Transportation Law Cases Mentioned in the book Asked in recit  Uphill jeep slid backwards; leg caught between
rds; leg caught between coconut tree and jeep;
1. Perena vs. Nicolas G.R. No. 157917 Aug 29, 2012.
 Pereñas: school bus operator (Alfaro driver); client: Aaron from Don Bosco
(parents: Zarates)
 Short cut: hit by a train (Alano driver); Aaron died
 Perenas defense: that they had exercised the diligence of a good father of
family in the selection and supervision of Alfaro,
 PNR and Perenas solidarily liable
 School bus = common carrier; private vs common
2. MOF Company, Inc. vs. Shin Yang Brokerage Corporation
 Shipment of 2nd hand cars from Korea to Manila
 Hella Trading: shipper; Hanjin trading: carrier; MOF: agent of Hanjin;
Consignee: Shin Yang
 Payment: freight collect basis
 Shin Yang refused to pay. When does consignee become party to BOL?
Agency, delivery & acceptance, stipulation pour autrui; failed to discharge
burden of proof
3. Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, G.R. No. 186312; June 29, 2010.
 Resort operator: ferry services
 Sps Cruz filed a complaint for damages for the death of their son Ruelito
who died on board a ferry owned by Sun Holidays, as part of their tour
package; boat capsized due to strong winds
 Sun Holidays: ferry services cannot be considered as a contract of carriage
(no addtl fee therefor) plus accident was fortuitous event
 Common carrier def; Principal v Ancillary Activity
 Fortuitous event requisites unavailing: negligent because of PAGASA
strorm warning signals
4. Villanueva vs Domingo, G.R. NO. 144274 Sept 20, 2004.
 A collision occurred between two lancers:
a) silver – driven by Leandro; registered in favor of Priscilla D
b) green – driven by Ocfemia; registered in favor of Villanueva
 Ocfemia was driving with expired license and positive for alcoholic breath.
Villanueva claims that he no longer owns the car since he swapped it for a
pajero owned by Albert Jaucian/Auto Palace Car Exchange.
 Registered owner rule: Villanueva still liable
5. Sanico vs. Colipano, G.R. No. 209969 September 27, 2017
 Colipano on board a jeep operated by Sanico and driven by Castro
 Sat on an empty beer case with her child on her lap
amputated
 Colipano’s leg injured while on board a jeep; presumption of negligence
applies so Sanico liable
 Only Sanico liable: contract of carriage is between them, not the driver;
diligence of good father of a family not sufficient
 Waiver not valid: requisites
6. Singapore Airlines vs. Andion Fernandez
 Fernandez popular singer asked to sing before Malaysian King and Queen
 Delayed flight from Germany to Singapore to MNL
 When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a particular flight
on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The passenger then has every
right 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 of carriage.
7. Japan Airlines vs. Asuncion GR 161730 January 28, 2005.
 Michael and Jeanette Asuncion boarded JAL for a flight from MNL to LA;
included was a stopover at Narita
 Jap immigration officials refused to issue offshore board passes so they had
to stay in a resort and were charged $400
 JAL not liable: the power to admit or not an alien into the country is a
sovereign act which cannot be interfered with even by JAL.
8. Compania Maritima vs. CA G.R. No. L-31379; August 29, 1988.
 Inaccurate weight of the payloader
 Vicente contractor for CDO Airport. Based in MNL so had to ship his
equipment, payloader among others
 the payloader fell when the swivel pin of the heel block of the port block
gave way
 Compania Maritima found that it was actually 7.5 tons and not 2.5 tons as
declared in the Bill of Lading. So, Compania Maritima denied the claim of
Vicente; Art 1734: Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods.
