 7ealth and the !ooperative for American . the petitioner received on board its vessel.-/. After few hours of the trip. -e !isites% C %he common carrier must prove that the public authority has the power to issue the order for the seiDure or destruction of the goods./e: @hether the respondents failed to e'ercise e'traordinary diligence re8uired by lawA He#& %he surrender of the 1ill of 9ading is not a condition precedent for a common carrier to be discharged of its contractual obligation. 7owever.% Me#an$e Pa. %he herein respondent did not even bother to prevent the resignation of abdurhaman 3ama to be utiliDed as a witness. petitioner5s branch supervisor in Tamboanga !ity.: REP2BLIC 3S. where the officer acts without legal process. the Philippines will transport and distribute the donated to the intended beneficiaries of the country. respondent5s agent. 1efore each delivery...c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.public authority. %C&A (4( ' !88)" Ca. it entered into a contract of carriage of goods with the herein respondent. %he consignee named in the bills was Abdurahman 3ama. As a result. .elief 0verywhere. 4SEPTEMBER <6% <66% 5<5 SCRA @78: Fac*. M/-a. (Ganzon v. o 2aid public authority must have the power to issue the order (Article 17/3. the ship tilts 1. After loading the logs. at Puerto Princesa. $nc. the common carrier will be held liable.iDada and $smael Tamora both delivery chec&ers of 0fren . the 6EF !entral 1ohol.: On 3uly 4.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 7 . CENTRAL SHIPPING CO.e r. Palawan. %he cargo is insured for P3.. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).--.e.. 1. "!A. %he petitioner contended that the respondents failed to e'ercise e'traordinary diligence.ogelio . CA ( . INS2RANCE CO.

according to all the circumstances of each case. lightning or other natural disaster or calamity. I.. am of 3uly . the vessel set sail at 3=. contributed to. @estern 2amar.espondent alleged that the loss is due to the negligence and fault of the captain. $n the second place.. ma&ing them liable for such loss.. 7ence. @hile petitioner contends that the happening is due to monsoons which is unforeseen or casa fortuito. %he logs were not secured by cable wires.7 . As found by the trial court and the !ourt of Appeals. %his shows that they did not e'ercise e'traordinary diligence./e: @hether or not the mechanical defect constitutes a fortuitous event which would e'empt the carrier from liability. common carriers are responsible* that is. the vessel proceeded direct to %acloban. He#&: +o. 1. Private respondents had no recourse but to disembar& and board a ferry boat to !atbalogan. unless they can prove that such loss. storm. $n the first place. arriving there on the same day at about <=.e r.7 at around -=. $nstead of doc&ing at !atbalogan "the first port of call#. CA 45<5 SCRA @78: Fac*.. I. %he contention of the petitioner that the loss is due to casa fortuito e'empting them from liability is untenable.e-. mechanical defects in the carrier are not considered a caso fortuito that e'empts the carrier from responsibility. common carriers are bound to observe e'traordinary diligence over the goods they transport. 1. 1. Petitioner failed to show that such natural disaster or calamity was the pro'imate and only cause of the loss.: 7erein private respondents purchased first-class tic&ets from petitioner at the latter5s office in !ebu !ity. it accounted on for TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). $n the event of loss. pm.I $n all other cases not specified under Article 173< of the !ivil !ode. unless they prove that they observed e'traordinary diligence..by Iflood. or worsened by the presence of human participation. M/-a. the suit for breach of contract of carriage.% Me#an$e Pa. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. $nstead of departing at the scheduled hour of about midnight on 3uly -. even granting arguendo that the engine failure was a fortuitous event. the damaging effects blamed on the event or phenomenon must not have been caused..7 only to be towed bac& to !ebu due to engine trouble.among others -. destruction or deterioration of the insured goods. $n other words. %he defense of fortuitous event or natural disaster cannot be successfully made when the in)ury could have been avoided by human precaution.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( - . SWEET LINES INC% 3S.. destruction or deterioration was brought about -. %he vessel lifted anchor again on 3uly 1. there was no fortuitous event or force ma)eure which prevented the vessel from fulfilling its underta&ing of ta&ing the private respondents to !atbalogan.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. am. causing the logs to shift and later on the sin&ing the ship. %hey were to board 6EF 2weet :race bound for !atbalogan. 7uman agency must be entirely e'cluded from the cause of in)ury or loss.. earth8ua&e./e= @hether or not petitioner is liable for the loss of cargoA He#&: Brom the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy. %he monsoon is not the pro'imate cause of the sin&ing but is due to the improper stowage of logs.

4 under the aforestated marine insurance policy.3 . %he latter e'cepted to one drum which contained spillages. which damage was un&nown to plaintiff. enumerated in Article 173< of the !ivil !ode..% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( . !laims were presented against defendants who failed and refused to pay the same.4. or until the lapse of a reasonable time for their acceptance by. 1734. plaintiff was compelled to pay the consignee P1. $nc.. such responsibility also devolves upon the carrier. defendant Allied 1ro&erage !orporation made deliveries of the shipment to the consigneeJs warehouse.defendant Allied 1ro&erage !orporation received the shipment from defendant 6etro Port 2ervice. 2ince it is the duty of the arrastre to ta&e good care of the goods that are in its custody and to deliver them in good condition to the consignee.: On Hecember <. e'ceptional cases when such presumption of fault is not observed but these cases. the arrastre operator and the customs bro&erA He#&: %he common carrierJs duty to observe the re8uisite diligence in the shipment of goods lasts from the time the articles are surrendered to or unconditionally placed in the possession of. As a conse8uence of the losses sustained. . !ivil !ode#. .-1.e-. %he latter e'cepted to one drum.the delay of departure. the legal relationship between the consignee and the arrastre operator is a&in to that of a depositor and warehouseman while the relationship between the consignee and the common carrier is similar to that of the consignee and the arrastre operator. due to the fault and negligence of defendants. 3apan for delivery vessel I22 0A2%0. and received by. 1. A factual finding of both the 2upreme !ourt and the appellate court was that there was sufficient evidence that the shipment sustained damage while in the successive possession of TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). CA <=> SCRA @ Fac*.% Me#an$e Pa. $nc.-1. !ivil !ode#. @hen the goods shipped either are lost or arrive in damaged condition. As to %he 8uestion of charging both the carrier and the arrastre operator with the obligation of properly delivering the goods to the consignee. On 3anuary . there was no longer any force ma)eure that )ustified by-passing a port of call.3 . 173/-173-. while the rest of the contents was adulteratedEfa&e./e: @hether or not a claim for damage sustained on a shipment of goods can be a solidary or )oint and several. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES 3S. the person entitled to receive them "Arts.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.. 1. it was discharged unto the custody of defendant 6etro Port 2ervice.. of course.. 1. the carrier for transportation until delivered to..e r. one drum opened and without seal. I. two fiber drums of riboflavin were shipped from Co&ohama. %he shipment was insured under plaintiffJs 6arine $nsurance Policy. M/-a.. a presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that diligence. Plaintiff contended that due to the lossesEdamage sustained by said drum. %here are.+ !O60%I owned by defendant 0astern 2hipping 9ines under a bill of lading. @hen the vessel finally left the port. are e'clusive.. 1oth the arrastre and the carrier are therefore charged with the obligation to deliver the goods in good condition to the consignee. not one of which can be applied to this case. 1. . and there need not be an e'press finding of negligence to hold it liable "Art. liability of the common carrier. so that it became subrogated to all the rights of action of said consignee against defendants. said to be in bad order. (pon arrival of the shipment in 6anila on Hecember 1 . the consignee suffered losses totaling P1.and 1<. On 3anuary 7..

LD<6@75% <@ 2LY 5877% 5@ SCRA @=8: Fac*. 2uch bus is owned and operated by the defendant. %he conductor of the b us issued three tic&ets covering the full fares of the plaintiff and their eldest child 6ilagros. is inevitable regardless of whether there are others solidarily liable with it. +o fare was charged on . 2ensing the bus was again in motion* 6ariano immediately )umped form the running board without getting his bayong from conductor. the contract of carriage was already terminatedA He#&: %here can be no controversy that as far as the father is concerned. the relation of passenger and carrier between him and the petitioner remained subsisting. At that time.a8uel. when he returned to the bus for his bayong which was not unloaded.a8uel. plaintiffs comment the suit against the defendant to recover from the latter damages. 6ariano 1eltran. I. among whom were the plaintiffs and their children to get off. the liability imposed on 0astern 2hipping 9ines.: Plaintiffs. husband and wife..% Me#an$e Pa. the sole petitioner in this case. the bus reached Anao where it stopped to allow the passengers bound therefore.a8uel and Be. which he had left behind. it had traveled about 1. Afterwards. whose motor was not shut off while unloading suddenly started moving forward. %hey were carrying with them four pieces of baggage containing their personal belonging. After about an hour5s trip. 6ariano led his companion to a shaded spot on the left pedestrian side of the road about four or five meters away from the vehicle. Bor the death of the said child. M/-a. evidently to resume its trip. 7e landed on the side of the road almost board in front of the shaded place where he left his wife and his children.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.e-. and without life. . @hile said 6ariano 1eltran was on he running board of the bus waiting for the conductor to hand him his bayong which he left under one its seats near the door. he returned to the bus in controversy to get his paying. when the bus was again placed in a complete stop.. notwithstanding the fact that the conductor was still attending to the baggage left behind by 6ariano 1eltran./e: @hether or not the child was no longer the passenger of the bus involved in the incident.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 3. carrying some of their baggage was the first to get down the bus. NO.R. her s&ull crushed. Pampanga. about < years old and Be. but in so doing. . after alighting from the car aids the carrier5s servant or employee in removing his baggage from the car. meters from point where plaintiffs had gotten off.appellants. LA MALLORCA 3S. he saw people beginning to gather around the body of a child lying prostrate on the ground. CA 4G. his daughter followed him unnoticed by his father.e r. $ncidentally. 6e'ico. %he child was none other than his daughter . followed by his wife and children. and therefore. years old# boarded the Pambusco at 2an Bernando Pampanga. $nc. together with their three minor daughters "6ilagros. bound for Anao. 13 years old. who was run over by the bus in which she rode earlier together her parent. since both were below the height which fare is charged in accordance with plaintiff5s rules and regulations. $t is a rule that the relation of carrier and passenger does not cease the moment the passenger alights from the carrier5s vehicle at a place selected TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). the bus. Accordingly. %he relation of carrier and passenger does not necessarily cease where the latter.

Fiana. (pon arrival on 6ay 1 . On appeal. while he was pointing at the crew of the vessel to where his cargoes were loaded. 7e was brought to the hospital where he died 3 days after "6ay 14#. %he parents of Anacleto filed a complaint against AboitiD for breach of contract of carriage. it cannot be claimed that the carrier5s agent had e'ercised the >utmost diligence? of a >very cautious person? re8uired by Article 1744 of the !ivil !ode to be observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers. and includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure. Fiana then went bac&. I. so that even he had )umped down from the moving vehicle.e-.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 31 . the bus started to run. instead of disembar&ing through the gangplan&. although the father was still on the running board of the bus awaiting for the conductor to hand him the bag or bayong. %he rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel owner5s doc& or premises.: On 6ay 11.by the carrier at the point of destination but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier5s premises. !A affirmed the trial court ruling. who must be near the bus.74. although stopping the bus./e: @hether or not Fiana is still considered a passenger at the time of the incidentA He#&: Ces. %he trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Anacleto Fiana boarded 6EUF Antonio from Occidental 6indoro bound for 6anila. At that time. . %he driver. the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has. ABOITI.. %hen both AboitiD and Pioneer filed a motion for reconsideration. was run over and &illed. $n the circumstances. %he carrier-passenger relationship is not terminated merely by the fact that the person transported TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). safely alighted from the carrier5s conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier5s premises. $t was that this instance that the child. 1. 1. Once created. entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage. 7e started to run the bus even before the conductor gave him the signal to go and while the latter was still unloading part of the baggage of the passengers 1eltran and family. which was at the same level with the pier. nevertheless did not put off the engine. upon which the trial court issued an order absolving Pioneer from liability but not AboitiD. M/-a. this petition.% Me#an$e Pa. remembering some of his cargoes left at the vessel. the crane hit him. %he father returned to the bus to get one of his baggages which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus.a8uel must have followed her father. 3S. 7ence. An hour after the passengers disembar&ed. disembar&ed through the third dec&. to be considered still as passengers of the carrier. %he presence of the said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are.74. Pioneer stevedoring started to operate in unloading the cargo from the ship. and what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances. %he 9a 6allorca case is applicable in the case at bar.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. All persons who remain on the premises a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers.e r. SHIPPING CORP. CA 45@8 SCRA 8?: Fac*. 7owever. pinning him between the crane and the side of the vessel. the passengers therein disembar&ed through a gangplan& connecting the vessel to the pier. therefore. after reaching his destination.

%he appellant was negligent because his announcement was premature and erroneous. the train slowed down and the conductor. On appeal to the !A. PueDon for his 44-year old mother 6artina 1ool and his 3-year old daughter 0melita :esmundo. the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. ready to disembar& as the train or bus comes to a full stop.% Me#an$e Pa. the assistant conductor and !lemente 1rinas for Houble 7omicide thru . the failure of the carrier to carry the passenger safely to his destination.has been carried to his destination if. some passengers usually stand and proceed to the nearest e'it. which. %he two were bound for 9usacan in %iaong. and so forth. the driver. 1ut the lower court ac8uitted 6ilan and 1uencamino. (pon approaching 1arrio 9agalag at -pm. BRINAS 3S.. !lemente 1rinas. %hey boarded the train of 6anila . that is. PEOPLE 45<? SCRA 79@: Fac*.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 3 . causing their instant death.ailroad !ompany at about pm.ec&less $mprudence. the customs of the place. 7ermogenes 1uencamino.e r./e: @hether or not the !A erred in ruling the accused-appellant was negligentA He#&: %here was no error in the factual findings of the respondent court and in the conclusion drawn from the findings. 1. %he old woman and the child stumbled from the train causing them to fall down the trac&s and were hit by an oncoming train. @here a passenger dies or is in)ured. I. 9usacanV? %he old woman wal&ed towards the train e'it carrying the child with one hand and holding her baggage with the other.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. the nature of its business. in the instant case. %his gives rise to an action for breach of contract where all that is re8uired of plaintiff is to prove the e'istence of the contract of carriage and its non-performance by the carrier. such as the &ind of common carrier. for it too& a full 3 minutes more before the ne't barrio of 9usacan TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). A criminal information was filed against Fictor 6ilan. 3uanito :esmundo bought a train tic&et at the railroad station in %ag&awayan. and therefore precludes a consideration of the time element per se without ta&ing into account such other factors.: $n the afternoon of 3anuary /. necessarily includes its failure to safeguard its passenger with e'traordinary diligence while such relation subsists. shouted >9usacan. respondent !A affirmed the decision. %he reasonableness of the time should be made to depend on the attending circumstances of the case. for e'ample. %his is especially true of a train because passengers feel that if the train resumes its run before they are able to disembar&* there is no way to stop it as a bus may be stopped.e-. accused-appellant. $t is also a matter of common e'perience that as the train or bus slac&ens its speed. such person remains in the carrier5s premises to claim his baggage.47. $t is a matter of common &nowledge and e'perience about common carriers li&e trains and buses that before reaching a station or flagstop they slow down and the conductor announces the name of the place. @hen they were near the door. PueDon. M/-a. the train suddenly pic&ed up speed.

an unidentified man " a bystander# hurled a stone at the left side of the bus. the failure to transport the petitioners safely from Havao to 6anila was due to the s&y)ac&ing incident staged buy the 6+9B without connection to the private respondent. which apparently hit petitioner above his left eye. his wife and three others were passengers of PA9 plane at Havao Airport for a flight to 6anila. Applying the above guidelines. %he premature announcement prompted the two victims to stand and proceed to the nearest e'it.P6.: Plaintiffs Bran&lin :acal. %hey were.% Me#an$e Pa. %hey were armed with grenades and pistols. %hat commenced the battle between the military and the hi)ac&ers. 3ose Pilapil boarded defendant5s bus bearing +o. it was met by two armored cars of the military.. not &nowing that the flight. PILAPIL 3S.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 33 . ??=66 MARCH 57% 5886: Fac*. NO. %he e'istence of force ma)eure has been established thus e'empting PA9 from payment of damages. @hen the plane began to ta'i at the runaway of Tamboanga airport. were !ommander Tapata with other members of 6oro +ational 9iberation Bront. $riga !ity at about /=. %he pro'imate cause of the death of the victims was the premature and erroneous announcement of petitioner-appellant.71. An armored car subse8uently bumped the stairs leading inside the plane. independent of will of PA9 or its passengers. I. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). CA 596 SCRA ?>7 Fac*. GACAL 3S. <. %he events rendered it impossible for PA9 to perform its obligation in a normal manner and it cannot be faulted for negligence on the duty performed by the military. at 2an +icolas.: On 2eptember 1/.e-. 7e was then immediately brought by private respondent5s personnel to the provincial hospital in +aga !ity. hence. the victims would have been safely seated in their respective seats when the train )er&ed and pic&ed up speed.was reached. After ta&e off. however.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. which led ultimately to the liberation of the plane5s surviving crew and passengers with the final score of ten passengers and three hi)ac&ers dead../e: @hether or not hi)ac&ing is a case fortuito or force ma)eure. the members of 6+9B announced a hi)ac&ing and directed the pilot to fly directly to 9ibya. 1.e r. @ithout said announcement. which would e'empt an aircraft from liability for. (pon reaching the vicinity of the cemetery of the 6unicipality of 1aao. because the plane did not have enough fuel to ma&e direct flight to 2abah. forced to land in Tamboanga airport for refueling. PAL 459= SCRA 598% G. later to 2abah. !amarines 2ur. M/-a.. on the way to +aga !ity !ity.R. damages to its passengers and personal belongings that were lost during the incidentA He#&: $n order to constitute a caso fortuito that would e'empt from liability under Art 117< of the civil code. it is necessary that the following elements must occur= "a# the cause of the breach of obligation must be independent of human will* "b# the event must be unforeseeable or unavoidable* "c# the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner* "d# the debtor must be free from any participation in or aggravation of the in)ury to the creditor.

1. Hue to this. the !ourt of Appeals. COMPANIA MARITIMA 3S CO2RT OF APPEALS AND 3ICENTE CONCEPCION 457< SCRA 79?: Fac*.4 tons as declared in its bill of lading.. it was weighed at 2an 6iguel !orporation. 1eing a 6anila based contractor./<. ma&e the carrier an insurer of absolute safety of its passengers. it does not however. On appeal./e: @hether or not the nature of the business of a transportation company re8uires the assumption of certain ris&s and the stro&ing of the bus by a bystander resulting in in)ury to petitioner-passenger is one such ris& from which the common carrier may not e'empt itself from liabilityA He#&: %he 2upreme !ourt held that while the law re8uires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them. and pieces of water tan&s./< and arrived at !agayan de Oro on 2eptember 1.e-./e: @hether or not the act of respondent !oncepcion of misdeclaring the true weight of the payloader the pro'imate and only cause of the damage of the payloaderA He#&: +o.oe truc&s.4 tons instead of its true weight of 7. %he damaged pay loader was ta&en to the petitioner5s compound in !agayan de Oro. %he !ourt of Birst $nstance dismissed the complaint stating that the pro'imate cause of the fall of the payloader which caused its damage was the act or omission of Ficente !oncepcion for misrepresenting the weight of the payloader as . A tort.. (nable to get a response. sent the damaged payloader to 6anila. < units of /'/ .: Ficente !oncepcion is doing business under the name of !onsolidated !onstruction. !oncepcion had to ship his construction e8uipment to !agayan de Oro. I.4 tons and not . it is to be noted that when the violation of the contract is due to the willful acts of strangers. !oncepcion sent another demand letter. %he . On August -. !onsolidated then filed an action for damages against petitioner with the !ourt of Birst $nstance of 6anila. 7ence this petition.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.e r. where it was found that the payloader actually weighed 7. 1. petitioner denied the claim for damages of !onsolidated !onstruction. %he :eneral rule under Articles 1734 and 174 of the !ivil !ode is that common carriers are presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case the TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). Burther. as in the instant case.eo truc&s and water tan&s were safely unloaded however the pay loader suffered damage while being unloaded. %he aforementioned e8uipment was loaded aboard the 6F !ebu.% Me#an$e Pa. which left 6anila on August 3. M/-a. !ompania 6aritima is liable for the damage to the payloader. 1. !oncepcion shipped 1 unit pay loader. !onsolidated !onstruction thru Ficente !oncepcion wrote !ompania 6aritima to demand a replacement of the bro&en pay loader and also as&ed for damages.I.4 tons. Petitioner meanwhile./<.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 3< . reversed the decision of the !ourt of Birst $nstance and ordered the plaintiff to pay !oncepcion damages. %he negligence for which a common carrier is responsible is the negligent omission by the carrier5s employees to prevent the tort from being committed when the same could have been foreseen and prevented by them. the degree of care essential to be e'ercised by the common carrier for the protection of its passenger is only that of a good father of the family.. committed by a stranger which causes an in)ury to a passenger does not accord the latter a cause of action against the carrier.

%o overcome the presumption of liability for the loss destruction or deterioration common carriers must prove that they have e'ercised e'traordinary diligence as re8uired by Article 1733 of the !ivil !ode. At =. $t re8uires common carriers to render service with the greatest s&ill and foresight and to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristics of goods tendered for shipment and to e'ercise due care in the handling and stowage including such methods as their nature re8uires. %he carrier also cannot be charged with negligence since the storage of the goods was in the !ustoms warehouse and was undoubtedly made with their &nowledge and consent. pm of the same day. 2ince the carrier even notified the plaintiffs of the arrival of their shipments and had demanded that they be withdrawn. the cargoes were discharged. complete and in good order to the warehouse of the 1ureau of !ustoms. or had deteriorated.e-../e: @hether or not the carrier should be held liable for the destruction of the goods He#&: +o. +either shall it be liable for loss due to fortuitous events such as dangers of the sea and war. %he petitioners are now claiming for the value of the destroyed goods from the common carrier. DSR SENATOR LINES 3S. SER3ANDO 3S. a fire of un&nown reasons raDed the warehouse. %he %rial !ourt ordered the respondent to pay the plaintiffs the amount of their lost goods on the basis that the delivery of the shipment to the warehouse is not the delivery contemplated by Article 173/ of the +ew !ivil !ode. 1ico was able to ta&e delivery of .% Me#an$e Pa.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 34 . %here is nothing on record to show that the carrier incurred in delay in the performance of its obligation. destroyed. (pon the arrival of the vessel. 1efore the fire. %he petitioners argued that the stipulation in the bills of lading does not bind them because they did not sign the same.e r. toys and general merchandise.7 cavans of rice.455@ SCRA 9=<: Fac*. FEDERAL PHOENIE @ OCTOBER <66= TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).. M/-a.goods transported by them are lost.: 1ico and 2ervando loaded on board the B2-17/ the following cargoes= 1. %he 2upreme !ourt further held that the weight in a bill of lading are prima facie evidence of the amount received and the fact that the weighing was done by another will not relieve the common carrier where it accepted such weight and entered it in on the bill of lading. 0'traordinary Hiligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment re8uires the common carrier to &now and follow the re8uired precaution fro avoiding damage or destruction of the goods entrusted to it for safe carriage and delivery. it would be unfair to impute negligence to the appellant since it has no control over the same.. 2ince the warehouse belonged and maintained by the :overnment. since the loss occurred before actual or constructive delivery.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.4 . I.cavans of rice and << cartons of colored paper. PHILIPPINE STEAM NA3IGATION CO. %he stipulation states that the carrier shall not be responsible for loss unless such loss was due to the carrier5s negligence. %he common carrier can protect themselves against mista&es in the bill of lading as to weight by e'ercising e'traordinary diligence before issuing such.

