This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
CHAPTER I – DEFINITION AND CONCEPTS 1. Contract of Transportation 2. Parties a. Carriage of Passengers Baliwag Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 80447. Jan. 31, 1999. b. Carriage of Goods 3. Perfection a. Aircraft b. Buses, Jeepneys and Street Cars c. Trains i. British Airways Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 92288. February 9, 1993 Carrier 1. Tests 2. Characteristics a. Ancillary Business b. Limited Clientele c. Means of Transportation 3. Effect of Charter Party Distinguish from Private Carrier De Guzman vs. CA 168 SCRA 612 Fabre vs. CA. G.R. No 111127. July 26, 1996 Bascos vs. CA G.R. No. 101089. April 7,1993 FGU vs. GP Sarmiento Trucking Corp., et al. 300 SCRA 661 Asia Lighterage Shipping Inc. vs. CA. G.R. No. 147246. Aug. 19, 2003. Crisostomo vs. CA. G.R. No. 138334. August 25, 2003. Distinguish from Towage, Arrastre and Stevedoring Governing Laws Nature of Business Registered Owner Rule and Kabit System 1. Registration Laws 2. Registered Owner Rule 3. Kabit System a. Pari Delicto Rule b. Aircrafts and Vessels i. Santos vs. Sibug. G.R. No. L-26815. May 26, 1981 ii. Baliwag Transit Inc. vs. CA 147 SCRA 82 iii. Lita Enterprises vs. Second Civil Cases Division. 129 SCRA 79 CHAPTER II – OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES OBLIGATION OF THE CARRIER a. Duty to Accept b. Duty to Deliver a. Code of Commerce b. Abandonment c. Right of Passengers c. Where and to whom delivered a. Place b. Consignee c. Delay to Transport Passengers d. Duty to exercise Extraordinary Diligence a. Presumption of Negligence
Carriage of Goods 1. 1955. 3. Pilapil vs. 1988. Court of Appeals. Public Enemy d. 1999. G. v. March 7. No. 119756. July 31. Fire 4. Manila Railroad Co. CA. G. No. 768 iv. Nov. Last Clear Chance b. Del Prado vs.R. CA. Mauro Ganzon v. 6.R. PNR vs.R. Fantanar.R. 4. Improper Packing e. Maranan vs. 2. 1967. Manila Electric Co. No. 179 SCRA 95. 18. Carriage of Passengers by Sea . 95582. Navidad G. iii. Isaac vs. 1991 3. Bachelor Express Inc. La Mallorca vs. c. Duration of Duty 1. 1929. Gacal et al vs.R.R. 145804. g. February 2.. Oct. Fortune Express Inc. May 30. 2. G. October 4. 1988 f. e. 19495. Defenses in Carriage of Passengers 1.R. 5. CA. 17 SCRA 739 4. Perez. vs. G. G. vs. Smith. G. Other Passengers and Third Persons 1. 1990. LRTA vs. March 27. No. CA. A. Manila Railroad Co. Mirasol vs. 2002. Mechanical Defects b. et al. No. Carriage of Passengers. 1985. Who will pay c. Transportation Law Case Digests b. No. G. 1046 ii. 1999 2. May 31. 2003. Compania Maritima vs. Lasam et al vs. 2. 101 Phil. De Gillaco et al vs. No. June 26. 1. Other Invalid Defenses 1. Dangwa Transportation Co. March 8. Hon. L-55347. Freight a. 1985. CA. Juntilla vs.R.1. 29462. G. No. Participation of the Carrier 3. G. Cosignee and Passenger 1. L-31379.L. L-22272.R. No. G. No. Cangco vs. 2. Fortuitous Event 1. August 25. CA. G. Assumption of Risk i. 1924. No. Defenses of Common Carriers a. The Robert Dollar Co. G. August 29. No.R. L-48757. CA. December 22.R. Vs. Ammen Transportation Co. L-45637. 183 SCRA 189. PHILAMGEM INS. 3. Requisites 2. L-29721. 12524. CA.R. 7. Amount to be paid b. February 6. 1989. Macam vs. PAL.R. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. Passenger’s Baggage Page 1 Obligations of Shipper. Order of Public Authority 1.R. 38 Phil. Employees 2. Negligence of Shipper or Passenger a. No.R. CA. G. Hijacking 5. Time to pay i. G. March 18. 52159. No.R. 1929. MCO. No. 135645. G. vs. 85691. vs. L-8034. No.
Demurrage Page 2 Transportation Law Case Digests .ii. Carrier’s Lien 3.
