You are on page 1of 12

TRANSPORTATION LAWS

Course Outline

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Governing Laws

1. New Civil Code on Common Carriers – Articles 1732 to 1763


2. On Matters Not Regulated By the NCC – Code of Commerce,
Sections 349 to 379, 573 to 736, and 806 to 869

> in case of conflict, NCC prevails

B. Concept of Common Carrier

 Perena vs. Zarate (679 SCRA 208 [2012])


 Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, Inc. (622 SCRA 389 [2010])
 Crisostomo vs. CA (409 SCRA 528 [2003])
 First Phil. Industrial vs. CA (300 SCRA 661 [1998])

1. Common Carrier vs. Private Carrier

 National Steel Corp. vs. CA (283 SCRA 45 [1997])


 Loadmaster Customs Services vs. Glodel Brokerage Corp.
(639 SCRA 69 [2011])
 Loadstar Shipping Co. vs. Pioneer Asia Ins. (479 SCRA 655
[2006])
 PHILAMGEN vs. PKS Shipping Co. (401 SCRA 222 [2003])
 Asia Lighterage vs. CA (409 SCRA 340 [2003])
 Planters Products vs. CA (226 SCRA 476 [1993])
 De Guzman vs. CA (168 SCRA 612 [1988])
 Malayan Insurance Co. vs. Philippines First Insurance Co.
(676 SCRA 268 [2012])
 Mindanao Terminal & Brokerage Services vs. Phoenix
Assurance Co. of New York (587 SCRA 429 [2009])

2. Customs Broker as Common Carrier

 Schmitz Transport vs. Transport Venture, Inc. (456 SCRA 557


[2005])
 A.F. Sanchez Brokerage vs. CA (447 SCRA 427 [2005])
 Calvo vs. UCPB Gen. Insurance Co., Inc. (379 SCRA 510
[2002])

3. Lack of Certificate of Public Convenience

 Loadstar Shipping vs. CA (315 SCRA 339 [1999])

4. Liability of the Registered Owner of Motor Vehicle

 Villanueva vs. Domingo (438 SCRA 485 [2004])


 Equitable Leasing Corp. vs. Suyong (388 SCRA 445 [2002])

C. Nature of Business and Degree of Diligence of Common Carriers

 China Airlines vs. Chiok (407 SCRA 432 [2003])


 Japan Airlines vs. Simangan (552 SCRA 341 [2008])
 Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Chiong (543 SCRA 308 [2008])
 Singapore Airlines Ltd. vs. Fernandez (417 SCRA 474 [2003])
 Delsan Transport Lines vs. CA (369 SCRA 24 [2001])

1. Degree of Diligence Required; Presumption of Fault


 Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Gammad (444 SCRA 355 [2004])
 Lea Mer Industries, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (471
SCRA 698 [2005])
 Loadmaster Customs Services vs. Glodel Brokerage Corp. (639
SCRA 69 [2011])

2. Defenses Available to the Common Carrier

 Lea Mer Industries, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (471
SCRA 698 [2005])

D. Distinctions in Carriages of Cargo and Passengers

II. Contract of Carriage of Passengers

A. Nature of Contract of Carriage of Passengers

 Baritua vs. Mercader (350 SCRA 86 [2001])


 Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Natividad (397 SCRA 75 [2003])
 Northwest Airlines vs. Catapang (594 SCRA 401 [2009])
 Japan Airlines vs. CA (294 SCRA 19 [1998])
 Fabre vs. CA (259 SCRA 426 [1996])

B. Causes of Action Arising from Same Negligent Act

1. Culpa Contractual

 Mariano, Jr. vs. Callejas (594 SCRA 569 [2009])


 Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, Inc. (622 SCRA 389 [2010])
 Villoria vs. Continental Airlines (663 SCRA 57 [2012])

2. Culpa Aquiliana

 Tiu vs. Arriesgado (437 SCRA 426 [2004])

3. Culpa Criminal

 Pajarito vs. Seneris (87 SCRA 275 [1978])

4. Nature of the Liability Incurred

 Perena vs. Zarate [2012] (supra.)