Act or omission of the shipper or the owner of the goods* <.iyadh. with a stipulation that the port of discharge for the cargo was at the Ghor Ba&&an port and the port of delivery was .7.. the vessel and all its cargo caught fire. the vessel left 6anila for 2audi Arabia with the cargo on board.: On 2eptember 1<. $nc. On 3une 7. or other natural disaster or calamity* . 2audi Arabia.% Me#an$e Pa. destruction. Accordingly.-2enator 9ines and !. Order or act of competent public authority.3./e: @hether or not there was a breach of contract of carriage. having various foreign destinations from 1ang&o& and bac& to 1ang&o&. 2harp issued an international bill of landing for the cargo. $nc. $n turn. SARREAL 3S..iyadh. unless the same is due to any of the following causes only= 1. 131-<<< -417-3/-. !.? Bederal Phoeni' demanding payment on the basis of the subrogation receipt. 1. 1. $n those cases where the presumption is applied.: 1erde plants.. earth8ua&e. Act of the public enemy in war. delivered /3 units of artificial trees to !. !ommon carriers are obliged to observe e'traordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. %he character of the goods or defects in the pac&ing or in the containers* 4. (2A with his business representative Atty. @hen the vessel arrived in Ghor Ba&&an Port.Fac*. M/-a. %hey were negotiating a possible match between the latter and the winner of the I TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). %hus.2enator 9ines. they are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently of the goods are lost. the :eneral 2ip Agent of H2.B. Art. !onse8uently. He#&: Bire is not one of those enumerated under Article 173< of the !ivil !ode to wit. /. !ommon carriers are responsible for the loss.e-. 2harp.B.e r.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. Bederal Phoeni' filed a complaint for damages against H2.f.. 173<. the bo'ing manager of @orld Blyweight 1o'ing !hampion 7ilario Tapata.eceipt. a foreign shipping corporation..-. APAN AIRLINES 455@ SCRA 9=<: Fac*. Blood.. the petitioner purchased in 1ang&o& from private respondent 3apan Air 9ines "3A9# tic&et no. whether international civil* 3. On or about 3une 3. and 9uis 0spada. Pol %iglao. Bederal Phoeni' Assurance paid 1erde Plants corresponding to the amount of the insurance for the cargo. the common carrier must prove that it e'ercised e'traordinary diligence in order to overcome the presumption. Al-6ohr $nternational :roup. 2harp denied any liability that such liability was e'tinguished when the vessel carrying the cargo was gutted by fire. 2harp and !ompany.-2enator 9ines feeder vessel. storm. lightning. he was in 9os Angeles. 1erde Plants e'ecuted in its favor a >2ubrogation . or deterioration of the goods. in . however while in transit. 1.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 3/ . destroyed or deteriorated. for transportation and delivery to the consignee. 2audi Arabia. the cargo was reloaded on board H2. I.

7e has failed to show that the findings of the respondent court are not based on substantial evidence or that it conclusions are contrary to law and applicable )urisprudence. the petitioner in8uired if there was a 3A9 flight from 1ang&o& to 6anila on 3uly . 1. he would not be going to 1ang&o& anymore.. 7owever.%! #.1rigildo !aQadaI main event fight which was scheduled on 3uly <.. CO2RT OF APPEALS 45=9 SCRA ??=: TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). 1... he was not allowed to board the said plane through it had available seats because he was told that his tic&et was not endorsable. for 6anila. 1.-. 7e also told her that if he could not ta&e a flight from 1ang&o& to 6anila on that date. a man of such stature was aware of the restrictions carried by his tic&et and the usual procedure that goes with traveling.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. 0spada cancelled his transaction with the petitioner and decided to have the champion fight in 3apan instead. in 6anila.% Me#an$e Pa.-. %he 3A9 lady employee loo&ed into her scheduled boo& put a stamp on the petitionerJs tic&et and told him not to worry because she has endorsed his 3A9 tic&et to %hai $nternational leaving 1ang&o& on 3uly . 1. %his led the petitioner to file an action for damages with the .+etrnoi Forasing .. when the petitioner was about to board the said %hai $nternational. .<4. the petitioner then proceeded to 1ang&o&.-. %his agreement was to be confirmed by the petitioner through overseas call in 6anila on or before 3uly . Pasay !ity against private respondent 3A9 premised on the breach of contract of carriage. in the morning of 3uly .-.-. %he court finds no )ustification for the relief prayed for by the petitioner. 3ASF2E. 7e claims to have used practically all the airlines but mostly Philippine Airlines whenever he travels abroad in connection with his occupation as international bo'ing matchma&er and manager of world-champion bo'ers. 3S. I.e r.e-. !ertainly.-. At the +arita Airport Office.elying on the assurance of the lady employee.-.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 37 . not evidenced by any hard proof.. 1. 2ince the petitioner failed to reach 6anila by 3uly ..-. 7e e'plained to a lady employee of 3A9 that he had a very important business in 6anila on 3uly ./e: @hether or not the assurance of an airline employee. M/-a. 1. %he petitioner then flew from 9os Angeles to %o&yo arriving thereat on 3une /. %he petitioner ought to &now that it was still necessary to verify first from %hai $nternational if they would honor the endorsement of his 3A9 tic&et or confirm with the airline if he had a seat in the 3uly flight. 1. is sufficient as an assurance of a passenger securing his seatA He#&: %he petitioner is said to be a well-traveled person who average two long trips to 0urope and two trips to 1ang&o& every month since 1. 1.egional %rail !ourt ".

GATCHALIAN 3 DELIM AND CA <6= SCRA 5<7 Fac*.: :atchalian boarded the respondent5s >%hames? minibus at 2an 0ugenio. M/-a. Bearing that they might hit !hocolate island due to Dero visibility. the vessel struc& a reef near 6alapascua $sland.e-. the obligor must be free from any participation or aggravation to the in)ury of the creditor. the captain decided not to see& shelter since the weather was still good. it sustained a lea& and eventually sun&. the vehicle bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the road. notwithstanding this document../e: @hether or not the private respondent has successfully proved that he e'ercised e'traordinary diligence. %he trial court dismissed the complaint based on the waiver and the !A affirmed. they proceeded with their voyage.Fac*. Hespite &nowledge of the fact that there was a typhoon. went off the road and fell into a ditch. @hile there. %here being no typhoon signals on their route.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 3- . before she left.: 6F Pioneer !ebu left the port of 6anila and bounded for !ebu. she had the in)ured passengers including the petitioner sign an already prepared 3oint Affidavit constituting a waiver of any future complaint. private respondent5s wife Adela Helim visited and paid for the e'penses. %o constitute caso fortuito to e'empt a person from liability it necessary that the event must be independent from human will. 7owever.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. I. On appeal to the !ourt of Appeals. the captain ordered to reverse course the vessel so that they could weather out the typhoon by facing the strong winds and waves. %he parents of the passengers who were lost due to that incident filed an action against Bilipinas Pioneer 9ines for damages.. %he defendant pleaded force ma)eure but the %rial !ourt ruled in favor of the plaintiff. %hey continued their )ourney until the vessel reached the island of %anguingui./e: @hether of not Bilipinas Pioneer 9ines is liable for damages and presumed to be at fault for the death of its passengerA He#&: %he 2upreme !ourt held the Bilipinas Pioneer 9ines failed to observe that e'traordinary diligence re8uired of them by law for the safety of the passengers transported by them with due regard for all necessary circumstance and unnecessarily e'posed the vessel to tragic mishap. %hey were ta&en into an hospital for treatment. %he defense of caso fortuito is untenable. I. 7owever.omblon. @hen they reached the island of . TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). Bilipina Pioneer 9ines failed to overcome that presumption o fault or negligence that arises in cases of death or in)uries to passengers. 9a (nion bound of the same province. On the way. 2everal passengers including the petitioner was in)ured. Aringay. petitioner filed an action 0' !ontractu to recover compensatory and Actual Hamages. $ts officers were aware of the upcoming typhoon Glaring that is already building up somewhere in 6indanao. hospitaliDation and transportation fees. a snapping sound was suddenly heard at one part of the bus and shortly thereafter. it reversed the decision of the lower stating that the incident was a force ma)eure and absolved the defendants from liability. (nfortunately.% Me#an$e Pa. they still proceeded with their voyage relying only on the forecast that the typhoon would wea&en upon crossing the island of 2amar.e r. while passing through the island the weather suddenly changed and heavy rains fell. the occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. Private respondent denied liability on the ground that it was an accident and the 3oint which constitutes as a waiver.

PARAS 456> PHIL @?: Fac*. such waiver is not clear and une8uivocal.e r. and after the wrec&ing the bridge wooden rails. I. the truc& fell on its right side into a cree& where water was breast deep. %he mother. !ommon carriers should teach drivers not to overload their vehicles.: 7erein plaintiff was a passenger of the public utility )eepney on course from Hanao !ity to !ebu !ity. she was reeling from the effects of the accident and while reading the paper. %he accident was caused either through the negligence of the driver or because of mechanical defects in the tire. 2everina :arces and her one year old son.: On 3anuaryWy -. @hen petitioner signed the waiver. After a snapping sound was suddenly heard at one part of the bus. NECESSITO 3S. ta&ing into account that the tire that e'ploded was newly bought and was only slightly used at the time it blew up. the plaintiff who was sitting at the front seat was thrown out of the vehicle. After the bus entered a wooden bridge.He#&= %he court held that they failed to prove e'traordinary diligence. the front wheels swerved to the right.e-.. Precillano +ecesito boarded passenger auto truc& bus of the Philippine . %here appears substantial doubt whether the petitioner fully understood the )oint affidavit. 1. %he )eepney was driven by driven by defendant 1erfol !amoro and registered under the franchise of !lemente Bontanar. @ith regard to the waiver. she e'perienced diDDiness but upon seeing other passengers sign the document. @hen the )eepney reached 6andaue !ity. Hefendants. it must to be valid and effective. right thigh. alleged that the tire blow out was beyond their control. and on his bac&. Pangasinan. she too signed which bothering to read to its entirety. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ )./e: @hether or not the tire blow-out is a fortuitous eventA He#&: +o.% Me#an$e Pa. %he driver lost control. the cause of the unforeseen and une'pected occurrence was not independent of the human will. $n the case at bar. M/-a. not to e'ceed safe and legal speed limits. $n this case. that his failure to e'ercise utmost degree of diligence that the law re8uires. 2everina was drowned and the son Precillano was in)ured. the right rear tire e'ploded causing the vehicle to turn turtle.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 3. Plaintiff filed a case for breach of contract with damages before the !ity !ourt of !ebu !ity. couched in clear and une8uivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of the person to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. $n the process. the driver didn5t even bother to stop and loo& f anything had gone wrong with the bus.4<. in their answer.. 2NTILLA 3S FONTANAR 45=7 SCRA 7<>: Fac*./e: @hether or nor the carrier is liable for manufacturing defect of the steering &nuc&leA He#&: $t is clear that the carrier is not an insurer of the passenger5s safety. 7is liability rest upon negligence.abbit 1us 9ines at Agno. Plaintiff suffered a lacerated wound on his right palm aside from the in)uries he suffered on his left arm. . I.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. and to &now the correct measures to ta&e when a tire blows up thus insuring the safety of passengers at all tines.

e r. $nc. On the way to 6anila. $t is but logical.e-. destruction or deterioration. and 7 cases of spare parts valued at P. %herefore !O:2A is suppletory to the provisions of the !ivil !ode. M/-a..: 2ometime in or prior to 3une 1. .% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( <.74 consigned to !entral %e'tile 6ills. which was consigned to Philippine 1looming 6ills !o. which is e'traordinary diligenceA He#&: 1. 7owever. : EASTERN SHIPPING LINES INC. $n the same vessel. 3apan for transportation to 6anila loaded 4. should nevertheless be held to answer for flaws of his e8uipment if such cause were at all discoverable. 6E2 Asiatica caught fire and san&. %he law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs the liability of the common carrier in case of their loss./e. CO2RT 45?6 SCRA >7=: 3S. a vessel operated by petitioner 0astern 2hipping 9ines $nc. loaded at Gobe. that the carrier. therefore. %he said cargoes were consigned to +isshin Bire and 6arine $nsurance.. while not an insurer of the safety of his passengers.. the passenger has no remedy against him.3. Another cargo loaded to the vessel was the surveying instruments consigned to Aman 0nterprises and :eneral 6erchandise and insured against respondent Howa Bire N 6arine $nsurance for M1. 1oth sets of goods were inured against marine ris& for their stated value with respondent Hevelopment $nsurance and 2urety !orp... @hether the !ivil !ode provisions on !ommon !arriers or the !arriage of the :oods by 2ea Act will govern the case at barA . %he respective $nsurers paid the corresponding marine insurance values and were thus subrogated to the rights of the insured. DEFENSEBS Ca....4-3. containers of garment fabrics were also loaded which was consigned to 6ariveles Apparel !orp worth M</. petitioner contends that it is not liable on the ground that the loss was due to an e'traordinary fortuitous event.: 1. pieces of caloriDed pipes valued at P 4/.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.. @hether or not the common carrier has the burden of proof to show its compliance with the diligence re8uired by law.% Me#an$e Pa. 3/1.77. I. the !ode of !ommerce and 2pecial 9aws will govern with respect to the rights and obligations of the carrier. %he liability of petitioner is governed primarily by the !ivil !ode however. %he insurers filed a suit against the petitioner carrier for recovery of the amounts paid to the insured.%he passenger has neither choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the e8uipment and the appliances in use by the carrier. C. 7aving no privity whatever with the manufacturer or vendor of the defective e8uipment..3-4. . INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE Fac*. the 6E2 Asiatica.. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).. in all matters not regulated by the !ivil !ode. while carrier usually has. %his resulted to the loss of the ship and its cargoes.e.

GAN. 6ayor 3ose Advincula drew his gun and fired at :elacio %umambing. petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving that it had e'ercised the e'traordinary diligence re8uired by law and therefore cannot escape liability for the loss of the cargo.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. for treatment. IN CASE OF GOODS START: Brom the time that the goods are delivered to the common carrier. 2uch a change of theory on appeal we cannot. $t does not fall within the category of an act of :od unless caused by lightning or by other natural disaster or calamity. 1ataan. for loading which was actually begun on the same date by the crew of the lighter under the captainJs supervision. Cia 0aritima vs.% Me#an$e Pa. the appellate court reversed and set aside the decision appealed.ON 3S.4/... 7owever..4 tons of scrap iron from 6ariveles. D.. :elacio %umambing delivered the scrap iron to Bilomeno +iDa. :anDon sent his lighter I1atmanI to 6ariveles where it doc&ed in 3 feet of water. 6ayor 3ose Advincula of 6ariveles.I Pursuant to this agreement. %umambing instituted with !B$ 6anila an action against :anDon for damages based on culpa contractual. 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 petitionerJs employees. from :elacio %umambing. @hen about half of the scrap iron was already loaded. of America# TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). arrived and demanded P4.: :elacio %umambing contracted the services of 6auro 1. %he petitioner was not duty bound to obey the illegal order to dump into the sea the scrap iron. CA 4575 SCRA 7>7: Fac*. the petition for review on certiorari. %his must be so as it almost arises invariably from some act of man or by human means.. $n any case.e-. however.. %he rest was brought to the compound of +A22!O. 6auro 1.ub issued a receipt stating that the 6unicipality of 6ariveles had ta&en custody of the scrap iron. %he latter resisted the sha&edown and after a heated argument between them. 6oreover.e r. 9ater on Acting 6ayor . 1ataan. @e agree with the private respondent that the scraps could have been properly unloaded at the shore or at the +A22!O compound. 1ataan. After sometime. D2RATION OF RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY OF COMMON CARRIERS A. Acting 6ayor 1asilio . the loading of the scrap iron was resumed. %he gunshot was not fatal but %umambing had to be ta&en to a hospital in 1alanga. (ns!rance Co. 1ut on < Hecember 1. accompanied by 3 policemen. of a character that would render impossible the fulfillment by the carrier of its obligation.. to the port of 6anila on board the lighter 9!% I1atman. ordered captain Bilomeno +iDa and his crew to dump the scrap iron where the lighter was doc&ed. captain of the lighter. %he !ourt is of the opinion that fire may not be considered a natural disaster or calamity. allow. Civil Code. :anDon to haul 3. %hen. He#&: +ow the petitioner is changing his theory to caso fortuito. the scraps could then be delivered in accordance with the contract of carriage. M/-a. %he !ommon !arrier has the burden to prove that it e'ercised e'traordinary diligence re8uired by law. On appeal.ub. %he mere difficulty in the fullfilment of the obligation is not considered force ma)eure. "Article 173'.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( <1 . however. %he trial court rendered a decision absolving :anDon from liability. 7ence. so that after the dispute with the local officials concerned was settled. C02. the intervention of the municipal officials was not $n any case.

TERMINATION: @hen the goods are delivered, actively or constructively, by the carrier to the consigneeEperson who has the right to receive them, or the consigneeEperson who has the right to receive them has been informed of the arrival of the goods and the consignee had reasonable time to remove such. "Article 173' and 1731, Civil Code# %he liability remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit unless the shipper or owner made use of the r$(.* )! ,*)--a(e $n *ran,$*/. (Art#cle 7$7, C#v#l Co4e" WHEN RIGHT OF STOPPAGE IN TRANSIT2 IS EEERCISED: $t is the right of the unpaid seller who has parted with his goods to stop its delivery while in transit when the buyer of the goods is or turns insolvent. (Art#cle /$5, C#v#l Co4e" %he common carrier who holds the goods becomes the warehouseman or ordinary bailee and the contract is terminated when such right is e'ercised. -e !isites% 1. (npaid seller "Art#cle /2/, C#v#l Co4e#* 2. :oods must be in transit "Art#cle /$ , C#v#l Co4e#* 3. %he seller must either actually ta&e possession of the goods sold or give notice of his claim to the carrier or other person in possession "Art#cle /$2 ' ), C#v#l Co4e#* +. %he seller must surrender the negotiable document of title, if any, issued by the carrier or bailee "Art#cle /$2'2), C#v#l Co4e#* . %he seller must bear the e'penses of delivery of the goods after the e'ercise of the right "Art#cle /$2'2), C#v#l Co4e#* and /. %he buyer is in a state of insolvency or becomes insolvent. B. IN CASE OF PASSENGERS START: %he carrier is bound to e'ercise utmost diligence with respect to passengers the moment the person who purchases the tic&et "or a to&en# from the carrier presents himself at the proper place and in a proper manner to be transported. 2uch person must have bona f#4e intention to use the facilities of the carrier, possess sufficient fare with which to pay for his passage, and present himself to the carrier for the transportation in the manner provided. (:4a. De Nueca v. 8an#la &a#lroa4 Compan7, CA, G.&. No. $ 7$ , Aanuar7 $5, !(8# $t is the duty of carriers of passengers to stop their conveyances for a reasonable length of time in order to afford passengers an opportunity to board and enter, and they are liable for in)uries suffered by boarding passengers resulting from the sudden starting up or )er&ing of their conveyances (Dan,6a -ransportat#on Co., 3nc. vs. CA, 252 %C&A ' !! )" TERMINATION: (ntil the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carrier5s conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier5s premises. "La 8allorca v. CA, 7 %C&A 7$! ' !(()# A person by stepping and standing on the platform of a bus, is already considered a passenger and is entitled to all rights and protection pertaining to such conventional relation (3.4.". E. R2LES ON PASSENGERIS BAGGAGE 1. *aggage in the c!stody of the passengers or their employee%

TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ),e-. M/-a,% Me#an$e Pa,c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en,e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an(

<

%hat baggage, while in transit will be considered as necessary deposits. %he common carrier shall be responsible for the baggage as depositaries, provided that notice was given to them or its employees and the passengers too& the necessary precautions which the carrier has advised them relative to the care and vigilance of their baggage. 2. *aggage not in personal c!stody, "!t in that of a Carrier
Carrier who has in its custody the baggage of a passenger to be carried li'e any other goods is re&uired to observe e#traordinary diligence. "n case of loss or damage, the carrier is presumed negligent. As to the other baggage, the rules in Article 1,,- and 2... to 2..3 of the Civil Code concerning the responsibility of hotel/'eepers shall be applicable. (Art.1733-1735, Civil Code)

Ca,eB, F2IS2MBING 3S. CA Fac*,: +orberto Puisumbing, 2r. and :unther 9eoffler were among the of ... "PA9Js# Bo&&er JBriendshipJ P$!-43/ plane in its flight of +ovember /, 1./which left 6actan !ity at about 7=3; in the evening with 6anila for its destination. After the plane had ta&en off, Blorencio O. Fillarin, a 2enior +1$ Agent who was also a passenger of the said plane, noticed a certain JTaldy,J a suspect in the &illing of 3udge FaldeD, seated at the front seat near the door leading to the coc&pit of the plane. A chec& by Fillarin with the passengerJs tic&et in the possession of flight 2tewardess Annie 1ontigao, who was seated at the last seat right row, revealed that JTaldyJ had used the name J!ardente,J one of his aliases &nown to Fillarin. Fillarin also came to &now from the stewardess that JTaldyJ had three companions on board the plane.I Fillarin then scribbled a note addressed to the pilot of the plane re8uesting the latter to contact +1$ duty agents in 6anila for the said agents to as& the Hirector of the +1$ to send about si' +1$ agents to meet the plane because the suspect in the &illing of 3udge FaldeD was on board "0'h. J:J#. %he said note was handed by Fillarin to the stewardess who in turn gave the same to the pilot. After receiving the note, which was about 14 minutes after ta&e off, the pilot of the plane, !apt. 9uis 1onnevie, 3r., came out of the coc&pit and sat beside Fillarin at the rear portion of the plane and e'plained that he could not send the message because it would be heard by all ground aircraft stations. Fillarin, however, told the pilot of the danger of commission of violent acts on board the plane by the notorious JTaldyJ and his three companions. @hile the pilot and Fillarin were tal&ing, JTaldyJ and one of his companions wal&ed to the rear and stood behind them. !apt. 1onnevie then stood up and went bac& to the coc&pit. JTaldyJ and his companions returned to their seats, but after a few minutes they moved bac& to the rear throwing ugly loo&s at Fillarin who, sensing danger, stood up and went bac& to his original seat across the aisle on the second to the last seat near the window. JTaldy and his companion li&ewise went bac& to their respective seats in front. 2oon thereafter an e'change of gunshots ensued between Fillarin and JTaldyJ and the latterJs companions. JTaldyJ announced to the passengers and the pilots in the coc&pit that it was a hold-up and ordered the pilot not to send any 2O2. %he hold-uppers divested passengers of their belongings. I,,/e: @hether or not Pal is liable for damages against the passengers for loss caused by the robbers on boardA

TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ),e-. M/-a,% Me#an$e Pa,c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en,e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an(

