TRANSPORTATION LAW Parties to contracts of carriage of goods and of

SYLLABUS passengers
 
INTRODUCTION Carrier defined
   
1. CHAPTER I Classifications of carriers
 
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMON CARRIERS Private or special carrier
  10. Spouses Pereña v. Spouses Zarate, G.R. No.
1. TRANSPORTATION IN GENERAL 157917. Aug. 29, 2012
  11. National Steel Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 112287.
Transportation as a component of “public utilities” and Dec. 12, 1997; 347 Phil. 345
“public service”  
Common or public carriers
 13(b), Commonwealth Act No. 146 or The
 
Public Service Law (of 1936), as last amended by
Republic Act No. 2677  1732, Civil Code
1. National Power Corp. v. CA, 345 Phil. 9 [1997]  
  Elements of a common carrier
1. PUBLIC UTILITIES  
  Test for determining a common carrier
Constitutional provisions on public utilities  
No legal distinction as to means of transporting; pipeline
 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
operator is a common carrier 
2. Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551. July 11,
12. First Philippine Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. No.
1989
125948. Dec. 29, 1998
 17, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
 
3. Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air
Common carrier may have no regular schedule or clients,
Terminals Co., Inc., G.R. No. 155001. May 5, 2003
fixed routes, terminals or tickets 
 
13. Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc., v. CA, G.R.
What constitutes a public utility?
No. 147246. Aug. 19, 2003
 18 and 19, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
 
4. The Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Company v.
Common carriers bound to serve all and liable for refusal
Public Utility Board, G.R. No. L-19857. March 2, 1923;
to so serve without sufficient reason 
44 Phil. 551
 
 
No distinction made by law between common carriage
Distinction between “operation” and “ownership” of a
as a principal or ancillary activity
public utility
14. De Guzman v. CA, G.R. No. L-47822. Dec. 22,
5. Tatad v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 114222. April 6,
1988
1995
 
 
Distinctions between a common carrier and a private
Power to grant licenses or franchise to operate public
carrier
utilities
 
6. Pangasinan Transportation, Inc. v. The Public
Laws governing domestic, inter-island and coastwise
Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065. June 26, 1940;
transportation
70 Phil 221
 
 
Laws applicable to international, foreign or overseas
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
transportation
distinguished from Certificate of Public Convenience
 
7. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics
Liability of a common carrier; extraordinary diligence
Board, G.R. No. 119528. March 26, 1997
 1733, Civil Code
 
 1734, 1735 and 1745, numbers 5, 6 and 7,
1. COMMON CARRIERS AND CONTRACT OF
Civil Code
CARRIAGE
 
 
Observance of extraordinary diligence in the carriage of
Contract of transportation or Contract of carriage
goods
defined
15. Gatchalian v. Delim, G.R. No. 56487. Oct. 21,
 
1991; 203 SCRA 126
Contract of carriage imbued with public interest
 
 1755, Civil Code).
When liability of common carrier starts in transport of
8. Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. No. L-
passengers
21438. Sept. 28, 1966; 18 SCRA 155
16. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 84458.
9. Singson v. CA, G.R. No. 119995. Nov. 18, 1997
Nov. 6, 1989
 
 
When liability of common carrier commences in
transport of goods
 
Requisites of extraordinary diligence in carriages by land
and by sea
17. Trans‐Asia Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 118126.
March 4, 1996
18. Negros Navigation v. CA, G.R. No. 110398.
Nov. 7, 1997
 
Liabilities of a common carrier for breach of contract
 
Defenses in culpa contractual
 1762, Civil Code
 
Burden of proof in cases of contributory negligence
 
Damages recoverable for death of a passenger
19. Briñas v. People, G.R. No. L‐30309. Nov. 25,
1983
 
Causes exempting the common carrier from
responsibility
 1734, Civil Code
 
Distinctions between an action to enforce liability of the
employer of the negligent driver under Article 103 of the
Revised Penal Code and an action based on quasi‐delict
under the Civil Code
 
Liability of common carrier for moral damages  
20. China Airlines, Ltd. v. IAC, G.R. No. 73835. Jan.
17, 1989
Common carriers generally presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently
21. Bascos v. CA, G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993
Arts. 1734 and 1735, Civil Code
 
When presumption of negligence arises; how
presumption overcame; when presumption made
absolute
Presumption of fault or negligence of common carrier
rebuttable
22. Pilapil v. CA, G.R. No. 52159. Dec. 22, 1989;
180 SCRA 546
 
Exceptions to the application of presumption of fault or
negligence
23. Philippine American General Insurance Co, Inc. v.
MGG Marine Services, Inc. G.R. No. 135645.
March 8, 2002
Arts. 1740, 1742 and 1743, Civil Code
24. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. L‐48757. May 30, 1988
25. Southern Lines v. CA, G.R. No. L‐16629. Jan.
31, 1962, 4 SCRA 258
26. Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front
Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 119197. May 16,
1997; 272 SCRA 527
Accidents due to mechanical defects of carrier not
fortuitous events
26. Sweet Lines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L‐46340. April
29, 1983
27. Juntilla v. Fontanar, G.R. No. L‐45637, May
31, 1985
28. Vergara v. CA, G.R. No. 77679, Sept. 30, 1987
 
