LAWS ON TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES

COURSE: LAW500M
SCHEDULE: Saturday | G01 1000-1200 | G03 1300-1500
ROOM/S: 303
INSTRUCTOR: Atty. JUSTIN D.J. SUCGANG
CONSULTATION: Saturdays

COURSE DESCRIPTION:
This course deals with the laws and general principles governing public utilities, with
special emphasis on prevailing rules on carriage of persons and goods (Legal
Education Board Memorandum Order No. 1 [s. 2011]).

COURSE OBJECTIVES:
GENERAL SPECIFIC LEARNING
OBJECTIVE (GO) OBJECTIVES (SO) OBJECTIVES (LO)
SO1: To impart among law students
a broad knowledge on the law of
public utilities, with special
emphasis on transportation laws, as LO1: Identify relevant
well as sociopolitical institutions laws and principles
concerning the same.
LO2: Ability to
SO2: To enhance legal research understand further
abilities of law students, thereby Philippine public
enabling them to analyze, articulate utilities laws and
and apply relevant laws effectively, jurisprudence, and
as well as to allow them to have a these explain it
GO1: To prepare holistic approach to legal problems empathically to others
students for the practice and issues related thereto;
LO3: Ask relevant and
of law. SO3: To prepare law students for critical questions
advocacy, counselling, problem- about key issues in
solving and decision-making public utilities law and
needed in the legal practice jurisprudence
concerning public utilities,
LO4: Develop the
especially transportation;
ability to relate the
SO4: To develop competence in the subject to actual
field of public utilities law as is situations or current
necessary for gainful employment events.
or sufficient as a foundation for
future training beyond the basic
professional degree;
GO2: To contribute SO5: To develop the ability of law LO5: Identify, relate
towards the promotion students to deal with recognized and present solutions
and advancement of legal problems associated with to the problems
justice and the public utilities, especially besetting Philippine
improvement of its transportation, of the present and public utilities,
administration, the legal the future, and to identify potential especially common
system and legal legal and policy recommendations carriers
institutions in the light of to address the same;
the historical and LO6: Develop the
contemporary SO6: To produce lawyers who ability to appreciate
development of law in conscientiously pursue the lofty the law from a
the Philippines and in goals of their profession and to fully multidisciplinary
other countries. adhere to its ethical norms. perspective
 LO7: Engage relevant
stakeholders in the
promotion and further
SO7: To inculcate in law students development of
GO3: To train persons
the ethics and responsibilities of the Philippine public and
for leadership.
legal profession private transportation
system as well as
other sectors imbued
with public interest

LEARNING PLAN:
LEARNING
LEARNING OUTCOME TOPIC WEEK
ACTIVITIES
1. Orientation 1
2. Introduction to
LO6: Develop the ability to Philippine legal Modified
appreciate the law from a history and 2 Transformative
multidisciplinary perspective educational Method
system
LO1: Identify relevant laws and 3. Obligations,
principles Essential Modified
Requisites, 3-4 Transformative
LO2: Ability to understand
Sources and Method
further Philippine public utilities
Breach thereof
laws and jurisprudence, and
these explain it empathically to  Modified
others Transformative
4. Public Utilities 4-6 Method
LO2: Ability to understand  Legal
further Philippine public utilities Memorandum
laws and jurisprudence, and
these explain it empathically to MIDTERM EXAM 7 Written Exam
others
LO3: Ask relevant and critical  Modified
questions about key issues in Transformative
5. Transportation
public utilities law and 8-14 Method
Law
jurisprudence  Legal
Memorandum
LO4: Develop the ability to relate
the subject to actual situations or FINAL EXAM 16 Written Exam
current events.
LO5: Identify, relate and present
solutions to the problems
besetting Philippine public
utilities, especially common
carriers
Modified
LO7: Engage relevant 6. Integration 15 Transformative
stakeholders in the promotion Method
and further development of
Philippine public and private
transportation system as well as
other sectors imbued with public
interest

COURSE OUTLINE:

I. Introduction to Philippine legal history and educational system

A. Historical and Socio-political Antecedents

B. Critiques and Problem Areas
C. Policy Recommendations
 Main Reading Packet:
 IR Cortes, Legal Education in the Philippines: A Critical Appraisal, in Essays on Legal
Education 5-6 (1994)
 IR Cortes, Legal Education: The Bar Examination as Qualifying Process, 53 Phil LJ 130-169
(1978)
 C. Villanueva, Defining The Gravamen: The Bar Reform Movement, 48 Ateneo L.J. 624
(2004)
 M. Magsalin, Jr., The State of Philippine Legal Education Revisited, 4 Arellano Law and
Policy Rev. 38, 51 (2003)
 Candelaria and M.C. Mundin, A Review of Legal Education in the Philippines, 55 Ateneo L.J.
582 (2010)
 F. Hilbay, The Flunker: The Bar Examinations and the Miseducation of the Filipino Lawyer,
33 IBP L. J. 56 (2007)
 JDJ Sucgang, A Problem Bigger than Law Schools: Reforming the Philippine Legal
Education through an Institutional Approach. Manila: De La Salle University College of Law
University
 Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., B.M. No. 553 (June 17, 1993)
 In re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of
the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC (March 8, 2011)
 Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113 (September 3, 1991)
 O. W. Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 H. L. R. 457 (1897)
 Diokno, J. W. (1981). A Filipino Concept of Justice. Paper presented to Seminar on the
Administration of Justice in the Philippines: Focus on the Poor, sponsored by the
Management Education Council, College of Law, and Law Center of the University of the
Philippines

Supplementary Reading Packet:

 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2010, Philippine Democracy
Assessment. Rule of Law and Access to Justice, (2010) Available at
http://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/philippine-democracy-assessment-rule-law-and-
access-justice?lang=en, pp. 173-210
 IR Cortes, Legal Education in a Changing Society 46 Phil LJ 444-459 (1971)
 IR Cortes, Legal Education in the Philippines, in 3 ASEAN Comparative Law Series (1980)
 IR Cortes, Legal Education in the Philippines: A Critical Appraisal, in Essays on Legal
Education 5-6 (1994)
 IR Cortes, Legal Education: The Bar Examination as Qualifying Process, 53 Phil LJ 130-169
(1978)
 IR Cortes, Academic Preparation and Practical Training for a Profession, 8p. Mimeographed.
(Paper read before the 1968 Faculty Conference, U.P., June 20-22, 1968).
 A. Narvasa, Law Curriculum and Bar Examinations, in New Thrusts in Legal Education, ed.
by Fortunato Gupit, Jr. (1979)
 V. V. Mendoza, Towards Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination, 48 Ateneo L. J. 585
(2003)
 G Shreve, History of Legal Education, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 97, No. 2 (1983)
 H. Edwards, THE GROWING DISJUNCTION BETWEEN LEGAL EDUCATION AND THE
LEGAL PROFESSION, 91 Mich. L. R. 34 (1992-1993)
 Harvard Law School Adopts Pass-Fail Grading System. Retrieved March 14, 2014 from
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/9/26/harvard-law-school-adopts-pass-fail-grading/
 P. Letsou, LAW & ECONOMICS AND LEGAL EDUCATION: THE FUTURE OF LEGAL
EDUCATION: SOME REFLECTIONS ON LAW SCHOOL SPECIALTY TRACKS, 50 Case
W. Res. 457 (1999)

II. Obligations

A. Concept

1. Obligations under the law

 Republic Act (RA) No. 386, Arts. 1156, 1423-1430

 Ansay, et. al. v The Board of Directors of National Development Company,
et. al., G.R. No. L-13667 (April 29, 1960)
 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Adil, G.R. No. L-48889 (May 11, 198)

B. Essential Requisites
RA No. 386, Art. 1156

C. Sources
 1. Law

 RA No. 386, Arts. 1157-1158

 Leung Ben v. O’Brien, et. al., G.R. No. L-13602 (April 6, 1918)
 Pelayo v. Lauron, et. al., G.R. No. L-4089 (January 12, 1909)
 Bautista v. Borromeo, et. al., G.R. No. L-26002 (October 31, 1969)
 Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47851 (October 3,
1986)

2. Contracts

 RA No. 386, Arts. 1157, 1159, 1305-1422

 Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-12191 (October 14, 1918)
 Malayan Insurance Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-36413 (September
26, 1988)
 Telefast Communications/Philippine Wireless, Inc. v. Castro, G.R. No. 73867
(February 29, 1988)

3. Quasi-Contracts

 RA No. 386, Arts. 22, 1157, 1160, 2142-2175

 Cruz v. J.M. Tuason & Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-23749 (April 29, 1977)
 Dometila M. Andres - Irene’s Wearing Apparel v. Manufacturers Hanover &
Trust Corporation, G.R. No. 82670 (September 15, 1989)
 Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc v. City Of Manila and Marcelo Sarmiento, as City
Treasurer of Manila, G.R. No. L-17447 (April 30, 1963)