<3

He#&: $t is illusive to assume that had these precautions been ta&en, the hi)ac&ing or the robbery would not have succeeded. %he mandatory use of the most sophisticated electronic detection devices and magnetometers, the imposition of severe penalties, the development of screening procedures, the compilation of hi)ac&er behavioral profiles, the assignment of s&y marshals, and the weight of outraged world opinion may have minimiDed hi)ac&ings but all these have proved ineffective against truly determined hi)ac&ers. @orld e'perience shows that if a group of armed hi)ac&ers want to ta&e over a plane in flight, they can elude the latest combined government and airline industry measures. And as our own e'perience in Tamboanga !ity illustrates, the use of force to overcome hi)ac&ers, results in the death and in)ury of innocent passengers and crew members. @e are not in the least bit suggesting that the Philippine Airlines should not do everything humanly possible to protect passengers from hi)ac&ersJ acts. @e merely state that where the defendant has faithfully complied with the re8uirements of government agencies and adhered to the established procedures and precautions of the airline industry at any particular time, its failure to ta&e certain steps that a passenger in hindsight believes should have been ta&en is not the negligence or misconduct which mingles with force ma)eure as an active and cooperative cause. BRITISH AIRWAYS 3S. CA 4<9? SCRA >?6: Fac*,: On April 1/, 1.-., 6ahtani is on his way to 1ombay, $ndia from 6anila. 7is trip was 6anila-7ong Gong via PA9 and then 7ong Gong-$ndia via 1ritish Airways. Prior to his departure, he chec&ed in two pieces of luggage containing his clothing and other personal effects, confident that the same would be transferred to his 1A flight. (nfortunately, when he arrived in $ndia, he discovered that his luggage was missing. %he ,%! awarded 6ahtani damages which was affirmed by !A. I,,/e: @hether or not in a contract of air carriage a declaration by the passenger is needed to recover a greater amountA He#&: American )urisprudence provides that an air carrier is not liable for the loss of baggage in an amount in e'cess of the limits specified in the tariff which was filed with the proper authorities, such tariff being binding on the passenger regardless of the passenger5s lac& of &nowledge thereof or assent thereto. %his doctrine is recogniDed in this )urisdiction. %he inescapable conclusion that 1A had waived the defense of limited liability when it allowed 6ahtani to testify as to the actual damages he incurred due to misplacement of his luggage, without any ob)ection. $t is a well-settled doctrine that where the proponent offers evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible for any reason, the latter has the right to ob)ect. 7owever, such right is a mere privilege which can be waived. +ecessarily, the ob)ection must be made at the earliest opportunity, in case of silence when there is opportunity to spea& may operate as a waiver of ob)ections. F.LIABILITY OF S2CCESSI3E AIR CARRIERS 1LM ROYAL D2TCH AIRLINES 3S CA 47? SCRA <=@:

TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ),e-. M/-a,% Me#an$e Pa,c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en,e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an(

<<

c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. from the decision of the !ourt of Birst $nstance of 6anila 1ranch C.. LD<9@@= 2NE =6% 58@?: Fac*. 3. which states= the passenger or his representatives can ta&e action only against the carrier who performed the transportation during which the accident or delay occurred.. As the airline which issued the tic&ets. M/-a. the branch manager of Philippine %ravel 1ureau.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( <4 . 2o the spouses 6endoDas too& a train ride to 9ourdes instead. 7owever. 3S. On appeal. @hen the 6endoDa5s left the Philippines. the spouses 6endoDas were off loaded on orders of the Aer 9ingus manager. I.Fac*. NO. their coupon for Aer 9ingus was mar&ed >on re8uest?. they went to the G96 office and obtained a confirmation from Aer 9ingus.. .e r. they filed a complaint for damages against G96 for breach of contract of carriage. @hat is manifest here is that the Aer 9ingus refused to transport the spouses 6endoDas to their planned and contracted destination. Aer 9ingus.: Hirect appeals of both parties plaintiff. which the e'ception of Aer 9ingus. G96 secured seat reservations for the 6endoDa5s and their companions from the carriers which would ferry them throughout their trip. and defendant 9uthansa :erman Airlines. served it. L2FTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES 4G. of the @arsaw !onvention cannot be sustained. >condemning the defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P1. G96 brings this petition to the 2upreme !ourt. the longest./e: @hether or not G96 is liable for breach of contract of carriageA He#&: %he applicability of Art. %hus. although their daughter and niece were allowed to ta&e the flight.eyes.. was via G96. G96 cites Art 3. %he court found. the !A affirmed the decision. of the @arsaw !onvention. %he trial court decided in favor of the 6endoDas.: 2pouses 6endoDa approached 6r. as moral damages. Also. for consultation about a world tour which they were intending to ma&e with their daughter and niece. that the passage tic&ets provide that the carriage to be performed therein by several successive carriers is to be regarded as a >single operation?. they were issued G96 tic&ets for the entire trip. G96 avers that the front cover of each tic&et reads= that liability of the carrier for damages shall be limited to occurrences on its own line.R. 7ence. P3.% Me#an$e Pa.. %hree segments of the trip. who brus8uely shoved them aside and shouted at them. as e'emplary or corrective TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). %he article presupposes the occurrence of delay or accident. . Brancisco Ortigas.espondents decided that one of the routes they will ta&e was a 1arcelona-9ourdes route with &nowledge that only one airline.. %he 2upreme !ourt held that G96 cannot be merely assumed as a tic&et-issuing agent for other airlines and limit its liability to untoward occurrences on its own line. At the airport in 1arcelona. 7owever.e-. G96 was chargeable with the duty and responsibility of specifically informing the spouses of the conditions prescribed in their tic&ets or to ascertain that the spouses read them before they accepted their passage tic&ets. %o this.eyes made the necessary reservations.. the 6endoDas and their companions chec&ed in for their flight to 9ourdes.... . FRANCISCO ORTIGAS% R. @hen they were in :ermany.

upon reaching the PA9 counter. both moral and e'emplary. Although molested and embarrassed to the point that he had to ta&e nitroglycerine pills to ward off a possible heart attac&.damages. !hio& proceeded to 7ong Gong airport for his trip to 6anila.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( </ . 7owever. the proper arrangements therefore having been made already..e-.ome and they had no space for him in first class.e r.. Precedents we have consistently adhere to so dictate.% Me#an$e Pa. he was told by 9ufthansa office there that no word at all had been received from . %he PA9 also confirmed the status of his tic&et and attached a tic&et indicating a status OG. %he said tic&et was e'clusively endorsable to PA9. he was told that the flight to 6anila was cancelled due to typhoon. inattention and lac& of care on the part of the carrier resulting in the failure of the passenger to be accommodated in class contracted for amounts to bad faith and fraud which entitles the passenger to the award of moral damages in accordance with the . CHINA AIRLINES 3S. 1efore !hio& his trip. since the preference given to the 1elgian passenger over plaintiff was done willfully and in wanton disregard of plaintiff5s rights and his dignity as a human being and as a Bilipino. I. as found by the court below what worsened the situation of Ortigas was that 9ufthansa succeeded in &eeping him as its passenger by assuring him that he would be given first class accommodation at !airo. 7e was informed that all confirmed flight tic&et holders of PA9 were automatically boo&ed for the ne't flight the following day. when in truth such was not the case. @hen !hio& reached 7ong Gong..? aggravated by the giving of the space instead to a 1elgian and the improper conduct of its agents in dealing with him during the occasion of such discriminatory violence of its contract of carriage. Ortigas was at last informed that he could have a first class seat in the leg of the flight. %his Ortigas re)ected.. %he !A9 office attached a yellow stic&er indicating the status was OG. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). with interest of both sums at the legal rate from the commencement of this suit until fully paid. %o his disappointment. as attorney5s fees and the costs? for the former failure to >comply with its obligation to give first accommodation to "the latter# a "Bilipino# passenger holding a first class tic&et. of the !ivil !ode. if only to ma&e patent his displeasure and indignation at being so inconsiderately treated in the earlier part of his )ourney. $t was only at 1ang&o& where for the first time.. there can be no doubt as to the right of Ortigas to damages.6anila trip on board PA9. he went to !A9 to confirm his 7ong Gong. the ne't station.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. P . when the plane reached !airo. from 1ang&o& to 7ong Gong. Ortigas hardly had any choice. similar false representations were made to him at Hharham and !alcutta. CHIO1 4<= 2LY <66=: Fac*. 1ut in the instant case. $n the light of all foregoing./e: @hether 9ufthansa is liable for damagesA He#&: %he court said that when it comes to contracts of common carriage.: Haniel !hio& purchased from !hina Airlines a passenger tic&et for air transportation covering 6anila-%aipei-7ong Gong-6anila. @hen petitioner arrived in %aipei. @orse. who may not be discriminated against with impunity. the trips covered by the tic&et were prescheduled and confirmed by the former. since his luggage was already in the plane. the breach appears to the graver nature. he then went to PA9 office to confirm his flight bac& to 6anila. M/-a.

issued when the goods have been actually placed aboard the ship with very reasonable e'pectation that the shipment is as good as on its way. Lorenzo %1#pp#n.. *) *. $t is receipt of the goods to be transported* and . even though it may have been only a tic&et issuer for 7ong Gong. of Nort1 Amer#ca 2 %C&A 2 $ ' !(4)" Tw)D!)#& C. 3nsurance Co. $/$ Co4e of Commerce"* . CODE OF COMMERCE PRO3ISIONS ON O3ERLAND TRANSPORTATION (B?nless ot1er6#se #n4#cate4.  7owever. $n the instant case. the latter cannot evade liability to respondent. and the agreement to transport them to a specific place to a person named or to his order. $t constitutes a contract of carriage of the goods. (&0 v. 2uch contract of carriage has been treated in this )urisprudence as a single operation pursuant to @arsaw !onvention. or loss of.eceipt of cargo. M/-a. goods shipped where such in)ury or loss was caused by its own negligence. I.. !ommercial document whereby. reference #s to Co4e of Commerce" ARTS.e r./e: @hether or not !A9 is liable for damagesA He#&: %he contract of air transportation between the petitioner and respondent.e Carr$er. PA9 as the carrying agent of !A9. the carrier cannot limit its liability for in)ury to. ownership may be transferred by negotiation* and 3. $f surrender of the original bill of lading is not possible. . o %he surrender of the original bill of lading is not a condition precedent for a common carrier to be discharged of its contractual obligation. if negotiable.% Me#an$e Pa. $t is not indispensable for the creation of a contract of carriage.6anila sector. !hio& was not able to board the plane because his name did not appear on the computer as passenger for the said flight to 6anila. =>8 J =@8% CODE OF COMMERCE BILL OF LADING %he written ac&nowledgment of the receipt of goods. III. !hio&. F/nc*$)n.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( <7 . 2n *oard .: 1.e-. 1est evidence of the e'istence of the contract of carriage of cargo (Art. )! B$## )! La&$n(: 1.%he ne't day. with the former endorsing PA9 the segment of !hio&5s )ourney. ac&nowledgment of the delivery by signing the delivery receipt suffices.arac*er )! a B$## )! La&$n(: 1. a. L$'$*a*$)n. 2ebruar7 7. (Compan#a 8ar#t#ma v. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). to which the Philippines is a party. 255/" 1$n&.I L$a0$#$*": A stipulation in the 1ill of 9ading limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight is valid.

2. 3. (2#s1er vs...ellan 8f. Court of Appeals. . w. which bill of lading is honored by the second and other interested carriers who do not issue their own bills. 1. :oods are unfit for transportation* 3. v. “OnDB)ar& B$## )! La&$n(” A...e G))&. +.$-'en* B$## )! La&$n(”: An >On B)ar& B$## )! La&$n(? is one in which it is stated that the goods have been received on board the vessel which is to carry the goods.co %teams1#p Co. $t is.e ())&. $on&$egotia"le . $egotia"le .% Me#an$e Pa. $ 01#l ' ! /)".One in which it is stated that the goods referred to therein will be delivered to a specified person. and the vessel indicated in the bill of lading by which the goods are to be shipped is already in the port where the goods are held for shipment. D/*" *) Acce-* *. Acceptance would result in overloading* <. !. M/-a. In.e carr$er 'a" Aa#$&#" re!/. :oods are in)urious to health* /.one in which it is stated that the goods have been received for shipment with or without specifying the vessel by which the goods are to be shipped. 4pent K One which covers goods that already have been delivered by the carrier without a surrender of a signed copy of the bill. or substances including dynamite and other e'plosives* . )eneral -!le% A common carrier cannot ordinarily refuse to carry a particular class of goods. etc. .. Dan.ception% Bor some sufficient reason the discrimination against the traffic in such goods is reasonable and necessary.e-. understandable that a party to a maritime contract would re8uire an on board bill of lading because of its apparent certainty of shipping as well as the seaworthiness of the vessel which is to carry the goods.ellan 8f. !ontrabands or illegal goods* 4. (8a. :oods sought to be transported are dangerous ob)ects.-eceived . 7. #ort K One which is issued by the carrier to whom the goods have been delivered.eceived for shipment bills of lading are issued wherever conditions are not normal and there is insufficiency of shipping space..*ance. v.. capture by TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).etc. “Rece$Ae& !)r S. Court of Appeals. therefore. -. Thro!gh K One issued by the carrier who is obliged to use the facilities of other carriers as well as his own facilities for the purpose of transporting the goods from the city of the seller to the city of the buyer. Clean C One which does not indicate any defect in the goods.$-'en* B$## )! La&$n(? is one which it is stated that the goods have been received for shipment without specifying the vessel by which the goods are to be shipped.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( <- . C!stody K One wherein the goods are already received by the carrier but the vessel indicated therein has not yet arrived in the port.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. An on board bill of lading is issued when the goods have been actually placed aboard the ship with every reasonable e'pectation that the shipment is as good as on its way. 3o!l K One which contains a notation thereon indicating that the goods covered by it are in bad condition. :oods will be e'posed to untoward danger li&e flood. 25 %C&A (7' !! )" A >Rece$Ae& !)r S.: 1.e r. (8a.en *.e *) acce-* *.25 %C&A (" OBLIGATIONS OF THE CARRIER A. .one in which it is stated that the goods referred to therein will be delivered to the bearer or to the order of any person named therein. .

(0AL vs. (Nocum vs. $n case of carriage by railway.*ance. D/*" *) eGerc$. $($. :oods are rendered useless for sale or consumption for the purposes for which they are properly destined (Art.ffects of 4ela7E 1.of Anti7i)ac&ing 9aw (-A '235)7 RIGHT OF CONSIGNEE TO ABANDON GOODS In.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. $7 . Civil Code) C. +atural disaster shall not free the carrier from responsibility (Art. Bailure to tender goods on time. when a common carrier accepts cargo for shipment for valuable consideration.17/7. 6erely suspends and generally does not terminate the contract of carriage. M/-a. . Co4e of Commerce".% Me#an$e Pa. Partial non-delivery. $(/. (Art. :oods li&e livestoc& will be e'posed to disease* -.17/6.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( <. 9andEwaterEair transportation TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).e eG*ra)r&$nar" &$#$(ence o $n8uiry may be made as to the nature of passengers5 baggage. the carrier is e'empted from liability if carriage is insisted upon by the shipper. but beyond this constitutional boundaries are already in danger of being transgressed. @ithin a reasonable time. !arrier remains duty bound to e'ercise e'traordinary diligence. !)r A--#$ca0$#$*": 1..$*e. it ta&es the ris& of delivering it in good condition as when it was loaded.e r.e-. 22( %C&A 42$ " *. 3.enemies and the li&e* 7. Co4e of Commerce"* 2. CA.*$-/#a*$)n 1. N) . 351 Code of Commerce) . . +!ty to deliver the goods +ot only to transport the goods safely but to deliver the same to the person indicated in the bill of lading. NOTICE OF DAMAGE ReK/$. o TIME OF DELI3ERY S*$-/#a*e& $n C)n*rac*BB$## )! La&$n( !arrier is bound to fulfill the contract and is liable for any delay* no matter from what cause it may have arisen. Civil Code) +. provided its ob)ections are stated in the bill of lading. Co4e of Commerce"* and 3.una -a7abas +us Co. La. $5 %C&A (8#Rthis doctrine is not applicable to aircrafts because of 2ection .: 1. 2tri&e* .. HomesticEinter-islandEcoastwise transportation . o 7owever. $f delay is without )ust cause. !arrier is bound to forward them in the 1st shipment of the same or similar goods which he may ma&e to the point of delivery. the contract limiting the common carrier5s liability cannot be availed of in case of loss or deterioration of the goods (Art. %he goods should be delivered to the consignee or any other person to whom the bill of lading was validly transferred or negotiated. . $n case of delay through the fault of the carrier (Art. where the goods are useless without the others (Art.

Biling of a notice of claim for the damages is a condition damages is not a condition precedent precedent .c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. "delivered but damaged goods#. P/r-)..% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( ARTICLE =77 4COC: 4. Co4e of Commerce" R/#e.: a.e r.e )! N)*$ce: %o inform the carrier that the shipment has been damaged. the carrier refuses to pay. !arriage of goods. (&ol4an vs. $((. . 1. damage. . .cr$-*$Ae Per$)&  +ot provided by Article 3//.3. 2. 6aritime transportation.ception% A combined carrier agreement where a carrier ma&es itself liable assuming the obligations and ac8uiring as well the rights and causes of action of those which preceded it. o %hese rules do not apply to misdelivery of goods.  sub)ect to the rule on 3. $f bill of lading was issued= within 56 "ear. Co4e of Commerce" . +. Pre. water. !arriage of goods $otice of damage 1. in such absence. 3-day period for claiming latent latent damage. %hus. MANNER OF RECO3ERY FROM DAMAGES OF GOODS TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). 9and. M/-a.% Me#an$e Pa. $7$. and it is charged with liability therefore. action must be filed in court. air transportation. or date when the vessel left port or from the date of delivery to the arrastre "non-delivery or loss#. $f no bill of lading was issued= within 7 "ear. SECTION =47: 4COGSA: Applica"ility 1. 9atent damage= shipper should file a claim against the carrier within < hours from delivery. L#m 0onzo" o %he filing of notice of claim is a condition precedent for recovery.. @aterEmaritime transportation 3. HomesticEinter1. !arriage of goods :oods shipped are damaged (Art. #rescriptive period +one provided* !ivil !ode One year from the date of delivery applies. (Art. Patent damage= shipper must file a claim against the carrier immediately upon delivery "it may be oral or written# b.  $f despite the notice of claim. $nternationalEoverseasEf islandEcoastwise oreign "from foreign country to transportation. Philippines#. Biling of notice of claim for the 1. COMBINED CARRIER AGREEMENT )eneral -!le% $n case of a contract of transportation of several legs. 0aramount Clause <. !ivil !ode rules on prescription apply.e-. and to give it an opportunity to ma&e an investigation and fi' responsibility while the matter is fresh. each carrier is responsible for its particular leg in the contract. <-hour period for claiming .

Compan#a 8ar#t#ma 'CA).#an& K if goods arrived in damaged condition= 1.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 41 . enforce carrier5s liability in court by filing a case= 1. $7$ Co4e of Commerce" I3.similar to transactions over real property with respect to effectively against third persons which is done through registration as shown by the limitation of the liability of the agents to the actual value of the vessel and the freight money* and the right to retain the cargo and embargo and detention of the vessel* and . if the damage is apparent. if a bill of lading has been issued.the liability of the owner is limited to the value of the vessel itself (+octrine of 8imited 8ia"ility). OAer. the prescriptive period is ten years because there is a violation of contract. 2 . @ithin si' "/# years. $f damages are not apparent. M/-a.   %he filing of notice of claim is not a condition precedent for recovery. claim should be filed immediately* or b.ac*$)n: 1. $f the damage is not apparent. (Abo#t#z %1#pp#n. K where goods arrived in a damaged condition from a foreign port to a Philippine port of entry= a.arac*er$. HYPOTHECARY . vs. which stands as the guaranty for their settlement.   %he filing of claim under either "a# or "b# is a condition precedent for recovery. 2 7 %C&A $/!" o TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). and the !arriage of :oods by 2ea Act "!O:2A# does not apply to cases of misdelivery. D)c*r$ne )! C)nnec*$n( Carr$er.e r. he should file a claim within twenty-four hours from delivery. @ithin ten "1# years. a verbal claim made immediately is sufficient compliance with law. (8apaso Gol4f#el4s v. (pon discharge of goods. $f damage is apparent. $f there is no delivery action should be filed from the day of the goods5 supposed delivery.G $57"  Payment of the transportation charge precludes the presentation of any claim against the carrier. Corp.In*erDI. $f the claim is filed. ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME COMMERCE ARTS.ea. General Acc#4ent 2#re an4 L#fe Assurance Corp. (Art.e-.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. if no bill of lading has been issued* or . @here there was delivery to the wrong person.% Me#an$e Pa. @ritten demand within twenty-four " <# hours is necessary only when the pac&age does not show e'terior signs of damage but when there are e'terior signs of damage.*$c. an action must be filed within one year from discharge. %he original carrier that entered into the contract of carriage shall be liable for damages caused by its connection carrier. 7owever. %he real and hypothecary nature of maritime law simply means that the liability of the carrier in connection with losses related to maritime contracts is confined to the vessel. )! Mar$*$'e Tran. but the carrier refuses to pay. REAL . the shipper must file a claim immediately* or . claim should be filed within three days from delivery. ?@= D 978% CODE OF COMMERCE C.