CA. Adequate Equipment 2. Prohibited and Limiting Stipulations i. January 31. RA 6235 i. 82619. Luzon Stevedoring. 180 SCRA 83. Passenger Safety i. d. ii. vs. vs. No Duty to Inquire c. September 15. People. No. When Effective 4. Caguimbal. G. L-22985.R. Concept 2. G. CA. Parol Evidence Rule c. G. 1993. Duty to Inspect Extraordinary Diligence in Carriage by Air 1. No. No. Overloading 3. 128607. b.R. July 30.R. April 18. 1983. Sr. CA. No. G. Cargo worthiness ii. c. Maritime Commerce iii. Batangas Transportation Co vs. Civil Code . L-28692. Bill of Lading as Contract a. G. Negligence of Captain and Crew a. Condition of Vehicle 2. 74387-90.R. CA et al. Bill of Lading as Evidence d. 1968. Fitness of the vessel i. No.R. 3. L-30309. September 15. November 14. 1988. 101503. PAL. Equipment and Manning iii. CHAPTER IV – BILL OF LADING AND OTHER FORMALITIES 1. Proper Storage 4. No. No. Contract of Adhesion b. Nos.R. Overland Transportation ii.CHAPTER III – EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE Rationale How Duty is Complied With Duty to Third Persons Effect of Stipulation Goods Passengers (Gratuitous Passengers ) Extraordinary Diligence in the Carriage by Sea 1. PAL vs. Air Transportation f. Basic Stipulations i. 1956. G. 1993. January 24.R. Brinas vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Meaning of Seaworthiness d. vs. ii. BLTB vs. Mecenas vs. Nature of Bill Lading 3. 1982. L-5203. Inspection a. Seaworthiness a. 5. 2000. Abeto vs. iii. Mallari. Deviation and Transshipment Extraordinary Diligence in the Carriage of Land 1. IAC. G. Actionable Documents e. Warranty of Seaworthiness of Ship b. Planters Products Inc. Traffice Rules a.R. November 25. G.
1998. IAC. 87434. Order Document Effects of Negotiation 5. L-22425.R. No. Overland Transportation of Goods and Coastwise Shipping i. Stipulation Reducing Diligence ii. Recoverable Damages a. G. 1990. No. Actual or Compensatory Damages 1. No. 1990. 1917. July 30. c. 2. 3. G. 77638 / 77674. Ong Yu vs. IAC. G. June 29. G. Bearer Document ii. c.. 88092.R. vs. 122494. Roldan vs. G. Prescription 1. e. G. b. Maritime Co. June 23. Heacock Co. 1992. No. Inc.R. Temperate or Moderate Damages . Interests c. Cuenca. Solidary Liability 3. b. Sweet Lines Inc. 4. Citadel Lines vs. Extent of Recovery b. 1979. No. Northwest Airlines. Lading as Receipt Lading as Contract Negotiability i. 152122. Moral Damages d. July 12. G. China Airlines vs.R. b. Distinctions 2. No. Vs. Bill of 6. CHAPTER V – ACTIONS AND DAMAGES IN CASE OF BREACH 1. G.E. CA. Attorney’s Fees 3. 71929. 1990. 1987. October 31. April 25. Northwest Airlines. Bill of a. 5. August 31. vs. 101538. August 5. November 19. No. CA.R. Purpose 2. L-70462. CA. Santos III vs. CA. L-40597. Concurrent Causes of Actions a. Macondary & Co. 75118. International Carriage of Goods by Sea i. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act Page 3 Transportation Law Case Digests 1. G.R. 6. G. Insurance Phil American General Ins. Notice of Claim and Prescriptive Period a. October 8.R. Uy. IAC. G. 2003. 1999. 1965. Lim Ponzo & Co. DOLE Phils. Inc.R. Meaning of Package a. No.1. G. United Airlines vs. L-11325. Nominal Damages e. iii. February 27. International Air Transportation 1. August 31. Kinds of Damages i. Inc. Effect of Notation “Non-negotiable” How Negotiated i. Extinctive Prescriptive 1.R. H. vs. 1921. December 7. L16598. 1992. No. Loss of Earning Capacity 2. ALTALIA vs. No. 127768. Sea-Land vs.R.R.R. G. Chiok. 1998. August 11. When to file a claim with carrier ii.R. No. No. vs. December 4. G. G. No. d. L-61352. No.R. No. PAN American vs. 4. 1987.R. Maritime Agencies & Services. Everett Steamship vs.