 Vicente’s act contributory only: reduce recovery by 80%
o Compania Maritima used only a 5-ton capacity lifiting apparatus
even though the payloader was visibly much heavier;
o crew were lax and careless in ascertaining the weight of its heavy
cargoes.
o The weight of the payloader indicated in the Bill of Lading was put
and accepted by Compania Maritima, through its company
collector.
o The weights stated in a Bill of Lading are prima facie evidence of
the amount received. The fact that the weighing was done by
 another will not relieve the common carrier where it accepted such
weight and entered it on the Bill of Lading.
9. Ramos vs. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 213418,
 Ramos brought 5 roundtrip tickets from CSA through Active Travel: from
Manila to China and back
 Day of their flight back: checked in luggage, claimed stubs, paid terminal
fees
 But prevented from taking flight: chance passengers only; paid addtl fees if
u want to board
 Ramoses refused; rented a car to HK took a PAL flight from MNL
 SC: airline issues a ticker to passenger confirmed flight doctrine
 Airline companies practice: no predeparture routine unless confirmed
passengers. Hence they were bumped off the flight
10. Sulpicio Lines vs. Sesante
 Sesante a lawyer and am member of the PNPl survived the sinking of MV
princess of the orient near Fortune Islands in Batangas
 Sulpicio lines: MV seaworthy, fortuitous event
 Sulpicio lines as carrier liable for gross negligence of captain in
maneuvering the vessel; hence fortuitous event requisites missing. Still
liable.
 Complaint for breach of contract of carriage survives even after death of
plaintiff - substitute heirs [recovery of damages for injury to
person/property]
11. LTFRB vs GV Florida
 7:20am Bus accident in mt. province; 15 died, 32 injured
 GV Florida body mark; License plate (TXT 872) actually belongs to a
different bus owned by Cue
 LTFB cancelled Cue’s CPC and suspended GV Florida’s operation of 186
buses under 28 of its CPCS for 6 months
 LTFRB has authority to revoke CPCs
 CPCs are mere privilege - paramount interest is for public safety
12. Phil- Nippon Kyoei Corp vs. Gudelosao and Tancontian
 PhilNippon purchased MV Mahlia (Roro) in Japan.
 To bring it here, PhilNippon and TMCL (foreign principal) hired Gudelosao
and Tancontian as crew members
 Mahlia sank due to extreme bad weather condition, G&T died; heirs filed
complaints with NLRC for death benefeits against PhilNippon, TMCL,
insurer, and manning agency
 PhilNippon insisting on limited liability rule
 SC: rule does not apply. Similar to species of workmen’s compensation
claims; liability created by a contract between the seafarers and their
employers
 Hence solidary liability. However, PhilNippon benefitted by quitclaim
executed by heirs without prejudice to reimbursement by those who paid
(manning agency and TMCL)
13. Pioneer Insurance and Surety vs. APL Co
 Shipment of 250 bags of chili pepper from India to Manila.
 Shipper: Chillies Export
 Consignee: BSFIL Tech
 Carrier: APL Co; M/V Wan Hai
 Insurer: Pioneer Insurance
 76 bags: wet and heavily infested with molds; unfit for human consumption
(loss)
 shipment was wet because of the water which seeped inside the
container van APL provided.
 Pioneer paid BSFIL; now seeks payment from APL
 APL: action prescribed; 9 month period under Bill of Lading
 Held: Not barred. Bill of lading xpn: contrary to any law compulsory
applicable
 Under COGSA: in case of loss or damage, period is 1 year. This applies.
14. Ace Navigation vs. FGU, G.R. No. 171591
 Shipment of Grey Portland Cement from China to Manila:
 Shipper: Cardia; agent: Ace Navigation
 Consignee Heindrich Trading
 Insurer: FGU Insurance and Pioneer Insurance (respondents)
 Shipped on board the M/V Pakarti Tiga
 Owned by Pakarti but chartered by Shinwa who in turn chartered it
with Sky, agent of Kee Yeh, which further chartered it Regency
 It was Regency that directly dealt with Heindrict
 Some bags were in bad condition
 FGU and Pioneer, as insurers, now suing AceNav as ship agent, and Cardia
for defects in Packadging AMONG OTHERS
 ACENAV: not a party to the BOL; Cardia not impleaded
 Held: NOT ship agent; mere agent of Cardia.