%eptember 25. %he vessel itself* . 3udicial costs of the proceedings* 3. Laserna 7$ 01#l.a. /. (Luzon %teve4or#n. %hey shall continue to be considered as personal property.&.. %he voyage is not maritime. the obligation is e'tinguished. as well as mortgage liabilities. :eneral average* 7.. 08uipments* 3. Co. %he interest e'tends to= 1. (C1ua v. MERCHANT 3ESSEL  Fessel engaged in maritime commerce. bay or gulf.e Decree of !78" o DOCTRINE OF LIMITED LIABILITY (9:#2T9. <. 3AC..en n)* a--#$ca0#eL 1. whether foreign or otherwise. $$5" @hen shipowner was e8ually negligent. 515 Code of Commerce) 2usceptible to mar#t#me l#ens such as for the repair. (Dan. 6aritime liens arising prior in time to the recording of the preferred mortgage* . $n case of e'pense for e8uipping. it cannot escape liability by virtue of the limited liability rule (Central %1#pp#n.e r. $n wor&men5s compensation claims.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 4 . M/-a. vs. Hamages arising out of tort* and 1. 2alvage. $n case the vessel would totally sin& or get lost by reason of the ship owner or ship agents fault. Pilotage and tonnage charges and other sea and port charges* <. No.e-. 3nsurance Co. of N.  !onstitutes property which may be ac8uired and transferred by any of the means recogniDed by law.8. in satisfaction of which a vessel may be validly arrested and sold. 2alaries of depositaries &eepers of the vessel* 4. $nsurance proceeds. Amer#ca. but only in river.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.) )eneral -!le% %he liability of shipowner and ship agent is limited to the amount of interest in said vessel such that where vessel is entirely lost. @hen the in)ury to or death of a passenger is due either to the fault of the ship owner and the captain. (Arts. $n case the vessel is not common but a special carrier. /57/ . (%1#p 8ort. !redit in favor of the public treasury* .e#rs of Amparo Delos %antos vs. 8( %C&A (4!" o TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). 3. 2554" o %he limited liability doctrine applies not only to the goods but also in all cases li&e death or in)ury to passengers. e8uipping and provisioning of the vessel in the preparation of a voyage. repairing or provisioning of the vessel.PREFERENCE OF CREDITS 6ortgage of a vessel properly registered becomes preferred mortgage lien which shall have priority over all claims against the vessel in an e'tra)udicial foreclosure for= 1. CA. 573. v. (.ceptions% W. Breightage* and +. !aptain and crews5 wages* /. G. 4.co v. . including contract salvage* -.CA-: -. Preferred mortgage registered prior in time. <scano. (( %C&A 8$' !88)" . @hen the vessel is insured "to the e'tent of the insurance proceeds#* or 7. /( %C&A (!' !87)".% Me#an$e Pa.

the shipowner5s property. or to the concurring negligence of the shipowner and the captain. Aune .A(en* o @here the shipowner or ship agent validly e'ercised his right of abandonment of >the vessel with all her e8uipment and the freightage earned during the voyage. CA. 3nc. v. !ivil liability for indemnities in favor of third persons which arise from the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which the vessel carried. CA. $$$ %C&A 7 '2555)" o !ontrary to the theory that the limited liability rule has been rendered obsolete by the advances in modern technology. )n Pr$nc$-#e )! L$'$*e& L$a0$#$*" )! *. 517. cannot be made to answer for his liability arising from the collision with other vessels. 2 7 %C&A $/! ' !!$)" A0an&)n'en*L W.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.) Ma" EGerc$. however.. Gen. v. the hypothecary nature will not apply.e 1.&. 2n&er *. (8onarc1 3nsurance Co. unless the shipowner or the ship agent abandons the vessel. o Sa*$.$. and the freight money earned during the voyage. v. which considerably lessen the ris&s involved in maritime trade.e L$'$*e& L$a0$#$*" 1. Acc#4ent 2#re an4 L#fe 3nsurance. (Art.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 43 . Co. Garc#a-:er. $$$ %C&A 7 '2555)" ABANDONMENT Abandonment of the vessel is necessary to limit the liability of the shipowner. v.e-. 27$ %C&A (4!. other than his vessel and freightage earned during the voyage. Am.. CA /( %C&A (!' !87)". vs. No. 0'ecution of )udgment in earlier completed cases. %1#pp#n. 2hipowner . !ivil liability arising from collisions.% Me#an$e Pa. (Art. Garc#a-:er. Code of Commerce) 2. must be stayed pending completion of all cases caused by the sub)ect sin&ing. that the limited liability rule is without e'ceptions.ara !( 01#l 25 " o $n conse8uence of the limited liability rule.? the abandonment amounts to an offer to the in)ured party of the value of the vessel. namely= 45: where the in)ury or death to a passenger is due either to the fault of the shipowner. this !ourt continues to apply the said rule in appropriate cases. !5(" %his is not to say. All claims should be collated before they can be satisfied from what remains of the insurance proceeds and freightage at the time of the loss* . CA. Co. +o claimant should be given preference over the others. (8onarc1 3nsurance Co. W. (01#l.!ac*$)n )! C#a$'. M/-a. (Art. $f the vessel is not entirely lost. 2hip agent TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). %he only instance were abandonment is dispensed with is when the vessel is entirely lost (Luzon %teve4or#n. Gen.en A--#$ca0#e: 1. of her e8uipment. (npaid wages of the captain and the crew if the vessel and its cargo are totally lost by reason of capture or shipwrec&.. L. 3nc. 137.e S.27 ' !!7)"< 4<: where the vessel is insured* and 4=: in wor&men5s compensation claims. '/3. Code of Commerce) R/#e. (01#l.e r.(55. 3nsurance Co. (Abo#t#z %1#pp#n. even those already final and e'ecutory. v. v.ara.$-)wner an& S. G. Code of Commerce) 3. %1#pp#n. (01#l. 3nc.

ReK/$.e S.e#: 1. w. Bor civil liability incurred by the shipowner in case of collision. (Art. Abandonment done within reasonable time after receipt of reliable information of constructive total loss* 4. Par*$c$-a*$n( In Mar$*$'e C)''erce 1.e@ Don. Actual relin8uishment of claim of ownership* . details of e8uipment. M/-a.. an& !/nc*$)n. (( %C&A 8$"  +ot a mere agent under civil law* he is solidarily liable with the ship owner.A(en* ($aviero) & Person entrusted with provisioning and representing the vessel in the port in which it may be found* also includes the shipowner. 3AC. whether orally or in writing.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 4< . Per. and all that relate to the re8uirements of navigation* TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). 5=6. its part owner may e'empt himself from liability by the abandonment. P)wer. ?rrut#a. a written notice must be given within 7 days from such oral notice.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. Officers and crew of the vessel <.e *. <Fc1an.$-)wner )r A(en* Ma" EGerc$.Person who has possession.$*e. Bor the proportionate contribution of co-owners of the vessel to a common fund for the acts of the captain. !onstructive total loss "loss.e v.$-)wner (proprietario) .$. Abandonment must be neither partial nor conditional* <. (Duen.* 3. Code of Commerce) A charterer cannot ma&e an abandonment as the charterer cannot be regarded as being in the place of the owner or agents in matters relating to the responsibility pertaining to ownership and possession of the vessel. specifying the cause of abandonment* /. %1en.en *. 0ngineer SHIPOWNERS AND SHIP AGENTS S. provisions of food and fuel. <. control and management of the vessel and the conse8uent right to direct her navigation and receive freight earned and paid. Hischarge duties of the captain. !ontract in the name of the owners with respect to repairs..* *) A0an&)n 3e.e R$(. while his possession continues.e-. Bor civil liability to 3rd persons arising from the conduct of the captain in the vigilance over the goods which the vessel carried. .$. and freight of the vessel.  7owever. 2upercargoes .)n.e r. $n case of constructive loss of the vessel. S. )! a S. (C1ua . !aptains and masters of the vessel 3. 2hipowners and ship agents . $f notice done orally. 0'plicit notice to the insurer.% Me#an$e Pa. 747' !5!)" In.*ance. sub)ect to Art./. in)ury or e'penses suffered should be more then X of the value of the thing abandoned#* 3. $n case of lea&age of at least X of the contents of a cargo containing li8uids* and 4. in cases of co-ownership of a vessel. vs. 3. !)r A0an&)n'en* $n Mar$*$'e C)''erce 1.A(en*: 1. 2 01#l. !apacity to trade* . armament.

4=DF)#& c.e-. e'cept on the following grounds= . • %he terms have the same meaning. to repair.$-)wner An& S. he may not discharge them until after the fulfillment of their contracts. %echnical director of the vessel* 3. (Art. Appoint crew in the absence of ship agent* .e S.e Ca-*a$n an& Me'0er.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 44 . Order a new voyage. )! Ca-*a$n an& Ma. (Art.e r. Co4e of Commerce" In. All contracts of the captain. 4. Co4e of Commerce" 3.$. $mpose correctional punishment on those who. he may discharge them at his discretion. respectively.obbery* .: 1. F/a#$!$ca*$)n. $ndemnities in favor of third persons arising from the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods loaded in the vessel* <. Co4e of Commerce" TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). Bilipino citiDen* . 9egal capacity to contract* 3. )! *. (5$. ma&e a new charter or insure the vessel after obtaining authoriDation from the shipowner or if granted in certificate of appointment.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. Co4e of Commerce" 2.e. Hamages suffered by a third person for tort committed by the captain* and . and small and coastwise.$*$)n )! Ca-*a$n.: 1. !ommand the crew and direct the vessel to its port of destination* 3. Co4e of Commerce" • $f for a definite period. fail to comply with his orders or are wanting in discipline* <. :eneral agent of the shipowner* . 6ust have passed the re8uired physical and mental e'aminations re8uired for licensing him as such. e8uip and provision the vessel* (Art. Hamages in case of collision due to fault or negligence or want of s&ill of the captain. large and overseas. M/-a.%heft* . Order repair of vessel to enable it to continue its voyage. an& Ma. C$A$# L$a0$#$*$e.A(en* *) D$.<. 9oss and damage to the goods loaded on the vessel without pre)udice to their right to free themselves from liability by abandoning the vessel to the creditors. while on board vessel.epresentative of the government of the country under whose flag he navigates. i.Hamage caused to the vessel or to its cargo through malice or manifest or proven negligence. 2upply. /87. )! Ca-*a$n.$nsubordination in serious matters* . D/*" )! S. Co4e of Commerce" CAPTAINS AND MASTERS • %hey are the chiefs or commanders of ships. /8(. .*er... (Art.$. (5!. (Art.*er.A(en* 1. but are particularly used in accordance with the siDe of the vessel governed and the scope of transportation. ( 5. 6a&e contracts for the charter of vessel in the absence of ship agent.ar(e *. (Art.% Me#an$e Pa.arac*er:: 1. e8uip. whether authoriDed or not. )! *.e Crew • $f the seamen contract is not for a definite period or voyage. and provision the vessel* and !. (5/.7abitual drun&enness* .eren* -)wer.c. Na*/re )! P).

"%hird in command# TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). (25.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 4/ . Bor arrivals under stress* -. Bollow instructions of and render an accounting to the ship agent* -. (Art.e S.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. (Art. 0ngineers <. an& Car()e.e !)##)w$n(: 1. D)ne 0" *. captain attempts to change it. %hefts and robberies of the crew* 3. 2ailing 6ateEBirst 6ate .e-. Obligations contracted for the repair. (Art. Accounting 1oo& and Breight 1oo&* 3. (Art.*ance. e8uipment. sic&ness. !rew N) #$a0$#$*" /n&er *.. $f. Protest arrivals under stress and in case of shipwrec&* 7.D/*$e. (47.: 1. (Art. or death and shall assume all of his duties.e r. powers and responsibilities.* Ma*e: 2econd chief of the vessel who ta&es the place of the captain in case of absence. CoC" OFFICERS AND CREW 1. Bor deviations* 7. before beginning voyage.$-)wner !)r Ac*. Hamages due to misuse of power* /. )! *. Geep a 9og 1oo&. 9eave the vessel last in case of wrec&* . $f a disease brea&s out and be officially declared an epidemic in the port of destination* 3.. Observe rules to avoid collision* 12. )! Ca-*a$n. at the port of arrival* 11.: 1.A(en*BS. ( 2.. (27. ( 8.% Me#an$e Pa. 2tay on board during the loading and unloading of the cargo* 4. $f the vessel should change owner or captain. 1ring on board the proper certificate and documents and a copy of the !ode of !ommerce* . 7old in custody properties left by deceased passengers and crew members* 1. Pa.e Ca-*a$n *)war&. 1. Co4e of Commerce" S)#$&ar" L$a0$#$*$e. Co4e of Commerce" Sa$#$n( Ma*eBF$r. Hamages due to non-observance of marine regulations. Co4e of Commerce" N) #$a0$#$*" !)r *. 1e on dec& while leaving or entering the port* /. 2econd 6ate 3.e !)##)w$n( c$rc/'. assuming in such case their powers and responsibilities.$. etc. Hemand a pilot while entering or leaving a port. and provisioning of the vessel unless he has e'pressly bound himself personally or has signed a bill of e'change or promissory note in his name. 9osses and fines for violation of laws* <. Hamages caused to the vessel or to the cargo by force ma)eure* 2. Co4e of Commerce" Sec)n& Ma*e: %a&es command of the vessel in case of the inability or dis8ualification of the captain and the sailing mate. or a naval war with the power to which the vessel was destined occurs* . 0'amine the ship before the voyage* <.en(er. Hamages to vessel and to cargo due to lac& of s&ill and negligence* . M/-a. health. Hamages due to mutinies* 4. !omply with the re8uirements of customs.

!)r *. '/=. from the captain to the cabin boy. ($4. he may ta&e in foreigners.  7ired by the ship agent. if by voyage .e r.epeated incapacity and negligence* <. and service. 7abitual drun&enness* 4. 1.$#e C)n*rac* S/0..e. but not e'ceeding 1E4 of the crew. and licensed.. I! Dea*.   %he term generally connotes a person ta&en on board at a particular place for the purpose of conducting a ship through a river.ceptions% TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). road or channel. I! Dea*. where he is present and in his absence. the 7arbor Pilot is responsible for damage to a vessel or to life or property due to his negligence. Crew: %he aggregate of seamen who man a ship. (Art. want of discipline* 3. S2PERCARGOES Persons who discharge administrative duties assigned to them by ship agent or shippers. .* Ca/. the captain hires them.full payment* 3. preferring Bilipinos. (Art.e# .full payment* +. Perpetration of a crime* . Na*/ra#: a. .e )! Dea*.: Officers of the vessel but have no authority e'cept in matters referring to the motor apparatus. M/-a. . the sailing mates. or in certain waters. compensation up to time of death if engaged on wage* b. )! a Sea'an %he seaman5s heirs are entitled to payment as follows= 1. Physical incapacity* !.ar(e )! Sea'an W. D/e *) De!en. $. thus including the crew. I! Ca-*/re& D/e *) Care#e.half of amount if death occurs on voyage out* and full. Code of Commerce) PILOT A person duly 8ualified. sto&ers and other employees on board not having specific designations..wages up to the date of the capture. to conduct a vessel into or out of ports.epeated insubordination. L$a0$#$*" )! P$#)* )eneral -!le% On compulsory pilotage grounds. (Art. I! Ca-*/re& $n De!en. &eeping an account and record of transaction as re8uired in the accounting boo& of the captain.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.% Me#an$e Pa.En($neer. ($7. engineers. Co4e of Commerce" COMPLEMENT OF THE 3ESSEL All persons on board. if after departure* 2. . @hen two or more are hired. necessary for the management. maneuvers. if on voyage in* c.*. one of them shall be the chief engineer. or the ship5s company.. I. if by shares . or from a port. $n Ca.e )! 3e. Co4e of Commerce" /. Hesertion.e )! 3e. and in their absence.e# . (4/.ne.  Hoes not include the passengers or the persons whom the vessel is transporting.$.none.e-.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 47 .. Co4e of Commerce" R/#e.e D$. 6aster pro 1ac v#ce "for the time being# in the command and navigation of the ship. (Art.c. if before departure* full.

: On Bebruary 1. a demurrer was submitted directed to the fact that the complaint does not allege that the protest had been presented by the plaintiff. B#)c+a&e K A sort of circumvallation of a place by which all foreign connection and correspondence is. usually issued in time of war or threatened hostilities. ..: In*er&$c*$)n )! C)''erce K A governmental prohibition of commercial intercourse intended to bring about an entire cessation for the time being of all trade whatever. NL&C 27( %C&A 25 ' !!7)" CA2SES OF RE3OCATION OF 3OYAGE 1. %he said section does not apply to minor craft engaged in a river and bay traffic. !ountermand or overrule by the master of the vessel in which case the registered owner of the vessel is liable. 3e. 0mbargo* . as far as human power can effect it. (Art. As the motorboat approached 2an 3acinto in a perfectly 8uiet sea.ement 01#ls. 1. 1loc&ade* 3. 3S.e-.%herefore. plaintiff Augusto 9opeD was desirous of embar&ing upon the interisland steamer 2an 3acinto in order to go to !ebu. 7. As it san&. the plaintiff was thrown into the water against the propeller. it came too near to the stern of the ship. 2. 1. LOPE./e: @hether the motorboat 3ison is a vessel provided for by Article -34 of the !ode of !ommerceA He#&: %he word vessel as used in the third section of tile $F. (%ec. D2R2ELO ?< PHIL <<8 Fac*. Co4e of Commerce" Ter'. to be cut off. (45..e#.r4er 5$-8/" DESERTION An act by which a seaman deserts and abandons a ship or vessel before the e'piration of his term of duty without leave and without intention to return. E'0ar() K A proclamation or order of a state.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 4- . Prohibition to receive cargo at destination* <. and the revolving blades inflicted various in)uries upon him. prohibiting the departure of ships or goods from some or all the ports of such state until further order. M/-a.e r. 1oo& $$$ of the !ode of !ommerce.. dealing with collisions. 2. the plaintiff embar&ed at the landing in the motorboat 3ison which was engaged in conveying passengers and luggage bac& and forth from the landing to the boats at anchor. does not include all ships. @ar or interdiction of commerce* . and as the propeller of the ship had not yet ceased to turn. within twenty-four hours after the occurrence to the competent authority at the port where the accident occurred as provided for Article -34 of the !ode of !ommerce. Accident caused by force ma)eure or natural calamity provided the pilot e'ercised prudence and e'tra diligence to prevent or minimiDe damages.% Me#an$e Pa. $nability of the vessel to navigate. %he plaintiff was hospitaliDed. Art. (%#n.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. 3.a %1#p 8ana.1.333 01#l#pp#ne 0orts Aut1or#t7 A4m#n#strat#ve . %he defendant however alleged that the complaint does not have a right of action. craft or floating structures of any &ind without limitation. a passenger TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). v. I. the blades of the propeller struc&ed the motorboat and san& it at once. 7e filed a complaint see&ing to recover damages from the defendant.

%he re8uisite of registration in the registry of the purchase of a vessel is necessary and indispensable in order that the purchaser5s rights may be maintained against a claim filed by third person. the 2upreme !ourt gave course to the petition. on the other hand. %he ac8uisition of a vessel must be included in a written instrument. %he trial court held that 92!O !avite was solely to blame for the collision and held that 9uDon5s claim that its liability should be limited under Article -37 of the !ode of !ommerce has not been established.11<.7 October 3. +o.. M/-a.. abandonment is necessary to claim the limited liability wherein it shall be limited to the value of the vessel with all the appurtenances and TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).e-.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 4. (pon two motions for reconsideration.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. %he 2! also affirmed the !A. I. under the claim that he was the owner thereof.ivera5s right cannot prevail over those ac8uired by . Na*/re an& c.ubiso in the ownership of the pilot boat. .. 9. thought the latter5s ac8uisition of the vessel at public auction was subse8uent to its purchase by the defendant. which has been in bad condition and on the date of the complaint.: %he counsel of plaintiff brought a suit alleging that his clients were the owners of the pilot boat named Falentine. I. is not re8uired to ma&e protest as a condition precedent to his right of action for the in)ury suffered by him in the collision described in the complaint.on boat li&e the 3ison. alleged that they purchased the sub)ect pilot boat.: A maritime collision occurred between the tan&er !AF$%0 owned by 92!O and 6F Bernando 0scano "a passenger ship# owned by 0scano. CO2RT OF APPEALS 45?7 SCRA 578: Fac*. An action in admiralty was filed by 0scano against 9uDon. 5. %he defendant . %he refusal on the part of the defendant has caused the plaintiff damages because they were unable to derive profit from the voyages for which the said pilot boat was customarily used. of the municipality of 1attings.ivera too& charge or too& possession of the said boat without the &nowledge or consent of the plaintiff and refused to deliver it to them. Art 473 provides= 6erchant vessels constitute property that may be ac8uired and transferred by any of the means recogniDed by law./e: @hether or not. the plaintiff still has the better right over the sub)ect vesselA He#&: (nder the !ode of !ommerce.arac*er$. RI3ERA 4<@PHIL@<: :. %he !ourt of Appeals affirmed the trial court. %he defendant. $t is undeniable that .*$c )! Mar$*$'e *ran.. it is necessary that the owner abandon the vessel He#&: Ces.. .ivera was prior to that made at public auction to . as a result the passenger ship sun&.% Ar*.ivera. was stranded in the place called %ingly.. L2.e r. ?9?% ?9@ R2BISO 3S.ac*$)n.ON STE3EDORING CORPORATION 3S.% Me#an$e Pa. which shall not produce any effect with regard to third persons if not recorded in the commercial registry./e: @hether or not in order to claim limited liability under Article -37 of the !ode of !ommerce. but the registration of this latter sale was prior to the sale made to the defendant. %he plaintiff alleged that the sale on behalf of the defendant . 1.Article -34 of the !ode of !ommerce does not apply.17 Fac*.ubio.

the ship owner may not avail of his right to avail of limited liability by abandoning the vessel. they are still personally liable for claims under the @or&men5s !ompensation Act and for repairs on the vessel prior to its loss. the liability of the owner or agent is e'tinguished../e: @hether the shipowner or agent is liable for damages for the conse8uent death of its passengers notwithstanding the total loss of the vesselA He#&: %he petitioner is absolved from all complaints. said article is a mere amplification of the provisions of Articles 4-7 and 4.e-. the vessel was caught sidewise by a big wave which caused it to capsiDe and sin&.. 7e is personally liable for such damages. %yphoon signal no. . I. if the in)ury was due to the ship owner5s fault. %he e'ception to this rule in Article -37 is when the vessel is totally lost in which case there is no vessel to abandon. which ma&es it a mere superfluity. thus abandonment is not re8uired. %he vessel having totally perished. provided that the owner or agent abandons the vessel. $n this case. %he real nature of the liability of the ship owner or agent is embodied in the !ode of !ommerce. Articles 4-7. $n case of illegal or tortious acts of the captain. Although Article -37 does not specifically provide that in case of collision there should be abandonment. After hours of sailing. 1ut if the in)ury is caused by the owner5s fault as where he engages the services of an ine'perienced captain or engineer. (nder Article 4-7 K >the ship agent shall also be civilly liable for indemnities in favor of third persons which arise from the conduct of the captain in the vigilance over the goods which the vessels carried* 1(% he may e'empt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all her e8uipment and the freight he may have earned during the voyage. any act of abandonment would be idle ceremony.% Me#an$e Pa. LASERNA 4@= PHIL ==6: Fac*.omblon on its return trip to 6anila. %he boat was overloaded. he cannot invo&e the benefit of Article -37 to limit his liability to the value of the vessel. +O 9$A1$9$%C. 1ecause of such loss. 1. to en)oy such limited liability. he cannot avail of the provisions of Article -37 by abandoning the vessel. 7owever. YANGCO 3S.? @hether the abandonment of the vessel sought by the petitioner in the case was in accordance with the law or not.e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( /.? TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). is immaterial. the boat encountered strong winds and rough seas between the islands of 1anton and 2imara. $n such cases.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. 7owever. 7.freightage earned in the voyage. was then up and in fact. 4. all appurtenances and freightage earned during the voyage. 6any of the passengers died on the mishap. !ivil actions were instituted in the !B$ of !apiD. the owner or agent may avail of Article -37 by abandoning the vessel. >+O F02209. M/-a. the steamer 22 +egros left the port of . and -37 are intended to limit the liability of the ship owner. the liability of the owner and agent is subsidiary. @hile in the act of maneuvering. the !ourt held that the petitioner is a t fault and since he did not abandon the vessel. the passengers duly advised the captain before sailing..: On the afternoon of 6ay /. the petitioner sought to abandon the vessel to the plaintiffs in three cases.

passengers and the loss of the cargoes on board. (nder Art.3. 6E9 !onsuelo F capsiDed that resulted to the death of . @hile it is true that plaintiff5s action against petitioner is based on a tort or 8uasi delict. governed by Articles . Petitioner 6anila 2teamship !o. 3ASF2E. 6ario Fas8ueD. INSA ABD2LHAMAN 4566 PHIL =<: Fac*. @hile 6anila steamship. After proper proceedings. of the !ode of !ommerce. 6E2 1owline Gnot was navigating from 6ari)oboc towards Tamboanga. %he ship that collided was later on identified as the 6EF 1owline Gnot..7 of the !ode of !ommerce. in the evening of 6ay <. in case of collision between two vessels imputable to both of them. and it may not escape liability on the ground that e'ercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of the vessel5s officers and crew. a shoc&ing collision suddenly occurred. petitioners sued for damages before the !ourt $nstance of 6anila. 3S. pleads that it is e'empt from any liability under Article 1.<-. .. Petitioner is not e'empted from liabilities. %he aforementioned passengers were unheard from since then./e: @hether or not petitioner 6anila 2teamship !o. @hen the inter-island vessel 6F Pioneer !ebu left the Port of 6anila in the early morning of 6ay 14.e-.. Around . to 1. %he said ship was bound for 2io&on under the command of Baustino 6acrohon. 1. %he !ourt held the owners of both vessels solidarily liable to plaintiff for damages caused to the latter under Article .// bound for !ebu. %he 6F Pioneer !ebu encountered typhoon Glaring and struc& a reef on the southern part of 6alapascua $sland. is e'empt from any liability under Art. 1. 3S. it had on board the spouses Alfonso Fas8ueD and Bilipinas 1agaipo and a four-year old boy.e r.espondent defended on the plea of force ma)eure.=. while some of the passengers of the 6E9 !onsuelo F were then sleeping and some lying down awa&e. Hue to the loss of their children. On appeal.% Me#an$e Pa.3 of the !ivil !ode because it had e'ercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of its employees.MANILA STEAMSHIP CO. On that same night. owner of the 1owline Gnot was ordered to pay all of plaintiff5s damages. the tort in 8uestion is not a civil tort under the !ivil !ode but a maritime tort resulting in a collision at sea. respondent TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).7 of the !ode of !ommerce but e'empted defendant 9im 7ong %o from liability due to the sin&ing and total loss of his vessel.: $nsa Abdulhaman together with his wife and five children boarded 6E9 !onsuelo F in Tamboanga !ity. particularly the officer in command of the 6E2 1owline Gnot. located somewhere north of island of !ebu and subse8uently sun&./-.//. I.. CA 45=9 SCRA ??=: FACTS: %he litigation involves a claim for damages for the loss at sea of petitioners5 respective children after the shipwrec& of 6F Pioneer !ebu due to typhoon >Glaring? in 6ay of 1. 1. the trial court awarded damages.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( /1 . and e'tinction of its liability by the actual loss of the vessel.=3. INC.3 of the !ivil !odeA He#&= +O. each vessel shall suffer her own damage and both shall be solidarily liable for the damages occasioned to their cargoes.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. %he shipowner is directly and primarily responsible in tort resulting in a collision at sea. among her passengers. . M/-a.

