Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cases - 3rd Batch - Digests - Notebook
Cases - 3rd Batch - Digests - Notebook
im to slip and fall. Where Whether or not the common carrier, Philippine Rabbit
GELACIO E. TUMAMBING his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. Bus Lines, can be held responsible for injuries of
G.R. No. L-48757 passengers?
May 30, 1988 Thereafter, he instituted the action to recover damages
Sarmiento, J. from Manila Railroad Co, on the ground of negligence Held:
of its employees to the prejudice of the safety of Yes. Since it is undisputed by the evidence on
Facts: passengers alighting from the company’s trains. record that appellant Marchan was then at the steering
wheel of the vehicle of the defendant transportation
Gelacio Tumambing contracted the services of Manila Railroad cannot be held liable because it had company at that moment, the riding public is not
Mauro B. Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron. exercised due diligence in the selection of its expected to inquire from time to time before they board
Gelacio Tumambing delivered the scrap iron, when employees. the passenger bus whether or not the driver who is at
about half was loaded Mayor Jose Advincula of the steering wheel of said bus was authorized to drive
Mariveles, Bataan, arrived and demanded P5,000.00 said vehicle or that said driver is acting within the scope
Issue: Whether Manila Railroad is excused from liability of his authority and observing the existing rules and
from Gelacio Tumambing. The latter resisted the on the ground that it had exercised due diligence in the
shakedown. regulations required of him by the management. To
selection and control of its employees? hold otherwise would in effect render Article 1759 of the
Civil Code ineffective."
After sometime, the loading of the scrap iron Ruling:
was resumed. But acting Mayor Basilio Rub, ordered No. It cannot be doubted that the employees of the
the captain to dump the scrap iron where the lighter G.R. No. L-22272 June 26, 1967
railroad company were guilty of negligence in piling the
was docked. Later on Acting Mayor Rub issued a sacks on the platform in the manner prejudicial to
receipt stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had alighting passengers; and that the presence of such ANTONIA MARANAN, plaintiff-appellant,
taken custody of the scrap iron. sacks caused Cangco to fall as he alighted from the vs.
train. Having established such, it necessarily follow that PASCUAL PEREZ, ET AL., defendants.
Issue: the defendant company is liable for the damage caused PASCUAL PEREZ, defendant appellant.
unless recovery is barred by the plaintiff’s own
Whether the order by the local government in contributory negligence. Facts: Rogelio Corachea was a passenger in a taxicab
taking in custody the scrap iron was due to fortuitous owned and operated by Pascual Perez when he was
event? DEFENSES IN CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon Valenzuela.
Held: G.R. No. L-24471. August 30, 1968 Valenzuela was prosecuted for homicide in the Court of
SILVERIO MARCHAN and PHILIPPINE RABBIT Bus First Instance of Batangas. Found guilty, he was
Co., INC., petitioners, sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to indemnify the
No before the appellee Ganzon could be heirs of the deceased. Appeal from said conviction was
absolved from responsibility on the ground that he was Vs.
ARSENIO MENDOZA, LEONARDA ILAYA, and taken to the Court of Appeals.
ordered by competent public authority to unload the
scrap iron, it must be shown that Acting Mayor Basilio ZENAIDA MENDOZA, respondents.
Rub had the power to issue the disputed order, or that it Issue: Whether or not Perez is liable for the death of
was lawful, or that it was issued under legal process of Facts: the passenger Rogelio Corachea?
authority. The appellee failed to establish this. While respondents Arsenio Mendoza, were waiting for
a passenger bus they boarded defendants-appellants' Held: Yes. Here, the killing was perpetrated by the
DEFENSES IN CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS bus. As they travelled along the highway bound for driver of the very cab transporting the passenger, in
Manila, said bus was traveling at a high rate of speed whose hands the carrier had entrusted the duty of
G.R. No. 12191. October 14, 1918. without due regard to the safety of the passengers. As a executing the contract of carriage.
JOSE CANGCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, result, they met an accident.
v. The new Civil Code of the Philippines expressly makes
MANILA RAILROAD CO., Defendant-Appellee. Consequently, Arsenio sought to recover damages the common carrier liable for intentional assaults
against the driver of the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, committed by its employees upon its passengers, under
Facts: predicated not only on a breach of contract of carriage Art. 1759 of the Civil Code
On January 20, 1915, as the train was drawing near the but also on account of a criminal negligence on the part
San Mateo station, Cangco had already risen from his of defendant Silverio resulting to plaintiff-appellee's The basis of the carrier's liability for assaults on
seat when before the train came to a full stop, Cangco, multiple physical injuries. passengers committed by its drivers rests either on (1)
one or both his feet came in contact with a sack of the doctrine of respondeat superior or (2) the principle
Issues:
that it is the carrier's implied duty to transport the passenger, Dionisio Abello took the wheel No. The Supreme Court held that
passenger safely. and told the driver to sit somewhere else. With petitioner-driver Montefalcon did not slacken his
Abello driving, the bus proceeded on its way, from speed but instead continued to run the jeep at
G.R. No. L-10195 December 29, 1916 time to time stopping to pick up passengers. about forty (40) kilometers per hour even at the
YU CON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. time the overtaking cargo truck was running side
GLICERIO IPIL, NARCISO LAURON, and Along the way, the bus and a freight truck driven by side for about twenty (20) meters. He should
JUSTO SOLAMO, defendants-appellants. by Marcial Nocum encountered resulting in have foreseen that at the speed he was running,
ARAULLO, J.: extensive damages to the body of the bus and the vehicles were getting nearer the bridge and as
injuries to seventeen of its passengers including the road was getting narrower the truck would be
FACTS: the respondents. too close to the jeep and would eventually
On or about the 17th of October, 1911, the plaintiff sideswiped it. Otherwise stated, he should have
chartered the same banca from the defendant Issue: slackened his jeep when he swerved it to the right
Lauron for the transportation of various Whether or not petitioner may be held liable on to give way to the truck because the two vehicles
merchandise. On the time scheduled for the account of such negligence, considering that he could not cross the bridge at the same time.