 Loadmaster Customs Services vs. Glodel Brokerage Corp. [2011]
(supra.)

5. Particular Aspects of Responsibility and Liability of


Common Carriers

 Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Natividad (397 SCRA 75 [2003])


 Philtranco Service Enterprises vs. CA (273 SCRA 562 [1998])

C. When Does Contract of Carriage Begin?

 PAN-AM vs. IAC (164 SCRA 268 [1988])


 British Airways vs. CA (218 SCRA 699 [1993])
 Dangwa Transpo. Co. vs. CA (202 SCRA 574 [1991])
 Del Prado vs. Manila Electric Co. (52 Phil. 900 [1929])
 Sweet Lines vs. Teves (83 SCRA 361 [1978])

D. When Does Contract of Carriage End?

2
 Aboitiz Shipping vs. CA (179 SCRA 95 [1989])
 La Mallorca vs. CA (17 SCRA 793 [1966])

E. Statutory Obligations of Carrier

1. In General

 Baritua vs. Mercader (350 SCRA 86 [2001])


 Yobido vs. CA (281 SCRA 1 [1997])
 Baliwag Transit, Inc. vs. CA (256 SCRA 746 [1996])
 Tiu vs. Arriesgado (supra.)

2. As to Equipment and Facilities

 Phil. National Railways vs. CA (536 SCRA 147 [2007])


 Pestaño vs. Sumayang (346 SCRA 870 [2000])
 Yobido vs. CA (supra.)
 Trans-Asia Shipping Lines vs. CA (254 SCRA 260 [1996])
 Spouses Landingan vs. Pantranco (33 SCRA 284 [1970])
 Necesito vs. Paras (104 Phil. 75 [1958])

3. Circumstances at Time of Accident

a) When Vehicle Improperly Parked

 Batangas Trans. vs. Caguimbal (22 SCRA 171 [1967])

b) When Vehicle Bumped from Behind

 Raynera vs. Hiceta (306 SCRA 102 [1999])

c) When Driver Violating Rules at Time of Accident

 Mallari, Sr. vs. CA (324 SCRA 147 [2000])

d) Rules on Overtaking

 Mallari, Sr. vs. CA (supra.)

e) Hit and Run Driver

 Abueva vs. People (390 SCRA 62 [2002])

4. Injuries Caused by Employees

 R. Transport Corp. vs. Pante (599 SCRA 747 [2009])


 Mallari, Sr. vs. CA (324 SCRA 147 [2000])
 Maranan vs. Perez (20 SCRA 413 [1967])

5. As to Injuries Caused by Other Passengers

a) The Liability of Carrier is Expressly Covered by


Article 1763 of the Civil Code

 Manila Railroad vs. Ballesteros (6 SCRA 641 [1966])

6. Obligations of Common Carriers for Baggage

 Sarkies Tours Phil. vs. CA (280 SCRA 58 [1997])


 Philippine Airlines vs. IAC (216 SCRA 334 [1992])

F. Defenses Available in Culpa Contractual

1. Proof of Negligence; Presumption

3
 LTB vs. Tiongson (64 O.G. 10601)
 Zamboanga Transit vs. CA (30 SCRA 717 [1969])

2. Due Diligence in Selection and Supervision of Employees

 RCJ Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Standard Insurance Co. (655 SCRA 693
[2011])
 Heirs of Ochoa vs. G&S Transport Corp. (645 SCRA 93 [2011])
 Fabre vs. CA (259 SCRA 426 [1996])
 Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. CA (386 SCRA 126 [2002])

3. Coverage of Fortuitous Event

 Yobido vs. CA [1997] (supra.)


 Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, Inc. (622 SCRA 389 [2010])
 New World Intl Dev., Inc. vs. NYK-Fil Japan Shipping Corp. (656
SCRA 129 [2011])
 Singapore Airlines Ltd. vs. Fernandez (417 SCRA 474 [2003])
 Gatchalian vs. Delim (203 SCRA 126 [1991])
 Bachelor Express, Inc. vs. CA (188 SCRA 216 [1990])
 Nocum vs. LTD (30 SCRA 69 [1969])

4. Contributory Negligence of Passengers

 Estacion vs. Bernardo (483 SCRA 222 [2006])


 Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. CA (255 SCRA 38 [1996])
 Calalas vs. CA (332 SCRA 356 [2000])
 Isaac vs. Ammen Transportation (101 Phil. 1046 [1957])

5. Doctrine of “Last Clear Chance”

 Phil. National Railways vs. Brunty (506 SCRA 685 [2006])


 Tiu vs. Arriesgado (437 SCRA 426 [2004])

G. Kabit System

 Lita Enterprises vs. IAC (129 SCRA 79 [1984])


 First Malayan Leasing vs. CA (209 SCRA 660 [1992])
 Lim vs. CA (373 SCRA 394 [2002])

H. Boundary System

 Hernandez vs. Dolor (435 SCRA 668 [2004])


 “Y” Transit Co., Inc. vs. NLRC (229 SCRA 508 [1994])
 Magboo vs. Bernardo (7 SCRA 952 [1963])

I. Air Transportation

> Article 1732, NCC

1. Nature of Airline’s Business

 PAL vs. CA (226 SCRA 423 [1993])


 PAL vs. CA (275 SCRA 621 [1997])
 British Airways vs. CA (285 SCRA 450 [1998])
 Singapore Airlines Ltd. vs. Fernandez (417 SCRA 474 [2003])

2. Warning Against Abuse of Claims Against Airlines

 Yu Eng Cho vs. Pan American World Airways (328 SCRA 717
[2000])

3. Liabilities of Airline Companies

4
a) For Employees’ Malfeasance

 Morris vs. CA (352 SCRA 428 [2001])


 Air France vs. Gillego (638 SCRA 488 [2011])

b) Entries in Passenger’s Travel Documents

 Japan Airlines vs. Asuncion (449 SCRA 544 [2005])


 Japan Airlines vs. Simangan (552 SCRA 341 [2008])

c) Accommodations for Stranded Passengers

 Japan Airlines vs. CA (294 SCRA 19 [1998])


 Phil. Airlines vs. CA (275 SCRA 621 [1997])

d) Overbooking

 Zalamea vs. CA (228 SCRA 23 [1993])


 Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Vasquez (399 SCRA 207
[2003])

e) Bumping Off Passengers to Higher Accommodations

 Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Vasquez (supra.)

f) Non-Liability for Transporting Bags in Another Airline

 Tan vs. Northwest Airlines (327 SCRA 263 [2000])

g) Substituting Aircrafts/Carriers Without Notice

 Northwest Airlines vs. Savellano (405 SCRA 416 [2003])

h) Liability for Damage Caused by Hijacking

 Fortune Express vs. CA (305 SCRA 14 [1999])

i) Security Measures Against Terrorism

 Northwest Airlines vs. Laya (382 SCRA 730 [2002])

4. Matters Relating to Tickets

a) Binding Terms of Ticket

 Sarreal, Sr. vs. Japan Airlines (207 SCRA 359 [1992])

b) Open-Dated Tickets

 Singson vs. CA (282 SCRA 149 [1997])

c) Rules of Liability on Airline Pooling Agreements

 American Airlines vs. CA (327 SCRA 482 [2000])


 China Airlines vs. Chiok (407 SCRA 432 [2003])
 Lufthansa German Airlines vs. CA (238 SCRA 290 [1994])
 KLM vs. CA (65 SCRA 237 [1975])

d) Principle of Lex Loci Contractus

 United Airlines vs. CA (357 SCRA 99 [2001])