the condition of laborers and employees. 1.e-. AB2EG 3S. / Phil. Hespite the total loss of the vessel therefore. !ounsel for the appellant cite article 4-7 of the !ode of !ommerce which provides that if the vessel together with all her tac&le and freight money earned during the voyage are abandoned. 73 Phil. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). this Petition for . 2uch compensation has nothing to do with the provisions of the !ode of !ommerce regarding maritime commerce. or death of.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.!ourt reversed )udgment and absolved private respondent from any liability.: %he 6E2 2an Hiego $$ and the 6E2 1artolome. suffice it to state that even in the cited case. 33. I.e r. its insurance answers for the damages that the shipowner5s agent may be held liable for by reason of the death of its passengers.. -1#./e: @hether the liability of the shipowner is e'tinguished by the total loss of the shipA He#&: %he provisions of the !ode of !ommerce invo&ed by appellant have no room in the application of the @or&menJs !ompensation Act which see&s to improve. $t is not the liability for the damage or loss of the cargo or in)ury to. while engaged in fishing operations around 6indoro $sland on Oct./e: @hether the shipowner5s liability is e'tinguished despite of the loss of the shipA He#&= @ith respect for the private respondent5s submission that the total loss of the vessel e'tinguished its liability pursuant to Article 4-7 of the !ode of !ommerce as construed in Cangco vs. or the heirs and dependents and laborers and employees in the event of death caused by their employment. SAN DIEGO 4@@ PHIL =<: Fac*.<1 were caught by a typhoon as a conse8uence of which they were sun& and totally lost.% Me#an$e Pa.. 1. but a liability created by a statute to compensate employees and laborers in cases of in)ury received by or inflicted upon them. the ship ownersJ liability is limited to the value of the vessel with all her e8uipment and freight earned during the voyage "Philippine 2hipping company vs.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( / . was e'tinguished. 9aserna. 7ence. the agentJs liability for wages of the crew is e'tinguished. and aims at the amelioration of. it was held that the liability of the shipowner is limited to the value of the vessel or to the insurance thereon. "1.. Brom these premises counsel draw the conclusion that appellantJs liability.<1#.<1. :arcia. I. the agentJs liability to third persons for tortious acts of the captain in the care of the goods which the ship carried is e'tinguished* article -37 of the same code which provides that in cases of collision.eview on !ertiorari. Amado +uQeD. as owner of the two motor ships lost or sun& as a result of the typhoon that lashed the island of 6indoro on October 1. 3udgment of the !B$ reinstated. a passenger by or through the misconduct of the captain or master of the ship* nor the liability for the loss of the ship as result of collision* nor the responsibility for wages of the crew. while engaged in the performance of their wor& or employment. $t is an item in the cost of production which must be included in the budget of any well-managed industry. and article /<3 of the same !ode which provides that if the vessel and freight are totally lost. 1. Fictoriano 2alvacion and Brancisco Oching while acting in their capacities perished in the shipwrec&. M/-a.

. notwithstanding the fact that the motorboat was totally lost. %he sin&ing was initially investigated by the 1oard of 6arine $n8uiry. %hus. in order that responsibility may attach to him and that shipowner was liable to pay compensation provided for in the @or&menJs !ompensation Act.% Me#an$e Pa.: On or about 3une 1. 1. or the cargo insurers li&e :AB9A! as subrogees.$t has been repeatedly stated that the @or&menJs !ompensation Act was enacted to abrogate the common law and our !ivil !ode upon culpable acts and omissions.-. which was ad)usted to P31.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. $nc. %he shipment was consigned to 6ayleen Paper. freight and insurance. On 3une . a common carrier that san& on voyage from 7ong Gong to 6anila. 4.. the liability of the vessel owner and agent arising form the operation of such vessel were confined to the vessel itself.: Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of maritime trade as a carrier. it owned and operated the 6EF PE A1O$%$T. its e8uipment.. which is hypothecated for such obligations or which stands as the guaranty for their settlement.-. the insurer. ?9@ ABOITI. /3. 1. I./. $t has its origin by reason of the conditions and ris&s attending maritime trade in its earliest years when such trade was replete with innumerable and un&nown haDards since vessels had to go through largely uncharted waters to ply their trade. duly demanded indemnification from +6! but was not heeded. GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE AND LIFE 4GR NO.74. As subrogee.e r. 566>>7 AN2ARY <5% 588=: Fac*. SHIPPING 3S. 6ayleen then sought recovery from American 7ome Assurance. American 7ome then filed a suit against +6! for the recovery of the said amount. and that the employer need not be guilty of neglect or fault. the shipment arrived in manila and was discharged onto the custody of the 6arina Port 2ervices..<1. which limitation served to induce capitalist into effectively wagering their resources against consideration of the large attainable in the trade. Private respondent :AB9A! is a foreign insurance company pursuing its remedy as a subrogee of several cargo consignees whose respective cargo san& with the said vessel and for which it has priory paid. which insured the same with American 7ome Assurance !o. !heng 7wa Pulp !orp. if any. it was found that 1 bales had either been damaged or lost with the value of P/1. AMERICAN HOME ASS2RANCE 3S. 7owever.e-. their successors-ininterest.. M/-a. $nc.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( /3 . D)c*r$ne )! L$'$*e& L$a0$#$*"% Ar*./e: @hether or not the doctrine of limited liability is applicable to the caseA He#&: %he real an hypothecary nature of maritime law simple means that the liability of the carrier in connection with losses related to maritime contracts is confined to the vessel. As such. which found that such sin&ing was due to fortuitous event.of the !ode of !ommerce which provides >that claims for averages shall not be admitted if they do not e'ceed 4O of the interest which the claimant may have in the vessel or in the cargo if it be gross average and TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).. %he sin&ing of vessel gave rise to filling of suit to recover the lost cargo either by shippers. 6ayleen Paper $nc. +6! filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that there was no cause of action based on Art -<.. CA 4<69 SCRA =>=: Fac*. upon delivery to 6ayleen Paper $nc. shipped 4. %aiwan on board >22 Gaunlaran? "owned by +ational 6arine !orporation#.. bales of bleached &raft pulp from 7aulien.

&nown as the 2alvage 9aw. %hereafter. $n its answer.egional %rial !ourt of 6anila. custody and carriage of the shipment* that the fire was caused by unforeseen event* that the additional freight charges are due and demandable pursuant to the 1ill of 9ading. a shipment for carriage to 6anila and !ebu freight prepaid and in good order and condition. /1/. deducting in both cases the e'penses of appraisal.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( /< . unless there is an agreement to the contrary. 1ranch 3. 3apan. a tugboat under the control of Bu&uda 2alvage !o. 2everal hours later. 3apan. $t is reasonable to conclude that the issue of negligence must first be addressed before the proper provisions of the !ode of !ommerce on the e'tent of liability may be applied. 029$ contended that it e'ercised the diligence re8uired by law in the handling. illegal act andEor breach of contract of 029$.. !ommon carriers cannot limit their liability for in)ury or loss of goods where such in)ury or loss was caused by its own negligence..e r. 7ence.. American 7ome then filed a petition for certiorari with the !ourt of Appeals which later dismissed as constituting plain errors of law. +o. the total value of the cargo.< . Otherwise stated. the law on averages under the !ode of !ommerce cannot be applied in determining liability where there is negligence. 4.. 3apan. against 029$ to recover the sum paid under protest on the ground that the same were actually damages directly brought about by the fault. hypothetically admitting the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint to the effect that the loss or damage to the 1 bales was due to the negligence or fault of +6!. +6! contended that based on the allegations of the complaint. As the crew was trying to e'tinguish the fire. "029$# loaded on board 22 0astern 0'plorer in Gobe. %he trial court dismissed the case for lac& of cause of action. arrived near the vessel and commenced to tow the vessel for the port of +aha..% Me#an$e Pa. the acetylene cylinder suddenly e'ploded sending a flash of flame throughout the accommodation area.. PHILIPPINE HOME ASS2RANCE 3S. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). 22 0astern 0'plorer was found to be constructive total loss and its voyage was declared abandoned. %he charges were all paid by Philippine 7ome Assurance !orporation "P7A!# under protest for and in behalf of the consignees. the loss sustained in the case was P34.1O of the goods damaged if particular average.. the cargoes which were saved were loaded to another vessel for delivery for their original of port of destination.e-.1-O of P17.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. P7A!. M/-a. as subrogee of the consignees. thus causing death and severe in)uries to the crew and instantly setting fire to the whole superstructure of the vessel. %he incident forces the master and the crew to abandon the ship.. thereafter filed a complaint before the . 029$ charged the consignees several amounts corresponding to additional freight and salvage charges.: 0astern 2hipping 9ines. this petition. $nstead of presenting proof of the e'ercise of e'traordinary diligence as re8uires by law./. CA 4<?@ SCRA >79: Fac*. +6! filed its motion to dismiss. negligence.. $nc. I./e= @hether or not the law on averages applies when there is negligenceA He#&= +O. a small flame was detected on the acetylene cylinder located in the main dec& level. @hile the vessel is off O&inawa.. and that salvage charges are properly collectible under Act.74 which is only . After the fire was e'tinguished.

%he court said that the above elements are all present in the instant case.. 17-. !ompensation allowed to persons by whose voluntary assistance a ship at sea or her cargo or both have been saved in whole or in part from impending sea peril.. or that the service rendered contributed to such success. or such property recovered from actual peril or loss. as in cases of shipwrec&. As a rule. As provided for in 2ection 13 of the 2alvage 9aw.e r. . 6acondray !o. !onse8uently. as well as the reward for salvage or assistance shall be a charge on the things salvaged or their value. <757: Provides a compulsory reward to those who save cargo by re8uiring the owner of the property to give a reward e8uivalent to the ma'imum of 4. among others= I. the salvage allowance should be charged against the ship and the cargo in the proportion of their respective values. 2wedish 0ast Asiatic !o. SAL3AGE 4Tw) C)nce-*.? On appeal to the !ourt of Appeals. preserving the goods or the ship which the owner or those entrusted with the care of them have either abandoned in distress at sea. M/-a. 37 Phil..% Me#an$e Pa. that three elements are "1# a marine peril " # service voluntary rendered when not re8uired as an e'isting duty or from a special contract and "3# success in whole or in part. derelict or recapture.e-.O of the value of the property saved. 9td. SAL3AGE LAW 4ACT NO. respondent court affirmed the trial court5s findings and conclusion* hence.ailroad !o. to return to petitioner Philippine 7ome Assurance !orporation the amount it paid under protest in behalf of the consignees. 3< Phil. 2alvage charges may thus be assessed on the cargoes saved from the vessel. the >compensation to be paid by the owner of the cargo is in proportion to the value of the vessel and the value of the cargo saved.%he trial court dismissed the P7A!5s complaint and ruled in favor of 029$. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). 2ervice one person renders to the owner of a ship or goods. the same as in the case of general averageY? %hus. %he !ourt reversed and set aside the )udgment of the respondent court and ordered respondent 0astern 2hipping 9ines. the formalities prescribed under Article -13 and -1< of the !ode of !ommerce in order to incur the e'penses and cause the damage corresponding to gross average were not complied with. 4-3. >%he e'penses of salvage.? $n 6anila . $t was also held that >@hen a ship and its cargo are saved together. $nc.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. general or gross averages include all damages and e'penses which are deliberately caused in order to save vessels.: 1. its cargo or both at the same time.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( /4 . vs. from a real and &nown ris&. @hile the instant case may technically fall within the purview of the said provision. or are unable to protect or secure. we rule in the affirmative. respondent 029$5s claim for contribution from the consignees of the cargo at the time of the occurrence of the average turns to naught. %he court said that the 2upreme !ourt has ruled in 0rlanger and :alinger vs. the present petition for review before this !ourt on the following error. by his own labor./e: @hether or not the respondent !ourt erroneously adopted with approval the %rial !ourt5s conclusion that the e'penses or averages incurred in saving the cargo constitute general averageA He#&: On the issue whether or not respondent court committed an error in concluding that the e'penses incurred in saving the cargo are considered general average..

9igan or 9agan K goods cast into the sea tied to a buoy. or without any intention of returning to it.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( // . and there sin& and remain under water* 3. a person who fails to deliver a salvaged vessel or cargo to the !ollector of !ustoms. !. (%ec.)n. 7$".e-. so that they may be found again by the owners (D#az. who shall divide it e8uitably. Person who commenced 2alvage in spite of opposition of the !aptain or his representative* 3. 4O to the officers and crew in proportion to their salaries.* *) a Rewar& !)r Sa#Aa(e= 1. 2hip itself* 2. (%ec. . $f sold "no claim being made within 3 months from publication#. Per. total or -ar*$a#.) HaAe N) R$(. $n accordance with 2ec. $.e r.O to the shipowner* b. and the other half to the government. %he reward should constitute a sufficient compensation for the outlay and effort of the salvors and should be liberal enough to offer an inducement to others to render services in similar emergencies in the future. shall go to the owner* if the latter does not claim it within 3 years. 3 of the 2alvage 9aw. 2ervices rendered voluntarily "neither an e'isting duty nor out of a pree'isting contract#* 4. 2ervices are successful.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. $t is a contract for services rather than a contract of carriage. )! Sa#Aa(e: 1. usually motoriDed.-e !isites% 1. S/0Hec*. CONTRACT OF TOWAGE A contract whereby one vessel. 0'penses incurred in the salvage must be shown to be necessary and reasonable in amount before they will be allowed to the salvors.% Me#an$e Pa. pulls another. Act. without any hope of recovering it. 4O to the captain* and c. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). No 2( (" <. Act No. 4. from one place to another. after deducting e'penses and the salvage claim. (%ecs. W. %he reward is fi'ed by the .2. p. the reward shall be distributed as follows= a. DERELICT A ship or her cargo which is abandoned and deserted at sea by those who are in charge of it. $f a vessel is the salvor. Act No. Falid ob)ect of salvage* valid ob)ect of salvage* that the vessel is shipwrec&ed beyond the control of the crew or shall have been abandoned* . 3. !rew of the vessel saved* . 2( (" 4. Bloatsam or Blotsam K goods which float upon the sea when cast overboard* +. M/-a. )n Sa#Aa(e Rewar& 1. R/#e. Notes on -ransportat#on La6.O of the said proceeds shall go to the salvors. whether loaded or not with merchandise.%! )udge in the absence of agreement or where the latter is e'cessive. the proceeds. 3etsam K goods which are cast into the sea. Ob)ect must have been e'posed to marine peril "not perils of the ship#* 3. for a compensation. 2( (" . 4.

% Me#an$e Pa. it can be considered as a 8uasi contract of towage. %he claim of 1arrios is anchored on the provisions of the 2alvage 9aw that stipulates that a ship that is lost or abandoned at sea is considered as a derelict and the proper sub)ect of salvage. to rewardA He#&: +o. %he 2upreme !ourt however noted that the nature of its disability and the circumstances surrounding it could be construed as a marine peril as contemplated in the 2alvage 9aw.the 6F 7enry $ intercepted an 2O2 signal from the 6F Hon Alfredo owned and operated by :o %hong N !o. A ship in a desperate condition with passengers and persons on board but who are unable to do anything for their own safety may be considered a 8uasi-derelict. 4@ SCRA ?=?: Fac*. %here are three elements that are necessary for a salvage claim= 1. the crew of 7enry $ attached tow lines and proceeded to tow the Hon Alfredo heading towards the port of Humaguete !ity.e-. (pon the re8uest of the captain of the Hon Alfredo. they encountered a sister ship of Hon Alfredo. the captain and crew of the 6F Hon Alfredo did not find it necessary to )ettison the vessel5s cargo as a safety measure..% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( /7 .esponding to the 2O2. which plied the route from !ebu to Havao !ity./e: @hether the rescue of the 6F Hon Alfredo should be classified as a salvage. 7owever in a contract of towage. GO THONG M CO. +ot all the re8uisites were present for the rescue to be considered as salvage under the law. On its voyage on 6ay 1.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. %herefore the 6F Hon Alfredo cannot even be considered as a 8uasi derelict. I. 1arrios as captain of 6F 7enry $ claimed entitlement to compensation under the salvage law which was opposed by :o %hong and !o. service is voluntarily rendered when not re8uired as an e'isting duty or a special contract* and 3. the crew of the 7enry $ released the towlines and continued on their voyage. Burther. M/-a. or that the service rendered contributed to such success. who claimed that what occurred was only mere towage. $nc. After agreeing to assist the disabled ship. the 6F 9u'. $t is therefore imperative to establish whether the 6F Hon Alfredo was e'posed to any form of marine peril when it was assisted by the 6F 7enry $. 1. thus entitling 1arrios et al.e r.: 7onorio 1arrios was the captain and master of the 6F 7enry $ operated by @illiam 9ines. @hen the engine failure occurred the seas were calm and the weather was clear. 7enry $ approached the Hon Alfredo and found out that the Hon Alfredo was suffering from engine failure. $n fact the ship did not drift too far from the location where its engines failed. %he trial court dismissed the claim.BARRIOS 3S. success in whole or in part. . After the incident. %he following morning. the 2alvage 9aw provides that those assisting in saving a vessel in its cargo from shipwrec& shall be entitled to a reward. Burther. only the owner of the towing vessel is entitled to remuneration. Although the service of the defendant did not constitute as salvage. $t is TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).4. the e'istence of a marine peril .

or whether it is the total cargo* -. 3nc. Amount of primage to be paid by the captain* 1. or measure which they respectively bind themselves to load and transport. 6arine insurance A. (Art. Port of loading and unloading* 7. M/-a. +ame.. Breightage to be paid* . 1ill of lading 3. 7er flag and port of registry* 3.e r.e-. e'cept when the cause arises from the unworthiness of the vessel. %he shipowner leases to the charterer the whole vessel.ar*er Par*": *are"oat 2r +emise %he charterer provides crew.% Me#an$e Pa. CHARTER PARTY A contract by virtue of which the owner or agent binds himself to transport merchandise or persons for a fi'ed price. and if the latter should ma&e the carter party* 4. )! C. (/2. Co4e of Commerce" C)n*en*. surname and domicile of the ship agent.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. %he charterer is liable as if he were the owner.. 22( %C&A 47(" Par*$e.noteworthy that the owner of 6F 7enry $. Gind. vs. )! C. (0lanters 0ro4ucts. and if he states that he is acting by commission. by two witnesses at his re8uest. surname and domicile of the captain* <. A contract by which an entire ship. C#a. $nc. food and fuel. that of the person for whose account he ma&es the contract* /. CA.. who thereby become the charter5s servants.ar*er -ar*": 1. @illiam 9ines. it shall include the following= 1. possession and conse8uent control over the vessel5s navigation. or some principal part thereof is letEleased by the owner to another person for a specified time or use. surname and domicile of the charterer.e. 9oan on bottomry 4. name and tonnage of the vessel* . !ontract of transportation of passengers on sea voyages <. 2igned by the contracting parties. *) a c. the number or tons or weight.ar*er Par*" A(ree'en* 1esides the condition freely stipulated. transferring to the latter the entire command. !harter party ..% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( /- . 2hip owner or ship agent* and . !apacity. 9oan on respondentia /. including the master and the crew. 9ay Hays and e'tra lay days to be allowed and the rate of demurrage.ar*er Par*" 1. Hays agreed upon for loading and unloading* 11. already waived its claim for compensation. and when either does not &now how or is unable to do so. 5. !harterer F)r' )! C. +ame. $t transforms a common carrier into a private carrier. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). 6ust be in duplicate 2. SPECIAL CONTRACTS OF MARITIME COMMERCE 1. +ame.

-e !isites of a >alid Charter #arty 1.*.e C. b.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. . Ma" Be Inc#/&e& In a C. 2.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( /. )! C)n*rac* )! A!!re$(. "Art.$. >oyage or trip charter K the vessel is leased for one or series of voyages usually for purposes of transporting goods for charterer. /4 of the !ode of !ommerce C#a/. %o pay losses to others for loading uncontracted cargo or illicit cargo* <. O! *.. Bailure to place the vessel at the charterer5s disposal* <.((!-(78.*'en*: a. %o pay the agreed charter price* . Co4e of Commerce" B. %o pay freightage on unboarded cargo* 3.ar*erer: 1. W. Contract of Affreightment J A contract whereby the owner of the vessel leases part or all of its space to haul goods for others.ar*er Par*" A.e Owner )r S.2. the cargo shippers.e-.$)n )! a C. 0'isting vessel which should be placed at the disposition of the shipper 3. %o leave the port if the charterer does not bring the cargo within the lay days and e'tra lay days allowed* /. even though the transportation is domestic.A(en*: 1. %o place in a vessel in a condition navigate* and 7. .e. sub)ect to the e'tent that any term of the bill of lading is repugnant to the !O:2A or applicable law.ar*er Par*" .$c. %o unload cargo clandestinely placed* <.c$. contract or otherwise. %o wait if the vessel needs repair* . Clause 0aramount or 0aramount Clause A clause in a charter party providing that the !O:2A shall apply. Code of Commerce) Re. (Art.e r. %o substitute another vessel if load is less than 3E4 of capacity* 4. O! *.% Me#an$e Pa. %o pay e'penses for deviation. an& O0#$(a*$)n. Aason Clause A stipulation in a charter party that in case of a maritime accident for which the shipowner is not responsible by law. Time Charter K vessel is chartered for a fi'ed period of time or duration of voyage. !onsent of the contracting parties . 1$n&. 0rror in tonnage or flag* 3. %o bring cargo to nearest neutral port in case of war or bloc&ade. consignees or owners shall contribute with the shipowner in general average. M/-a. then to the e'tent thereof the provision of the bill of lading is void. %o observe represented capacity* 3. $n a C. enemies or bad weather* TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). Breight <. R$(. At Charterer?s -e !est% 1. '7=&'17. $f the vessel is chartered wholly.eturn of the vessel due to pirates. not to accept cargo from others* . 1y abandoning the charter and paying half of the freightage* . !ompliance with Art.ar*er Par*" A.