departure from the port of Cebu, said master and was not its employee.
said supercargo both the trunk and the money Oligario Sy v. Malate Taxi Cab and Garage Inc.
disappeared during that same night, and that the Ruling: G.R. No. L-8937 November 29, 1957
investigations, made to ascertain their Yes. Considering the provisions of Article 1763 of Endencia, J.
whereabouts, produced no result. the Civil Code and section 48(b) of the Motor
Vehicle Law. The acts of the bus personnel, Facts: Sy engaged a taxicab owned and operated by
The master Ipil and the supercargo Solamo also particularly “in allowing Mr. Abello to drive despite Malate Taxicab and Garage, Inc. and driven by Catalino
testified that they left the cabin-boy Simeon two occasions when the bus stopped and the Ermino. At the intersection, the taxi collided with an
Solamo on guard that night; but this affirmation regular driver could have taken over, constitute army wagon, as a result of which Sy was jammed.
was not corroborated by Solamo at the trial, for he reckless imprudence and wanton injurious
was not introduced as a witness. conduct on the part of the MRR employees Thereafter, Sy filed an action against the Malate
Taxicab & Garage, Inc., based upon a contract of
carriage, to recover damages. The latter alleged that
ISSUE: ROSITO Z. BACARRO, WILLIAM SEVILLA, and the collision subject of the complaint was not due to the
Whether or not the defendants are liable FELARIO MONTEFALCON vs. GERUNDIO B. negligence of its driver but to that of Sgt. Jesus Dequito,
CASTAÑO, and the COURT OF APPEALS the driver of the army wagon.
HELD: G.R. No. L-34597 November 5, 1982
Yes, it is unquestionable that the defendants were Issue: Was Malate Taxi Cab and Garage Inc
the carriers of the said belonging to the plaintiff, FACTS: responsible for the collision?
and that they received this sum from the latter for Castano boarded the jeep driven by
the purpose of delivering it to the store of the town Montefalcon. The jeep was running quite fast and Ruling: Yes. Under the law, the court need not make
of Catmon, to which it had been consigned. Under while approaching a bridge there was a cargo an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of
such circumstances, said defendants were the truck who blew its horn for a right of way. The jeep the defendant appellant in order to hold it responsible to
depositaries of the money. gave way but did not change speed. In so doing pay the damages sought for by the plaintiff, for the
action initiated therefore is based on a contract of
the driver was not able to return the jeep to the carriage and not on tort. When plaintiff rode on
Manila Railroad Company vs. Ballesteros, et proper place instead, it ran obliquely towards the defendant-appellant's taxicab, the latter assumed the
al. canal; that is why, they fell to the ditch. express obligation to transport him to his destination
G.R. No. L-19161. April 29, 1966. Castano was pushed by the two passengers safely, and to observe extraordinary diligence with a
MAKALINTAL, J.: beside him resulting to injuries. due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury that
might be suffered by the passenger is right away
ISSUE: attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier.
Facts: Did Montefalcon exercised [G.R. No. 125138. March 2, 1999]
Ballesteros et. al were passengers on petitioner’s extraordinary diligence. NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES, petitioner, vs.
bus driven by one Jose Anastacio. However, COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PHILIPPINE
when Anastacio stopped the bus and got off to AIR LINES, INC., respondent.
replace a defective spark plug, one RULING:
A collision occurred between a gravel and Issue: Who is liable for the death and physical injuries
FACTS: Private respondent PAL issued to sand truck. Due to the impact, several passengers suffered by the passengers of the jeepney?
the herein petitioner, Cervantes, a round trip plane of the bus were thrown out and died. The vehicle
ticket, which expressly provided an expiry of date of one was registered in the name of defendant Novelo Ruling:
year from issuance. On March 23, 1990, four days but was owned and/or operated as a passenger Only the spouses Mangune and Carreon, Manalo and
before the expiry date of subject ticket, the petitioner bus jointly by defendants Magtibay and Serrado, their insurance are liable to the victims or their heirs for
used it. Upon his arrival in Los Angeles on the same under a franchise, which Novelo sold to and which the damage and loss of life caused.
