Transportation Law Updated Syllabus - AY 2021-2022

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
College of Law
COURSE SYLLABUS
COURSE CODE:
COURSE TITLE: TRANSPORTATION LAW
COURSE CREDIT: 2 UNITS
COURSE PREREQUISITE/S: OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
FACULTY: [•]
EMAIL ADDRESS: [•]
TERM/ACADEMIC YEAR: FIRST SEMESTER SCHOOL YEAR 2021-2022
DAY/TIME/ROOM/SECTION: [•]
COURSE DELIVERY MODE: FULL ONLINE
CONSULTATION DAY/TIME: [•]
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
A detailed evaluation of general concepts, basic rules and laws that apply to all
types of transportation by land, water and air.
COURSE GOALS: Expected College of Law Graduate Attributes (ELGAs)
Know and understand the laws, memorize provisions critical and analytical
thinking, effective in written and oral communication, logical reasoning, and sound
judgment, exercise of proper professional and ethical responsibilities
LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES (LOs):
1. Knowledge/Remembering: define, list, recognize

2. Comprehension/Understanding: describe, explain, identify, recognize
3. Application/Applying: choose, demonstrate, implement, perform
4. Analysis/Analyzing: analyze, categorize, compare, differentiate
5. Evaluation/Evaluating: assess, critique, evaluate, rank, rate
6. Synthesis/Creating: construct, design, formulate, organize, synthesize
Upon completion of the Course Title course, the student is expected to be able to:
Expected College of
Law Graduate LEARNING OUTCOMES (LOs)
Attributes (ELGAs)
Critical and analytical LO1. Explain how law is created and enforced by executive,
thinking legislative, and regulatory bodies during class recitation and
Effective in written and discussion.
oral communication LO2. Analyze the practical and policy implications of current and
Logical reasoning proposed statutes, regulations, judicial rulings, legal arguments, and
Sound judgment strategies in preparing a Legal Case.
Exercise of proper LO3. Assess client concerns and translating them into responsive
professional and ethical legal arguments and strategies.
responsibilities LO4. Utilize legal research tools to gather information that aids in the
analysis of legal issues in submitting the Research Paper.
1
ASSESSMENT/GRADING SYSTEM:
The student will be graded according to the following:
Percentage
(Weight is based
Scope of Work
Requirements (Based on the Learning Outcomes) on the
(Individual)
importance of
the LO)
LO1 Class recitations, Quizzes, Case Digests, Individual
LO2 and discussion Individual
LO3 Individual
LO4 - - Research Paper, Case Study
Class standing before Midterms Individual 16.67%

Midterm Exams Individual 16.67%
Class Standing after Midterms Individual 33.33%
Final Exams Individual 33.33%
TOTAL 100
LEARNING PLAN:
Design or the structure of the course that includes content/topics to be covered;

learning resources to be used; weekly schedule of the topics to be taken up; and the
learning methods to be utilized that are most likely to lead students towards the
goals and learning outcomes that were defined.
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
TOPIC/CONTENT LEARNING
(Schedule of (activities designed or
(arrangement or sequence of RESOURCES
each Topic, deployed by the
the major topics is based on a (print and non-print
Assign, teacher to bring
logical order) materials and online/
Exam for the about, or create the
open-access resources)
entire conditions for
semester) learning)
Module 1:
I. Preliminary Considerations • Syllabus [Week 1] Recitation