O. C.O. PRIMAGE: 1onus to be paid to the captain after the successful voyage.D J collect on delivery  $f the goods are mar&ed !. F. but the e'pense of the freight and insurance to be paid by the seller up to the point of destination. EETRA LAY DAYS: Hays which follow after the lay days have elapsed.H.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 7. . BILL OF LADING  @ritten ac&nowledgment of receipt of goods and agreement to transport them to a specific place to a person named or to his order. 01#l. Arrival at a port for repairs. 3.O.. $f the e'tra lay days terminate without the cargo being placed alongside the vessel* . LAY DAYS= Hays allowed to charter parties for loading and unloading the cargo. . 2. C.F. 3ort!ito!s ca!ses% @ar* 1loc&ade* Prohibition to receive cargo* 0mbargo* and $nability of the vessel to navigate.I. v. 4. ins!rance and freight  %hey signify that the price fi'ed covers not only the cost of the goods. (Gen. (+el. At 4hipowner?s -e !est% 1. C.? +.H. F.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.A.B. . DEADFREIGHT: %he amount paid by or recoverable from a charterer of a ship for the portion of the ship5s capacity the latter contracted for but failed to occupy. B. 2 %C&A 2 $"   %he consignee and the shipper who accepts a bill of lading even without signing are bound by the terms and conditions thereof. 2#rst 3nsurance.ua 0aper 0ro4ucts v. !. 1. M/-a.e-. D free on "oard  At the place of destination  2eller must pay the freight since the contract states >free on board till destination. J cost. $8$ %C&A 2$ '2552)" 2S2AL FORMS OF CONS2MMATING CONTRACTS 1. 3. %he buyer must pay for the goods before he can obtain possession. CA 28( %C&A 2/7' !!8)" Acceptance of the consignee is implied if he claims reimbursement for missing goods and files a case based on the bill of lading. D free alongside ship TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). <. 2ale by the owner of the vessel before loading the charterer. %itle passes to the buyer at the moment of delivery to the point especially named. DEM2RRAGE: %he sum fi'ed in the charter party as a remuneration to the owner of the ship for the detention of his vessel beyond the number of days allowed by the charter party for loading or unloading or for sailing.#an .S. of Nort1 Amer#ca.O. the carrier acts for the seller in collecting the purchase price.4.e r. 3nsurance Comp. terms do not prevent title from passing to the buyer on delivery to the carrier where they are solely intended as security for the purchase price.% Me#an$e Pa. (Compan#a 8ar#t#ma v.verseas C1arter#n.

otherwise. W.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 71 . M/-a. Or&$nar" L)an 4M/*//': 1.en L)an On B)**)'r" Or Re. %he usury laws are inapplicable to these contracts* /. 9ender loaned an amount larger than the value of the ob)ect due to fraudulent means employed by the borrower.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. 2ub)ect to (sury 9aw . 3. they cannot be the basis of )udicial action. 9iability of the borrower is contingent on the safe arrival of the vessel or cargo at destination. LOAN ON BOTTOMRY 9oan made by shipowner or ship agent guaranteed by the vessel itself and repayable upon arrival of vessel at destination.e 2$4" TRANSSHIPMENT OF GOODS %he act of ta&ing cargo out of one ship and loading it in another. %he last lender is a preferred creditor. pa. . . Co4e of Commerce" TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). or the transfer for further transportation from one ship or conveyance to another. 72(. W. )! L)an. Comments an4 Cases on %ales. Obligation of the debtor conditioned only upon safe arrival of the security at the point of destination.e r.-)n&en*$a: 1. 0'posure of security to marine peril* 7. and that the buyer as the owner of the goods is to bear all e'penses after they are so delivered.e-.% Me#an$e Pa. 2552 <4#t#on. otherwise. 3. )n B)**)'r" an& Re. +ot sub)ect to (sury 9aw. the contract is void* .espondentia= only the owner of he cargo. %he property passes as soon as the goods are delivered aboard the carrier or alongside the vessel.) 'a" C)n*rac* 1. S$'-#e L)an 1. (De Leon. C)'')n E#e'en*. or the transfer of goods from the vessel stipulated in the contract of affreightment to another vessel before the place of destination named in the contract has been reached.-)n&en*$a 1. %hese contracts must at least be in writing. 1ottomry= the owner* if owner is absent K captain. +ot sub)ect to any contingency "absolute liability#. (Art. $n order to affect third persons and entitle it to preferential credit treatment. 2hould the goods upon which the money is ta&en not be the ris&. LOAN ON RESPONDENTIA 9oan ta&en on security of cargo laden on a vessel and repayable upon safe arrival of cargo at destination.-)n&en*$a Re(ar&e& A. %he captain may not borrow on bottomry or respondentia e'cept on his own interest or portion thereof. 6ore recent loans are preferred than prior loans* 4. . the contract should be inscribed in the certificate of registry and seconded in the registry of vessels* 3. %he first lender is a preferred creditor. the contract shall be considered a simple loan* <. B)**)'r" )r Re.

% Me#an$e Pa.727. which accidentally ran aground. Averages . !(7 01#l /54 ' !//)" Gr). Arrival (nder 2tress 3. during the voyage designated. $f the effects on which the money is ta&en is not sub)ected to any ris&. +ot only is there absence of a marine peril. 8a. Particular or 2imple Average  in or of of @here both vessel and cargo are saved. morals. 3nc. which constitutes the true foundation of general average. :ross or :eneral Average . 2hipwrec& A. and to the cargo from the port of loading to the port consignment.Bull amount of the loan is not used for the cargo or given on the goods if all of them could not have been loaded. public order or public policy (Art.e r. it is particular average. . (Art. which are deliberately caused in order to save the vessel andEor its cargo from real and &nown ris& TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). %he cargo loaded on the vessel be different in from that agreed upon. vessel or both.ceptions% 1. $5(. EG*$n(/$. 9oss due to the barratry on the part of the captain* 3. %he vessel was engaged in contraband* 4. 9oss due to the fault or malice of the borrower* <. and all damages deterioration suffered by the vessel from departure to the port destination. and deliberateness. 85(. and if it is proven that the goods were on board. %he loss of the vessel is based on the ris& agreed upon* and ..is& occurred during the voyage. (Art.sa7sa7.e-. (Art. M/-a.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en..e& w.en: 1. o 0'penses incurred to refloat a vessel. it is general average* where only the vessel or only the cargo is saved.  %he parties to a loan. do not constitute general average. (A. may agree on any rate of interest (C+ C#rcular !5/"* provided the same is not contrary to law. . A. C#v#l Co4e" O0#$(a*$)n )n B)**)'r" L)an $. RIS1S% DAMAGES AND ACCIDENTS IN MARITIME COMMERCE 1. $t is the safety of the property.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 7 . and not the voyage. vs. 9oss due to inherent defect* . common safety factor. Co4e of Commerce" 2.an. in order to continue its voyage. whether ordinary or maritime. the balance will be considered a simple loan. !ollision <. HYPOTHECARY NAT2RE OF BOTTOMRY AND RESPONDENTIA )eneral -!le% %he obligation of the borrower to pay the loan is e'tinguished if the goods given as security are absolutely lost by reason of an accident of the sea.72!. A3ERAGE An e'traordinary or accidental e'pense incurred during the voyage order to preserve the cargo.. )r Genera# AAera(e $ncludes all damages and e'penses. good customs. Co4e of Commerce" CLASSES OF A3ERAGES: 1. Co4e of Commerce" 3.

%hose which are on the dec&. Co4e of Commerce" 2. Buel for the vessel if there is more than sufficient fuel for the voyage. a##)we& @ith shipper?s consent Genera# aAera(e TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). G))&. (Art.% Me#an$e Pa. Co4e of Commerce" (nder the Dor@-Ant6erp &ules. e**$. $f the dec& cargo is located with the consent of the shipper on coastwise shipping. *) 0e ca. 85(. dec& cargo is permitted in !oastwise 2hipping but prohibited in Overseas 2hipping. 85(. Or&er )! ())&.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( . preferring the heaviest one with the least utility and value* 2. $n order that the )ettisoned goods may be included in the gross or general average. 2uccess* and <. %hese e'penses and damages shall be borne ratably among all those having interest in the vessel and cargo at the time of the occurrence of the average. %hese e'penses and damages are borne by those who suffer them. (Art.resulting in a common benefit. 8 Co4e of Commerce" ReK/$. it must always contribute to general average and if )ettisoned would be entitled to reimbursement. !ommon danger* .$*e. 1. M/-a. Par*$c/#ar )r S$'-#e AAera(e Hamages and e'penses that do not inure to the common benefit or are not the result of a deliberate sacrifice.)n D the act of throwing cargo overboard in order to lighten the vessel. n)* a##)we& Par*$c/#ar aAera(e 73 +omestic Dec+ car() $. $f dec& cargo is located with the consent of the shipper on overseas trade. Proper formalities and legal steps. 115. Heliberate sacrifice* 3. 858. (%ee Art. but should the same be )ettisoned. )! Gr). it would not be entitled to reimbursement because there is a violation of the Cor&-Antwerp . Code of Commerce)    3ettisoned goods are not res nullius nor deemed >abandoned? within the meaning of civil law so as to be the ob)ect of occupation by salvage. %hose which are below the upper dec&.* )Aer0)ar&: 1. (nternational Dec+ car() $. (Art. . :oods not recorded in the boo&s or records of the vessel. )r Genera# AAera(e: 1.e-. the e'istence of the cargo on board should be proven by means of the bill of lading. (Art. Co4e of Commerce" 3. it must always contribute to general average. 857-8 5 Co4e of Commerce"  %he owner of the goods who gave rise to the e'pense or suffered the damage shall bear this average. :oods carried on dec&. (Art. beginning with the one with greatest weight and smallest value. 8//'2).e r. 8//.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.. N)* C)Aere& B" Genera# AAera(e EAen I! Sacr$!$ce& 1. 8 (.ules.

ARRI3AL 2NDER STRESS %he arrival of a vessel at the nearest and most convenient port instead of the port of destination. R/#e. W. 82(. )n C)##$. %he collision may be due to the fault of both vessels.% Me#an$e Pa. in case the cause has been ris& of enemies. 1. if during the voyage the vessel cannot continue the trip to the port of destination. %he collision may be due to the fault. . there must first be an assembly before departure.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. )eneral -!le% %he shipowner bears all the e'penses for arrival under stress. An accident of the sea disabling the vessel to navigate. 1ut they shall not be liable for the damages caused by reason of a lawful arrival. . 1st Aone K all time up to the moment when ris& of collision begins* b. negligence or lac& of s&ill of the captain. All#s#on .)ne. 3rd Aone K time when collision has become a practicable certainty to the point of actual impact. negligence. )! T$'e $n *. 82/. lac& of foresight or s&ill of captain..e-. sailing mate. 7owever. #$a0#e B.e r.. 6alice. . %he owner of the vessel at fault may be liable for losses or damages. #$a0#e Ca-*a$n $. 9ac& of provisions due to negligence to carry according to usage and customs* . (Art. due to= 1. Hefect of vessel due to improper repair* and <. 9ac& of provisioning* . 8 !. the ship owner also answers for damages to the owners of the cargo and the passengers. %he shipowner or ship agent is liable in case of unlawful arrival under stress.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 7< . @ell-founded fear of seiDure. (Art. Co4e of Commerce" 2.$)n )! 3e. C $t is the duty of the captain to continue the voyage without delay after the cause of the arrival under stress has ceased failing in such duty renders him liable. Co4e of Commerce"  $n such arrival the captain must file a protest which is merely a disclaimer.(mpact "etween a moving vessel and a stationary one.e C)##$.e#. 0ach vessel shall suffer its own losses.$)n )! 3e.: a. . W.) Bear. COLLISION %he impact of two moving vessels. %he captain shall be liable for damages caused by his delay if after the cause of the arrival under stress has ceased he should not continue the voyage. 2nd Aone K time between moment when ris& of collision begins and the moment it becomes a practical certainty* and c.en NOT Law!/# 1..is& of enemy not well &nown or manifest* 3.e. but as regards the owner of cargoes both vessels TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). or any other member of the complement of the vessel. M/-a.@itho!t shipper?s consent Ca-*a$n $. Co4e of Commerce" C. (Art.ception% @hen arrival under stress is unlawful.e#. 1. of privateers or pirates* or 3. EG-en.

+aco &#ver 0lantat#on Co. %here is a presumption against the vessel which sets sail in the night. @hen two vessels are about to enter a port.3. each shall bear its own damage.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 74 . v. *) De*er'$ne Ne(#$(ence 1. when there was no sufficient time to do so or there was fear of a greater damage or other legitimate reason.. 8$ . Co4e of Commerce" A vessel which is properly anchored and moored may collide with those nearby. 828. 4.% Me#an$e Pa.e# an& S*ea'. even when the crew of the latter has received word to lift anchor. a. . Fessels must have >proper loo&-outs? or persons trained as such and who have no other duty aside therefrom.e r. 2udden movement made by a faultless vessel during the third Done of collision with another vessel which is at fault during the nd Done. or on intersecting lines. Err)r $n EG*re'$. Co4e of Commerce" $f it cannot be determined which vessel is at fault.. @hen two vessels meet. the steamship from the moment the sailing vessel is seen. the smaller should give the right of way to the larger one. (Art.e-. %here is a presumption against the vessel with spread sails which collides with another which is at anchor and cannot move. $n this case. !. %here is a presumption against a vessel which has no buoys to indicate the location of its anchors to prevent damage to vessels which may approach it. 2( 01#l. shall watch with the highest diligence her course and movements so as to be able to adopt such timely means of precaution as will necessarily prevent the two boats from coming in contact. (Art. 3. %wo vessels may collide with each other without their fault by reason of a third vessel. . each vessel shall also suffer its own losses and both shall be solidarily liable for losses or damages on the cargoes. %he sailing vessel is re8uired to &eep her course unless the circumstances re8uire otherwise.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. %he vessel which leaves later is presumed to have collided against one which has left earlier. (4mith *ell v. (?rrut#a an4 Co. -. unless it can be proved that there was no fault on its part. . . ($2" TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).827.. (Art. 8$2. M/-a.$1. shall be )ointly and severally liable. A vessel leaving port should leave the way clear for another which may be entering the same port. the farther one must allow the nearer to enter first* if they collide. %he third vessel will be liable for losses and damages. /. <. %here is a presumption against an improperly moored vessel. by reason of storm or other cause of force ma)eure. the fault is presumed to be imputable to the one who arrived later. Co4e of Commerce" Na/*$ca# R/#e. 0ven if such sudden movement is wrong. *) Sa$#$n( 3e. (Art. no responsibility will fall on said faultless vessel. @here a steamship and a sailing vessel are approaching each other from opposite directions. Co4e of Commerce" %he vessels may collide with each other through fortuitous event or force ma)eure. 7. <. %he vessel run into shall suffer its own damage and e'pense.. CA 1=7 4C-A 261) Na/*$ca# R/#e.

0ach party shall bear its own loss. . %he doctrine of res ipsa lo8uitur applies in case a moving vessel stri&es a stationary ob)ect. 827. One Ae. (Art.. T.e# a* !a/#* n)* +n)wn  0ach vessel must bear its own loss. there must be a maritime protest to recover collision damage* in such a case. CA.$)n an& A##$.. such as a bridge post. and at the same time shall be solidarily liable for the damages to the passenger and cargoes of both vessels. but both should be solidarily liable for damage to the cargo of both vessels. and cargoes of both vessels. 8$(.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( . F)r*/$*)/..  $n case of collision. )n L$a0$#$*" $n C)##$. 828. 3e.% Me#an$e Pa. (Art. C)Aere&: 1. (Art.eK/en*$a# Da'a(e. Co4e of Commerce" 7/ TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). and after the impact (Art.  0'cuses for not filing protest= 1# where the interested person is not on board the vessel* and # on collision time. the passenger and cargoes. 131. but as to the other damages.ance and R/#e )n C)n*r$0/*)r" Ne(#$(ence cannot be applied in collision cases where both vessels are at fault because under Art.* C#ear C. Code of Commerce). or navigational aid.e r. passenger.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. they shall be both solidarily liable.7 of the !ode of !ommerce. A* Fa/#*  0ach vessel must bear its own loss. CoC" D)c*r$ne )! In. MARITIME PROTEST $t is a written statement made under oath by the captain of a vessel after the occurrence of an accident or disaster in which the vessel or cargo is lost or damaged.. 136. Hamages caused to vessel . Code of Commerce) ?. CA. vs. with respect to the circumstances attending such occurrence. M/-a. for the purpose of recovering losses and damages. (2ar <astern %1#pp#n. the marine protest is a condition sine 8ua non and not merely a disclaimer unli&e in the arrival under stress or shipwrec&.cr/*a0#e Fa/#* $n case of collision where it cannot be determined which between the two vessels was at fault. /( %C&A (!"  D)c*r$ne )! La.R/#e.e#. but both shall be solidarily liable for losses and damages on the cargoes. both vessels bear their respective damage. during. Hamages caused to the passenger 3. (Art. v. both vessels shall suffer its own loss.e# a* !a/#*  Fessel at fault is liable for damage caused to the vessel. 7owever. B)*. (Art. need not be protested. >. CoC" <.$)n C)n. 3e. due diligence must be e'ercised by the carrier to lessen the damages before.e-.$r& Ae. Hamages caused to the cargo -!le% 5. 2!7 %C&A $5 * Luzon %teve4or#n. CoC" =. doc&. 82(.e# a* !a/#*  %he third vessel will be liable for all the losses and damages. eAen*B!)rce 'aHe/re  +o liability.

(Art.7/. which complaint was doc&eted as +21-133177. On . @here the vessel has gone through a hurricane or when the captain believes that the cargo has suffered damages or averages (Art.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 77 . Co4e of Commerce"* 2. and was returned to the Philippines on 4 3anuary 1.* $. private respondent was re8uired to disembar& at Port Gelang. ( 2(8". !)r Rec)Aer": 1. %he cause of the discharge was described in his 2eamanJs 1oo& as Jby ownerJs arrangeI. a--#$ca0#e $n *.  $f the wrec& was due to malice.e !)##)w$n( ca. %hereafter. 8$/ Co4e of Commerce" 2. can e8ually apply to shipwrec&s LITON 2A SHIPPING 3S.$*e.: Petitioner 9iton)ua is the duly appointed local crewing 6anaging Office of the Bairwind 2hipping !orporation "JBairwind#. Co4e of Commerce"* +.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.Hecember 1. Co4e of Commerce"* 3. if in the Philippines* and to the Philippine consul. for violation of contract. (Art. as may be pertinent.H.. among others. 2hortly after returning to the Philippines.e-.77. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).e r. Arrival under stress (Art. or because the vessel put to sea was insufficiently repaired and e8uipped* the owner of the vessel may demand indemnity from said captain.. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD 45@7 SCRA 598: Fac*. private respondent boarded the vessel. while the Hufton 1ay was in the port of !ebu and while under charter by Bairwind.: 1..Mar$*$'e Pr)*e. %he lac& of protest does not pre)udice such action to recover in respect to damages caused to persons or cargo whose owners were not on board the vessel or who were not in a condition to ma&e their wishes &nown. the vesselJs master contracted the services of. or running against an ob)ect in sea or on the coast. !ollision (Art. private respondent filed a complaint before public respondent +21. %his agreement was e'ecuted before the !ebu Area 6anning (nit of the +21.. Co4e of Commerce". private respondent :regorio !andongo to serve as %hird 0ngineer for a period of twelve "1 # months with a monthly wage of (2M4.. 8$( CoC" D. 2hipwrec&s (Arts.. 84 . "I6ullionI#. 6alaysia. negligence or lac& of s&ill of the captain.e. 8$/. PreDReK/$. ( 2( /". 6ullion 2hip 1ro&ing Agency 9td.% Me#an$e Pa. against 6ullion as the shipping company and petitioner 9iton)ua as agent of the shipowner and of the charterer of the vessel. 6aritime protest should be made within < hours before the competent authority at the point of collision or at the first port of arrival.7/. $t occurs when the vessel sustains in)uries due to a marine peril rendering her incapable of navigation. if the collision too& place abroad. (Art. %he 6EF Hufton 1ay is an ocean-going vessel of foreign registry owned by the . 84$. before e'piration of his contract. On 11 2eptember 1. (24. SHIPWREC1 $t is the loss of the vessel at sea as a conse8uence of its grounding. M/-a. Co4e of Commerce" %he rules on collision or allision.

$n such case. plaintiff entered into an agreement with 2even 1rothers 2hipping corporation whereby the latter undertoo& to load on board its vessel 6EF 2even Ambassadors . He#&: %he first basis is the charter party which e'isted between 6ullion. the charterer. plaintiff insured the cargo with 2outh 2ea 2urety and $nsurance for two million pesos. the charterer is treated as owner pro hac vice of the vessel.-<. the charterer assuming in large measure the customary rights and liabilities of the shipowner in relation to third persons who have dealt with him or with the vessel.<.2ELA HARDWOOD 3S. and Bairwind. 1. %he shipowner turns over possession of his vessel to the charterer. 1. the !ourt of Appeals affirmed in part TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).. that is. such that the master and crew provided by the shipowner become the agents and servants or employees of the charterer. and not the general owner of the vessel. i. holding 2outh 2ea and 2even 1rothers liable for the loss.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 7- .: On 3anuary 1/. A bareboat or demise charter is a demise of a vessel. and the charterer "and not the owner# through the agency of the master. who then underta&es to provide a crew and victuals and supplies and fuel for her during the term of the charter. 9auan round logs for shipment from $sabela to 6anila. %he charterer or owner pro hac vice. 7owever on 3anuary 4. however.e. %he trial court found for the plaintiff.I. resulting in the loss of petitioners5 logs. $n this case. the 6aster of the vessel is the agent of the charterer and not of the shipowner. upon the other hand. has possession and control of the vessel during the charter period.-<. much as a lease of an unfurnished house is a demise of real property. A time charter. On 3anuary . li&e a demise charter. 2ometimes. master and crew remain in the employ of the owner of the vessel. is simply a contract of affreightment. of course.= @hether or no the admiralty law as embodied in the Philippine !ode of !ommerce fastens liability for payment of the crewJs wages upon the ship owner. from one or more ports of loading to one or more ports of unloading. Pursuant to the loss.e-. A voyage charter. without a crew. and not the charterer. $n a voyage charter. or trip charter. the shipowner. is a contract for the use of a vessel for a specified period of time or for the duration of one or more specified voyages. but the latter refused. a contract for the carriage of goods. On appeal. M/-a.% Me#an$e Pa. retains possession and control through the master and crew who remain his employees. the owner of a time-chartered vessel "unli&e the owner of a vessel under a demise or bare-boat charter#. denying liability under the policy. the demise charter might provide that the shipowner is to furnish a master and crew to man the vessel under the chartererJs direction. CA 4=6 2NE 588@%<@> SCRA 7>=: Fac*. there are three "3# distinguishable types of charter parties= "a# the IbareboatI or IdemiseI charter* "b# the ItimeI charter* and "c# the IvoyageI or ItripI charter. but the latter li&ewise denied their claim. $t is well settled that in a demise or bare boat charter. and so the charterer gets the Ibare boatI. @hat the time charterer ac8uires is the right to utiliDe the carrying capacity and facilities of the vessel and to designate her destinations during the term of the charter. petitioner filed a claim with 2outh 2ea 2urety and $nsurance for the insured amount of the logs. the 6EF 2even Ambassador san&. %he shipowner is not normally re8uired by the terms of a demise charter to provide a crew.e r. $n modern maritime law and usage. is held liable for the e'penses of the voyage including the wages 3ALEN. Petitioner li&ewise filed a formal claim against 2even 1rothers 2hipping !orporation for the value of the lost logs./e..c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. on one or on a series of voyages..