Admiralty Jurisdiction CHAPTER VII – VESSELS 1. No. Definitions i. The Gov’t of the Phil. Powers Transportation Law Case Digests .R. 1988. Carriascoso. Liquidated Damages g. October 30. March 18. Defined 2. vs. Luzon Stevedoring Corp. Nos.R. Insular Maritime Co. L-11407. August 13. vs. Ship’s Manifest i. IAC. Vergara ii. CA. Other Code of Commerce Provisions f. iii. 88561. 3.R. Laserna. CA. CA. CA. PAN American. G. G. Duruelo.R.R. No. G. 1973. August 30. Lopez vs. d. Mortgage i. Registration i. Yangco vs. G. September 30.f.R. Marina Rules e. April 20. ii. Chua Yek Hong vs. 78656.R. Marina Rules c. No. G. CA. G. No.R. Nature and Rationale b. Abandonment f. Statutory Provisions c. Sale b. Ship Owners and Ship Agents a. 1917. iii. CA.] b. Trans World Airlines vs. January 8. No. June 21. Ownership a. No. 21495. vs. Insurance iii. 74811. Procedure for Enforcement i. No. L-58897. Armovit vs. General Concepts a. 1990 PART II – MARITIME LAW Page 4 CHAPTER VI – GENERAL CONCEPTS 1. et al. 1924. v. Exceptions i. 47447-47449. G. Ship Agents i. Worker’s Compensation e. 29166. 1988.R. Prescription ii. Coverage d. Part Owners b. September 1966. Exemplary or Corrective Damages i. Ship Mortgage Decree ii. 1990. G. Protest 4. Personal Property 2. iv. Zulueta et al vs. Air France vs. Shipping Co. Safety Regulations CHAPTER VIII – PERSONS WHO TAKE PART IN MARITIME COMMERCE 1. 1922. 1990. Nos. v. G. 1987. No. Negligence ii. October 29. October 22. Rivera. iv. Equipment and Manning c. Real and Hypothecary Nature a. Construction. vi. December 3.R. G. G. Phil. 50504-05.R. L-21438. Fubiso and Belito vs. 1941. Acquisition i. vi. Maritime Law. 1990. PAL vs. 85691. No. vs. No. Heirs of Amparo Delos Santos vs.R. G. 51165. Bachelor Express Inc. July 31.
Officers and Crew a. September 30. 2. Freight 7. June 14. No. L-10195. Sulpicio Lines. 517 4.R. Manila Electric Co. b. Code of Commerce Provisions i. Computation of Lay Days 8. Qualifications c. August 11. 131166. Bareboat Charter b. Ship Owner or Captain b. No. Regulation of Merchant Marine Profession b. Security of Tenure d. 44 Phil 464 3. Crew 4. Bark Manangueta. Effect of Character of Carrier 4. Pilot and Association f. Captains and Masters Page 5 Transportation Law Case Digests a. v. G. Discretion of Captain or Master e. Definition and Concept 2. 1994. Code of Commerce and Provisions on Captain i. Inter-Orient Maritime Ent. Persons who may make Charter 5. G. Cadwaller Gibson. Walter Smith & Co. 1922. Effect of Bill of Lading 10. 1929. NLRC. Requisites 6. Definitions and Concepts 2. 1999.R. 17690. vs. Supercargoes CHAPTER IX – CHARTER PARTIES 1. 1916. No. Rights and Obligations a.R. O’Farrel y Cia vs. October 29. ii. G.R. Yu Can vs. Osorio. Ship owner and Pilot iii. vs. Charterer 9. iii. Limitations of Powers Duty to Account Reimbursement and Liabilities Discharge of Captain and Crew 1. Wing Kee Compradoring Co. Sweet Lines vs. December 29. 3. No. Distinguished from Simple Loan 3. Caltex (Phils.) vs. Demurrage and Deadfreight a. CHAPTER X – LOAN ON BOTTOMRY AND RESPONDENTIA 1. April 28. Concepts b. 55 Phil. G. Master and Pilot ii. CA. 115286. G. Powers and Functions d.R. Inc. No. Yu Biao Santua & Co. G. vs.R. L-46430.Code of Commerce Provisions a. Minimum Safe Manning c. Contract of Affreightment 3. Pilotage i.ii. 2. Ipil. Parties . iv. Different Kinds of Charter Parties a. 31222. 1983. Sailing Mate ii.vs. Second Mate and Marine Engineer iii. No.
