You are on page 1of 58



From the Lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

Ateneo De Davao University - College of Law

With Bar Questions and Suggested Answers

Compiled by:
A.Y. 2015-2016

Page 1
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
appellant that it must transport the contract workers on or before the
TRANSPORTATION LAWS end of March, 1981 and the other batch in June, 1981.

Art. 1766. Civil Code Even if a PTA is merely an advice from the sponsors that an airline is
authorized to issue a ticket and thus no ticket was yet issued, the fact
In all matters not regulated by this Code, the rights and obligations of remains that the passage had already been paid for by the principal of
common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and the appellee, and the appellant had accepted such payment. The
by special laws. existence of this payment was never objected to nor questioned by the
appellant in the lower court. Thus, the cause or consideration which is
Hierarchy of Transportation Laws in the Philippines the fare paid for the passengers exists in this case.

1. Primary Law - Civil Code The third essential requisite of a contract is an object certain. In this
2. The following aresuppletoryin character: contract "to carry", such an object is the transport of the passengers
a. Code of Commerce from the place of departure to the place of destination as stated in the
b. Special Laws telex.
1) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act Accordingly, there could be no more pretensions as to the existence of
(COGSA) an oral contract of carriage imposing reciprocal obligations on both
2) Salvage Law parties.
3) Warsaw Convention
4) Tariff and Customs Code In the case of appellee, it has fully complied with the obligation,
namely, the payment of the fare and its willingness for its contract
Definition of Transportation workers to leave for their place of destination.

 A movement of things or persons from one place to another; On the other hand, the facts clearly show that appellant was remiss in
a carrying across its obligation to transport the contract workers on their flight despite
confirmation and bookings made by appellee's travelling agent.
What is included in the word transportation?
It includes:
Besides, appellant knew very well that time was of the essence as the
1. Waiting time, prepaid ticket advice had specified the period of compliance therewith,
2. Loading and unloading, and with emphasis that it could only be used if the passengers fly on
3. Stopping in transit, and BA. Under the circumstances, the appellant should have refused
4. All other accessorial services in connection with the loaded acceptance of the PTA from appellee's principal or to at least inform
movement appellee that it could not accommodate the contract workers.

When does a contract of transportation arise? COMMON CARRIERS

G.R. No. 92288 February 9, 1993
BRITISH AIRWAYS, INC., petitioner, Definition of a Common Carrier [Art. 1732]
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Twelfth Division, and FIRST Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations
INTERNATIONAL TRADING AND GENERAL engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or
SERVICES, respondents. goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation , offering their
NOCON, J.: services to the public.

Private respondent had a valid cause of action for damages against Elements of a Common Carrier
petitioner. A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in
violation of the legal right or rights of the other. 9 Petitioner's repeated 1. Must be a person, corporation, firm or association
failures to transport private respondent's workers in its flight despite 2. Engaged in a business
confirmed booking of said workers clearly constitutes breach of 3. Transports persons or goods or both by land, water or air
contract and bad faith on its part. In resolving petitioner's theory that 4. Offers services to the public
private respondent has no cause of action in the instant case, the 5. Accepts compensation for services
appellate court correctly held that:
True Test of a Common Carrier
In dealing with the contract of common carriage of passengers for
purpose of accuracy, there are two (2) aspects of the same, The carriage of goods and passengers, provided it has space for all
namely: (a) the contract "to carry (at some future time)," which who opt to avail themselves of its transportation for a fee [National
contract is consensual and is necessarily perfected by mere Steel v. CA, 283 SCRA 45]
consent (See Article 1356, Civil Code of the Philippines), and (b)
the contract "of carriage" or "of common carriage" itself which
should be considered as a real contract for not until the carrier is
actually used can the carrier be said to have already assumed the
obligation of a carrier. (Paras, Civil Code Annotated, Vol. V, p. One is still considered a Common Carrier [for the provisions of the Civil
429, Eleventh Ed.) Code to apply] even if:[De Guzman v. CA [168 SCRA 612]

In the instant case, the contract "to carry" is the one involved which is 1. The carrying across of pax and/or goods is only an ancillary
consensual and is perfected by the mere consent of the parties. activity or sideline

There is no dispute as to the appellee's consent to the said contract "to 2. The transportation service is merely on an occasional,
carry" its contract workers from Manila to Jeddah. The appellant's episodic, or unscheduled basis
consent thereto, on the other hand, was manifested by its acceptance
of the PTA or prepaid ticket advice that ROLACO Engineering has 3. The transportation is offered only to a narrow segment of
prepaid the airfares of the appellee's contract workers advising the the general population

Page 2
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
4. He has not secured a Certificate of Public Convenience petitioner has a limited clientele does not exclude it from the definition
[CPC] of a common carrier.

G.R. No. L-47822 December 22, 1988 Also, respondent's argument that the term "common carrier" as used in
PEDRO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, Section 133 (j) of the Local Government Code refers only to common
vs. carriers transporting goods and passengers through moving vehicles
COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO CENDANA, respondents. or vessels either by land, sea or water, is erroneous.
As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the definition of "common
Article 1732 makes no distinction between one carriers" in the Civil Code makes no distinction as to the means of
whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or transporting, as long as it is by land, water or air. It does not provide
goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as that the transportation of the passengers or goods should be by motor
an ancillary activity (in local Idiom as "a sideline"). Article 1732 vehicle. In fact, in the United States, oil pipe line operators are
also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or considered common carriers.
enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or
scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, Asia Lighterage v. CA [Aug 19, 2003] – It has no fixed and publicly
episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish known route, maintains no terminals, and issues no tickets
between a carrier offering its services to the "general public," i.e.,
the general community or population, and one who offers G.R. No. 147246 August 19, 2003
services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the ASIA LIGHTERAGE AND SHIPPING, INC., petitioner,
general population. vs.
XXX ASSURANCE, INC., respondents.
It appears to the Court that private respondent is properly Petitioner contends that it is not a common carrier but a private carrier.
characterized as a common carrier even though he merely "back- Allegedly, it has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no
hauled" goods for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan, terminals, and issues no tickets. It points out that it is not obliged to
although such back-hauling was done on a periodic or occasional carry indiscriminately for any person. It is not bound to carry goods
rather than regular or scheduled manner, and even though private unless it consents. In short, it does not hold out its services to the
respondent'sprincipal occupation was not the carriage of goods for general public.
others. There is no dispute that private respondent charged his
customers a fee for hauling their goods; that fee frequently fell below XXX
commercial freight rates is not relevant here.
In the case at bar, the principal business of the petitioner is that of
The Court of Appeals referred to the fact that private respondent held lighterage and drayage22 and it offers its barges to the public for
no certificate of public convenience, and concluded he was not a carrying or transporting goods by water for compensation. Petitioner is
common carrier. This is palpable error. A certificate of public clearly a common carrier. In De Guzman, supra, we considered private
convenience is not a requisite for the incurring of liability under respondent Ernesto Cendaña to be a common carrier even if his
the Civil Code provisions governing common carriers. That principal occupation was not the carriage of goods for others, but that
liability arises the moment a person or firm acts as a common of buying used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan and selling
carrier, without regard to whether or not such carrier has also these items in Manila.
complied with the requirements of the applicable regulatory
statute and implementing regulations and has been granted a We therefore hold that petitioner is a common carrier whether its
certificate of public convenience or other franchise. To exempt carrying of goods is done on an irregular rather than scheduled
private respondent from the liabilities of a common carrier manner, and with an only limited clientele. A common carrier need not
because he has not secured the necessary certificate of public have fixed and publicly known routes. Neither does it have to maintain
convenience, would be offensive to sound public policy; that terminals or issue tickets.
would be to reward private respondent precisely for failing to
comply with applicable statutory requirements. The business of a To be sure, petitioner fits the test of a common carrier as laid down
common carrier impinges directly and intimately upon the safety and in Bascos vs. Court of Appeals.24 The test to determine a common
well being and property of those members of the general community carrier is "whether the given undertaking is a part of the business
who happen to deal with such carrier. The law imposes duties and engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general public
liabilities upon common carriers for the safety and protection of those as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business
who utilize their services and the law cannot allow a common carrier to transacted."25 In the case at bar, the petitioner admitted that it is
render such duties and liabilities merely facultative by simply failing to engaged in the business of shipping and lighterage offering its barges
obtain the necessary permits and authorizations. to the public, despite its limited clientele for carrying or transporting
goods by water for compensation.
FPIC v. CA [300 SCRA 661] – The mode of transportation is not a
motor vehicle Calvo v. UCPB [19 Mar 2002] – It is not in the business of public
G.R. No. 125948 December 29, 1998
FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner, G.R. No. 148496 March 19, 2002
vs. VIRGINES CALVO doing business under the name and style
BATANGAS CITY and ADORACION C. ARELLANO, in her official INC., petitioner,
capacity as City Treasurer of Batangas, respondents. vs.
MARTINEZ, J.: Guarantee Ins. Co., Inc.) respondent.
[T]here is no doubt that petitioner is a common carrier. It is engaged in Petitioner contends that contrary to the findings of the trial court and
the business of transporting or carrying goods, i.e. petroleum products, the Court of Appeals, she is not a common carrier but a private carrier
for hire as a public employment. It undertakes to carry for all persons because, as a customs broker and warehouseman, she does not
indifferently, that is, to all persons who choose to employ its services, indiscriminately hold her services out to the public but only offers the
and transports the goods by land and for compensation. The fact that

Page 3
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
same to select parties with whom she may contract in the conduct of those with cargo to move. Judicial admissions are conclusive and no
her business. XXX evidence is required to prove the same.

There is greater reason for holding petitioner to be a common carrier

because the transportation of goods is an integral part of her business. G.R. No. 157917 August 29, 2012
To uphold petitioner's contention would be to deprive those with whom SPOUSES TEODORO1 and NANETTE PERENA, Petitioners,
she contracts the protection which the law affords them vs.
notwithstanding the fact that the obligation to carry goods for her SPOUSES TERESITA PHILIPPINE NICOLAS and L. ZARATE,
customers, as already noted, is part and parcel of petitioner's business. NATIONAL RAILWAYS, and the COURT OF
APPEALS Respondents.
Schmitz v. TVI [ April 22, 2005] – The vehicle or mode of transport
is not owned by him
Although in this jurisdiction the operator of a school bus service has
been usually regarded as a private carrier,primarily because he only
G.R. No. 150255. April 22, 2005 caters to some specific or privileged individuals, and his operation is
SCHMITZ TRANSPORT & BROKERAGE neither open to the indefinite public nor for public use, the exact nature
CORPORATION, Petitioners, of the operation of a school bus service has not been finally settled.
vs. This is the occasion to lay the matter to rest. XXX
COMPANY, LTD., and BLACK SEA SHIPPING AND DODWELL now The operator of a. school bus service is a common carrier in the eyes
INCHCAPE SHIPPING SERVICES, Respondents. of the law. He is bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
CARPIO-MORALES, J.: conduct of his business. He is presumed to be negligent when death
Contrary to petitioner‘s insistence, this Court, as did the appellate occurs to a passenger. His liability may include indemnity for loss of
court, finds that petitioner is a common carrier. For it undertook to earning capacity even if the deceased passenger may only be an
transport the cargoes from the shipside of "M/V Alexander Saveliev" to unemployed high school student at the time of the accident.
the consignee‘s warehouse at Cainta, Rizal. As the appellate court put
it, "as long as a person or corporation holds [itself] to the public for the
purpose of transporting goods as [a] business, [it] is already WHAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS COMMON CARRIER
considered a common carrier regardless if [it] owns the vehicle to be
used or has to hire one."XXX  Exclusive hauler

Article 1732 does not distinguish between one whose principal G.R. No. 141910 August 6, 2002
business activity is the carrying of goods and one who does such FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner,
carrying only as an ancillary activity. The contention, therefore, of vs.
petitioner that it is not a common carrier but a customs broker whose G.P. SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORPORATION and LAMBERT M.
principal function is to prepare the correct customs declaration and EROLES, respondents.
proper shipping documents as required by law is bereft of merit. It VITUG, J.:
suffices that petitioner undertakes to deliver the goods for pecuniary Court finds the conclusion of the trial court and the Court of Appeals to
consideration. be amply justified. GPS, being an exclusive contractor and hauler of
Concepcion Industries, Inc., rendering or offering its services to no
Bascos v. CA - The contract entered into was not a ―contract of other individual or entity, cannot be considered a common carrier.
carriage‖ but one of ―lease‖ Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or
G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993. goods or both, by land, water, or air, for hire or compensation, offering
ESTRELLITA M. BASCOS, petitioners, their services to the public,8 whether to the public in general or to a
vs. limited clientele in particular, but never on an exclusive basis.9 The
COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO A. CIPRIANO, respondents. true test of a common carrier is the carriage of passengers or goods,
CAMPOS, JR., J p: providing space for those who opt to avail themselves of its
transportation service for a fee.10 Given accepted standards, GPS
In disputing the conclusion of the trial and appellate courts that scarcely falls within the term "common carrier."
petitioner was a common carrier, she alleged in this petition that the
contract between her and Rodolfo A. Cipriano, representing  Travel Agency
CIPTRADE, was lease of the truck. She cited as evidence certain
affidavits which referred to the contract as "lease". These affidavits G.R. No. 138334 August 25, 2003
were made by Jesus Bascos 8 and by petitioner herself. 9 She further ESTELA L. CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner,
averred that Jesus Bascos confirmed in his testimony his statement vs.
that the contract was a lease contract. 10 She also stated that: she The Court of Appeals and CARAVAN TRAVEL & TOURS
was not catering to the general public. Thus, in her answer to the INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondents.
amended complaint, she said that she does business under the same YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
style of A.M. Bascos Trucking, offering her trucks for lease to those Respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting
who have cargo to move, not to the general public but to a few either passengers or goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a
customers only in view of the fact that it is only a small business. common carrier. Respondent did not undertake to transport petitioner
from one place to another since its covenant with its customers is
We agree with the respondent Court in its finding that petitioner is a simply to make travel arrangements in their behalf. Respondent‘s
common carrier. services as a travel agency include procuring tickets and facilitating
travel permits or visas as well as booking customers for tours.
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as "(a) person,
corporation or firm, or association engaged in the business of carrying While petitioner concededly bought her plane ticket through the efforts
or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water or air, for of respondent company, this does not mean that the latter ipso facto is
compensation, offering their services to the public." The test to a common carrier. At most, respondent acted merely as an agent of
determine a common carrier is "whether the given undertaking is a part the airline, with whom petitioner ultimately contracted for her carriage
of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the to Europe. Respondent‘s obligation to petitioner in this regard was
general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of simply to see to it that petitioner was properly booked with the airline
the business transacted." In this case, petitioner herself has made the for the appointed date and time. Her transport to the place of
admission that she was in the trucking business, offering her trucks to destination, meanwhile, pertained directly to the airline.

Page 4
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
The object of petitioner‘s contractual relation with respondent is the Are arrastre operators common carriers?
latter‘s service of arranging and facilitating petitioner‘s booking,
ticketing and accommodation in the package tour. In contrast, the An arrester operator is an entity who transports the goods from the
object of a contract of carriage is the transportation of passengers or vessel to the customs warehouse.
goods. It is in this sense that the contract between the parties in this It is hired by the government. It has only one customer – government.
case was an ordinary one for services and not one of carriage. Therefore, there is one missing element to make it a common carrier. It
Petitioner‘s submission is premised on a wrong assumption. does not offer its services to the public.

Are freight forwarders common carriers? HOWEVER

The term "freight forwarder" refers to a firm holding itself out to the G.R. No. 84680 February 5, 1996
general public (other than as a pipeline, rail, motor, or water carrier) to SUMMA INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner,
provide transportation of property for compensation and, in the vs.
ordinary course of its business, COURT OF APPEALS and METRO PORT SERVICE,
INC., respondents.
1. To assemble and consolidate, or to provide for assembling PANGANIBAN, J.:
and consolidating, shipments, and to perform or provide for In the performance of its obligations, an arrastre operator should
break-bulk and distribution operations of the shipments; observe the same degree of diligence as that required of a
common carrier and a warehouseman as enunciated under Article
2. To assume responsibility for the transportation of goods from 1733 of the Civil Code and Section 3(8) of the Warehouse Receipts
the place of receipt to the place of destination; and Law, respectively. Being the custodian of the goods discharged
from a vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to take good care of
3. To use for any part of the transportation a carrier subject to the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their
the federal law pertaining to common carriers. possession.

G.R. No. 184300 July 11, 2012 G.R. No. 165647 March 26, 2009
vs. vs.
Reputable is a private carrier. COMPANY," Respondents.
More importantly, the finding of the RTC and CA that Reputable is a The functions of an arrastre operator involve the handling of cargo
special or private carrier is warranted by the evidence on record, deposited on the wharf or between the establishment of the consignee
primarily, the unrebutted testimony of Reputable‘s Vice President and or shipper and the ship's tackle.Being the custodian of the goods
General Manager, Mr. William AngLianSuan, who expressly stated in discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to take good
open court that Reputable serves only one customer, Wyeth. care of the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their
Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, common carriers are persons,
corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of Handling cargo is mainly the arrastre operator's principal work so its
carrying or transporting passenger or goods, or both by land, water or drivers/operators or employees should observe the standards and
air for compensation, offering their services to the public. On the other measures necessary to prevent losses and damage to shipments
hand, a private carrier is one wherein the carriage is generally under its custody.
undertaken by special agreement and it does not hold itself out to carry
goods for the general public. A common carrier becomes a private In Fireman‘s Fund Insurance Co. v. Metro Port Service, Inc. the Court
carrier when it undertakes to carry a special cargo or chartered to a explained the relationship and responsibility of an arrastre operator to
special person only.For all intents and purposes, therefore, Reputable a consignee of a cargo, to quote:
operated as a private/special carrier with regard to its contract of
carriage with Wyeth. The legal relationship between the consignee and the arrastre operator
is akin to that of a depositor and warehouseman. The relationship
G.R. No. 166250 July 26, 2010 between the consignee and the common carrier is similar to that of the
UNSWORTH TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), consignee and the arrastre operator. Since it is the duty of the
INC., Petitioner, ARRASTRE to take good care of the goods that are in its custody and
vs. to deliver them in good condition to the consignee, such responsibility
CORPORATION, Respondents. CARRIER are therefore charged with and obligated to deliver the
NACHURA, J.: goods in good condition to the consignee.(Emphasis supplied)
Admittedly, petitioner is a freight forwarder. XXX (Citations omitted)

A freight forwarder‘s liability is limited to damages arising from its own The liability of the arrastre operator was reiterated in Eastern Shipping
negligence, including negligence in choosing the carrier; however, Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals with the clarification that the arrastre
where the forwarder contracts to deliver goods to their destination operator and the carrier are not always and necessarily solidarily liable
instead of merely arranging for their transportation, it becomes liable as the facts of a case may vary the rule. But the precise question is
as a common carrier for loss or damage to goods. A freight forwarder which entity had custody of the shipment during its unloading from the
assumes the responsibility of a carrier, which actually executes the vessel?
transport, even though the forwarder does not carry the merchandise
itself. Thus, in this case the appellate court is correct insofar as it ruled that
an arrastre operator and a carrier may not be held solidarily liable at all
It is undisputed that UTI issued a bill of lading in favor of Unilab. times. But the precise question is which entity had custody of the
Pursuant thereto, petitioner undertook to transport, ship, and deliver shipment during its unloading from the vessel? XXX
the 27 drums of raw materials for pharmaceutical manufacturing to the

Page 5
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
The records are replete with evidence which show that the damage to The registered owner has the right to be indemnified by the actual
the bags happened before and after their discharge and it was caused or real owner of the amount that he is required to pay[BA Finance
by the stevedores of the arrastre operator who were then under the v. CA, 215 SCRA 715]
supervision of Wallem.
Art. 1765.
Art. 1733
The Public Service Commission may, on its own motion or on petition
Common Carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of of any interested party, after due hearing, cancel the certificate of
public policy are bound to observe EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in public convenience granted to any common carrier that repeatedly fails
the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers to comply with his or its duty to observe extraordinary diligence as
transported by them, according to ALL the circumstances of each prescribed in this Section.
Note: Public Service Commission is now a defunct office.
Meaning of Extraordinary Diligence
Governing Bodies:
Extraordinary diligence is that extreme measure of care and caution
which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use for 1. Land - Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory
securing and preserving their own property or rights. RP [DOH] v. Board [LTFRB]
Lorenzo Shipping [Feb 7, 2005] 2. Water - Maritime Industry Authority [MARINA]
3. Air - Civil Aeronautics Board [CAB]
G.R. No. 47065 June 26, 1940
Involved in the business of More of a single undertaking THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
transporting pax and goods as a LAUREL, J.:
general occupation
A certificate of public convenience constitutes neither a franchise nor
Bound to carry all pax who Can choose persons with contract, confers no property right, and is mere license or privilege.
choose to employ it whom it may contract
Degree of diligence required is Diligence required is the [G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.]
extraordinary diligence of a GFOF EMERENCIANA M. VDA. DE MEDINA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Negligence is presumed if pax Person who alleges CRESENCIA, Appellant.
or goods does not reach final negligencemust prove that it
destination exists because negligence is REYES, J.B.L., J.
not presumed
We have already held in the case of Montoya vs. Ignacio, 94 Phil., 182
To free itself from liability, it has The party alleging negligence (December 29, 1953), which the court below cited, that the law (section
the burden of proving that it has the burden of proving 20 [g], C. A. No. 146 as amended) requires the approval of the Public
exercised XO diligence negligence on the part of the Service Commission in order that a franchise, or any privilege
common carrier pertaining thereto, may be sold or leased without infringing the
certificate issued to the grantee; and that if property covered by the
Performs public service and Does not generally perform franchise is transferred or leased without this requisite approval, the
is subject to state regulation public service and is not subject transfer is not binding against the public or the Service Commission; in
to such regulations as common contemplation of law, the grantee of record continues to be responsible
carriers under the franchise in relation to the Commission and to the public.
There we gave the reason for this rule to be as follows:

LIABILITY OF REGISTERED OWNER ―Since a franchise is personal in nature any transfer or lease thereof
should be notified to the Public Service Commission so that the latter
may take proper safeguards to protect the interest of the public. In fact,
The registered owner shall be liable for consequences flowing from the the law requires that, before the approval is granted, there should be a
operations of the carrier, even though the vehicle has already been public hearing, with notice to all interested parties, in order that the
transferred to another[Benedicto v. CA, 187 SCRA 547] Commission may determine if there are good and reasonable grounds
justifying the transfer or lease of the property covered by the franchise,
This doctrine rests upon the principle that in dealing with or if the sale or lease is detrimental to public interest.‖
vehicles registered under the Public Service Law, the public
has the right to assume that the registered owner is the
actual or lawful owner thereof. It would be very difficult and G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997
often impossible as a practical matter, for members of the PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner,
general public to enforce the rights of action that they may vs.
have for injuries inflicted by the vehicles being negligently CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD and GRAND INTERNATIONAL
operated if they should be required to prove who the actual AIRWAYS, INC., respondents.
owner is. The registered owner is not allowed to deny TORRES, JR., J.:
liability by proving the identity of the alleged transferee. XXX Civil Aeronautics Board has the authority to issue a Certificate of
To permit the ostensible or registered owner to prove who Public Convenience and Necessity, or Temporary Operating Permit to
the actual owner is, would be to set at naught the purpose or a domestic air transport operator, who, though not possessing a
public policy which infuses that doctrine. legislative franchise, meets all the other requirements prescribed by
the law. Such requirements were enumerated in Section 21 of R.A.

Page 6
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
3. He must undertake to carry the goods by the method by
There is nothing in the law nor in the Constitution, which indicates that which his business is conducted and over his
a legislative franchise is an indispensable requirement for an entity to established roads, and
operate as a domestic air transport operator. Although Section 11 of 4. The transportation must be for hire
Article XII recognizes Congress' control over any franchise, certificate
or authority to operate a public utility, it does not mean Congress has Nature and Basis of Liability
exclusive authority to issue the same. Franchises issued by Congress
are not required before each and every public utility may operate. 19 In Art. 1733
many instances, Congress has seen it fit to delegate this function to
government agencies, specialized particularly in their respective areas Common Carriers, xxx, are bound to observe EXTRAORDINARY
of public service. DILIGENCE in the vigilance over the goods according to ALL the
circumstances of each case.
Can a common carrier become a private carrier?
Such XO diligence in the vigilance of the goods is further expressed in:
G.R. No. 131621 September 28, 1999
LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO., INC., petitioner, 1. Art. 1734
vs. 2. Art. 1735, and
COURT OF APPEALS and THE MANILA INSURANCE CO., 3. Art. 1745 [5], [6] and [7]
INC., respondents.
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: Extraordinary Diligence in the Vigilance over the Goods:
In support of its position, LOADSTAR relied on the 1968 case of Home
Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., 11 where this Extraordinary diligence requires rendering service with the greatest
Court held that a common carrier transporting special cargo or skill and foresight to avoid damage and destruction to the goods
chartering the vessel to a special person becomes a private carrier that entrusted for carriage and delivery. [Lea Mer Industries v. Malayan
is not subject to the provisions of the Civil Code. Any stipulation in the Insurance, 20 Sep 2005]
charter party absolving the owner from liability for loss due to the
negligence of its agent is void only if the strict policy governing Carriage of Goods; Exercise Extraordinary Diligence
common carriers is upheld. Such policy has no force where the public (2005)
at is not involved, as in the case of a ship totally chartered for the use
of a single party. LOADSTAR also cited Valenzuela Star Shipping Lines accepted 100 cartons of sardines fromMaster to
Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Court of be delivered to 555 Company in Manila. Only 88cartons were
Appeals 12 and National Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 13 both of delivered, however, these were in badcondition. 555 Company claimed
which upheld the Home Insurance doctrine. from Star Shipping Linesthe value of the missing goods, as well as the
damagedgoods. Star Shipping Lines refused because the formerfailed
These cases invoked by LOADSTAR are not applicable in the case at to present a bill of lading. Resolve with reasons theclaim of 555
bar for the simple reason that the factual settings are different. The Company. (4%)
records do not disclose that the M/V "Cherokee," on the date in
question, undertook to carry a special cargo or was chartered to a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
special person only. There was no charter party. The bills of lading
failed to show any special arrangement, but only a general provision to The claim of 555 Company is meritorious, even if it fails topresent a bill
the effect that the M/V"Cherokee" was a "general cargo of lading. Although a bill of lading is the bestevidence of the contract of
carrier." 14 Further, the bare fact that the vessel was carrying a carriage for cargo, neverthelesssuch contract can exist even without a
particular type of cargo for one shipper, which appears to be purely bill of lading. Likeany other contract, a contract of carriage is a meeting
coincidental, is not reason enough to convert the vessel from a ofminds that gives rise to an obligation on the part of thecarrier to
common to a private carrier, especially where, as in this case, it was transport the goods. Jurisprudence has held that
shown that the vessel was also carrying passengers. the moment the carrier receives the cargo for transport,then its duty to
exercise extraordinary diligence arises. (Cia.Maritima v. Insurance Co.
of North America,G.R. No. L-18965, October 30, 1964; Negre v.
COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS Cabahug Shipping &Co., G.R. No. L-19609, April 29, 1966)

Star Shipping Lines can refuse to honor 555 Company'sclaim for the
missing and damaged goods. The Bill ofLading is the document of title
2. SHIPPER OR CONSIGNOR – one who delivers the goods
that legally establishes theownership of 555 Company over said
to the carrier for transportation
goods. 555 needs topresent the Bill of Lading to legally claim said
3. CONSIGNEE – one to whom the goods are delivered; he is
goods.(National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburg v. Stolt-Nielaen,
not a party to the contract of carriage, as a general rule.
G.R. No.87958, April 26, 1990)
Law Applicable
Liability of a Common Carrier of Goods
Art. 1753
Art. 1734.
The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported
shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss, Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
destruction or deterioration deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the
following causes only:
Test to determine if one is a Common Carrier of Goods
1. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or
FPIC v. CA [300 SCRA 661]
2. Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
1. He must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for
others as a public employment,
3. Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
2. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his
business is confined and is conducted,
Page 7
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
4. The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the The common carrier must prove that it exercised XO diligence in the
container; vigilance over the goods according to all the circumstances of each
case [Art. 1735, 1733]
5. Order or act of competent public authority.
Instances where Presumption of Negligence does NOT Arise [Art.
Art. 1735.

In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Art.  Natural disaster
1734, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers  Act of public enemy
are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,  Act of shipper
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as  Character of the goods
required in Art. 1733.  Order of competent authority

GENERAL RULE: Common carriers are responsible for the loss, Effects when any of the 5 Exceptions Present:
destruction, or deterioration of goods [Art. 1734]
1. There is no presumption that the common carrier acted
Effects when the Goods are Lost, Destroyed or Deteriorated [Art. negligently
1735] 2. The common carrier need not prove that it exercised
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods,
 The shipper/consignee has a cause of action for breach of 3. BUT, the common carrier is not automatically exempt from
contract against the carrier liability;
4. To escape liability, the common carrier has to prove that it
complied with the requirements under Art. 1739, 1740,
 The common carrier is PRESUMED to have been at fault
1741, 1742, and 1743
or to have acted negligently
How a Common Carrier of Goods Can Escape Liability
o There is no automatic liability or responsibility.
1st Exception: NATURAL DISASTER - flood, storm, earthquake,
What does the shipper or consignee have to show in order to
lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity [Art. 1734.1]
have a prima facie case against the carrier?
Requisites - The common carrier must show that:
1. Proof of actual delivery of goods in good order to carrier, and
2. Failure of carrier to deliver the goods in the same condition
1. The natural disaster must have been the proximate and
as when they were received [Ynchausti v. Dexter, 41 P
only cause of the loss [Art. 1739],
2. It exercised DUE diligence (not extraordinary diligence) to
prevent or minimize the loss BEFORE, DURING or
What does it mean if the shipment is not containerized?
AFTER the occurrence [Art. 1739],
3. It did not incur in delay in transporting the goods [Art.
G.R. No. 80256 October 2, 1992 1740]
vs. Is fire a natural calamity?
INC., respondents.
G.R. No. L-69044 May 29, 1987
It must be underscored that the shipment involved in the case at bar
was "containerized". The goods under this arrangement are stuffed,
packed, and loaded by the shipper at a place of his choice,
usually his own warehouse, in the absence of the carrier. The
container is sealed by the shipper and thereafter picked up by the
carrier. Consequently, the recital of the bill of lading for goods thus
Petitioner Carrier claims that the loss of the vessel by fire exempts it
transported ordinarily would declare "Said to Contain", "Shipper's Load
from liability under the phrase "natural disaster or calamity." However,
and Count", "Full Container Load", and the amount or quantity of
we are of the opinion that fire may not be considered a natural disaster
goods in the container in a particular package is only prima
or calamity. This must be so as it arises almost invariably from
facie evidence of the amount or quantity which may be overthrown by
some act of man or by human means. It does not fall within the
parol evidence.
category of an act of God unless caused by lightning or by other
natural disaster or calamity. It may even be caused by the actual fault
A shipment under this arrangement is not inspected or inventoried
or privity of the carrier.
by the carrier whose duty is only to transport and deliver the
containers in the same condition as when the carrier received and
accepted the containers for transport. G.R. No. 146018 June 25, 2003
What should be done to hold the CC if goods are damaged under vs.
this arrangement? UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Respondent.
Verily, if any of the vans found in bad condition, or if any inspection of Having originated from an unchecked crack in the fuel oil service tank,
the goods was to be done in order to determine the condition thereof, the fire could not have been caused by force majeure. Broadly
the same should have been done at the pier side, the pier warehouse, speaking, force majeure generally applies to a natural accident, such
or at any time and place while the vans were under the care and as that caused by a lightning, an earthquake, a tempest or a public
custody of the carrier or of the arrastre operator. enemy. Hence, fire is not considered a natural disaster or calamity.

How can the carrier rebut the automatic presumption of

negligence against it?