@estern 2amar./e: @hether or not respondent !ourt of Appeals committed a reversible error in upholding the validity of the stipulation in the charter party e'ecuted between petitioner and 2even 1rothers e'empting the latter from liability of loss arising from the negligence of its captain. arriving there on the same day at about <=. After an hour of slow voyage.1 at around 4=3. TRANSDASIA SHIPPING 3S. CA 4<?> SCRA <76: Fac*.% Me#an$e Pa.e-. 7ence. %he vessel lifted anchor again on 3uly 1. good custom. %he captain acceded to their re8uest and thus the vessel headed bac& to !ebu !ity. pm. @hen the vessel finally left the port. Arroyo boarded the vessel in the evening of +ovember 1 . there was no longer any force ma)eure that )ustified by-passing a port of call. 1. stating that the latter is a private carrier therefore the provisions on common carriers is not applicable to their contract. After an hour of stillness. $nstead of doc&ing at !atbalogan "the first port of call#. I. . . some passenger demanded that they should be allowed to return to !ebu !ity for they were no longer willing to continue their voyage to !agayan de Oro !ity. M/-a. even granting arguendo that the engine failure was a fortuitous event. %he !ourt of Appeals affirmed the liability of 2outh 2ea 2urety and Assurance but e'onerated 2even 1rothers. mechanical defects in the carrier are not considered a caso fortuito that e'empts the carrier from responsibility.: Plaintiff "herein private respondent Atty. in the evening with only one engine running. plaintiff noticed that some repair wor&s were being underta&en on the evening of the vessel.. %he contract between petitioner and 2even 1rothers is one of Private !arriage hence the provisions on common carriage do not apply.enato Arroyo# bought a tic&et from herein petitioner for the voyage of 6EF Asia %hailand Fessel to !agayan de Oro from !ebu !ity. %he vessel departed at around 11=./e: @hether or not the mechanical defect constitutes a fortuitous event which would e'empt the carrier from liabilityA He#&: +o. such stipulations are valid because they are freely entered into by the parties and the same is not contrary to law. $n the first place. 1. As found by the trial court and the !ourt of Appeals. CA 45<5 SCRA @78: Fac*. the suit for breach of contract of carriage.. am. $n a contract of private carriage parties are free to stipulate that the responsibility for the cargo rests solely in the charterer. it accounted on for the delay of departure.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.: 7erein private respondents purchased first-class tic&ets from petitioner at the latter5s office in !ebu !ity. %hey were to board 6EF 2weet :race bound for !atbalogan. $nstead of departing at the scheduled hour of about midnight on 3uly -..the decision of the trial court. the vessel proceeded direct to %acloban.7 .e r. He#&: %he decision of the !ourt of appeals is correct... there was no fortuitous event or force ma)eure which prevented the vessel from fulfilling its underta&ing of ta&ing the private respondents to !atbalogan. At TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). Private respondents had no recourse but to disembar& and board a ferry boat to !atbalogan. $n the second place.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( 7. SWEET LINES 3S... am of 3uly . public order or public policy.. 7ence the present appeal. I. 1. At that instance.7 at around -=.. vessel stopped near Gawit $sland and dropped its anchor threat. 1. the vessel set sail at 3=.7 only to be towed bac& to !ebu due to engine trouble.. morals.

1efore commencing the contact of voyage.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. 0" Sea Ac* 4C)'')nwea#*. in con&ed out.% Me#an$e Pa. the 2upreme !ourt is in full accord with the !ourt of Appeals that the petitioner failed or discharged this obligation.. Bor the vessel to be seaworthy. Ac*. N). I.1. F)re$(n Tra&e: !O:2A applies. 6oreover. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. 7owever. the petitioner undertoo& some repairs on the cylinder head of one of the vessel5s engines. NCC" %he !ivil !ode is the primary law on goods that are being shipped from a foreign port to the Philippines. there was. %he Bailure of the common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1744 of the !ivil !ode. %he law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for loss. "Art 7/$. the vessel was unseaworthy even before the voyage begun. $n this case. li&ewise a vessel of the defendant.  %he !ivil !ode and the !ode of !ommerce is suppletory to !O:2A in the carriage of goods from foreign ports to the Philippines.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( -. the petitioner was bound to observed e'traordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of the private respondent. (nder Article 1733 of the !ivil !ode.   F)r COGSA TO BE APPLICABLE% the transportation must be= TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). plaintiff filed before the trial court a complaint for damages against the defendant. M/-a. @hich cause the vessel to stop and remain adrift at sea.*$c Tra&e: !ivil !ode and !ode of !ommerce applies. !O:2A remains to be a suppletory law for international shipping. 1. destruction or deterioration of the goods. .e-. thus in order to prevent the ship from capsiDing. the ne't day boarded the 6EF Asia 3apan for its voyage to !agayan de Oro !ity. 2S C)n(re. the plaintiff together with the other passengers who re8uested to be brought bac& to !ebu !ity was allowed to disembar&.e r. Carr$a(e )! G))&... instead of two. 7?L P/0#$c Ac* N). ?<5% @>*. even the lone functioning engine was not in perfect condition at sometime after it had run its course. with due regard for all the circumstances. the vessel proceeded to !agayan de Oro !ity.: D)'e./e: @hether or not the failure of a common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage a breach of its dutyA He#&: (ndoubtedly. it had to drop anchor. Plainly.!ebu !ity. On account of this failure of defendant to transport him to the place pf destination on +ovember 1 . Plaintiff. 1ut even before it could finish these repairs it allowed the vessel to leave the port of origin on only one functioning engine. between the petitioner and private respondent a contract of carriage. bound to carry the private respondent safely as far as human care and foresight could provide. %hat meant that the petitioner was pursuant to the Article 1744 off the said !ode. %hereafter. it must be ade8uately e8uipped for the voyage and manned with the sufficient number of competent officers and crew.

Pa*en* Da'a(e% shipper should file a claim with the carrier immediately upon delivery b.$#$--$ne. per pac&age or customary freight unit unless the nature and value of such goods is declared by the shipper. In*erna*$)na# carr$a(e !r)' !)re$(n -)r* *) *.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. %his is deemed incorporated in the bill of lading even if not mentioned in it. %he one-year prescriptive period is . %he filing of an action in court until it is dismissed. M/-a.e P. /5 %C&A 4($" $2T. years.$#$--$ne.-en&e& by= 1. <. vs. Philippine port#. 3AC. N)*$ce )! Da'a(e a. suits for loss or damage to the cargo should be brought w$*.e P. (pon discharge of goods. 3.e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( . 0" Sea Ac*: @hen to file a claim with carrier J not condition precedent. C)a.1.en T) F$#e A Ca. %he e'press agreement of the parties* . if no bill of lading has been issued* or b. Helivery of the goods* or .17<. -easons% -1   TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).  %he filing of a notice of claim is not a condition precedent./.  (nder the !O:2A. $mmediately K if damage is apparent* or b. claim should be filed immediately* or b. 4Carr$a(e )! G))&.$n *. (<astern %1#pp#n.% Me#an$e Pa. claim must be filed by the shipper within the following period otherwise recovery is barred= a. a. of the !ivil !ode applies to $nter-$sland %rade. @hen to file a claim with carrier K condition precedent K if goods arrived in damaged condition. if bill of lading has been issued.$n )ne "ear a!*er: 1. @ithin / years.e-. if the damage is apparent. @ithin < hours from delivery K if damage is not apparent. L$a0$#$*"  (nder the 2ec. %he one-year period shall run from delivery of the last pac&age and is not suspended by e'tra)udicial demand. W.. @hen to file a case in co!rt K prescriptive period= a.e )r w$*. $f damage is not apparent. the liability limit is set at M4. La*en* Da'a(e% shipper should file a claim with the carrier within three days from delivery. PRESCRIPTI3E PERIOD 5. claim should be filed within 3 days from delivery. "!lause Paramount or Paramount !lause# A')/n* )! Carr$erI.e In C)/r* @ithin a period of 1 year from discharge.% Art.  @aterEmaritime transportation* for the carriage of goods* and overseasEinternationalEforeign "from foreign port to $t can be applied in domestic sea transportation if agreed upon by the parties. %he date when goods should have been delivered. <"4#.*w$. . @ithin 1.

:. !!7. the insurer of the goods or any legal holder of the bill of lading.e r. Sec*$)n =47: )! *. 4/ %C&A 42" • • TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). but when the goods should have been delivered had the cargoes been saved.e COGSA -r)A$&e.. M/-a.e-. but it starts not from the date of collision. %he notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the time of their receipt. 01#l#pp#ne 2#rst 3nsurance Co. a failure to file a notice of claim within three days will not bar recovery if it is nonetheless filed within one year.  %he carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered* provided. or disappeared in such a way that their e'istence is un&nown or cannot be recovered. $$$" %his one year prescriptive period also applies to the shipper. $r4 e4. v. the notice must be given within three days of delivery. 1. gave out of commerce. $8$ %C&A 2$ '2552)" As stated in the same provision. it does not apply to the claim against the insurer for the insurance proceeds because the claim against the insurer is based on contract. AleHan4ro.  2aid notice of loss or damage may be endorsed on the receipt of the goods given by the person ta&ing delivery thereof. $f the loss or damage is not apparent.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( - . is not given as provided for in this section. an4 %1#pp#n..  %he insurer e'ercising its right of subrogation is bound by the one-year prescriptive period. it e'pires in 1.. the consignee.#an .  %he rule applies in cases of collision. p. A stipulation reducing the one year period is null and void but a written agreement to suspend it is valid.. %he !ivil !ode does not apply to a special law li&e !O:2A. 7owever. that fact shall not affect or pre)udice the right of the shipper to bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or that date when the goods should have been delivered.% Me#an$e Pa. . (+el. years. N. that. $t starts from delivery to the arrastre operator. if a notice of loss or damage.verseas C1arter#n. been the sub)ect of )oint survey or inspection. 3nc.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. • $n the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage. 0an4ect of Commerc#al La6 an4 Aur#spru4ence. (2#l#p#no 8erc1ants 3nsurance Co.: (nless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier of his agent at the port of discharge or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading. (:#tu. not consignee. either apparent or concealed. 3nc. the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each other for inspecting and tallying the goods.6atters affecting transportation of goods by sea should be decided at the shortest time possible. %he period does not apply to conversions or misdeliveries. $t contemplates a situation where no delivery at all was made because the goods had perished. v.

%eves succeeded in securing a > permit to deliver imported articles? from the carrier5s agent. that released the said articles to him. Homingo Ang claimed the articles from American 2teamship.: Cau Cue !ommercial 1an& of 7ong&ong agreed to sell 1<. American 2teamship Agencies which would then issue the >permit to deliver imported articles? to be presented to the 1ureau of customs to obtain the release of the articles. applies to the case at barA TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).verseas C1arter#n. pac&ages of galvaniDed steel durDinc sheets to 7erminio %eves for M3 . of which the American 2hipping is the agent in the Philippines. for having wrongfully delivered the goods. M/-a. %hus. (+el...c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. 2ubse8uently. 01#l#pp#ne 2#rst 3nsurance Co. 2o. on the ground of prescription.% Me#an$e Pa. v. the carrier5s agent. %he American 2teamship filed for a motion to dismiss. %eves was able to obtain a ban& guarantee in favor of the American 2teamship Agencies.<4-. citing the carriage of :oods by 2ea Act. failed to pay the demand draft.• $n 9oadstar 2hipping !o. %here are two tac&les involved in the operation* one for loading. %ensai 6aru owned by +issho 2hipping !o. the 2! ruled that a claim is not barred by prescription as long as the one year period has not lapsed.#an . ANG 3S. 7on&ong 2hanghai5s 1an& notified %eves of the arrival of the goods and re8uested for the payment of the demand draft. Paragraph <.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( -3 .:. !A ($ / %C&A $$!". /. the other for unloading. $nc. %hus.. 3nc. the lower court dismissed the action. the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect to loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year. Ang filed a complaint in the !ourt of Birst $nstance of 6anila against American shipping agencies. I. 2aid agreement was sub)ect to the following terms= the purchase price should be covered by a ban& draft which should be paid by %eves in e'change for the delivery to him of the bill of lading to be deposited with hon&ing and 2hanghai 1an& of 6anila* that %eves would present said bill of lading to carrier5s agent. which he presented to the 1ureau of !ustoms. which states= in any event. an4 %1#pp#n.. after delivery of goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. @hen the Articles arrived in manila. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES 458 SCRA 7=5: Fac*. Cau Cue shipped the articles aboard 2. Hespite his non-payment. %eves. however.e r. v. N.2.e-. but he was informed that it had delivered the articles to %eves./e: @hether or not the !arriage of :oods by 2ea Act 2ection 3. $8$ %C&A 2$ '2552)" TAC1LE TO TAC1LE R2LE %he shipper shall be responsible for the goods the moment it passes through one side of the ship for the purpose of loading until it passes through the other side for discharging. the ban& returned the bill of lading and the demand draft to Cau Cue which endorsed the bill of lading to Homingo Ang. by presenting the indorsed bill of lading. section 3 paragraph <.

77. 1.-. $t does not include a situation where there was indeed delivery. %he private respondents.% Me#an$e Pa./e: @hether or not the one-year period within which to file a suit against the carrier and the ship.: Plaintiff !hoa %ie& 2eng filed a complaint against the petitioner before the then !ourt of Birst $nstance of 6anila for recovery of a sum of money under the marine insurance policy on cargo. >loss? contemplates a situation where no delivery at all was made by the shipper of the goods because the same had perished. Petitioner disclaims liability and imputes against plaintiff the commission of fraud. . 1. $nc. $n either case. gone out of commerce./. subrogation. carriers Brota Oceanica 1rasiliera and Australia-@est Pacific 9ine alleged in their separate answers that the petitioner is already barred from filing a claim because under the !arriage of :oods by 2ea Act. in case of damage or loss as provided for in the !arriage of :oods by 2ea Act applies to the insurer of the goods. /. the case is remanded to the court a 8uo for further proceedings. paragraph <.e-.aDon. 6r. . or disappeared that their e'istence is un&nown or they cannot be recovered. %his would be the result if we follow the petitionerJs argument that the insurer can. ALE ANDRO 45>? SCRA ><: Fac*. on Hecember 17..He#&: %he provision of the law spea&s of >loss or damage?. . the plaintiff5s cause of action has not yet prescribed.. 1ut there was no damage caused to the goods which were delivered intact to 7erminio %eves. !hoa alleged that the goods he insured with the petitioner sustained loss and damage in the amount of P34. the suit against the carrier must be filed within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered Petitioner contended that provision relied upon by the respondents applies only to the shipper and not to the insurer of the goods. what the Act intends to prohibit after the lapse of the one-year prescriptive period can be done indirectly by the shipper or owner of the goods by simply filing a claim against the insurer even after the lapse of one year. %he goods were delivered to the plaintiff-consignee on or about 3anuary 4.7/ and on the same date were received by the consignee-plaintiff. As defined by the !ivil !ode and as applied to section 3.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( -< . I. of the !arriage of :oods by sea Act. or reimbursement in the event that it is held liable to the plaintiff. either= ten years for breach of contract or four years for 8uasi-delict..-7. %he said goods were delivered to the arrastre operator 0. at any TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ )... %he applicable rule on prescription is that found in the !ivil !ode. Otherwise.espondent )udge dismissed both third-party complaints.<. Petitioner filed third-party complaints against private respondents for indemnity. %hus. MERCHANTS INS2RANCE COMPANY 3S. A similar complaint was filed by 3oseph 1enDon !hua against the petitioner for recovery under the marine insurance policy for cargo alleging that the goods insured with the petitioner sustained loss and damage in the sum of P44. but delivery to the wrong person. M/-a.e r. He#&: %he coverage of the Act includes the insurer of the goods.

c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. M/-a. 7owever.I $n the case at bar.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( -4 . $n this situation. %he relationship at bar is properly governed by the $nsurance code.-3. Petitioner5s )ointly appointed $ndustrial $nspection $nc as 3rd party inspector to e'amine the items to see if they were in accordance with the contract. Prior to shipment the items were insured against all ris&s with respondent 2outh 2ea 2urety and $nsurance !o.: 7ong&ong :overnment 2upplies Hepartment henceforth.time. proceed against the carrier and the ship since it is not bound by the time-bar provision. SHEWARAM 3S% PAL 45@ SCRA 767% 45877: Fac*. with 2outh 2ea and M1<. 7ong Gong contracted petitioner 6ayer 2teel Pipe !orp to manufacture and supply various steel pipes and fittings from August to October 1. . $t defines a contract of carriage. $t also noted that the insurance contract insured against >all ris&s? or all causes of conceivable loss or damage save those caused by fraud or intentional misconduct. the petitionerJs action has prescribed under the provisions of the !arriage of :oods by 2ea Act. %hey certified it as such prior to shipment. the ma'imum liability of PA9 TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). CA 458 1IME 588@: Fac*. . 6ayer shipped the said items to 7ong Gong. %his could not have been the intention of the law which has also for its purpose the protection of the carrier and the ship from fraudulent claims by having Imatters affecting transportation of goods by sea be decided in as short a time as possibleI and by avoiding incidents which would Iunnecessarily e'tend the period and permit delays in the settlement of 8uestions affecting the transportation.espondents paid part of the petitioner5s demand but declined the rest claiming that the insurance surveyor5s report allegedly showed that the damage was a factory defect and hence not covered by the insurance policies. %he lower court ruled in favor of the petitioner finding the damage not caused by manufacturing defects. 7owever.e-.. He#&: %he cause of action had not yet prescribed. stated in fine print that if the value of baggage is not stated. whether it files a third-party complaint or chooses to maintain an independent action against herein respondents is of no moment.77 . 3S. the liability of the insurer is not e'tinguished because the !O:2A governs the relationship between carrier and shipper. and consignee and insurer. when they reached 7ong Gong it was revealed that a substantial portion was damaged.: A PA9 tic&et. the one-year limitation will be practically useless. with !harter. and the baggage is lost. At the court of appeals the !A found the >all ris&s? provision covered the damage endured but set aside the decision because the complaint had been bared by prescription.. on the reverse side.<7. MAYER STEEL PIPE CORP.e r. 7ence.. Petitioner5s now claim for damages against the respondents for indemnity under the insurance contract. 2ec 3"/# of the !O:2A specifically bared it because it had been more than 1 year since the damage had been done before the demand was made.atio= 2ec 3"/# of the !O:2A covers only the liability of the carrier which is e'tinguished if no suit is brought within a period of one year.% Me#an$e Pa. %hus the !A5s finding of prescription as per the !O:2A is overturned. and !harter $nsurance !orp for M 1 .

.. PA9 is fully liable "for full# because 2hewaran did not agree to the stipulation on the tic&et./7. a 7indu from Havao. PA9 1utuan sent a message to PA9 !ebu which in turn sent a message to PA9 6anila that same afternoon. %he petitioner not having declared a greater value and not having called the attention of PA9 on its true value and TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ )....... per baggage. A certain Hagorro.. he would have been able to retrieve his luggage sooner. which carried his luggage.is P1.. if value in e'cess of P1. 6eanwhile. I. PA9 !ebu then advised PA9 1utuan that the luggage will be forwarded the following day. %his message was not received by PA9 1utuan as all the personnel had already gone for the day.. $t e'ercised due diligence in loo&ing for petitioner5s luggage which had been miscarried. $n the absence of a wrongful act or omission or fraud. the carrier will be liable for full. CA 485 SCRA <<=: Fac*.e r.: On august /.am. %he limited liability applies in this case.% Me#an$e Pa. PA9 6anila advised PA9 !ebu that the luggage has been overcarried to 6anila and that it would be forwarded to PA9 !ebu that same day. 2hewaram.... %ic&et should have been signed. petitioner went to the 1utuan Airport to in8uire about the luggage but did not wait for the arrival of the morning flight at 1. blue maleta for which he was issued a claim tic&et.. the petitioner is not entitled to moral damages. Ong Ciu demanded from PA9 !ebu actual and compensatory damages as an incident of breach of contract of carriage. which operates to reduce the liability of the carrier. its liability for the loss however... M/-a. 2ince this is a stipulation on 8ualified liability.. +either is he entitled to e'emplary damages absent any proof that the defendant acted in a wanton.. a driver of a colorum car. Ong Ciu was a fare paying passenger of respondent PA9 from 6actan. Otherwise. and it was lost. 1. he chec&ed in one piece of luggae./e: @hether the limited liability rule shall apply in the case at barA He#&: %he limited liability rule shall not apply.=. 0arly morning.e-. Among his baggage was a camera with P-. is limited on the stipulation written on the bac& of the plane %ic&et which is P1... Ong Ciu was worried about the missing luggage because it contained vital documents needed for the trial the ne't day so he wired PA9 !ebu demanding delivery of his luggage before noon that ne't day or he would hold PA9 liable for damages based on gross negligence.. the carrier and the shipper must agree thereupon.. petitioner claimed his luggage but it could not be found.. PA9 will charge e'tra because PA9 is being held liable for an amount e'ceeding P1. fraudulent./e: @hether or not PA9 is guilty of only simple negligence and not gross negligenceA @hether the doctrine of limited liability doctrine applies in the instant caseA He#&: PA9 had not acted in bad faith.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. on scheduled morning flight. I..% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( -/ . boarded a PA9 plane for 6anila.. On the presumed negligence of PA9. 2hewaram wanted full payment of P-.. As a passenger. (pon arrival at 1utuan !ity.. !ebu to 1utuan !ity wherein he was scheduled to attend a trial. 7e revelaed that the documents were lost. as manifested by the fact that 2hewaram did not sign the tic&et.. is stated. rec&less manner. 7ad petitioner waited or caused someone to wait at the airport for the arrival of the morning flight which carried his luggage. PA9 offered to pay P1... who also used to drive the petitioner volunteered to ta&e the luggage to the petitioner. ONG Y2I 3S.

e: 1. +o.1* +@. e'cept for the fi'ing of ma'imum rates for fare and freight* <.adio companies. petitioner had been a fre8uent passenger of PA9 from !ebu to 1utuan !ity and bac& and he being a lawyer and a businessman. inefficient service* . M/-a. occasional or accidental. 5>7: P2BLIC SER3ICE . One can own facilities without operating them as utility. (%ec. or conversely. (-ata4 vs.% Me#an$e Pa. . Public mar&ets. • A foreigner can own a public utility. e'cept as to rates fi'ing* /. e'cept for rates fi'ing* 4. ice plants. one may operate a public utility without owning the facilities used to serve the public. $ce plants* and 7. 24$ %C&A 4$(" • TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). T.H. %o protect and secure investments in public services* 3. $b.ceptions% 1. %he !onstitution re8uires a franchise for the operation of public utility but it does not re8uire a franchise before one can own the facilities needed to operate a public utility.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. A2THORITY TO OPERATE P2BLIC SER3ICES )eneral -!le% +o public service shall operate without having been issued a certificate of public convenience or a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Public services owned or operated by the government. communication and similar public services.reeDF)#& P/r-).. any common carrier or public utility. P2BLIC SER3ICE ACT 4COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. must be fully aware of these conditions. . @arehouses* .e-. operate. Airships. Animal drawn vehicles and bancas moved by oar or sail* 3. power and water supplies.!* !A1* and 6arina.$ncludes every person that now or hereafter may own. manage or control in the Philippines for hire or compensation.e r. 1 and other issuances. whether permanent. 6oreso. %o prevent ruinous competition. and done for general business purposes. %he stipulation is printed in reasonably and fairly big letters and is easily readable.1* A%O* 1O0* +%!* +0A* 0.Privately owned and operated business whose services are essential to the general public. %o protect the public against unreasonable charges and poor.paid the tariff therefore. 3. Garc#a. with general or limited clientele.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( -7 . $t has been replaced by the following government agencies= 9%O* 9%B. P2BLIC 2TILITIES . %he right to operate a public utility may e'ist independently and separately from the ownership of the facilities thereof. CA 4("  %he Public 2ervice !ommission created under the Public 2ervice 9aw has already been abolished under P.