 Zalamea vs. CA (228 SCRA 23 [1993])

5
J. Damages Recoverable (subject to Limitation of Liability Clause)

1. Actual Damages

2. Unrealized Profits

3. Moral Damages

 Philippine Airlines vs. CA (566 SCRA 124 [2008])


 Philippine Airlines vs. Miano (242 SCRA 235 [1995])
 Philippine Airlines vs. Lao Lim (684 SCRA 224 [2012])
 Zulueta vs. PAN-AM (43 SCRA 397 [1972])
 Lopez vs. PAN-AM (16 SCRA 431 [1966])

4. Liability for Death of Passengers

 Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Gammad (444 SCRA 355 [2004])

a) Statutory Value of Life Lost

 Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. CA (246 SCRA 376 [1995])

b) Loss of Earning Capacity

 Davila vs. PAL (49 SCRA 497 [1973])


 MD Transit vs. CA (90 SCRA 542 [1979])
 People vs. More (321 SCRA 538 [1999])
 Tugade, Sr. vs. CA (407 SCRA 497 [2003])
 Perena vs. Zarate (679 SCRA 208 [2012])

c) Moral Damages in Event of Death of Passenger

K. Warsaw Convention

 GSIS vs. Pacific Airways Corp. (629 SCRA 219 [2010])


 South African Airways vs. CIR (612 SCRA 665 [2010])
 Phil. Airlines, Inc. vs. CA (566 SCRA 124 [2008])

1. Nature and Scope of Warsaw Convention

 American Airlines vs. CA (327 SCRA 482 [2000])


 Mapa vs. CA (275 SCRA 286 [1997])
 Lhuillier vs. British Airways (615 SCRA 380 [2010])

2. Salient Aspects of Warsaw Convention

a) Provision on Valuation of Cargo

 British Airways vs. CA (285 SCRA 450 [1998])

b) Provision on Limiting Liability

 Northwest Airlines vs. CA (284 SCRA 408 [1998])


 Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. CA (255 SCRA 38
[1996])

c) On Limitation of Time to File Action

 United Airlines vs. Uy (318 SCRA 576 [1999])

3. Proper Coverage of Warsaw Convention

 Phil. Airlines, Inc. vs. CA (255 SCRA 48 [1996])

6
 Phil. Airlines, Inc. vs. Savillo (557 SCRA 66 [2008])

a) Treatment of Airline Passengers

 United Airlines vs. Uy (318 SCRA 576 [1999])

b) Off-Loading of Baggage

 Phil. Airlines vs. CA (257 SCRA 33 [1996])

c) Distinctions Between Damages to Baggage and


Humiliation Suffered by Passenger

 Phil. Airlines, Inc. vs. Savillo (557 SCRA 66 [2008])

d) Recovery of Moral Damages for Death of


Passenger: Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 (3)
of the Civil Code

 Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso (615 SCRA 575 [2010])

e) Use of Delaying Tactics by Airline

 United Airlines vs. Uy (318 SCRA 576 [1999])

4. Jurisdiction of Local Courts under Warsaw Convention

 American Airlines vs. CA (327 SCRA 482 [2000])

III. Contract of Carriage of Cargo

A. Applicable Law Based on Destination

1. Where Destination is Philippine Port

 NDC vs. CA (154 SCRA 593 [1988])


 Phil. Charter Insurance vs. Neptune Orient Lines (554 SCRA
335 [2008])

2. Where Destination is a Foreign Port

B. No Obligation to Accept Cargo

 Phil. Airlines, Inc. vs. CA (255 SCRA 48 [1996])

C. No Obligation to Deliver Cargo Immediately in Absence of Stipulation

 Maersk Line vs. CA (222 SCRA 108 [1993])