Page 8
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
Are heavy rains considered natural disasters? G.R. No. L-31379 August 29, 1988
G.R. No. 94151 April 30, 1991 vs.
vs. FERNAN, C.J.:
THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE FIRST NATIONWIDE While petitioner has proven that private respondent Concepcion did
ASSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents. furnish it with an inaccurate weight of the payloader, petitioner is
GANCAYCO, J.: nonetheless liable, for the damage caused to the machinery could
Plainly, the heavy seas and rains referred to in the master's report have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable skill and attention on
were not casofortuito, but normal occurrences that an ocean-going its part in overseeing the unloading of such a heavy equipment. And
vessel, particularly in the month of September which, in our area, is a circumstances clearly show that the fall of the payloader could have
month of rains and heavy seas would encounter as a matter of been avoided by petitioner's crew. Evidence on record sufficiently
routine. They are not unforeseen nor unforeseeable. These are show that the crew of petitioner had been negligent in the performance
conditions that ocean-going vessels would encounter and provide for, of its obligation by reason of their having failed to take the necessary
in the ordinary course of a voyage. That rain water (not sea water) precaution under the circumstances which usage has established
found its way into the holds of the Jupri Venture is a clear indication among careful persons, more particularly its Chief Officer, Mr. Felix
that care and foresight did not attend the closing of the ship's hatches Pisang, who is tasked with the over-all supervision of loading and
so that rain water would not find its way into the cargo holds of the unloading heavy cargoes and upon whom rests the burden of deciding
ship. as to what particular winch the unloading of the payloader should be
undertaken. 18 While it was his duty to determine the weight of heavy
G.R. No. 150255. April 22, 2005 cargoes before accepting them. Mr. Felix Pisang took the bill of lading
SCHMITZ TRANSPORT & BROKERAGE on its face value and presumed the same to be correct by merely
CORPORATION, Petitioners, "seeing" it. 19 Acknowledging that there was a "jumbo" in the MV Cebu
vs. which has the capacity of lifting 20 to 25 ton cargoes, Mr. Felix Pisang
TRANSPORT VENTURE, INC., INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE chose not to use it, because according to him, since the ordinary boom
COMPANY, LTD., and BLACK SEA SHIPPING AND DODWELL now has a capacity of 5 tons while the payloader was only 2.5 tons, he did
INCHCAPE SHIPPING SERVICES, Respondents. not bother to use the "jumbo" anymore.
As for petitioner, for it to be relieved of liability, it should, following In that sense, therefore, private respondent's act of furnishing
Article 1739 of the Civil Code, prove that it exercised due diligence to petitioner with an inaccurate weight of the payloader upon being asked
prevent or minimize the loss, before, during and after the occurrence of by petitioner's collector, cannot be used by said petitioner as an
the storm in order that it may be exempted from liability for the loss of excuse to avoid liability for the damage caused, as the same could
the goods. have been avoided had petitioner utilized the "jumbo" lifting apparatus
While petitioner sent checkers and a supervisor on board the vessel to which has a capacity of lifting 20 to 25 tons of heavy cargoes. It is a
counter-check the operations of TVI, itfailed to take all available and fact known to the Chief Officer of MV Cebu that the payloader was
reasonable precautions to avoid the loss. After noting that TVI failed to loaded aboard the MV Cebu at the Manila North Harbor on August 28,
arrange for the prompt towage of the barge despite the deteriorating 1964 by means of a terminal crane. 21 Even if petitioner chose not to
sea conditions, it should have summoned the same or another tugboat take the necessary precaution to avoid damage by checking the
to extend help, but it did not. correct weight of the payloader, extraordinary care and diligence
compel the use of the "jumbo" lifting apparatus as the most prudent
This Court holds then that petitioner and TVI are solidarily liablefor the course for petitioner.
loss of the cargoes.
While the act of private respondent in furnishing petitioner with an
inaccurate weight of the payloader cannot successfully be used as an
2nd Exception: The ACT OF PUBLIC ENEMY in war, whether
excuse by petitioner to avoid liability to the damage thus caused, said
international or civil [Art. 1734.2]
act constitutes a contributory circumstance to the damage caused on
the payloader, which mitigates the liability for damages of petitioner in
Requisites - The common carrier must show that:
accordance with Article 1741 of the Civil Code.
1. The act of the public enemy must have been the proximate
and only cause of the loss [Art. 1739], 4th Exception: The CHARACTER of the GOODS or DEFECTS in
2. It exercised DUE diligence to prevent or minimize the the PACKING or in the CONTAINER [Art. 1734.4]
loss BEFORE, DURING or AFTER the occurrence [Art.
1739] Requisite:

3rd Exception: ACT or OMISSION of the SHIPPER or OWNER of  The common carrier must prove that it exercised DUE
the goods [Art. 1734.3] diligence to FORESTALL or LESSEN the loss [Art. 1742]

Requisites: G.R. No. L-16629 January 31, 1962

SOUTHERN LINES, INC., petitioner,
 The CC has to prove that the act of the shipper is the vs.
proximate and only cause of the loss COURT OF APPEALS and CITY OF ILOILO, respondents.
 The CC CANNOT escape liability [but damages shall be Petitioner claims exemption from liability by contending that the
equitably reduced]: shortage in the shipment of rice was due to such factors as the
shrinkage, leakage or spillage of the rice on account of the bad
o If the proximate cause of the loss is the condition of the sacks at the time it received the same and the
negligence of the CC negligence of the agents of respondent City of Iloilo in receiving the
o The shipper merely contributed to the loss, shipment. The contention is untenable, for, if the fact of improper
destruction, or deterioration [Art. 1741] packing is known to the carrier or his servants, or apparent upon
ordinary observation, but it accepts the goods notwithstanding such
condition, it is not relieved of liability for loss or injury resulting
thereform. (9 Am Jur. 869.) Furthermore, according to the Court of
Appeals, "appellant (petitioner) itself frankly admitted that the strings
that tied the bags of rice were broken; some bags were with holes and

Page 9
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
plenty of rice were spilled inside the hull of the boat, and that the The case at bar falls under one of the exceptions mentioned in Article
personnel of the boat collected no less than 26 sacks of rice which 1734 of the Civil Code, particularly number (4) thereof, i.e., the
they had distributed among themselves." This finding, which is binding character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers.
upon this Court, shows that the shortage resulted from the negligence The trial court found that the breakage of the crate was not due to the
of petitioner. fault or negligence of ICTSI, but to the inherent defect and weakness
of the materials used in the fabrication of the said crate.
G.R. No. 148496 March 19, 2002
VIRGINES CALVO doing business under the name and style 5th Exception: If through the ORDER Of PUBLIC AUTHORITY the
TRANSORIENT CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, goods are seized or destroyed [Art. 1743]
INC., petitioner,
vs. Requisites:
Guarantee Ins. Co., Inc.) respondent. 1. The person making the order must have the power or
MENDOZA, J.: authority to issue such order, and
2. The order is lawful or has been issued under legal
Nor is there basis to exempt petitioner from liability under Art. 1734(4), process or authority[Ganzon v. CA, 161 SCRA 646]
which provides --
Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or Carriage; Fortuitous Event (1995)
deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the
following causes only: M. Dizon Trucking entered into a hauling contract withFairgoods Co
.... whereby the former bound itself to haul thelatter‗s 2000 sacks of Soya
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the bean meal from Manila Port Area to Calamba, Laguna. To carry out
containers. faithfully itsobligation Dizon subcontracted with Enrico Reyes
.... thedelivery of 400 sacks of the Soya bean meal. Aside fromthe driver,
For this provision to apply, the rule is that if the improper packing or, in three male employees of Reyes rode on thetruck with the cargo. While
this case, the defect/s in the container, is/are known to the carrier or the truck was on its way toLaguna two strangers suddenly stopped the
his employees or apparent upon ordinary observation, but he truck andhijacked the cargo. Investigation by the police disclosedthat
nevertheless accepts the same without protest or exception one of the hijackers was armed with a bladed weaponwhile the other
notwithstanding such condition, he is not relieved of liability for damage was unarmed. For failure to deliver the 400sacks, Fairgoods sued
resulting therefrom.14 In this case, petitioner accepted the cargo Dizon for damages. Dizon in turnset up a 3rd party complaint against
without exception despite the apparent defects in some of the Reyes which the latterregistered on the ground that the loss was due
container vans. Hence, for failure of petitioner to prove that she to forcemajeure. Did the hijacking constitute force majeure toexculpate
exercised extraordinary diligence in the carriage of goods in this case Reyes from any liability to Dizon? Discuss fully.
or that she is exempt from liability, the presumption of negligence as
provided under Art. 1735 holds. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

G.R. No. 161833. July 8, 2005 No. The hijacking in this case cannot be considered forcemajeure.
PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioners, Only one of the two hijackers was armed with abladed weapon. As
vs. against the 4 male employees of Reyes,2 hijackers, with only one of
UNKNOWN OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V "NATIONAL HONOR," them being armed with abladed weapon, cannot be considered force
NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and majeure. Thehijackers did not act with grave or irresistible threat,
INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER SERVICES, INC., Respondents. violence or force.
In the present case, the trial court declared that based on the record, Duration of Liability
the loss of the shipment was caused by the negligence of the petitioner
as the shipper: Article 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier
lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the
The same may be said with respect to defendant ICTSI. The breakage possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until
and collapse of Crate No. 1 and the total destruction of its contents the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier
were not imputable to any fault or negligence on the part of said to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive
defendant in handling the unloading of the cargoes from the carrying them, without prejudice to the provisions of article 1738.
vessel, but was due solely to the inherent defect and weakness of the
materials used in the fabrication of said crate. Article 1737. The common carrier's duty to observe extraordinary
diligence over the goods remains in full force and effect even when
The crate should have three solid and strong wooden batten placed they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, unless the
side by side underneath or on the flooring of the crate to support the shipper or owner has made use of the right of stoppage in
weight of its contents. However, in the case of the crate in dispute, transitu.
although there were three wooden battens placed side by side on its
flooring, the middle wooden batten, which carried substantial volume of Article 1738. The extraordinary liability of the common carrier
the weight of the crate‘s contents, had a knot hole or "bukong-bukong," continues to be operative even during the time the goods are stored
which considerably affected, reduced and weakened its strength. in a warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination, until the
Because of the enormous weight of the machineries inside this crate, consignee has been advised of the arrival of the goods and has
the middle wooden batten gave way and collapsed. As the combined had reasonable opportunity thereafter to remove them or
strength of the other two wooden battens were not sufficient to hold otherwise dispose of them.
and carry the load, they too simultaneously with the middle wooden
battens gave way and collapsed (TSN, Sept. 26, 1996, pp. 20-24). G.R. No. L-18965 October 30, 1964
Crate No. 1 was provided by the shipper of the machineries in Seoul, vs.
Korea. There is nothing in the record which would indicate that INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
defendant ICTSI had any role in the choice of the materials used in BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
fabricating this crate. Said defendant, therefore, cannot be held as Was there a contract of carriage between the carrier and the
blame worthy for the loss of the machineries contained in Crate No. 1. shipper even if the loss occurred when the hemp was loaded on a
barge owned by the carrier which was loaded free of charge and
was not actually loaded on the S.S. Bowline Knot which would

Page 10
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
carry the hemp to Manila and no bill of lading was issued limit the liability of the carrier considering that the goods have still to
therefore? through the inspection of the customs authorities before they are
actually turned over to the consignee. This is a situation where we may
The fact that the carrier sent its lighters free of charge to take the hemp say that the carrier losses control of the goods because of a custom
from Macleod's wharf at Sasa preparatory to its loading onto the ship regulation and it is unfair that it be made responsible for what may
Bowline Knot does not in any way impair the contract of carriage happen during the interregnum. And this is precisely what was done by
already entered into between the carrier and the shipper, for that the parties herein. In the bill of lading that was issued covering the
preparatory step is but part and parcel of said contract of carriage. The shipment in question, both the carrier and the consignee have
lighters were merely employed as the first step of the voyage, but once stipulated to limit the responsibility of the carrier for the loss or damage
that step was taken and the hemp delivered to the carrier's employees, that may because to the goods before they are actually delivered XXX
the rights and obligations of the parties attached thereby subjecting
them to the principles and usages of the maritime law. In other words, It therefore appears clear that the carrier does not assume liability for
here we have a complete contract of carriage the consummation of any loss or damage to the goods once they have been "taken into the
which has already begun: the shipper delivering the cargo to the custody of customs or other authorities", or when they have been
carrier, and the latter taking possession thereof by placing it on a delivered at ship's tackle. These stipulations are clear. They have been
lighter manned by its authorized employees, under which Macleod adopted precisely to mitigate the responsibility of the carrier
became entitled to the privilege secured to him by law for its safe considering the present law on the matter, and we find nothing therein
transportation and delivery, and the carrier to the full payment of its that is contrary to morals or public policy that may justify their
freight upon completion of the voyage. XXX nullification. We are therefore persuaded to conclude that the carrier is
not responsible for the loss in question, it appearing that the same
The test as to whether the relation of shipper and carrier had been happened after the shipment had been delivered to the customs
established is, Had the control and possession of the cotton been authorities.
completely surrendered by the shipper to the railroad company?
Whenever the control and possession of goods passes to the carrier G.R. No. L-36481-2 October 23, 1982
and nothing remains to be done by the shipper, then it can be said with AMPARO C. SERVANDO, CLARA UY BICO, plaintiffs-appellees,
certainty that the relation of shipper and carrier has been vs.
established. (W.F. Bogart & Co., et al. v. Wade, et al., 200 S.W. 148). PHILIPPINE STEAM NAVIGATION CO., defendant-appellant.
XXX The court a quo held that the delivery of the shipment in question to
the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs is not the delivery
The claim that there can be no contract of affreightment because the contemplated by Article 1736; and since the burning of the warehouse
hemp was not actually loaded on the ship that was to take it from occurred before actual or constructive delivery of the goods to the
Davao City to Manila is of no moment, for, as already stated, the appellees, the loss is chargeable against the appellant.
delivery of the hemp to the carrier's lighter is in line with the contract. In
fact, the receipt signed by the patron of the lighter that carried the It should be pointed out, however, that in the bills of lading issued for
hemp stated that he was receiving the cargo "in behalf of S.S. Bowline the cargoes in question, the parties agreed to limit the responsibility of
Knot in good order and condition." On the other hand, the authorities the carrier for the loss or damage that may be caused to the shipment
are to the effect that a bill of lading is not indispensable for the creation by inserting therein the following stipulation:
of a contract of carriage.
Clause 14. Carrier shall not be responsible for loss or damage to
G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 shipments billed 'owner's risk' unless such loss or damage is due to
LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION, petitioner-defendant, negligence of carrier. Nor shall carrier be responsible for loss or
vs. damage caused by force majeure, dangers or accidents of the sea or
I. V. BINAMIRA, respondent-plaintiff. other waters; war; public enemies; . . . fire . ...
We sustain the validity of the above stipulation; there is nothing therein
Is the carrier responsible for the loss considering that the same that is contrary to law, morals or public policy.
occurred after the shipment was discharged from the ship and
placed in the possession and custody of the customs authorities? G.R. No. 125524 August 25, 1999
BENITO MACAM doing business under the name and style BEN-
as a rule, a common carrier is responsible for the loss, destruction or MAC ENTERPRISES, petitioner,
deterioration of the goods it assumes to carry from one place to vs.
another unless the same is due to any to any of the causes mentioned COURT OF APPEALS, CHINA OCEAN SHIPPING CO., and/or
in Article 1734 on the new Civil Code, and that, if the goods are lost, WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC.,respondents.
destroyed or deteriorated, for causes other that those mentioned, the BELLOSILLO, J.:
common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted Petitioner submits that the fact that the shipment was not delivered to
negligently, unless it proves that it has observed extraordinary the consignee as stated in the bill of lading or to a party designated or
diligence in their care (Article 1735, Idem.), and that this extraordinary named by the consignee constitutes a misdelivery thereof. XXX
liability lasts from the time the goods are placed in the possession of
the carrier until they are delivered to the consignee, or "to the person We emphasize that the extraordinary responsibility of the common
who has the right to receive them" (Article 1736, Idem.), but these carriers lasts until actual or constructive delivery of the cargoes to the
provisions only apply when the loss, destruction or deterioration takes consignee or to the person who has a right to receive them.
place while the goods are in the possession of the carrier, and not after PAKISTAN BANK was indicated in the bills of lading as consignee
it has lost control of them. The reason is obvious. While the goods are whereas GPC was the notify party. However, in the export invoices
in its possession, it is but fair that it exercise extraordinary diligence in GPC was clearly named as buyer/importer. Petitioner also referred to
protecting them from damage, and if loss occurs, the law presumes GPC as such in his demand letter to respondent WALLEM and in his
that it was due to its fault or negligence. This is necessary to protect complaint before the trial court. This premise draws us to conclude that
the interest the interest of the owner who is at its mercy. The situation the delivery of the cargoes to GPC as buyer/importer which,
changes after the goods are delivered to the consignee. conformably with Art. 1736 had, other than the consignee, the right to
receive them14 was proper.
While we agree with the Court of Appeals that while delivery of the
cargo to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive
them", contemplated in Article 1736, because in such case the goods
are still in the hands of the Government and the owner cannot exercise
dominion over them, we believe however that the parties may agree to
Page 11
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
Validity of Stipulations in a bill of lading are invalid which either exempt the carrier from
liability for loss or damage occasioned by its negligence, or provide for
As to DILIGENCE Required an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed valuation.

RULE: The common carrier and the shipper or owner of the goods A reading of clauses 1 and 9 of the bill of lading here in question,
may enter into a stipulation whereby the diligence required would be however, clearly shows that the present case falls within the third
LESS than XO diligence [Art. 1744] stipulation, to wit: That a clause in a bill of lading limiting the liability of
the carrier to a certain amount unless the shipper declares a higher
Requisites for Stipulation to be Valid - It must be: value and pays a higher rate of freight, is valid and enforceable.

1. In writing, 2. The stipulation is just and reasonable under the

2. Signed by the shipper or owner, circumstances,
3. Supported by valuable consideration other than the 3. The contract has been fairly and freely agreed upon, and
service rendered by the common carrier, and 4. The shipper or owner does NOT:
4. Reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy a. declare a greater value, NOR
b. pay a higher rate of freight
Stipulations Considered Unjust, Unreasonable and `
Contrary to Public Policy [Art. 1745] G.R. No. 146018 June 25, 2003
1. That the goods are transported at the risk of the vs.
shipper or owner, UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Respondent.
2. That the CC will not be liable for any loss, PANGANIBAN, J.:
destruction, or deterioration of the goods, The records show that the Bills of Lading covering the lost goods
3. That the CC need not observe any diligence in contain the stipulation that in case of claim for loss or for damage to
the custody of the goods, the shipped merchandise or property, "[t]he liability of the common
4. That the CC shall exercise a degree of diligence carrier x xx shall not exceed the value of the goods as appearing in the
less than that of a GFOF, or of a man of ordinary bill of lading."
prudence in the vigilance over the goods,
5. That the CC shall not be responsible for the In the present case, the stipulation limiting petitioner‘s liability is not
acts or omission of its EE’s, contrary to public policy. In fact, its just and reasonable character is
6. That the CC‘s liability for acts committed by evident. The shippers/consignees may recover the full value of the
thieves, or of robbers who do not act with goods by the simple expedient of declaring the true value of the
grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is shipment in the Bill of Lading. Other than the payment of a higher
dispensed with or diminished; freight, there was nothing to stop them from placing the actual value of
7. That the CC is not responsible for the loss, the goods therein. In fact, they committed fraud against the common
destruction or deterioration of goods on carrier by deliberately undervaluing the goods in their Bill of Lading,
account or the defective condition of the the thus depriving the carrier of its proper and just transport fare.
car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment
used in the contract of carriage
What if there is no stipulation limiting liability?
As to Amount of Liability
 Domestic Voyage – Full value of the goods
RULE:The common carrier and the shipper/owner of the goods may  Foreign Trade - $US 500 per package (COGSA)
enter into a stipulation LIMITING the LIABILITY of the common
carrier in case of loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods G.R. No. L-69044 May 29, 1987
[Art. 1744] EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner,
Requisites for Limiting Liability [Art. 1749 & 1750]: INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and DEVELOPMENT
1. There is a stipulation limiting the liability of the carrier to MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, On the US $500 Per Package Limitation:

G.R. No. L-16598 October 3, 1921 Petitioner Carrier avers that its liability if any, should not exceed US
H. E. HEACOCK COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, $500 per package as provided in section 4(5) of the COGSA
MACONDRAY & COMPANY, INC., defendant-appellant. It is to be noted that the Civil Code does not of itself limit the liability of
JOHNSON, J.: the common carrier to a fixed amount per package although the Code
May a common carrier, by stipulations inserted in the bill of expressly permits a stipulation limiting such liability. Thus, the COGSA
lading, limit its liability for the loss of or damage to the cargo to which is suppletory to the provisions of the Civil Code, steps in and
an agreed valuation of the latter? supplements the Code by establishing a statutory provision limiting the
carrier's liability in the absence of a declaration of a higher value of the
Three kinds of stipulations have often been made in a bill of lading. goods by the shipper in the bill of lading. The provisions of the
The first is one exempting the carrier from any and all liability for loss Carriage of Goods by.Sea Act on limited liability are as much a part of
or damage occasioned by its own negligence. The second is one a bill of lading as though physically in it and as much a part thereof as
providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed though placed therein by agreement of the parties.
valuation. And the third is one limiting the liability of the carrier to an
agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays In G.R. No. 69044, there is no stipulation in the respective Bills of
a higher rate of freight. According to an almost uniform weight of Lading (Exhibits "C-2" and "I-3") 1 7 limiting the carrier's liability for the
authority, the first and second kinds of stipulations are invalid as being loss or destruction of the goods. Nor is there a declaration of a higher
contrary to public policy, but the third is valid and enforceable. value of the goods. Hence, Petitioner Carrier's liability should not
exceed US $500 per package, or its peso equivalent, at the time of
The authorities relied upon by the plaintiff-appellant (the Harter Act [Act payment of the value of the goods lost, but in no case "more than the
of Congress of February 13, 1893]: Louisville Ry. Co. vs. Wynn, 88 amount of damage actually sustained."
Tenn., 320; and Galt vs. Adams Express Co., 4 McAr., 124; 48 Am.
Rep., 742) support the proposition that the first and second stipulations
Page 12
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
The actual total loss for the 5,000 pieces of calorized lance pipes was G.R. No. 108897 October 2, 1997
P256,039 (Exhibit "C"), which was exactly the amount of the insurance SARKIES TOURS PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,
coverage by Development Insurance (Exhibit "A"), and the amount vs.
affirmed to be paid by respondent Court. The goods were shipped in HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (TENTH DIVISION), DR.
28 packages (Exhibit "C-2") Multiplying 28 packages by $500 would ELINO G. FORTADES, MARISOL A. FORTADES and FATIMA
result in a product of $14,000 which, at the current exchange rate of MINERVA A. FORTADES, respondents.
P20.44 to US $1, would be P286,160, or "more than the amount of
damage actually sustained." Consequently, the aforestated amount of ROMERO, J.:
P256,039 should be upheld. The cause of the loss in the case at bar was petitioner's negligence in
not ensuring that the doors of the baggage compartment of its bus
With respect to the seven (7) cases of spare parts (Exhibit "I-3"), their were securely fastened. As a result of this lack of care, almost all of the
actual value was P92,361.75 (Exhibit "I"), which is likewise the insured luggage was lost, to the prejudice of the paying passengers. As the
value of the cargo (Exhibit "H") and amount was affirmed to be paid by Court of Appeals correctly observed:
respondent Court. however, multiplying seven (7) cases by $500 per . . . . Where the common carrier accepted its passenger's baggage for
package at the present prevailing rate of P20.44 to US $1 (US $3,500 transportation and even had it placed in the vehicle by its own
x P20.44) would yield P71,540 only, which is the amount that should employee, its failure to collect the freight charge is the common
be paid by Petitioner Carrier for those spare parts, and not P92,361.75. carrier's own lookout. It is responsible for the consequent loss of the
baggage. In the instant case, defendant appellant's employee even
In G.R. No. 71478, in so far as the two (2) cases of surveying helped Fatima Minerva Fortades and her brother load the
instruments are concerned, the amount awarded to DOWA which was luggages/baggages in the bus' baggage compartment, without asking
already reduced to $1,000 by the Appellate Court following the that they be weighed, declared, receipted or paid for (TSN, August 4,
statutory $500 liability per package, is in order. 1986, pp. 29, 34, 54, 57, 70; December 23, 1987, p. 35). Neither was
this required of the other passengers (TSN, August 4, 1986, p. 104;
In respect of the shipment of 128 cartons of garment fabrics in two (2) February 5, 1988; p. 13).
containers and insured with NISSHIN, the Appellate Court also limited
Petitioner Carrier's liability to $500 per package and affirmed the award Carriage; Liability; Lost Baggage or Acts of Passengers (1997)
of $46,583 to NISSHIN. it multiplied 128 cartons (considered as
COGSA packages) by $500 to arrive at the figure of $64,000, and Antonio, a paying passenger, boarded a busbound for Batangas City.
explained that "since this amount is more than the insured value of the He chose a seat at the front row,near the bus driver, and told the bus
goods, that is $46,583, the Trial Court was correct in awarding said driver that he hadvaluable items in his hand carried bag which he then
amount only for the 128 cartons, which amount is less than the placed beside the driver‗s seat. Not having slept for 24hours, he
maximum limitation of the carrier's liability." requested the driver to keep an eye on the bagshould he doze off
during the trip. While Antonio wasasleep, another passenger took the
When Stipulation Limiting Liability CANNOT be availed of by CC bag away and alightedat Calamba, Laguna. Could the common carrier
in case of Loss, Destruction or Deterioration of the Goods[Art. be heldliable by Antonio for the loss?
1. If the CC, without just cause, DELAYS the transportation
of the goods, or Yes. Ordinarily, the common carrier is not liable for acts ofother
2. If the CC, without just cause, CHANGES the stipulated or passengers. But the common carrier cannot relieveitself from liability if
usual route the common carrier‗s employeescould have prevented the act or
omission by exercising duediligence. In this case, the passenger asked
Agreement Limiting Liability v.v. Presumption of Negligence the driver tokeep an eye on the bag which was placed beside
thedriver‗s seat. If the driver exercised due diligence, he couldhave
Art. 1752 prevented the loss of the bag.

Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of a common Common Carrier; Duty to Examine Baggages; Railway
carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is and Airline (1992)
disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss,
destruction or deterioration. Marino was a passenger on a train. Another passenger,Juancho, had
taken a gallon of gasoline placed in a plasticbag into the same coach
Passenger Baggage where Marino was riding. Thegasoline ignited and exploded causing
injury to Marino whofiled a civil suit for damages against the railway
What Laws Shall Apply: companyclaiming that Juancho should have been subjected
toinspection by its conductor. The railway companydisclaimed liability
1. CHECK-IN BAGGAGE[not in the personal custody of pax or resulting from the explosion contendingthat it was unaware of the
his EE] - Civil Code provisions on common carrier of goods contents of the plastic bag andinvoking the right of Juancho to privacy.
[Art. 1733-1753] a) Should therailway company be held liable for damages? b) If it were
2. HAND CARRIED BAGGAGE[in the personal custody of pax an airline company involved, would your answer be thesame? Explain
or his EE] - Civil Code provisions concerning responsibility of briefly.
hotel keepers [Art. 1998 and 2000-2003]
Common Cariers shall be Responsible for the Hand-carried Items
when [Art. 1998]: a) No. The railway company is not liable for damages. Inoverland
transportation, the common carrier is not boundnor empowered to
1. Notice was given to them or their EE‘s by the pax of the make an examination on the contents ofpackages or bags, particularly
hand-carried items, and those handcarried bypassengers.
2. The pax took precautions which the carrier advised
relative to the care and vigilance of their effects b) If it were an airline company, the common carrier shouldbe made
liable. In case of air carriers, it is not lawful tocarry flammable materials
in passenger aircrafts, and airlinecompanies may open and investigate
suspicious packagesand cargoes (RA 6235)

Page 13
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a
COMMON CARRIER OF particular flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The
passenger then has every righ
PASSENGERS t to expect that he be transported on that flight and on that date. If he
does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for a breach of contract
Nature and Basis of Responsibility of carriage. XXX

Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the respondent carried a
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting confirmed ticket for the two-legged trip from Frankfurt to Manila: 1)
passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, Frankfurt-Singapore; and 2) Singapore-Manila. In her contract of
offering their services to the public. carriage with the petitioner, the respondent certainly expected that she
would fly to Manila on Flight No. SQ 72 on January 28, 1991. Since the
Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and petitioner did not transport the respondent as covenanted by it on said
for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary terms, the petitioner clearly breached its contract of carriage with the
diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the respondent. The respondent had every right to sue the petitioner for
passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of this breach.
each case.
G.R. No. 155550 January 31, 2008
Diligence Required from Common Carrier of Pax NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., petitioner,
Art. 1755 STEVEN P. CHIONG, respondent.
A common carrier is bound to carry pax safely as far as human care Northwest contends that Chiong, as a "no-show" passenger on April 1,
and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very 1989, already defaulted in his obligation to abide by the terms and
cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. conditions of the contract of carriage; and thus, Northwest could not
have been in breach of its reciprocal obligation to transport Chiong.
Diligence Required/ Presumption XXX

The foregoing documentary and testimonial evidence, taken together,

Art. 1756
amply establish the fact that Chiong was present at MIA on April 1,
1989, passed through the PCG counter without delay, proceeded to
In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
the Northwest check-in counter, but when he presented his confirmed
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless
ticket thereat, he was not issued a boarding pass, and ultimately
they prove that they observed XO diligence as prescribed in Art.
barred from boarding Northwest Flight No. 24 on that day.
1733 and 1755.

G.R. No. L-21438 September 28, 1966

G.R. No. L-22985 January 24, 1968
AIR FRANCE, petitioner,
APPEALS, respondents.
First, That there was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first class passage
covering, amongst others, the Bangkok-Teheran leg; Second, That
In an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not make
said contract was breached when petitioner failed to furnish first class
an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in
transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith when
order to hold it responsible to pay the damages sought for by the
petitioner's employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class
passenger. By the contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the
accommodation berth "after he was already, seated" and to take a seat
express obligation to transport the passenger to his destination safely
in the tourist class, by reason of which he suffered inconvenience,
and to observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the
embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him mental
circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by the passenger
anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation,
is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier (Article
resulting in moral damages. It is true that there is no specific mention
1756, new Civil Code). This is an exception to the general rule that
of the term bad faith in the complaint. But, the inference of bad faith is
negligence must be proved, and it is therefore incumbent upon the
there, it may be drawn from the facts and circumstances set forth
carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence as
prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the new Civil Code.

Breach of Contract G.R. No. L-22415 March 30, 1966

FERNANDO LOPEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
When is a common carrier presumed to have been at fault or to vs.
have acted negligently and therefore? When does the pax have a PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, defendant-appellant.
prima facie cause of action for breach of contract against the BENGZON, J.P., J.:
carrier? Expecting that some cancellations of bookings would be made before
the flight time, Jose decided to withhold from Senator Lopez and party,
When there is DEATH or INJURY to pax [Art. 1756] or their agent, the information that their reservations had been
Other Causes of Breach: Armando Davila having previously confirmed Senator Lopez and
party's first class reservations to PAN-AM's ticket sellers at its Manila
Hotel office, the latter sold and issued in their favor the corresponding
G.R. No. 142305 December 10, 2003
first class tickets on the 21st and 23rd of May, 1960.
From the foregoing evidence of defendant it is in effect admitted that
defendant — through its agents — first cancelled plaintiffs,
reservations by mistake and thereafter deliberately and
intentionally withheld from plaintiffs or their travel agent the fact of said
cancellation, letting them go on believing that their first class

Page 14
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
reservations stood valid and confirmed. In so misleading plaintiffs into Hongkong but returned to Manila. Vivian sued bothairlines, PAL and
purchasing first class tickets in the conviction that they had confirmed Far East, for damages because of herhaving unable to take the Far
reservations for the same, when in fact they had none, defendant East flight. Could either orboth airlines be held liable to Vivian? Why?
wilfully and knowingly placed itself into the position of having to breach (6%)
its a foresaid contracts with plaintiffs should there be no last-minute
cancellation by other passengers before flight time, as it turned out in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
this case. Such actuation of defendant may indeed have been
prompted by nothing more than the promotion of its self-interest in (per dondee) No, there was breach of contract and thatshe was
holding on to Senator Lopez and party as passengers in its flight and accommodated well with the assistance of PALemployees to take the
foreclosing on their chances to seek the services of other airlines that flight without undue delay.
may have been able to afford them first class accommodations. All the
time, in legal contemplation such conduct already amounts to action in Presumption of Negligence
bad faith. For bad faith means a breach of a known duty through some
motive ofinterest or ill-will (Spiegel vs. Beacon Participations, 8 NE 2d Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common
895, 907). carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
PAL VS CA negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
September 22, 2008 diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.
Private respondents and petitioner entered into a contract of air
carriage when the former purchased two plane tickets from the latter. G.R. No. L-12219 March 15, 1918
Under this contract, petitioner obliged itself (1) to transport Deanna and AMADO PICART, plaintiff-appellant,
Nikolai, as unaccompanied minors, on 2 May 1980 from Manila to San vs.
Francisco through one of its planes, Flight 106; and (2) upon the arrival FRANK SMITH, JR., defendant-appellee.
of Deanna and Nikolai in San Francisco Airport on 3 May 1980, to STREET, J.:
transport them on that same day from San Francisco to Los Angeles The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a
via a connecting flight on United Airways 996. As it was, petitioner particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing
failed to transport Deanna and Nikolai from San Francisco to Los the alleged negligent act use that person would have used in the same
Angeles on the day of their arrival at San Francisco. The staff of United situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect
Airways 996 refused to take aboard Deanna and Nikolai for their adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct
connecting flight to Los Angeles because petitioner‘s personnel in San of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of
Francisco could not produce the indemnity bond accomplished and negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the
submitted by private respondents. Thus, Deanna and Nikolai were personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law
stranded in San Francisco and were forced to stay there overnight. It considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the
was only on the following day that Deanna and Nikolai were able to man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by
leave San Francisco and arrive at Los Angeles via another airline, that.
Western Airlines. Clearly then, petitioner breached its contract of
carriage with private respondents. How can the presumption of negligence be rebutted?

G.R. No. 150843 March 14, 2003 If the common carriers proves that it observed the diligence
CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., petitioner, prescribed in Art. 1733 and 1756 [Art. 1756]
VAZQUEZ, respondents.
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: How a common carrier of pax can escape liability – if it proves that:
Is an involuntary upgrading of an airline passenger’s
accommodation from one class to a more superior class at no 1. It observed XO diligence by carrying the pax safely as far
extra cost a breach of contract of carriage that would entitle the as human foresight can provide, using the diligence of a
passenger to an award of damages? very cautious person, with due regard for all the
circumstances [Art. 1756]
Normally, one would appreciate and accept an upgrading, for it would
mean a better accommodation. But, whatever their reason was and 2. The breach was caused by a fortuitous event [Art. 1174]
however odd it might be, the Vazquezes had every right to decline the
upgrade and insist on the Business Class accommodation they had Carriage; Breach of Contract; Presumption of
booked for and which was designated in their boarding passes. They Negligence (1990)
clearly waived their priority or preference when they asked that other
passengers be given the upgrade. It should not have been imposed on Peter so hailed a taxicab owned and operated by JimmyCheng and
them over their vehement objection. By insisting on the upgrade, driven by Hermie Cortez. Peter asked Cortezto take him to his office in
Cathay breached its contract of carriage with the Vazquezes. Malate. On the way to Malate,the taxicab collided with a passenger
jeepney, as a result ofwhich Peter was injured, i.e., he fractured his left
Common Carrier; Breach of Contract; Damages (2003) leg. Petersued Jimmy for damages, based upon a contract ofcarriage,
and Peter won. Jimmy wanted to challenge thedecision before the SC
Vivian Martin was booked by PAL, which acted as aticketing agent of on the ground that the trial courterred in not making an express finding
Far East Airlines, for a round trip flighton the latter‗s aircraft, from as to whether ornot Jimmy was responsible for the collision and,
Manila-Hongkong-Manila.The ticket was cut by an employee of PAL. hence,civilly liable to Peter. He went to see you for advice. Whatwill
The ticketshowed that Vivian was scheduled to leave Manila at 5:30 you tell him? Explain.
p.m. on 05 January 2002 aboard Far East‗s Flight F007.Vivian arrived
at the Ninoy Aquino International Airportan hour before the time SUGGESTED ANSWER:
scheduled in her ticket, but wastold that Far East‗s Flight F007 had left
at 12:10 p.m. It turned out that the ticket was inadvertently cut I will counsel Jimmy to desist from challenging thedecision. The action
andwrongly worded. PAL employees manning the airport‗sground of Peter being based on culpacontractual, the carrier‗s negligence is
services nevertheless scheduled her to fly twohours later aboard their presumed upon thebreach of contract. The burden of proof instead
plane. She agreed and arrived inHongkong safely. The aircraft used by would lieon Jimmy to establish that despite an exercise of utmost
Far East Airlinesdeveloped engine trouble, and did not make it to diligence the collision could not have been avoided.