3-A$C9(4. A$+ C.-T(3(CAT. 23 #;*8(C C2$>.$(.$C.
%he trend is not to re8uire a legislative franchise. 7owever, even if there was already a delegation of authority to a specific administrative agency to issue certificates of public convenience, it does not follow that a legislative franchise is no longer necessary. $t would still depend on the enabling law creating or authoriDing the administrative body, which may still re8uire a legislative franchise. A certificate of public convenience is not necessary for the issuance of a legislative franchise. Cer*$!$ca*e )! P/0#$c C)nAen$ence: An authoriDation issued by the appropriate government agency for the operation of public services for which no franchise, either municipal or legislative, is re8uired by law, e.g., common carriers. Cer*$!$ca*e )! P/0#$c C)nAen$ence An& Nece,,$*": An authoriDation issued by the appropriate government agency for the operation of public service for which a prior franchise is re8uired by law* e.g. telephone and other services. A !ertificate of Public !onvenience or a !ertificate of Public !onvenience and +ecessity constitutes neither a franchise nor a contract, confers no property right, and is a mere license or a privilege. %he holder of said certificate does not ac8uire a property right in the route covered thereby. +or does it confer upon the holder any proprietary right or interest or franchise in the public highways. ,evocation of this certificate deprives him of no vested right. +ew and additional burdens, alteration of the certificate, or even revocation or annulment thereof is reserved to the 2tate. (Lu=ue vs. :#lle,as, $5 %C&A 458". FRANCHISE $s a special privilege and its terms and conditions are specifically prescribed by !ongress. %hus, the manner of granting the franchise, to whom it may be granted, the mode of conducting the business, the character and 8uality of the service to be rendered and the duty of the grantee to the public in e'ercising the franchise are defined in clear and une8uivocal language by the legislature. %hese conditionalities are made more stringent when the franchise involves the operation of a game played for bets, such as )ai-alai, which is conceded as a menace to morality. Branchises are granted in accord with this universal principle. (Del 8ar v. 0AGC.& $/8 %C&A 77/" An a/*.)r$*" or -er'$* is a license or provisional authority granted to a public utility to operate as an implementation of a legislative enactment. $n fine, an authority or permit is a detailed implementation of a legislative franchise. (?.%. v. Almon4 ( 01#l. $5!" C)n&$*$)n, *.a* M/,* C)nc/r $n *.e Gran* )! Cer*$!$ca*e )! P/0#$c C)nAen$ence an& Cer*$!$ca*e )! P/0#$c C)nAen$ence an& Nece,,$*": • Applicant must be a citiDen of the Philippines or a corporation or entity /;O of the stoc& or paid-up capital of which is owned by such citiDens* • Applicant must prove public necessity* • Applicant must prove that the operation of the public service proposed and the authoriDation to do business will promote the public interest on a proper and suitable manner* • Applicant must have sufficient financial capability to underta&e the proposed services and meeting the responsibilities incident to its operation.

TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ),e-. M/-a,% Me#an$e Pa,c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en,e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an(

--

Primordial considerations are public interest, necessity and convenience.

Gr)/n&, !)r ReA)ca*$)nBCance##a*$)n )! *.e Cer*$!$ca*e )! P/0#$c C)nAen$ence: • @here the holder is a mere dummy* • @here the operator ceased operation and placed his buses on storage* • @here the operator abandons totally the service. clear (nder section 1/ "n# of Public 2ervice Act, the power of the !ommission to suspend or revo&e any certificate may only be e'ercised whenever the holder thereof has violated or willfully and contumaciously refused to comply with any order, rule or regulation of the !ommission or any provision of the Act. )eneral -!le% Prior notice and hearing. .,ception% @hen it is necessary to avoid serious and irreparable damage or inconvenience to the public or private interest, in which case, a suspension not more than 3; days may be ordered, prior to the hearing. P)wer, ReK/$r$n( N)*$ce an& Hear$n( • $ssuance of !ertificate of Public !onvenience or !ertificate of Public !onvenience and +ecessity* • Bi'ing of rates, tolls, and charges* • 2etting up of standards and classifications* • 0stablishment of rules to secure accuracy of all meters and all measuring appliances* • $ssuance of orders re8uiring establishment or maintenance of e'tension of facilities* • ,evocation, or modification of !ertificate of Public !onvenience or !ertificate of Public !onvenience and +ecessity* • 2uspension of !ertificate of Public !onvenience or !ertificate of Public !onvenience and +ecessity, e'cept when it is necessary to avoid serious and irreparable damage or inconvenience to the public or private interest, in which case, a suspension not more than 3; days may be ordered, prior to the hearing. P)wer, EGerc$,a0#e W$*.)/* Pr$)r N)*$ce an& Hear$n( • $nvestigation of any matter concerning public service* • ,e8uiring operators to furnish safe, ade8uate, and proper service* • ,e8uiring public services to pay e'penses of investigation* • Faluation of properties of public utilities* • 0'amination and test of measuring appliances* • :rant of special permits to ma&e e'tra or special trips in territories specified in the certificate* • (niform accounting system and furnishing of annual reports* • !ompelling compliance with the laws and regulations. ACTS REF2IRING PRIOR APPRO3AL • 0stablish and maintain individual or )oint rates* • 0stablish and operate new units* • $ssue free tic&ets* • $ssue any stoc& or stoc& certificates representing an increase of capital* • !apitaliDe any franchise in e'cess of the amount actually paid to the :overnment* • 2ell, alienate, mortgage or lease property, certificates or franchise

TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ),e-. M/-a,% Me#an$e Pa,c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en,e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an(

-.

2NLAWF2L ACTS OF P2BLIC 2TILITY COMPANIES • 0ngagement in public service business without first securing the proper certificate* • Providing or maintaining unsafe, improper or inade8uate service as determined by the proper authority* • !ommitting any act of unreasonable and un)ust preferential treatment to any particular person, corporation or entity as determined by the proper authority* • ,efusing or neglecting to carry public mail upon re8uest. PRIOR OPERATOR R2LE - %he rule allowing an e'isting franchised operator to invo&e a preferential right as against a second operator within the authoriDed territory as long as he renders ade8uate and economical service. P/r-),e: %o prevent ruinous and wasteful competition in order that the interests of the public would be conserved and preserved. %he policy is not to issue a certificate to a second operator to cover the same field and in competition with a first operator who is rendering sufficient, ade8uate and satisfactory service. %he prior operator must first be given an opportunity to improve its service, if inade8uate or deficient. %he granting of preference to an old operator applies only when said operator has made as offer to meet the increase in traffic or demand for service and not when another operator, even a new one, has made the offer to serve the new line or increase the service on said line. %he rule of preference protects only those who are vigilant, in meeting the needs of the traveling public. #-2T.CT(2$ 23 ($>.4T0.$T -;8. %he 9aw aims to protect not only the public, but the operations as well. $t is the government5s duty to protect the investment of the operators of public utilities from unfair, un)ustified and ruinous competition. PRIOR APPLICANT R2LE Presupposes a situation when two interested persons apply for a certificate to operate a public utility in the same community over which no person has as yet granted any certificate. $f it turns out, after the hearing, that the circumstances between the two applicants are more or less e8ual, then the applicant who applied ahead of the other, will be granted the certificate. REGISTERED OWNER R2LE %he registered owner of a certificate of public convenience is liable to the public for the in)uries or damages suffered by third persons caused by the operation of said vehicle, even though the same had been transferred to a third person. %he registered owner is not allowed to escape responsibility by proving that a third person is the actual and real owner Rea,)n: $t would be easy for him, by collusion with others or otherwise, to transfer the responsibility to an indefinite person, or to one who possesses no property with which to respond financially for the damage or in)ury done. (<rezo, et al. vs. Aepte 52 01#l 5$) A registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as the public and third persons are concerned* conse8uently, it is directly and primarily responsible
TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ),e-. M/-a,% Me#an$e Pa,c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en,e r.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an(

.;

to privately-owned vehicles.e-. or otherwise stated.*e': C @hen neither of the parties to the pernicious &abit system is being held liable for damages. 0ubl#c %erv#ce Act" BO2NDARY SYSTEM Fea*/re.1. • A rate is )ust and reasonable if it conforms to the following re8uirements= • One which yields to the carrier a fair return upon the value of the property employed in performing the service* and • One which is fair to the public for the service rendered. Corp vs.ent..: • %he driver does not receive a fi'ed wage but gets only the e'cess of the receipt of the fares collected by him over the amount he pays to the )eep owner. %u7om.for the conse8uences of its operation. CA. $n contemplation of law.boo vs.e r. $88 %C&A 44/ '2552)). *) 1a0$* . RATEDFIEING POWER %he rate to be fi'ed must be )ust. • %he gasoline consumed by the )eep is for the account of the driver. among others.% Me#an$e Pa.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.".1 . which prohibits the >Gabit 2ystem?. 2$. (L#m vs.P! (8a. founded upon conditions which are fair and reasonable to both the owner and the public. %hese two features are not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between the owner and the driver from that of employer and employee. Persons who do not have such certificates cannot circumvent the law by using the certificate of another./e: @hether or not the absence of notice and hearing and the delegation of authority in the increase or decrease of transportation fares to provincial bus and )eepney operators is illegalA TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). authoriDe provincial bus and )eepney operators to increase or decrease the prescribed transportation fares without application therefore with the 9%B. 7 %C&A !/2" 1IL2SANG MAYO 2NO LABOR CENTER 3S GARCIA <=8 SCRA ?=9 4588>: Fac*. EGce-*$)n.: %he Gilusang 6ayo (no 9abor !enter "G6(# assails the constitutionality and validity of a memorandum which. %he )eepney owner is subsidiarily liable as employer in accordance with Art. I. the actual operator and employer being considered as merely its a.1. $7$ %C&A $!4" %he policy. +ernar4o. (<=u#table Leas#n. %he same principle applies even if the registered owner of any vehicle does not use it for public service. "%ec. the ownerEoperator of record is the employer of the driver. may also be applied to vessels and aircrafts that are covered by certificates of public convenience and necessity. and without hearing and approval thereof by said agency. C @hen the case arose from the negligence of another vehicle in using the public road to whom no representation or misrepresentation as regards the ownership and operation of passenger )eepney was made C @hen the riding public was not bothered or inconvenienced at the very least by the illegal arrangement. M/-a.3 of .% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( .

. an administrative agency.e r.He#&: (nder 2ection 1/ "c# of the Public 2ervice Act. M/-a. TATAD 3S.: :rand Air applied for a !ertificate of Public !onvenience and +ecessity with the !ivil Aeronautics 1oard "!A1#.? %he policy allowing provincial bus operators to change and increase their fares would result not only to a chaotic situation but to an anarchic state of affairs. %he !A1 )ustified its assumption of )urisdiction over :rand Air5s application on the basis of .1 to the bus operators to set fares over and above the authoriDed e'isting fare is illegal and invalid. I. :rand Air filed its compliance and re8uested for a %emporary Operating Permit "%OP#. the e'isting regulatory body today. (nder the ma'im potestas delegate non delegari potest K >what has been delegated cannot be delegated.epublic Act 77/ which gives it the specific power to issue any %OP or !ertificate of Public !onvenience and +ecessity. %hus. the legislature delegated to the defunct Public 2ervice !ommission the power of fi'ing the rates of public services. since !ongress has delegated the authority to authoriDe the operation of domestic air transport services to the !A1. there must be proper notice and hearing in the fi'ing of rates. whenever it pleases them or whenever they deem it necessary to do so. under the 2ection 1/ "a# of Public 2ervice Act.epublic Act 77/ and a legislative franchise is not necessary before it may do so.% Me#an$e Pa.e-. %his would leave the riding public at the mercy of transport operators who may increase fares. every day. . %he authority given by the 9%B. 55><<<. . it is duly authoriDed to do so under . CIBIL AERONA2TICS BOARD 4<@6 SCRA ?=9: Fac*. Public convenience and necessity e'ists when the proposed facility will meet a reasonable want of the public and supply a need which the e'isting facilities do not ade8uately afford. the 1oard should be allowed to continue hearing the application. PA9 filed an opposition to the application on the ground that the !A1 had no )urisdiction to hear the application until :rand Air first obtains a franchise to operate from !ongress. every hour. 3S. %he !hief 7earing Officer denied the opposition and the !A1 approved the issuance of the %OP for a period of 3 months. APRIL 7% 588?: TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( . to arrive at a )ust and reasonable rate acceptable to both the public utility and the public. 9%B. NO. as amended. as it is tantamount to undue delegation of legislative authority. %he opposition for the %OP was li&ewise denied.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. is li&ewise vested with the same under 0'ecutive Order . %he delegation of such authority is not without limits since !ongress had set specific standard and limitations on how such authority should be e'ercised. GARCIA 4<>= SCRA >=7% GR. as mentioned by the !A1. every month or every year./e: @hether or not the !A1 can issue a !ertificate of Public !onvenience and +ecessity or %OP even though the prospective operator does not have a legislative franchiseA He#&: Ces. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES% INC. Burthermore. since it has )urisdiction over it provided that the applicant meets all the re8uirements of the law. %he !hief 7earing Officer issued a notice of hearing directing :rand Air to serve a copy of the application and notice to all scheduled Philippine Homestic operators.1.

.--. 0H2A 9. dated 3uly1/. ALBANO 3S. pursuant to Article 1 . in no uncertain terms. 9td. After evaluation of the seven companies that submitted bids.espondent 2ecretary . there is a clear distinction between the >operation? of a public utility and the ownership of the facilities and the e8uipment used to serve the public. the private respondent. re8uires a franchise for the operation of a public utility. 0O +o.: HO%! planned to construct a light railway transit line along 0dsa. @hile a franchise is needed to operate these facilities to serve the public. before the 6$!% contract could be signed. 1ut on 6ay 1-. $n law.% !orporation. 9td. .% !orporation.. 7owever.-/ provides for the immediate recall of the franchise granted to the 6anila $nternational Port %erminals $nc.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( . the petitioner filed a petition assailing the award of the 6$!% contract to $!%2$ claiming that the former is a public utility and therefore needs a legislative franchise before it can legally operate as a public utility.esolution +o. 1. %he said award was 8uestioned by the petitioners on the basis that a foreign corporation cannot own the 0H2A 9. 1.odolfo Albano. directing PPA management to prepare the $nvitation to 1id and all relevant documents and technical re8uirements necessary for the public bidding of the development. 2ec 11 of the 1. @hat private respondent owns are the rail trac&s. @hat constitutes a public utility in not their ownership but their use to serve the public. the PPA " Philippine Ports Authority # 1oard adopted its . cases were filed against respondents which assailed the legality and regularity of the bidding. for the latter to operate the system and pay rentals for the said use.. 3. they do not themselves constitute a public utility.. $s admittedly a foreign corporation >duly incorporated and e'isting under the laws of 7ong Gong?. management and operation for the 6$!% " leasing as well as to implement this pro)ect. M/-a. it does not re8uire a franchise before one can own the facilities needed to operate a public utility so long as it does not operate them to serve the public. -4. I.e r.% $$$ is constructed. 7owever.e-. rail stations.% Me#an$e Pa. %he !onstitution.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. will turn it over to HO%! as lessee. terminals and the power plant. lease and transfer the said light railway.eyes created a 7 man >2pecial 6$!% 1idding !ommittee? charged with all bid proposals./e: @hether or not the 6$!% needs a legislative franchise from !ongress to legally operate as a public utilityA He#&: +O. and TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ )..% $$$. the President of the Philippines approved the proposed 6$!% !ontract with specific directives on the part of the PPA and the contractor $!%2$. there is no dispute that once the 0H2A 9./e: @hether or not an owner and lessor of the facilities used by a public utility constitute a public utilityA He#&: 0H2A 9. a public utility as it violates the !onstitution. as lessor. a foreign corporation was awarded the contract to build.: On April .-7 !onstitution. rolling stoc&s. 1.Fac*. 6eanwhile.-7. I. not a public utility. the committee recommended the award of the contract to $!%2$ for having offered the best technical and financial proposal. 7owever.3 .. REYES 45@? SCRA <7>: Fac*.

PPA has been tas&ed under 0O +o. M/-a.. another bus operator.. by contract. 7owever. he should be given the preference as a matter of fairness and )ustice. PH -47 itself authoriDes the PPA to perform the service by itself. manage and operate the 6anila $nternational Port !omple' at +orth 7arbor. maintain. its application should be granted. and PH -47 together.evised !harter of the PPA provides as one of the corporate duties of the PPA is to provide services " whether on its own. a franchise from !ongress to authoriDe an entity other than the PPA to operate and manage the 6$!P becomes unnecessary. %he 2upreme !ourt held that since there was no doubt that 9itimco was the first to apply for the service in the territory in 8uestion and its financial capability was proven. 9a 6allorca. %herefore. / of PH -47 otherwise &nown as the . %he P2! approved the application of 9a 6allorca from which 9itimco appealed. 3. HALILI 3S. CR2. %he motion was granted but when re8uested to present evidence to support its opposition. 3. %he latter power having been delegated to the PPA.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( . 2ec. LITIMCO 3S. moved for the re-opening of the case claiming that if the petition of 9itimco was to be granted it would wor& to its pre)udice.e-. operate and provide such facilities necessary in the ports vested?. other conditions being e8ual. $t is only in cases when the incapacity or incapability of the first applicant is established may the other applicants be considered. construct. an important factor in determining the rights of the public service companies. in accordance with PH -47 and other applicable laws and regulations. 9a 6allorca moved for postponement only to file its own application to operate the same line.% Me#an$e Pa.e r.< . by contracting it out./e: @hether the award of the franchise in favor of 9a 6allorca was properA He#&: +o. . and is able to underta&e the service.eading 0O +o. %he priority in the filing of the application for a certificate of public convenience is. or through other means. 7owever. LA MALLORCA 459 MAY 587<: Fac*: %omas 9itimco filed a petition with the Public 2ervice !ommission praying for the authority to operate a bus service between 6anila and 6alolos via 2ta. or otherwise # within the Port Histricts and the approaches thereof including but not limited toY As stated above. the inescapable conclusion is that the lawma&er has empowered the PPA to underta&e by itself the operation and management of the 6$!P or to authoriDe its operation and management by another by contract or other means at its option. with the management and operation of the 6anila $nternational Port !omple' in accordance with PH -47 and other applicable laws and regulations.authoriDe the PPA to ta&e over. 2everal operators filed their opposition however none of them submitted their evidence to support their opposition. regulate. I. %he !ourt pointed out that if an applicant is 8ualified financially. %he petition was then submitted for decision. 6anila and underta&e the provision of cargo handling and port related services thereat. control. buses. 4<@ 2NE 5879: TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ).c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. $sabel using 1. PPA5s act of privatiDing the 6$!% and awarding the !ontract to $!%2$ are wholly within its )urisdiction under its !harter which empowers the PPA to >supervise.

granting a certificate of public convenience to respondent .% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( . systematic and daily observations on the line applied for. that he was an operator of a bus service on the line applied for. $t is the above-mentioned decision of the Public 2ervice !ommission that is now sought to be reviewed by this !ourt. passengers. I%he finding of the Public 2ervice !ommission that there was a public need for the operation by respondent of ten buses on the line +orDagaray "1ulacan# . because there were no importing firms.. 1.e r. M/-a. and that the respondent was not financially capable of operating and maintaining the service proposed by him.Piers "6anila# is not supported by the evidence* . Petitioner further claimed that the new terminal proposed in the application was not based on actual need. under P(1 denomination. as well as that of other bus operators on the route. enumerating at the same time the other lines he operated which were traversed by the route mentioned in respondentJs application* that his service. the oppositors presented five witnesses. ten buses between +orDagaray "1ulacan# and Piers "6anila#. %he Public 2ervice !ommission rendered a decision on Bebruary 13.e-.c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en. as petitioner pointed out. whose employees had to ma&e trips to the piers at the south harbor in 6anila.. round trips a day* that since a bus could accommodate about 4.. in his opposition alleged. in +orDagaray..uperto !ruD to operate ten buses under P(1 denomination of the line +orDagaray "1ulacan# . 1. commuters wor&ed in the . on 2eptember 1.6anila line. so that their testimonies were based only on casual observations.Fac*. Petitioner also asserted that the !ommission failed to consider that ./3. passengers a day. I%he Public 2ervice !ommission erred in failing to give petitioner-appellant the right of protection to investment to which petitioner-appellant is entitled.epublic !ement Bactory located at +orDagaray and so there were really only 3. Petitioner. I%he Public 2ervice !ommission erred when it did not recogniDe the fact that petitioner-appellant was rendering sufficient and ade8uate service on the line in 8uestion* and 3. passengers found by the !ommission as commuting daily from +orDagaray to 6anila could easily be accommodated in the buses of e'isting operators* that the e'isting operators were authoriDed to operate 31 buses which made around 1. Petitioner li&ewise asserted that public necessity did not re8uire the operation of the ten buses applied for by the respondent because of the fact TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ )./1.I $n support of his first two contentions petitioner argues that the 4. the e'isting authoriDed services could easily accommodate not only the 4.4 . On the other hand...% Me#an$e Pa.Piers "6anila# passing through the routes for. but even 4. or manufacturing concerns. or business establishments. substantially. two of whom made meticulous. On the 8uestion of public necessity.. of the 4.. praying for the grant of a certificate of public convenience to operate.. commuters daily traveling on the +orDagaray . Petitioner contends that= 1. with the Public 2ervice !ommission an application. was more than ade8uate to meet the demands of the traveling public* that the grant of the application would merely result in wasteful and ruinous competition. petitioner pointed out that the evidence presented by the respondent consisted only of the testimony of two witnesses who did not ma&e any formal or systematic study of the movement and fre8uency of public utility buses.: 7erein respondent filed.

.e-. if it is shown that the old operator has not placed in the service all the units of e8uipment that it had been authoriDed to operate. buses on the line +orDagaray . and also when the old operator has violated. important conditions in its certificate./ . M/-a.. TRANSPORTATION LAW: Lawrence e!!re" De#!$n% F#er$&a E''a Man(#$c')*% Mar+ ). it has been shown that petitioner had not operated all the units that it was authoriDed to operate.% Me#an$e Pa. it is nevertheless obvious that public convenience must have the first consideration. other things being e8ual. @e can perceive how under such conditions one public utility could gain business at the e'pense of a rival. On this point this !ourt said= I$t is the convenience of the public that must be ta&en into account. even if he had applied for . /1-4-. 1. . the Public 2ervice !ommission granted to herein petitioner. . only 1. buses* and that out of the many applications to operate buses from Paradise Barms "1ulacan# to 6anila.% 1a*#een Grace Serran)% Mar" ane T$'0an( .I !ertainly the Public 2ervice !ommission has power to grant a certificate of public convenience to a new operator. and the old operator cannot with reason complain that it had not been given opportunity to improve its e8uipment and service.6anila.. in !ase +o./e: @hether or not preference over common carrier5s interest will prevail over public convenienceA He#&: %he decision of the Public 2ervice !ommission is affirmed. buses were authoriDed. or has not complied with.7. I@hile it is the duty of the government as far as possible to protect public utility operators against unfair and un)ustified competition. 13 $n the instant case. authority to operate only 1. and that convenience would be effectuated by passengers who ta&e buses at points in one part of a line being able to proceed beyond those points without having to change buses and to wait the arrival of buses of a competitive operator./1. I.that on Hecember .c/a% G$#0er* R$ca!)r*e% Rena*) Se(/0$en.e r.I %he public convenience is properly served if passengers who ta&e buses at points in one part of a line are able to proceed beyond those points without having to change buses.