 Ship agent = entrusted with the provisioning of the vessel or represents
her in the port in which she may be found.
 Under CC, agent not liable for acts of principal
 Also, Cardia not impleaded
15. Manay v Cebu Air
 Jose purchased 20 CebuPac round trip tickets from Manila – Palawan  "in failing to provide the spouses with the proper assistance to avoid any
 Specified to Alou: preferred time of flight back: 415pm; tickets – 3 pages, inconvenience" and that the actuations of Northwest in both subject incidents
only first page recapped to him "fall short of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person expected of it.”
 award of moral damages in the amount of ₱3,000,000.00; exemplary
 Flight back: 9 could not board since their tickets were for the 10am flight
damages in the amount of ₱2,000,000.00.
earlier that day; rebook credit crds and dollars were not accepted
 Only 5 were able to board and the 4 were left behind
 CebuPac: possessed tickets 37 days before flight; sufficient time to check;
17. Crisostomo v. CA – travel agency
tickets’ comment section: full recap given; PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
 Estel Crisostomo – services Caravan Travel Tours; “Jewels of Europe” tour;
 SC: CEBUPAC NOT LIABLE
facilitated by her niece, Meriam
 Parol evidence rule
 On the supposed day of her flight, went to NAIA only to discover that her
 Petitioners negligent: once the ticket is paid for and printed, the
flight was scheduled the previous day; took another tour: British Pageant
purchaser is presumed to have agreed to all its terms and
conditions.
 Petitioner contends that respondent did not observe the standard of care
 Air Passenger Bill of Rights: the duty of an airline to disclose all
required of a common carrier when it informed her wrongly of the flight
the necessary information in the contract of carriage does not
schedule.
remove the correlative   obligation of the passenger to exercise
 SC: Caravan Travel tours not a common carrier; not liable
ordinary diligence in the conduct of his or her affairs. The
passenger is still expected to read through the flight information in
the contract of carriage before making his or her purchase.
18. Federal Express v. Antonino
16. Sps Fernando v Northwest Airlines  Antonino - Condo in NY
 Fernandos frequent flyers of NA; holder of Elite Platinum card; owners of  owner of condo sent checks for condo dues and taxes from PH to NY
JB Music and JB Sports; chain of hotels and apartelles thru FedEx
 Incidents: Jesus’ arrival at LA and departure from LA to join family  Consignee didn’t receive checks because FedEx delivered it to the
 Arrival – immigration asked for verification of ticket cause date reflected consignee’s neighbor instead
was August 2001;  Condo owner sues FedEx for damages
 approached Linda Puntawongchayda – merely glanced; ticket used!  FedEx Defense:
 Gave card; Linda refused to check computer;  no cause of action for failure to comply with condition precedent, ie:
 brought to Immigration Room questioned for 2 hours accused as alien; filing a written notice of claim within the 45 calendar days from the
given only a 12-day stay intead of the usual 6 months acceptance of the shipment, as stated in the Airway Bill
 Prohibited items shipped
 Departure – to Japan with complementary hotel accommodations. Given
 SC:
boarding passes; checked in luggage. 1) Condition substantially complied with: antonino given the run around by
 In the line where they were supposed to present their boarding passes, FedEX
Linda Tang pulled them outand demanded paper tickets when they only 2) Shipment considered lost for non-delivery to consignee/person
had electronic ones designated to receive them
 If u want to board, purchase new ones. Rushed to ticket counter,
assisted; printed tickets. Went back to the boarding gate, plane already 19. Tan v Great Harvest
left
 RTC awarded 200k moral, 2,000dollars actual and attys fees; Fernandos  
appealed; social standing just a token
 Northwest: moral damages exorbitant; tried their best to help Jesus and
Linda Tang followed protocls only
 SC: breach of contract of carriage with bad faith