day, he immediately booked his return ticket with the the latter transferred to Cerrado
PAL office, and it was confirmed. On April 2, 1990, There’s a presumption that drivers who bump the rear
when the petitioner checked in at the PAL counter in of another vehicle is considered guilty and is the cause
San Francisco, he was not allowed to board. The PAL The Trial Court reached the conclusion of the accident. However, the spirit behind the said
personnel did not accept the ticket due to the expiration "that the negligent acts of both drivers contributed presumption is for the driver following a vehicle to be at
of its validity. to or combined with each other in directly causing all times prepared of a pending accident should the
the accident which led to the death of the driver in front suddenly come to a full stop, or change its
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the act of the aforementioned persons” course either through change of mind of the front driver,
PAL agents in confirming subject ticket extended mechanical trouble, or to avoid an accident.
the period of validity of petitioner’s ticket; Issue:
Here, the u-turn made was abrupt, the jeepney skid to
the other side of the road. Hence, delos Reyes could
RULING: Whether the respondent court has not have anticipated the sudden U-turn executed by
properly applied the doctrine of "last clear chance" Manalo. Moreover, even if the bus was running at a
1.) No, the employees of PAL had no in the present case? speed of more or less 50kph at the time of the accident.
authority to extend the validity or lifetime of the
G.R. No. 118664. August 7, 1998
ticket in question. Held: JAPAN AIRLINES, petitioner,
No, since the case at bar is not a suit vs.
Under Article 1898 of the New Civil Code, the acts between the owners and drivers of the colliding THE COURT OF APPEALS, ENRIQUE AGANA, et. al,
of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the respondents.
not bind the principal, unless the latter ratifies the deceased passengers against both owners and
same expressly or impliedly. drivers of the colliding vehicles. FACTS: Private respondents left Los Angeles,
California for Manila. Both flights had a stopover at
Since the PAL agents are not privy to the said As the doctrine is usually stated, a person Japan, at the airlines' expense, thereafter proceeding to
Agreement and petitioner knew that a written who has the last clear chance or opportunity of Manila. The next day, however, due to the Mt. Pinatubo
request to the legal counsel of PAL was eruption, there was airline traffic. Hence, the trip gwas
avoiding an accident is considered in law solely cancelled.
necessary, he cannot use what the PAL agents responsible for the consequences of the accident.
did to his advantage. The said agents, therefore,
acted without authority when they confirmed the To accommodate the needs of its stranded passengers,
G.R. No. Nos. 66102-04 August 30, 1990 JAL rebooked all passengers and also paid for the hotel
flights of the petitioner. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., Petitioner, expenses for their unexpected overnight stay. However,
vs. their anticipated flight was again cancelled due to
OBLIGATIONS OF SHIPPER, CONSIGNEE AND THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE NAIA's indefinite closure. At this point, JAL informed the
PASSENGER COURT AND CASIANO PASCUA, ET AL., private respondents that it would no longer defray their
Respondents. hotel and accommodation expense during their stay in
EMMA ADRIANO BUSTAMANTE v. THE Narita.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Facts: Catalina Pascua, boarded a jeepney, driven by
FEDERICO DEL PILAR AND EDILBERTO Tranquilino Manalo. Upon reaching Tarlac, the right Issue:
MONTESIANO rear wheel of the jeepney was detached causing it to Whether or not JAL, as a common carrier has the
run in an unbalanced position. Almost at the same time obligation to shoulder the accomodations of its
G.R. No. 89880
when the jeepney made the sudden U-turn, a bus, stranded passengers, even if the delay were caused by
February 6, 1991 owned by Philippine Rabbit Lines, Inc., bumped the
Medialdea, J. “force majeure.”?
right rear portion of the jeepney. As a result of the
collision, three passengers died while the others
sustained physical injuries. Held:
Facts:
No. JAL has no obligation to shoulder the entire hotel refused to compensate Monarch, filed two
and meal expenses of its stranded passengers even if FINALS complaints against Aboitiz.
the delay were caused by force majeure. Accordingly,
there is no question that when a party is unable to fulfill 1.1
his obligation because of “force majeure,” the general GR No. 1600. June 1, 1906. Aboitiz rejected responsibility for the claims on the
rule is that he cannot be held liable for damages for THE PHILIPPINE SHIPPING COMPANY ET AL., ground that the sinking of its cargo vessel was
non-performance. Corollarily, when JAL was prevented plaintiffs and appellants, due to force majeure or an act of God. Aboitiz was
from resuming its flight to Manila due to the effects of vs. FRANCISCO GARCIA VERGARA, defendant and subsequently declared as in default and allowed
Mt. Pinatubo eruption, whatever losses or damages appellee. Monarch and Tabacalera to present evidence ex-
in the form of hotel and meal expenses the stranded parte.
passengers incurred, cannot be charged to JAL. Facts: Steamship Nuestra Sra. de Lourdes and
steamship Navarra collided, resulting to the entire Issue:
Extraordinary Diligence in Carriage by Air loss of their respective cargoes. Whether or not the limited liability rule applies in
G.R. No. 141314 April 9, 2003 this case
The Court construing article 837 of the Code of
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED Commerce, held that the defendant was not
BY ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, petitioner,
Held:
responsible. Philippine Shipping Company No, the limited liability rule does not apply in this
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondent.