Carriage; Breach of Contract; Presumption of Negligence (1997)

Page 15
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
In a court case involving claims for damages arising fromdeath and XXX In the American law, where the carrier is held to the same degree
injury of bus passengers, counsel for the busoperator files a demurrer of diligence as under the new Civil Code, the rule on the liability of
to evidence arguing that thecomplaint should be dismissed because carriers for defects of equipment is thus expressed: "The
the plaintiffs didnot submit any evidence that the operator or its preponderance of authority is in favor of the doctrine that a passenger
employeeswere negligent. If you were the judge, would you dismiss is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury resulting from
the complaint? a defect in an appliance purchased from a manufacturer, whenever it
appears that the defect would have been discovered by the carrier if it
SUGGESTED ANSWER: had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances was
incumbent upon it, with regard to inspection and application of the
No. In the carriage of passengers, the failure of thecommon carrier to necessary tests. For the purposes of this doctrine, the manufacturer is
bring the passengers safely to theirdestination immediately raises the considered as being in law the agent or servant of the carrier, as far as
presumption that suchfailure is attributable to the carrier‗s fault or regards the work of constructing the appliance. According to this
negligence. Inthe case at bar, the fact of death and injury of the bus theory, the good repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier
passengers raises the presumption of fault or negligenceon the part of from liability"
the carrier. The carrier must rebut suchpresumption. Otherwise, the
conclusion can be properlymade that the carrier failed to exercise The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that the passenger has
extraordinarydiligence as required by law. neither choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of
the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier. Having no privity
Requisites for a fortuitous event to exempt a common carrier whatever with the manufacturer or vendor of the defective equipment,
from liability: the passenger has no remedy against him, while the carrier usually
has. It is but logical, therefore, that the carrier, while not in insurer of
1. The cause of the incident, or the failure of the carrier to the safety of his passengers, should nevertheless be held to answer
comply with his obligations, must be independent of human for the flaws of his equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable.
2. The incident must have been impossible to foresee, or if it In the case now before us, the record is to the effect that the only test
can be foreseen, it must have been impossible to avoid; applied to the steering knuckle in question was a purely visual
3. The incident must be such as to render it impossible for inspection every thirty days, to see if any cracks developed. It nowhere
the carrier to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; appears that either the manufacturer or the carrier at any time tested
and the steering knuckle to ascertain whether its strength was up to
4. The carrier must be free from any participation in the standard, or that it had no hidden flaws would impair that strength. And
aggravation of the injury resulting to the pax yet the carrier must have been aware of the critical importance of the
knuckle's resistance; that its failure or breakage would result in loss of
balance and steering control of the bus, with disastrous effects upon
G.R. No. L-19495 February 2, 1924
the passengers. No argument is required to establish that a visual
HONORIO LASAM, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
inspection could not directly determine whether the resistance of this
critically important part was not impaired. Nor has it been shown that
FRANK SMITH, JR., defendant-appellant.
the weakening of the knuckle was impossible to detect by any known
test; on the contrary, there is testimony that it could be detected. We
In discussing and analyzing the
are satisfied that the periodical visual inspection of the steering knuckle
term casofortuito the EnciclopediaJuridica Española says: "In a legal
as practiced by the carrier's agents did not measure up to the required
sense and, consequently, also in relation to contracts, a casofortuito
legal standard of "utmost diligence of very cautious persons" — "as far
presents the following essential characteristics: (1) The cause of the
as human care and foresight can provide", and therefore that the
unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor
knuckle's failure can not be considered a fortuitous event that exempts
to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will.
the carrier from responsibility (Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657; Son vs.
(2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes
Cebu Autobus Co., 94 Phil., 892.)
the casofortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid.
(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the
It may be impracticable, as appellee argues, to require of carriers to
debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. And (4) the obligor
test the strength of each and every part of its vehicles before each trip;
(debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the
but we are of the opinion that a due regard for the carrier's obligations
injury resulting to the creditor." (5 EnciclopediaJuridica Española, 309.)
toward the traveling public demands adequate periodical tests to
determine the condition and strength of those vehicle portions the
As will be seen, these authorities agree that some extraordinary
failure of which may endanger the safe of the passengers.
circumstance independent of the will of the obligor, or of his
employees, is an essential element of a casofortuito. Turning to the
present case, it is at once apparent that this element is lacking. It is not G.R. No. 119756 March 18, 1999
suggested that the accident in question was due to an act of God or to FORTUNE EXPRESS, INC., petitioner,
adverse road conditions which could not have been foreseen. As far as vs.
the records shows, the accident was caused either by defects in the COURT OF APPEALS, PAULIE U.CAORONG, and minor
automobile or else through the negligence of its driver. That is not childrenYASSER KING CAORONG, ROSE HEINNI and PRINCE
a casofortuito. ALEXANDER, all surnamed CAORONG, and represented by their
mother PAULIE U. CAORONG, respondents.
G.R. No. L-10605 June 30, 1958
The petitioner contends that the seizure of its bus by the armed
PRECILLANO NECESITO, ETC., plaintiff-appellant,
assailants was a fortuitous event for which it could not be held liable.
NATIVIDAD PARAS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
REYES, J. B. L., J.:
Petitioner invokes the ruling in Pilapil v. Court of Appeals, 9 and De
The proximate cause of the accident was the reduced strength of the
Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 10 in support of its contention that the
steering knuckle of the vehicle caused by defects in casting it. While
seizure of its bus by the assailants constitutes force majeure. In Pilapil
appellants hint that the broken knuckle exhibited in court was not the
v. Court of Appeals, 11 it was held that a common carrier is not liable
real fitting attached to the truck at the time of the accident, the records
for failing to install window grills on its buses to protect the passengers
they registered no objection on that ground at the trial below. The issue
from injuries cause by rocks hurled at the bus by lawless elements. On
is thus reduced to the question whether or not the carrier is liable for
the other hand, in De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 12 it was ruled that
the manufacturing defect of the steering knuckle XXX
a common carriers is not responsible for goods lost as a result of a
robbery which is attended by grave or irresistable threat, violence, or
Page 16
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
It is clear that the cases of Pilapil and De Guzman do not apply to the COMPANY, INC., respondents.
prensent case. Art. 1755 of the Civil Code provides that "a common PADILLA, J.:
carrier is bound to carry the passengers as far as human care and Petitioner has charged respondent carrier of negligence on the ground
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious that the injury complained of could have been prevented by the
persons, with due regard for all the circumstances." Thus, we held in common carrier if something like mesh-work grills had covered the
Pilapil and De Guzman that the respondents therein were not negligent windows of its bus.
in failing to take special precautions against threats to the safety of
passengers which could not be foreseen, such as tortious or criminal We do not agree.
acts of third persons. In the present case, this factor of unforeseeability
(the second requisite for an event to be considered force majeure) is Although the suggested precaution could have prevented the injury
lacking. As already stated, despite the report of PC agent Generalao complained of, the rule of ordinary care and prudence is not so
that the Maranaos were planning to burn some of petitioner's buses exacting as to require one charged with its exercise to take doubtful or
and the assurance of petitioner's operation manager (Diosdado Bravo) unreasonable precautions to guard against unlawful acts of strangers.
that the necessary precautions would be taken, nothing was really The carrier is not charged with the duty of providing or maintaining
done by petitioner to protect the safety of passengers. vehicles as to absolutely prevent any and all injuries to passengers.
Where the carrier uses cars of the most approved type, in general use
by others engaged in the same occupation, and exercises a high
G.R. No. 113003 October 17, 1997
degree of care in maintaining them in suitable condition, the carrier
cannot be charged with negligence in this respect.
JASMIN TUMBOY, respondents. G.R. No. L-47822 December 22, 1988
ROMERO, J.: PEDRO DE GUZMAN, petitioner,
Petitioners' contention that they should be exempt from liability vs.
because the tire blowout was no more than a fortuitous event that COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO CENDANA, respondents.
could not have been foreseen, must fail. A fortuitous event is FELICIANO, J.:
possessed of the following characteristics: (a) the cause of the Petitioner insists that private respondent had not observed
unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtor to extraordinary diligence in the care of petitioner's goods. Petitioner
comply with his obligations, must be independent of human will; (b) it argues that in the circumstances of this case, private respondent
must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes should have hired a security guard presumably to ride with the truck
the casofortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; carrying the 600 cartons of Liberty filled milk. We do not believe,
(c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the however, that in the instant case, the standard of extraordinary
debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the obliger diligence required private respondent to retain a security guard to ride
must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury with the truck and to engage brigands in a firelight at the risk of his own
resulting to the creditor. 13 As Article 1174 provides, no person shall life and the lives of the driver and his helper.
be responsible for a fortuitous event which could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, was inevitable. In other words, there must be In the instant case, armed men held up the second truck owned by
an entire exclusion of human agency from the cause of injury or loss. private respondent which carried petitioner's cargo. The record shows
that an information for robbery in band was filed in the Court of First
Under the circumstances of this case, the explosion of the new tire Instance of Tarlac. XXX The decision of the trial court shows that the
may not be considered a fortuitous event. There are human factors accused acted with grave, if not irresistible, threat, violence or
involved in the situation. The fact that the tire was new did not imply force. 3 Three (3) of the five (5) hold-uppers were armed with firearms.
that it was entirely free from manufacturing defects or that it was The robbers not only took away the truck and its cargo but also
properly mounted on the vehicle. Neither may the fact that the tire kidnapped the driver and his helper, detaining them for several days
bought and used in the vehicle is of a brand name noted for quality, and later releasing them in another province (in Zambales). The
resulting in the conclusion that it could not explode within five days' hijacked truck was subsequently found by the police in Quezon City.
use. Be that as it may, it is settled that an accident caused either by The Court of First Instance convicted all the accused of robbery,
defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver is not though not of robbery in band. 4
a casofortuito that would exempt the carrier from liability for damages. In these circumstances, we hold that the occurrence of the loss must
Moreover, a common carrier may not be absolved from liability in case reasonably be regarded as quite beyond the control of the common
of force majeure or fortuitous event alone. The common carrier must carrier and properly regarded as a fortuitous event. It is necessary to
still prove that it was not negligent in causing the death or injury recall that even common carriers are not made absolute insurers
resulting from an accident. XXX against all risks of travel and of transport of goods, and are not held
liable for acts or events which cannot be foreseen or are inevitable,
It is interesting to note that petitioners proved through the bus provided that they shall have complied with the rigorous standard of
conductor, Salce, that the bus was running at "60-50" kilometers per extraordinary diligence.
hour only or within the prescribed lawful speed limit. However, they
failed to rebut the testimony of LenyTumboy that the bus was running Duration of Responsibility (Applicable cases)
so fast that she cautioned the driver to slow down. These contradictory
facts must, therefore, be resolved in favor of liability in view of the Note: There are no specific provisions for the duration of responsibility
presumption of negligence of the carrier in the law. Coupled with this is for common carriers of passengers.
the established condition of the road — rough, winding and wet due to
the rain. It was incumbent upon the defense to establish that it took Bataclan v. Medina [102 SCRA 181] – common carrier is still liable
precautionary measures considering partially dangerous condition of even after the occurrence took place
the road. As stated above, proof that the tire was new and of good
quality is not sufficient proof that it was not negligent. Petitioners G.R. No. L-10126 October 22, 1957
should have shown that it undertook extraordinary diligence in the care SALUD VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BATACLAN and the minors
of its carrier, such as conducting daily routinary check-ups of the NORMA, LUZVIMINDA, ELENITA, OSCAR and ALFREDO
vehicle's parts. BATACLAN, represented by their Natural guardian, SALUD
VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BATACLAN, plaintiffs-appellants,
G.R. No. 52159 December 22, 1989 vs.
JOSE PILAPIL, petitioner, MARIANO MEDINA, defendant-appellant.

Page 17
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
It may be that ordinarily, when a passenger bus overturns, and pins stopping the bus, nevertheless did not put off the engine. Secondly, he
down a passenger, merely causing him physical injuries, if through started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the
some event, unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set signal to go and while the latter was still unloading part of the
on fire, say, by lightning, or if some highwaymen after looting the baggages of the passengers Mariano Beltran and family. The presence
vehicle sets it on fire, and the passenger is burned to death, one might of said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are,
still contend that the proximate cause of his death was the fire and not therefore, to be considered still as passengers of the carrier, entitled to
the overturning of the vehicle. But in the present case under the the protection under their contract of carriage.
circumstances obtaining in the same, we do not hesitate to hold that
the proximate cause was the overturning of the bus, this for the reason PAL v. Zapatos [226 SCRA 423] – until the pax reaches his
that when the vehicle turned not only on its side but completely on its destination, stoppage in between does not terminate the contract
back, the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or of carriage
unexpected; that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was in
response to the call for help, made not only by the passengers, but G.R. No. L-82619 September 15, 1993
most probably, by the driver and the conductor themselves, and that PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner,
because it was dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to vs.
carry a light with them, and coming as they did from a rural area where COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO ZAPATOS, respondents.
lanterns and flashlights were not available; and what was more natural BELLOSILLO, J.:
than that said rescuers should innocently approach the vehicle to Undisputably, PAL's diversion of its flight due to inclement weather was
extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from them. In other a fortuitous event. Nonetheless, such occurrence did not terminate
words, the coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was PAL's contract with its passengers. Being in the business of air
a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the trapping of some carriage and the sole one to operate in the country, PAL is deemed
of its passengers and the call for outside help. What is more, the equipped to deal with situations as in the case at bar. What we said in
burning of the bus can also in part be attributed to the negligence of one case once again must be stressed, i.e., the relation of carrier and
the carrier, through is driver and its conductor. According to the passenger continues until the latter has been landed at the port of
witness, the driver and the conductor were on the road walking back destination and has left the carrier's premises. 22 Hence, PAL
and forth. They, or at least, the driver should and must have known necessarily would still have to exercise extraordinary diligence in
that in the position in which the overturned bus was, gasoline could safeguarding the comfort, convenience and safety of its stranded
and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in passengers until they have reached their final destination. On this
and around the bus, this aside from the fact that gasoline when spilled, score, PAL grossly failed considering the then ongoing battle between
specially over a large area, can be smelt and directed even from a government forces and Muslim rebels in Cotabato City and the fact
distance, and yet neither the driver nor the conductor would appear to that the private respondent was a stranger to the place. As the
have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the appellate court correctly ruled —
lighted torch too near the bus.
While the failure of plaintiff in the first instance to reach his destination
La Mallorca v. CA [7 SCRA 739] – contractual relation continues until at Ozamis City in accordance with the contract of carriage was due to
pax has had a reasonable time and opportunity to leave the the closure of the airport on account of rain and inclement weather
premises or reach a safe distance from the vehicle which was radioed to defendant 15 minutes before landing, it has not
been disputed by defendant airline that Ozamis City has no all-weather
G.R. No. L-20761 July 27, 1966 airport and has to cancel its flight to Ozamis City or by-pass it in the
LA MALLORCA, petitioner, event of inclement weather. Knowing this fact, it becomes the duty of
vs. defendant to provide all means of comfort and convenience to its
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARIANO BELTRAN, ET passengers when they would have to be left in a strange place in case
AL., respondents. of such by-passing. The steps taken by defendant airline company
BARRERA, J.: towards this end has not been put in evidence, especially for those 7
others who were not accommodated in the return trip to Cebu, only 6
It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of carrier and of the 21 having been so accommodated. It appears that plaintiff had
passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from to leave on the next flight 2 days later. If the cause of non-fulfillment of
the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of the contract is due to a fortuitous event, it has to be the sole and only
destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable cause (Art. 1755 CC., Art. 1733 C.C.) Since part of the failure to
time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. And, comply with the obligation of common carrier to deliver its passengers
what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be safely to their destination lay in the defendant's failure to provide
determined from all the circumstances. Thus, a person who, after comfort and convenience to its stranded passengers using extra-
alighting from a train, walks along the station platform is considered ordinary diligence, the cause of non-fulfillment is not solely and
still a passenger.2 So also, where a passenger has alighted at his exclusively due to fortuitous event, but due to something which
destination and is proceeding by the usual way to leave the company's defendant airline could have prevented, defendant becomes liable to
premises, but before actually doing so is halted by the report that his plaintiff.
brother, a fellow passenger, has been shot, and he in good faith and
without intent of engaging in the difficulty, returns to relieve his brother, Validity of Stipulations
he is deemed reasonably and necessarily delayed and thus continues
to be a passenger entitled as such to the protection of the railroad and As to Diligence Required
company and its agents.
Art. 1757
In the present case, the father returned to the bus to get one of his
baggages which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus. The responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers as
Raquel, the child that she was, must have followed the father. required in Art. 1733 and 1755 CANNOT be DISPENSED with or
However, although the father was still on the running board of the bus LESSENED:
awaiting for the conductor to hand him the bag or bayong, the bus
started to run, so that even he (the father) had to jump down from the  by stipulation,
moving vehicle. It was at this instance that the child, who must be near  by the posting of notices,
the bus, was run over and killed. In the circumstances, it cannot be  by statements on tickets, or otherwise.
claimed that the carrier's agent had exercised the "utmost diligence" of
a "very cautions person" required by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to
be observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to
transport safely its passengers. In the first place, the driver, although As to Amount of Liability

Page 18
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
2) The stipulation limiting the carrier‗s liability tothe value of the goods
Art. 1758 appearing in the bill of ladingunless the shipper or owner declares a
higher value, isexpressly recognized in Article 1749 of the Civil Code.
When a pax is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting the CC’s
liability for negligence is valid, but not for willful acts or gross Responsibility for Acts of Employees
Art. 1759
Common Carrier; Defenses; Limitation of Liability (2001)
Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers
Suppose A was riding on an airplane of a common carrier when the through the negligence or willful acts of their employees, EVEN
accident happened and A suffered serious injuries. In an action by A THOUGH such employees may have acted:
against the common carrier, the latter claimed that 1) there was a
stipulation in the ticket issued to A absolutely exempting the carrier 1. beyond the scope of their authority, or
from liability from the passenger‗s death or injuries ad notices were 2. in violation of the orders of the CC
posted by the common carrier dispensing with the extraordinary
diligence of the carrier, and 2) A was given a discount on his plane fare This liability of the common carriers does NOT cease upon proof that
thereby reducing the liability of the common carrier with respect to A in they exercised all the diligence of a GFOF in the selection and
particular. supervision of their employees

a) Are those valid defenses? (1%)

b) What are the defenses available to any common carrier to limit or
exempt it from liability? (4%) Common Carrier; Defenses (2002)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Why is the defense of due diligence in the selection andsupervision of
an employee not available to a commoncarrier? (2%)
a) No. These are not valid defenses because they are contrary to law
as they are in violation of the extraordinary diligence required of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
common carriers. (Article 1757, 1758 New Civil Code)
The defense of due diligence in the selection andsupervision of an
b) The defenses available to any common carrier to limitor exempt it employee is not available to a commoncarrier because the degree of
from liability are: diligence required of acommon carrier is not the diligence of a good
father of afamily but extraordinary diligence, i.e., diligence of
1)observance of extraordinary diligence, thegreatest skill and utmost foresight.
2)or the proximate cause of the incident is afortuitous event or force
majeure, Principle of Contributory Negligence:
3)act or omission of the shipper or owner ofthe goods,
4)the character of the goods or defects in thepacking or in the It is the principle that negligence, however slight, on the part of the
containers, and person injured, which is one of the causes proximately contributing to
5)order or act of competent public authority,without the common carrier his injury, equitably reduces the liability of the common carrier
being guilty of evensimple negligence (Article 1734, NCC).
What is contributory negligence?
The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the CC’s
liability. Conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause
to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he
Amount of liability of carrier for death/injury to pax: is required to conform for his own protection [Estacio v. Bernardo, 27
Feb 2006]
General Rule: The liability of the CC for death or injuries to pax cannot
be limited by stipulation or otherwise When can a person be held to have contributed to his injuries?
When it is shown that he performed an act that brought about his
Exception: The CC‘s liability may be limited when: injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to
health and body [Estacio v. Bernardo, 27 Feb 2006]
 Pax is carried gratuitously,
 There is a stipulation limiting the CC‘s liability, and Duty of Pax:
 The incident was not caused by willful acts or gross
negligence of the CC The pax must observe the diligence of a GFOF to avoid injury to
himself[Art. 1761]
Carriage; Prohibited & Valid Stipulations (2002)
Effect of Contributory Negligence on the part of pax:
Discuss whether or not the following stipulations in acontract of
carriage of a common carrier are valid: The carrier shall still be held liable for the death or injury to pax, BUT
the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced [Art. 1762]
1)a stipulation limiting the sum that may be recovered bythe shipper or
owner to 90% of the value of the goods in case ofloss due to theft. G.R. No. L-12191 October 14, 1918
JOSE CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant,
2) a stipulation that in the event of loss, destruction ordeterioration of vs.
goods on account of the defective condition ofthe vehicle used in the MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendant-appellee.
contract of carriage, the carrier‗s liability islimited to the value of the FISHER, J.:
goods appearing in the bill of ladingunless the shipper or owner The railroad company's defense involves the assumption that even
declares a higher value (5%) granting that the negligent conduct of its servants in placing an
obstruction upon the platform was a breach of its contractual obligation
1) The stipulation is considered unreasonable,unjust and contrary to to maintain safe means of approaching and leaving its trains, the direct
public policy under Article 1745 ofthe Civil Code. and proximate cause of the injury suffered by plaintiff was his own
contributory negligence in failing to wait until the train had come to a
complete stop before alighting. Under the doctrine of comparative

Page 19
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
negligence announced in the Rakes case (supra), if the accident was CLEMENTE BRIÑAS, petitioner,
caused by plaintiff's own negligence, no liability is imposed upon vs.
defendant's negligence and plaintiff's negligence merely contributed to THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HONORABLE COURT OF
his injury, the damages should be apportioned. It is, therefore, APPEALS, respondents.
important to ascertain if defendant was in fact guilty of negligence. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common
It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a carriers like trains and buses that before reaching a station or flagstop
full stop before alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could not they slow down and the conductor announces the name of the place. It
have occurred. Defendant contends, and cites many authorities in is also a matter of common experience that as the train or bus
support of the contention, that it is negligence per se for a passenger slackens its speed, some passengers usually stand and proceed to the
to alight from a moving train. We are not disposed to subscribe to this nearest exit, ready to disembark as the train or bus comes to a full
doctrine in its absolute form. We are of the opinion that this proposition stop. This is especially true of a train because passengers feel that if
is too badly stated and is at variance with the experience of every-day the train resumes its run before they are able to disembark, there is no
life. In this particular instance, that the train was barely moving when way to stop it as a bus may be stopped.
plaintiff alighted is shown conclusively by the fact that it came to stop
within six meters from the place where he stepped from it. Thousands It was negligence on the conductor's part to announce the next flag
of person alight from trains under these conditions every day of the stop when said stop was still a full three minutes ahead. As the
year, and sustain no injury where the company has kept its platform respondent Court of Appeals correctly observed, "the appellant's
free from dangerous obstructions. There is no reason to believe that announcement was premature and erroneous.
plaintiff would have suffered any injury whatever in alighting as he did
had it not been for defendant's negligent failure to perform its duty to That the announcement was premature and erroneous is shown by the
provide a safe alighting place. fact that immediately after the train slowed down, it unexpectedly
accelerated to full speed. Petitioner-appellant failed to show any
XXX reason why the train suddenly resumed its regular speed. The
announcement was made while the train was still in Barrio Lagalag.
As the case now before us presents itself, the only fact from which a
conclusion can be drawn to the effect that plaintiff was guilty of The proximate cause of the death of the victims was the premature
contributory negligence is that he stepped off the car without being and erroneous announcement of petitioner' appelantBriñas. This
able to discern clearly the condition of the platform and while the train announcement prompted the victims to stand and proceed to the
was yet slowly moving. In considering the situation thus presented, it nearest exit. Without said announcement, the victims would have been
should not be overlooked that the plaintiff was, as we find, ignorant of safely seated in their respective seats when the train jerked as it
the fact that the obstruction which was caused by the sacks of melons picked up speed. The connection between the premature and
piled on the platform existed; and as the defendant was bound by erroneous announcement of petitioner-appellant and the deaths of the
reason of its duty as a public carrier to afford to its passengers facilities victims is direct and natural, unbroken by any intervening efficient
for safe egress from its trains, the plaintiff had a right to assume, in the causes.
absence of some circumstance to warn him to the contrary, that the
platform was clear. The place, as we have already stated, was dark, or Petitioner-appellant also argues that it was negligence per se for
dimly lighted, and this also is proof of a failure upon the part of the Martina Bool to go to the door of the coach while the train was still in
defendant in the performance of a duty owing by it to the plaintiff; for if motion and that it was this negligence that was the proximate cause of
it were by any possibility concede that it had right to pile these sacks in their deaths.
the path of alighting passengers, the placing of them adequately so We have carefully examined the records and we agree with the
that their presence would be revealed. respondent court that the negligence of petitioner-appellant in
prematurely and erroneously announcing the next flag stop was the
As pertinent to the question of contributory negligence on the part of proximate cause of the deaths of Martina Bool and EmelitaGesmundo.
the plaintiff in this case the following circumstances are to be noted: Any negligence of the victims was at most contributory and does not
The company's platform was constructed upon a level higher than that exculpate the accused from criminal liability.
of the roadbed and the surrounding ground. The distance from the
steps of the car to the spot where the alighting passenger would place G.R. No. 95582 October 7, 1991
his feet on the platform was thus reduced, thereby decreasing the risk DANGWA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. and THEODORE
incident to stepping off. The nature of the platform, constructed as it LARDIZABAL y MALECDAN, petitioners,
was of cement material, also assured to the passenger a stable and vs.
even surface on which to alight. Furthermore, the plaintiff was COURT OF APPEALS, INOCENCIA CUDIAMAT, EMILIA
possessed of the vigor and agility of young manhood, and it was by no CUDIAMAT BANDOY, FERNANDO CUDLAMAT, MARRIETA
means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the CUDIAMAT, NORMA CUDIAMAT, DANTE CUDIAMAT, SAMUEL
same act would have been in an aged or feeble person. In determining CUDIAMAT and LIGAYA CUDIAMAT, all Heirs of the late
the question of contributory negligence in performing such act — that PedritoCudiamat represented by
is to say, whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly — the InocenciaCudiamat, respondents.
age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances REGALADO, J.:p
necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be It is the duty of common carriers of passengers, including common
considered. Women, it has been observed, as a general rule are less carriers by railroad train, streetcar, or motorbus, to stop their
capable than men of alighting with safety under such conditions, as the conveyances a reasonable length of time in order to afford passengers
nature of their wearing apparel obstructs the free movement of the an opportunity to board and enter, and they are liable for injuries
limbs. Again, it may be noted that the place was perfectly familiar to suffered by boarding passengers resulting from the sudden starting up
the plaintiff as it was his daily custom to get on and of the train at this or jerking of their conveyances while they are doing so.
station. There could, therefore, be no uncertainty in his mind with
regard either to the length of the step which he was required to take or Further, even assuming that the bus was moving, the act of the victim
the character of the platform where he was alighting. Our conclusion is in boarding the same cannot be considered negligent under the
that the conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while the train circumstances. As clearly explained in the testimony of the aforestated
was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and witness for petitioners, Virginia Abalos, th bus had "just started" and
that therefore he was not guilty of contributory negligence. "was still in slow motion" at the point where the victim had boarded and
was on its platform.

It is not negligence per se, or as a matter of law, for one attempt to

board a train or streetcar which is moving slowly. 14 An ordinarily
G.R. No. L-30309 November 25, 1983 prudent person would have made the attempt board the moving
Page 20
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
conveyance under the same or similar circumstances. The fact that GOODS PASSENGERS
passengers board and alight from slowly moving vehicle is a matter of
common experience both the driver and conductor in this case could Extraordinary diligence XO diligence for the safety of
not have been unaware of such an ordinary practice. pax

The victim herein, by stepping and standing on the platform of the bus, Bound to carry pax safely as far
is already considered a passenger and is entitled all the rights and as human foresight can provide,
protection pertaining to such a contractual relation. Hence, it has been using the utmost diligence of
held that the duty which the carrier passengers owes to its patrons very cautious persons, with due
extends to persons boarding cars as well as to those alighting regard for all the circumstances
Presumption of negligence
Responsibility for Acts of Strangers arises:

When a CC can be held liable for death or injury to pax for willful acts In case of loss, destruction or In case of death or injuries to
or negligence of strangers: deterioration of the goods passengers

 If the common carrier's employees through the exercise of Non-arrival of goods at Non fulfillment of contract
the diligence of a GFOF could have prevented or destination; delay
stopped the act or omission
Presumption of negligence does Presumption of negligence will
G.R. No. L-19161 April 29, 1966 not arise automatically in the always arise in case of carriage
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, five (5) instances mentioned of pax
JULIAN MAIMBAN, JR., respondents. Stipulation that provides that the Responsibility of a common
MAKALINTAL, J.: common carrier need not carrier to transport passenger
Another defense put up by petitioner is that since Abello was not its observe any diligence in the with extraordinary and utmost
employee it should not be held responsible for his acts. This defense custody of the goods shall be diligence cannot be dispensed
was correctly overruled by the trial court, considering the provisions of considered unreasonable, with by stipulation, by the
Article 1763 of the Civil Code and section 48 (b) of the Motor Vehicle unjust and contrary to public posting of notices, by
Law, which respectively provide as follows: policy statements on tickets or
Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a
passenger on account of the wilfull acts or negligence of other Degree of diligence can be The responsibility of a common
passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through lessened provided it be in carrier to exercise extraordinary
the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have writing, signed by the shipper or and utmost diligence in the
prevented or stopped the act or omission. owner, supported by a valuable transportation of passengers
consideration other than the cannot be lessened by
Sec. 48(b). No professional chauffeur shall permit any unlicensed service rendered by the stipulation, the posting of
person to drive the motor vehicle under his control, or permit a person, common carrier and notices, by statements on
sitting beside him or in any other part of the car, to interfere with him in reasonable, just and not tickets, or otherwise
the operation of the motor vehicle, by allowing said person to take hold contrary to public policy
of the steering wheel, or in any other manner take part in the
manipulation or control of the car. Liability in case of breach can As a general rule, liability in
be lessened is allowed case of breach cannot be
XXX the acts of the bus personnel, particularly "in allowing Mr. Abello lessened, especially for willful
to drive despite two occasions when the bus stopped and the regular An agreement limiting the acts or gross negligence.
driver could have taken over, constitute reckless imprudence and common carrier‘s liability for
wanton injurious conduct on the part of the MRR employees." delay on account of strikes or Exception: A stipulation limiting
riots is valid the common carrier‘s liability for
Common Carrier; Defenses; Fortuitous Events (1994) simple negligence is valid but
A stipulation that the common only when a passenger is
Marites, a paying bus passenger, was hit above her left eyeby a stone carrier‘s liability is limited to the carried gratuitously.
hurled at the bus by an unidentified bystanderas the bus was speeding value of the goods appearing in
through the National Highway.The bus owner‗s personnel lost no time the bill of lading, unless the
in bringingMarites to the provincial hospital where she was shipper or owner declares a
confinedand treated. Marites wants to sue the bus company for greater value is binding.
damages and seeks your advice whether she can legallyhold the bus
company liable. What will you advise her? A contract fixing the sum that
may be recovered by the owner
SUGGESTED ANSWER: or shipper for the loss,
destruction, or deterioration of
Marites can not legally hold the bus company liable. Thereis no the goods is valid if it is
showing that any such incident previously happenedso as to impose reasonable and just under the
an obligation on part of the personnel ofthe bus company to warn the circumstances, and has been
passengers and to take thenecessary precaution. Such hurling of a fairly and freely agreed upon.
stone constitutesfortuitous event in this case. The bus company is not
aninsurer. (Pilapil v CA 180 s 346)

Distinctions between Common Carriers of Goods and Common

Carriers of Passengers

Page 21
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
Maritime Law - the system of laws which particularly relates to the FaustoRubiso in the ownership of the pilot boat Valentina, inasmuch
affairs and business of the sea, to ships, their crews and navigation, as, though the latter's acquisition of the vessel at public auction, on
and to marine conveyance of persons and property. January 23, 1915, was subsequent to its purchase by the defendant
Rivera, nevertheless said sale at public auction was antecedently
Primary Law - Civil Code Provisions on Common Carriers recorded in the office of the Collector of Customs, on January 27, and
entered in the commercial registry — an unnecessary proceeding —
Suppletory Laws: on March 4th; while the private and voluntary purchase made by
Rivera on a prior date was not recorded in the office of the Collector of
1. Code of Commerce [Book III] Customs until many days afterwards, that is, not until March 17, 1915.
2. CA 65 - COGSA [Carriage of Goods by Sea Act]
3. PD 474 Persons Who Take Part in Marine Commerce[Art. 586-651]
4. RA 1937 – Tariff and Customs Code
5. Act 2616 – Salvage Law 1. Ship Owner – the owner of the vessel
6. PD 1521 - Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 2. Ship Agent – the person:
a. entrusted with provisioning of the vessel, or
Governing Body in Marine Transportation - MARINA [Maritime b. who represents the vessel in the port where she
Industry Authority] happens to be
3. Captain or Master – the one who governs the vessel
General Functions of the MARINA: 4. Sailing Mate – the second chief of the vessel
5. Second Mate – the one who takes command of the vessel
1. Issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of in case of disability or disqualification of captain or sailing
domestic and overseas water carriers mate
2. Register and issue certificates, licenses, or documents 6. Crew or Sailors – the persons who man the vessel and
necessary or incident thereto those who perform other duties

Vessels Captain or Master of a Vessel

How ownership of MERCHANT VESSELS may be acquired [Art. Distinctions:

1. Captain - one who governs vessels:
1. By any means recognized by law [Art. 712 Civil Code]: a. that navigate the high seas, or
a. By law [sale or dacion en pago] b. of large dimensions and importance [although
b. By donation engaged in coastwise trade]
c. By testate or intestate succession 2. Master - one who commands smaller ships engaged
d. In consequence of certain contracts exclusively in the coastwise trade
e. By tradition
Note: For purposes of Maritime Commerce, ―captain‖ and ―master‖
2. By prescription: have the same meaning, both being the chiefs and commanders of
a. 3 years – if possession thereof was in good faith vessels
with just title duly recorded, or
b. 10 years – in the absence of above requisites Qualifications under Art 609 of the Code of Commerce

What kind of property is a vessel? 1. Filipino

2. Legal capacity to bind himself
1. PERSONAL or MOVABLE 3. Proof that they have skill, capacity, and qualification required
2. BUT – the to command and direct a vessel as established by:
a. ownership thereof must be evidenced by a a. marine laws, ordinances or regulations
certificate of ownership, and b. those of navigation
b. transfer thereof must be registered in the 4. Not disqualified according to the same for the discharge of
proper registry [to bind 3rd persons] (Art. 585) the duties of that position

Requisites for Legal Acquisition of a Merchant Vessel [Art. 573]: G.R. No. 114167 July 12, 1995
1. The mode of transfer must appear in a written instrument vs.
2. It must be recorded in the registry or vessels to bind 3rd COURT OF APPEALS and the PHILIPPINE GENERAL INSURANCE
persons: COMPANY, respondents.

a. Under EO 125 – transaction must be registered FRANCISCO, R., J.:

with MARINA Jesus R. Constantino, the patron of the vessel "Coastwise 9" admitted
that he was not licensed. The Code of Commerce, which subsidiarily
b. But, this is also being conducted by the PPA governs common carriers (which are primarily governed by the
provisions of the Civil Code) provides:
G.R. No. L-11407 October 30, 1917
FAUSTO RUBISO and BONIFACIO GELITO, plaintiff-appellee, Art. 609. — Captains, masters, or patrons of vessels must be Filipinos,
vs. have legal capacity to contract in accordance with this code, and prove
FLORENTINO E. RIVERA, defendant-appellant. the skill capacity and qualifications necessary to command and direct
TORRES, J.: the vessel, as established by marine and navigation laws, ordinances
The requisite of registration in the registry, of the purchase of a vessel, or regulations, and must not be disqualified according to the same for
is necessary and indispensable in order that the purchaser's rights may the discharge of the duties of the position. . . .
be maintained against a claim filed by a third person. Such registration
is required both by the Code of Commerce and by Act No. 1900. XXX Clearly, petitioner Coastwise Lighterage's embarking on a voyage with
In view of said legal provisions, it is undeniable that the defendant an unlicensed patron violates this rule. It cannot safely claim to have
Florentino E. Rivera's rights cannot prevail over those acquired by exercised extraordinary diligence, by placing a person whose
navigational skills are questionable, at the helm of the vessel which

Page 22
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
eventually met the fateful accident. It may also logically, follow that a vessel,mayhap, because the latter had assured him that they were
person without license to navigate, lacks not just the skill to do so, but navigating normally before the grounding of the vessel.Moreover, the
also the utmost familiarity with the usual and safe routes taken by pilot had admitted that on account of his experience he was very
seasoned and legally authorized ones. Had the patron been licensed, familiar with the configuration of the river as well as the course
he could be presumed to have both the skill and the knowledge that headings, and that he does not even refer to river charts when
would have prevented the vessel's hitting the sunken derelict ship that navigating the Orinoco River.
lay on their way to Pier 18.
Based on these declarations, it comes as no surprise to us that the
As a common carrier, petitioner is liable for breach of the contract of master chose not to regain control of the ship. Admitting his limited
carriage, having failed to overcome the presumption of negligence with knowledge of the Orinoco River, Captain Colon relied on the
the loss and destruction of goods it transported, by proof of its exercise knowledge and experience of pilot Vasquez to guide the vessel safely.
of extraordinary diligence.
General Functions of a Captain
The Orinoco River being a compulsory pilotage channel necessitated
1. General agent of the ship owner the engaging of a pilot who was presumed to be knowledgeable of
2. Technical director of the vessel every shoal, bank, deep and shallow ends of the river. In his
3. Representative of the government in the country under deposition, pilot EzzarSolarzano Vasquez testified that he is an official
whose flag he navigates pilot in the Harbour at Port Ordaz, Venezuela, and that he had been a
pilot for twelve (12) years. He also had experience in navigating the
waters of the Orinoco River.
G.R. No. 115286 August 11, 1994
The law does provide that the master can countermand or overrule the
order or command of the harbor pilot on board. The master of the
INC., petitioners,
Philippine Roxas deemed it best not to order him (the pilot) to stop the
vessel,mayhap, because the latter had assured him that they were
navigating normally before the grounding of the vessel.Moreover, the
TAYONG, respondents.
pilot had admitted that on account of his experience he was very
familiar with the configuration of the river as well as the course
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that confidential and managerial
headings, and that he does not even refer to river charts when
employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any time, and without
navigating the Orinoco River.
cause as reasonably established in an appropriate
investigation. 15 Such employees, too, are entitled to security of
Based on these declarations, it comes as no surprise to us that the
tenure, fair standards of employment and the protection of labor laws.
master chose not to regain control of the ship. Admitting his limited
knowledge of the Orinoco River, Captain Colon relied on the
The captain of a vessel is a confidential and managerial employee
knowledge and experience of pilot Vasquez to guide the vessel safely.
within the meaning of the above doctrine. A master or captain, for
purposes of maritime commerce, is one who has command of a
vessel. A captain commonly performs three (3) distinct roles: (1) he is Obligations of the Captain if Repair and Maintenance of Vessel is
a general agent of the shipowner; (2) he is also commander and required during the voyage [583]
technical director of the vessel; and (3) he is a representative of the
country under whose flag he navigates.16 Of these roles, by far the 1. He shall apply to:
most important is the role performed by the captain as commander of a. If in RP territory – the judge or the courts or
the vessel; for such role (which, to our mind, is analogous to that of b. If outside RP territory :
"Chief Executive Officer" [CEO] of a present-day corporate enterprise) i. Filipino Consul
has to do with the operation and preservation of the vessel during its ii. Judge or Court of the Local Authority, if
voyage and the protection of the passengers (if any) and crew and no consul is available
cargo. In his role as general agent of the shipowner, the captain has
authority to sign bills of lading, carry goods aboard and deal with the 2. He must present to:
freight earned, agree upon rates and decide whether to take cargo. a. Certificate or registry of the vessel
The ship captain, as agent of the shipowner, has legal authority to b. Instruments proving the obligation contracted
enter into contracts with respect to the vessel and the trading of the
vessel, subject to applicable limitations established by statute, contract PROHIBITED ACTS (613, 614, 615, 617, 621)
or instructions and regulations of the shipowner. 17 To the captain is
committed the governance, care and management of the Books to be Carried by the Captain on Board the Vessel Art.
vessel. 18 Clearly, the captain is vested with both management and 612[3]
fiduciary functions.
1. LOGBOOK - where he shall enter everyday everything
significant about the voyage
G.R. No. 119602 October 6, 2000
2. ACCOUNTING BOOK - where he shall enter all the
amounts collected and paid for the account of the vessel
3. FREIGHT BOOK– where he shall record the entry and exit
of goods
INC., respondents.
The Orinoco River being a compulsory pilotage channel necessitated
the engaging of a pilot who was presumed to be knowledgeable of
every shoal, bank, deep and shallow ends of the river. In his
deposition, pilot EzzarSolarzano Vasquez testified that he is an official
pilot in the Harbour at Port Ordaz, Venezuela,and that he had been a
pilot for twelve (12) years. He also had experience in navigating the
waters of the Orinoco River.