D. When Contract of Carriage of Goods Begin?

E. Bill of Lading

1. Nature and Functions of Bill of Lading

 Unsworth Transport Int. (Phils.) vs. CA (625 SCRA 357 [2011])


 Malayan Insurance Co. vs. Jardine Davies Transport (600 SCRA
706 [2009])
 Lorenzo Shipping vs. Chubb and Sons, Inc. (431 SCRA 266
[2004])
 Keng Hua Paper Products vs. CA (286 SCRA 257 [1998])
 Belgian Overseas Chartering vs. Phil. First Ins. (383 SCRA 23
[2002])
 Saludo, Jr. vs. CA (207 SCRA 498 [1992])

7
2. Binding Effect of Provisions of Bill of Lading

 Telengtan Brothers vs. CA (236 SCRA 617 [1994])


 MOF Company vs. Shin Yang Brokerage Corp. (608 SCRA 521
[2009])
 Phil. Charter Insurance Corp. vs. Owner of M/V “National Honor”
(463 SCRA 202 [2005])
 Belgian Overseas Chartering vs. Phil. First Ins. (383 SCRA 23
[2002])
 Federal Express vs. American Home Assurance (437 SCRA 50
[2004])

3. Types of Bills of Lading

 Magellan Mfg. Corp. vs. CA (201 SCRA 102 [1991])

4. Parties Bound by Terms of Bill

a) On Consignee

 Everett Steamship vs. CA (297 SCRA 496 [1998])


 Keng Hua Paper Products vs. CA (286 SCRA 257 [1998])

b) On Insurer-Subrogee

 Philamgen vs. Sweet Lines (212 SCRA 194 [1992])

5. Over-shipment Does Not Adversely Affect Terms of Bill of Lading

 Keng Hua Paper Products vs. CA (supra.)

6. Containerization System for Cargo

 United States Lines vs. Comm. of Customs (151 SCRA 189 [1987])
 Reyma Brokerage vs. Phil. Home Assurance (202 SCRA 564
[1991])
 Bankers & Manufacturers vs. CA (214 SCRA 433 [1992])

F. When Does Contract of Carriage of Goods End?

 Macam vs. CA (313 SCRA 77 [1999])


 Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Philam Insurance Co. (702 SCRA 88
[2013])
 Samar Mining Co. vs. Nordeutcher Lloyd (132 SCRA 529 [1984])
 Lu Do & Lu Ym Corp. vs. Binamira (101 Phil. 120 [1957])

1. Surrender of Bill of Lading Not Always Necessary to Establish End


of Responsibility and Liability

 Republic vs. Lorenzo Shipping Corp. (450 SCRA 550 [2005])

G. Obligation and Liability of Common Carrier

1. Obligation of Carrier

 Central Shipping Co. vs. Insurance Company of North America


(438 SCRA 511 [2004])
 Phils. First Insurance Co. vs. Wallem Phils. Shipping (582 SCRA
457 [2009])
 Regional Container Lines (RCL) of Singapore vs. Netherlands
Insurance Co. (Phils.) (598 SCRA 304 [2009])
 Unsworth Transport Int. (Phils.) vs. CA (625 SCRA 357 [2011])
 Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co. (379 SCRA 510 [2002])
 Republic vs. Lorenzo Shipping Corp. (450 SCRA 550 [2005])

8
 Phil. Charter Insurance Corp. vs. Owner of M/V “National Honor”
(463 SCRA 202 [2005])
 Delsan Transport Lines vs. CA (369 SCRA 24 [2001])
 Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Simon Enterprise (692 SCRA 87
[2013])

2. Presumption of Negligence

 Eastern Shipping Lines vs. CA (234 SCRA 78 [1994])


 Belgian Overseas Chartering vs. Phil. First Ins. (383 SCRA 23
[2002])
 Regional Container Lines (RCL) of Singapore vs. The
Netherlands Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc. (598 SCRA 304 [2009])

a) Res Ipsa Loquitor

 FGU Insurance vs. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking (386 SCRA 312


