TRANSPORTATION LAW SYLLABUS

XAVIER UNIVERSITY
C.C.Castaños

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Definition of Contract of Transportation
a. What is a contract according to Article 1305 of the New Civil Code?
b. What is a contract of transportation?
c. Contract of Carriage involves carriage of goods and carriage of passengers;
2. Parties to the contract
a. Who are the parties in a carriage of passengers?
b. Baliwag Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 80447. January

: 31, 1989);
c. Sps. Fabre vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 111127. July 26, 1996)
d. Who are the parties in a carriage of goods?
e. Is a consignee a party to the contract of carriage of goods? What are the
exceptions?

:
f. Everett Steamship Corporation vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 122494.
October 8, 1998);
g. MOF Company, Inc. vs. Shin Yang Brokerage Corporation. (G.R. No. 172822.
December 18, 2009)
3. Perfection of the contract of carriage
a. What are the two types of contracts of transportation of passenger?
- What are the differences between a Contract to Carry and a Contract of
Carriage/Common Carriage
b. Is a contract to carry binding already?
c. British Airways vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 92288. February 9, 1993);

÷
d. When is a contract of carriage of goods perfected?
e. Mauro Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. L-48757. May 30, 1988;
f. Control and Possession principle.
g. Compania Maritima vs. Insurance Company of North America. G.R. No. L-
18965. October 30, 1964;
h. In common carriage, is a written contract an essential requirement?
i. Korean Airlines Co. ltd. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 114061. August 3,

: 1994.);
j. What is the Continuing Offer Rule?
k. Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 95582.
October 7, 1991);
l. Jesusa vda. De Nueca vs. The Manila Railroad Company. (CA-G.R. No.
31731. January 30, 1968.);
m. LRTA vs. Marjorie Navidad. (G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003);

:
4. Common Carrier
a. Article 1732 of the New Civil Code.
b. De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-47822. December 22, 1988);
 c. Is a Common Carrier doing a Public Service as defined by the Public Service
Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416)?
5. Tests to determine whether a carrier is common or private
a. First Philippine Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No.

= 125948. December 29, 1998);

b. National Steel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112287. December
12, 1997);
c. Bascos vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993);
% d. Sps. Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, Inc. (G.R. No. 186312. June 29, 2010);
e. Sps. Perena vs. Sps. Nicolas. (G.R. No. 157917. August 29, 2012);
f. Republic Act No. 10068;
6. Characteristics of a Common Carrier

g
a. De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-4782. December 22, 1988);
b. First Philippine Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No.
125948. December 29, 1998);

e
c. Asia Lighterage and Shipping Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 147246.
August 19, 2003);

et
d. Sps. Fabre vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 111127. July 26, 1996);
e. Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. The Public Service Commission. (G.R. No. L-
5458. September 16, 1953)
f. Sps. Perena vs. Sps. Nicolas. (G.R. No. 157917. August 29, 2012);
g. Westwind Shipping Corporation vs. UCPB General Insurance. (G.R. Nos.
200289 and 200314. November 25, 2013);

ph. Virgines Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance (G.R. No. 148496. March 19,
2002);
i. Does a Common Carrier need a vehicle to operate a contract of carriage?
7. Effect of Charter Parties

ja
a. Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No.
102316. June 30, 1997);
b. Coastwise Lighterage Corp. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 114167. July 12,
1995);
c. Loadstar Shipping Co. Inc. vs. Pioneer Asia Insurance Corp. (G.R. No.
157481. January 24, 2006);

%
d. Caltex Philippines vs. Sulpicio Lines. (G.R. No. 131166. September 30, 1999)
e. Planters Products, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 10153. September 15,
1993); then distinguish this from Home Insurance Co. vs. American
Steamship Agencies, Inc.A (G.R. No. L-25599. April 4, 1968);
8. Common Carriers distinguished from Private Carriers
a. Crisostomo vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 138334. August 25, 2003);
A b. Vlasons Shipping vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-112350. December 12,
1997);
c. Planters Products, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 10153. September 15,

% 1993);
d. Sps. Perena vs. Sps. Nicolas. (G.R. No. 157917. August 29, 2012);
e. Philippine American General Insurance Company vs. PKS Shipping
Company. (G.R. No. 149038. April 9, 2003);
 f. Can a Common Carrier have only one client?
g. Malayan Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Philippine First Insurance Co. Inc. (G.R. No.
a
184300. July 11, 2012;
h. What is the difference between a Common Carrier and a Private Carrier?
9. Common Carriers distinguished from other contracts
a. How is a contract of carriage different from a contract of towage?
b. How is a contract of carriage different from a arrastre contracts?
c. How is a contract of carriage different from a stevedoring contracts?
10. Hierarchy/Summary of Laws governing Transportation
a. Article 1753 of the New Civil Code;
b. Article 1766 of the New Civil Code;
c. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. The Nisshim Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (G.R.