The law does provide that the master can countermand or overrule the
order or command of the harbor pilot on board. The master of the G.R. No. L-65442 April 5, 1985
Philippine Roxas deemed it best not to order him (the pilot) to stop the

Page 23
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
HAVERTON SHIPPING LTD. and OFSI SERVICES, Article 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier
INC., petitioners, lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the
vs. possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, THE HON. same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the
CRESENCIO M. SIDDAYAO, in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge of consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them, without
the NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD and ALFREDO prejudice to the provisions of article 1738.
BENITEZ, respondents.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: Common Carrier; Duration of Liability (1996)
In declaring that copy of the Official Entry in the Ship's Log Book was A bus of GL Transit on its way to Davao stopped toenable a passenger
not legally binding for being hearsay, public respondents overlooked to alight. At that moment, Santiago,who had been waiting for a ride,
the fact that under our laws the ship's captain is obligated to keep a boarded the bus.However, the bus driver failed to notice Santiago who
"log book" where, among others, he records the decisions he has wasstill standing on the bus platform, and stepped on theaccelerator.
adopted. 7 Even according to the law of the vessel's registry, that book Because of the sudden motion, Santiagoslipped and fell down suffering
is also "required by law" as disclosed by the entry itself. 8 There is no serious injuries. MaySantiago hold GL Transit liable for breach of
controversy as to the genuineness of the said entry. The vessel's log contract ofcarriage? Explain.
book is an official record and entries made by a person in the
performance of a duty required by law areprima facie evidence of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
facts stated therein.
Santiago may hold GL Transit liable for breach of contractof carriage. It
G.R. No. 180719 August 22, 2008 was the duty of the driver, when he stoppedthe bus, to do no act that
CENTENNIAL TRANSMARINE, INC., CENTENNIAL MARITIME would have the effect ofincreasing the peril to a passenger such as
SERVICES CORPORATION AND/OR B+H EQUIMAR SINGAPORE, Santiago whilehe was attempting to board the same. When a bus is
PTE. LTD., petitioners, not inmotion there is no necessity for a person who wants to ride the
vs. same to signal his intentionto board. A public utility bus, once it stops,
RUBEN G. DELA CRUZ, respondent. is in effectmaking a continuous offer to bus riders. It is the duty of
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: common carriers of passengers to stop their conveyancesfor a
In Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations reasonable length of time in order to affordpassengers an opportunity
Commission, citing Haverton Shipping Ltd. v. National Labor Relations to board and enter, and they areliable for injuries suffered by boarding
Commission, the Court ruled that a copy of an official entry in the passengers resultingfrom the sudden starting up or jerking of their
logbook is legally binding and serves as an exception to the hearsay conveyanceswhile they are doing so. Santiago, by stepping and
rule. In the said case, however, there was no controversy as to the standingon the platform of the bus, is already considered apassenger
genuineness of the said entry and the authenticity of the copy and is entitled to all the rights and protectionpertaining to a contract of
presented in evidence. carriage.(Dangwa Trans Co v CA 95582 Oct 7,91 202s574)

In the instant case, respondent has consistently assailed the Definition of Maritime Protest [BAR]
genuineness of the purported entry and the authenticity of such copy.
He alleged that before his repatriation, there was no entry in the ship‘s  It is a written statement under oath
official logbook regarding any incident that might have caused his  Made by the captain or master of the vessel
relief; that Captain Kowalewski‘s signature in such purported entry was  After the occurrence of an accident or disaster
forged. In support of his allegations, respondent submitted three official
 In which the vessel or cargo is lost or injured
documents bearing the signature of Capt. SczepanKowalewski which
 With respect to circumstances attending such occurrence
is different from the one appearing in Annex E. Thus, it was incumbent
upon petitioners to prove the authenticity of Annex E, which they failed
to do. Likewise, the purported report of Capt. Kowalewski dated Purpose of a Maritime Protest - It is usually intended to show:
September 1, 2000 (Annex D), and the statements of Safety Officer
KhaldunNacemFaridi and Chief Officer Josip Milin (Annexes G and H) 1. That the loss or damage resulted from:
also cannot be given weight for lack of authentication. a. a peril of the sea, or
b. some other cause for which neither the master or
Although technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply to labor owner was responsible
proceedings, however, in the instant case, authentication of the above- 2. It concludes with the protestation against any liability of the
mentioned documents is necessary because their genuineness is owner for such loss or damage
being assailed, and since petitioners offered no corroborating
evidence. These documents and their contents have to be duly Doctrine of Limited Liability[Art. 586-590]
identified and authenticated lest an injustice would result from a blind
adoption of such contents.Thus, the unauthenticated documents relied When Ship owner or Ship Agent shall be Civilly Liable [Art. 586]
upon by petitioners are mere self-serving statements of their own
officers and were correctly disregarded by the Court of Appeals. 1. Art. 586:
a. For the acts of the CAPTAIN, and
What is the probative value of the entries in the logbook? It is an b. For the obligations contracted by the CAPTAIN
official record of entries made by a person in the performance of a duty to repair, equip, and provision the vessel [provided
required by law and are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein the creditor proves that the amount claimed was
invested for the benefit of the vessel]
Duration of Responsibility of Captain for Cargo on Board his
Vessel [Art. 619] 2. Art. 587 - For the indemnities in favor of 3rd persons
which arise from the conduct of the CAPTAIN in the care of
1. FROM – the time it is turned over to him at the dock or afloat the goods which the vessel carried
alongside the vessel at the port of loading
2. UNTIL – he delivers it on the shore or on the discharging
wharf at the port of unloading
3. UNLESS –otherwise expressly agreed upon

NOTE: Compare to Art. 1736 Civil Code

Page 24
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
G.R. No. 154305 December 9, 2004 her equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage."
MACONDRAY & CO., INC., petitioner, It is true that the article appears to deal only with the limited liability of
vs. shipowners or agents for damages arising from the misconduct of the
PROVIDENT INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondent. captain in the care of the goods which the vessel carries, but this is a
mere deficiency of language and in no way indicates the true extent of
PANGANIBAN, J.: such liability. The consensus of authorities is to the effect that
notwithstanding the language of the aforequoted provision, the benefit
Article 586 of the Code of Commerce states that a ship agent is "the of limited liability therein provided for, applies in all cases wherein the
person entrusted with provisioning or representing the vessel in the shipowner or agent may properly be held liable for the negligent or
port in which it may be found." illicit acts of the captain.
Hence, whether acting as agent of the owner of the vessel or as agent XXX
of the charterer, petitioner will be considered as the ship agent and
may be held liable as such, as long as the latter is the one that In the light of all the foregoing, we therefore hold that if the shipowner
provisions or represents the vessel. or agent may in any way be held civilly liable at all for injury to or death
of passengers arising from the negligence of the captain in cases of
The trial court found that petitioner "was appointed as local agent of collisions or shipwrecks, his liability is merely co-extensive with his
the vessel, which duty includes arrangement for the entrance and interest in the vessel such that a total loss thereof results in its
clearance of the vessel." Further, the CA found and the evidence extinction. In arriving at this conclusion, we have not been unmindful of
shows that petitioner represented the vessel. The latter prepared the the fact that the ill-fated steamshipNegros, as a vessel engaged in
Notice of Readiness, the Statement of Facts, the Completion Notice, interisland trade, is a common carrier (De Villata v. Stanely, 32 Phil.,
the Sailing Notice and Custom's Clearance. Petitioner's employees 541), and that the relationship between the petitioner and the
were present at Sangi, Toledo City, one day before the arrival of the passengers who died in the mishap rests on a contract of carriage. But
vessel, where they stayed until it departed. They were also present assuming that petitioner is liable for a breach of contract of carriage,
during the actual discharging of the cargo. Moreover, Mr. de la Cruz, the exclusively "real and hypothecary nature" of maritime law operates
the representative of petitioner, also prepared for the needs of the to limit such liability to the value of the vessel, or to the insurance
vessel, like money, provision, water and fuel. thereon, if any. In the instant case it does not appear that the vessel
was insured.
These acts all point to the conclusion that it was the entity that
represented the vessel in the Port of Manila and was the ship Whether the abandonment of the vessel sought by the petitioner in the
agent within the meaning and context of Article 586 of the Code of instant case was in accordance with law of not, is immaterial. The
Commerce. vessel having totally perished, any act of abandonment would be an
idle ceremony.
As ship agent, it may be held civilly liable in certain instances. The
Code of Commerce provides: Limited Liability Rule (1994)

"Article 586. The shipowner and the ship agent shall be civilly liable for Toni, a copra dealer, loaded 1000 sacks of copra on boardthe vessel
the acts of the captain and for the obligations contracted by the latter to MV Tonichi (a common carrier engaged incoastwise trade owned by
repair, equip, and provision the vessel, provided the creditor proves Ichi) for shipment from PuertoGalera to Manila. The cargo did not
that the amount claimed was invested for the benefit of the same." reach Manila becausethe vessel capsized and sank with all its cargo.
When Toni sued Ichi for damages based on breach ofcontract, the
"Article 587. The ship agent shall also be civilly liable for the latter invoked the ―limited liability rule.‖ 1)
indemnities in favor of third persons which may arise from the conduct
of the captain in the care of the goods which he loaded on the vessel; What do you understand of the ―rule‖ invoked by Ichi? 2)
but he may exempt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all
her equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage." Are there exceptions to the ―limited liability rule‖?

Petitioner does not dispute the liabilities of the ship agent for the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
loss/shortage of 476.140 metric tons of standard-grade Muriate of
Potash valued at P1,657,700.95. Hence, we find no reason to delve 1) By ―limited liability rule‖ is meant that the liability of ashipowner for
further into the matter or to disturb the finding of the CA holding damages in case of loss is limited to thevalue of the vessel involved.
petitioner, as ship agent, liable to respondent for the losses sustained His other properties cannotbe reached by the parties entitled to
by the subject shipment. damages.

G.R. No. L-47447-47449 October 29, 1941 2) Yes. When the ship owner of the vessel involved isguilty of
TEODORO R. YANGCO, ETC., petitioner, negligence, the ―limited liability rule‖ does notapply. In such case, the
vs. ship owner is liable to the fullextent of the damages sustained by the
MANUEL LASERNA, ET AL., respondents. aggrieved parties(Mecenas v CA 180 s 83)
May the shipowner or agent, notwithstanding the total loss of the Limited Liability Rule (1997)
vessel as a result of the negligence of its captain, be properly
held liable in damages for the consequent death of its Explain the doctrine in Maritime accidents – The Doctrine
passengers? We are of the opinion and so hold that this question is of Limited Liability
controlled by the provisions of article 587 of the Code of Commerce.
Said article reads: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of third Under the ―doctrine of limited liability‖ the exclusivelyreal and
persons which arise from the conduct of the captain in the care of the hypothecary nature of maritime law operates tolimit the liability of the
goods which the vessel carried; but he may exempt himself therefrom shipowner to the value of thevessel, earned freightage and proceeds of
by abandoning the vessel with all her equipments and the freight he the insurance.However, such doctrine does not apply if the
may have earned during the voyage. shipownerand the captain are guilty of negligence.

The provisions accords a shipowner or agent the right of Limited Liability Rule (1999)
abandonment; and by necessary implication, his liability is confined to
that which he is entitled as of right to abandon — "the vessel with all Thinking that the impending typhoon was still 24 hoursaway, MV
Pioneer left port to sail for Leyte. That was amiscalculation of the
Page 25
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
typhoon signals by both the ship owner and the captain as the typhoon of the 2carriers for the death or injury of passengers and for theloss of
came earlier andovertook the vessel. The vessel sank and a number or damage to the goods arising from the collision issolidary. Neither
ofpassengers disappeared with it.Relatives of the missing passengers carrier may invoke the doctrine of lastclear chance which can only be
claimed damagesagainst the shipowner. The shipowner set up the relevant, if at all, betweenthe two vessels but not on the claims made
defensethat under the doctrine of limited liability, his liability wasco- by passengersor shippers (Litonjua Shipping v National Seamen Board
extensive with his interest in the vessel. As the vesselwas totally lost, GR 5191010Aug1989)
his liability had also been extinguished.. How will you advice the
claimants? Discuss thedoctrine of limited liability in maritime law. (3%). SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming that the vessel was insured, may theclaimants go after the
insurance proceeds? (3%) Yes, but subject to the doctrine of limited liability. Thedoctrine is to the
effect that the liability of the shipownerswould only be to the extent of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: any remaining value of thevessel, proceeds of insurance, if any, and
earned freightage.Given the factual settings, the shipowner himself
Under the doctrine of limited liability in maritime law,the liability of the was notguilty of negligence and, therefore, the doctrine can wellapply
shipowner arising from the operation of a shipis confined to the vessel, (Amparo de los Santos v CA 186 s 69)
equipment, and freight, or insurance, ifany, so that if the shipowner
abandoned the ship, equipment, andfreight, his liability is extinguished. Limited Liability Rule; General Average Loss (2000)
However, the doctrine oflimited liability does not apply when the
shipowner or captain isguilty of negligence. X Shipping Company spent almost a fortune in refittingand repairing its
luxury passenger vessel, the MV Marina,which plied the inter-island
Yes. In case of a lost vessel, the claimants may go afterthe proceeds routes of the company fromLa Union in the north to Davao City in the
of the insurance covering the vessel. south. TheMV Marina met an untimely fate during its post-
repairvoyage. It sank off the coast of Zambales while en route toLa
Limited Liability Rule (2000) Union from Manila. The investigation showed that thecaptain alone
was negligent. There were no casualties inthat disaster. Faced with a
MV Mariposa, one of five passenger ships owned byMarina Navigation claim for the payment of therefitting and repair, X Shipping company
Co, sank off the coast of Mindoro whileen route to Iloilo City. More than assertedexemption from liability on the basis of the hypothecary or
200 passengers perishedin the disaster. Evidence showed that the limited liability rule under Article 587 of the Code ofCommerce. Is X
ship captainignored typhoon bulletins issued by Pag-asa during the24- Shipping Company‗s assertion valid?Explain (3%).
hour period immediately prior to the vessel‗s departurefrom Manila.
The bulletins warned all types of sea crafts to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
avoid the typhoon‗s expected path near Mindoro. To makematters
worse, he took more load than was allowed for theship‗s rated No. The assertion of X Shipping Company is not valid.The total
capacity. Sued for damages by the victim‗ssurviving relatives, Marina destruction of the vessel does not affect theliability of the ship owner
Nav Co contended 1) that itsliability, if any, had been extinguished with for repairs on the vesselcompleted before its loss.
the sinking ofMV Mariposa; and 2) that assuming it had not been
soextinguished, such liability should be limited to the loss ofthe cargo. Limited Liability Rule; General Average Loss (2000)
Are these contentions meritorious in the contextof applicable
provisions of the Code of Commerce? (3%) MV SuperFast, a passenger-cargo vessel owned by SFShipping
Company plying the inter-island routes, was on itsway to Zamboanga
SUGGESTED ANSWER: City from the Manila port when itaccidentally, and without fault or
negligence of anyone onthe ship, hit a huge floating object. The
Yes. The contentions of Marina Nav Co are meritorious.The captain of accident causeddamage to the vessel and loss of an accompanying
MV Mariposa is guilty of negligence inignoring the typhoon bulletins cratedcargo of passenger PR. In order to lighten the vessel andsave it
issued by PAGASA and inoverloading the vessel. But only the captain from sinking and in order to avoid risk of damage toor loss of the rest
of the vesselMV Mariposa is guilty of negligence. The ship owner is of the shipped items (none of which waslocated on the deck), some
not. Therefore, the ship owner can invoke the doctrine oflimited liability. had to be jettisoned. SFShipping had the vessel repaired at its port of
destination.SF Shipping thereafter filed a complaint demanding all the
Limited Liability Rule; Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault (1991) other cargo owners to share in the total repair costs incurred by the
company and in the value of the lost andjettisoned cargoes. In answer
In a collision between M/T Manila, a tanker, and M/VDon Claro, an to the complaint, theshippers‗ sole contention was that, under the Code
inter-island vessel, Don Claro sank andmany of its passengers ofCommerce, each damaged party should bear its or his own
drowned and died. All its cargoeswere lost. The collision occurred at damage and those that did not suffer any loss or damagewere not
nighttime but the seawas calm, the weather fair and visibility was good. obligated to make any contribution in favor ofthose who did. Is the
Prior tothe collision and while still 4 nautical miles apart, Don Claro shippers‗ contention valid? Explain(2%)
already sighted Manila on its radarscreen. Manila had no radar
equipment. As for speed,Don Claro was twice as fast as Manila. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
At the time of the collision, Manila failed to follow Rule19 of the
International Rules of the Road which requires 2vessels meeting head No. The shippers‗ contention is not valid. The owners ofthe cargo
on to change their course by eachvessel steering to starboard (right) jettisoned, to save the vessel from sinking and tosave the rest of the
so that each vessel maypass on the port side (left) of the other. Manila cargoes, are entitled to contribution.The jettisoning of said cargoes
signaledthat it would turn to the port side and steered accordingly,thus constitute general averageloss which entitles the owners thereof to
resulting in the collision. Don Claro‗s captain wasoff-duty and was contribution fromthe owner of the vessel and also from the owners of
having a drink at the ship‗s bar at thetime of the collision. thecargoes saved.

a) Who would you hold liable for thecollision? SF Shipping is not entitled to contribution/ reimbursementfor the costs
b) If Don Claro was at fault, may the heirs of thepassengers who died of repairs on the vessel from the shippers.
and the owners of the cargoesrecover damages from the owner of said
vessel? Powers and Duties of a Ship Agent:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Represent the ownership of the vessel and may, in his own
name and in such capacity, take judicial and extrajudicial
I can hold the 2 vessels liable. In the problem given,whether on the steps in matters relating to commerce (595.2)
basis of the factual settings or under thedoctrine of inscrutable fault, 2. Occupy the duties of the captain, if he has the qualification of
both vessels can be said tohave been guilty of negligence. The liability a captain (596.1)
Page 26
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
3. Select and come into agreement with the captain and 1. For civil liability to third persons arising from the conduct
contract in the name of owners who shall be bound in all that of the captain in the vigilance over the goods which the
refers to repairs, details of equipment, armament, provisions, vessel carried [Art. 587]
fuel, freight, and in general that pertains to the requirement 2. For the proportionate contribution of co-owners or the
of navigation (597) vessel to a common fund for the results of the acts of the
4. Indemnify the captain for all the expenses he may have captain [Art. 590]
incurred from his own funds or from those of other persons 3. For civil liability incurred by the ship owner in case of
for the benefit of the vessel (602) collision [Art.837]

NOTE: Ship owner, agent and captain can be one and the same When the ship owner or ship agent may be held liable for MORE
persons (595, 596, 606) than the value of the vessel:

How Ship Agent may Exempt Himself from Liability: 1. When the vessel is PROPERLY INSURED – the insurance
will take care of the liability the value of w/c could be more
By ABANDONING: than the value of the vessel
2. When the liability for REPAIRS of the vessel was incurred
1. the vessel, and BEFORE the loss of such vessel
2. ALL: 3. When the liability is one that arises from the provisions of
a. her equipment, and the LABOR CODE
b. the freightage it may have earned during the
voyage When Abandonment CANNOT be Made

Why is the Ship owner given the right of abandonment? 1. When the ship owner or ship agent is at FAULT – he is
deemed at fault when the incident arose because of lack of
As correctly stated by the appellate court, "(t)his rule is found proper equipment of the vessel and technical training of
necessary to offset against the innumerable hazards and perils of officers and crew
a sea voyage and to encourage shipbuilding and marine 2. When the voyage is NOT maritime, but only in a river bay,
commerce. (Delos Santos v CA) of gulf
3. When the vessel is NOT acting as a common carrier but a
What distinguishes Maritime Law from Civil Law or Mercantile private carrier
Law? The REAL and HYPOTHECARY nature of Maritime Law
G.R. No. L-51165 June 21, 1990
A shipping transportation contract is ―REAL & HYPOTHECARY‖ in HEIRS OF AMPARO DE LOS SANTOS, HEIRS OF ERNANIE
nature under Art. 587 which accords a ship owner or agent the right of DELOS SANTOS, HEIRS OF AMABELLA DELOS SANTOS, HEIRS
abandonment; and by necessary implication, his liability is confined to OF LENNY DELOS SANTOS, HEIRS OF MELANY DELOS SANTOS,
that which he is entitled as of right to abandon - "the vessel with all her HEIRS OF TERESA PAMATIAN, HEIRS OF DIEGO SALEM, AND
equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage." RUBEN REYES, petitioners,
[Yangco v. Laserna, Oct 29, 1941] vs.
It is equivalent to an offer of the value of the vessel, her equipment and Under Article 587, a shipowner or agent has the right of abandonment;
freight earned in return for an exemption from liability. and by necessary implication, his liability is confined to that which he is
entitled as of right to abandon-"the vessel with all her equipments and
When ABANDONMENT is made in the instances provided by law, the freight it may have earned during the voyage" (Yangco v. Laserna,
it cannot be refused. et al., 73 Phil. 330, 332). Notwithstanding the passage of the New Civil
Code, Article 587 of the Code of Commerce is still good law. The
Note:When the right to abandonment exists, the reason lies in the peculiar nature of maritime law which is 94
shipper/consignee/pax cannot invoke Art. 1733 and 1755 of the Civil exclusively real and hypothecary that operates to limit such liability to
Code. the value of the vessel, or to the insurance thereon, if any (Yangco v.
Laserna, Ibid). As correctly stated by the appellate court, "(t)his rule is
Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and found necessary to offset against the innumerable hazards and perils
for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary of a sea voyage and to encourage shipbuilding and marine commerce.
diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the (Decision, Rollo, p. 29). Contrary to the petitioners' supposition, the
limited liability doctrine applies not only to the goods but also in all
passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of
each case. cases like death or injury to passengers wherein the shipowner or
agent may properly be held liable for the negligent or illicit acts of the
captain (Yangco v. Laserna, Ibid). It must be stressed at this point
Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers
that Article 587 speaks only of situations where the fault or
safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
negligence is committed solely by the captain. In cases where the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the
shipowner is likewise to be blamed, Article 587 does not apply
(see Manila Steamship Co., Inc. v. Abdulhanan, et al., 100 Phil. 32,
38). Such a situation will be covered by the provisions of the New
While the primary law governing maritime commerce is the Civil Code, Civil Code on Common Carriers. Owing to the nature of their
in all matters not regulated by said Code, the Code of Commerce and business and for reasons of public policy, common carriers are tasked
other special laws shall govern. to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and
for the safety of its passengers (Article 1733, New Civil Code). Further,
Since the Civil Code contains no provision regulating the liability of they are bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care
shipowers in the event of total loss or destruction of the vessel, it is the and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
provisions of the Code of Commerce, particularly Art. 587 that persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances (Article 1755, New
governs.[Chua Yek Hong v. IAC, 14 Dec 1988] Civil Code). Whenever death or injury to a passenger occurs, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
When ABANDONMENT can be made: negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary

Page 27
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
diligence as prescribed by Articles 1733 and 1755 (Article 1756, New through the expedient of filing a notice of abandonment of the vessel
Civil Code). by virtue of Art. 587 of the Code of Commerce.

Guided by the above legal provisions, We painstakingly reviewed the NOTE:For the earlier rulings on the case against Aboitiz, read:
records of the case and found imprints of Maritima's negligence which 
compel Us to reverse the conclusion of the appellate court. Aboitiz Shipping vs General Accident (1993)

Maritima claims that it did not have any information about typhoon In the 1993 GAFLAC case, Aboitiz argued that the real and
'Welming' until after the boat was already at sea. Modem technology hypothecary doctrine warranted the immediate stay of execution of
belie such contention. The Weather Bureau is now equipped with judgment to prevent the impairment of the other creditors‘ shares.
modern apparatus which enables it to detect any incoming Invoking the rule on the law of the case, private respondent therein
atmospheric disturbances. In his summary report on tropical cyclone countered that the 1990 GAFLAC case had already settled the extent
'Welming' which occurred within the Philippine Area of Responsibility, of Aboitiz‘s liability.
Dr. Roman L. Kintanar, Weather Bureau Director, stated that during
the periods of November 15, 1967, the Bureau issued a total of Following the doctrine of limited liability, however, the Court declared in
seventeen (17) warnings or advisories of typhoon 'Welming' to the 1993 GAFLAC case that claims against Aboitiz arising from the
shipping companies. XXX sinking of M/V P. Aboitiz should be limited only to the extent of the
value of the vessel. Thus, the Court held that the execution of
While We agree with the appellate court that the captain was negligent judgments in cases already resolved with finality must be stayed
for overloading the ship, We, however, rule that Maritima shares pending the resolution of all the other similar claims arising from the
equally in his negligence. We find that while M/V Mindoro was already sinking of M/V P. Aboitiz. Considering that the claims against Aboitiz
cleared by the Bureau of Customs and the Coast Guard for departure had reached more than 100, the Court found it necessary to collate all
at 2:00 p.m. the ship's departure was, however, delayed for four hours. these claims before their payment from the insurance proceeds of the
Maritima could not account for the delay because it neither checked vessel and its pending freightage. As a result, the Court exhorted the
from the captain the reasons behind the delay nor sent its trial courts before whom similar cases remained pending to proceed
representative to inquire into the cause of such delay. It was due to this with trial and adjudicate these claims so that the pro-rated share of
interim that the appellate court noted that "(i)ndeed there is a great each claim could be determined after all the cases shall have been
probability that unmanifested cargo (such as dump truck, 3 toyota cars, decided.
steel bars, and 6,000 beer cases) and passengers (about 241 more
than the authorized 193 passengers) were loaded during the four (4) In the 1993 GAFLAC case, the Court applied the limited liability rule in
hour interval" (Decision, p. 13, Rollo, p. 26). Perchance, a closer favor of Aboitiz based on the trial court‘s finding therein that Aboitiz
supervision could have prevented the overloading of the ship. Maritima was not negligent.
could have directed the ship's captain to immediately depart in view of
the fact that as of 11:07 in the morning of November 2, 1967, the  Monarch Insurance vs CA (2000)
typhoon had already attained surface winds of about 240 kilometers
per hour. As the appellate court stated, '(v)erily, if it were not for have In Monarch Insurance, the Court deemed it fit to settle once and for all
reached (its) destination and this delay, the vessel could thereby have this factual issue by declaring that the sinking of M/V P. Aboitiz was
avoided the effects of the storm" (Decision, Rollo p. 26). This caused by the concurrence of the unseaworthiness of the vessel and
conclusion was buttressed by evidence that another ship, M/V the negligence of both Aboitiz and the vessel‘s crew and master and
Mangaren, an interisland vessel, sailed for New Washington, Aklan on not because of force majeure. Notwithstanding this finding, the Court
November 2, 1967, ahead of M/V Mindoro and took the same route as did not reverse but reiterated instead the pronouncement
the latter but it arrived safely (Exh. BB-2, Index of Exhibits, pp. 143-144 in GAFLAC to the effect that the claimants be treated as "creditors in
and Exh. 4-A, Ibid, p. 254). an insolvent corporation whose assets are not enough to satisfy the
totality of claims against it." The Court explained that the peculiar
G.R. No. 116940 June 11, 1997 circumstances warranted that procedural rules of evidence be set
THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, aside to prevent frustrating the just claims of shippers/insurers. Thus,
INC., petitioner, the Court in Monarch Insurance ordered Aboitiz to institute the
vs. necessary limitation and distribution action before the proper RTC and
COURT OF APPEALS and FELMAN SHIPPING to deposit with the said court the insurance proceeds of and the
LINES, respondents. freightage earned by the ill-fated ship.
On the second issue, Art. 587 of the Code of Commerce is not  Aboitiz Shipping vs New India (2006)
applicable to the case at bar. 8 Simply put, the ship agent is liable for
the negligent acts of the captain in the care of goods loaded on the However, on 02 May 2006, the Court rendered a decision in Aboitiz
vessel. This liability however can be limited through abandonment of Shipping Corporation v. New India Assurance Company, Ltd.44 (New
the vessel, its equipment and freightage as provided in Art. 587. India), reiterating the well-settled principle that the exception to the
Nonetheless, there are exceptional circumstances wherein the ship limited liability doctrine applies when the damage is due to the fault of
agent could still be held answerable despite the abandonment, as the shipowner or to the concurrent negligence of the shipowner and
where the loss or injury was due to the fault of the shipowner and the the captain. Where the shipowner fails to overcome the presumption of
captain. 9 The international rule is to the effect that the right of negligence, the doctrine of limited liability cannot be applied. In New
abandonment of vessels, as a legal limitation of a shipowner's liability, India, the Court clarified that the earlier pronouncement in Monarch
does not apply to cases where the injury or average was occasioned Insurance was not an abandonment of the doctrine of limited liability
by the shipowner's own fault. 10 It must be stressed at this point that and that the circumstances therein still made the doctrine applicable.
Art. 587 speaks only of situations where the fault or negligence is
committed solely by the captain. Where the shipowner is likewise to be In New India, the Court declared that Aboitiz failed to discharge its
blamed, Art. 587 will not apply, and such situation will be covered by burden of showing that it exercised extraordinary diligence in the
the provisions of the Civil Code on common carrier. transport of the goods it had on board in order to invoke the limited
It was already established at the outset that the sinking of "MV Asilda" liability doctrine. Thus, the Court rejected Aboitiz‘s argument that the
was due to its unseaworthiness even at the time of its departure from award of damages to respondent therein should be limited to its pro
the port of Zamboanga. It was top-heavy as an excessive amount of rata share in the insurance proceeds from the sinking of M/V P.
cargo was loaded on deck. Closer supervision on the part of the Aboitiz.
shipowner could have prevented this fatal miscalculation. As such,
FELMAN was equally negligent. It cannot therefore escape liability

Page 28
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
G.R. No. 137801 October 17, 2008
ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioners, For the transportation of its cargo from the Port of Manilato the Port of
vs. Kobe, Japan, Osawa & Co., chartered―bareboat‖ M/V Ilog of
EQUITABLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents. Karagatan Corporation. M/V Ilogmet a sea accident resulting in the
TINGA, J.: loss of the cargo and thedeath of some of the seamen manning the
The circumstances in the 1993 GAFLAC case, however, are not vessel. Whoshould bear the loss of the cargo and the death of the
obtaining in the instant petitions. seamen? Why? (4%)

A perusal of the decisions of the courts below in all three petitions SUGGESTED ANSWER:
reveals that there is a categorical finding of negligence on the part of (per Dondee) Osawa and Co. shall bear the loss becauseunder a
Aboitiz. For instance, in G.R. No. 121833, the RTC therein expressly demise or bareboat charter, the charterer (Osawa& Co.) mans the
stated that the captain of M/V P. Aboitiz was negligent in failing to take vessel with his own people and becomes,in effect, the owner for the
a course of action that would prevent the vessel from sailing into the voyage or service stipulated,subject to liability for damages caused by
typhoon. In G.R. No. 130752, the RTC concluded that Aboitiz failed to negligence.
show that it had exercised the required extraordinary diligence in
steering the vessel before, during and after the storm. In G.R. No. Effect of Charter Party Agreement
137801, the RTC categorically stated that the sinking of M/V P.
Aboitiz was attributable to the negligence or fault of Aboitiz. In all 1. Common Carrier
instances, the Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings of the trial
courts. a. Voyage or Time Charter – retains its status as a
common carrier
b. Bareboat or Demise Charter – it becomes a
The instant petitions provide another occasion for the Court to reiterate private carrier for the particular charter
the well-settled doctrine of the real and hypothecary nature of maritime
law. As a general rule, a ship owner‘s liability is merely co-extensive 2. Private Carrier – retains its status as a private carrier
with his interest in the vessel, except where actual fault is attributable
to the shipowner. Thus, as an exception to the limited liability doctrine, What is meant by ―owner pro hac vice‖ of the vessel?
a shipowner or ship agent may be held liable for damages when the
sinking of the vessel is attributable to the actual fault or negligence of He is a demise or bareboat charterer to whom the owner of the vessel
the shipowner or its failure to ensure the seaworthiness of the vessel. has completely and exclusively relinquished possession, command
The instant petitions cannot be spared from the application of the and navigation of the vessel
exception to the doctrine of limited liability in view of the unanimous
findings of the courts below that both Aboitiz and the crew failed to Formal Requirements of a Charter Party [Art. 652]
ensure the seaworthiness of the M/V P. Aboitiz.
1. Must be drawn in duplicates,
Can a CHARTERER make an abandonment? 2. Signed by the contracting parties [or by two witnesses at the
request of party who does not know or is not able to sign]
NO. He cannot be regarded as being in the place of the owner or agent
in matters relating to the responsibility pertaining to ownership and Substantial Requirements of a Charter Party [Art. 652]
possession of the vessel [Yeung Sheung Exchange v. Urrutia, 12
PHIL 747] 1. Conditions freely stipulated
2. Kind, name and tonnage of vessel
Special Contracts of Maritime Commerce 3. Flag and port of registry
4. Name, surname and domicile of captain, ship agent, and
1. CHARTER PARTY charterer
2. BILL of LADING 5. Port of loading or unloading
6. Capacity, weight or measure the parties respectively bind
CHARTER PARTY[Art. 652-692] themselves to load and transport, or whether it is total cargo
7. Freightage to be paid
A contract by which an entire ship, or some principal part thereof, is let 8. Primage to be paid by captain
by the owner to another person for a specified time or use, 9. Days agreed for loading or unloading
inconsideration of the payment of a fee. 10. Lay days and extra days to be allowed and the rate of
Kinds of Charter Parties:
Charter Party (1991)
1. CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT– owner retains control
of the vessel; involves merely the use of shipping space on The Saad Dev Co enters into a voyage charter with XYZover the
a vessel, leased by the owner in part or as a whole, to carry latter‗s vessel, the MV LadyLove. Before the Saadcould load it, XYZ
goods for others, and may either be a: sold Lady Love to Oslob Maritime Cowhich decided to load it for its
own account.
a. TIME CHARTER– a contract to use the vessel for
a particular period of time a) May XYZShipping Co validly ask for the rescission of the
charterparty? If so, can Saad recover damages? To what extent?
b. VOYAGE CHARTER– a contract for the hire of a
vessel for one or a series of voyage b)If Oslob did not load it for its own account, is it bound bythe charter
2. BAREBOAT OR DEMISE– involves the transfer of full
possession and control of the vessel for the period covered c) Explain the meaning of ―owner prohac vice of the vessel.‖ In what
by the contract; the entire command of the vessel, kind of charter party doesthis obtain?
possession and control over its navigation, including the
master and crew are turned over to the charterer SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Maritime Commerce; Bareboat (2003)