4. Delicts

 RA No. 386, Arts. 20, 29, 33, 35-36, 1157, 1161, 2177, 2206
 Act No. 3815, Arts. 11-15, 100-111
 Manantan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107125 (January 29, 2001)

5. Quasi-Delicts

 RA No. 386, Arts. 21, 1157, 1162, 2176-2194

 Jimenez v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 71049 (May 29, 1987)
 Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, et. al., G.R. No. 34840 (September 23, 1931)

D. Breach

 RA No. 386, Arts. 1163-1178, 1788, 1388, 1344, 1680, 2201

III. Public Utilities Law

A. The Concept of Public Service

 Act No. 2307, Sec. 14

 Act No. 2694, Sec. 9
 Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 146, Sec. 13-14
 CA No. 454, Sec. 1
 1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Secs. 1-2, 11, 18
 1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1
 E. S. de Dios, What is a Public Utility: Defense and Opulence (Business World
Online). Retrieved in
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=What-is-a-public-
utility?-Defense-and-opulence&id=73697

th
House Bills No. 4501 and 5828 (17 Congress)
 Santos v. Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 26771 (September 23, 1927)
 Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. v. Public Utility Board, G.R. No. 19857 (March 2,
1923)
 La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc. v. Bordman et. al., G.R. No. L-43668
(March 31, 1938)
 JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124293 (September 24,
2003)
 Bagatsing v. Committee on Privatization, G.R. No. 112399 (July 14, 1995)
 Luzon Stevedoring Co. Inc. et. al. v. Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-5458
(September 16, 1953)
 1. Basis of Regulation

 Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation, G.R. No. L-9657 (November 29,

1956)
 Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration v. ACCFA
Supervisors’ Association et. al., G.R. No. L-21484 (November 29, 1969)
 People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations,
G.R. No. L-31890 (May 29, 1987)
 Spouses Fontanilla v. Maliaman, G.R. No. 55963 (February 27, 1991)

2. Historical and Legal Antecedents

 R. Regala, The Development of Public Utility Regulation in the Philippines,

12 Phil LJ 463 (1993)
 Act No. 2307; Act No. 2694; CA No. 146; CA No. 454
 Organic Decree of June 23, 1898; Malolos Constitution, Art. 73; Act No.
2666 of 1916; Act No. 4007 of 1931; Executive Order (EO) No. 392 (s.
1951); EO No. 546 (s. 1979); EO No. 292 (s. 1987), Book IV, Title XV; EO
No. 125 (s. 1987) and EO No. 125-A (s. 1987); EO No. 269 (s. 2004); EO
No. 454 (s. 2005); EO No. 603 (s. 2007); EO No. 648 (s. 2007); EO No. 780
(s. 2009); EO No. 47 (s. 2011); RA No. 10844
 RA No. 4136; EO No. 546, Sec. 10; EO No. 1011 (s. 1985); EO No. 125,
Sec. 12; EO No. 125-A, Secs. 2 and 4; EO No. 202 (s. 1987); EO No.292,
Book IV, Title XV; Chapter 2, Sec. 9; EO No. 292, Book IV, Title XV,
Chapters 5-6
 Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1112 (s. 1977); PD No. 1649 (s. 1979); RA
No. 6957; EO No. 133 (s. 2002); EO No. 644 (s. 2007); EO No. 686 (s.
2007)
 Act No. 554 of 1902; Act No. 1510; Act No. 2574; RA No. 4156; RA No.
6366; PD No. 110 (s. 1973); PD No. 741 (s. 1975); EO No. 546; RA No.
10638
 PD No. 474 (s. 1974); EO No. 546, Sec. 20; EO No. 1011, Sec. 13; EO No.
125, Sec. 14; EO No. 125-A, Sec. 3, RA No. 9295; RA No. 10635; EO No.
197 (s. 2016)
 Act No. 3909; Act No. 3996, Act No. 4033; CA No. 168; EO No. 94 (s.
1947), Sec. 136-150; RA No. 224; RA No. 776; EO No. 546; EO NO. 125;
RA No. 9497
 Act No. 3396; Act No. 3846; EO No. 546, Sec. 13; EO No. 205 (s. 1987),
EO No. 125, Sec. 15; RA No. 7925
 Act No. 484; Act No. 667; Act No. 1112; PD No. 269 (s. 1973); PD No. 1206
(s. 1977); PD No. 1645 (s. 1979); EO No. 172 (s. 1987); RA No. 9136; RA
No. 9209, RA No. 9511; RA No. 9513; RA No. 9729; RA No. 10531
 Act No. 2152; RA No. 3601; RA No. 6234; PD No. 198 (s. 1973); PD No.
424 (s. 1974); PD No. 552 (s. 1974); PD No. 1067 (s. 1976); PD No. 1206;
PD No. 1702 (s. 1980); MO No. 38 (s. 1986); EO No. 124 (s. 1987); EO No.
124-A (s. 1987); EO No. 123 (s. 2002); EO No. 860 (s. 2010); EO No. 165
(s. 2014); MO No. 70 (s. 2014)
 PD No. 286 (s. 1973); PD No. 346 (s. 1973); PD No. 696 (s. 1975); PD No.
841 (s. 1975); EO No. 904 (s. 1983); EO N0. 125