÷
No. L-71478. May 29, 1987);
d. National Development Company vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. Nos. L-49407
and L-49469. August 19, 1988.);
e. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. vs. Neptune Orient Lines. (G.R. No.
145044. June 12, 2008);
f. Philam Insurance Company vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation. (G.R. Nos.
-

187701 and 187812. July 23, 2014);

et
g. Alitalia vs. IAC. (G.R. No. 71929. December 4, 1990);
h. Mapa vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 122308. July 8, 1997);

£
11. Nature of Business
a. Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs. Hon. Jesus B. Garcia, jr. (G.R. No.
115381. December 23, 1994);

:
b. De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-4782. December 22, 1988)
12. Registered Owner Rule and other doctrines
a. Filcar Transport Services vs. Espinas. (G.R. No. 174156. June 20, 2012)
b. Gaudioso Erezo vs. Aguedo Jepte. (G.R. No. L-9605. September 30, 1957)
c. Equitable Leasing Corporation vs. Lucita Suyon. (G.R. No. 143360.

%
September 5, 2002);
d. Duavit vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 82318. May 19, 1989);
e. Duquillo vs. Bayot (G.R. No. 45080. April 3, 1939);
f. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. UCPB General Insurance, Inc. (G.R. No.
162267. July 4, 2008);
• g. Tamayo vs. Aquino. (G.R. Nos. L-12634 and L-12720. May 29, 1959);
h. Explain the Kabit System.
• i. Abelardo Lim vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 125817. January 16, 2002.);
j. Baliwag Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 80447. January
/ 24
31, 1989);
k. Concept of ex pacto illicito non oritur action in Kabit System; Can it be invoked
by the parties?
orl. Lita Enterprises vs. IAC. (G.R. No. 64693. April 27, 1984);
m. What is the Boundary System in Land Transportation?
53
• n. Hernandez vs. Dolor. (G.R. No. 160286. July 30, 2004);
CHAPTER 2 OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMMON CARRIER
13. Basic obligations of the carrier
- The most basic obligation of a Common Carrier is to transport safely
passengers and/or goods, using extraordinary diligence, to the agreed
destination.
a. To accept passengers and goods without discrimination;
b. To seasonably deliver the goods or bring the passenger to the destination;
c. To deliver the goods or bring the passenger to the proper place or destination;
d. To deliver the goods to the proper person;
e. The exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of its duties.
14. Duty to accept passengers and goods without discrimination
a. Take a look at the 1914 case of FC Fisher vs. Yangco Steamship. (G.R. No.
8095. November 5, 1914) and compare it to our present rules. Is there a
difference?
b. Section 16, R.A. No. 9295;
c. Section 6, Economic Regulation No. 4 issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board;
d. Par. 5, LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2011-004 (2011 Revised Terms and
Conditions of CPC, etc.);
e. In the FC Fisher case, what are the grounds for valid refusal or non-
acceptance of passengers and goods?
f. Article 356 and 357 of the Code of Commerce;
g. Section 4 and 7, R.A. No. 8485, and check R.A. No. 10631;
h. Section 4, R.A. No. 7432, as amended by R.A. 9257;
15. Duty to make timely delivery
a. The goods must be delivered within the agreed time;
b. Saludo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992);
c. Article 358 of the Code of Commerce;
d. Maersk Line vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 94761. May 19, 1993);
e. What are the consequences of delay?
f. Articles 1740 and 1747 of the New Civil Code;
g. Articles 370 to 374 of the Code of Commerce;
h. Right to Abandon;
i. Magellan Marketing Mfg. Corp. vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 95529.
August 22, 1991;
16. Place of delivery
a. Basic contract;
b. Articles 360, 712 and 713 of the Code of Commerce;
17. To whom delivered
a. Articles 368 and 369 of the Code of Commerce;
b. What happens if there is a conflict between the shipper and the consignee?
c. Mendoza vs. Philippine Airlines. (G.R. No. L-3678. February 29, 1952);
d. Article 1311, New Civil Code;
e. Article 1738 of the New Civil Code and Article 711 of the Code of Commerce;
18. Effect of delay to transport passengers
a. What does the New Civil Code say about the rights and duties of parties
arising out of delay in contracts of carriage?