Page 29
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
a) XYZ may ask for the rescission of the charter party if,as in this case, under which vessel navigates for damages suffered
it sold the vessel before the charterer hasbegun to load the vessel and
the purchaser loads it for hisown account. Saad may recover damages Non placement of vessel at He will be indemnified by owner
to the extent ofits losses (Art 689 Code of Commerce) disposal of charterer within for damages suffered
period and manner agreed upon
b) If Oslob did not load Lady Love for its own account, itwould be
bound by the charter party, but XYZ wouldhave to indemnify Oslob if it
was not informed of theCharter Party at the time of sale. (Art 689 Code
ofCommerce) Vessel returns to port of If he unloads the vessel, owner
departure on account of risk shall have the right to freight in
c) The term ―Owner Pro Hac Vice of the Vessel,‖ isgenerally from pirates, enemies or full for voyage out
understood to be the charterer of the vessel inthe case of bareboat or inclement weather
demise charter (Litonjua Shipping Co vNational Seamen‟s Board GR
51910 10Aug1989)
Vessel makes port in order to He must dispose of the goods
Charter Party (2004)
make repairs
Under a charter party, XXO Trading Company shippedsugar to Coca-
Cola Company through SS Negros ShippingCorp., insured by Capitol
Insurance Company. The cargoarrived but with shortages. Coca-Cola Rescission by Owner
demanded fromCapitol Insurance Co. P500.000 in settlement for XXO
Trading. The MM Regional Trial Court, where the civil suitwas filed, Failure of charterer to place Charter is rescinded but
"absolved the insurance company, declaring thatunder the Code of cargo alongside vessel at the charterer must pay the vessel
Commerce, the shipping agent is civillyliable for damages in favor of termination of extra lay days owner:
third persons due to theconduct of the carrier's captain, and the
stipulation in thecharter party exempting the owner from liability is not a. ½ of the freight stipulated,
against public policy. Coca-Cola appealed. Will its appealprosper? and
Reason briefly. (5%)
b. demurrage for the lay days
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and extra lay days

No. The appeal of Coca-Cola will not prosper. UnderArticle 587 of the Sale of vessel before the Charter is rescinded - If the
Code of Commerce, the shipping agentis civilly liable for damages in charterer has begun to load the buyer of has loaded the vessel
favor of third persons due tothe conduct of the carrier's captain, and vessel for his own account BUT
the shipping agentcan exempt himself therefrom only by abandoning seller/owner must indemnify
thevessel with all his equipment and the freight he may haveearned charterer for damages suffered
during the voyage. On the other hand, assumingthere is bareboat
charter, the stipulation in the charterparty exempting the owner from Charter is NOT rescinded - If
liability is not againstpublic policy because the public at large is not buyer has NOT loaded the
involved(Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., vessel for his own account BUT
23 SCRA25(1968). the seller shall indemnify the
buyer if he did not inform the
Definition of Terms: buyer of the charter at the time
of making the sale
1. PRIMAGE – a small allowance or compensation payable:

a. to the master or owner of the vessel for the use of Distinctions

his cables and ropes to discharge the goods, and
b. to the mariners for lading and unlading in any port ORDINARY LEASE CHARTER PARTY
2. DEMURRAGE – an amount stipulated in the charter party to
be paid by the charterer or shipper to the shipowner for any If the lease is for a definite If the charter is for a definite
DELAY in the sailing of his ship period, the lessee cannot give period, the charterer may
terminate the lease by just rescind the charter party by
3. LAYDAYS – number of days between loading and departure paying a portion of the amount paying half of the freightage
agreed upon
Who can Rescind a Charter Party

1. Charterer [Art. 688] If the leased property is sold to If the vessel is sold to another,
2. Ship owner [Art. 689] one who knows of the existence the new owner cannot be
of the lease contract, the new compelled to respect the CP for
Rescission by Charterer owner of the property must as long as the new owner can
respect the lease load the vessel with his own
Abandonment of charter before He must pay ½ of freight agreed cargo
loading upon

[G.R. No. 139629. June 21, 2004]

Capacity of vessel not found to He will be indemnified by owner SANTIAGO LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT
be in conformity with that stated for damages suffered OF APPEALS, C-SQUARE CONSOLIDATED MINES and MANUEL
in certificate of tonnage A. PELAEZ, respondents.
Error in the statement of the flag He will be indemnified by owner

Page 30
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
Interpretation of the Charter Party Agreement G.R. NO. 172822 : December18, 2009]
Petitioner asserts that delivery of the MV Christine Gay to Pelaez and CORPORATION Respondent.
Pelaezs subsequent takeover of the vessel is already a full DECISION
performance of petitioners obligations. Petitioner berthed MV Christine DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Gay in the port of Manila as early as 26 August 1989 and Pelaez had The bill of lading is oftentimes drawn up by the shipper/consignor and
the opportunity to inspect her from that date until 1 September 1989, the carrier without the intervention of the consignee. However, the
when Pelaez took over the vessel.Thus, petitioner is not liable for latter can be bound by the stipulations of the bill of lading when a)
defects in MV Christine Gay after the delivery and turn over. XXX there is a relation of agency between the shipper or consignor and the
consignee or b) when the consignee demands fulfillment of the
The mere physical transfer of MV Christine Gay from petitioner to stipulation of the bill of lading which was drawn up in its favor.
Pelaez does not constitute full performance of its obligation under their
bareboat charter agreement. Neither is it considered a delivery. Under In Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held that
the agreement, physical transfer of a seaworthy vesselis necessary to once the bill of lading is received by the consignee who does not object
satisfy delivery.Paragraph 3 of the bareboat charter agreement to any terms or stipulations contained therein, it constitutes as an
expressly requires petitioner to make the VESSEL seaworthy at the acceptance of the contract and of all of its terms and conditions, of
time of delivery. Since petitioner did not deliver a seaworthy vessel, which the acceptor has actual or constructive notice.???ñr?bl?š
petitioner failed to perform his obligation to Pelaez under the
agreement. 3-Fold Character of a BL

Seaworthiness is a relative term. Petitioner claims that MV Christine 1. A RECEIPT which:

Gay later undertook voyages within the Philippines.However, such 2.
subsequent voyages in the Philippines do not prove the vessels a. specifies the quantity, condition and character of
seaworthiness to withstand a voyage to South Korea. We quote from the goods received, and
authorities in Maritime Law: b. recites the date and place of shipment and the
fees paid by the shipper
To be seaworthy, a vessel must have that degree of fitness which an
ordinary, careful and prudent owner would require his vessel to have at 3. It is evidence of a CONTRACT by which the 3 parties
the commencement of her voyage, having regard to all the probable [shipper, carrier, consignee] undertake specific
circumstances of it. Thus the degree of seaworthiness varies in relation responsibilities and assume stipulated obligations; also fixes
to the contemplated voyage. Crossing the Atlantic calls for stronger the route, destination, freight charges, and stipulates the
equipment than sailing across the Visayan Sea. It is essential to rights and obligations assumed by the parties [Art. 353]
consider that once the necessary degree of seaworthiness has been
ascertained, this obligation is an absolute one, i.e. the undertaking is 4. It is a DOCUMENT OF TITLE
that the vessel actually is seaworthy. It is no excuse that the shipowner
took every possible precaution to make her so, if in fact he failed. G.R. No. 181300 September 18, 2009
In examining what is meant by seaworthiness we must bear in mind vs.
the dual nature of the carriers obligations under a contract of JARDINE DAVIES TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. and ASIAN
affreightment. To satisfy these duties the vessel must (a) be efficient TERMINALS, INC., Respondents.
as an instrument of transport and (b) as a storehouse for her DECISION
cargo. The latter part of the obligation is sometimes referred to as CARPIO MORALES, J.:
cargoworthiness. The presumption that the bill of lading, which petitioner relies upon to
A ship is efficient as an instrument of transport if its hull, tackle and support its claim for restitution, constitutes prima facie evidence of the
machinery are in a state of good repair, if she is sufficiently provided goods therein described was correctly deemed by the appellate court
with fuel and ballast, and is manned by an efficient crew. to have been rebutted in light of abundant evidence casting doubts on
its veracity.
And a vessel is cargoworthy if it is sufficiently strong and equipped to
carry the particular kind of cargo which she has contracted to carry, That MV Hoegh undertook, under the bill of lading, to transport
and her cargo must be so loaded that it is safe for her to proceed on 6,599.23 MT of yellow crude sulphur on a "said to weigh" basis is not
her voyage. A mere right given to the charterer to inspect the vessel disputed. Under such clause, the shipper is solely responsible for the
before loading and to satisfy himself that she was fit for the contracted loading of the cargo while the carrier is oblivious of the contents of the
cargo does not free the shipowner from his obligation to provide a shipment. Nobody really knows the actual weight of the cargo
cargoworthy ship. (Emphasis added) inasmuch as what is written on the bill of lading, as well as on the
manifest, is based solely on the shipper‘s declaration.
Bill of Lading[Art. 350-375, 709-718]
The bill of lading carried an added clause – the shipment‘s weight,
Definition [Black’s Law Dictionary] measure, quantity, quality, condition, contents and value unknown."
Evidently, the weight of the cargo could not be gauged from the bill of
 An instrument in writing lading.
 Signed by a carrier or his agent
 Describing the freight so as to identify it XXX
 Stating the name of the consignor, the terms of the contract
of carriage, and In the absence of clear, convincing and competent evidence to prove
 Agreeing or directing that the freight be delivered to the that the cargo indeed weighed, albeit the Bill of Lading qualified it by
order or assigns of a specified person at a specified place the phrase "said to weigh," 6,599.23 MT at the port of origin when it
was loaded onto the MV Hoegh, the fact of loss or shortage in the
cargo upon its arrival in Manila cannot be definitively established. The
legal basis for attributing liability to either of the respondents is thus
sorely wanting.

Effect of Issuance by Carrier of an UNSIGNED Bill of Lading when

ACCEPTED by Shipper or Consignee:

Page 31
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
Acceptance with full knowledge of its contents gives rise to the
presumption that the same was a perfected and binding contract SUGGESTED ANSWER:
[Keng Hua vs CA 286 SCRA 257]
1) Yes. Transshipment is the act of taking cargo out of oneship and
Is a Bill of Lading indispensable to a contract of carriage? NO, for loading it in another. It is immaterial whether ornot the same person,
as long as there is a meeting of the minds of the parties, a contract of firm, or entity owns the two vessels.(Magellan v CA 201 s 102)
carriage exists. But under Art. 350, the shipper or carrier may mutually
demand that a bill of lading be made. 2) No. JRT is bound by the terms of the bill of ladingwhen it accepted
the bill of lading with full knowledge ofits contents which included
What must be done to the Bill of Lading upon fulfillment of the transshipment in Hongkong.Acceptance under such circumstances
contract of transportation? makes the bill oflading a binding contract. (Magellan v Ca 201 s 102)

It must be RETURNED to the carrier who may have issued it, and by Can a carrier refuse to accept goods? In general, no because it is
virtue of the exchange of the BL for the object transported, the obliged to offer services to whoever wants to avail of its services but
respective obligations and actions shall be considered as cancelled may refuse if the goods are unfit for transportation.

What if the shipper cannot return the bill of lading to the shipper When can carrier examine the goods? When there is a reason of
due to loss or any other cause? Shipper must give the carrier a well-founded suspicion of falsity
receipt for the goods delivered
What is the presumption if the carrier does not hold the bill of
lading after the fulfillment of the contract of transportation? 1. It must be made in the presence of witnesses
2. Shipper or consignee must be in attendance or before a
The carrier DID NOT DELIVER the goods to the consignee. Therefore notary public
it will be liable for the merchandise stated in the bill of lading. Burden of 3. It must open the goods in front of the shipper
proof is on the carrier to establish actual delivery of the merchandise 4. If after examination, the declaration is found to be true, the
called for in the bill of lading. expenses for examination and repackage shall be borne by
the carrier otherwise, it shall be paid by the shipper.
G.R. No. 125524 August 25, 1999 Effect when Transshipment is without Legal Excuse:
BENITO MACAM doing business under the name and style BEN-
MAC ENTERPRISES, petitioner,
1. It is a violation of the contract of carriage
2. Carrier shall be liable to the shipper if cargo is lost even by a
cause otherwise excepted
Can the consignee be changed? Yes (Long voyage and the
In petitioner‘s several years of business relationship with GPC and
respondents, there was not a single instance when the bill of lading consignee refuses to pay)
was first presented before the release of the cargoes. He admitted the
existence of the telex of 3 July 1989 containing his request to deliver
the shipment to the consignee without presentation of the bill of lading
1. Carrier has to be informed
2. Carrier must comply with the change of the
Transshipment -The act of taking cargo from one ship and loading it consignee if the place of delivery shall not be
on another altered
3. Original bill of lading must be returned to the
It is immaterial whether the same person or entity owns the other carrier who will issue another one containing the
vessel novation of contract and expenses in the change
of consignee shall be paid by the shipper
Trans-Shipment; Bill of Lading; binding contract (1993)
Period for Bringing a Claim Against the Carrier [Art. 366]
JRT Inc entered into a contract with C Co of Japan toexport anahaw
fans valued at $23,000. As payment thereof,a letter of credit was 1. IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT of the package – if
issued to JRT by the buyer. The letterof credit required the issuance of damage is APPARENT from exterior of package [for such
an on-board bill of ladingand prohibited the transshipment. The purpose, a VERBAL CLAIM made immediately is
President of JRTthen contracted a shipping agent to ship the anahaw SUFFICIENT compliance with the law]
fansthrough O Containers Lines, specifying the requirementsof the
letter of credit. However, the bill of lading issued bythe shipping lines 2. WITHIN 24 HOURS following RECEIPT of package – if the
bore the notation ―received for shipment‖ and contained anentry damage CANNOT BE KNOWN from exterior of package
indicating transshipment in Hongkong. The Presidentof JRT personally
received and signed the bill of lading anddespite the entries, he All Claims are EXTINGUISHED – if consignee RECEIVES
delivered the corresponding check inpayment of the freight. The themerchandise, and PAYS the freight charges WITHOUT PROTEST
shipment was delivered at theport of discharge but the buyer refused
to accept theanahaw fans because there was no on-board bill of What is the PURPOSE of the above Rules?
lading,and there was transshipment since the goods weretransferred in
Hongkong from MV Pacific, the feedervessel, to MV Oriental, a mother To compel the consignee of goods entrusted to a carrier to make
vessel. JRT argued thatthe same cannot be considered transshipment prompt demand for settlement of alleged damages suffered by the
because bothvessels belong to the same shipping company. 1) Was goods while in transport, so that the carrier will be enabled to verify all
theretransshipment? Explain 2) JRT further argued thatassuming that claims, fix responsibility and secure evidence as to the goods while the
there was transshipment, it cannot bedeemed to have agreed thereto matter is still fresh in the minds of the parties [Roldan v. Lim Ponzo
even if it signed the bill oflading containing such entry because it was 37 PHIL 285]
made known tothe shipping lines from the start that transshipment
wasprohibited under the letter of credit and that, therefore, ithad no
intention to allow transshipment of the subjectcargo. Is the argument
tenable? Reason.

Page 32
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
When shall the above period commence to run?
The twenty-four-hour period prescribed by Art. 366 of the Code of
When the goods are ACTUALLY turned over by the carrier and Commerce within which claims must be presented does not begin to
RECEIVED by the consignee run until the consignee has received such possession of the
merchandise that he may exercise over it the ordinary control pertinent
G.R. No. L-7311. September 30, 1955 to ownership. In other words, there must be delivery of the cargo by
the carrier to the consignee at the place of destination. In the case at
NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. bar, consignee Sumitomo has not received possession of the cargo,
ADRIANO CHOA JOY, ETC.,Defendant-Appellee. and has not physically inspected the same at the time the shipment
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: was discharged from M/V Lorcon IV in Davao City. Petitioner Lorenzo
Shipping failed to establish that an authorized agent of the consignee
Article 366 of the Code of Commerce, which was applied by the court, Sumitomo received the cargo at Sasa Wharf in Davao City.
provides: Respondent Transmarine Carriers as agent of respondent Gearbulk,
Ltd., which carried the goods from Davao City to the United States,
"Within twenty-four hours following the receipt of the merchandise, the and the principal, respondent Gearbulk, Ltd. itself, are not the
claim against the carrier for damage or average which may be found authorized agents as contemplated by law. What is clear from the
therein upon opening the packages, may be made, provided that the evidence is that the consignee received and took possession of the
indications of the damage or average which gives rise to the claim entire shipment only when the latter reached the United States‘ shore.
cannot be ascertained from the outside part of such packages, in Only then was delivery made and completed. And only then did the 24-
which case the claim shall be admitted only at time of receipt. hour prescriptive period start to run.

"After the periods mentioned have elapsed, or the transportation G.R. No. 136888 June 29, 2005
charges have been paid, no claim shall be admitted against the carrier PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner,
with regard to the condition in which the goods transported were vs.
XXX Both courts held that, indeed, a telephone call was made by Alfredo
Chan to EncarnacionAbastillas, informing the latter of the
In order that the condition provided in Article 366 of the Code of contamination. However, nothing in the trial court‘s decision stated that
Commerce may be demanded there should be a consignment of the notice of claim was relayed or filed with the respondent-carrier
goods, through a common carrier, by a consignor in one place to a immediately or within a period of twenty-four hours from the time the
consignee in another place, and the delivery of the merchandise by the goods were received. The Court of Appeals made the same finding.
carrier to the consignee at the place of destination. In the instant case, Having examined the entire records of the case, we cannot find a
the consignor is the branch office of Lee Teh& Co., Inc. at Catarman, shred of evidence that will precisely and ultimately point to the
Samar, which placed the cargo on board the ship Jupiter, and the conclusion that the notice of claim was timely relayed or filed.
consignee, its main office at Manila. The cargo never reached Manila,
its destination, nor was it ever delivered to the consignee, the office of The allegation of the petitioner that not only the Vice President of the
the shipper in Manila, because the ship ran aground upon entering respondent was informed, but also its drivers, as testified by Alfredo
Laoang Bay, Samar of the same day of the shipment. Such being the Chan, during the time that the delivery was actually being made,
case, Article 366 does not have application because the cargo was cannot be given great weight as no driver was presented to the witness
never received by the consignee. Moreover, under the bill of lading stand to prove this. XXX
issued by the carrier (Exhibit C), it was the latter‘s undertaking to bring
the cargo to its designation — Manila, — and deliver it to its consignee, The requirement that a notice of claim should be filed within the period
which undertaking was never complied with. The carrier, therefore, stated by Article 366 of the Code of Commerce is not an empty or
breached its contract, and, as such, it forfeited its right to invoked in its worthless proviso. In a case, we held:
favor the condition required by Article 366.
The object sought to be attained by the requirement of the submission
Did the prescriptive periods under the Civil Code repeal Art. 366 of claims in pursuance of this article is to compel the consignee of
of Code of Commerce? goods entrusted to a carrier to make prompt demand for settlement of
alleged damages suffered by the goods while in transport, so that the
NO. The limitations of actions mentioned in the Civil Code are without carrier will be enabled to verify all such claims at the time of delivery or
prejudice to those specified in the Code of Commerce [Art. 1148 New within twenty-four hours thereafter, and if necessary fix responsibility
Civil Code] and secure evidence as to the nature and extent of the alleged
damages to the goods while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the
Prescriptive Period to File a Case in Court : parties.

 If there is a bill of lading – 10 years [Art. 1144 – based on a G.R. No. 168402 August 6, 2008
written contract] ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioner,
 If there is NO bill of lading – 6 years [Art. 1145 – based on vs.
a an oral or quasi-contract] INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, respondent.
 If it involves overseas trading – 1 year [COGSA] REYES, R.T., J.:
The giving of notice of loss or injury is a condition precedent to the
action for loss or injury or the right to enforce the carrier's liability.
G.R. No. 147724 June 8, 2004
Circumstances peculiar to this case lead Us to conclude that the notice
requirement was complied with. XXX
The shipment was delivered on August 11, 1993. Although the letter
informing the carrier of the damage was dated August 15, 1993, that
letter, together with the notice of claim, was received by petitioner only
Whether or not Sumitomo, Chubb‘s predecessor-in-interest, validly
on September 21, 1993. But petitioner admits that even before it
made a claim for damages against Lorenzo Shipping within the period
received the written notice of claim, Mr. Mayo B. Perez, Claims Head
prescribed by the Code of Commerce;
of the company, was informed by telephone sometime in August 13,
On the issue of prescription of respondent Chubb and Sons‘ claim for
1993. Mr. Perez then immediately went to the warehouse and to the
damages, we rule that it has not yet prescribed at the time it was
delivery site to inspect the goods in behalf of petitioner.
made. XXX
Page 33
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
7. quarantine,
In the case of Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC) v. 8. lazaretto, and
ChemoilLighterage Corporation, the notice was allegedly made by the 9. other so called port expenses, costs of barges, and
consignee through telephone. The claim for damages was denied. This unloading, until the goods are placed on the wharf, and
Court ruled that such a notice did not comply with the notice 10. Other usual expenses of navigation
requirement under the law. There was no evidence presented that the
notice was timely given. Neither was there evidence presented that the Who Shall Defray or Reimburse the Ordinary or Petty Expenses
notice was relayed to the responsible authority of the carrier. [Art. 807]

As adverted to earlier, there are peculiar circumstances in the instant General Rule: the Ship owner
case that constrain Us to rule differently from the PCIC case, albeit this
ruling is being made pro hac vice, not to be made a precedent for other Exception:unless there is an express agreement to the contrary
cases. XXX
Kinds of Averages [Art. 808]
Bernhard Willig, the representative of consignee who received the
shipment, relayed the information that the delivered goods were 1. Simple or Particular
discovered to have sustained water damage to no less than the Claims 2. General
Head of petitioner, Mayo B. Perez. Immediately, Perez was able to
investigate the claims himself and he confirmed that the goods were, Particular Average
indeed, already corroded.
Definition [Art. 809]
Provisions specifying a time to give notice of damage to common
carriers are ordinarily to be given a reasonable and practical, rather
All the expenses and damage caused to the vessel or to her cargo
than a strict construction. We give due consideration to the fact that the
which have NOT inured to the common benefit and profit of ALL the
final destination of the damaged cargo was a school institution where
persons interested in the vessel and her cargo
authorities are bound by rules and regulations governing their actions.
Understandably, when the goods were delivered, the necessary
clearance had to be made before the package was opened. Upon Who bears the loss?
opening and discovery of the damaged condition of the goods, a report
to this effect had to pass through the proper channels before it could The OWNER of the things which gave rise to the expenses or
be finalized and endorsed by the institution to the claims department of suffered the damage
the shipping company.
General Average
The call to petitioner was made two days from delivery, a reasonable
period considering that the goods could not have corroded instantly Definition [Art. 811]
overnight such that it could only have sustained the damage during
transit. Moreover, petitioner was able to immediately inspect the All the damages and expenses which are DELIBERATELY CAUSED
damage while the matter was still fresh. In so doing, the main objective in order to save the vessel, her cargo, or both at the same time
of the prescribed time period was fulfilled. Thus, there was substantial from a REAL KNOWN risk
compliance with the notice requirement in this case.
Who bears the loss? All the persons having an interest in the vessel
Risks, Damages and Accidents of Maritime Commerce and cargo therein at the time of the occurrence of the average shall
Averages[Art. 806-816, 665-677, 732]
Requisites of a General Average
What are considered as Averages [Art. 806]
1. There must be a common danger, a danger in which ship,
1. All extraordinary or accidental expenses which may be cargo and crew all participate
incurred during the voyage for the preservation of the 2. For the common safety or for the purpose of avoiding an
vessel, cargo, or both imminent peril, part of the vessel or cargo or both is
sacrificed deliberately
2. All damages or deterioration: 3. This attempt to avoid the imminent peril must be
successful in a sense that the vessel and some of the cargo
a. which the vessel may suffer: are saved
b. from the time she puts to sea at the port of 4. The expenses were incurred or damages were afflicted
departure after taking the proper legal steps and authority
c. until she casts anchor at the port of destination
d. suffered by the goods: G.R. No. L-6393 January 31, 1955
e. from the time they are loaded in the port A. MAGSAYSAY INC., plaintiff-appellee,
ofshipment vs.
f. until they are unloaded in the port of their ANASTACIO AGAN, defendant-appellant.
consignment REYES, A. J.:
With respect to the first requisite, the evidence does not disclose that
What are Considered Ordinary or Petty Expenses [Art. 807] the expenses sought to be recovered from defendant were incurred to
save vessel and cargo from a common danger. The vessel ran
The petty and ordinary expenses incident to navigation such as those aground in fine weather inside the port at the mouth of a river, a place
of: described as "very shallow". It would thus appear that vessel and
cargo were at the time in no imminent danger or a danger which might
1. pilotage of coast and ports, "rationally be sought to be certain and imminent." It is, of course,
2. lighterage, conceivable that, if left indefinitely at the mercy of the elements, they
3. towage, would run the risk of being destroyed. But as stated at the above
4. anchorage, quotation, "this last requirement excludes measures undertaken
5. inspection, against a distant peril." It is the deliverance from an immediate,
6. health, impending peril, by a common sacrifice, that constitutes the essence of

Page 34
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
general average. (The Columbian Insurance Company of
Alexandria vs. Ashby &Stribling et al., 13 Peters 331; 10 L. Ed., 186). M/V Ilog de Manila with a cargo of 500 tons of iron ore left the Port of
In the present case there is no proof that the vessel had to be put Zamboanga City bound for Manila. For one reason or another, M/V Ilog
afloat to save it from imminent danger. What does appear from the de Manila hit a submerged obstacle causing it to sink along with its
testimony of plaintiff's manager is that the vessel had to be salvaged in cargo. A salvor, Salvador, Inc., was contracted to refloat the vessel for
order to enable it "to proceed to its port of destination." But as was said P1 Million. What kind of average was the refloating fee of P1 million,
in the case just cited it is the safety of the property, and not of the and for whose account should it be? Why? (4%)
voyage, which constitutes the true foundation of the general average.
As to the second requisite, we need only repeat that the expenses in
question were not incurred for the common safety of vessel and cargo, Particular Average. The owner of the vessel shall shoulder the
since they, or at least the cargo, were not in imminent peril. The cargo average. Generally speaking, simple or particular averages include all
could, without need of expensive salvage operation, have been expenses and damages caused to the vessel or cargo which have not
unloaded by the owners if they had been required to do so. inured to the common benefit (Art. 809, and are, therefore, to be borne
only by the owner of the property which gave rise to the same (Art.
With respect to the third requisite, the salvage operation, it is true, was 810) while general or gross averages include "all the damages and
a success. But as the sacrifice was for the benefit of the vessel — to expenses which are deliberately caused in order to save the vessel, its
enable it to proceed to destination — and not for the purpose of saving cargo, or both at the same time, from a real and known risk" (Art. 811).
the cargo, the cargo owners are not in law bound to contribute to the Being for the common benefit, gross averages are to be borne by the
expenses. owners of the articles saved (Art. 812). In the present case there is no
proof that the vessel had to be put afloat to save it from an imminent
The final requisite has not been proved, for it does not appear that the danger.
expenses here in question were incurred after following the procedure
laid down in article 813 et seq. Jason Clause [Rule D, York-Antwerp Rules]

In conclusion we found that plaintiff not made out a case for general Rights to contribution in general average:
average, with the result that its claim for contribution against the
defendant cannot be granted.  shall not be affected, though the event which gave rise to the
sacrifice or expenditure may have been due to the fault of
G.R. No. L-13695 October 18, 1921 one of the parties to the adventure; but
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK, plaintiff-appellee,  this shall not prejudice any remedies which may be open
vs. against that party for such clause
MANUEL LOPEZ CASTELO, defendant-appellant.
STREET, J.: Distinctions
The first question for discussion is whether the loss of this petroleum
was a general average loss or a particular less to be borne solely by GENERAL PARTICULAR
the owner of the cargo. Upon this point it will be observed that the
cargo was carried upon deck; and it is a general rule, both under the
Deliberately caused in order to May be due to causes other
Spanish Commercial Code and under the doctrines prevailing in the
save the vessel or cargo or both than a deliberate act
courts of admiralty of England America, as well as in other countries,
that ordinarily the loss of cargo carried on deck shall not be considered
a general average loss. This is clearly expressed in Rule I of the York- Inures to the benefit of those Does not inure to the common
Antwerp Rules, as follows: "No jettison of deck cargo shall be made interested in the vessel or her benefit of all persons interested
good as general average." The reason for this rule is found in the fact cargo in the vessel and her cargo
that deck cargo is in an extra-hazardous position and, if on a sailing
vessel, its presence is likely to obstruct the free action of the crew in Shall be shared and contributed Shall be borne by the owner of
managing the ship. Moreover, especially in the case of small vessels, it to by all persons benefited the things damaged
renders the boat top-heavy and thus may have to be cast overboard
sooner than would be necessary if it were in the hold; and naturally it is
always the first cargo to go over in case of emergency. Indeed, in Art. 677. Effect of a Declaration of War or Blockade on a Charter
subsection 1 of article 815 of the Code of Commerce, it is expressly Party:
declared that deck cargo shall be cast overboard before cargo stowed
in the hold.  The charter party shall remain in force – if the captain should
not have any instruction from the charterer
But this rule, denying deck cargo the right to contribution by way of
general average in case of jettison, was first mad in the days of sailing  Captain must proceed to the nearest safe and neutral port
vessels; and with the advent of the steamship as the principal
conveyer of cargo by sea, it has been felt that the reason for the rule  At said port- captain must request and await orders from the
has become less weighty, especially with reference to coastwise trade; shippers
and it is now generally held that jettisoned goods carried on deck,
according to the custom of trade, by steam vessels navigating
 Expenses and salaries accruing during detention in said port
coastwise and inland waters, are entitled to contribution as a general
shall be paid as general average
average loss (24 R. C. L., 1419).

XXX  If, by order of the shipper, the cargo should be discharged at

the port of arrival, the freight for the voyage out shall be paid
From what has been said it is evident that the loss of this petroleum is in full
a general and not a special average, with the result that the plaintiff is
entitled to recover in some way and from somebody an amount G.R. No. L-11515 July 29, 1918
bearing such proportion to its total loss as the value of both the ship INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY IN RUSSIA, plaintiff-
and the saved cargo bears to the value of the ship and entire cargo appellee,
before the jettison was effected. vs.
HAMBURG-AMERICAN LINE, defendant-appellant.
Average; Particular Average vs. General Average (2003) STREET, J.:

Page 35
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
Upon the first question it is clear that the cargo in question is not liable Second Ground: Well-founded fear of seizure, privateers or
to a general average. It is not claimed that this agricultural machinery pirates; When Not Considered Lawful [Art. 820]
was contraband of war; and being neutral goods, it was not liable to
forfeiture in the event of capture by the enemies of the ship's flag. It If the risk of the enemies, privateers, or pirates should not have been:
follows that when the master of the Suevia decided to take refuge in
the port of Manila, he acted exclusively with a view to the protection of 1. well known,
his vessel. There was nocommon danger to the ship and cargo; and 2. manifest, and
therefore it was not a case for a general average. The point here in 3. based on positive andprovable acts
dispute has already been determined by this court unfavorably to the
contention of the appellant. (Compagnie de Commerce et de Third Ground: By reason of any accident of the sea disabling the
Navigation D'Extreme Orient vs. Hamburg Amerika vessel to navigate; When Not Considered Lawful [Art. 820]
PacketfachtActienGesselschaft, 36 Phil., 590.) The following provision
contained in the York-Antwerp Rules, as we interpret it, is conclusive  If the defect of the vessel should have arisen from the fact
against the appellant's contention: that she was not repaired, rigged, equipped, and
prepared in a manner suitable for voyage, or from some
When a ship shall have entered a port of refuge . . . in consequence of erroneous orders of the captain
accident, sacrifice, or other extraordinary circumstance which renders  Whenever malice, negligence, lack of foresight, or want
that necessary for the common safety, the expense of entering such of skill on the part of the captain exists in actually
port shall be admitted as general average. (York-Antwerp Rules, causing the damage
section 10.)
Collisions[Art. 827-838]
G.R. No. L-10986 March 31, 1917
ORIENT, plaintiff-appellant,
vs. 1. In a strict sense:
GESELLSCHAFT, defendant-appellant. a. Collision – the impact of 2 vessels, both or
CARSON, J.: which are moving
b. Allision - the striking of a moving vessel
The claim of the shipowner for general average cannot be sustained against one that is stationary
under the provisions of the York-Antwerp Rules of 1890, by reference
to which, it was expressly stipulated in the charter party, all such 2. In a broad sense – collision includes allision, and perhaps
questions should be settled, Rules X and XI, which treat of "Expenses another species of encounters between vessels, or a vessel
at Port of Refuge, etc.," and "Wages and Maintenance of Crew in Port and other floating, though non-navigable object
of Refuge, etc.," provide for general average "When a ship shall have
entered a port or place of refuge, or shall have returned to her port or Liability in Case of Collision;
place of loading, in consequence of accident, sacrifice, or other
extraordinary circumstances which render that necessary for the Who is at Fault: One vessel
common safety . . .;" and an examination of the entire body of these
rules discloses that general average is never allowed thereunder
Said vessel shall be liable for:
unless the loss or damage sought to be made good as general
average has been incurred for the "common safety." It is very clear that
in fleeing from the port of Saigon and taking refuge in Manila Bay the 1. damage caused to the innocent vessel, and
master of the Sambia was not acting for the common safety of the 2. damages suffered by the owners of the cargo of:
vessel and her cargo. The French cargo was absolutely secure from a. the innocent vessel, and
danger of seizure or confiscation so long as it remained in the port of b. its own vessel
Saigon, and there can be no question that the flight of the Sambia was
a measure of precaution adopted solely and exclusively for the Who is at Fault: Both vessels[Art. 827]&It cannot be determined
preservation of the vessel from danger of seizure or capture. which vessel[Art. 831]

Arrival Under Stress[Art. 819-821] 1. Each vessel must bear its own loss, and
2. Both shipowners shall be solidarily liable to the shippers for
damages suffered
 The arrival of the vessel at the nearest and most
convenient port
Who is at Fault: A 3rd vessel [Art. 831]
 Because the vessel CANNOT continue the trip to the port
of destination
Said vessel shall be liable for:
 On account of:

o Lack of provisions, 1. damage caused to 2 the innocent vessels, and

o Well founded fear of seizure, privateers or pirates, 2. damages suffered by the owners of the cargo of:
o By reason of any accident of the sea disabling the a. the 2 innocent vessels, and
vessel to navigate b. its own vessel

First Ground: Lack of provisions; When Not Considered Lawful Who is at Fault: None [Fortuitous event] [Art. 830]
[Art. 820]
None – each one must bear his own loss
 If the lack of provisions should arise from the failure to take
the necessary provisions for the voyage according to Error in Extremis
the usage and customs, or
 Where a navigator,
 If they should have been rendered useless or lost through  suddenly realizing that a collision is imminent
bad stowage or negligence in their care  by no fault of his own,
 in confusion and excitement of the moment,

Page 36
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
 does something which contributes to the collision, or
 omits to do something by which the collision may be In fact, it is a general principle, well established maritime law and
avoided, custom, that shipowners and ship agents are civilly liable for the acts of
 Such act or omission is ordinarily considered to be in the captain (Code of Commerce, Article 586) and for the indemnities
extremis, and due the third persons (Article 587); so that injured parties may
 The ordinary rules of strict accountability do NOT apply immediately look for reimbursement to the owner of the ship, it being
universally recognized that the ship master or captain is primarily the
When does the rule of ―error in extremis‖ apply? representative of the owner (Standard Oil Co. vs. Lopez Castelo, 42
Phil. 256, 260). This direct liability, moderated and limited by the
It must appear that there was an imminent danger and it is the actual owner's right of abandonment of the vessel and earned freight (Article
risk of danger and not apprehension merely that determines the 587) has been declared to exist not only in case of breached contracts,
question whether the error is one in extremis but also in cases of tortious negligence (Yu Biao Sontua vs. Osorio, 43
Phil. 511; 515):
Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault:
 The court can see that a fault has been committed, It is easy to see that to admit the defense of due diligence of a bonus
 But is unable from the conflict of testimony, or otherwise, paterfamilias (in the selection and vigilance of the officers and crew) as
to locate it [the fault] exempting the shipowner from any liability for their faults, would render
 Hence, when it is impossible to determine to what direct and nugatory the solidary liability established by Article 827 of the Code of
specific acts the collision is attributable, it is a case of Commerce for the greater protection of injured parties. Shipowners
damage arising from a cause that is inscrutable would be able to escape liability in practically every case, considering
that the qualifications and licensing of ship masters and officers are
Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault (1997) determined by the State, and that vigilance is practically impossible to
exercise over officers and crew of vessels at sea. To compel the
Explain the doctrine in Maritime accidents – Doctrine ofInscrutable parties prejudiced to look to the crew for indemnity and redress would
Fault be an illusory remedy for almost always its members. are, from
captains down, mere wage earners.
We, therefore, find no reversible error in the refusal of the Court of
Under the ―doctrine of inscrutable fault,‖ where fault isestablished but Appeals to consider the defense of the Manila Steamship Co., that it is
it cannot be determined which of the twovessels were at fault, both exempt from liability for the collision with the M L "Consuelo V " due to
shall be deemed to have been atfault. the absence of negligence on its part in the selection and supervision
of the officers and crew of the M/S "Bowline Knot.
Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault (1998)
However, insofar as respondent Lim Hong To, owner of M L "Consuelo
A severe typhoon was raging when the vessel SS Masdaamcollided V" who admittedly employed an unlicensed master and engineer and
with MV Princes. It is conceded that the typhoonwas the major cause who in his application for permission to operate expressly assumed full
of the collision, although there was avery strong possibility that it could risk and responsibility thereby (Exh. 2) this Court held that the liability
have been avoided ifthe captain of SS Masdaam was not drunk and of Lim Hong To cannot be limited to the value of his motor launch by
the captainof the MV Princes was not asleep at the time of collisions. abandonment of the vessel as invoked in Article 587 of the Code of
Who should bear the damages to the vessels and theircargoes? (5%) Commerce, We said:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The international rule is to the effect that the right of abandonment of
vessels, as a legal limitation of a shipowner's liability, does not apply to
The shipowners of SS Masdaam and MV Princess shalleach bear their cases where the injury or the average is due to shipowner's own fault.
respective loss of vessels. For the lossesand damages suffered by Farina (Derecho Commercial Maritima Vol. 1, pp. 122-123), on the
their cargoes both shipownersare solidarily liable. authority of judicial precedents from various nations, sets the rule to be
as follows:
What kind of AVERAGE is damage caused by a collision due to a
storm or force majeure?
The injury shall be considered as a particular average of the vessel
run into [Art. 832] ACT[COGSA]
Can the ship owner raise the defense that he exercised the Contracts Covered by the COGSA
diligence of GFOF in the selection and supervision of the
captain?  ALL contracts:
o for the carriage of GOODS by SEA
 Culpa Contractual – NO o to and from Philippine Ports in FOREIGN Trade
 Culpa Aquiliana – YES excepti in cases of collision when
both parties or vessel are at fault G.R. No. L-24515 November 18, 1967
 Culpa Criminal - NO THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant,
The case of Manila Steamship Company, Inc. vs. InsaAbdulhaman COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL., defendants.
and Lim HongTo 17 is a case of collision of the ML "Consuelo V" and MAKALINTAL, J.:
MS "Bowline Knot" as a result of which the ML "Consuelo V" capsized The transshipment of the cargo from Manila to Cebu was not a
and was lost where nine (9) passengers died or were missing and all separate transaction from that originally entered into by Macondray, as
its cargoes were lost. In the action for damages arising from the general agent for the "M/S TOREADOR". It was part of Macondray's
collision, applying Article 837 of the Code of Commerce, this Court obligation under the contract of carriage and the fact that the
held that in such case where the collision was imputable to both of transshipment was made via an inter-island vessel did not operate to
them, each vessel shall suffer her own damages and both shall be remove the transaction from the operation of the Carriage of Goods by
solidarily liable for the damages occasioned to their cargoes.18 Thus, Sea Act. (See Go Chang & Co., Inc. vs. Aboitiz & Co., Inc., 98 Phil.
We held: 197).