appealed contending that the extent of the liability case.
of the owner of the colliding vessel for the
Facts: Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) filed with
damages is to be determined in accordance with “No vessel, no liability,” expresses in a nutshell
the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) an application for
the revision of its rate schedules. The application also such value. the limited liability rule. The shipowner’s or agent’s
included a prayer for provisional approval of the liability is merely co-extensive with his interest in
increase. Issue: What is the extent of the liability, both of the vessel such that a total loss thereof results in
the agent and of the owner of the vessel? its extinction. The total destruction of the vessel
The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an extinguishes maritime liens because there is no
examination of the books of accounts and records of Ruling: Garcia-Vergara is liable for the longer any res to which it can attach. This doctrine
MERALCO. Thereafter, ERB adopted the indemnification to which the plaintiff is entitled by is based on the real and hypothecary nature of
recommendations of the COA and authorized maritime law.
reason of the collision, but he is not required to
MERALCO to adopt a rate adjustment.
pay such indemnification for the reason that the
obligation thus incurred has been extinguished on 1.3
Issue: Whether or not MERALCO’s deduction of all
account of the loss of the thing bound for the Aboitiz shipping Corp. V General Accident Fire and
kinds of taxes from the gross revenues of a public utility Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. GR No. 100446
is proper? payment thereof pursuant to Article 837 of the
Code of Commerce.
FACTS: Aboitiz Shipping is the owner of M/V P. Aboitiz,
Held: NO. Public utilities cannot be allowed to
1.2 a vessel which sank on a voyage from Hongkong to the
overcharge at the expense of the public and worse,
G.R. No. 92735. June 8, 2000 Philippines. This sinking of the vessel gave rise to the
they cannot complain that they are not overcharging
recovery of the lost cargo. Board of Marine Inquiry
enough.
(BMI), on its initial investigation found that such sinking
MONARCH INSURANCE CO., INC., was due to force majeure and that subject vessel, at the
Rate regulators should strain to strike a TABACALERA INSURANCE CO., INC. and Hon. time of the sinking was seaworthy.
balance between the clashing interests of the public
Judge AMANTE PURISIMA, petitioners,
utility and the consuming public and the balance must
vs. Due to these different rulings, Aboitiz seeks a
assure a reasonable rate of return to public utilities
COURT OF APPEALS and ABOITIZ SHIPPING pronouncement as to the applicability of the doctrine of
without being unreasonable to the consuming public.
CORPORATION, respondents limited liability on the totality of the claims.
1.4 Issue: May the shipowner or agent, be properly Facts: The M/S San Diego II and the M/S
[G.R. No. 46846; February 3, 1940] held liable? Bartolome, while engaged in fishing operations
Guison v. Philippine Shipping Co. 69 Phil 536 around Mindoro Island were caught by a typhoon
Ruling: NO, pursuant to Article 587 of the Code as a consequence of which they sunk and totally
FACTS: Plaintiff, Guison, owns the steam of Commerce accords the shipowner or agent the lost.
launch "Martha" and the defendant Philippine Fish right of abandonment; and by necessary
Company owns the motorboat "Manila X". Both implication, his liability is con to that which he is The real and hypothecary nature of the Maritime
boats, had a collision which resulted in the boat entitled as of right to abandon. It is true that the Law, deemed necessary to confine the liability of
the "Martha" sank. article appears to deal only with the limited liability the owner or agent from the operation of a ship to
of shipowners or agents for damages arising from the vessel, equipment, and freight, or insurance, if
The Lower Court having come to the conclusion the misconduct of the captain in the care of the any.
that the collision was due to recklessness and goods which the vessel carries, but this is a mere
negligence of the employer of the boat "Manila X" deficiency of language and in no way indicates the Issue: Was the liability of San Diego
without any contributory negligence by the pattern true extent of such liability. extinguished?
of "Marta" condemn the defendant to pay the
claimed amount. The defendant asked for the 1.6 MANILA. STEAMSHIP CO. v. Ruling: NO. The provisions of the Code of
reconsideration for a declaration in accordance INSA ABDUL-HAMAN Commerce invoked by appellant have no room in
with Article 837 of the Commercial Code, is limited GR No. L-9534, Sep 29, the application of the Workmen's Compensation
to the value of your boat. 1956 Act which seeks to improve, and aims at the
amelioration of, the condition of laborers and
ISSUE: employees.
Whether the liability of the defendant under the FACTS:
circumstances is limited to the value of the boat. The family of Insa Abdulhaman boarded
M/L Consuelo V bound for Siokon. In the evening, 1.8
HELD: a collision occurred with M/V Bowline Knot. M/L
Consuelo V capsized that resulted to the death of [G.R. No. 110398. November 7, 1997]
Yes. Article 837 of the Commercial Code declares
passengers and the loss of the cargoes on board. NEGROS NAVIGATION CO., INC. vs. THE
it so strictly. In this sense the Court applied this
COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON MIRANDA,
provision in the case against Garcia Philippine
Court of Appeals held that the vessels SPS. RICARDO and VIRGINIA DE LA VICTORIA
Shipping Co., stating that the maritime law is only
true character and limits the liability of the are both negligent and solidarily liable to plaintiff
shipowner to the value of the ship. under Article 827 of the Code of Commerce. FACTS: Private respondent purchased
from the Negros Navigation Co., Inc. four special
1.5 ISSUE: Whether petitioner is exempt from any cabin tickets for his family. However, a collision
TEODORO R. YANGCO, ETC. Vs. MANUEL liability? happened. As a result, the M/V Don Juan sank.