b. Article 698 of the Code of Commerce;
 c. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 118126. March 4,
1996);
d. Section 3.1 to 3.4 MARINA Memorandum Circular No. 112;
19. Duty to exercise extraordinary diligence
a. Articles 1733 and 1755 of the New Civil Code;
b. Articles 363 to 365 of the Code of Commerce;
c. Meaning of Extraordinary Diligence;
d. Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. Insurance Company of North America.
(G.R. No. 168402. August 6, 2008)
e. Picart vs. Smith. (G.R. No. L-12219. March 15, 1918)
f. Tiu vs. Arriesgado. (G.R. No. 138060. September 1, 2004);
g. Compania Maritima vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-31379. August 29,
1958);
h. Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 104685. March
14, 1996);
i. Westwind Shipping Corporation vs. UCPB General Insurance CO., Inc. (G.R.
Nos. 200289 and 200314. November 25, 2013);
j. Regional Container Lines vs. The Netherlands Insurance Co. (G.R. No.
168151. September 4, 2009);
k. Mariano Jr. vs. Callejas. (G.R. No. 166640. July 31, 2009.);
l. Air France vs. Bonifacio H. Gillego. (G.R. No. 165266. December 15, 2010);
m. Articles 1735 and 1756 of the New Civil Code;
n. Belgian Overseas Chartering vs. Philippine First Insurance. (G.R. No. 143133.
June 5, 2002);
o. Tabacalera Insurance vs. North Front Shipping Services. (G.R. No. 119197.
May 16, 1997);
p. Asian Terminals vs. Simon Enterprise. (G.R. No. 177166. February 27, 2013);
q. Lu Do and Lu Ym Corp. vs. I.V. Binamira. (G.R. No. L-9840. April 22, 1957);
r. Victory Liner vs. Gammad. (G.R. No. 159636. November 25, 2004);
s. Ford Philippines vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 99039. February 3, 1997);
t. Heirs of Marcial Ochoa vs. G&S Transport Corporation. (G.R. Nos. 170071
and 170125. March 9, 2011);
u. How can the presumption be overcome?
v. Planters Products, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 10153. September 15,
1993);
w. Gacal vs. Philippine Airlines. (G.R. No. 55300. March 15, 1990);
20. Duration of duty to exercise extraordinary diligence
a. Articles 1736 to 1738 of the New Civil Code;
b. Benito Macam vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 125524. August 25, 1999);
c. Saludo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992);
d. Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-48757. May 30, 1988);
e. Republic of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Shipping Corp. (G.R. No. 153563.
February 7, 2005);
f. Exception to Article 1737 is stoppage in transitu (Articles 1530 and 1531 of the
New Civil Code);
 g. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. BPI/MS Insurance Corp. (G.R. No. 193986.
January 15, 2014);
h. Westwind Shipping Corporation vs. UCPB General Insurance CO., Inc. (G.R.
Nos. 200289 and 200314. November 25, 2013);
i. Regional Container Lines vs. The Netherlands Insurance Co. (G.R. No.
168151. September 4, 2009);
j. Lu Do and Lu Ym Corp. vs. I.V. Binamira. (G.R. No. L-9840. April 22, 1957);
k. Philippines First Insurance vs. Wallem Philippines. (G.R. No. 165647. March
26, 2009);
l. Asian Terminals vs. Philam Insurance. (G.R. Nos. 181163, 181262 and
181319. July 24, 2013);
m. Jesusa vda. De Nueca vs. The Manila Railroad Company. (CA-G.R. No.
31731. January 30, 1968.);
n. LRTA vs. Marjorie Navidad. (G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003);
o. Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 95582.
October 7, 1991);
21. Is the duty owed to third persons? (Kapalaran Bus Lines vs. Coronado. G.R. No.
85331. August 25, 1989)
- (This should be treated as an exception to the rule. Always cite this case
when answering this exception. I don’t think this will be institutionalized.)
22. Effect of stipulation on extraordinary diligence
a. Article 1748 of the New Civil Code;
b. Article 1744 of the New Civil Code;
c. Article 1733 of the New Civil Code;
d. Article 1755 of the New Civil Code;
e. Article 1758 of the New Civil Code;
23. Extraordinary diligence in carriage by sea
a. What is “Seaworthiness”?
b. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 118126. March 4,
1996);
c. Caltex vs. Sulpicio Lines. (G.R. No. 131166. September 30, 1999);
d. Vector Shipping Corp. vs. Adelfo Macasa. (G.R. No 160219. July 21, 2008);
e. Section 9 of R.A. No. 9295;
f. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. vs. Luzon Stevedoring. (G.R. No. L-5203. April 18,
-