Page 37
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
The carrier and the ship shall be DISCHARGED from all liability from
What is the effect of the COGSA on our Maritime Laws? such loss or damage

It shall not: G.R. No. L-5554 May 27, 1953

BENITO CHUA KUY, petitioner,
1. repeal any existing provision of the Code of Commerce vs.
which is now in force, or EVERRETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, respondent.
2. limit its application BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
There is no dispute in the evidence that the cargo in question was
Procedure to be undertaken by Shipper or Consignee in Case of brought to the City of Manila, Philippines, from Portland, Oregon,
Loss or Damage of Cargo [Sec. 3(6)] U.S.A., on board a foreign ship; that the cargo was unloaded at the
port of Manila and delivered to petitioner on February 26, 1947; that
A NOTICE of LOSS or DAMAGE and the general nature of such loss the alleged shortage in the cargo was discovered by petitioner on the
or damage IN WRITING, must be given to the CARRIER or his agent: same date; and that this action was given to respondent, as local agent
of the owner of the ship, also on the same date; and that this action
1. at the PORT of DISCHARGE, or was commenced only on May 7, 1948, or after the lapse one year, two
months and nine days from the delivery of the goods to petitioner.
2. at the TIME of REMOVAL of the goods into the custody of Considering that, under the provision above-quoted, an action for
the person entitled to delivery thereof [such removal shall be recovery of loss or damage in connection with certain within one year
prima facie evidence of delivery by the carrier of the goods after delivery of said cargo, it would seem evident that the action of
as described in the bill of lading], or petitioner has already prescribed.

3. if the loss or damage is NOT apparent – the notice must be G.R. No. 77638 July 12, 1990
given within 3 days of delivery MARITIME AGENCIES & SERVICES, INC., petitioner,
MITSUI O.S.K. LINES LTD., represented by MAGSAYSAY CANTON, LTD., respondents.
AGENCIES, INC., petitioner, CRUZ, J.:
vs. But we do agree that the period for filing the claim is one year, in
COURT OF APPEALS and LAVINE LOUNGEWEAR MFG. accordance with the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. XXX
CORP., respondents. The one-year period in the cases at bar should commence on October
MENDOZA, J.: 20, 1979, when the last item was delivered to the
The issue raised by the instant petition is whether private respondent's consignee. 18 Union's complaint was filed against Hongkong on
action is for "loss or damage" to goods shipped, within the meaning of September 19, 1980, but tardily against Macondray on April 20, 1981.
§3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). XXX The consequence is that the action is considered prescribed as far as
Macondray is concerned but not against its principal, which is what
In the case at bar, there is neither deterioration nor disappearance nor matters anyway.
destruction of goods caused by the carrier's breach of contract.
Whatever reduction there may have been in the value of the goods is What law shall prevail, with respect to prescriptive periods? Civil
not due to their deterioration or disappearance because they had been Code or COGSA?
damaged in transit. XXX
The New Civil Code did NOT impliedly repeal the period of prescription
Precisely, the question before the trial court is not the particular sense under the COGSA. As a SPECIAL LAW the COGSA prevails over the
of "damages" as it refers to the physical loss or damage of a shipper's general provisions of the Civil Code on prescription of actions
goods as specifically covered by §3(6) of COGSA but petitioner's [Maritime Agencies v. CA 187 SCRA 346]
potential liability for the damages it has caused in the general sense
and, as such, the matter is governed by the Civil Code, the Code of COGSA: Prescription of Claims/Actions (2004)
Commerce and COGSA, for the breach of its contract of carriage with
private respondent. AA entered into a contract with BB thruCC to transport ladies' wear
from Manila to France withtranshipment at Taiwan. Somehow the
We conclude by holding that as the suit below is not for "loss or goods were notloaded at Taiwan on time. Hence, when the goods
damage" to goods contemplated in §3(6), the question of prescription arrivedin France, they arrived "off-season" and AA was paid onlyfor
of action is governed not by the COGSA but by Art. 1144 of the Civil one-half the value by the buyer. AA claimed damagesfrom the shipping
Code which provides for a prescriptive period of ten years. company and its agent. The defense ofthe respondents was
prescription. Considering that theladies' wear suffered "loss of value,"
Prescriptive Period of Actions Under COGSA [Sec. 3[6](4)] as claimed by AA,should the prescriptive period be one year under the
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, or ten years under the CivilCode?
Any action against the carrier must be brought within one [1] year Explain briefly. (5%)
1. the delivery of the goods, or
2. the date when the goods should have been delivered The applicable prescriptive period is ten years under theCivil Code.
The one-year prescriptive period under theCarriage of Goods by Sea
What is the effect of failure to give the required NOTICE of LOSS Act applies in cases of loss ordamages to the cargo. The term "loss"
to the carrier within the period prescribed? as interpreted bythe Supreme Court in Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. v. Court
of Appeals,287 SCRA 366 (1998), contemplates a situation where
This shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring the suit nodelivery at all was made by the carrier of the goods because
within the one [1] year period [EE Elser vs CA, Nov 29, 1954] the same had perished or gone out of commercedeteriorated or
decayed while in transit. In the presentcase, the shipment of ladies'
What is the effect of failure to BRING THE ACTION within one [1] wear was actually delivered.The "loss of value" is not the total loss
year period? contemplated bythe Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

COGSA; Prescription of Claims (1992)

Page 38
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
A local consignee sought to enforce judicially a claimagainst the carrier These arguments might merit weightier consideration were it not for
for loss of a shipment of drums oflubricating oil from Japan under the the fact that the question has already received a definitive answer,
Carriage of Goods bySea Act (COGSA) after the carrier had rejected adverse to the position taken by Dole, in The Yek Tong Lin Fire &
its demand.The carrier pleaded in its Answer the affirmative defense Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. American President Lines,
ofprescription under the provisions of said Act inasmuch as Inc. 15 There, in a parallel factual situation, where suit to recover for
the suit was brought by the consignee after one (1) yearfrom the damage to cargo shipped by vessel from Tokyo to Manila was filed
delivery of the goods. In turn, the consigneecontended that the period more than two years after the consignee's receipt of the cargo, this
of prescription was suspendedby the written extrajudicial demand it Court rejected the contention that an extrajudicial demand toiled the
had made against thecarrier within the one-year period, pursuant to prescriptive period provided for in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act,
Article 1155of the Civil Code providing that the prescription of actions viz:
is interrupted when there is a written extrajudicial demandby the
creditors. In the second assignment of error plaintiff-appellant argues that it was
error for the court a quo not to have considered the action of plaintiff-
a) Has the action in fact prescribed? Why? appellant suspended by the extrajudicial demand which took place,
b) If the consignee‗s action were predicated on misdelivery according to defendant's own motion to dismiss on August 22, 1952.
or conversion of the goods, would your answer be the We notice that while plaintiff avoids stating any date when the goods
same? Explain briefly. arrived in Manila, it relies upon the allegation made in the motion to
dismiss that a protest was filed on August 22, 1952 — which goes to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: show that plaintiff-appellant's counsel has not been laying the facts
squarely before the court for the consideration of the merits of the
a) The action taken by the local consignee has, in fact,prescribed. The case. We have already decided that in a case governed by the
period of one year under the Carriage ofGoods by Sea Act (COGSA) is Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, the general provisions of the Code of
not interrupted by a writtenextrajudicial demand. The provisions of Art Civil Procedure on prescription should not be made to apply. (Chua
1155 of theNCC merely apply to prescriptive periods provided for Kuy vs. Everett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L-5554, May 27, 1953.)
insaid Code and not to special laws such as COGSA exceptwhen Similarly, we now hold that in such a case the general provisions of the
otherwise provided. (Dole v Maritime Co 148 s 118). new Civil Code (Art. 1155) cannot be made to apply, as such
application would have the effect of extending the one-year period of
b) If the consignee‗s action were predicated onmisdelivery or prescription fixed in the law. It is desirable that matters affecting
conversion of goods, the provisions of theCOGSA would be transportation of goods by sea be decided in as short a time as
inapplicable. In these cases, the NCCprescriptive periods, including Art possible; the application of the provisions of Article 1155 of the new
1155 of the NCC willapply (Ang v Compania Maritama 133 s 600) Civil Code would unnecessarily extend the period and permit delays in
the settlement of questions affecting transportation, contrary to the
COGSA; Prescription of Claims (2000) clear intent and purpose of the law. * * *

RC imported computer motherboards from the UnitedStates and had Instances Where the One [1] Year Prescriptive Period under the
them shipped to Manila aboard an oceangoingcargo ship owned by BC COGSA is INTERRUPTED:
Shipping Company. Whenthe cargo arrived at Manila seaport and
delivered to RC,the crate appeared intact; but upon inspection of the 1. In case an action has been already filed in court
contents, RC discovered that the items inside had all beenbadly [F.H.Stevens v. Nordeutscher Lloyd [6 SCRA 180]
damaged. He did not file any notice of damage oranything with
anyone, least of all with BC ShippingCompany. What he did was to 2. When there is an express agreement to the effect
proceed directly to youroffice to consult you about whether he should [Universal Shipping v. IAC [188 SCRA 170]
have given anotice of damage and how long a time he had to initiate a
suit under the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by SeaAct (CA 65). G.R. No. L-25266 January 15, 1975
What would your advice be? (2%) AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant,
My advice would be that RC should give notice of thedamage CORPORATION, defendants-appellees.
sustained by the cargo within 3 days and that hehas to file the suit to AQUINO, J.:
recover the damage sustained by thecargo within one year from the The trial court correctly held that the one-year statutory and contractual
date of the delivery of thecargo to him. prescriptive period had already expired when appellant company filed
on April 7, 1965 its action against Barber Line Far East Service. The
COGSA; Prescriptive Period (1995) one year period commenced on February 25, 1964 when the damaged
cargo was delivered to the consignee. (See Chua Kuy vs. Everrett
What is the prescriptive period for actions involving lostor damaged Steamship Corporation, 93 Phil. 207; Yek Tong Fire & Marine
cargo under the Carriage of Goods by SeaAct? Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. American President Lines, Inc., 103 Phil. 1125).
Appellant company invokes the rule that where the original complaint
ONE YEAR after the delivery of the goods or the datewhen the goods states a cause of action but does it imperfectly, and afterwards an
should have been delivered (Sec 3(6),COGSA) amended complaint is filed, correcting the defect, the plea of
prescription will relate to the time of the filing of the original complaint
(Pangasinan Transportation Co. vs. Phil. Farming Co., Ltd., 81 Phil.
273). It contends that inasmuch as the original complaint was filed
within the one year period, the action had not prescribed.
What is the effect of EXTRAJUDICIAL DEMAND made to the
carrier? That ruling would apply to defendants Luzon Stevedoring Corporation
and Luzon Brokerage Corporation. But it would not apply to Barber
G.R. No. L-61352 February 27, 1987 Line Far East Service which was impleaded for the first time in the
DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., plaintiff-appellant, amended complaint.
MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendant-appellee. It should be recalled that the original complaint was dismissed as to
NARVASA, J.: Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. in the lower court's order of April 19,

Page 39
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
1965. New summons had to be issued to Barber Line Far East Service Effects of Prescriptive Period under the COGSA on the Liability of
which had replaced Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. as a defendant. the Insurer

The filing of the original complaint interrupted the prescriptive period as 1. ONLY the carrier‘s liability is extinguished if no suit is
to Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. but not as to Barber Line Far East brought within one [1] year from delivery of goods
Service, an entity supposedly distinct from the former. Appellant's 2. BUT the liability of the insurer is NOT extinguished
contention that there was merely a correction in the name of a party- 3. Insurers are governed by the Insurance Code and not the
defendant is untenable. * COGSA [Mayer Steel v. CA 274 SCRA 432]
4. BUT the insurer CANNOT file an action against the carrier
From what point should the 1 year prescriptive period be beyond the one [1] year prescriptive period [Filipino
counted? It depends: Merchants v. CA 179 SCRA 638]

1. If delivery was made – from the date of delivery [includes Limit of the Liability of the Carrier for Loss or Damage to Goods
delivery to arrastre operator] Transported Sec. 4[5](1):
2. If NO delivery – from the date when the goods should have
been delivered 1. $500 per package – UNLESS the nature and value of such
goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment
[G.R. No. L-6420. July 18, 1955.] and inserted in the bill of lading

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, 2. This declaration, if embodied in the bill of lading, shall be
v. PHILIPPINE PORTS TERMINALS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. prima facie evidence, BUT shall not be conclusive on the
JUGO, J.: carrier.
The defendant-appellee, Philippine Ports Terminals, Inc., is neither a
charterer nor a ship. Consequently the "Carriage of Goods by Sea Act" 3. Shipper and carrier may agree on another maximum amount
does not apply to it. However, the ordinary period of four years fixed by but should not be less than $500
the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. The action in this case has been
brought within that time. 4. Carrier can NOT be liable for:

G.R. No. L-22491 January 27, 1967 a. MORE than the amount of damage ACTUALLY
DOMINGO ANG, plaintiff-appellant, sustained
vs. b. Loss or damage to goods if the value thereof has
AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC., defendant-appellee. been knowingly and fraudulently MISSTATED by
BENGZON, J.P., J.: the shipper in the bill of lading
As defined in the Civil Code and as applied to Section 3 (6) paragraph
4 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, "loss" contemplates merely a G.R. No. L-69044 May 29, 1987
situation where no delivery at all was made by the shipper of the goods EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner,
because the same had perished, gone out of commerce, or vs.
disappeared that their existence is unknown or they cannot be INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and DEVELOPMENT
recovered. It does not include a situation where there was indeed INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION,respondents.
delivery — but delivery to the wrong person, or a misdelivery, as MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
alleged in the complaint in this case. XXX On the US $500 Per Package Limitation:

From the allegations of the complaint, therefore, the goods cannot be It is to be noted that the Civil Code does not of itself limit the liability of
deemed "lost". They were delivered to Herminio G. Teves, so that the common carrier to a fixed amount per package although the Code
there can only be either delivery, if Teves really was entitled to receive expressly permits a stipulation limiting such liability. Thus, the COGSA
them, or misdelivery, if he was not so entitled. It is not for Us now to which is suppletory to the provisions of the Civil Code, steps in and
resolve whether or not delivery of the goods to Teves was proper, that supplements the Code by establishing a statutory provision limiting the
is, whether or not there was rightful delivery or misdelivery. carrier's liability in the absence of a declaration of a higher value of the
goods by the shipper in the bill of lading. The provisions of the
The point that matters here is that the situation is either delivery or Carriage of Goods by.Sea Act on limited liability are as much a part of
misdelivery, but not nondelivery. Thus, the goods were either rightly a bill of lading as though physically in it and as much a part thereof as
delivered or misdelivered, but they were not lost. There being no loss though placed therein by agreement of the parties.
or damage to the goods, the aforequoted provision of the Carriage of
Good by Sea Act stating that "In any event, the carrier and the ship ARRASTRE
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 General Definition of Arrastre
when the goods should have been delivered," does not apply. The
reason is not difficult to see. Said one-year period of limitation is A broad tern which refers to a contract for the unloading of goods from
designed to meet the exigencies of maritime hazards. In a case where a vessel
the goods shipped were neither last nor damaged in transit but were,
on the contrary, delivered in port to someone who claimed to be Arrastre in Mercantile Law
entitled thereto, the situation is different, and the special need for the
short period of limitation in cases of loss or damage caused by The term ‗arrastre‘ has a technical meaning as it applies only to
maritime perils does not obtain. overseas trade
It follows that for suits predicated not upon loss or damage but on
alleged misdelivery (or conversion) of the goods, the applicable rule on When cargo from abroad arrives on board a vessel, the consignee
prescription is that found in the Civil Code, namely, either ten years for cannot unload and deliver the cargo by himself.
breach of a written contract or four years for quasi-delict. (Arts.
1144[1], 1146, Civil Code) In either case, plaintiff's cause of action has
This is done by the arrastre operator, who will then deliver the cargo to
not vet prescribed, since his right of action would have accrued at the
the customs warehouse
earliest on May 9, 1961 when the ship arrived in Manila and he filed
suit on October 30, 1963.
Parties in Arrastre Contract

Page 40
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
1. Republic of the Philippines 3. Formal Adherence – Sep 23, 1955 by Proclamation 201
2. The party awarded the privilege of operating the arrastre issued by President Ramon Magsaysay
Applicability [Art. 1.1]
The Warsaw Convention shall apply to:
 FOB [Free On Board] or FAS [Free Alongside Ship]
 All INTERNATIONAL transportation of persons, baggage or
A price quotation with FOB presumes that the seller shall comply with goods
his obligation to deliver the cargo to the vessel.  Performed by aircraft FOR HIRE

Thereupon, it is the BUYER who shall pay the freightage and thus the Meaning of International Transportation [Art. 1.2]
carrier is deemed agent of the buyer so that delivery to the vessel is
delivery to the buyer. Any transportation, in which according to the CONTRACT made by the
parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, w/n there
Ownership of the cargo will pass to the buyer upon delivery by the be a break in the transportationare situated either within the:
seller to the vessel.
 territories of 2 High Contracting Parties, or
 CIF [Cost, Insurance and Freight]  territory of a single High Contracting Party, IF there is an
agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the
A price quotation on CIF presumes that the seller shall cost of crating sovereignty, mandate or authority of another power, even
and packaging, insurance and the freightage. though that power is not a party to this convention

The carrier is deemed to be the agent of the seller, so that throughout What is a High Contracting Party?
the entire trip ownership is retained by the SELLER and only passes to
the buyer upon reaching the point of destination and the cargo is A signatory to the Warsaw Convention and one who subsequently
discharged in favor of the buyer. adheres to it

Montreal Convention 1999

AIR TRANSPORTATION Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International
Carriage by Air, opened for Signature at Montreal on 28 May 1999
Regulatory Body in Air Transportation: Civil Aeronautics Board (ICAO Doc No 4698)
[CAB] Article 1 — Scope of Application

Requisite to Engage in Air Commerce: A Certificate of Public 1. This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons,
Convenience and Necessity is a permit issued by the CAB authorizing baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward. It applies equally to
a person to engage in air commerce and/or air transportation, foreign gratuitous carriage by aircraft performed by an air transport
and/or domestic [RA 776 Sec. 11] undertaking.

NOTE: Compare & Contrast Warsaw and Montreal Convention 2. For the purposes of this Convention, the expression international
carriage means any carriage in which, according to the agreement
between the parties, the place of departure and the place of
destination, whether or not there be a break in the carriage or a
transhipment, are situated either within the territories of two States
Parties, or within the territory of a single State Party if there is an
agreed stopping place within the territory of another State, even if that
State is not a State Party. Carriage between two points within the
territory of a single State Party without an agreed stopping place within
Resolved, That the Philippine Senate concur, as it hereby concurs, in
the territory of another State is not international carriage for the
the Philippine accession to the Convention for the Unification of
purposes of this Convention.
Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air signed on 28 May 1999
in Montreal, with the reservation that the Convention shall not apply to NOTE: All boxes similarly shaded were taken from Montreal Convention
(a) international carriage by air performed and operated drrectly by the
Philippines for noncommercial purposes in respect of its functions and
G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997
duties as a sovereign State; and (b) the carrige of persons, cargo, and
baggage for its military authoritIes on aircraft registered in or leased by
MAPA, petitioners,
the Philippines, the whole capacity of which has been reserved by or
on behalf of such authorities.
INC., respondents.
This Resolution was adopted by the Senate on August 10, 2015.
Place of purchase of ticket: Bangkok

The pitch issue to be resolved under the petitioner's first assigned error
is whether the contracts of transportation between Purita and
WARSAW CONVENTION CarminaMapa, on the one hand, and TWA, on the other, were
contracts of "international transportation" under the Warsaw
In General: Convention.

1. Full Title – Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain There are then two categories of international transportation, viz., (1)
Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air that where the place of departure and the place of destination are
2. Date and Place Signed – Warsaw Poland, October 12, situated within the territories of two High Contracting Parties regardless
1929 of whether or not there be a break in the transportation or a
Page 41
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
transshipment; and (2) that where the place of departure and the place petitioner tacitly recognized its commitment under the IATA pool
of destination are within the territory of a single High Contracting Party arrangement to act as agent of the principal contracting airline,
if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the Singapore Airlines, as to the segment of the trip the petitioner agreed
sovereignty, mandate, or authority of another power, even though the to undertake. As such, the petitioner thereby assumed the obligation to
power is not a party of the Convention. XXX take the place of the carrier originally designated in the original
The contracts of transportation in this case are evidenced by the two conjunction ticket. The petitioner's argument that it is not a designated
TWA tickets, No. 015:9475:153:304 and No. 015:9475:153:305, both carrier in the original conjunction tickets and that it issued its own ticket
purchased and issued in Bangkok, Thailand. On the basis alone of the is not decisive of its liability. The new ticket was simply a replacement
provisions therein, it is obvious that the place of departure and the for the unused portion of the conjunction ticket, both tickets being for
place of destination are all in the territory of the United States, or of a the same amount of US$2,760 and having the same points of
single High Contracting Party. The contracts, therefore, cannot come departure and destination. By constituting itself as an agent of the
within the purview of the first category of international transportation. principal carrier the petitioner's undertaking should be taken as part of
Neither can it be under the second category since there was NO a single operation under the contract of carriage executed by the
agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the sovereignty, private respondent and Singapore Airlines in Manila.
mandate, or authority of another power.
The quoted provision of the Warsaw Convention Art. 1(3) clearly states
Effect when Transportation is Performed by Several Successive that a contract of air transportation is taken as a single operation
Air Carriers [Art. 1.3)] whether it is founded on a single contract or a series of contracts. The
number of tickets issued does not detract from the oneness of the
1. It shall be deemed, for the purposes of the WC, to be one contract of carriage as long as the parties regard the contract as a
undivided transportation, PROVIDED It has been single operation. The evident purpose underlying this Article is to
regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it promote international air travel by facilitating the procurement of a
has been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or series of contracts for air transportation through a single principal and
of a series of contracts, and obligating different airlines to be bound by one contract of
transportation. Petitioner's acquiescence to take the place of the
2. It shall not lose its international character merely original designated carrier binds it under the contract of carriage
because one contract or a series of contracts is to be entered into by the private respondent and Singapore Airlines in
performed entirely within a territory subject to the Manila.
sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate, or authority of the same
High Contracting Party Liability of Carrier [Art. 17]

1.3. Carriage to be performed by several successive carriers is Art. 17 provides for the liability of the carrier for damage suffered by a
deemed, for the purposes of this Convention, to be one undivided passenger, sustained in the event of:
carriage if it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation,
whether it had been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or 1. the death, or
of a series of contracts, and it does not lose its international character 2. the wounding of a passenger, or
merely because one contract or a series of contracts is to be 3. any other bodily injury
performed entirely within the territory of the same State.
Conditions for Liability [Art. 17]
G.R. No. 116044-45 arch 9, 2000
AMERICAN AIRLINES petitioner, The accident, which caused the damage so sustained, took place:
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BERNARDO LL. SALAS and 1. on board the aircraft, or
DEMOCRITO MENDOZA, respondents. 2. in the course of any of the operations of embarking or
GONZAGA-REYES, J.: disembarking
Carriers: Successive
Place of purchase of ticket: SQ in Manila Liability of Carrier [Art. 18]
Ticket: Conjunction Art. 18 provides for the liability of the carrier for damage sustained in
the event of the
The question is whether the contract of transportation between the
petitioner and the private respondent would be considered as a single 1. destruction or
operation and part of the contract of transportation entered into by the 2. loss of, or
latter with Singapore Airlines in Manila. 3. of damage to any checked baggage or goods

The contract of carriage between the private respondent and The occurrence, which caused the damage, so sustained took place
Singapore Airlines although performed by different carriers under a during the transportation by air.
series of airline tickets, including that issued by the petitioner,
constitutes a single operation. Members of the IATA are under a What comprises Transportation by Air in reference to Art. 18[1]?
general pool partnership agreement wherein they act as agent of each
other in the issuance of tickets to contracted passengers to boost ticket It shall comprise the period during which the baggage or goods are in
sales worldwide and at the same time provide passengers easy access charge of the carrier whether:
to airlines which are otherwise inaccessible in some parts of the world.
Booking and reservation among airline members are allowed even by 1. in an airport, or
telephone and it has become an accepted practice among them. A 2. on board an aircraft, or,
member airline which enters into a contract of carriage consisting of a 3. in the case of a landing outside an airport, in any place
series of trips to be performed by different carriers is authorized to whatsoever
receive the fare for the whole trip and through the required process of
interline settlement of accounts by way of the IATA clearing house an
Does the period of the transportation by air shall extend to any
airline is duly compensated for the segment of the trip serviced. Thus,
transportation by land, by sea, or by river performed outside an
when the petitioner accepted the unused portion of the conjunction
tickets, entered it in the IATA clearing house and undertook to
transport the private respondent over the route covered by the unused
portion of the conjunction tickets, i.e., Geneva to New York, the

Page 42
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
As a General Rule, NO. If, however, such transportation takes place in damages notwithstanding, international carriers have not been
the performance of a contract for transportation by air, for the purpose dissuaded from repeating similar derogatory acts.
of loading, delivery or transshipment, any damage is PRESUMED,
subject to proof to the contrary, to have been the result of an event, Limitations to Liability of Air Carriers [Art. 22]
which took place during the transportation by air
 In transportation of PASSENGERS – 125,000 francs [or
Liability of Carrier for Delay [Art. 19] equivalent], but carrier and pax may agree to a higher limit of
The carrier shall be liable for damages occasioned by delay in the  In transportation of CHECKED BAGGAGE or GOODS –
transportation by air of passengers, baggage, or goods. 125 francs [or equivalent] per kilo, unless the consignor
declares a higher value and pays a supplementary sum
G.R. No. 77011 July 24, 1990  As regards OBJECTS of which pax takes charge HIMSELF
ALITALIA AIRWAYS, petitioner, [hand carried luggage] – 5,000 francs [or equivalent] per
vs. pax
JULIANO, respondents. Carriage; Valuation of Damaged Cargo (1993)
Thus we re-affirm the ruling laid down by the Court in a long line of A shipped thirteen pieces of luggage through LG Airlinesfrom Teheran
cases that when an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed on to Manila as evidenced by LG Air Waybillwhich disclosed that the
a particular flight, on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises, and actual gross weight of the luggagewas 180 kg. Z did not declare an
the passenger has every right to expect that he would fly on that flight inventory of the contentsor the value of the 13 pieces of luggage. After
and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit the saidpieces of luggage arrived in Manila, the consignee was able
for breach of contract of carriage. to claim from the cargo broker only 12 pieces, with a totalweight of 174
kg. X advised the airline of the loss of one ofthe 13 pieces of luggage
Accordingly, the respondent court erred in holding that the Julianos are and of the contents thereof.Efforts of the airline to trace the missing
not entitled to a refund because the purchase of the Thai Airways luggage werefruitless. Since the airline failed to comply with the
tickets was unnecessary. XXX demandof X to produce the missing luggage, X filed an action for
breach of contract with damages against LG Airlines. In itsanswer, LG
When a passenger contracts for a specific flight he has a purpose in Airlines alleged that the Warsaw Conventionwhich limits the liability of
making that choice which must be respected. This choice, once the carrier, if any, with respectto cargo to a sum of $20 per kilo or
exercised, must not be impaired by a breach on the part of the airline $9.07 per pound,unless a higher value is declared in advance and
without the latter incurring any liability. Besides, why should the additionalcharges are paid by the passenger and the conditions of the
Julianos be compelled to wait for another Alitalia tight to risk a similar contract as set forth in the air waybill, expressly subject thecontract of
rebuff and suffer the consequent further delay? XXX the carriage of cargo to the WarsawConvention. May the allegation of
LG Airlines besustained? Explain.
It was already too much of a coincidence that, at Fumicino Airport, the
Julianos would find another Filipino, in the person of Ms. Estanislao, in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the same predicament that they were in. 27 We will no longer go to the
extent of indulging in the conjecture that Ms. Estanislao and the Yes. Unless the contents of a cargo are declared or thecontents of a
Julianos were singled out to be discriminated against because of their lost luggage are proved by the satisfactoryevidence other than the self-
color. What is plain to see is that the airline had deliberately serving declaration of oneparty, the contract should be enforced as it is
overbooked and in doing so took the risk of having to deprive some the onlyreasonable basis to arrive at a just award. The passenger
passengers of their seats in case all of them would show up for check- orshipper is bound by the terms of the passenger ticket or
in. the waybill. (Panama v Rapadas 209 s 67)
That Alitalia had no intention to accommodate all who had 'confirmed
their flight reservations could be seen in the absence of any measure Common Carrier; Defenses; Limitation of Liability (1998)
to contract all possible passengers for each flight who might be within
the airport premises. 28 As a result, some passengers would really be X took a plane from Manila bound for Davao via Cebuwhere there was
left behind in the long and disorderly queue at the check-in counter. a change of planes. X arrived in Davaosafely but to his dismay, his two
suitcases were left behindin Cebu. The airline company assured X that
Common carriers, like commercial airlines, are in the business of the suitcaseswould come in the next flight but they never did. X
rendering service, which is the primary reason for their recognition in claimed P2,000 for the loss of both suitcases, but theairline was willing
our law. They can not be allowed to disregard our laws as if they are to pay only P500 because the airlineticket stipulated that unless a
doing the passengers any favor by accommodating them. higher value was declared,any claim for loss cannot exceed P250 for
each piece ofluggage. X reasoned out that he did not sign the
Because the passengers in a contract of carriage do not contract stipulationand in fact had not even read it. X did not declare a greater
merely for transportation, they have a right to be treated by the carrier's value despitethe fact that the clerk had called his attention to
employees with kindness, respect, courtesy, and thestipulation in the ticket. Decide the case (5%)
consideration. 29 Hence the justification why passengers must be
spared from the indignity and inconvenience of being refused a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
confirmed seat on the last minute.
Even if he did not sign the ticket, X is bound by thestipulation that any
As held in Trans World Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 30 such inattention claim for loss cannot exceed P250 foreach luggage. He did not declare
to and lack of care [by the petitioner airline] for the interest of its a higher value. X isentitled to P500 for the two luggages lost.
passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as
to their convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger
to the award of moral damages. Ergo, we affirm the respondent court's G.R. No. 70462 August 11, 1988
award of moral damages at P200.000.00. This award should be PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., petitioner,
sufficient to indemnify the Julianos for the delay, inconvenience, vs.
humiliation, and embarrassment they suffered. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, RENE V. PANGAN,
Likewise the award of exemplary damages is well-grounded. With PRODUCTIONS, respondents.
dismay, we note, that the imposition of substantial amounts of CORTES, J.:

Page 43
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
On the basis of the foregoing stipulations printed at the back of the Protocol of 1955, the Montreal Agreement of 1966, the Guatemala
ticket, petitioner contends that its liability for the lost baggage of private Protocol of 1971 and the Montreal Protocols of 1975). XXX
respondent Pangan is limited to $600.00 ($20.00 x 30 kilos) as the
latter did not declare a higher value for his baggage and pay the The Court thus sees no error in the preponderant application to the
corresponding additional charges. instant case by the appellate court, as well as by the trial court, of the
usual rules on the extent of recoverable damages beyond the Warsaw
To support this contention, petitioner cites the case of Ong Yiu v. Court limitations. Under domestic law and jurisprudence (the Philippines
of Appeals [G.R. No. L-40597, June 29, 1979, 91 SCRA 223], where being the country of destination), the attendance of gross negligence
the Court sustained the validity of a printed stipulation at the back of an (given the equivalent of fraud or bad faith) holds the common carrier
airline ticket limiting the liability of the carrier for lost baggage to a liable for all damages which can be reasonably attributed, although
specified amount and ruled that the carrier's liability was limited to said unforeseen, to the non-performance of the obligation, 9 including moral
amount since the passenger did not declare a higher value, much less and exemplary damages.
pay additional charges.
G.R. No. 121824 January 29, 1998
We find the ruling in Ong Yiu squarely applicable to the instant case. BRITISH AIRWAYS, petitioner,
XXX vs.
In view thereof petitioner's liability for the lost baggage is limited to AIRLINES, respondents.
$20.00 per kilo or $600.00, as stipulated at the back of the ticket. ROMERO, J.:
It is the position of BA that there should have been no separate award
G.R. No. 92501 March 6, 1992 for the luggage and the contents thereof since Mahtani failed to
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, petitioner, declare a separate higher valuation for the luggage, 18 and therefore,
vs. its liability is limited, at most, only to the amount stated in the ticket.
Petitioner contends that under the Warsaw Convention, its liability, if Considering the facts of the case, we cannot assent to such specious
any, cannot exceed US $20.00 based on weight as private respondent argument. XXX
Co did not declare the contents of his baggage nor pay traditional
charges before the flight (p. 3, tsn, July 18, 1985). In addition, we have held that benefits of limited liability are subject to
We find no merit in that contention. XXX waiver such as when the air carrier failed to raise timely objections
during the trial when questions and answers regarding the actual
Since the passenger's destination in this case was the Philippines, claims and damages sustained by the passenger were asked.
Philippine law governs the liability of the carrier for the loss of the
passenger's luggage. Given the foregoing postulates, the inescapable conclusion is that BA
had waived the defense of limited liability when it allowed Mahtani to
In this case, the petitioner failed to overcome, not only the testify as to the actual damages he incurred due to the misplacement
presumption, but more importantly, the private respondent's evidence, of his luggage, without any objection. XXX
proving that the carrier's negligence was the proximate cause of the
loss of his baggage. Furthermore, petitioner acted in bad faith in faking To compound matters for BA, its counsel failed, not only to interpose a
a retrieval receipt to bail itself out of having to pay Co's claim. timely objection, but even conducted his own cross-examination as
The Court of Appeals therefore did not err in disregarding the limits of
liability under the Warsaw Convention. When an Air Carrier NOT is entitled to the WC provisions which
EXCLUDE or LIMIT Liability?
G.R. No. 104685 March 14, 1996
SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES, petitioner, When the loss or damage is caused by the WILLFUL MISCONDUCT
vs. of the carrier or its agent… x xx[Art. 25]
AGUSTIN, respondents. What is the effect of receipt by the person entitled to delivery of
VITUG, J.:p luggage or goods without complaint?
It remained undisputed that private respondent's luggage was lost
while it was in the custody of petitioner. It was supposed to arrive on It is prima facie evidence that the goods have been delivered in good
the same flight that private respondent took in returning to Manila on condition and in accordance with the document of transportation [Art.
02 September 1987. When she discovered that the luggage was 26]
missing, she promptly accomplished and filed a Property Irregularity
Report. She followed up her claim on 14 September 1987, and filed, on What is the duty of the shipper or consignee when the goods are
the following day, a formal letter-complaint with petitioner. She felt DAMAGED or when there is DELAY in their delivery?
relieved when, on 23 October 1987, she was advised that her luggage
had finally been found, with its contents intact when examined, and He must make a complaint to the carrier:
that she could expect it to arrive on 27 October 1987. She then waited
anxiously only to be told later that her luggage had been lost for the 1. In case of DAMAGE – the complaint must be made forthwith
second time. Thus, the appellate court, given all the facts before it, after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within:
sustained the trial court in finding petitioner ultimately guilty of "gross
negligence" in the handling of private respondent's luggage. The "loss a. 3 days from the date of receipt in the case of
of said baggage not only once but twice, said the appellate court, luggage, and
"underscores the wanton negligence and lack of care" on the part of b. 7 days from date of receipt in the case of goods
the carrier.
2. In case of DELAY - the complaint must be made at the latest
The above findings, which certainly cannot be said to be without basis, within 14 days from the date on which the luggage or
foreclose whatever rights petitioner might have had to the possible goods have been placed at his disposal [Art. 26]
limitation of liabilities enjoyed by international air carriers under the
Warsaw Convention (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Form of the Complaint:
Relating to International Carriage by Air, as amended by the Hague
1. In writing upon the document of carriage, or
Page 44
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
2. by separate notice in writing dispatched within the times application of the Convention must not therefore be construed to
aforesaid [Art. 26] preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws. In
fact, in Alitalia v. IAC,We awarded Dr. Felipa Pablo nominal damages,
Effect of Failure to File Complaint within Periods Provided: the provisions of the Convention notwithstanding.