LASERNA, ET AL. Several of her passengers perished in the sea
G.R. No. L-47447-47449 ;October 29, 1941 RULING: tragedy.
MORAN, J.: No. Under Article 827 of the Code of
Commerce, in case of collision between Private respondents filed a complaint
Facts: two vessels imputable to both of them, each seeking damages for the death of their family
Steamer S.S. Negros, left the port of Romblon on vessel shall suffer her own damage and both members.
its return trip to Manila. Typhoon signal No. 2 was shall be solidarity liable for the damages
then up, which fact the captain was duly advised. occasioned to their cargoes. ISSUE: Whether petitioner is liable for
The boat was overloaded. The captain ordered damages to the full extent.
the vessel to return to port, however, the vessel 1.7 G.R. No. L-773 December 17, 1946
was caught sidewise by a big wave which caused DIONISIA ABUEG, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, RULING: YES.
unseaworthiness, as what occurred in this case,
The rule is well-entrenched in our Philamgen is liable. Facts:
jurisprudence that a shipowner may be held liable Yu Con was a merchant engaged in the sale of
for injuries to passengers notwithstanding the 1.10 cloth and domestic articles. He had several times
PEDRO VASQUEZ, SOLEDAD ORTEGA, CLETO B.
exclusively real and hypothecary nature of chartered from the defendant Narciso Lauron, a
BAGAIPO, AGUSTINA VIRTUDES, ROMEO
maritime law if fault can be attributed to the VASQUEZ and MAXIMINA CAINAY, petitioners,
banca named Maria.
shipowner. vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and FILIPINAS PIONEER A sum of money, was delivered by Yu Con to
1.9 THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL LINES, INC., respondents. Glicerio Ipil and Justo Solamo, master and
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF G.R. No. L-42926 supercargo, respectively, of the banca Maria,
APPEALS September 13, 1985 which is engaged in the coastwise trade in the
G.R. No. 116940 MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
waters of the Philippine Islands, to be carried
June 11, 1997 FACTS: When the inter-island vessel MV "Pioneer
Bellosillo, J. Cebu" left the Port of Manila bound for Cebu, it had on
together with various merchandise from the port of
board the spouses Alfonso Vasquez and Filipinas Cebu to the town of Catmon of the Province of
Bagaipo. The MV "Pioneer Cebu" encountered typhoon Cebu. This money disappeared from said craft,
Facts:
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., loaded on board "Klaring" and struck a reef in Malapascua Island and while it was anchored in the port of Cebu and
"MV Asilda," a vessel owned and operated by subsequently sunk. The aforementioned passengers ready to sail for its destination, Catmon, and was
respondent Felman Shipping Lines, Coca-Cola softdrink were unheard from since then. not afterwards found. The plaintiff based his
bottles. The shipment was insured with petitioner action on the charge that the disappearance of
Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. The parents of the victims (petitioners) seek the said sum was due to the negligence.
However, the vessel sank in the waters. recovery of damages due to the loss of the three
passengers during said voyage. The respondent Issues:
Thereafter, the consignee Coca-Cola Bottlers Filipinas Pioneer Lines, Inc. alleged that the sinking of
the vessel was caused by force majeure, and that their
(2) Whether or not the master and supercargo of
Philippines, Inc., Cebu plant, filed a claim with vessel is liable for loss of money entrusted to their
respondent Felman for recovery of damages. liability had been extinguished by the total loss of the
vessel. care.
Respondent denied the claim thus prompting the
consignee to file an insurance claim with Philamgen
which paid its claim. ISSUE: Whether or not the loss of the vessel Held:
extinguished the liability of the carrier’s (2) Yes. The Supreme Court held that it was
Claiming its right of subrogation Philamgen sought beyond all doubt that the loss or disappearance,
insurer?
recourse against respondent Felman which disclaimed on the night aforementioned, of the P450, the
any liability for the loss. Consequently, Philamgen sued property of the plaintiff, which, were in the
the shipowner for sum of money and damages. RULING: possession of the defendants, the master and the
No, With respect to private respondent's supercargo of the banca Maria,occurred through
Issue: submission that the total loss of the vessel extinguished the manifest fault and negligence of said
its liability pursuant to Article 587 of the Code of
Whether Philamgen was properly subrogated to the defendants, for, not only did they fail to take the
Commerce as construed in Yangco vs. Laserna, 73
rights and legal actions which the shipper had against necessary precautions in order that the stateroom
Phil. 330 [1941], suffice it to state that even in the cited
Felman? containing the trunk in which they kept the money
case, it was held that the liability of a shipowner is
limited to the value of the vessel or to the insurance should be properly guarded by members of the
Held: thereon. Despite the total loss of the vessel therefore, crew and put in such condition that it would be
Yes, generally in every marine insurance policy the its insurance answers for the damages that a shipowner impossible to steal the trunk from it or that
assured impliedly warrants to the assurer that the or agent may be held liable for by reason of the death of persons not belonging to the vessel might force
vessel is seaworthy and such warranty is as much a its passengers.
