FRANCISCO, MARY JOY RUBECCA B.

JD- III
TRANSPORTATION LAW

SPOUSES HIPOLITO DALEN, SR. AND FE G. DALEN, EVERLISTA

LARIBA AND THE MINOR BEVERLY T. LARIBA, MAGDALENA F.
MARPAGA AND THE MINORS MIKE ANTHONY AND THOMIE MAE,
BOTH SURNAMED MARPAGA, AGNES C. MOLINA AND THE MINORS
SHEILA, SIMOUN, STEPHEN JOHN AND SHARON ANN, ALL
SURNAMED MOLINA, EMMA C. NAVARRO AND THE MINORS
RAYMOND, MARAH, AND RYAN ALL SURNAMED NAVARRO, RUTH T.
SULAM AND THE MINOR JEINAR REECE T. SULAM, PETITIONERS, v.
MITSUI O.S.K. LINES DIAMOND CAMELLA, S.A., RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 194403, July 24, 2019

Principle: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there

being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault
or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called quasi-delict.

Spouses Jesus Fernando and Elizabeth Fernando v. Northwest

Airlines, Inc., G.R. No.212038 and G.R. No. 212043, February 8,
2017
Principle: Passengers are entitled to be protected against personal
misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from the carrier’s
employees. Any rude or discourteous conduct on the part of employees
towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the
carrier.

Jose Sanico and Vicente Castro v. Werherlina P. Colipano, G.R. No.

209969, September 27, 2017
Principle: Since the cause of action is based on a breach of a contract of
carriage, the liability of the owner is direct as the contract is between him
and the passenger. The driver cannot be made liable as he is not a party to
the contract of carriage.

SULPICIO LINES, INC. v. NAPOLEON SESANTE, G.R. NO. 172682, July

27, 2016

Principle: Clearly, the trial court is not required to make an express finding
of the common carrier's fault or negligence. The presumption of negligence
applies so long as there is evidence showing that: (a) a contract exists
between the passenger and the common carrier; and (b) the injury or death
took place during the existence of such contract. In such event, the burden
shifts to the common carrier to prove its observance of extraordinary
diligence, and that an unforeseen event or force majeure had caused the
injury. However, for a common carrier to be absolved from liability in case of
force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was caused by a fortuitous
event. The common carrier must still prove that it did not contribute to the
occurrence of the incident due to its own or its employees' negligence.

ALFREDO S. RAMOS v. CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CO. LTD., G.R.

No. 213418, September 21, 2016
Principle: When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed on a
particular flight, on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises, and the
passenger has every right to expect that he would fly on that flight and on
that date. If that does not happen, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for
breach of contract of carriage. In an action based on a breach of contract of
carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common
carrier was at fault or was negligent. All he has to prove is the existence of
the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier, through the
latter's failure to carry the passenger to its destination

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD. V. SPOUSES ARNULFO, G. R. No.

188283, July 20, 2016
Principle: In Air France v. Gillego, the Court ruled that in an action based on
a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove
that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent; all that he has to
prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its nonperformance by
the carrier. In this case, both the trial and appellate courts found that
respondents were entitled to First Class accommodations under the contract
of carriage, and that petitioner failed to perform its obligation
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Karaan, G.R. No. 208590, October 3, 2018

Principle: "Exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to permit the
courts to reshape behavior that is socially deleterious in its consequence by
creating negative incentives or deterrents against such behavior." Verily, the
above-mentioned conduct, from the Captain and Crew of a common carriers
should be corrected. They carry not only cargo, but are in charge of the lives
of its passengers. In this case, their recklessness cost the loss of 150 lives.
Considering the foregoing, this Court finds that the CA properly imposed
exemplary damages.
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. (ATI) v. PADOSON STAINLESS STEEL
CORPORATION, G.R. No. 211876, FIRST DIVISION, June 25, 2018,
TIJAM, J.
Principle: The Respondent Padoson failed to prove that its shipment
sustained damage while in ATI's custody. Although Padoson presented
photographs as proofs of failure of ATI to exercise extraordinary diligence,
the said photographs were not pre-marked as evidence. The RTC had
already ruled that the photographs were inadmissible and were not admitted
in evidence. Additionally, the sheriff's declaration in the Sheriff's Report on
Ocular Inspection that the steel coils which were part of the shipment, were
"already in a deteriorating condition," is a mere uncorroborated conclusion
for having no evidence to back it up. There is no showing that Sheriff Diaz
had personal knowledge of the original condition of the shipment, for him to
arrive at the conclusion that it deteriorated while it was docked at ATI's
premises. Mere allegation and speculation is not evidence, and is not
equivalent to proof.
As such, there can be no basis for Padoson to claim that its shipments
deteriorated while they were in ATI's possession and custody up to the time
they were withdrawn from ATI's premises. Thus, Padoson cannot impute
negligence upon ATI.