Fire not considered as a natural disaster or calamity
29. Africa v. Caltex [Phil.], Inc., G.R. No. L-12986.
March 31, 1966; 16 SCRA 448
 1734, Civil Code
 4, COGSA
30. Servando v. Philippine Steam Navigation Co.,
G.R. No. L‐36481‐2, Oct. 23, 1982
 
Typhoon or storm deemed a fortuitous event; exception
31. Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. CA, G.R. No. L-47851.
Oct. 3, 1986; 144 SCRA 596
32. Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v.
IAC, G.R. No. 74387-90. Nov. 14, 1988; 167 SCRA 379
33. Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. No. 115024. Feb. 7,
1996; 253 SCRA 303
34. Arada v. CA, G.R. No. 98243. July 1, 1992
 
Stipulations in a contract of carriage deemed as
unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy
 1745, Civil Code
 
Acts of strangers that would divest a common carrier of
his/its duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods carried
1745, par. (6), Civil Code
 
Liability of carrier for acts of robbers
Act of God must be the sole and proximate cause of the
loss to exempt the carrier from liability
 
Common carrier not liable where the proximate cause of
passenger’s injury is his own negligence
 1761, Civil Code
 
Liability over perishable goods
Duty of carrier to keep the vessel seaworthy
 
Rules regarding a carrier’s liability for delay in delivery of
goods 
35. Saludo, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 95536. March 23,
1992
 
Liability for delay in the transportation of goods
 1170, 1740, 1747 and 1748, Civil Code);
 
Certificate of Public Convenience not a requisite for
incurring of liability as a common carrier 
 
Grounds for refusal by common carrier to carry certain
goods must be reasonable
36. C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R.
No. L-8095. March 31, 1915
Presumption of negligence of common carriers; how
overcome
 1735 and 1752, Civil Code
37. Compania Maritima v. CA, G.R. No. L-31379, 49. Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corp., G.R. No.
29 Aug. 1988, 164 SCRA 685 184905. Aug. 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 526
   
Reasons for the requirement of extraordinary diligence Character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the
  containers
Principles on the liability of a common carrier  1742, Civil Code
38. Isaac v. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., 50. Southern Lines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L-16629.
G.R. No. L-9671. Aug. 23, 1957 Jan. 31, 1962; 4 SCRA 258
   
Periods when the liability of a common carrier begins Order or act of competent public authority
and ceases  1743, Civil Code
 1736 and 1738, Civil Code 51. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. L-48757. May 30,
 619 of the Code of Commerce 1988; 161 SCRA 646
39. Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. v. Wallem  
Phils. Shipping, Inc. G.R. No. 165647. March 26, 2009 Liability of a common carrier for the death of or injuries
  to passengers due to the acts of its employees, other
To whom goods must be delivered passengers or strangers
 1736, Civil Code  1762, Civil Code
   1764, Civil Code
Parties may agree to relieve carrier from liability while  
goods are in custom’s custody Basis of carrier’s liability
40. Lu Do & Lu Ym Corp. v. Binamira, G.R. No. L- 52. Maranan v. Perez, G.R. No. L-22272. June 26,
9840. April 22, 1957 1967
   
Rule as to unloading, storage and stoppage in transitu Doctrine of respondeat superior 
   1759, Civil Code
Implied warranty of seaworthiness of ships as common 53. Manila Railroad Company v. Ballesteros, G.R.
carriers No. L-19161. April 29, 1966; 16 SCRA 641
41. Caltex [Philippines], Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.,  1763, Civil Code
G.R. No. 131166. Sept. 30, 1999; 374 Phil. 325  48 (b), Motor Vehicle Law or Republic Act No.
  4136
Passenger defined  
  Degree of diligence required of common carriers for
Persons not deemed as passengers willful acts of strangers
42. Lara v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-9907. June 30,  1763, Civil Code
1958  
  Causes of liability of common carriers
Defenses of a common carrier in the carriage of goods  
 1734, Civil Code Duration of the liability of the common carrier in a
43. Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. contract of carriage of goods
104685. March 14, 1996  1736, 1737 and 1738, Civil Code
   