[2002])
 Tabacalera Insurance vs. North Front Shipping (272 SCRA
527 [1997])

3. When Presumption of Negligence Does Not Arise; Defenses

 Belgian Overseas Chartering vs. Phil. First Insurance Co. (383


SCRA 23 [2002])

a) Force Majeure as Defense

 Central Shipping Co. vs. Insurance Co. of NA (437 SCRA


511 [2004])
 Lea Mer Industries, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance (471 SCRA
698 [2005])
 Schmitz Transport vs. Transport Venture, Inc. (456 SCRA
557 [2005])
 PHILAMGEN vs. MGG Marine Services (378 SCRA 650
[2002])
 Edgar Cokaliong Shipping vs. UCPB Gen. Ins. (404 SCRA
706 [2003])
 DSR-Senator Lines vs. Federal Phoenix Assurance (413
SCRA 14 [2003])

b) Contributory Negligence of Owner

H. Limitation of Liability by Valuation of Damaged Cargo

1. Inter-Island Trade: Applicable Law on Limitation of Liability

 Shewaran vs. Phil. Air Lines (17 SCRA 606 [1966])


 Ong Yui vs. CA (91 SCRA 223 [1979])
 Everett Steamship Corp. vs. CA (297 SCRA 496 [1998])

a) Qualified Liability Clause Inapplicable When Carrier


Negligent

 American Home Assurance vs. CA (208 SCRA 343 [1992])

b) When “Limited Liability” Clause Part of Private


Carrier Arrangement

 Valenzuela Hardwood vs. CA (274 SCRA 642 [1997])


 Coastwise Lighterage Corp. vs. CA (245 SCRA 796 [1995])

2. Overseas Trade: Carriage of Goods By Sea Act (COGSA)

9
 American Insurance vs. Macondray (39 SCRA 494 [1971])
 Magellan Mfg. Marketing vs. CA (201 SCRA 102 [1991])
 Belgian Overseas Chartering vs. Phil. First Insurance (383
SCRA 23 [2002])
 Phil. Charter Insurance Corp. vs. Neptune Orient
Lines/Overseas Agency Services, Inc. (554 SCRA 335 [2008])
 UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Aboitiz Shipping Corp.
(578 SCRA 251 [2009])
 Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc. vs. S.R. Firms, Inc. (642 SCRA
329 [2010])
 Unsworth Transport Int. (Phils.) vs. CA (625 SCRA 357 [2011])

3. Warsaw Convention on Air Transportation

 PAN-AM vs. Rapadas (209 SCRA 67 [1992])


 Santos III vs. Northwest Orient Airlines (210 SCRA 256 [1991])
 Phil. Airlines, Inc. vs. CA (214 SCRA 262 [1992])

I. Limited Periods to Recover on Damage to Cargo

1. Applicable Laws on Period to File Claims

2. Inter-Island Trade

 New Zealand Insurance vs. Choa Ty (97 Phil. 646 [1955])


 PAL vs. CA (255 SCRA 48 [1996])
 Lorenzo Shipping vs. Chubb & Sons, Inc. (431 SCRA 266
[2004])
 Federal Express vs. American Home Assurance (437 SCRA
50 [2004])
 Phil. Charter Insurance vs. Chemoil Lighterage (462 SCRA 77
[2005])

3. Overseas Trade

 DOLE Phils. vs. Maritime Company (148 SCRA 118 [1987])


 Ang vs. American SS Agencies (19 SCRA 631 [1967])
 Rizal Surety vs. Macondray (22 SCRA 902 [1968])
 Union Carbide vs. Manila Railroad (77 SCRA 359 [1977])
 Mitsui O.S.K. Lines vs. CA (287 SCRA 366 [1998])
 Belgian Overseas Chartering vs. Phil. First Insurance (383
SCRA 23 [2002])
 U.S. Insurance vs. Cia. Maritima (21 SCRA 998 [1967])

a) COGSA’s (In) Applicability to Claims on Insurance

 Filipino Merchants Ins. Co. vs. Alejandro (145 SCRA 42


[1986])
 Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. vs. CA (274 SCRA 432 [1997])