TORRES-MADRID BROKERAGE, INC. v. FEB MITSUI MARINE

INSURANCE CO., INC.. G.R. No. 194121, July 11, 2016

Principle: A brokerage may be considered a common carrier if it also

undertakes to deliver the goods for its customers. The law does not
distinguish between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of
goods and one who undertakes this task only as an ancillary activity.

TRANSIMEX CO. v. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP., G.R. No.

190271, September 14, 2016

Principle: According to the New Civil Code, the law of the country to which
the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common
carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration. The Code takes
precedence as the primary law over the rights and obligations of common
carriers with the Code of Commerce and COGSA applying suppletorily. The
strong winds accompanying the southwestern monsoon could not be
classified as a "storm." Such winds are the ordinary vicissitudes of a sea
voyage. Strong winds and waves are not automatically deemed perils of the
sea, if these conditions are not unusual for that particular sea area at that
specific time, or if they could have been reasonably anticipated or foreseen.

Oriental Assurance Corporation v. Manuel Ong, doing business under

the business name of Western Pacific Transport Services and/or
Asian Terminals, Inc., G.R. No. 189524, October 11, 2017
Principle: The consignee's claim letter is regarded as substantial compliance
with the condition precedent set forth in the Management Contract. The
Court adopts a reasonable interpretation of the stipulations in the said
contract. It must be noted that whether JEA Steel files a claim letter or
requests for a certificate of loss or bad order examination, the effect would
be the same. Either would afford the arrastre contractor knowledge that the
shipment has been damaged and an opportunity to examine the nature and
extent of the injury

DESIGNER BASKETS, INC., v. AIR SEA TRANSPORT, INC. AND ASIA

CARGO CONTAINER LINES, INC., G.R. No. 184513, March 09, 2016
Principle: The general rule is that upon receipt of the goods, the consignee
surrenders the bill of lading to the carrier and their respective obligations are
considered canceled. Article 353 of the Code of Commerce, however,
provides two exceptions where the goods may be released without the
surrender of the bill of lading because the consignee can no longer return it.
These exceptions are when the bill of lading gets lost or for other cause. In
either case, the consignee must issue a receipt to the carrier upon the
release of the goods. Such receipt shall produce the same effect as the
surrender of the bill of lading.
Here, the buyer could not produce the bill of lading covering the shipment
not because it was lost, but for another cause: the bill of lading was retained
by the seller pending buyer's full payment of the shipment. Buyer and
carrier then entered into an Indemnity Agreement, wherein the former asked
the latter to release the shipment even without the surrender of the bill of
lading. The execution of this Agreement, and the undisputed fact that the
shipment was released to seller pursuant to it, operates as a receipt in
substantial compliance with the last paragraph of Article 353 of the Code of
Commerce.

PHIL-NIPPON KYOEI, CORP. v. ROSALIA T. GUDELOSAO, G.R. No.

181375, July 13, 2016

Principle: Based on Section 176 of the Insurance Code, casualty insurance

may cover liability or loss
arising from accident or mishap. In a liability insurance, the insurer assumes
the obligation to pay
third party in whose favor the liability of the insured arises. On the other
hand, personal accident insurance refers to insurance against death or injury
by accident or accidental means. In an accidental death policy, the accident
causing the death is the thing insured against. The Court ruled that while the
Personal Accident Policies are casualty insurance, they do not answer for
petitioner's liabilities arising from the sinking of the vessel. It is an indemnity
insurance procured by petitioner for the benefit of the seafarers. As a result,
petitioner is not directly liable to pay under the policies because it is merely
the policyholder of the Personal Accident Policies.

Tsuneishi Heavy Industries (Cebu), Inc. v. Mis Maritime Corp., G.R.

No. 193572, April 4, 2018

Principle: As we said, a maritime lien exists in accordance with the provision

of the Ship Mortgage Decree. It is enforced by filing a proceeding in court.
When a maritime lien exists, this means that the party in whose favor the
lien was established may ask the court to enforce it by ordering the sale of
the subject property and using the proceeds to settle the obligation.

PIONEER INSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION v. APL CO., PTE.

LTD., G.R. No. 226345, August 2, 2017

Strictly applying the terms of the Bill of Lading, the one-year prescriptive
period under the COGSA should govern because the present case involves
loss of goods or cargo.