Caso fortuito defined; characteristics; exempting Periods within which the common carrier in a contract of
circumstances carriage of passengers may be held liable
44. Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 661 54. Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad, G.R.
45. Republic of the Philippines v. Luzon No. 145804. Feb. 6, 2003
Stevedoring Corp., G.R. No. L-21749. Sept. 29, 1967; 55. Del Prado v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-
128 Phil. 313, citing Art. 1179, Civil Code 29462. March 7, 1929; 52 Phil. 900
46. Metal Forming Corp.. v. Office of the  
President, G.R. No. 111386. Aug. 28, 1995; 317 Phil. Duty of common carriers to afford passengers the
853 opportunity to board safely
 1740, Civil Code 56. Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R.
 1734, Civil Code No. 95582. Oct. 7, 1991; 202 SCRA 574
 4, COGSA  
47. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. L- Person attempting to board a common carrier already
69044 and L-71478, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 463 considered a passenger
48. La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Co. v. De  
Jesus, G.R. No. L-21486. May 14, 1966; 123 Phil. 875 Passenger must be allowed a reasonable time to leave
  the carrier’s premises
Defense of negligence of the shipper or owner 57. La Mallorca v. CA, G.R. No. L‐ July 27, 1966
 1741, Civil Code  
  Presumption of negligence
Proximate cause defined  1735, Civil Code
  1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ITS
Rationale for the presumption   FUNCTIONS
58. Mirasol v. The Robert Dollar Co., G.R. No. L-  Commonwealth Act No. 146 enacted on
29721. March 27, 1929). November 7, 1936
59. Coastwise Lighterage Corp. v. CA, G.R. No.  1 and 2, C.A. No. 146
114167. July 12, 1995  
 1755, Civil Code Jurisdiction and powers of the Public Service Commission
   13[a], C.A. No. 146
Burden of proof falls on carrier to prove extraordinary  
diligence Public service
   13[b], C.A. No. 146
Defenses to overcome presumption of fault or  
negligence Public character and interest not number of people
 1734, 1735 and 1736, Civil Code served determinative of public utility or service
  66. Luzon Stevedoring Company, Inc. v. The
Valid stipulations in contracts of carriage of goods Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-5458. Sept. 16,
 1744, Civil Code 1953
 1748, 1749 and 1750, Civil Code  
 1744, Art. 1745, No. 4, Civil Code Public utility defined
 1758, Civil Code 67. JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
  124293. Sept. 24, 2003
Void stipulations in contracts of carriage of goods  
 1745, Civil Code Statutory definition of public utility abandoned
 1733, 1755 and 1757, Civil Code 68. JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, Id.; Tinga, J.,
  Sep. Op.
Rules on checked-in baggage  
 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, Civil Code Public use
  69. Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. v. Public Utility
Rule in case of non‐paying passengers or if the fare is Board, G.R. No. L-19857. March 2, 1923; 44 Phil. 551
reduced  
 758, Civil Code Exempted services
Concurring causes of action  13, Public Service Act or C.A. No. 146, as
 1759, Civil Code. amended
60. Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil. 768  14, C.A. No. 146, as amended by C.A. No. 454,
 2180, Civil Code R.A. Nos. 2031 and 2677
 826-939, Code of Commerce  
61. Martinez v. Barredo, G.R. No. L-49308. May Why shipyards are not deemed as public utilities;
13, 1948; 81 Phil. 1 definition
 102 and 103, Revised Penal Code  13 (b), C.A. No. 146
62. Viluan v. CA, G.R. No. L-21477-81. April 29,  15, C.A. No. 146
1966  1(d), P.D. No. 666 reads:
63. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 8896. Dec. 29, 70. Mecano v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
1913; 56 Phil. 177 103982. Dec. 11, 1992; 216 SCRA 500
   20 of B.P. Blg. 391 expressly and categorically
Stipulations limiting the liability of the carrier in a bill of repealed the whole of Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 666.
lading  O. No. 226 (law) dated July 16, 1987
64. E. Heacock Company v. Macondray &  
Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-16598. Oct. 3, 1921; 42 Phil. Other service not deemed as public utilities
205  
65. Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. v. Gabino Barretto & 1. Automobile and aircraft manufacturers
Co., Ltd., G.R. No. L-28028. Nov. 25, 1927; 51 Phil. 90  
2. Oil company
When a stipulation limiting common carrier’s liability  
may be annulled by the shipper or owner   A. No. 387, otherwise known as the
 1746 and 1747, Civil Code Petroleum Act of 1949
   Act No. 3108 and C.A. No. 146 included oil in
When the limitation of the amount of liability is valid the definition of public utility
 1750, Civil Code  A. Nos. 146 and 454, R.A. Nos. 1270 and 2677
  covered petroleum.
CHAPTER II  
3. Wharf or dock
THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW  
 
71. Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551. July 11,
1989; 175 SCRA 264
 
4. Operator of trucks  requirements for the issuance of such certificate
72. United States v. Tan Piaco, G.R. No. L-15122.
March 10, 1920; 40 Phil. 853
Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended
5. Owner and lessor of equipment and facilities
for a rail system  80.
73. Tatad v. Garcia, G.R. No. 114222. April 6,
1995; 243 SCRA 436
Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended
6. Ice plant
74. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc. v.
John Bordman, G.R. No. L-43668. March 31, 1938; 65
Phil. 401
7. Others included in the definition of public
utilities
 
Public utility determined not by law but by courts
 1, R.A. No. 2677, amending Sec. 13(b), C.A.
No. 146, as amended
75. North Negros Sugar Co. v. Hidalgo, G.R. No. L-
42334. Oct. 31, 1936; 63 Phil. 664
FRANCHISE FOR PUBLIC SERVICES
 
Franchise defined
Franchise as a legislative grant
 
Congress has no exclusive authority to issue franchises
 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
 
Public Service Commission abolished and replaced 
 
Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) or Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) defined
76. Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. Public
Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065. June 26, 1940;
70 Phil. 221
77. Luque v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-22545. Nov. 28,
1969; 30 SCRA 408
 14 of the Public Service Act (C.A. No. 146)
 15, par. 1, C.A. No. 146
 
CPC included in the term “property”
78. Raymundo v. Luneta Motor Co., G.R. No. L-
39902, L-39903. Nov. 29, 1933; 58 Phil. 889
 
Conditions for the issuance of CPC or CPCN
 1, Sec. 15, C.A. No. 146, as amended
 15, par. 2, C.A. No. 146, as amended
Requisites for the grant of CPC or CPCN
79. Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr.,
G.R. No. 115381. Dec. 23, 1994
 