a. Governing Laws • Textbook Case study &
i. Civil Code • Supreme Court reporting
ii. Warsaw Convention Decisions Discussion/lecture
iii. Code of Commerce Quiz
iv. Carriage of Goods
by Sea Act
v. Salvage Law
vi. Public Service Act
vii. Article XII, Sec. 11
of the Constitution
on the operation of
public utilities
b. Concept of Public
Utility & Public Service
2
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
(Sec. 13, Public Service
Act)
c. Constitutional
Limitations on
operation of Public
Utilities (Art. XII, 1987
Constitution)
d. Regulatory Agencies
e. Concept of Franchise
and Certificate of Public
Convenience
Cases:
1. National Development
Company vs. CA, G.R.
No. L-49407, August
19, 1998;
2. Tatad vs. Sec. Garcia,
G.R. No. 114222, April
16, 1995;
3. Radio Communication
of the Phils, Inc v. NTC,
G.R. No. L-68729, May
29, 1987;
4. Luzon Stevedoring v.
Public Service
Commission, G.R. No.
L-5458, September 16,
1953;
5. San Pablo v. Pantranco
G.R. No. L-61461,
August 21, 1987;
6. Manzanal v. Ausejo,
G.R. No. L-31056
August 4, 1988,
7. Cogeo-Cubao
Operator’s and Driver’s
Association v. CA, G.R.
No. 100727 March 18,
1992;
8. KMU Labor Center v.
Garcia, G.R. No.
115381 December 23,
1994;
9. PAL v. CAB, G.R. No.
119528, March 26,
1997.
3
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
Module 2:
[Weeks 2
II. General Concepts • Syllabus and 3] Recitation
a. Contract of • Textbook Case study &
Transportation in • Supreme Court reporting
General Decisions Discussion/lecture
b. Perfection Quiz
c. Common Carrier
i. statutory definition
(Art. 1732, NCC)
ii. distinguished from
private carrier
iii. distinguished from
towage, arrastre and
stevedoring
iv. tests to determine
common carrier
v. parties to the
contract of carriage
d. Registered Owner Rule
and Kabit System
Cases:
1. Spouses Dante Cruz and
Leonora Cruz vs. Sun
Holidays, Inc., G.R. No.
186312, June 29, 2012;
2. A.F Sanchez Brokerage,
Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No.
147079, December 21,
2004;
3. Crisostomo vs. CA,
August 25, 2003, G.R.
No. 138334;
4. De Guzman vs. CA,
G.R. No. L-47822,
December 12, 1988;
5. First Phil. Industrial
Corp. vs. CA, G.R. No.
1998;
6. Erezo vs. Jepte, G.R.
No. L-9605, September
30, 1957;
7. Lim vs. CA, G.R. No.
125817, January 16,
2002;
4
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
8. Lita Enterprises vs. IAC,
G.R. No. L-54593, April
27, 1984;
9. Teja Marketing vs. IAC,
G.R. No. L-65510,
March 9, 1987;
10. Nostradamus Villanueva
vs. Domingo, G.R. No.
144274, September 20,
2004;
11. Spouses Hernandez et al
vs. Spouses Dolor et al,
GR No. 160286, July
30, 2004;
12. FEB Leasing and
Finance Corporation
(now BPI Leasing
Corp.) vs. Sps. Sergio P.
Baylon and Maritess
Villena Baylon, et al.,
G.R. No. 181398, June
29, 2011;
13. Spouses Teodoro and
Nanette Perena v.
Spouses Nicolas and
Teresita L. Zarate, G.R.
No. 157917, August 29,
2012;
14. Baliwag Transit
Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
80447, January 31,
1989;
15. British Airways Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 92288, February 9,
1993;
16. Dangwa Transportation
Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals G.R. No.
95582, October 7, 1991;
17. Light Rail Transit
Authority v. Navidad
G.R. No. 145804,
February 6, 2003;
18. Asia Lighterage and
Shipping Inc. v. Court of
Appeals; G.R. No.
5
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
147246, August 19,
2003;
19. First Philippine
Industrial Corp. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No.
1998;
20. Planters Products Inc. v.
No. 101503, September
15, 1993;
21. Fabre. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
111127 July 26, 1996;
22. Bascos v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
101089, April 7, 1993;
23. FGU Insurance Corp. v.
Sarmiento Trucking
Corp., G.R. No. 141910,
August 6, 2002;
24. Cargolift Shipping, Inc.
v. L. Acuario Marketing
Corp. G.R. No. 146426;
25. Santos v. Sibug, G.R.
No. L-26815, May 26,
1981
26. PCI Leasing and
Finance Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
162267, July 4, 2008;
and
27. Lim v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
125817, January 16,
2002.
6
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
Module 3:
III. Obligations of the Common • Syllabus [Weeks 4 Recitation