term of the contract as if expressly written on the face of
an entrance into the stateroom from the outside,
the policy. The result of the admission of seaworthiness but also they did not expressly station some
1.12 person inside the stateroom for the guarding and
by the assurer Philamgen is in recognition of the
realistic fact that cargo owners cannot control the state No. 10195. December 29, 1916. safe-keeping of the trunk.
of the vessel. Thus it can be said that with such YU CON, plaintiff and appellee,
categorical waiver, Philamgen has accepted the risk of vs. 1.14
unseaworthiness so that if the ship should sink by GLICERIO IPIL, NARCISO LAURON, and RUBISO V. RIVERA 37 PHIL 72
JUSTO SOLAMO, defendants and appellants.
Macondray & Co., agent of the vessel S/S TAI
FACTS: PING", to correct the manifest of the steamer so 1.16 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. vs SULPICIO
Rubiso filed a complaint against Rivera for the recovery that it may take delivery of the goods at Customs LINES,INC., GO SIOC SO, ENRIQUE S. GO,
of a pilot boat. He alleged that he is the rightful House. Meanwhile, the Collector of Customs EUSEBIO S. GO, CARLOSS. GO, VICTORIANO S.
owner of a pilot boat, which was stranded and required herein petitioner to explain and show GO, DOMINADOR S. GO, RICARDO S.GO, EDWARD
recovered by Rivera. The latter refused to return the cause why no administrative fine should be S. GO, ARTURO S. GO, EDGAR S. GO, EDMUNDS.
said boat as he alleged too that he was the owner GO, FRANCISCO SORIANO, VECTOR SHIPPING
imposed upon said vessel. Petitioner contends
thereof. CORPORATION, TERESITA G. CAÑEZAL AND
that the fact the whole shipment was indicated in SOTERA E.CAÑEZAL
the bill of lading, it is clear that the deficiency of G.R. No. 131166. September 30, 1999
It was known that the original owners of the boat had the original vessel's manifest was adequately
secretly sold the pilot boat to Rivera on an earlier date
than the sale in a public auction to
supplied by the entries of said bill of lading and, Facts:
Rubiso. Nonetheless, material is the fact that the entry therefore, no violation of the provision of the Tariff On December 20, 1987, motor tanker MV
into the customs registry of the sale of the boat was and Customs Code, was committed." Vector, carrying petroleum products of Caltex, collided
later than the recording of the sale to Rubiso. in the open sea with passenger ship MV Doña Paz,
Issue: Whether or not the inclusion of the causing the death of passengers. On March 22, 1988,
ISSUE: unmanifested cargoes in the Bill of Lading satisfy the board of marine inquiry found that Vector Shipping
Is registration necessary? the requirement of the aforequoted sections of the Corporation was at fault. The family of the passengers
filed a complaint for damages arising from breach of
Tariff and Customs Code. contract of carriage against Sulpicio Lines. Sulpicio filed
HELD: a third-party complaint against Vector and Caltex. The
Yes. The requisite of registration in the registry, of the Ruling: trial court dismissed the complaint against Caltex, but
purchase of the vessel, is necessary and the Court of Appeals included the same in the liability.
indispensable in order that the purchaser’s rights Hence, Caltex filed this petition.
may be maintained against a third person. Such No. The inclusion of the unmanifested cargoes in
registration is required both by the Code of the Bill of Lading does not satisfy the requirement
Commerce and Act 1900. It is undeniable, ergo, that of the aforequoted sections of the Tariff and Issue:
Rivera doesn’t have a better right than Rubiso over the Customs Code Is the charterer of a sea vessel liable for
pilot boat. damages resulting from a collision between the
chartered vessel and a passenger ship?
It is to be noted that nowhere in the said section is
Ships and vessels, whether moved by steam or by the presentation of a Bill of Lading required, but
sail, partake, to a certain extent of the nature and Held:
only the presentation of a Manifest containing a The charterer has no liability for damages under
conditions of real property, on account of their value true and accurate description of the cargoes. This
and importance in world commerce; and for this, the Philippine Maritime laws.
is for the simple reason that while a manifest is a
provisions of the Code of Commerce are nearly
declaration of the entire cargo, a bill of lading is
identical with Article 573 of the CC. Petitioner and Vector entered into a contract of
but a declaration of a specific part of the cargo affreightment, also known as a voyage charter.