Other applications of the CPC or CPCN
 15, par. 4, C.A. No. 146, as amended
 
Law not the title in certificate that determines the
 
Unlawful acts of public service companies
 18 and 19, C.A. No. 146, amended
Prior operator rule or Old operator rule
Halili v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-21061. June 27, 1968;
23 SCRA 1174
 
Exceptions to the prior operator rule
Prior applicant rule
Third operator rule
81. Yangco v. Esteban, G.R. No. 38586. Aug. 18,
1933
Protection of investment rule
82. Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes, G.R.
No. L-28865. Dec. 19, 1928; 52 Phil., 455
83. Tiongson v. Public Service Commission, G.R.
No. L-24701. Dec. 16, 1970
 
CHAPTER III
COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS FOR TRANSPORTATION
 
1. CODE OF COMMERCE PROVISIONS AND
CONCEPTS
Relevant Code of Commerce provisions and scope of
their application
 349 to 379, Code of Commerce
Contract of transportation; when deemed commercial 
 349, Code of Commerce
 
Bill of lading defined
84. Mindanao Bus Company v. The Collector of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-14078. Feb. 24, 1961
Lading defined
 
Two-fold character of a bill of lading
 
Functions of the bill of lading
 
Kinds of bills of lading
85. Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corp. v.
CA, G.R. No. 95529. Aug. 22, 1991
 
Bill of lading not indispensable to contract of carriage
86. Compañia Maritima v. Insurance Company of
North America, G.R. No. L-18965. Oct. 30, 1964
 
When liability of the carrier commences
Determination of indemnity if not stipulated
 370, Code of Commerce
 
Bill of lading as a contract of adhesion
87. Philippine Commercial International Bank v.
CA, G.R. No. 97785. March 29, 1996; 325 Phil. 588
Effect of acceptance of a bill of lading sans objection
Contract ambiguities how construed
 1377, Civil Code
88. Power Commercial and Industrial Corp. v. CA,
G.R. No. 119745. June 20, 1997; 274 SCRA 597
 
Instances when consignee is bound by the bill of lading
89. Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 75118.
Aug. 31, 1987; 237 Phil. 531
 1311[2], Civil Code
90. Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., G.R. No.
L-3678. Feb. 29, 1952; 90 Phil 836
 
Duties of the carrier
 
Carrier’s obligation to accept the goods
91. C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R.
No. L-8095. March 31, 1915
When a common carrier may lawfully decline to accept
the goods
 
Carrier not absolutely obliged to accept a cargo
92. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
119706. March 14, 1996
 
Carrier’s duty to deliver the goods  
 
Period of delivery of goods
 358, Code of Commerce
 370, Code of Commerce
 
Effects of delay in the delivery of the goods
 1740, Civil Code
 1747, Civil Code
 
Instances when the consignee may refuse to receive the
goods
 363, 365 and 371, Code of Commerce
 
Claim for damage, when and how made
 366, Code of Commerce
93. New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Choa Joy,
G.R. No. L-7311. Sept. 30, 1955
 
When claim for damage may no longer be admitted
 366, Code of Commerce, pars. 1 and 2
Effects of paying the transportation charges
 366, Code of Commerce
 
Rationale for the requisite period of giving notice of
claim
94. Philippine American General Insurance Co.,
Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 87434. Aug. 5, 1992;
212 SCRA 194
 
24-hour claim a condition precedent to an action against
carrier
95. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. v. Chemoil
Lighterage Corp., G.R. No. 136888. June 29, 2005
Patent damage vis-à-vis latent damage
Rules on claim do not apply to undelivered goods
96. Roldan v. Lim Ponzo & Co., G.R. No. L-11325.
Dec. 7, 1917
 
Shorter period may validly be stipulated by the parties 
 
Application of prescriptive periods under the Civil Code
 
Doctrine of combined or connecting services
 373, Code of Commerce
 
Special right of carrier over the goods transported and
prescription of action to enforce such right
 375, Code of Commerce
 
CHAPTER IV
LAND TRANSPORTATION
1. GOVERNING LAWS
 
 Republic Act No. 4136 or the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code – June 20, 1964
 Republic Act No. 6374;
 Presidential Decree No. 98;
 Presidential Decree No.109;
Presidential Decree No. 843;
 Presidential Decree No. 896;
 Presidential Decree No.1057;
 Presidential Decree No.1958;
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 43;
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 74;
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 398;
 Republic Act No. 8750;
 Republic Act No. 10586 or the “Anti-Drunk
and Drugged Driving Act of 2013;” and
 Other laws which expressly or impliedly
modified some of its provisions.
 
1. IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES AND BODIES
 
1. The Land Transportation Office (LTO)
 Book IV, Title XV, Chapter 1, Sec. 2,
Administrative Code of 1987).
 4 (d) [1], Art. III, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 27, Land Transportation and Traffic Code or
R.A. No. 4136, as amended
Driver’s license issued by the LTO
 
Specific powers and functions of the LTO
 4 (d) [1], Art. III, R.A. No. 4136, as amended,
 
2. The Land Transportation, Franchising and
Regulatory Board (LTFRB)
 O. No. 202, dated 19 June 1987
97. Land Transportation Office v. Butuan, G.R.
No. 131512. Jan. 20, 2000
 
“To regulate” and “to register” construed  
  Prohibited acts specifically penalized under R.A. No.
Key powers and functions of the LTFRB 4136
 O. No. 202, s. 1987  
  Retroactive effect of penal laws
3. The Local Government Units (LGUs)  19 of R.A. No. 10586 expressly modified Sec.
  56(f) of R.A. No. 4136
Power to regulate the operation and grant franchises to  22, RPC, in relation to Sec. 3(e), RA 10586
tricycles devolved to LGU  
 458. R.A. No. 7160 1. RECKLESS DRIVING AND ROAD ACCIDENTS
   
Rationale for the devolution Reckless driving and reckless imprudence
   48, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
LTO powers on vehicle registration and drivers’ licensing  
not devolved to LGUs Imprudence defined
   
4. The Metropolitan Manila Development Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property;
Authority (MMDA) elements
   
MMDA’s power to enforce traffic laws in Metro Manila Presumption of imprudent driving; burden of proof on
 5(f), Republic Act No. 7924 the accused
   
1. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ROAD USERS When motor vehicle operator at fault may be held
98. Caminos, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 147437. May criminally liable
8, 2009  56[n], R.A. No. 4136, as amended
   
Duty of drivers to have license Negligence of other party not a defense in reckless
 19, R.A. No. 4136, as amended by B.P. Blg. driving case
398  
  Instance when presumption of driver’s negligence arises
Right of way construed  2185, Civil Code
   
Right of way rule in intersections Rate of speed a basic factor in determining reckless
 42, R.A. No. 4136 driving
   
Duty to yield Restriction as to speed
   35[a], R.A. No. 4136, as amended
Rule determined by imminence of collision  
  Reasonable rate of speed
Crossing a thru-stop street  100. Gabriel v. CA, G.R. No. 128474. Oct. 6, 2004;
99. Adzuara v. CA, G.R. No. 125134. Jan. 22, 440 SCRA 136
1999; 301 SCRA 657  35, R.A. No. 4136
   
Driving on right side of highway Swerving per se not violative of traffic law
 37, R.A. No. 4136, as amended  48, R.A. No. 4136
  101. Sydeco v. People, G.R. No. 202692. Nov. 12,
Overtaking a vehicle 2014
 39, R.A. No. 4136, as amended  
  Driving under the influence of alcohol
Driver to give way to overtaking vehicle  5, R.A. No. 10586
 40, R.A. No. 4136, as amended  3(g), IRR of R.A. No. 10586
   
Turning right or left at intersections Driving under the influence of dangerous drugs and
 45[a] and [b], R.A. No. 4136, as amended other similar substance
   3[f], R.A. No. 10586
Parking prohibited in specified places  
 46, R.A. No. 4136, as amended Conduct of field sobriety tests
   6, R.A. No. 10586
Hitching to a vehicle prohibited  3[g], R.A. No. 10586
 51, R.A. No. 4136, as amended  
  Use of breath analyzer
Obstruction of traffic  3[b], R.A. No. 10586
 54, R.A. No. 4136, as amended  
Chemical and confirmatory tests
 3[c], R.A. No. 10586
 
Mandatory alcohol and chemical testing of drivers
involved in motor vehicular accidents
 7, R.A. No. 10586
 
Refusal to submit to mandatory tests
 6, 7, 8 and 15, R.A. No. 10586
Children prohibited from sitting in front seat
 5, R.A. No. 8750
Duty of driver in case of accident
 55, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
1. ARRESTS AND SEARCHES
 
When refusal to get off of the vehicle for a body and
vehicle search not deemed as serious disobedience to a
lawful order
102. Abenes v. CA, G.R. No. 156320. Feb. 14, 2007;
515 SCRA 690
 151, Revised Penal Code
 
Reasonable suspicion of a crime that would justify stop-
and-frisk action
103. People v. Sy Chua, G.R. No. 136066-67. Feb.
4, 2003; 444 Phil. 757
 
General rule is confiscation of driver’s license not arrest
 29. R.A. 4136
 
No warrant of arrest to be issued for offense penalized
only by fine; effect of issuance of traffic citation ticket
104. Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788. Feb. 29, 2012
 
Requirements for a valid arrest
105. Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-61016. April
26, 1983; 206 Phil. 466
 
Invalid arrest does not authorize warrantless search
106. People v. Bolasa, G.R. No. 125754. Dec. 22,
1999; 378 Phil. 1073
 
Evidence seized not in plain view
107. People v. Macalaba, G.R. No. 146284-86. Jan.
20, 2003; 443 Phil. 565
Consented warrantless search
108. Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 136292. Jan. 15,
2002; 424 Phil. 263
 
Inadmissibility of articles seized during illegal arrest
109. People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366. Dec. 13,
2010
 
1. MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND
FRANCHISING
Motor vehicle defined
Compulsory registration of motor vehicles
 5(a) and (e), R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
Unregistered sale or lease of motor vehicle not binding
on third persons injured in vehicular accidents
110. First Malayan Leasing and Finance Corp. v.
CA,R. No. 91378. June 9, 1992; 209 SCRA 660
111. Roxas v. CA,R. No. 92245. June 26, 1991; 198
SCRA 541
112. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. UCPB General
Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 162267. July 4, 2008
Nature of motor vehicle registration fees: taxes or
regulatory fees
113. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Edu, G.R. No. L-
41383. Aug. 15, 1988
Mandatory emission standards for motor vehicles
 46, R.A. No. 8749 or the Clean Air Act of 1999
 
