Sanchez Brokerage vs.

CA and FGU Corp GR 147079

Wyeth-Pharma shipped from Germany, Oral
Contraceptives to its consignee in Manila,
Wyeth-Suaco
86,000 Blisters Femenal Tablets, 14,000
Blisters Nordiol Tablets, and 42,000 Trinordiol
Tablets
Wyeth-Suaco insured its shipment with FGU
Insurance
Wyeth engaged the services of Sanchez
Brokerage as its customs broker, who pays the
custom duties and fees and delivers to Wyeth
From the PSI Warehouse, after it was inspected
by Elite Surveyors, Sanchez Brokerage then
delivered the goods to Wyeth
Wyeth Rejected some of the goods as they
were in bad condition upon delivery
Wyeth demanded Sanchez to pay 191,000
representing the value of its loss
Sanchez refused, thus, Wyeth filed an
insurance claim to FGU, who paid Wyeth
FGU now demands the payment of the amount
from Sanchez for the damage goods
Sanchez claims that it was the result of
insufficient export packaging and it is not a
common carrier but only a mere broker
W/N Sanchez Brokerage is Liable
Yes
Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons,
corporations, firms or associations engaged in
the business of carrying or transporting
passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or
air, for compensation, offering their services to
the public.
-

Article 1732 does not distinguish between one

whose principal business activity is the
carrying of goods and one who does such
carrying only as an ancillary activity.
It was received in PSI in good order but were
found to be in bad order upon delivery to
wyeth
Sanchez should not have accepted the goods
from PSI if they had were already in bad
condition
Art 1733 Extraorindary Diligence
Art 1734 par 4 exempts a common carrier from
liability if the loss or damage is from the
packaging

Pan American World Airways vs.Pangan

Pangan, president of Sotang Bastos Production
entered into an agreement to supply three
films to California and Guam and would also
provide for their promotional materials
Pangan then obtained an economy ticket from
Pan Ams office for Manila to Guam and
subsequently to California
On the day of his departure, he checked in his
2 luggage 2 hours before and had to upgrade
himself to first class as his name was not in the
manifest on the full economy seating
Upon his arrival at Guam, his luggage did not
arrive, thus his film exhibitions were cancelled
in Guam and California
W/N the Warsaw Convention relating to
international carriage applies
Yes, it is not against public policy
W/N Pan Am is liable for damages for the lost of
profits
No
Mendoza Ruling: liable only for damages to
those foreseen and the time the contract was
entered, thus, Pan Am could not have foreseen
the damages that would be suffered from
Pangan for failure to deliver his films
Pangan failed to call the attention of Pan Am
informing them of the special circumstances of
his luggage requiring prompt delivery

Dangwa vs. CA
Pedrito was ran over by the bus of Dangwa
Corp while he was trying board the bus when it
suddenly accelerated
Dangwa bus sent all the passengers home
before sending Pedrito to the hospital
Dangwa alleges that Pedrito was negligent in
boarding the bus at it was moving when he did
and that the bus exercised extraordinary
diigence
W/N Dangwa is liable
Yes
When the bus is not in motion, there is no
necessity for a person to who wants to ride to
signal his intention to do so
When a bus stops, it is making a continuous
offer to passengers to board the same
Even if the bus is moving slowly, as this is
common experience of both the driver and
conductor
By stepping in the platform of the bus, Pedrito
is automatically considered a passenger and is
entitled to his rights of protection
No proof of negligence of the carrier needed to
make it liable, it is incumbent upon the carrier
to prove otherwise
Sweet Lines vs. Teves
Tandog and Tiro bought a ticket from Sweet
Line to Tagbilaran city vie MS Sweet Hope
Later learned that MS Sweet Hope was not
bound for Bohol, requested that they be
transferred to MS Sweet Town which was bound
for Bohol
The vessel was full and they agreed to stay in
the cargo area where they experienced great
discomfort and their tickets also dishonored
They filed a case against Sweet line is Misamis
Sweet Lines moved to dismiss due to improper
venue that condition no. 14 of the ticket stated
that any complaint shall be filed in Cebu
W/N the condition is valid
No
It is against public policy
Contracts of adhesions are binding, but when
one of the parties is at a disadvantage, it is
invalid
It is not just and fair to require passengers to
file actions in cebu
Condition no. 14 will frustrate actions of
passengers if it cannot be filed outside of Cebu
city and place the petitioner at an advantage
over said persons who may have legitimate
claims
Aboitiz vs.CA
Viana was a passenger of Aboitiz shipping
Upon arrival in Manila, Viana disembarked the
ship but then he remembered that some of his
cargoes were still loaded, thus, he went back to
the vessel and then the crane hit him
Aboitiz alleged that the crane operated an hour
after all passengers disembarked
Aboitiz had also claimed that Pioneer had
compete control of the vessel as they were
incharge for unloading cargo, thus exempted
from liability
W/N Aboitiz is exempted from liability
No
The relation of carrier and passenger continues
until the passenger has landed at the port and
has left the vessel owners premises (La
Mallorca Ruling)

It is common knowledge that the nature of

Aboitizs business required a longer time for
the disembarkation of passengers and cargoes
due to the bulk
Aboitiz failed to show proof that it exercised
extraordinary diligence
Pioneer had taken the necessary safeguards as
it is only required to exercise the diligence of a
good father

La Mallorca vs. Beltran

Mariano Beltran and his family rode a bus
owned by La Mallorca to Maxico, Pampangga
Upon reaching their destination, they
disembarked and with Mariano carrying the
luggage
At the shaded spot close to where they
disembarked, Mariano noticed that he had
forgotten one of his luggage
He went back to the bus the claim his luggage
without knowledge that one of his child
followed him
While the conductor was handing to Mariano
his luggage, the bus moved and hit and killed
Marianos child
W/N La Mallorca is liable
Yes
It has been a recognized rule that the relation
of the carrier and passenger does not cease as
at the moment the passenger reaches his
destination, but continues until the passenger
had left the premises of the carrier
Their presence near the bus was not
unreasonable and they are still considered
therefore passengers
The driver may be held liable for negligence as
he started to run off the bus without proper
signal form the conductor