Carrier in a Contract of • Textbook and 5] Case study &
Carriage of Goods • Supreme Court reporting
a. Degree of care over the Decisions Discussion/lecture
goods Quiz
i. Duty to exercise
extraordinary
diligence (Arts.
1733, cf 363, 364 &
365)
ii. Presumption of
Negligence (Art.
1735)
iii. Duration of liability
(Art. 1736)
iv. Defenses available
to common carriers
(Arts. 1734, 1739,
1740, 1742 & 1743)
• Fortuitous event
(Art. 1739)
• Public enemy
(Art. 1739)
• Improper packing
(Art.1742)
• Order by public
authority (Art.
1743)
v. Contributory
negligence of the
shipper (Art.1741)
vi. Stipulations limiting
the liability of a
carrier (Arts.1744,
1748, 1749 & 1750)
• Requisites for
validity
(Arts.1744 &
1751)
• Invalid
stipulations
(Art.1745)
• Effect of Delay
(Art.1747)
7
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
• Rule on the
presumption of
negligence
despite
stipulation
(Art.1752)
b. Other obligations
c. Duty to accept the
goods
i. Grounds for a valid
refusal to accept
goods
d. Duty to deliver the
goods
i. Time of Delivery
ii. Consequences of
delay (Arts.1740 &
1747)
iii. Place of Delivery
iv. To whom delivery
shall be made (Arts.
1240, et seq.)
Cases:
1. Ganzon v. Court of
Appeals G.R. No. L-
48757, May 30, 1988;
2. Fisher v. Yango
Steamship Co. G.R. No.
8095, March 31, 1915;
3. Benedicto v.
Intermediate Appellate
Court G.R. No. 70876,
July 19, 1990;
4. Eastern Shipping Lines,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 94151, 30
April 1991;
5. Sarkies Tours
Philippines, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals G.R.
No. 108897, October 2,
1997;
6. Valenzuela Hardwood &
Industrial Supply, Inc. v.
CA, G.R. No. 102316,
June 30, 1997;
8
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
7. Yobido v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
113003, October 17,
1997;
8. Ganzon v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-
48757, May 30, 1988;
9. Saludo, Jr. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
95536, March 23, 1992;
10. Macam v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
125524, August 25,
1999;
11. SeaLand Services, Inc.
v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 75118, August 31,
1987.
12. Citadel Lines, Inc. v.
No. 88092, April 25,
1990;
13. Everette Steamship
Corp. v. Court of
Appeals; G.R. No.
122494, October 8,
1998;
14. British Airways v. Court
of Appeals G.R. No.
121824, January 29,
1998;
15. Sweet Lines v. Teves,
G.R. No. L-37750, May
19, 1978;
16. Belgian Overseas
Chartering vs. Phil. First
Insurance Co., G.R. No.
143133; June 5, 2002;
17. Delsan Transport Lines,
Inc. vs. American Home
Insurance, G.R. No.
149019, August 15,
2006;
18. Servando vs. Phil.
Steam Navigation,
October 23, 1982;
9
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
19. Philamgen vs. MCG
Marine Services, March
8, 2002; and
20. Calvo vs. UCPB
General Insurance, G.R.
No. 148896, March 19,
2002.
10
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
Module 4:
IV. Obligations of the common • Syllabus [Weeks 6 Recitation

carrier in a contract of • Textbook and 7] Case study &
carriage for the carriage of • Supreme Court reporting
passengers Decisions Discussion/lecture
a. Safety of Passengers Quiz
i. Duty to observe
utmost diligence
(Art. 1755)
ii. Duration of
Liability
iii. Presumption of
negligence (Art.
1756)
iv. Liability for acts of
its employees (Art.
1759)
v. Liability for acts of
strangers and/or
third parties (Art.
1763)
vi. Effect of
stipulations
regarding liability
(Arts. 1757, 1758 &
1760)
b. Baggage (Arts. 1754,