Seat belt device defined
 3, R.A. No. 8750
 
Mandatory use and provision of seat belts in certain
motor vehicles
 4, R.A. No. 8750
 
Penalties and fines for violation of the Seat Belts Use Act
 12, R.A. No. 8750
 
Permanent number plates
 17, R.A. No. 4136, as amended by B.P. Blg. 43
 
Certificate of Public Convenience issued by LTFRB
 
Franchise defined
 
Public convenience or necessity construed
 
Public hearing an indispensable requirement in issuance
of CPC
114. Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes, G.R.
No. L-28865. Dec. 19, 1928; 52 Phil., 455
115. Manila Electric Company v. Pasay
Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-37655. Feb. 9,
1933; 57 Phil. 825
 
Requisites for the grant of CPC
 16(a), C.A. No. 146, as amended
LTFRB cannot redelegate its delegated power to a
common carrier
116. United States v. Barrias, G.R. No. 4349. Sept.
24, 1908; 11 Phil. 327
 
Kabit system
117. Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 57493.
Jan. 7, 1987; 147 SCRA 82
 1409, Civil Code
118. Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 125817. Jan. 16, 2002
Purpose behind the proscription against the kabit system
Kabit system not a criminal offense but void under civil  Art. 586, Code of Commerce and 1, R.A. No.
law 9515
 1412, Civil Code  
119. Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 64693. Powers and functions of a ship agent
April 27, 1984  
  Civil liabilities of the shipowner and ship agent
Boundary system  Art. 587, Code of Commerce
120. Paguio Transport Corp. v. National Labor  
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119500. Aug. 28, Authority of the ship agent to discharge the captain and
1998 members of the crew
   603 and 605, Code of Commerce
Relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the  
driver under a “boundary system” 2. The ship captain and master of the vessel
  128. Yu Con v. Ipil, G.R. No. L-10195. Dec. 29, 1916
121. Jardin v. National Labor Relations  
Commission, G.R. No. 119268. Feb. 23, 2000 Nature of the position of captain and master
122. National Labor Union v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-  
14183. Nov. 4, 1993 Qualifications of a captain or master
   609, Code of Commerce
Effect of transfer or lease of franchise  
123. Montoya v. Ignacio, G.R. No. L-5868. Dec. 29, Inherent powers of a captain or master
1953; 94 Phil. 182  610, Code of Commerce
   
Registered owner liable despite transfer of ownership of Hull
vehicle  
124. Perez v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. L-30115. Sept. 28, Rigging
1973; 53 SCRA 149  
125. Benedicto v. IAC, G.R. No. 70876. July 19, Fund sources
1990  611, Code of Commerce
   
Approval of sale, encumbrance or lease of property  Duties of a captain or master
 DOTC Order No. 2010‐34  612, Code of Commerce
   
Sale or lease of franchise requires prior approval by  “Log book” and its contents
LTFRB  
  “Accounting book” and its contents
Prior approval of the sale, lease or encumbrance of  
property not a condition precedent to validity of “Freight book” and its contents
contract  
126. Fores v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-12163. March 4, Solidary liability of the captain and ship agent
1959  618, Code of Commerce
   
Solidary liability of a registered owner/operator of a Instances when the captain incurs no liability
public service vehicle  620, Code of Commerce
127. Gelisan v. Alday, G.R. No. L-30212. Sept. 30,  
1987 Ship’s captain discretionary authority
  129. Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises Inc. v.
CHAPTER V National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
115286. Aug. 11, 1994
MARINE TRANSPORTATION  
  Captain cannot be substituted without ship agent’s
1. MARINE TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME consent
LAWS  615, Code of Commerce
   
Marine transportation defined Cases when the captain and crew members may rescind
  their contracts of employment
Governing law  647, Code of Commerce
   
Admiralty or maritime law  The officers and crew of the vessel
   
Admiralty law differentiated from the Law of the Sea Cases when the officers and crew are exempted from all
  obligations
1. THE KEY ACTORS IN MARITIME COMMERCE  647, Code of Commerce
1. The shipowner and ship agent
   17 and 21 of P.D. No. 1521 or “The Ship
Sailing mate or First mate Mortgage Decree of 1978”
 627, Code of Commerce  
  3. Preferred maritime lien
Duties of a Sailing mate or First mate  17 and 21 of P.D. No. 1521
 628 to 631, Code of Commerce  
  4. Doctrine of limited liability or the Limited
“Binnacle book” and its contents liability rule
 629 to 631, Code of Commerce  587, Code of Commerce
  132. Yangco v. Laserna, G.R. No. L-47447-47449.
Second mate Oct. 29, 1941; 73 Phil. 330
   
Duties of a Second mate Rationale for the doctrine
 632, Code of Commerce  
  Doctrine of limited liability; specific applications
Marine engineers  587, 590, 643 and 837, Code of Commerce
   