and is a matter of business convenience based
1.15 Macondray and Company Inc. vs. Acting
exclusively on a contract. In short, while a bill of
Commissioner of Customs A charter party is a contract by which an entire ship, or
lading is ordinarily merely a convenient some principal part thereof, is let by the owner to
G.R. No. L-25783 February 25, 1975 commercial instrument designed to protect the
ESGUERRA, J.: another person for a specified time or use; a contract of
importer or consignee, a manifest of the cargo is affreightment is one by which the owner of a ship or
absolutely essential to the exportation or other vessel lets the whole or part of her to a merchant
Facts: importation of property in all vessels, the evident or other person for the conveyance of goods, on a
The vessel S/S TAI PING", of which petitioner is intent and object of which is to impose upon the particular voyage, in consideration of the payment of
the local agent, conveying various shipments of owners and officers of such vessel an imperative freight. A contract of affreightment may be either time
merchandise. The shipment, except the one (1) obligation to submit lists of the entire loading of charter, wherein the leased vessel is leased to the
coil carbon steel was not reflected in the Inward charterer for a fixed period of time, or voyage charter,
the ship in the prescribed form, to facilitate the wherein the ship is leased for a single voyage.
Cargo Manifest as required by Section 1005 in labors of the customs and immigration officers
relation to Section 2521 of the Tariff and and to defeat any attempt to make use of such
Customs Code of the Philippines. Allied In both cases, the charter-party provides for the hire of
vessels to secure the unlawful entry of persons or the vessel only, either for a determinate period of time
Brokerage Corporation, acting for and in behalf of things into the country. or for a single or consecutive voyage, the ship owner to
Bogo Medellin Milling Co. requested petitioner supply the ship’s store, pay for the wages of the master
of the crew, and defray the expenses for the carrier, which is presumed to have violated the This legal provision containing the equitable
maintenance of the ship. If the charter is a contract of contract of carriage. principle of subrogation has been applied in a long
affreightment, which leaves the general owner in line of cases including Compania Maritima v.
possession of the ship as owner for the voyage, the Insurance Company of North America Fireman's
rights and the responsibilities of ownership rest on the Issue: First, whether or not petitioner Coastwise
owner. The charterer is free from liability to third Lighterage was transformed into a private carrier, Fund Insurance Company v. Jamilla & Company,
persons in respect of the ship. by virtue of the contract of affreightment which it Inc. and Pan Malayan Insurance Corporation v.
entered into with the consignee, Pag-asa Sales, Court of Appeals wherein this Court explained:
1.17 Coastwise Lighterage v CA Inc. Corollarily, if it were in fact transformed into a
G.R. No. 114167. July 12,1995 private carrier, did it exercise the ordinary Article 2207 of the Civil Code is founded on the
Francisco R. J. diligence to which a private carrier is in turn well-settled principle of subrogation. If the insured
bound? property is destroyed or damaged through the
fault or negligence of a party other than the
Second, whether or not the insurer was assured, then the insurer, upon payment to the
Facts: Pag-asa Sales, Inc. entered into a contract
subrogated into the rights of the consignee assured will be subrogated to the rights of the
to transport molasses from the province of Negros
against the carrier, upon payment by the insurer assured to recover from the wrongdoer to the
to Manila with Coastwise Lighterage Corporation
of the value of the consignee's goods lost while on extent that the insurer has been obligated to pay.
(Coastwise for brevity), using the latter's dumb
board one of the carrier's vessels. Payment by the insurer to the assured operated
barges. The barges were towed in tandem by the
as an equitable assignment to the former of all
tugboat MT Marica, which is likewise owned by
Ruling: remedies which the latter may have against the
Coastwise.
third party whose negligence or wrongful act
caused the loss. The right of subrogation is not
Upon reaching Manila Bay, while approaching As a common carrier, petitioner is liable for breach dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any
Pier 18, one of the barges, "Coastwise 9", struck of the contract of carriage, having failed to privity of contract or upon written assignment of
an unknown sunken object. The forward buoyancy overcome the presumption of negligence with the claim. It accrues simply upon payment of the
compartment was damaged, and water gushed in loss and destruction of goods it transported, by insurance claim by the insurer.
through a hole "two inches wide and twenty-two proof of its exercise of extraordinary diligence.
inches long" As a consequence, the molasses at
1
Undoubtedly, upon payment by respondent
the cargo tanks were contaminated and rendered On the issue of subrogation, which petitioner insurer PhilGen of the amount of P700,000.00 to
unfit for the use it was intended. This prompted contends as inapplicable in this case, we once Pag-asa Sales, Inc., the consignee of the cargo of
the consignee, Pag-asa Sales, Inc. to reject the more rule against the petitioner. We have already molasses totally damaged while being transported
shipment of molasses as a total loss. Thereafter, found petitioner liable for breach of the contract of by petitioner Coastwise Lighterage, the former
Pag-asa Sales, Inc. filed a formal claim with the carriage it entered into with Pag-asa Sales, Inc. was subrogated into all the rights which Pag-asa
insurer of its lost cargo, herein private respondent, However, for the damage sustained by the loss of Sales, Inc. may have had against the carrier,
Philippine General Insurance Company (PhilGen, the cargo which petitioner-carrier was herein petitioner Coastwise Lighterage.
for short) and against the carrier, herein petitioner, transporting, it was not the carrier which paid the
Coastwise Lighterage. Coastwise Lighterage value thereof to Pag-asa Sales, Inc. but the
denied the claim and it was PhilGen which paid latter's insurer, herein private respondent PhilGen.