7998, 2000 to 2003)
c. Relevant provisions of
the Warsaw Convention
i. Binding effect of the
Warsaw Convention
ii. Categories of
International Air
Transportation
iii. Liability under the
Warsaw Convention
Cases:
1. Nocum v. Laguna
Tayabas Bus Co., G.R.
No. L-23733, October
31, 1969.
2. Negros Navigation Co.,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals
11
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
G.R. No. 110398,
November 7, 1997;
3. Korean Airlines Co. Ltd.
V. Court of Appeals;
G.R. No. 114061,
August 3, 1994;
4. Dangwa Transportation
Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
95582, October 7, 1991;
5. Fortune Express, Inc. v.
No. 119756, November
18, 1999;
6. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines
v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R.
No. L-66102-4, August
30, 1990;
7. Lara v. Valencia, G.R.
No. L-9907, June 30,
1958;
8. Necessito v. Paras, G.R.
No. L-10605, June 30,
1958;
9. Japan Airlines v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No.
118664, August 7, 1998
10. Yobido v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
113003, October 17,
1997;
11. La Mallorca De Jesus v.
No. L-21486, May 14,
1966;
12. Aboitiz Shipping Corp.
v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 84458,
November 6, 1989;
13. Calalas v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
122039, May 31, 2000;
14. Gillaco v. Manila
Railroad Company, G.R.
No. L-8034, November
18, 1955;
12
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
15. Maranan v. Perez, G.R.
No. L-22272, June 26,
1967;
16. Philippine National
Railways v. Court of
55347, October 4, 1985;
17. Del Prado v. Manila
Electric Co., G.R. No.
L-29462, March 7,
1929;
18. Isaac v. A.L. Ammen
Transport Co., Inc., G.R.
No. L-9671, August 23,
1957;
19. PNR v. Brunty, G.R.
No.169891, November
2, 2006;
20. Pilapil v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.
52159, December 22,
1989;
21. Gacal v. PAL, G.R. No.
L-55300 March 15,
1990;
22. Kapalaran Bus Line v.
Coronado, G.R. No.
85331, August 25, 1989;
23. Mapa vs. CA, G.R. No.
122308, July 8, 1997;
24. Singapore Airlines vs.
Andion Fernandez, G.R.
No. 142305, December
10, 2003;
25. Cathay Pacific Airways
vs. CA, G.R. No. L-
60501, March 5, 1993
26. Bachelor Express vs.
CA, G.R. No. 85691,
July 31, 1990.
Mid-Term Examinations [Week 8]
13
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
Module 5:
V. Obligations of the shipper, • Syllabus [Week 9] Recitation

consignee and passenger • Textbook Case study &
• Supreme Court reporting
a. Effect of negligence on Decisions Discussion/lecture
the part of the shipper Quiz
or passenger (Arts. 1741
& 1761-1762)
b. Payment of freight
c. Liability for demurrage
Cases:
1. Isaac vs. A.L. Ammen

Transportation, G.R. No.
L-9671, August 23,
1957;
2. Compania Maritima vs.
CA, G.R. No. 31379,
August 29, 1988;
3. PNR vs. CA, G.R. No.
L-55347, Oct. 4, 1985
Module 6:
VI. Extra Ordinary Diligence • Syllabus [Week 10] Recitation

a. Underlying Reason • Textbook Case study &
b. Effect of Stipulation • Supreme Court reporting
(Arts. 1744, 1757-1758 Decisions Discussion/lecture
& 1760) Quiz
c. Extraordinary diligence
in carriage by sea
i. Seaworthiness of
the vessel (Secs.
3[1] & [2],
Carriage of Goods
by Sea Act
[COGSA]; Secs.116
& 119, Insurance
Code)
ii. Overloading
iii. Proper Storage
iv. Obligation of
captain and crew
14
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
v. Rule on deviation
and transshipment
d. Extraordinary diligence
in carriage by land
i. Vehicle’s condition
ii. Traffic Rules
(Relevant provisions
of Rep. Act 4136)
iii. Obligation to
inspect
iv. Anti-Drunk and
Drugged Driving
Law (Rep. Act
10586)
e. Extraordinary diligence
in carriage by air
Cases:
1. Standard Vacuum Oil