1956);
g. What is “Cargoworthiness”?
h. Negros Navigation vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 100398. November 7,
1997);
i. Philippine Home Assurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 106999.
June 20, 1996);
j. Philippine American General Insurance vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No.
116940. June 11, 1997);
k. Article 359 of the Code of Commerce;
l. Loadstar vs. Pioneer. (G.R. No. 157481. January 24, 2006);
m. Saludo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992);
 n. Magellan Manufacturing Marketing vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 95529.
August 22, 1991);
24. Extraordinary diligence in carriage by land
a. MMDA vs. Viron Transportation. (G.R. No. 170656. August 15, 2007);
b. M.Ruiz Highway Transit vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 16086. May 29,
1964);
c. Differentiate Article 2185 from 1756 of the New Civil Code;
d. Differentiate Articles 2176, 2180 from 1759 of the New Civil Code;
e. Nocum vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company. (G.R. No. L-23733. October 31,
1969);
25. Carriage by train and railroad crossing cases
a. LRTA vs. Marjorie Navidad. (G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003);
b. Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Company. (G.R. No. L-121191. October 14,
-

1918);
c. Ma-ao Sugar Central vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 83491. August 27,
1990);
d. Brinas vs. People. (G.R. No. L-30309. November 25, 1953);
e. Philippine National Railways vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-55347.
October 4, 1985);
f. Philippine National Railways vs. Vizcara. (G.R. No. 190022. February 15,
2012);
26. Passengers’ baggage
a. Article 1754 of the New Civil Code;
b. Paragraph 21 to 24, LTFRB Memorandum Circular 2011-04;
c. Sarkies Tours vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 108897. October 2, 1997);
CHAPTER 3 OBLIGATIONS OF THE PASSENGER AND THE SHIPPER
27. Duty to exercise due diligence
- The shipper or passenger is bound by his contractual obligation. The
shipper or the carrier us bound to pay the consideration in the form of
freight or fare. In addition, the shipper and the passenger are also bound
to exercise due diligence in avoiding damage or injury.
(Aquino/Hernando 2016 ed.);
- The obligation to exercise due diligence is not limited to the carrier. The
shipper is obliged to exercise due diligence in avoiding damage to the
goods that are being shipped; or injury to his person (Ibid.);
a. Sps. Fabre vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 111127. July 26, 1996);
28. Duty to disclose
a. Saludo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992);
29. Payment of freight
a. Republic vs. Manila Electric Company. (G.R. No. 141314. November 15,
2002);
b. Article 374 of the Code of Commerce;
c. MARINA Memorandum Circular No. 112 dated Dacember 15, 1995, Par. IV,
A(2), A(3), B(1.1, 1.2 and 1.3) and B(2.4) and Par. III (2, 6 and 10);
d. Article 375 of the Code of Commerce;
 e. Who pays for the freight?
30. Timely loading and unloading
a. Article 1738 of the New Civil Code;
b. Article 711 of the Code of Commerce;
c. Magellan Manufacturing Marketing vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 95529.
August 22, 1991);
d. What is a Shipper’s Load and Count?
e. Philam Insurance Company vs. Heung-A Shipping Corp. (G.R. Nos. 187701
and 187812. July 23, 2014);
f. Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No.
80256. October 2, 1992);
g. Amparo Servando vs. Philippine Steam Navigation. (G.R. Nos 36481-2.
October 23, 1982);
31. Duty of passengers
a. De Prado vs. Manila Electric Co. (G.R. No. 29462. March 7, 1929);
b. Air France/KLM Air France vs. John Anthony de Camilis. (G.R. No. 188961.
October 13, 2009);
c. Crisostomo vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 138334. August 25, 2003);
d. Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 123238. September 22,
2008);
e. Part 8, Section 8.9.1.1, CAAP Civil Aviation Regulations;
CHAPTER 4 DEFENSES OF THE COMMON CARRIER
32. Kinds of defenses
33. Proximate Causation
a. Calalas vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 122039. May 31, 2000);
b. Article 1439 of the New Civil Code;
c. Article 1741 of the New Civil Code;
d. Article 1762 of the New Civil Code;
34. Defenses in the Carriage of Goods
a. Article 1734 of the New Civil Code;
b. Article 1742 of the New Civil Code;
c. Article 1743 of the New Civil Code;
d. Philippine Charter Insurance s. Unknown owner of vessel M/V Honor. (G.R.
No. 161833. July 8, 2005);
35. Fortuitous Events
a. Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 147246.
August 19, 2003);
b. Lasam vs. Smith. (G.R. No. 19495. February 2, 1924);
c. What are the requisites of Fortuitous Event?
d. Article 1174 of the New Civil Code;
e. Article 1739 of the New Civil Code;
f. Southern College vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 126389. July 10, 1998);
g. Maersk Line vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 94761. May 17, 1993);
h. Philippine American General Insurance vs. PKS Shipping. (G.R. No. 149038.
April 9, 2003);
 i. Justice Moreland dissenting opinion in Tan Chiong Sian vs. Inchausti. (G.R.
No. 6092. March 8, 1912.);
j. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. Intermediate Appellate Court. (G.R. No. L-69044.
May 29, 1987);
k. Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Line vs. UCPB General Insurance. (G.R. No.
146018. June 25, 2003);
l. Central Shipping vs. Insurance Co. of N.A. (G.R. No. 150751. September 20,
2004);
m. De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 101503. September 15, 1993);
n. Bascos vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993);
o. Necesito vs. Paras. (G.R. No. L-10605. June 30, 1958);
p. Alberta and Yobido vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 113003, October 17, 1997);