General Rule – no action shall lie against the carrier Hence, petitioners' alleged failure to file a claim with the common
carrier as mandated by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention
Exception – save in the case of fraud on his [carrier‘s] part [Art. 26] should not be a ground for the summary dismissal of their complaints
since private respondent may still be held liable for breach of other
relevant laws which may provide a different period or procedure for
G.R. No. 150094 August 18, 2004
filing a claim. Considering that petitioners indeed filed a claim which
private respondent admitted having received on 21 June, 1989, their
demand may have very well been filed within the period prescribed by
those applicable laws. Consequently, respondent trial courts, as well
as respondent appellate court, were in error when they limited
themselves to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention and
disregarding completely the provisions of the Civil Code.
We are unable to agree however with petitioners that Art. 25 of the
In this jurisdiction, the filing of a claim with the carrier within the time
Convention operations to exclude the other provisions of the
limitation therefor actually constitutes a condition precedent to the
Convention if damage is caused by the common carrier's willful
accrual of a right of action against a carrier for loss of or damage to the
misconduct. As correctly pointed out by private respondent, Art. 25
goods. The shipper or consignee must allege and prove the fulfillment
refers only to the monetary ceiling on damages found in Art. 22 should
of the condition. If it fails to do so, no right of action against the carrier
damage be caused by the carrier's willful misconduct. Hence, only the
can accrue in favor of the former. The aforementioned requirement is a
provisions of Art. 22 limiting the carrier's liability and imposing a
reasonable condition precedent; it does not constitute a limitation of
monetary ceiling in case of willful misconduct on its part that the carrier
cannot invoke. 19 This issue however has become academic in the
light of our ruling that the trial courts erred in dismissing petitioners'
The requirement of giving notice of loss of or injury to the goods is not
respective complaints.
an empty formalism. The fundamental reasons for such a stipulation
are (1) to inform the carrier that the cargo has been damaged, and that
We are not prepared to subscribed to petitioners' argument that the
it is being charged with liability therefor; and (2) to give it an
failure of private respondent to deliver their luggage at the designated
opportunity to examine the nature and extent of the injury. "This
time and place amounted ipso facto to willful misconduct. For willful
protects the carrier by affording it an opportunity to make an
misconduct to exist, there must be a showing that the acts complained
investigation of a claim while the matter is fresh and easily investigated
of were impelled by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent
so as to safeguard itself from false and fraudulent claims."
disregard of one's rights. It must be evidenced by a flagrantly or
shamefully wrong or improper conduct.
When an airway bill -- or any contract of carriage for that matter -- has
a stipulation that requires a notice of claim for loss of or damage to
goods shipped and the stipulation is not complied with, its enforcement Jurisdiction Art. 28[1]
can be prevented and the liability cannot be imposed on the carrier. To
stress, notice is a condition precedent, and the carrier is not liable if An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in
notice is not given in accordance with the stipulation. Failure to comply the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, either before the
with such a stipulation bars recovery for the loss or damage suffered. court of the domicile of the carrier or of his principal place of business,
or where he has a place of business through which the contract has
Being a condition precedent, the notice must precede a suit for been made, or before the court at the place of destination.
enforcement. In the present case, there is neither an allegation nor a
showing of respondents' compliance with this requirement within the Article 33 — Jurisdiction
prescribed period. While respondents may have had a cause of action
then, they cannot now enforce it for their failure to comply with the 1. An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff,
aforesaid condition precedent. in the territory of one of the States Parties, either before the court of
the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business, or where
it has a place of business through which the contract has been made
G.R. Nos. 100374-75 November 27, 1992 or before the court at the place of destination.
RODRIGUEZ, petitioners, 2. In respect of damage resulting from the death or injury of a
vs. passenger, an action may be brought before one of the courts
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CRISTINA M. ESTRADA in her mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article, or in the territory of a State
capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC-Pasig, Br. 69, Metro Manila, Party in which at the time of the accident the passenger has his or her
HON. TERESITA D. CAPULONG in her capacity as Presiding principal and permanent residence and to or from which the carrier
Judge, RTC-Valenzuela, Br. 172, Metro Manila, and NORTHWEST operates services for the carriage of passengers by air, either on its
AIRLINES, INC., respondents. own aircraft, or on another carrier‘s aircraft pursuant to a commercial
agreement, and in which that carrier conducts its business of carriage
BELLOSILLO, J.: of passengers by air from premises leased or owned by the carrier
Previously, We ruled that the Warsaw Convention was a treaty itself or by another carrier with which it has a commercial agreement.
commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government;
consequently, it has the force and effect of law in this country. 15 But, 3. For the purposes of paragraph 2,
in the same token, We are also aware of jurisprudence that the
Warsaw Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of a) ―commercial agreement‖ means an agreement, other than an
the instances for declaring an airline liable for breach of contract of agency agreement, made between carriers and relating to the
carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. 16 The provision of their joint services for carriage of passengers by air;
Convention merely declares the carrier liable for damages in the
enumerated cases, if the conditions therein specified are b) ―principal and permanent residence‖ means the one Þ xed and
present. 17 For sure, it does not regulate the liability, much less permanent abode of the passenger at the time of the accident. The
exempt, the carrier for violating the rights of others which must simply
be respected in accordance with their contracts of carriage. The
Page 45
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
nationality of the passenger shall not be the determining factor in this sets out two places where an action for damages may be brought; the
regard. country where the carrier's principal place of business is located, and
the country in which it has a place of business through which the
4. Questions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the court particular contract in question was made, that is, where the ticket was
seised of the case bought, Adopting the plaintiffs' theory would at a minimum blur these
carefully drawn distinctions by creating a third intermediate category. It
Where a Complaint for Damages Against an Air Carrier May be would obviously introduce uncertainty into litigation under the article
Instituted [Art. 28]: because of the necessity of having to determine, and without
standards or criteria, whether the amount of business done by a carrier
1. The court of the domicile of the carrier; in a particular country was "regular" and "substantial." The plaintiff's
2. The court of its principal place of business; request to adopt this basis of jurisdiction is in effect a request to create
3. The court where it has a place of business through which the a new jurisdictional standard for the Convention.
contract had been made;
4. The court of the place of destination. XXX

We agree with these rulings.

G.R. No. 116044-45 March 9, 2000
Notably, the domicile of the carrier is only one of the places where the
complaint is allowed to be filed under Article 28(1). By specifying the
three other places, to wit, the principal place of business of the carrier,
its place of business where the contract was made, and the place of
destination, the article clearly meant that these three other places were
The third option of the plaintiff under Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw
not comprehended in the term "domicile."
Convention e.g., to sue in the place of business of the carrier wherein
the contract was made, is therefore, Manila, and Philippine courts are
clothed with jurisdiction over this case. We note that while this case G.R. No. 171092 March 15, 2010
was filed in Cebu and not in Manila the issue of venue is no longer an EDNA DIAGO LHUILLIER, Petitioner,
issue as the petitioner is deemed to have waived it when it presented vs.
evidence before the trial court. BRITISH AIRWAYS, Respondent.
In this case, it is not disputed that respondent is a British corporation
G.R. No. 101538 June 23, 1992
domiciled in London, United Kingdom with London as its principal
AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III, represented by his father and
place of business. Hence, under the first and second jurisdictional
legal guardian, Augusto Benedicto Santos, petitioner,
rules, the petitioner may bring her case before the courts of London in
the United Kingdom. In the passenger ticket and baggage check
presented by both the petitioner and respondent, it appears that the
APPEALS, respondents.
ticket was issued in Rome, Italy. Consequently, under the third
jurisdictional rule, the petitioner has the option to bring her case before
The petitioner claims that the lower court erred in not ruling that
the courts of Rome in Italy. Finally, both the petitioner and respondent
under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, this case was
aver that the place of destination is Rome, Italy, which is properly
properly filed in the Philippines, because Manila was the
designated given the routing presented in the said passenger ticket
destination of the plaintiff. XXX
and baggage check. Accordingly, petitioner may bring her action
before the courts of Rome, Italy. We thus find that the RTC of Makati
The place of destination, within the meaning of the Warsaw
correctly ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the case filed by
Convention, is determined by the terms of the contract of carriage or,
the petitioner.
specifically in this case, the ticket between the passenger and the
carrier. Examination of the petitioner's ticket shows that his ultimate
destination is San Francisco. Although the date of the return flight was Prescriptive Period in Filing a Case for Damages against Carrier
left open, the contract of carriage between the parties indicates that [Art. 29]:
NOA was bound to transport the petitioner to San Francisco from
Manila. Manila should therefore be considered merely an agreed Within two [2] years, reckoned from:
stopping place and not the destination.
 the date of arrival at the destination, or
The petitioner claims that the lower court erred in not ruling that  the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or
under Art. 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, this case was  the date on which the transportation stopped
properly filed in the Philippines because the defendant has its
domicile in the Philippines. XXX Effect of Failure to File Action against the Carrier within 2 years:

The private respondent notes, however, that in Compagnie Nationale The right to damages shall be extinguished
Air France vs. Giliberto, 19 it was held:
In United Airlines v. Uy,18 this Court distinguished between the (1)
The plaintiffs' first contention is that Air France is domiciled in the damage to the passenger‘s baggage and (2) humiliation he suffered at
United States. They say that the domicile of a corporation includes any the hands of the airline‘s employees. The first cause of action was
country where the airline carries on its business on "a regular and covered by the Warsaw Convention which prescribes in two years,
substantial basis," and that the United States qualifies under such while the second was covered by the provisions of the Civil Code on
definition. The meaning of domicile cannot, however, be so extended. torts, which prescribes in four years.
The domicile of a corporation is customarily regarded as the place
where it is incorporated, and the courts have given the meaning to the
term as it is used in article 28(1) of the Convention. (See Smith v.
Canadian Pacific Airways, Ltd. (2d Cir. 1971), 452 F2d 798, 802; Nudo G.R. No. 127768 November 19, 1999
v. Societe Anonyme Belge d' Exploitation de la Navigation Aerienne UNITED AIRLINES, petitioner,
Sabena Belgian World Airlines (E.D. pa. 1962). 207 F. Supp, 191; vs.
Karfunkel v. Compagnie Nationale Air France (S.D.N.Y. 1977), 427 F. WILLIE J. UY, respondent.
Suppl. 971, 974). Moreover, the structure of article 28(1), viewed as a
whole, is also incompatible with the plaintiffs' claim. The article, in BELLOSILLO, J.:
stating that places of business are among the bases of the jurisdiction,

Page 46
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
As for respondent's second cause of action, indeed the travaux The instant case is comparable to the case of Lathigra v. British
preparatories of the Warsaw Convention reveal that the delegates Airways.23
thereto intended the two (2)-year limitation incorporated in Art. 29 as In Lathigra, it was held that the airlines‘ negligent act of reconfirming
an absolute bar to suit and not to be made subject to the various tolling the passenger‘s reservation days before departure and failing to inform
provisions of the laws of the forum. This therefore forecloses the the latter that the flight had already been discontinued is not among the
application of our own rules on interruption of prescriptive periods. acts covered by the Warsaw Convention, since the alleged negligence
Article 29, par. (2), was intended only to let local laws determine did not occur during the performance of the contract of carriage but,
whether an action had been commenced within the two (2)-year rather, days before the scheduled flight.
period, and within our jurisdiction an action shall be deemed In the case at hand, Singapore Airlines barred private respondent from
commenced upon the filing of a complaint. Since it is indisputable that boarding the Singapore Airlines flight because PAL allegedly failed to
respondent filed the present action beyond the two (2)-year time frame endorse the tickets of private respondent and his companions, despite
his second cause of action must be barred. Nonetheless, it cannot be PAL‘s assurances to respondent that Singapore Airlines had already
doubted that respondent exerted efforts to immediately convey his loss confirmed their passage. While this fact still needs to be heard and
to petitioner, even employed the services of two (2) lawyers to follow established by adequate proof before the RTC, an action based on
up his claims, and that the filing of the action itself was delayed these allegations will not fall under the Warsaw Convention, since the
because of petitioner's evasion. purported negligence on the part of PAL did not occur during the
performance of the contract of carriage but days before the scheduled
In this regard, Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 19 is flight. Thus, the present action cannot be dismissed based on the
instructive. In this case of PAL, private respondent filed an action for statute of limitations provided under Article 29 of the Warsaw
damages against petitioner airline for the breakage of the front glass of Convention.
the microwave oven which she shipped under PAL Air Waybill No. 0- Had the present case merely consisted of claims incidental to the
79-1013008-3. Petitioner averred that, the action having been filed airlines‘ delay in transporting their passengers, the private
seven (7) months after her arrival at her port of destination, she failed respondent‘s Complaint would have been time-barred under Article 29
to comply with par. 12, subpar. (a) (1), of the Air Waybill which of the Warsaw Convention. However, the present case involves a
expressly provided that the person entitled to delivery must make a special species of injury resulting from the failure of PAL and/or
complaint to the carrier in writing in case of visible damage to the Singapore Airlines to transport private respondent from Singapore to
goods, immediately after discovery of the damage and at the latest Jakarta – the profound distress, fear, anxiety and humiliation that
within 14 days from receipt of the goods. Despite non-compliance private respondent experienced when, despite PAL‘s earlier assurance
therewith the Court held that by private respondent's immediate that Singapore Airlines confirmed his passage, he was prevented from
submission of a formal claim to petitioner, which however was not boarding the plane and he faced the daunting possibility that he would
immediately entertained as it was referred from one employee to be stranded in Singapore Airport because the PAL office was already
another, she was deemed to have substantially complied with the closed.
requirement. The Court noted that with private respondent's own These claims are covered by the Civil Code provisions on tort, and not
zealous efforts in pursuing her claim it was clearly not her fault that the within the purview of the Warsaw Convention. Hence, the applicable
letter of demand for damages could only be filed, after months of prescription period is that provided under Article 1146 of the Civil
exasperating follow-up of the claim, on 13 August 1990, and that if Code:
there was any failure at all to file the formal claim within the Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:
prescriptive period contemplated in the Air Waybill, this was largely (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
because of the carrier's own doing, the consequences of which could (2) Upon a quasi-delict.
not in all fairness be attributed to private respondent. Private respondent‘s Complaint was filed with the RTC on 15 August
1997, which was less than four years since PAL received his
In the same vein must we rule upon the circumstances brought before extrajudicial demand on 25 January 1994. Thus, private respondent‘s
us. Verily, respondent filed his complaint more than two (2) years later, claims have not yet prescribed and PAL‘s Motion to Dismiss must be
beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the Warsaw Convention denied.
for filing a claim for damages. However, it is obvious that respondent
was forestalled from immediately filing an action because petitioner Rule when Transportation Performed by Successive Carriers
airline gave him the runaround, answering his letters but not giving in under Art. 1.3
to his demands. True, respondent should have already filed an action
at the first instance when his claims were denied by petitioner but the Each carrier who accepts pax, baggage or goods shall be:
same could only be due to his desire to make an out-of-court
settlement for which he cannot be faulted. Hence, despite the express  subject to the rules set out in the WC, and
mandate of Art. 29 of the Warsaw Convention that an action for  deemed to be one of the contracting parties to the contract
damages should be filed within two (2) years from the arrival at the of transportation insofar as the contract deals with the part of
place of destination, such rule shall not be applied in the instant case transportation which is performed under his supervision [Art.
because of the delaying tactics employed by petitioner airline itself. 30]
Thus, private respondent's second cause of action cannot be
considered as time-barred under Art. 29 of the Warsaw Convention. Against whom can Pax take Action:

G.R. No. 149547 July 4, 2008 General Rule – only against the carrier who performed the
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, transportation during which the accident or delay occurred,
HON. ADRIANO SAVILLO, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 30 , Exception – against the first carrier when, by express agreement, it
Iloilo City, and SIMPLICIO GRIÑO,respondents. has assumed liability for the whole journey
In the Petition at bar, private respondent‘s Complaint alleged that both
PAL and Singapore Airlines were guilty of gross negligence, which
resulted in his being subjected to "humiliation, embarrassment, mental
anguish, serious anxiety, fear and distress." The emotional harm
suffered by the private respondent as a result of having been
unreasonably and unjustly prevented from boarding the plane should G.R. No. L-31150 July 22, 1975
be distinguished from the actual damages which resulted from the KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSHAPPIJ N.V., otherwise
same incident. Under the Civil Code provisions on tort,22 such known as KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES,petitioner,
emotional harm gives rise to compensation where gross negligence or vs.
MENDOZA and RUFINO T. MENDOZA, respondents.
Page 47
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
CASTRO, J.: contract of carriage with Antiporda and remains to be so, regardless of
The argument that the KLM should not be held accountable for the those instances when actual carriage was to be performed by various
tortious conduct of Aer Lingus because of the provision printed on the carriers. The issuance of a confirmed Lufthansa ticket in favor of
respondents' tickets expressly limiting the KLM's liability for damages Antiporda covering his entire five-leg trip abroad successive carriers
only to occurrences on its own lines is unacceptable. As noted by the concretely attests to this. This also serves as proof that Lufthansa, in
Court of Appeals that condition was printed in letters so small that one effect guaranteed that the successive carriers, such as Air Kenya
would have to use a magnifying glass to read the words. Under the would honor his ticket; assure him of a space therein and transport him
circumstances, it would be unfair and inequitable to charge the on a particular segment of his trip.
respondents with automatic knowledge or notice of the said condition
so as to preclude any doubt that it was fairly and freely agreed upon by G.R. No. 152122 July 30, 2003
the respondents when they accepted the passage tickets issued to CHINA AIRLINES, petitioner,
them by the KLM. As the airline which issued those tickets with the vs.
knowledge that the respondents would be flown on the various legs of DANIEL CHIOK, respondent.
their journey by different air carriers, the KLM was chargeable with the PANGANIBAN, J.:
duty and responsibility of specifically informing the respondents of It is significant to note that the contract of air transportation was
conditions prescribed in their tickets or, in the very least, to ascertain between petitioner and respondent, with the former endorsing to PAL
that the respondents read them before they accepted their passage the Hong Kong-to-Manila segment of the journey. Such contract of
tickets. A thorough search of the record, however, inexplicably fails to carriage has always been treated in this jurisdiction as a single
show that any effort was exerted by the KLM officials or employees to operation. This jurisprudential rule is supported by the Warsaw
discharge in a proper manner this responsibility to the respondents. Convention,22 to which the Philippines is a party, and by the existing
Consequently, we hold that the respondents cannot be bound by the practices of the International Air Transport Association (IATA). XXX
provision in question by which KLM unilaterally assumed the role of a
mere ticket-issuing agent for other airlines and limited its liability only to In American Airlines v. Court of Appeals,24 we have noted that under a
untoward occurrences on its own lines. general pool partnership agreement, the ticket-issuing airline is the
principal in a contract of carriage, while the endorsee-airline is the
Moreover, as maintained by the respondents and the Court of Appeals, agent. XXX
the passage tickets of the respondents provide that the carriage to be
performed thereunder by several successive carriers "is to be regarded In the instant case, following the jurisprudence cited above, PAL acted
as a single operation," which is diametrically incompatible with the as the carrying agent of CAL. In the same way that we ruled against
theory of the KLM that the respondents entered into a series of British Airways and Lufthansa in the aforementioned cases, we also
independent contracts with the carriers which took them on the various rule that CAL cannot evade liability to respondent, even though it may
segments of their trip. This position of KLM we reject. The respondents have been only a ticket issuer for the Hong Kong-Manila sector.
dealt exclusively with the KLM which issued them tickets for their entire
trip and which in effect guaranteed to them that they would have sure Rule with Respect to Baggage or Goods
space in Aer Lingus flight 861. The respondents, under that assurance
of the internationally prestigious KLM, naturally had the right to expect
 The pax or consignor shall have a right to action against the
that their tickets would be honored by Aer Lingus to which, in the legal
FIRST carrier
sense, the KLM had indorsed and in effect guaranteed the
 The pax or consignee who is entitled to delivery shall have a
performance of its principal engagement to carry out the respondents'
right of action against the LAST carrier
scheduled itinerary previously and mutually agreed upon between the
parties.  Each may take action against the carrier WHO
PERFORMED the transportation during which the
The breach of that guarantee was aggravated by the discourteous and destruction, loss, damage or delay took place
highly arbitrary conduct of an official of the Aer Lingus which the KLM  The carriers shall be JOINTLY liable to the pax or to the
had engaged to transport the respondents on the Barcelona-Lourdes consignor or consignee
segment of their itinerary. It is but just and in full accord with the policy
expressly embodied in our civil law which enjoins courts to be more Is the Warsaw Convention Binding in the Philippines?
vigilant for the protection of a contracting party who occupies an
inferior position with respect to the other contracting party, that the General Rule: YES, it has the force and effect of a law, being a treaty
KLM should be held responsible for the abuse, injury and commitment assumed by the Philippine Government
embarrassment suffered by the respondents at the hands of a
supercilious boor of the Aer Lingus. However – it does NOT operate as:

G.R. No. 83612 November 24, 1994 a) an EXCLUSIVE enumeration of the instances for
LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES, petitioner, declaring a carrier liable for breach of contract of
vs. carriage, or
COURT OF APPEALS and TIRSO V. ANTIPORDA, b) an ABSOLUTE limit of the extent of that liability
SR., respondents.
ROMERO, J.: The WC must NOT be construed as to PRECLUDE the operation of
Lufthansa maintains that its liability to any passenger is limited to the Civil Code and other pertinent laws
occurrences in its own line, and, thus, in the case at bench, its liability
to Antiporda is limited to the extent that it had transported him from It does not regulate, much less exempt the carrier from liability for
Manila to Singapore and from Singapore to Bombay; that therefrom, damages for violating the rights of the passengers under the contract
responsibility for the performance of the contract of carriage is of carriage, ESPECIALLY if willful misconduct on the part of then
assumed by the succeeding carriers tasked to transport him for the carrier‘s employees is found or established.
remaining leg of his trip because at that stage, its contract of carriage
with Antiporda ceases, with Lufthansa acting, no longer as the principal
in the contract of carriage, but merely as a ticket-issuing agent for the
other carriers.XXX FREEDOMS OF THE AIR
First Freedom of the Air - the right or privilege, in respect of
We, therefore, reject Lufthansa's theory that from the time another scheduled international air services, granted by one State to another
carrier was engaged to transport Antiporda on another segment of his State or States to fly across its territory without landing (also known as
trip, it merely acted as a ticket-issuing agent in behalf of said carrier. In a First Freedom Right).
the very nature of their contract, Lufthansa is clearly the principal in the

Page 48
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
Second Freedom of the Air - the right or privilege, in respect of 2. Damages cannot be presumed – to be recoverable, they
scheduled international air services, granted by one State to another must be pleaded and proven in court; in no instance may
State or States to land in its territory for non-traffic purposes (also a judge award more than those so pleaded and proven
known as a Second Freedom Right). 3. Speculative damages cannot be awarded
4. The award thereof must be based on the evidence
Third Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of presented, not on the personal knowledge of the court;
scheduled international air services, granted by one State to another and certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative and non-
State to put down, in the territory of the first State, traffic coming from substantial proof
the home State of the carrier (also known as a Third Freedom Right).
In Breach of Contract of Carriage – If the Common Carrier is in:
Fourth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of
scheduled international air services, granted by one State to another 1. GOOD Faith – it shall be responsible for:
State to take on, in the territory of the first State, traffic destined for the
home State of the carrier (also known as a Fourth Freedom Right). a. The NATURAL and PROBABLE consequences of
the breach of the obligations; AND
Fifth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of
scheduled international air services, granted by one State to another b. Damages which the parties FORESAW or COULD
State to put down and to take on, in the territory of the first State, traffic HAVE FORESEEN
coming from or destined to a third State (also known as a Fifth
Freedom Right). 2. BAD Faith – it shall be responsible for ALL damages which
may be REASONABLE ATTRIBUTED to the non-
ICAO characterizes all "freedoms" beyond the Fifth as "so-called" performance of the obligation (relation of cause and effect is
because only the first five "freedoms" have been officially recognized enough) [Art. 2201]
as such by international treaty.
In Crimes and Quasi-Delicts:
Sixth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of
scheduled international air services, of transporting, via the home State 1. The common carrier shall be liable for ALL damages which
of the carrier, traffic moving between two other States (also known as are the natural and probable consequences of the act or
a Sixth Freedom Right). The so-called Sixth Freedom of the Air, unlike omission complained of
the first five freedoms, is not incorporated as such into any widely
recognized air service agreements such as the "Five Freedoms 2. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen
Agreement". or could have reasonably been foreseen by the common
carrier [Art. 2202]
Seventh Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of
scheduled international air services, granted by one State to another Moral Damages
State, of transporting traffic between the territory of the granting State
and any third State with no requirement to include on such operation Moral Damages include:
any point in the territory of the recipient State, i.e the service need not
connect to or be an extension of any service to/from the home State of
1. physical suffering,
the carrier.
2. mental anguish,
3. fright,
Eighth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of
4. serious anxiety,
scheduled international air services, of transporting cabotage traffic
5. besmirched reputation,
between two points in the territory of the granting State on a service
6. wounded feelings,
which originates or terminates in the home country of the foreign
7. moral shock,
carrier or (in connection with the so-called Seventh Freedom of the Air)
8. social humiliation, and
outside the territory of the granting State (also known as a Eighth
9. similar injury
Freedom Right or "consecutive cabotage").
In Breach of Contract of Carriage:
Ninth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege of transporting
cabotage traffic of the granting State on a service performed entirely
within the territory of the granting State (also known as a Ninth 1. General Rule – Moral Damages are NOT recoverable in
Freedom Right or "stand alone"cabotage). damage actions predicated on a breach of contract of
Source: Manual on the Regulation of International Air Transport (Doc
9626, Part 4) 2. Exceptions – moral damages may be awarded when:

a. The mishaps results in the DEATH of the pax

DAMAGES b. It is proven that the carrier is guilty of FRAUD or
BAD FAITH, even if death does not result [Art.
Kinds of Damages [Art. 2197 Civil Code]
Bad Faith
1. Actual or compensatory
2. Moral Breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will
3. Nominal
4. Temperate or Moderate When Moral Damages may be Recovered [ART. 2219]
5. Liquidated
6. Exemplary 1. In criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries
2. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries
Actual Damages; Features: 3. xxx

1. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually G.R. No. 124110 April 20, 2001
sustained and susceptible of measurement

Page 49
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or
vs. correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate,
COURT OF APPEALS, ANICETO FONTANILLA, in his personal liquidated or compensatory damages [Art. 2229]
capacity and in behalf of his minor sonMYCHAL ANDREW
FONTANILLA, Respondents. Note:
As to the award of moral and exemplary damages, we find error in the 1. Exemplary Damages can ONLY be granted in ADDITION to:
award of such by the Court of Appeals. For the plaintiff to be entitled to a. moral damages
an award of moral damages arising from a breach of contract of b. temperate damages
carriage, the carrier must have acted with fraud or bad faith. The c. liquidated damages, or
appellate court predicated its award on our pronouncement in the case d. actual or compensatory damages
of Zalanea vs. Court of Appeals, supra, where we stated:
2. If exemplary damages are granted, nominal damages
Existing jurisprudence explicitly states that overbooking amounts to CANNOT be awarded
bad faith, entitling passengers concerned to an award of moral
damages. In Alitalia Airways vs. Court of Appeals, where passengers
with confirmed booking were refused carriage on the last minute, this When Exemplary Damages may be Recovered:
Court held that when an airline issues a ticket to a passenger
confirmed on a particular flight, on a certain date, a contract of carriage 1. In Criminal Offenses – if the crime was committed with one
arises, and the passenger has every right to except that he would fly or more aggravating circumstances [Art. 2230]
on that flight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens
itself to a suit for breach of contract of carriage. Where an airline had 2. In Quasi-delicts – if the common carrier acted with gross
deliberately overbooked, it took the risk of having to deprive some negligence [Art. 2231]
passengers of their seats in case all of them would show up for check
in. For the indignity and inconvenience of being refused a confirmed 3. In Contracts & Quasi-contracts – if the common carrier
seat on the last minute, said passenger is entitled to moral damages. acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
(Emphasis supplied). malevolent manner [Art. 2232]

Nominal Damages G.R. No. 116617 November 16, 1998

1. in order that a right of the pax, shipper, or consignee, which vs.
has been violated or invaded by the common carrier, may be COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. RODOLFO V. ROSALES and LILY R.
vindicated or recognized, and ROSALES, respondents.

2. not for the purpose of indemnifying the pax, shipper or Indemnity for Death. Art. 2206 provides for the payment of indemnity
consignee for any loss suffered by him [Art. 2221] for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict. Initially fixed in said article
of the Civil Code at P3,000.00, the amount of the indemnity has
Note: through the years been gradually increased based on the value of the
peso. At present, it is fixed at P50,000.00. 26 To conform to this new
1. Nominal Damages stand alone ruling, the Court of Appeals correctly increased the indemnity it had
originally ordered the spouses Rosales to be paid from P30,000.00 to
a. There can NO longer be an award for nominal P50,000.00 in its resolution, dated September 12, 1996. XXX
damages IF there already has been an award for
actual, moral, temperate, liquidated and exemplary Actual Damages. Art. 2199 provides that "except as provided by law or
damages by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved." The
b. An award of nominal damages precludes the spouses Rosales are claiming actual damages in the amount of
award of actual, moral, temperate, liquidated and P239,245.40. However, during the trial, they submitted receipts
exemplary damages showing that expenses for the funeral, wake, and interment of Liza
Rosalie amounted only to P60,226.65 XXX The spouses Rosales claim
2. When the act of the common carrier did not amount to fraud, moral damages in the amount of P5,000,000.00. In People v.
malice or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded. Teehankee, Jr., 32 this Court awarded P1 million as moral damages to
However, if there was an invasion of the plaintiff‘s right, the heirs of a seventeen-year-old girl who was murdered. This amount
nominal damages may be awarded. seems reasonable to us as moral damages for the loss of a minor
child, whether he or she was a victim of a crime or a quasi-delict.
Temperate or Moderate Damages Hence, we hold that the MMTC and Musa are solidarily liable to the
spouses Rosales in the amount of P1,000,000.00 as moral damages
 which are more than nominal but less than compensatory for the death of Liza Rosalie.
 may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary Moral Damages. Under Art. 2206, the "spouse, legitimate and
loss has been suffered illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand
 but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the
provided with certainty [Art. 2224] deceased." XXX In the instant case, the spouses Rosales presented
evidence of the intense moral suffering they had gone through as a
Liquidated Damages result of the loss of Liza Rosalie who was their youngest child.

Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a

Exemplary Damages. Art. 2231 provides that exemplary damages may
contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof [Art. 2226]
be recovered in cases involving quasi-delicts if "the defendant acted
with gross negligence." This circumstance obtains in the instant case.
Exemplary Damages
The records indicate that at the time of the mishap, there was a
pending criminal case against Musa for reckless imprudence resulting

Page 50
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
in slight physical injuries with another branch of the Regional Trial Warsaw Convention, it should be stressed that, indeed, recognition of
Court, Quezon City. 33 The evidence also shows that he failed to stop the Warsaw Convention does not preclude the operation of the Civil
his vehicle at once even after eye witnesses shouted at him. The Code and other pertinent laws in the determination of the extent of
spouses Rosales claim exemplary damages in the amount of liability of the common carrier.
P5,000,000.00. Under the circumstances, we deem it reasonable to XXX
award the spouses Rosales exemplary damages in the amount of five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). Petitioner ascribes ultimate error in the award of moral and exemplary
damages and attorney's fees in favor of private respondent in that
G.R. No. 119706 March 14, 1996 other than the statement of the trial court that petitioner acted in bad
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, faith in denying private respondent's claim, which was affirmed by the
vs. Court of Appeals, there is no evidence on record that the same is true.
In the case at bar, it will be noted that private respondent signified an Furthermore, there was glaringly no attempt whatsoever on the part of
intention to declare the value of the microwave oven prior to shipment, petitioner to explain the cause of the damage to the oven. The
but was explicitly advised against doing so by PAL's personnel in San unexplained cause of damage to private respondent's cargo
Francisco, U.S.A. XXX constitutes gross carelessness or negligence which by itself justifies
the present award of damages. 45 The equally unexplained and
It cannot be denied that the attention of PAL through its personnel in inordinate delay in acting on the claim upon referral thereof to the
San Francisco was sufficiently called to the fact that private claims officer, Atty. Paco, and the noncommittal responses to private
respondent's cargo was highly susceptible to breakage as would respondent's entreaties for settlement of her claim for damages belies
necessitate the declaration of its actual value. Petitioner had all the petitioner's pretension that there was no bad faith on its part. This
opportunity to check the condition and manner of packing prior to unprofessional indifference of PAL's personnel despite full and actual
acceptance for shipment, 22 as well as during the preparation of the air knowledge of the damage to private respondent's cargo, just to be
waybill by PAL's Acceptance Personnel based on information supplied exculpated from liability on pure technicality and bureaucratic
by the shipper, 23 and to reject the cargo if the contents or the packing subterfuge, smacks of willful misconduct and insensitivity to a
did not meet the company's required specifications. Certainly, PAL passenger's plight tantamount to bad faith 46 and renders
could not have been otherwise prevailed upon to merely accept the unquestionable petitioner's liability for damages. In sum, there is no
cargo. XXX reason to disturb the findings of the trial court in this case, especially
with its full affirmance by respondent Court of Appeals.
There is no absolute obligation on the part of a carrier to accept a
cargo. Where a common carrier accepts a cargo for shipment for G.R. No. 150843 March 14, 2003
valuable consideration, it takes the risk of delivering it in good condition CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., petitioner,
as when it was loaded. And if the fact of improper packing is known to vs.
the carrier or its personnel, or apparent upon observation but it accepts SPOUSES DANIEL VAZQUEZ and MARIA LUISA MADRIGAL
the goods notwithstanding such condition, it is not relieved of liability VAZQUEZ, respondents.
for loss or injury resulting therefrom. DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
In this case, we have ruled that the breach of contract of carriage,
The acceptance in due course by PAL of private respondent's cargo as which consisted in the involuntary upgrading of the Vazquezes‘ seat
packed and its advice against the need for declaration of its actual accommodation, was not attended by fraud or bad faith. The Court of
value operated as an assurance to private respondent that in fact there Appeals‘ award of moral damages has, therefore, no leg to stand on.
was no need for such a declaration. Petitioner can hardly be faulted for The deletion of the award for exemplary damages by the Court of
relying on the representations of PAL's own personnel. Appeals is correct. It is a requisite in the grant of exemplary damages
that the act of the offender must be accompanied by bad faith or done
In other words, private respondent Mejia could and would have in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner.15 Such requisite is
complied with the conditions stated in the air waybill, i.e., declaration of absent in this case. Moreover, to be entitled thereto the claimant must
a higher value and payment of supplemental transportation charges, first establish his right to moral, temperate, or compensatory
entitling her to recovery of damages beyond the stipulated limit of US damages.16 Since the Vazquezes are not entitled to any of these
$20 per kilogram of cargo in the event of loss or damage, had she not damages, the award for exemplary damages has no legal basis. And
been effectively prevented from doing so upon the advice of PAL's where the awards for moral and exemplary damages are eliminated,
personnel for reasons best known to themselves. XXX so must the award for attorney‘s fees.