3. Ownership

 1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Secs. 10-11, 16-19

 Gamboa v. Teves, G.R. No. 176579 (October 9, 2012)
 Tatad v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 114222 (April 6, 1995)

4. Management

 1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Secs. 11

 Luzon Stevedoring Co. v. Anti-Dummy Board, G.R. No. L-26094 (August
18, 1972)
 King v. Hernaez, G.R. No. L-14859 (March 31, 1962)

B. License/Authority to Operate

 CA No. 146, Sec. 15-16

1. Certificate of Public Convenience/Necessity

 Lagman v. Medina et. al., G.R. No. L-22615 (December 24, 1968)
  Luque et. al. v. Villegas et. al., G.R. No. L-22545 (November 28, 1969)
 Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. National
Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. L-68729 (May 29, 1987)
 Philippine Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, G.R. No. 119528 (March 26,
1997)
 Associated Communications & Wireless Services United Broadcasting
Networks v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 144109
(February 17, 2003)

2. Issuance

 Batangas Transportation Co. et. al. v. Orlanes Banaag, Trans. Co., Inc. G.R.
No. 33827 (March 4, 1931)
 Mindanao Bus Co. v. Cagayan-Misamis Land Transportation Co., G.R. No.
L-33689 (March 13, 1931)
 Sima v.Hacbang, G.R. No. L-37321 (March 3, 1933)
 Benitez v. Santos, G.R. Nos. L-12911-12 and L-13073-74 (February 29,
1960)
 Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551 (July 11, 1989)

3. Transfer

 Pecson et. al. v. Pecson et. al., G.R. No. 48003 (June 19, 1947)
 Tamayo v. Aquino et. al., G.R. No. L-12634 & L-12720 (May 29, 1959)
 Cogeo-Cubao Operators and Drivers Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 100727 (March 18, 1992)
 “Y” Transit Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
88195-96 (January 27, 1994)

4. Temporary Take-over
 1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 17
 1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 23(2)
 David v. Ermita, G.R. No.171396 (May 3, 2006)

5. Revocation
 Divinagracia v. Consolidate Broadcasting System, Inc., G.R. No.162272
(April 7, 2009)

C. Rates

 United States v. Quinajon et. al., G.R. No. L-8686 (July 30, 1915)
 Padua v. Ranada et. al., G.R. No. 141949 (October 14, 2002)
 Republic v. Medina et. al., G.R. No. L-32068 (October 4, 1971)
 Republic v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 141314 (November 15, 2002)
 Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, et. al. G.R. No. 115381 (December 23,
1994)

IV. Transportation Law

A. Land Transportation
B. Maritime Transportation
C. Aviation Transportation

V. Integration

CLASS POLICIES:
1. The professor will use a modified transformative method (hybrid lecture and oral
recitation), and shall call students randomly.
2. Students are expected to have, at the very least, photocopies of the required
readings every meeting. Also, these readings must have been read and
understood beforehand.
3. As long as the student is present during class, the lowest recitation grade that the
professor may give is 50%. However, students who are absent or are not inside
the classroom when called for the recitation will automatically get a grade of 0%.
 4. All gadgets are allowed during class. However, these must be kept silent during
class hours.
5. No make-up quizzes/examinations will be given. All missed quizzes will be
equivalent to 0%.
6. Anyone caught cheating or trying to cheat in any manner will be given a final
grade of 0.0.
7. All students are required to join the online/Facebook group.

GRADING SYSTEM:
The student will be graded according to the following:
 Daily Recitation Grade (DRG) 30%
 Midterm Exam Grade (MEG) 30%
 Final Exam Grade (FEG) 40%
Total (Final Grade [FG]) 100%

*The professor reserves the right to use the following as an additional assessment tools:
• Case Digests
• Reflection Papers
• Quizzes
• Individual/Group Reports

Approved by:

_________________________
Atty. JOSE MANUEL DIOKNO
Dean, College of Law