Midterm

1. Because of spillage of the rice during the trip from Davao to Dumaguete due to
the bad condition of the sacks, there was a shortage in the rice delivered by the Armilito
Baya Lines, Inc. to the consignee Calijan John Mark Import and Export Corp. The
carrier accepted the shipment, knowing that some of the socks had holes and some had
broken string. When sued, Armilito Baya Lines, Inc. alleged that the loss was caused by
the spillage of the rice on account of the defective conditions of the socks, at the time it
received the shipment, and, therefore, it cannot be held liable. Is Armilito Baya Lines
Inc. contention valid? Decide and give reasons. (10 pts.)
Yes, I believe that Armilito Baya Lines’ contention is valid but in the court of law I
think it may not be considered. Armilito Baya Lines knew beforehand that there were
damage and defects in the sacks of rice and still they accepted to transport the goods.
Even though they knew the conditions of the goods and could conclude that they did not
cause the damage, they are still liable and not relieved from the liability of the damage.
Even if the inherent damage was caused by the defects of the goods, the courier
should’ve done something and exercise due diligence to mitigate or lessen the damage
of the goods. The law heavily favors the side of the Calijan and that’s just the way it is
and I think that is unfair. And in this case, based on the law, I believe Armilito Baya
Lines will be held liable for the damages.

2. What is the test for determining whether or not one is a common carrier? (5 pts.)
The test to determine a common carrier is "whether the given undertaking is a
part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general
public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted."
3. Villalon Julie, in Siquijor, shipped on board a vessel of Siplon Elijah, chairs to be
used in the movie house of consignee Ragay Clint, in Dumaguete. The chairs, however,
were not claimed promptly by Ragay Clint and were shipped by mistake back to
Siquijor, where it was discovered and re-shipped to Dumaguete. By the time the chairs
arrived, the date of inauguration of the movie house passed by and it had to be
postponed. Ragay Clint brought an action for damages against Siplon Elijah, claiming
loss of profits during the Christmas season when he expected the movie house to be
opened. Will Ragay Clint's case for damages prosper? Decide the case and justify your
answer. (10 pts.)
No, Ragay Clint’s case for damages will not prosper. It is not the common
carriers fault that Ragay did not promptly received the chairs. If he had really expected it
to arrive for the inauguration of his movie house then why didn’t he claim them? It was
his own negligence that caused his damages. In fact, the chairs were transported two
separate times. This just proves that the common carrier did its job. Maybe Ragay
forgot that he had a shipment to claim. Or in some cases, he did it purposely to swindle
money to the carrier as the law heavily sides on the consignee. That is just a
speculation though. But the point still stands, Ragay didn’t claim his shipment and he
has no right to press charges when he did this to himself.
4. Captain Momoy, the ship captain of M/V Templado Daryl Jr., overloaded the M/V
Templado Daryl Jr. as a consequence of which the vessel sank in the middle of Apo
Sea, and nothing whatsoever was recovered. The owners of the cargo and the heirs of
three (3) passengers of the vessel filed a case for damages in the amount of
P1,500,000.00 against Ally Abingayan, the owner of the vessel. Will the case prosper?
If you are the judge, decide the case and justify your decision. (10 pts.)
The case will not prosper. The shipowner could argue that he has no liability
under the Doctrine of Limited Liability (Hypothecary rule). It states that the liability of
shipowner and ship agent is limited to the amount of interest in said vessel such that
where vessel is entirely lost, the obligation is extinguished. Since nothing was recovered
it also means that the ship owner is relieved from the liability. The demise of the ship
was solely caused by the negligence of the captain. The Doctrine of Limited Liablity
exists because of cases like this. This protects the shipowner from risks of negligent
behaviors from a captain. So if I were the judge, I would decide that Ally Albingayan, the
owner of the vessel, is not liable for the damages.