the consignee, Pag-asa Sales, Inc., the amount of
P700,000.00, representing the value of the Article 2207 of the Civil Code is explicit on this
damaged cargo of molasses. point:
Art. 2207. If the plaintiffs property has been
In turn, PhilGen then filed an action against insured, and he has received indemnity from the
Coastwise Lighterage before the Regional Trial insurance company for the injury or loss arising
Court of Manila, seeking to recover the amount of out of the wrong or breach of contract complained
P700,000.00 which it paid to Pag-asa Sales, Inc. of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to
for the latter's lost cargo. PhilGen now claims to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or
be subrogated to all the contractual rights and the person who violated the contract. . . .
claims which the consignee may have against the
mere agent of the charterer. It is insisted that
private respondent's contract of employment and
affidavit of undertaking clearly showed that the
party with whom he had contracted was Mullion,
the shipowner, represented by the ship's
master. Petitioner Litonjua thus argues that being
the agent of the charterer and not of the
1.18 shipowner, it accordingly should not have been
G.R. No. L-51910 August 10, 1989 held liable on the contract of employment of
LITONJUA SHIPPING COMPANY INC. vs. private respondent.
NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD and GREGORIO
P. CANDONGO ISSUE: Whether or not Litonjua may be
held liable to the private respondent on the
FACTS: Petitioner Litonjua is the duly contract of employment.
appointed local crewing Managing Office of the
Fairwind Shipping Corporation. The M/V Dufton RULING: YES. There are two (2) grounds
Bay is an ocean-going vessel of foreign registry upon which petitioner Litonjua may be held liable
owned by the R.D. Mullion Ship Broking Agency to the private respondent on the contract of
Ltd. While the Dufton Bay was under charter by employment.
Fairwind, the vessel's master contracted the
services of private respondent Gregorio
FIRST BASIS:
Candongo to serve as Third Engineer for a period
The first basis is the charter party which
of twelve (12) months. This agreement was
existed between Mullion, the shipowner, and
executed before the Cebu Area Manning Unit of
Fairwind, the charterer. Their agreement is under
the NSB. Thereafter, private respondent boarded
a bareboat or demise charter. It is well settled that
the vessel. Before expiration of his contract,
in a demise or bare boat charter, the charterer is
private respondent was required to disembark at
treated as owner pro hac vice of the vessel, the
Port Kelang, Malaysia, and was returned to the
charterer assuming in large measure the
Philippines. The cause of the discharge was
customary rights and liabilities of the shipowner in
described in his Seaman's Book as 'by owner's
relation to third persons who have dealt with him
arrange".
or with the vessel. In such case, the Master of the
vessel is the agent of the charterer and not of the
Shortly after returning to the Philippines, shipowner. The charterer or owner pro hac vice,
private respondent filed a complaint before public and not the general owner of the vessel, is held
respondent NSB, for violation of contract, against liable for the expenses of the voyage including the
Mullion as the shipping company and petitioner wages of the seamen.
Litonjua as agent of the shipowner and of the
charterer of the vessel.
Treating Fairwind as owner pro hac vice,
petitioner Litonjua having failed to show that it was
The hearing officer of the NSB rendered a not such, the Court believes and so hold that
judgment by default, thereby ordering R.D. Mullion petitioner Litonjua, as Philippine agent of the
Shipbrokers Co., Ltd., and Litonjua Shipping Co., charterer, may be held liable on the contract of
Inc., jointly and solidarily to pay Gregorio employment between the ship captain and the
Candongo. private respondent.
2.8 587, 590 and 837 of the same code are precisely
LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, petitioner, intended to limit the liability of the shipowner or agent to
vs. the value of the vessel, its appurtenances and
Facts: freightage earned in the voyage, provided that owner or
Motorboat Mercedes entered the Manila Bay. It COURT OF APPEALS, HIJOS DE F. ESCANO, INC.,
and DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE agent abandons the vessel. Although it is not
navigated in the direction of the lighthouse, several specifically provided for in Article 837 of the same code
minutes thereafter it was struck by the steamship Y. PHILIPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. L-58897 December 3, 1987 that in case of collision there should be such
Sontua, and as a result of the collision it suffered abandonment to enjoy such limited liability, said article
damages by reason of which it sank within half an hour. GANCAYCO, J.:
on collision of vessels is a mere amplification of the
provisions of Articles 587 and 590 of same code where
The Court held that from what has been said the FACTS: On May 30, 1968, a maritime collision abandonment of the vessel is a pre-condition. Even
negligence of the Y. Sontua was the primary cause of occurred within the vicinity of the entrance to the North without said article, the parties may avail of the
the accident, and that the Mercedes was guilty of Harbor, Manila between the tanker LSCO "Cavite" provisions of Articles 587 and 590 of same code in case
contributory negligence in failing to maintain its course, owned by Luzon Stevedoring Corporation and MV of collision. This is the reason why Article 837 of the
and that the case comes under the provisions of article "Fernando Escano" a passenger ship owned by Hijos same code is considered a superfluity. 22