q. Coca-Cola vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 110295. October 18, 1993);
r. Juntilla vs. Fontanar. (G.R. No. L-45637. May 31, 1985);
s. What is barratry? Is it considered a fortuitous event?
36. Public Enemy
a. Should actually be in a State of War. Exceptions are pirates and terrorists
who are considered as enemies of all civilized nations and humanity.
(Tolentino);
b. The act of the public enemy should be the proximate and only cause of the
loss;
37. Nature of goods and improper packing
a. Article 1742 of the New Civil Code;
b. Article 2002 of the New Civil Code;
c. Asian Terminals vs. Simon Enterprises. (G.R. No. 177116. February 27, 2013);
d. Philippine Charter Insurance s. Unknown owner of vessel M/V Honor. (G.R.
No. 161833. July 8, 2005);
e. Southern Lines vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-16629. January 31, 1962);
f. A.F. Sanchez Brokerage vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 147079. December
21, 2004);
g. Virgines Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance. (G.R. No. 148496. March 19,
2002);
h. Belgian Overseas Chartering vs. Philippine First Insurance. (G.R. No. 143133.
June 5, 2002);
i. Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance. (G.R. No. 148496. March 19, 2002);
38. Order of the public authority
a. Article 1743 of the New Civil Code;
b. Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-48757. May 30, 1988);
39. Defenses in Carriage of Passengers
a. Article 1763 of the New Civil Code;
- The primary defense of the carrier in transporting passengers is exercise of
extraordinary diligence.
40. Acts of employees
a. Article 1759 of the New Civil Code;
b. Silverio Marchan vs. Arseno Mendoza. (G.R. No. 24471. August 30, 1968);
c. Maranan vs. Perez. G.R. No. L-22272. June 26, 1967);
 d. Yu Con vs. Ipil. (G.R. No. L-10195. December 26, 1916)
41. Acts of other passengers and third persons
a. Article 1763 of the New Civil Code;
b. MRR vs. Ballesteros. (G.R. No. 19161. April 29, 1966);
c. Bacarro vs. Castano. (G.R. No. 34597. November 5, 1982);
d. Oligario Brito Sy vs. Malate Taxicab and Garage. (G.R. No. 8937. November
29, 1957);
e. Bachelor Express vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 85691. July 31, 1990);
f. Pilapil vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 52159. December 22, 1989);
g. Fortune express vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 119756. March 18, 1999);
42. Acts of the shipper or the passenger
a. Article 1734 of the New Civil Code;
b. Doctrine of Contributory Negligence;
c. Article 1741 of the New Civil Code;
d. Article 1761 of the New Civil Code;
e. Article 1762 of the New Civil Code;
f. Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping vs. Borja. (G.R. No. 143008. June 10, 2002);
g. Sealoader Shipping Corp. vs. Grand Cement Manufacturing. (G.R. Nos.
167363 and 177466. December 15, 2010);
h. Nicolas Cervantes vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 125138. March 2, 1999);
i. Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences;
j. Article 2203 of the New Civil Code;
k. Japan Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 118664. August 7, 1998)
l. Calalas vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 122039. May 31, 2000);
m. Article 1757 of the New Civil Code;
n. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance;
o. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. Intermediate Appellate Court. (G.R. Nos.
66102-04. August 30, 1990);
p. Tiu vs. Arriesgado. (G.R. No. 138060. September 1, 2004);
q. Bustamante vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. no. 89880. February 6, 1991);
43. Notice of claim and prescription
a. Philippine American General Insurance vs. Sweetlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 87434.
August 5, 1992);
b. Article 366 of the Code of Commerce;
c. UCPB General Insurance vs. Aboitiz Shipping. (G.R. No. 168433. Febraury
10, 2009)
d. Lorenzo Shipping vs. Chubb and Sons. (G.R. No. 147742. June 8, 2004);
e. Roldan vs. Lim Ponzo. (G.R. No. L-11325. December 7, 1917);
f. Southern Lines vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-16629. January 31, 1962);
g. Triton Insurance vs. Angel Jose. (G.R. Nos. L-10381 and 10714. January 14,
1916);
h. Article 376 of the Code of Commerce;
i. Section 3, Paragraph 6 of the COGSA;
j. Belgian Overseas Chartering vs. Philippine First Insurance. (G.R. No. 143133.
June 5, 2002);
k. E.E. Elser vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-6517. November 29, 1954);
 l. In overland transportation and coastwise shipping, Articles 1144 and 1145 is
applicable;
m. Asian Terminals vs. Philam Insurance. (G.R. No. 181163. July 24, 2013)
n. Insurance Company of North America vs. Asian Terminals. (G.R. No. 180784.
February 15, 2012);
o. Domingo Ang vs. Compania Maritima. (G.R. No. L-30805. December 26,
1984);
p. Mitsui vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 119571. March 11, 1998);
q. Vector Shipping vs. American Home Assurance. (G.R. No. 159213. July 3,
2013);
r. Federal Express vs. American Home Assurance. (G.R. No. 150094. August
18, 2004);
CHAPTER 5 BILL OF LADING AND OTHER FORMALITIES
44. Concepts and definition
a. Ace Navigation vs. FGU Insurance Corporation. (G.R. No. 171591. June 25,
2012);
b. Interprovincial Autobus Co. vs. Collector and Perez. (G.R. No. L-6741.
January 31, 1956);
c. Mindanao Bus vs C.I.R. (G.R. L-14078. February 24, 1961);
45. Kinds and nature of Bills of Lading and when it is effective
a. What are the different kinds of Bills of Lading?
b. Lorenzo Shipping vs. Chubb and Sons. (G.R. No. 147742. June 8, 2004);
c. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. BPI/MS Insurance Corp. (G.R. No. 193986.
January 15, 2014);
d. Magellan Manufacturing Marketing vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 95529.
August 22, 1991);
e. Samar Mining vs. Nordeutscher Lloyd. (G.R. No. L-28673. October 23, 1984);
46. Bill of Lading as a Contract