29166. Castelo. Compliance with legal steps b.R. ii. Steamship Co. G. Williams vs. G. January 31. By Whom Born c. Gov. G. b.R.R. 1905. Lenders on bottomry and respondentia d.R. No.R. City of Manila vs. CHAPTER XIII – ARRIVAL UNDER STRESS AND SHIPWRECKS . Standard Oil vs. G. 1921. 1928. G. 13422. G. National Development Co. G. Zones in Collision i. 18957. Definition and Requisites i. Yangco. Proof and Liquidation of Average i. November 8. Lim. No. 1923. 20145. Smith Bell & Co. Party at Fault Cannot be Determined iv. Consequences of Loss 6. York-Antwerp Rules CHAPTER XII – COLLISIONS 1. CA. 1914. October 18. General Average Page 6 Transportation Law Case Digests a. g. vs. Rules on Liability a.R. of the Phil. Who is entitled to indemnity i. 56294. Deliberate sacrifice iii. Simple Average a. No. Smith Bell & Co. Common danger ii. Islands. h. L-6393. Applicable Law 3. 1923. G.R. i. November 15. Example of Simple Average 3. No. Marine Trading Co.R. d. AGP Co. of the Phil. No. L-49407. December 10.B. Average in General 2. 1908. vs. 13695. Both Vessel at Fault iii. Inc. Magsaysay Inc. By Whom Borne i. May 20.4. Definition b. Fortuitous Event v. c. e.R. August 19. 1990. 4. 1988. 1918. Form 5.R.. No. Phil. G. 5. No. Code of Commerce Provisions CHAPTER XI – AVERAGES 1. 1955. Other Rules 5. No. March 10. No. Concepts a. CA. January 16. American Home Assurance vs. Error in Extremis 2. Duruelo et al. G. No.R. 4510. September 30. vs. G. The United States vs. G. Limited Liability Rule a. 8325. vs. May 5. Insurers ii. 94149. Specific Rules i. Lopez vs. Protest 6. Third Person at Fault 4. Examples of General Average c. Definition b. October 22. No. Islands vs. One Vessel at Fault ii.R. CA. f. C. No. Verzosa vs. 1876. Sacrifice must be successful iv. Gov. Agan. 1992.
Arrival Under Stress a. September 16. L-10019. No. Elements of Valid Claims a.R. Shipwrecks a. Steps c. 1967. Expenses iii. G.R. Liability of Captain 2. No.R. 1918 d. L-15871. L-5458. Constitutional Provisions 3. L-25047 and L-25050. 1953. March 29. When improper ii. vs. Fernandez vs. Bases of Regulation 5. AG & P Co. Extent of Application 3. March 18. 1916. Thompson & Co. vs. Uchida Kisen Kaisha. b. Pujalte & Co. Discrimination c. 12475. vs.R.R.R. G. Regulatory Agencies 4. Definition and Concept 3. August 10. G. G.L-24515. L-3488. Governing Law 2. vs. March 21. Regulation of Rates a. PSC. 1912 b. Compania Maritime. 7294. f. Salvage Law a. Co. Ownership of Public Utilities 6. No. Abandonment 4. Standard of Fixing Rates . Luzon Stevedoring Co. G. Code of Commerce Provisions i. L-12475. Wallace vs.R. G. Rights and Obligations 6. G. March 22. Definition b. e.R. Urrutia & Co. November 18. c. The Pasign Steamer & Lighter Co. History 2. 1921. 1907. No. Basis for Entitlement 5. The Ship “ALTA” G. The Manila Railroad Co. No. Nos. Macandray & Co. 1967. No. CHAPTER XV – CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA 1. No. Non-delegation 1. G. Code of Commerce Provision CHAPTER XIV – SALVAGE Page 7 Transportation Law Case Digests 1. No. American Ins.1. G. March 21. The Law a. 2. Custody of Cargo iv. 1918. CS Robinson et al vs. American Steamship. Concepts a.R. Definition b. vs. Ang vs. November 7. PART III – PUBLIC UTILITIES CHAPTER XVI – PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATIONS 1. Domestic Shipping Rates b.
1988. October 18. Policies ii. 1987. c. G. CA. NTC. 88404. March 18. Philippine Coast Guard a. Pantranco South Express. CHAPTER XVII – POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES Page 8 1. d. 1992. San Pablo vs. Responsibilities 1. Policies b. Power of NTC b. August 21. 1990. Transfer of CPC f.R. Delineation of Functions 8. Civil Areonautics Board a. L-61461. Department of Transportation and Communication Transportation Law Case Digests 2. No. G. Land Transportation Office 4. No. No. Nature of CPC d. 100727.R. G. When CPC is not Required e. PSC. Ausejo. Manzanal vs. Definitions b. Maritime Industry Authority 7. PLDT vs. L-34978. LTFRB 2. b. Ports Authority a.1. Phil. Provisional Increase 7. Franchise and CPC b.R. Issuance of CPC 1. Power of PPA 9. No. Telecommunications i. Vs. 164 SCRA 36. Cogeo-Cubao Operators & Drivers Ass. Factors to Consider 1. Authority to Operate a. National Telecommunications Commission a. Inc. Air Transportation Office 6. February 26. Definitions iii. Objectives and Powers b. de Lat vs. Revocation of CPC 8. G. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board 3.R. Due Process a. Vda. Page 9 Transportation Law Case Digests . Basic Requirements c. Powers and Duties 5.