Duties of the Chief engineer Limited liability rule under the provisions of the Code of
  Commerce
“Engine book” and its contents  587, 590 and 837, Book III, Code of
  Commerce
The crew and its composition  
 634, Code of Commerce Exceptions to the limited liability rule
  133. Chua Yek Hong v. IAC, G.R. No. 74811. Sept.
Just causes for the discharge of a seaman 30, 1988
 637, Code of Commerce  827, Code of Commerce
   
Rules if a seaman should die or be captured during the Abandonment defined
voyage  140, Insurance Code, as amended
 645, Code of Commerce  
  General limitation on abandonment
Complement of a vessel  142, Insurance Code, as amended
 648, Code of Commerce  
  Abandonment of the vessel; when needed
4. Supercargoes  837, Code of Commerce
 649, Code of Commerce 134. Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. L-
  58897. Dec. 3, 1987; 156 SCRA 169
5. The pilot  
130. Far Eastern Shipping Company v. CA, G.R. No. Abandonment; how done
130068. Oct. 1, 1998  145 and 146, Insurance Code, as amended
   
Harbor pilot Acceptance of abandonment 
   152 to 155, Insurance Code, as amended
Pilotage defined  
  Effect of refusal to accept a valid abandonment
Compulsory pilotage  156, Insurance Code, as amended
   
Liability of a pilot Abandonment no longer required when vessel is totally
  lost
 11, Art. III, PPA Admin Order 03-85  
   587, 590 and 837, Code of Commerce
1. IMPORTANT CONCEPTS IN MARITIME 135. Vasquez v. CA, G.R. No. L-42926. Sept. 13,
COMMERCE 1985; 138 SCRA 553
   
Essential terms used in maritime commerce When abandonment becomes ineffectual
              144, Insurance Code, as amended
1. Merchant vessel defined  
 D. No. 1521 Causes justifying resort to abandonment
   141, Insurance Code, as amended
2. Maritime lien  
131. Philippine National Bank v. CA, G.R. No.  Subsidiary liability of the shipowner and agent
128661. Aug. 8, 2000; 337 SCRA 381 136. The Philippine Shipping Company v. Vergara,
G.R. No. L-1600. June 1, 1906; Phil. 281
 837, Code of Commerce  587, Code of Commerce
137. Manila Steamship Co., Inc. v. Abdulhaman,  687, Id.
G.R. No. L-9534. Sept. 29, 1956; 100 Phil. 32  138, Insurance Code
   
Limitations on the right of abandonment 1. Participants in maritime commerce
138. Philippine American General Insurance  
Company, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 116940. June 11, 1997; 1. Charter party
339 Phil. 455 146. Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front
139. Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 119197. May 16,
110398. Nov. 7, 1997; 346 Phil. 551 1997; 272 SCRA 527
   
 Effect of abandonment of vessel and earned freight Charter party as a special contract in maritime
 587, Code of Commerce commerce
140. Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. v.  
Ramirez, G.R. No. L-48264. Feb. 21, 1980; 96 SCRA Parties to a charter party
297  
  Kinds of charter party
Right of abandonment 147. Puromines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 91228. March
  22, 1993
Extent of liability of the shipowner and ship agent  
141. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 121833, Charter of demise or bareboat
130752, 137801. Oct. 17, 2008; 569 SCRA 294).  
  Owner pro hac vice
Ship agent defined  
 587, Code of Commerce Contract of affreightment
   
“No vessel, no liability” rule Kinds of contract of affreightment
142. The Government of the Philippine Islands v.  
The Insular Maritime Co., G.R. No. L-21495. March 18, Time charter
1924; 45 Phil. 805). 148. Litonjua Shipping Company Inc. v. National
  Seamen Board, G.R. No. L-51910. Aug. 10, 1989
Origin of the rule and the rationale for its adoption in  
maritime law Voyage charter
143. Abueg v. San Diego, G.R. No. L-773. Dec. 17,  
1946; 77 Phil. 730 Distinctions between a civil law lease and a charter party
   
Real and hypothecary nature of maritime law Distinctions between a charter party and a bill of lading
144. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. General Accident  
Fire and Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., G.R. No. 100446. Distinctions between a demise or bareboat charter party
Jan. 21, 1993; 217 SCRA 359 and a contract of affreightment
   
“Real” and “hypothecary” construed Persons who can make a charter
145. Rubiso v. Rivera, G.R. No. L-11407. Oct. 30,  598, Code of Commerce
1917; 37 Phil. 72  609, Id.
   679, Id.
Primary governing law on liability of ship owners or  
agents for total loss or destruction of the vessel Requirements of a valid charter party
 1732-1766, Civil Code  
 587, Code of Commerce Instances when a charter party may be rescinded
   
1. Package liability limitation Freight defined
   
1. Causes of revocation of voyage Freightage
 640, Code of Commerce  104, P.D. No. 612 or the Insurance Code, as
Interdiction of commerce amended by R.A. No. 10607
   
Blockade  Requisites and contents of charter party
   652, Code of Commerce
Embargo  
  Charter party clauses 
Order of preference in case of sale of vessel  
  Jason clause
Effect of sale of vessel  
 17, P.D. No. 1521 Paramount clause
 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (46 U.S.C.A. § 152. Roque v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66935. Nov. 11, 1985
1300)  
  Marine insurance and loan on bottomry and
Rights and obligations of the shipowner or ship agent   respondentia
 669-678, Code of Commerce  101, Insurance Code
   735, Code of Commerce
Lay days defined  
  1. Accidents in maritime commerce
Extra lay days   
   Averages
Demurrage  806, Code of Commerce
              