vs. Luzon Stevedoring,
G.R. No. L-5203, April
18, 1956;
2. Planters Products, Inc.
vs. CA, G.R. No.
101503, September 15,
1993;
3. Mecenas, et al. vs. CA,
G.R. No. 88052,
December 14, 1989;
4. Brinas vs. People of the
Phils., G.R. No. L-
30309, November 25,
1983;
5. Batangas Laguna
Tayabas Bus Company,
Inc. vs. IAC, G.R. No.
74387-90, November
14, 1988;
6. Batangas Transportation
Company vs.
Caguimbal, et al, G.R.
No. L-22985, January
24, 1968;
7. Mallari vs. CA, G.R.
No. 128607, January 31,
2000;
8. Nocum vs. Laguna
Tayabas Bus Company,
15
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
G.R. No. L-23733,
October 31, 1969;
9. PAL vs. CA, G.R. No.
L-82619, September 15,
1993;
10. Vda. De Abeto vs. PAL,
G.R. No. L-28692, July
30, 1982;
11. Japan Airlines vs.
Michael Asuncion et al,
G.R. No. 161730,
January 28, 2005
Module 7:
VII. Bill of lading and other • Syllabus [Week 11] Recitation

formalities • Textbook Case study &
a. Definition of Bill of Decisions Discussion/lecture
Lading Quiz
b. Classes of Bill of
Lading
c. Nature of a Bill of
Lading (Secs.3[4] and
[5], COGSA)
i. As a contract
• Basic stipulations
in a bill of lading
(Sec. 4[5],
COGSA)
• Prohibited
stipulations (Art.
1745)
ii. As a document of
title (Arts. 1508-
1510, 1513 & 1515)
iii. As a receipt
d. Relevant provisions of
the Warsaw Convention
(Arts. 17-19 & 22,
Warsaw Convention)
Cases:
16
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
1. HE Heacock Company
vs. Macondray, G.R.
No. L-16598, October 3,
1921;
2. Ong Yiu vs. CA, G.R.
No. L-40597, June 29,
1979;
3. Sea-Land Service vs.
IAC, G.R. No. 75118,
Aug. 31, 1987;
4. Citadel Lines vs. CA,
G.R. No. 88092, April.
25, 1990;
5. Everett Steamship
Corporation vs. CA,
G.R. No. 122494,
October 8, 1998;
6. Saludo, Jr. vs. CA, G.R.
No. 95536, March 23,
1992.
7. Northwest Airlines vs.
Cuenca, G.R. No. L-
22425, August 31, 1965;
8. Alitalia vs. IAC, G.R.
No. 71929, December 4,
1990;
9. Pan American World
Airways vs. IAC, G.R.
No. 70462, August 11,
1988;
10. China Airlines vs.
Daniel Chiok, G.R. No.
152122, July 30, 2003;
11. Santos III vs. Northwest
Airlines, G.R. No.
101538, June 23, 1992;
and
12. United Airlines vs.
Willie Uy, G.R. No.
127768, November 19,
1999.
17
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
Module 8:
VIII. Actions in case of • Syllabus [Week 12] Recitation

breach of contract of • Textbook Case study &
carriage • Supreme Court reporting
Decisions Discussion/lecture
a. Causes of action and Quiz
nature/extent of liability
(culpa contractual,
culpa aquiliana and
culpa delictual) (Arts.
1759, 2180; Art. 100,
Revised Penal Code)
b. Prescriptive period and

conditions precedent
i. Overland
transportation of
goods and coastwise
shipping
ii. International
carriage of goods by
sea (Sec. 3[6],
COGSA)
c. Recoverable damages
1. Fabre vs. CA, G.R. No.

111127, July 26, 1996;
2. PhilAmGen Insurance
vs. Sweetlines, G.R. No.
87434, August 5, 1992;
3. Ang vs. American
Steamship Agencies,
G.R. No. L-22491,
January 27, 1967;
4. Mitsui vs. CA, G.R. No.
119571, March 11,
1998;
5. Fil Merchants vs.
Alejandro, G.R. No. L-
54140 October 14, 1986;
6. Mayer Steel Pipe Corp.
vs. CA, G.R. No.
124050 June 19, 1997;
7. Dole Phils. vs. Maritime
Company of the Phils.
18
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
G.R. No. L-61352,
February 27, 1987;
8. Insurance Company of
North America v. Asian
Terminals, Inc., G.R.
No. 180784, February
15, 2012; and
9. Benjamin Cua v. Wallen
Philippines Shipping,
Inc., G.R. No. 171337,
July 11, 2012.
Module 9:
IX. Maritime Law (Art. 573- • Syllabus [Weeks 13 Recitation