Considering the abovementioned incidents and private respondent The most that can be adjudged in favor of the Vazquezes for Cathay‘s
Mejia's own zealous efforts in following up the claim, 34 it was clearly breach of contract is an award for nominal damages under Article 2221
not her fault that the letter of demand for damages could only be filed, of the Civil Code
after months of exasperating follow-up of the claim, on August 13,
1990. 35 If there was any failure at all to file the formal claim within the G.R. No. 99301 March 13, 1997
prescriptive period contemplated in the air waybill, this was largely VICTOR KIERULF, LUCILA H. KIERULF and PORFIRIO
because of PAL's own doing, the consequences of which cannot, in all LEGASPI, petitioners,
fairness, be attributed to private respondent. vs.
Even if the claim for damages was conditioned on the timely filing of a INCORPORATED, respondents.
formal claim, under Article 1186 of the Civil Code that condition was PANGANIBAN, J.:
deemed fulfilled, considering that the collective action of PAL's
personnel in tossing around the claim and leaving it unresolved for an Second Issue: Moral Damages
indefinite period of time was tantamount to "voluntarily preventing its
fulfillment." On grounds of equity, the filing of the baggage freight The spouses aver that the disfigurement of Lucila's physical
claim, which sufficiently informed PAL of the damage sustained by appearance cannot but affect their marital right to "consortium" which
private respondent's cargo, constituted substantial compliance with the would have remained normal were it not for the accident. Thus, the
requirement in the contract for the filing of a formal claim. moral damages awarded in favor of Lucila should be increased to
P1,000,000.00, not only for Lucila but also for her husband Victor who
All told, therefore, respondent appellate court did not err in ruling that also suffered "psychologically." XXX
the provision on limited liability is not applicable in this case. We,
however, note in passing that while the facts and circumstances of this
case do not call for the direct application of the provisions of the
Page 51
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
Victor's claim for deprivation of his right to consortium, although argued Respondents in the instant case should be awarded moral damages to
before Respondent Court, is not supported by the evidence on record. compensate for the grief caused by the death of the deceased
His wife might have been badly disfigured, but he had not testified that, resulting from the petitioner‘s breach of contract of carriage.
in consequence thereof, his right to marital consortium was affected. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to prove that it exercised the
Clearly, Victor (and for that matter, Lucila) had failed to make out a extraordinary diligence required for common carriers, it is presumed to
case for loss of consortium, unlike the Rodriguez spouse. Again, we have acted recklessly. Thus, the award of exemplary damages is
emphasize that this claim is factual in origin and must find basis not proper. Under the circumstances, we find it reasonable to award
only in the evidence presented but also in the findings of the respondents the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages and
Respondent Court. For lack of factual basis, such claim cannot be P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. These amounts are not
ruled upon by this Court at this time. excessive.

Fourth Issue: Exemplary Damages G.R. No. 157009 March 17, 2010
The claim of Lucila has been favorably considered in view of the vs.
finding of gross negligence by Respondent Court on the part of DOMINGO E. CURSO, LUCIA E. CURSO, MELECIO E. CURSO,
Pantranco. This is made clear by Respondent Court in granting Lucila's SEGUNDO E. CURSO, VIRGILIO E. CURSO, DIOSDADA E.
claim of exemplary damages: CURSO, and CECILIA E. CURSO, Respondents.
(P)ublic utility operators like the defendant, have made a mockery of
our laws, rules and regulations governing operations of motor vehicles The petitioner has correctly relied on the holding in Receiver for North
and have ignored either deliberately or through negligent disregard of Negros Sugar Company, Inc. v. Ybañez, to the effect that in case of
their duties to exercise extraordinary degree of diligence for the safety death caused by quasi-delict, the brother of the deceased was not
of the travelling public and their passengers. . . . . entitled to the award of moral damages based on Article 2206 of the
Civil Code. XXX
To give teeth to this warning, the exemplary damages awarded to
Petitioner Lucila is increased to P200,000.00. The fact of gross To be entitled to moral damages, the respondents must have a right
negligence duly proven, we believe that Legaspi, being also a victim of based upon law. It is true that under Article 1003 of the Civil Code they
gross negligence, should also receive exemplary damages. Under the succeeded to the entire estate of the late Dr. Curso in the absence of
facts proven, the Court awards him P25,000 as exemplary damages. the latter‘s descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, and
surviving spouse. However, they were not included among the persons
G.R. No. 159636 November 25, 2004 entitled to recover moral damages, as enumerated in Article 2219 of
VICTORY LINER, INC., petitioner, the Civil Code XXX
ROSALITO GAMMAD, APRIL ROSSAN P. GAMMAD, ROI ROZANO Article 2219 circumscribes the instances in which moral damages may
P. GAMMAD and DIANA FRANCES P. GAMMAD, respondents. be awarded. The provision does not include succession in the
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: collateral line as a source of the right to recover moral damages. The
Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil Code, holds the usage of the phrase analogous cases in the provision means simply
common carrier in breach of its contract of carriage that results in the that the situation must be held similar to those expressly enumerated
death of a passenger liable to pay the following: (1) indemnity for in the law in question following the ejusdem generis rule. Hence,
death, (2) indemnity for loss of earning capacity, and (3) moral Article 1003 of the Civil Code is not concerned with recovery of moral
damages. damages.

In the present case, respondent heirs of the deceased are entitled to In fine, moral damages may be recovered in an action upon breach of
indemnity for the death of Marie Grace which under current contract of carriage only when: (a) where death of a passenger results,
jurisprudence is fixed at P50,000.00. or (b) it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith, even
if death does not result. Article 2206 of the Civil Code entitles the
The award of compensatory damages for the loss of the deceased‘s descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, and surviving spouse of
earning capacity should be deleted for lack of basis. XXX the deceased passenger to demand moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
However, the fact of loss having been established, temperate damages
in the amount of P500,000.00 should be awarded to respondents.
Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate or moderate damages, PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages,
may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has CA 146, AS AMENDED
been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be
proved with certainty. Purposes:
Anent the award of moral damages, the same cannot be lumped with 1. To secure adequate service for the public, for the least
exemplary damages because they are based on different jural possible cost
foundations. These damages are different in nature and require 2. To protect and conserve investments which have already
separate determination. In culpa contractual or breach of contract, been made for the purpose
moral damages may be recovered when the defendant acted in bad
faith or was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in
wanton disregard of contractual obligations and, as in this case, when
the act of breach of contract itself constitutes the tort that results in
physical injuries. By special rule in Article 1764 in relation to Article (b) The term "public service" includes every person that now or
2206 of the Civil Code, moral damages may also be awarded in case hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in the Philippines, for
the death of a passenger results from a breach of carriage. On the hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether
other hand, exemplary damages, which are awarded by way of permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business
example or correction for the public good may be recovered in purposes, any common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway,
contractual obligations if the defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, sub-way motor vehicle, either for freight or passenger, or both with or
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. without fixed route and whether may be its classification, freight or
carrier service of any class, express service, steamboat or steamship
line, pontines, ferries, and water craft, engaged in the transportation of

Page 52
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
passengers or freight or both, shipyard, marine railways, marine repair Section 14. The following are exempted from the provisions of the
shop, [warehouse] wharf or dock, ice plant, ice-refrigeration plant, preceding section:
canal, irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and power water
supply and power, petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless
communications system, wire or wireless broadcasting stations and (a) Warehouses;
other similar public services: Provided, however, That a person
engaged in agriculture, not otherwise a public service, who owns a (b) Vehicles drawn by animals and bancas moved by oar or sail, and
motor vehicle and uses it personally and/or enters into a special tugboats and lighters;
contract whereby said motor vehicle is offered for hire or compensation
to a third party or third parties engaged in agriculture, not itself or
themselves a public service, for operation by the latter for a limited (c) Airships within the Philippines except as regards the fixing of their
time and for a specific purpose directly connected with the cultivation maximum rates on freight and passengers;
of his or their farm, the transportation, processing, and marketing of
agricultural products of such third party or third parties shall not be (d) Radio companies except with respect to the fixing of rates;
considered as operating a public service for the purposes of this Act.

What do you mean by public? This means individuals in general (e) Public services owned or operated by any instrumentality of the
without restriction or selection to the extent that the capacity of the National Government or by any government-owned or controlled
utility may admit of such service or use corporation, except with respect to the fixing of rates. (As amended by
Com. Act 454, RA No. 2031, and RA No. 2677 )
Public Utility - business or service which is engaged in regulating,
supplying the public with some commodity or service of public Requisite for operation of public utility
consequence, such as transportation
Section 15. With the exception of those enumerated in the preceding
Principal determinative characteristic of a public utility – service or section, no public service shall operate in the Philippines without
readiness to serve an indefinite public which has the right to demand possessing a valid and subsisting certificate from the Public Service
and receive its services or commodities Commission known as "certificate of public convenience," or
"certificate of public convenience and necessity," as the case may be,
G.R. No. 115381 December 23, 1994 to the effect that the operation of said service and the authorization to
KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CENTER, petitioner, do business will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable
vs. manner.
FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD, and the PROVINCIAL The Commission may prescribe as a condition for the issuance of the
BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF THE certificate provided in the preceding paragraph that the service can be
PHILIPPINES, respondents. acquired by the Republic of the Philippines or any instrumentality
KAPUNAN, J.: thereof upon payment of the cost price of its useful equipment, less
Public utilities are privately owned and operated businesses whose reasonable depreciation; and likewise, that the certificate shall be valid
service are essential to the general public. They are enterprises which only for a definite period of time; and that the violation of any of these
specially cater to the needs of the public and conduce to their comfort conditions shall produce the immediate cancellation of the certificate
and convenience. As such, public utility services are impressed with without the necessity of any express action on the part of the
public interest and concern. The same is true with respect to the Commission.
business of common carrier which holds such a peculiar relation to the
public interest that there is superinduced upon it the right of public In estimating the depreciation, the effect of the use of the equipment,
regulation when private properties are affected with public interest, its actual condition, the age of the model, or other circumstances
hence, they cease to be juris privati only. When, therefore, one affecting its value in the market shall be taken into consideration.
devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in
effect grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to The foregoing is likewise applicable to any extension or amendment of
the control by the public for the common good, to the extent of the certificates actually in force and to those which may hereafter be
interest he has thus created. issued, to permit to modify itineraries and time schedules of public
services, and to authorizations to renew and increase equipment and
 The fact that the service is limited to a particular district or properties.
town does not prevent the business from being a public
utility Entities exempt from obtaining a CPC:
 The number of people actually served does not determine
whether a person or company is a public utility 1. Public Service owned or operated by Government or
 Such person or company which holds himself out to serve all GOCCs
who which to avail themselves of the service may be apublic 2. Grantees of legislative franchise when expressly exempted
utility even though only one or two people actually receive from obtaining a CPC
the service 3. Those expressly exempted from the jurisdiction of the
regulating bodies
Regulation of Public Utilities
Basis: Police Power; The legislature may interfere with the
management of public utilities whenever public interest demands CPC CPCN

What is the extent of police power? Issued when it is found that the Issued upon approval of any
operation of the proposed public franchise or privilege granted by
1. Regulation of rates and charges service will promote the public any political subdivision or the RP
2. Prevent discrimination upon the part of the public utility interest in a proper and suitable when in the judgment of the
against those who employ it manner, for which a municipal or regulatory body, such franchise or
3. To make orders governing the conduct of the public utility legislative franchise is not privilege will properly conserve
necessary the public interest
Entities that are exempt from the provisions of Public Service Act

Page 53
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
―Prior or Old Operator Rule‖ under thePublic Service Act only applies
Requisites for the Grant of a CPC or CPCN as a policy of the law of thePublic Service Commission to issue a
certificate of publicconvenience to a second operator when prior
1. Applicant – must be: operator isrendering sufficient, adequate and satisfactory service, and
who in all things and respects is complying with the ruleand regulation
a. citizen of the RP, or of the Commission. In the facts of the caseat bar, Bayan Bus Lines
service became seeminglyinadequate despite its efforts of improving
b. corporation or association organized under the laws of the same.Hence, in the interest of providing efficient publictransport
the RP at least 60% of its capital is owned by such services, the use of the 'prior operator' and the'priority of filing' rules
citizens; shall is untenable n this case.

2. Applicant must be financially capable of undertaking the proposed When ―Protection of Investment‖ Rule NOT Applicable:
service and meeting the responsibilities incident to its operation;
If the application of the rule would be conducive to monopoly of
3. Applicant must prove that the operation of the public service service, and contrary to the principle that promotes healthy competition
proposed and the authorization to do business will promote the public [Villa Rey v. Pangasinan, 5 SCRA 234]
interest in a proper and suitable manner
Grounds for Suspension or Revocation of CPC:
What is the primordial consideration in granting franchises or
CPC’s? PUBLIC INTEREST 1. Sec. 16(m) – The facts and circumstances on the strength
on which CPC was issued have been misrepresented or
Rules in Issuing CPC materially changed

Prior Operator Rule The Commission shall have power, upon proper notice and hearing in
accordance with the rules and provisions of this Act, subject to the
Before permitting a new operator to invade the territory of another limitations and exceptions mentioned and saving provisions to the
already established with a CPC, the prior operator must first be given contrary :
the opportunity to extend its service in order to meet the public
needs in the matter of transportation (m) To amend, modify or revoke at any time certificate issued under
the provisions of this Act, whenever the facts and circumstances on the
Prior Applicant Rule strength of which said certificate was issued have been
misrepresented or materially changed.
Where there are various applicants for a public utility over the same
territory, ALL CONDITIONS BEING EQUAL, priority in filing of the 2. Sec. 16(n) – The holder thereof has violated or willfully and
application for a CPC becomes an important factor in granting or contumaciously refused to comply with any order, rule, or
refusal of the CPC regulation of the regulatory bodies or any provision of the
Public Service Act
Protection of Investment Rule
(n) To suspend or revoke any certificate issued under the provisions of
One of the purposes of the Public Service Law is to protect and this Act whenever the holder thereof has violated or willfully and
conserve investments which have already been made for that purpose contumaciously refused to comply with any order rule or regulation of
by public service operators the Commission or any provision of this Act: Provided, That the
Commission, for good cause, may prior to the hearing suspend for a
When ―Prior Operator‖ Rule NOT Applicable: period not to exceed thirty days any certificate or the exercise of any
right or authority issued or granted under this Act by order of the
1. Where public interest would better be served by the new Commission, whenever such step shall in the judgment of the
operator [Guico v. Estate of Buan, Aug 30, 1957] Commission be necessary to avoid serious and irreparable damage or
inconvenience to the public or to private interests.
2. Where the prior operator has failed to make an offer to meet
the increase in traffic [Manila Yellow Taxicab v. Castelo, 3. Art. 1765, Civil Code – The common carrier repeatedly fails
May 30, 1960] to comply with his duty to observe extraordinary diligence as
prescribed by law
3. Where the CPC granted to the new operator is a maiden
CPC, which does not overlap with the entire route of the old Due Process in Revocation or Cancellation of CPC:
operator but only a short portion thereof as a convergence
point [Mandbusco v. Francisco, 32 SCRA 405] 1. Notice and Hearing
2. Formal Charge – not necessary for as long as the holder of
Prior Operator Rule (2003) CPC is given his day in court [CIR v. Buan, Jul 31, 1958]

Bayan Bus Lines had been operating satisfactorily a busservice over Sec. 16[c] – Regulations of Rates – PSC has the Power:
the route Manila to Tarlac and vice versa viathe McArthur Highway.
With the upgrading of the newNorth Expressway, Bayan Bus Lines To fix and determine individual or joint rates, tolls, charges,
service became seemingly inadequate despite its efforts of improving classifications, or schedules thereof, as well as commutation, mileage,
thesame. Pasok Transportation, Inc., now applies for theissuance to it kilometrage, and other special rates which shall be imposed observed
by the Land Transportation Franchising andRegulatory Board of a and followed thereafter by any public service.
certificate of public convenience forthe same Manila-Tarlac-Manila
route. Could Bayan BusLines, Inc., invoke the ―prior operator‖ rules (c) To fix and determine individual or joint rates, tolls, charges,
against PasokTransportation, Inc.? Why? (6%) classifications, or schedules thereof, as well as commutation, mileage,
kilometrage, and other special rates which shall be imposed observed
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and followed thereafter by any public service: Provided, That the
Commission may, in its discretion, approve rates proposed by public
(per Dondee) No, Bayan Bus Lines, Inc., cannot invokethe ―prior services provisionally and without necessity of any hearing; but it shall
operator‖ rules against Pasok Transportation,Inc. because such call a hearing thereon within thirty days, thereafter, upon publication

Page 54
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
and notice to the concerns operating in the territory affected: Provided, What requirements must be met before a certificate ofpublic
further, That in case the public service equipment of an operator is convenience may be granted under the PublicService Act?
used principally or secondarily for the promotion of a private business,
the net profits of said private business shall be considered in relation SUGGESTED ANSWER:
with the public service of such operator for the purpose of fixing the
rates. The following are the requirements for the granting of acertificate of
public convenience, to wit:
a) The applicantmust be a citizen of the Philippines, or a corporation,
1. The power to regulate rates does not give the State the right co-partnership or association organizedunder the laws of the
to prescribe rates which are so low as to deprive the public Philippines and at least 60% ofthe stock of paid-up capital of which
utility of a reasonable return on investment. [RP v. Meralco, must belong tocitizens of the Philippines. (Sec 16a, CA 146, as
Nov 15, 2002] amended)

2. The only standard which the legislature is required to b) The applicant must prove public necessity.
prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is
that the rate be reasonable and just. [RP v. Meralco, Nov c) The applicant must prove that the operation ofthe public service
15, 2002] proposed and the authorization to dobusiness will promote the public
interest in a proper andsuitable manner. (Sec 16a CA 146 as
3. The power to fix the rates of public utilities is a power that amended)
has been delegated to the regulatory administrative
agencies. As such it cannot be further delegated by the said d) The applicant must be financially capable ofundertaking the
administrative agencies. [KMU v. Garcia, Dec 23, 1994] proposed service and meeting theresponsibilities incident to its
4. Discrimination in the charging of rates is NOT allowed [US v.
Quinajon, Jul 30, 1915] Revocation of Certificate (1993)

1) Robert is a holder of a certificate of public convenienceto operate a

Certificate of public Convenience (1998)
taxicab service in Manila and suburbs. Oneevening, one of his taxicab
units was boarded by threerobbers as they escaped after staging a
The Batong Bakal Corporation filed with the Board ofEnergy an
hold-up. Because ofsaid incident, the LTFRB revoked the certificate of
application for a Certificate of PublicConvenience for the purpose of
publicconvenience of Robert on the ground that said operatorfailed to
supplying electric powerand lights to the factory and its employees
render safe, proper and adequate service asrequired under Sec 19a of
living within thecompound. The application was opposed by the
the Public Service Act.
BulacanElectric Corporation contending that the Batong
BakalCorporation has not secured a franchise to operate andmaintain
a) Wasthe revocation of the certificate of public convenience of
an electric plant. Is the opposition‗s contentioncorrect? (5%)
Robert justified? Explain.
b) When can the Commission(Board) exercise its power to suspend or
revoke certificateof public convenience?
No. A certificate of public convenience may be granted toBatong Bakal
Corporation, though not possessing a legislative franchise, if it meets
all the other requirements.There is nothing in the law nor the
Constitution, whichindicates that a legislative franchise is necessary or
1a) No. A single hold-up incident which does not linkRobert‗s taxicab
requiredfor an entity to operate as supplier of electric power and
cannot be construed that he rendered aservice that is unsafe,
light to its factory and its employees living within thecompound.
inadequate and improper (Manzanalv Ausejo 164 s 36)
Certificate of Public Convenience; inseparability of
1b) Under Sec 19a of the Public Service Act, theCommission (Board)
certificate and vessel (1992)
can suspend or revoke a certificate ofpublic convenience when the
operator fails to provide aservice that is safe, proper or adequate, and
Antonio was granted a Certificate of Public Convenience(CPC) in 1986
refuses torender any service which can be reasonably demanded and
to operate a ferry between Mindoro andBatangas using the motor
vessel ―MV Lotus.‖ He stoppedoperations in 1988 due to
unserviceability of the vessel. In1989, Basilio was granted a CPC for
Revocation of Certificate (1993)
the same route. After afew months, he discovered that Carlos was
operating onhis route under Antonio‗s CPC. Because Basilio filed a
Pepay, a holder of a certificate of public convenience,failed to register
complaint for illegal operations with the Maritime IndustryAuthority,
to the complete number of units requiredby her certificate. However,
Antonio and Carlos jointly filed an applicationfor sale and transfer of
she tried to justify such failureby the accidents that allegedly befell her,
Antonio‗s CPC and substitution ofthe vessel ―MV Lotus‖ with another
claiming that shewas so shocked and burdened by the successive
owned by CarlosShould Antonio‗s and Carlos‗ joint application be
accidentsand misfortunes that she did not know what she wasdoing,
approved? Giver your reasons.
she was confused and thrown off tangentmomentarily, although she
always had the money andfinancial ability to buy new trucks and repair
the destroyedone. Are the reasons given by Pepay sufficient grounds
toexcuse her from completing units? Explain.
The joint application of Antonio and Carlos for the saleand transfer of
Antonio‗s CPC and substitution of thevessel MV Lotus with another
vessel owned by thetransferee should not be approved. The certificate
ofpublic convenience and MV Lotus are inseparable.
No. The reasons given by Pepay are not sufficient groundsto excuse
Theunserviceability of the vessel covered by the certificate hadlikewise
her from completing her units. The same couldbe undertaken by her
rendered ineffective the certificate itself, and theholder thereof may not
children or by other authorizedrepresentatives (Sec 16n Pub Serv Act;
legally transfer the same toanother. (Cohon v CA 188 s 719).
Halili v Herras 10 s769)
Certificate of Public Convenience; Requirements (1995)

Page 55
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
Domestic Shipping Rates Acts Which are UNLAWFUL Without Approval of the Commission
[Sec. 20]
1. EO 213 [Nov 28, 1994] – instituted the deregulation of
domestic shipping rates  Sec. 20[a] – To increase its rates
 Sec. 20[b] – To operate new units [Ammen Transportation
2. MC issued by MARINA on Dec 16, 1999 – further v. Francisco, Nov 29, 1957]
implemented deregulation  Sec. 20[g] – Sell, mortgage or lease its CPC, property,
franchise or rights [Cogeo-Cubao v. CA 207 SCRA 346]
3. Sec. 8 of RA 9295 passed on May 2004 – mandates
deregulation Requirement to Entitle a Common Carrier to Increase his Unit

FOB [Free On Board] or FAS [Free Alongside Ship] 1. He must show that there is a PUBLIC NEED for it, in other
words, he must prove that:
A price quotation with FOB presumes that the seller shall comply with 2. He had regularly undertaken all his authorized trips
his obligation to deliver the cargo to the vessel. 3. His vehicles were sufficiently loaded with pax
4. Many travelers could not be conveniently accommodated
Thereupon, it is the BUYER who shall pay the freightage and thus the
carrier is deemed agent of the buyer so that delivery to the vessel is Effect of Sale or Lease of CPC Without Prior Approval of
delivery to the buyer. Regulatory Body:

Ownership of the cargo will pass to the buyer upon delivery by the 1. The sale or lease is valid and binding between the parties
seller to the vessel. 2. BUT it is not effective against the regulatory body concerned
3. The approval is only necessary to protect the public interest
CIF [Cost, Insurance and Freight] 4. The registered owner is liable for damages sustained by a
3rd person [regardless of who the actual owner is]
A price quotation on CIF presumes that the seller shall cost of crating
and packaging, insurance and the freightage. Registered Owner; Conclusive Presumption (1990)

The carrier is deemed to be the agent of the seller, so that throughout Johnny owns a Sarao jeepney. He asked his neighbor Van ifhe could
the entire trip ownership is retained by the SELLER and only passes to operate the said jeepney under Van‗s certificate ofpublic convenience.
the buyer upon reaching the point of destination and the cargo is Van agreed and, accordingly, Johnnyregistered his jeepney under Van
discharged in favor of the buyer. name. On June 10, 1990,one of the passenger jeepneys operated by
Van bumpedTomas. Tomas was injured and in due time, he filed a
General Definition of Arrastre complaint for damages against Van and his driver for theinjuries he
suffered. The court rendered judgment in favorof Tomas and ordered
A broad tern which refers to a contract for the unloading of goods from Van and his driver, jointly andseverally, to pay Tomas actual and moral
a vessel damages,attorney‗s fees, and costs.The Sheriff levied on the jeepney
belonging to Johnny butregistered in the name of Van. Johnny filed a
Arrastre in Mercantile Law 3rd partyclaim with the Sheriff alleging ownership of the jeepneylevied
upon and stating that the jeepney was registered in
The term ‗arrastre‘ has a technical meaning as it applies only to the name of Van merely to enable Johnny to make use ofVan‗s
overseas trade certificate of public convenience. May the Sheriffproceed with the
public auction of Johnny‗s jeepney.Discuss with reasons.
When cargo from abroad arrives on board a vessel, the consignee
cannot unload and deliver the cargo by himself. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the Sheriff may proceed with the auction sale ofJohnny‗s jeepney.
This is done by the arrastre operator, who will then deliver the cargo to
In contemplation of law as regards thepublic and third persons, the
the customs warehouse
vehicle is considered theproperty of the registered operator (Santos v
Sibug 104 S 520)
Parties in Arrastre Contract
Prescriptive Period [Sec. 28.]
1. Republic of the Philippines
2. The party awarded the privilege of operating the arrastre
service 1. 60 days – for violations of orders, decisions and regulations
of the regulatory bodies
2. 180 days – for violations of the provisions of the Public
Sec. 16[n] – Suspension of CPC:
Service Act
May be done PRIOR to a hearing BUT cannot exceed 30 days
Kabit System - An arrangement whereby:
Ground – to avoid serious and irreparable damage or inconvenience
 a person who has been granted a CPC
to the public or private interests
 allows another person who owns motor vehicles
Operators of Public Services  to operate under such franchise
 for a fee
Unlawful Service (Sec. 19[a])
Kabit System – Legal or Not?
It shall be unlawful for any public service to:
1. It is not penalized outright as a criminal offense
2. But it is invariably recognized as contrary to public policy and
 provide or maintain any service that is unsafe, improper, or
therefore VOID and INEXISTENT under Art.1409 of the Civil
inadequate, or
 withhold or refuse any service which can reasonably be 3. It is one of the root causes of the prevalence of graft and
demanded and furnished corruption in the government transportation offices

Page 56
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
4. It is an abuse of the CPC which is a special privilege granted (1) when the fault, is on the part of both contracting parties, neither
by the government may recover what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand
the performance of the other's undertaking.
G.R. No. L-26815 May 26, 19810
ADOLFO L. SANTOS, petitioner, The defect of inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable, and
vs. cannot be cured by ratification or by prescription. As this Court said
ABRAHAM SIBUG and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. in Eugenio v. Perdido, 2 "the mere lapse of time cannot give efficacy to
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: contracts that are null void."
In this case, SANTOS had fictitiously sold the jeepney to VIDAD, who
had become the registered owner and operator of record at the time of The principle of in pari delicto is well known not only in this jurisdiction
the accident. lt is true that VIDAD had executed a re-sale to SANTOS, but also in the United States where common law prevails. Under
but the document was not registered. Although SANTOS, as American jurisdiction, the doctrine is stated thus: "The proposition is
the kabit was the true owner as against VIDAD, the latter, as the universal that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal
registered owner/operator and grantee of the franchise, is directly and contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to
primarily responsible and liable for the damages caused to SIBUG, the recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or damages for its
injured party, as a consequence of the negligent or careless operation property agreed to be sold or delivered, or damages for its violation.
of the vehicle. 6 This ruling is based on the principle that the operator The rule has sometimes been laid down as though it was equally
of record is considered the operator of the vehicle in contemplation of universal, that where the parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief
law as regards the public and third persons 7 even if the vehicle of any kind will be given to one against the other." 3 Although certain
involved in the accident had been sold to another where such sale had exceptions to the rule are provided by law, We see no cogent reason
not been approved by the then Public Service Commission. 8 For the why the full force of the rule should not be applied in the instant case.
same basic reason, as the vehicle here in question was registered in
VIDAD'S name, the levy on execution against said vehicle should be Kabit System (2005)
enforced so that the judgment in the BRANCH XVII CASE may be
satisfied, notwithstanding the fact that the secret ownership of the Discuss the ―kabit system‖ in land transportation and itslegal
vehicle belonged to another. SANTOS, as the kabit should not be consequences. (2%)\
allowed to defeat the levy on his vehicle and to avoid his
responsibilities as a kabit owner for he had led the public to believe SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that the vehicle belonged to VIDAD. This is one way of curbing the
pernicious kabit system that facilitates the commission of fraud against The kabit system is an arrangement where a persongranted a
the travelling public. certificate of public convenience allows otherpersons to operate their
motor vehicles under his license,for a fee or percentage of their
As indicated in the Erezo case, supra, SANTOS' remedy. as the real earnings (Lim v. Court of Appealsand Gonzalez, G.R, No. 125817,
owner of the vehicle, is to go against VIDAD, the actual operator who January 16, 2002, citing BaliwagTrannit v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
was responsible for the accident, for the recovery of whatever 57493, January 7, 1987) Thelaw enjoining the kabit system aims to
damages SANTOS may suffer by reason of the execution. In fact, if identify the personresponsible for an accident in order to protect the
SANTOS, as the kabit had been impleaded as a party defendant in the ridingpublic. The policy has no force when the public at large is
BRANCH XVII CASE, he should be held jointly and severally liable neither deceived nor involved.
with VIDAD and the driver for damages suffered by SIBUG, 9 as well
as for exemplary damages. The law does not penalize the parties to a kabit agreement.But the
kabit system is contrary to public policy and therefore void and
G.R. No. L-64693 April 27, 1984 inexistent.(Art. 1409[1], Civil Code)
vs. Kabit System; Agent of the Registered Owner (2005)
COURT, NICASIO M. OCAMPO and FRANCISCA P. Procopio purchased an Isuzu passenger jeepney fromEnteng, a holder
GARCIA, respondents. of a certificate of public convenience forthe operation of public utility
ESCOLIN, J.: vehicle plying theCalamba-Los Baños route. While Procopio
Unquestionably, the parties herein operated under an arrangement, continuedoffering the jeepney for public transport services, he did
comonly known as the "kabit system", whereby a person who has been not have the registration of the vehicle transferred in hisname. Neither
granted a certificate of convenience allows another person who owns did he secure for himself a certificate ofpublic convenience for its
motors vehicles to operate under such franchise for a fee. A certificate operation. Thus, per the recordsof the Land Transportation Franchising
of public convenience is a special privilege conferred by the and RegulatoryBoard, Enteng remained its registered owner and
government . Abuse of this privilege by the grantees thereof cannot be operator.One day, while the jeepney was traveling southbound,
countenanced. The "kabit system" has been Identified as one of the itcollided with a ten-wheeler truck owned by Emmanuel.
root causes of the prevalence of graft and corruption in the government The driver of the truck admitted responsibility for theaccident,
transportation offices. In the words of Chief Justice Makalintal, 1 "this is explaining that the truck lost its brakes.Procopio sued Emmanuel for
a pernicious system that cannot be too severely condemned. It damages, but the lattermoved to dismiss the case on the ground that
constitutes an imposition upon the goo faith of the government. Procopio isnot the real party in interest since he is not the registered
owner of the jeepney. Resolve the motion with reasons.(3%)
Although not outrightly penalized as a criminal offense, the "kabit
system" is invariably recognized as being contrary to public policy and, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
therefore, void and inexistent under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, It is
a fundamental principle that the court will not aid either party to enforce The motion to dismiss should be denied because Procopio,as the real
an illegal contract, but will leave them both where it finds them. Upon owner of the jeepney, is the real party in interest.Procopio falls under
this premise, it was flagrant error on the part of both the trial and the Kabit system. However, the legalrestriction as regards the Kabit
appellate courts to have accorded the parties relief from their system does not apply inthis case because the public at large is not
predicament. Article 1412 of the Civil Code denies them such aid. It deceived norinvolved. (Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125817,
provides: January16, 2002, citing Baliwag Transit v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
57493, January 7, 1987)In any event, Procoprio is deemed to be "the
ART. 1412. if the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists agent" of theregistered owner. (First Malayan Leasing v. Court of
does not constitute a criminal offense, the following rules shall be Appeals,G.R. No. 91378, June 9,1992; and "F" Transit Co., Inc.
observed; v.NLRC, G.R. Nos, 88195-96, January 27, 1994)

Page 57
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15
Boundary System transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be
operated by the Government.
An arrangement between:

1. the owner of a motor vehicle who holds a CPC, and Art. XII. Sec. 19.
2. the driver who uses the motor vehicle for a fixed number of
hours and pays to the owner a fixed amount and shoulders The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest
the gasoline used so requires.

The share of the driver in lieu of a fixed compensation is the excess of No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be
the total amount of fares earned or collected over and above the allowed.
amount paid to the owner

It is a contract of employment between:

1. the owner of the public utility, and

2. the driver

Boundary System (2005)

Baldo is a driver of Yellow Cab Company under theboundary system.

While cruising along the SouthExpressway, Baldo‗s cab figured in a
collision, killing his passenger, Pietro. The heirs of Pietrosued Yellow
Cab Company for damages, but the latterrefused to pay the heirs,
insisting that it is not liablebecause Baldo is not its employee. Resolve
with reasons.(2%)


Yellow Cab Company shall be liable with Baldo, on asolidary basis, for
the death of passenger Pietro. Baldo isan employee of Yellow Cab
under the boundary system.As such, the death of passenger Pietro is
breach ofcontract of carriage, making both the common carrierYellow
Cab and its employee, Baldo, solidarily liable.(Hernandez v. Dolor,
G.R, No. 160286, July 30, 2004)

Constitutional Provisions

Art. XII Sec. 11 – Filipinization

No franchise, certificate, or any form of authorization for the operation

of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the RP or to
corporations or association organized under the laws of the RP at least
60% of whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such
franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a
longer period than 50 years.

Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the
condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by
the Congress when the common good so requires.

The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the

general public.

The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any

public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its
capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation
or association must be citizens of the Philippines.

Art. XII. Sec. 17.

In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires,

the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms
prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any
privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

Art. XII. Sec 18 – Nationalization

The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish

and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation,

Page 58
LAST UPDATED: 12/16/15