J. Abandonment

1. First Case – Article 365, Code of Commerce

2. Second Case – Article 371, Code of Commerce

3. Third Case – Article 578, Code of Commerce

4. Fourth Case – Section 687, Code of Commerce

5. Fifth Case – Section 138, Insurance Code

10
IV. Applicable Provisions of Code of Commerce

A. Art. 351
B. Art. 352
C. Arts. 353 and 354
D. Art. 355
E. Arts. 356 and 357
F. Arts. 358 and 395
G. Art. 360
H. Art. 361
I. Art. 362
J. Art. 363
K. Art. 364
L. Art. 367
M. Art. 368
N. Art. 369
O. Arts. 370 and 371
P. Art. 372
Q. Art. 373
R. Arts. 374, 375 and 376 – Remedies for Collection of
Freightage (1) Retaining Lien; (2) Carrier’s Lien; (3) Civil Case for
Collection; (4) Consignation (Art. 369)
S. Art. 377
T. Art. 378
U. Art. 379

V. Arrastre

A. Definition

 Phil. First Ins. Co., Inc. vs. Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc. (582 SCRA 457
[2009])
 Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Philam Insurance Co. (702 SCRA 88 [2013])

B. Management Contract

1. Parties in Arrastre Contract

2. Relationship Between Consignee & Arrastre Operator

 Firemen’s Fund vs. Cia. General de Tabacos (34 SCRA 392


[1970])
 Firemen’s Fund vs. Tabacalera
 Summa Insurance Corp. vs. CA (253 SCRA 175 [1996])
 Metro Port Service, Inc. vs. IAC (213 SCRA 103 [1992])
 Int’l Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. FGU Insurance (556
SCRA 194 [2008])
 Phils. First Insurance Co. vs. Wallem Phils. Shipping (582 SCRA
457 [2009])
 Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance Co. (647 SCRA
111 [2011])

C. Liability and Obligations of Arrastre Operator

1. Nature of Arrastre’s Obligations

 Summa Insurance vs. CA (253 SCRA 175 [1996])


 Phils. First Insurance vs. Wallem Phils. Shipping (582 SCRA
457 [2009])
 Asian Terminals vs. Daehan Fire & Marine Insurance Co. (611
SCRA 555 [2010])

2. Burden of Proof in Arrastre Claims

11
 ICTSI vs. Prudential Guarantee (320 SCRA 244 [1999])

3. Period Within Which to Claim on Arrastre

 ICTSI vs. Prudential Guarantee (supra.)

4. Solidary Liability of Carrier and Arrastre Operator

5. Obligations of Arrastre Operator under “Shipper’s Load and Count”


Shipment

 ICTSI vs. Prudential Guarantee (supra.)

VI. Freight Forwarder

 Unsworth Transport Int. (Phils.) vs. CA (625 SCRA 357 [2011])

VII. FOB, FAS and CIF Designations

A. Importance of Such Designations

B. Two Aspects Involved

1. Transfer of Ownership

2. Taxation

C. Definitions of Commercial Terms

1. FOB – Free on Board

2. FAS – Free Alongside Ship

3. CIF – Cost, Insurance and Freight

VIII. Miscellany

1. Substantial Compliance with Early Warning Device Requirement

 Baliwag Transit vs. CA (256 SCRA 746 [1996])

2. Power of the LTFRB

 Eastern Assurance & Surety Corp. vs. LTFRB (413 SCRA 75 [2003])

3. Chicago International Civil Aviation Convention

 CIR vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum (671 SCRA 241 [2012])

-nothing follows-

12