a. Interprovincial Autobus Co. vs. Collector and Perez. (G.R. No. L-6741.
January 31, 1956);
b. MOF Company vs. Shin Yang Brokerage. (G.R. No 172822. December 18,
2009;
c. Keng Hua Paper vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 116863. February 12, 1998);
d. Sweet Lines vs. Teves. (G.R. No. L-37750. May 19, 1978);
e. Fieldman Insurance vs. Vargas. (G.R. No. L-24833. September 23, 1968);
f. Article 24 of the New Civil Code;
g. Provident Insurance vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 118030. January 15, 2004;
h. Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-40597. June 29, 1979);
i. Servando vs. Philippines Steam Navigation Co. (G.R. No. L-36481-2. October
23, 1982);
j. Articles 353 and 709 of the Code of Commerce;
k. Peralta de Guerrero vs. Madrigal Shipping. (G.R. No. L-12951. November 17,
1959);
l. Philippine American General Insurance vs. Sweetlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 87434.
August 5, 1992);
 m. Bislig Bay Lumber vs. C.I.R. (G.R. No. L-13186. January 28, 1961)
n. Western Mindanao Lumber Development. (G.R. No. L-11710. June 30, 1958);
o. Articles 1503 and 1523 of the New Civil Code;
p. Behn, Meyer & Co vs. Yangco. (G.R. No. 13203. September 18, 1918);
q. Article 350 of the Code of Commerce;
r. Article 706-707, 710-718 of the Code of Commerce;
47. Prohibited and limiting stipulations
a. H.E. Heacock Company vs. Macondray & Company. (G.R. No. 16598.
October 3, 1921);
b. Article 1745 to 1750 of the New Civil Code;
c. Article 1752 of the New Civil Code;
d. Shewaram vs. Philippine Airlines. (G.R. No. L-20099. July 7, 1966);
e. Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-40597. June 29, 1979);
48. Bill of Lading as a receipt
a. Saludo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992);
b. What is a “Said Weight” clause?
c. International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee &
Assurance (G.R. No. 134514. December 8, 1999)
d. Wallem Philippines Shipping vs. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance (G.R. No
152158. February 7, 2003);
e. Asian Terminals vs. Simon Enterprises. (G.R. No. 177116. February 27, 2013)
49. Bill of Lading as a Document of Title
50. Negotiability of a Bill of Lading and its effect
a. Article 1507 to 1510 of the New Civil Code;
b. Article 1513 and 1515 of the New Civil Code;
c. Article 708 of the Code of Commerce;
d. Article 38 of the Negotiable Instruments Law;
e. Philippine Trust Corporation vs. National Bank. (G.R. No. 16483. December
7, 1921);
f. National Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. Nos. L-49407 and L-
49469. August 19, 1988);
CHAPTER 6 ACTIONS AND DAMAGES IN CASES OF BREACH
51. Distinctions between Culpa Contractual and Culpa Aquiliana and Culpa Delicto
a. Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Company. (G.R. No. L-12191. October 14, 1918);
52. Concurrent Causes of Actions
a. Francisco Viluan vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. Nos. 21477-81. April 29, 1966)
b. Paulan vs. Sarabia. (G.R. No. L-10542. July 31, 1958);
c. MMTC vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 116617. November 16, 1998);
d. Fabre vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 111127, July 26, 1996);
53. Elements of Cause of Actions against the Carrier
a. Articles 1735 and 1756 of the New Civil Code;
b. What is a cause of action?
c. What are the three essential elements of a cause of action?
54. Recoverable Damages
a. Article 2201 of the New Civil Code;
 b. Sarkies Tours Philippines vs. Intermediate Appellate Court. (G.R. No. 63723.
September 2, 1983);
c. Article 2197 of the New Civil Code;
d. Articles 2199, 2200 and 2205 of the New Civil Code;
e. PNOC Shipping vs. Court or Appeals. (G.R. No. 107518. October 8, 1988)
f. Article 372 of the Code of Commerce;
g. Philam Insurance vs. Heung-A Shipping Corporation. (G.R. Nos. 187701 and
187812. July 23, 2014);
h. Article 2206 of the New Civil Code;
i. Renato Ong vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 117103. January 21, 1999);
j. Victory Liner vs. Heirs of Andres Malecdan. (G.R. No. 154278. December 27,
2002);
k. Gregorio Pestano vs. Sps. Paz. (G.R. No. 139875. December 4, 2000);
l. Villa Rey Transit vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-25499. February 18, 1970);
m. Fortune express vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 119756. March 18, 1999);
n. Dangwa Trans. Co. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 95582. October 7, 1991);
o. People vs. Arnel Mataro. (G.R. No. 130378. March 8, 2001);
p. MMTC vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. Nos. 116617 and 126395. November 16,
1998);
q. Sera vs. Mumar. (G.R. No. 193861. March 14, 2012);
r. Article 2208 of the New Civil Code;
s. Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 123238. September 22,
2008);
t. Philtranco Service vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 120553. June 17, 1997);
u. Malong vs. PNR (G.R. No. L-49930. August 5, 1985);
v. Gloria Darrocha de Caliston vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 63135. June 24,
1983);
w. Cathay Pacific Airways vs. Juanita Reyes. (G.R. No. 185891. June 26, 2013);
x. Expert Travel & Tours vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 130030. June 25, 1999);
y. Ortigas Jr. vs. Lufthansa German Airlines. (G.R. No. L-28773. June 30, 1975);
z. Heirs of Jose Marcial Ochoa vs. G&S Transport Corporation. (G.R. Nos.
170071 and 170125. March 9, 2011);
aa. Air France vs. Bonifacio Gillego. (G.R. No. 165266. December 15, 2010);
bb. Zulueta vs. Pan American World Airways. (G.R. No. L-28589. February 29,
1972);
cc. Zamboanga Trans. Co. vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. L-25292. November
29, 1969);
dd.Articles 2221 to 2225 and Articles 2232 to 2235 of the New Civil Code;
CHAPTER 7 THE AIRCRAFT AND CIVIL AVIATION
a. Jose Mendoza vs. Philippine Airlines. GR No. L-3678, February 29, 1952;