869, Code of Commerce) • Textbook and 14] Case study &
a. Concept of Maritime Decisions Discussion/lecture
Law Quiz
b. Limited liability rule

(Arts. 587, 590, 643 &
837, Ibid.)
i. Concept
ii. Exceptions
iii. Abandonment
c. Vessels
i. Acquisition
• By prescription
(Arts. 573 &
575)
• By sale (Arts.
576-578)
• Registration
• Ship’s manifest
(Secs. 1203 and
1204, CMTA)
ii. Mortgage of vessels
(Pres. Dec. No.
1521)
d. Persons who take part in

Maritime Commerce
i. Shipowners and
ship agents (Arts.
586-588)
19
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
• Rules in case of
part-owners
(Arts. 589-594)
• Rules in case of
shipagents
(Arts.595-602)
ii. Captains and
masters of vessels
• Qualifications
(Art. 609)
• Powers and
functions (Arts.
610-612)
• Discretionary
Powers
iii. Pilot
• Concept
• Relationship to
master and
shipowner
iv. Officers and crew of
the vessel
e. Charter Parties
i. Concept
ii. Kinds: bareboat and
contract of
affreightment
iii. Persons qualified to
charter
iv. Requisites for a
valid charter (Art.
652)
v. Concept of and
liability for
demurrage
vi. Rights and
obligations of
charter parties
f. Loans on Bottomry and

Respondentia
i. Definition (Art. 719)
ii. Distinctions against
ordinary loans
iii. Parties
iv. Formalities required
(Art. 720)
20
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
v. Effect of loss (Art.
731)
vi. Cases where loan is
regarded as simple
loan (Arts. 726-729)
g. Averages
i. Concept (Art. 806)
ii. Classes of average
and the persons
liable
• i. simple
average (Arts.
809-810)
• ii. General
average (Arts.
811-813, 816-
818, 732 & 859-
861)
h. Collisions
i. Definition
ii. Zones in collisions
(doctrine of error in
extremis)
iii. Rules on liability
(Arts. 826 to 832;
doctrine of inscrutable
fault)
iv. Limited liability rule
(Art. 837)
i. Arrival under stress

i. Concept (Art. 819)
ii. When improper (Art.
820)
iii. Expenses (Arts. 821 to
822)
iv. Custody of cargo
(Arts. 823 to 824)
v. Captain’s liability
(Art. 825)
vi. Shipwreck (Arts. 840
to 845)
j. Salvage
i. Definition
21
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
ii. Rights and obligations
of salvors and owners
(Salvage Law)
k. Carriage of goods by Sea

Act
Cases:
1. Litonjua Shipping Co. v.
NSB, G.R. No. L-51910
August 10, 1989.
2. Yangco v. Laserna, G.R.
No. L-47447-47449,
October 29, 1941;
3. Chua Yek Hong v. IAC,
G.R. No. 74811,
September 30, 1988;
4. Heirs of Amparo de los
Santos v. CA, G.R. No.
L-51165 June 21, 1990;
5. Philippine Refining
Corporation v. Jarque,
G.R. No. L-41506,
March 25, 1935;
6. Chua Yek Hong v. IAC,
G.R. No. 74811,
December 14, 1988;
7. Philippine American
General Insurance Co. v.
CA, G.R. No. 116940,
June 11, 1997;
8. Sweet Lines v. Court of
46340, April 28, 1983;
9. Fireman’s Fund
Insurance Co. v. Metro
Port Services, G.R. No.
83613, February 21,
1990;
10. International Container
Terminal Services, Inc.
v. Prudential, G.R. No.
134514, December 8,
1999.
11. Far Eastern Shipping v.
Court of Appeals G.R.
No. 130150, October
1998;
22
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
12. Planters Products v. CA,
G.R. No. 101503,
September 15, 1993;
13. Caltex v. Sulpicio Lines
G.R. No. 131166,
September 30, 1999;
14. Williams v. Yatco, G.R.
No. 8325 March 10,
1914;
15. Smith and Bell Co. v.
CA, G.R. No. L-56294
May 20, 1991;
16. National Development
Corporation v. CA, G.R.
No. L-49407 August 19,
1988;
17. Mecenas v. CA, G.R.
No. 88052, December
14, 1989;
18. Aboitiz Shipping v.
General Accident Fire
and Life Insurance
Corporation, G.R. No.
100446, January 21,
1993;
19. Philippine American
General Insurance Co. v.
CA, G.R. No. 116940,
June 11, 1997;
20. Erlanger v. Swedish
East Asiatic, Erlanger v.
Swedish East Asiatic,
G.R. No. L-10051,
March 9, 1916;
21. Barrios v. Go Thong,
G.R. No. L-17192,
March 30, 1963;
22. Elser Inc. v. CA, G.R.
No. L-6517,
November 29, 1954;
23. Ang v. Compania
Maritima, G.R. No. L-
30805, December 26,
1984;
24. Dole Philippines v.
Maritime Co. of the
Phil., G.R. No. L-61352,
February 27, 1987;
23
WEEK/ LEARNING
DATE METHODS
semester) learning)
25. Sea-Land Service Inc. v.
IAC, G.R. No. 75118,
August 31, 1987;
26. Maritime Agencies v.
CA187, G.R. No. 77638
July 12, 1990; and
27. Mayer Steel Pipe v. CA,
G.R. No. 124050; June
19, 1997.
28. Aleson Shipping Lines
v. CGU International
Ins. Plc., G.R. No.
217311, July 15, 2020
Module 10: [Week 15]

• Syllabus
X. Aviation Law • Textbook
a. The aircraft and civil • Supreme Court
aviation. Decisions
b. Obligations of Carrier in
air transportation.
c. Warsaw Convention.
Final Examinations [Week 16]
TEXTBOOK/REFERENCE BOOK:
1. Essentials of Transportation and Public Utilities by Timoteo B. Aquino and Justice

Ramon Paul Hernando.
POLICIES:
Policies and values that the teacher might want to communicate through the
syllabus concerning attendance, participation, academic integrity (e.g. plagiarism,
cheating, fabrication), missing assignments, missed exams, recording classroom
activities, online behavior during synchronous sessions, etc.
1. Attendance will be checked every meeting.

2. Students who are called to recite but absent shall get a grade of 60.
24
3. Students who missed a quiz will get a grade of 60.
4. Students are prohibited from recording the online class as this is a violation of the
Copyright of the Professor.
Prepared by:
Signature
[•]
Approved by:
Signature
Atty. Marciano G. Delson
Dean, College of Law
Date Prepared by the Faculty
25

Transportation Law Updated Syllabus - AY 2021-2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Law Updated Syllabus - AY 2021-2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

COURSE GOALS: Expected College of Law Graduate Attributes (ELGAs)

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES (LOs):

1. Knowledge/Remembering: define, list, recognize

The student will be graded according to the following:

Class standing before Midterms Individual 16.67%

Design or the structure of the course that includes content/topics to be covered;

I. Preliminary Considerations • Syllabus [Week 1] Recitation

III. Obligations of the Common • Syllabus [Weeks 4 Recitation

IV. Obligations of the common • Syllabus [Weeks 6 Recitation

b. Baggage (Arts. 1754,

Mid-Term Examinations [Week 8]

V. Obligations of the shipper, • Syllabus [Week 9] Recitation

1. Isaac vs. A.L. Ammen

VI. Extra Ordinary Diligence • Syllabus [Week 10] Recitation

1. Standard Vacuum Oil

VII. Bill of lading and other • Syllabus [Week 11] Recitation

VIII. Actions in case of • Syllabus [Week 12] Recitation

b. Prescriptive period and

1. Fabre vs. CA, G.R. No.

IX. Maritime Law (Art. 573- • Syllabus [Weeks 13 Recitation

b. Limited liability rule

d. Persons who take part in

f. Loans on Bottomry and

i. Arrival under stress

k. Carriage of goods by Sea

Module 10: [Week 15]

Final Examinations [Week 16]

1. Essentials of Transportation and Public Utilities by Timoteo B. Aquino and Justice

1. Attendance will be checked every meeting.

Date Prepared by the Faculty

You might also like