55. Applicable Laws;

a. RA 9497;
b. Civil Aviation Regulations issued by the Civil Aviation Authority of the
Philippines (CAAP);
 c. RA 776;
d. Treaties and Conventions;
56. Civil Aviation;
a. Section 3, Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008;
57. Registration of Aircraft;
a. Article 18 and 20, Chapter III, Chicago Convention (Convention of
International Civil Aviation);
b. Section 43 to 48 and 54, Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008;
c. Part 4, Civil Aviation Regulations;
58. Air Transportation in General and the persons involved in Air Transportation;
a. RA 9497;
b. CAB Economic Regulation No. 8;
c. Difference between CAB and CAAP;
59. Charter of Aircraft;
a. CAB Economic Regulation No. 2, 4 and 5;
60. Sovereignty and Air Freedoms;
a. What is ICAO and what is its relevance in Air Transportation;
b. What are the “Freedoms of the Air”?
c. Explain the IATA;
d. Kuwait Airways vs. Philippine Airlines. GR No. 156087;
CHAPTER 8 OBLIGATIONS OF CARRIER IN AIR TRANSPORTATION
61. Extraordinary Diligence in Air Transportation;
a. Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. GR No. L-46558, July 31, 1981;
b. Abeto vs. Philippine Airlines. July 30, 1982. 115 SCRA 489;
c. CAAP Civil Aviation Regulations;
62. Care of baggage;
a. Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. GR No. 119706, March 14, 1996;
b. United Airlines vs. Uy. GR No. 127768, November 19, 1999;
c. Northwest Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. GR Nos. 120334 and 120337,
January 20, 1998;
d. Cathay Pacific vs. Court of Appeals. GR No. 60501, March 5, 1993;
e. Luna vs. Court of Appeals. GR No. 100374, November 27, 1992;
f. Pan American Airways vs. Intermediate Appellate Court. 164 SCRA 268;
g. Pan American World Airways vs. Rapadas. GR No. 60673, May 19, 1992;
h. Lufthansa German Airlines vs. IAC. GR No. 71238, March 19, 1992;
i. Philippine Airlines vs. Miano. GR No. 106664, March 8, 1995;
j. Air France vs. Gillego. GR No. 165266, December 15, 2010;
k. CAAP Civil Aviation Regulations
63. Duty to Passenger
a. Saludo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals. GR No. 95536, March 23, 1992;
b. Cathay Pacific Airways vs. Sps. Vazquez. GR No. 150843, March 14, 2003;
c. Air France vs. Gillego. GR No. 165266, December 15, 2010;
d. Lopez vs. Pan American World Airways. March 30, 1996. 16 SCRA 431;
e. Ortigas, Jr. vs. Lufthansa German Airlines. June 30, 1975. 64 SCRA 610;
f. Trans World Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. GR No. 78656, August 30, 1988;
 g. Air France vs. Carrascoso. GR No. L-21438, September 28, 1966;
h. Zulueta vs. Pan American World Airways. GR No. L-28589, February 29, 1972
and January 8, 1973;
i. Armovit vs. Court of Appeals. GR No. 88561, April 20, 1990;
j. Philippine Airlines vs. Bagadiong. GR No. GR Nos. 50504-05, August 13,
1990;
k. Korean Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. 154 SCRA 211 (1987);
l. Philippine Airlines vs. Savillo. GR No. 149547, July 4, 2008;
m. China Airlines vs. Chiok. GR No. 152122, July 30, 2003;
n. Savellano vs. Northwest Airlines. GR No. 60673, May 19, 1992;
o. Philippine Airlines vs. Vicente Lopez, Jr. GR No. 156654, November 20, 2008;
p. Japan Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. GR No. 118664, August 7, 1998;
q. Singapore Airlines vs. Fernandez. GR No. 142305, December 10, 2003;
r. Northwest Airlines vs. Catapang. GR No. 174364, July 30, 2009;
s. Air France Philippines vs. De Camilis. GR No. 1889651, October 13, 2009;
t. Northwest Airlines vs. Heshan. GR No. 179117, February 3, 2010;
u. Northwest Airlines vs. Chiong. GR No. 155550, January 31, 2008;
v. United Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. GR No. 124110, April 20, 2001;
w. Economic Regulation No. 7 of the CAB;
x. DOTC-DTI joint administrative order no. 1 s. 2012;
y. Economic Regulation No. 9 of the CAB;
64. Inspection of Aircraft;
a. RA 6235;
b. Section 38 and 39, RA 9497;
c. Northwest Airlines vs. Laya. GR No. 146020, May 29, 2002;
d. Nocum vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (G.R. No. L-23733, Oct. 31, 1969) is
not applicable when an aircraft is involved. Unlike buses or jeepneys,
passengers and goods in aircrafts are subject to rigorous inspections under
the above-quoted law (Aquino/Hernando);
CHAPTER 9 THE WARSAW CONVENTION
65. Binding effect and constitutionality
66. Purposes and Coverage
67. Meaning of International Transportation
68. Period covered by International Transportation
69. When International Transportation is liable
70. Limitations of liability
71. Tort liability
72. Venue of Actions
73. Notice of Claim or Complaint
74. Prescription
75. Successive Carriers
76. Formalities
CHAPTER 10 MARITIME LAW; GENERAL CONCEPTS
77. Maritime Law; Definition
 78. Real and Hypothecary Nature
79. Protests
80. Admiralty Jurisdiction
CHAPTER 11 VESSELS
81. Definition
82. Construction, Equipment and Manning
83. Vessel as a Personal Property
84. Acquisition
85. Nationality and Registration of Vessels
86. Ship’s Manifest and Logbook
87. Safety Regulations
88. Cabotage
CHAPTER 12 SHIP MORTGAGE AND MARITIME LIENS
CHAPTER 13 PERSONS WHO TAKE PART IN MARITIME COMMERCE
89. Liability of Ship Owners and Ship Agents
90. Part Owners
91. Powers and Functions of Ship Agent
92. Captains and Masters of Vessels
93. Officers and Crew of Vessels
94. Minimum Safe Manning
95. Security of Tenure
CHAPTER 14 CHARTER PARTIES
96. Definition
97. Different Kinds of Charter Parties
98. Effect of Charter on Character of Carrier
99. Persons who may make a Charter
100. Requisites of a valid charter party
101. Freight and Demurrage
102. Rights and Obligations of the Charter Parties
103. Effect of Bill of Lading
104. Code of Commerce Provisions
CHAPTER 15 LOANS ON BOTTOMRY AND RESPONDENTIA
105. Definitions and Concept
106. Distinguished from Simple Loan
107. Authority to constitute Loans on Bottomry and Respondentia
108. Consequence of Loss of Effects of the Loans
109. Preference
CHAPTER 16 AVERAGES
110. Averages in General
111. Simple and General Averages
112. Requisites of General Averages
113. Who bears General Averages
 114. Effect of Negligence
115. Proof and Liquidation of Averages
116. York-Antwerp Rules
CHAPTER 17 COLLISIONS
117. Definition
118. Zones of Collision
119. Error in Extremis
120. Collision Regulations
121. Rules on Liability
122. Contributory Negligence and Last Clear Chance
123. Specific Rules on Fault
124. Presence of Pilots
125. Extent of Liability
126. Collision in Foreign Waters
127. Protests
128. Limited Liability Rule
CHAPTER 18 ARRIVALS UNDER STRESS AND SHIPWRECKS
CHAPTER 19 SALVAGE AND THE SALVAGE LAW
129. Governing Law and Definition
130. Rationale
131. Kinds of Salvages
132. Claim for valid salvage
133. Basis of Entitlement to Salvage Reward
134. Rights and Obligations of Salvors and Owners
CHAPTER 20 CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT
CHAPTER 21 PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATIONS
135. Concept
136. Constitutional Provisions
137. Regulatory Agencies
138. Bases of Regulations of Public Utilities
139. Ownership of Public Utilities
140. Take-over of Public Utilities
141. Monopolies and Unfair Competition
142. Regulations of Rates
143. Authority to Operate as Public Utility
144. Transfer, Revocation and Cancellation of Certificate
145. Transfer of Shares of Stock
CHAPTER 22 POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
146. Rule-Making and Quasi-Judicial Functions
147. Specific Agencies