Obligations of charterers Ordinary expenses
 679-687, Code of Commerce  807, Code of Commerce
Primage  
  Kinds of averages
Rescission of a charter party at the charterer’s request   
 688, Code of Commerce  808, Code of Commerce
   
Rescission of a charter party at the shipowner’s request  Simple or particular averages
 689, Code of Commerce  809 and 810, Code of Commerce
   
Rescission of a charter party due to fortuitous causes  General or gross averages
 690, Code of Commerce  811, Code of Commerce
   
Transshipment defined Requisites for general average
 Sec 2[m], R.A. No. 10668  816-818, Code of Commerce
149. Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corp. v.  
CA, G.R. No. 95529. Aug. 22, 1991 Procedure for recovery expenses for gross average
   813 and 814, Code of Commerce
1. Loans on bottomry and respondentia  
 719, Code of Commerce Contribution to the general average
   812, Code of Commerce
Aleatory contract  859, Id.
   732, Id.
Distinctions between a loan on bottomry and a loan on 153. Magsaysay, Inc. v. Agan, G.R. No. L-6393. Jan.
respondentia 31, 1955
   812, Code of Commerce
Requisites of loan on bottomry or respondentia  
  Jettison defined
When loan on bottomry or respondentia treated as a  
simple loan Order of goods or cargo to be jettisoned or cast
 726 and 727, Code of Commerce overboard
   815, Code of Commerce
Interest rate on the loan; Usury law and CB Circular 905-  
92 Cargo not covered by general average
 Central Bank Circular No. 905-82  855, Code of Commerce
150. Dio v. Japor, G.R. No. 154129. July 8, 2005;  Rule IX, York-Antwerp Rule
463 SCRA 170  
151. Almeda v. CA, G.R. No. 113412. April 17, Rationale for the rule on deck cargo
1996; 256 SCRA 292  1, Art. 815, Code of Commerce,
  154. Standard Oil Company of New York v. Castelo,
Distinctions between a loan on bottomry or G.R. No. L-13695. Oct. 18, 1921).
respondentia and marine insurance  
  Rule different in coastwise and inland waters navigation
Hypothecary nature of bottomry and respondentia  
 731, Code of Commerce Requisites for inclusion of jettisoned goods in the
  general average
Hypothecary  816, Code of Commerce
   
Barratry defined  Arrival under stress
   819, Code of Commerce
Barratry clause  
Steps to be followed in arrival under stress  
 819, Code of Commerce Who can file maritime protest in case of collision
   835-836, Code of Commerce
Protest in arrival under stress only a disclaimer on 158. Verzosa v. Lim, G.R. No. 20145. Nov. 15, 1923
owner’s liability  
  Effect of absence of protest on persons not on board
When arrival deemed unlawful  836, Code of Commerce
 820, Code of Commerce  
  Limitation on the shipowners’ civil liability
Who bears the expenses of arrival  837, Code of Commerce
 821, Code of Commerce  
  Indemnity for death or injury of persons
Duty of the captain to continue the voyage  838, Code of Commerce
 825, Code of Commerce  
  Summary investigation of the accident
 Collision and allision  839, Code of Commerce
   
Vessel at fault liable for indemnity Presumptions to determine negligence 
 826, Code of Commerce  
  Rules to prevent collision 
Liability if both vessels at fault or if it cannot be  
determined which vessel caused the collision Port and starboard
 827 and 828, Code of Commerce  
  Windward and leeward
Doctrine of last clear chance and Rule on contributory  
negligence Rules governing sailing vessels and steamships
 827, Code of Commerce  
  Maritime protest defined; by whom and when made; to
Doctrine of inscrutable fault whom filed
   835, Code of Commerce
Divisions of time or zones in collisions of vessels  
155. Urrutia & Co. v. Baco River Plantation Co., Persons not required to file protest
G.R. No. L-7675. March 25, 1913).  836, Code of Commerce
   
Error in extremis defined Cases where protest requirement applies
   835, Code of Commerce
Liability in collision through fortuitous event or force  612[8], Id.
majeure  612[15] and 843, Id.
 830, Code of Commerce  624, Id.
   
Presumption of fault against a moving vessel striking a  Shipwreck defined
stationary object; doctrine of res ipsa loquitur  
156. Far Eastern Shipping Company v. CA, G.R. No. Owners bear the losses due to shipwreck
130068. Oct. 1, 1998  840, Code of Commerce
157. Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., G.R. No.  
L-21749. Sept. 29, 1967; 21 SCRA 279 Indemnity from the captain due to his fault
   841, Code of Commerce
Civil tort vis-à-vis maritime tort  
  When the captain may be held liable for shipwreck
Liability of third vessel causing the collision  841, Code of Commerce
 831, Code of Commerce  
  1. SPECIAL CONCEPTS IN MARITIME
Liability of properly anchored and moored vessel COMMERCE
colliding with nearby vessels due to storm or force  
majeure  Arrastre defined
 832, Code of Commerce  
  Arrastre services
When vessel presumed as lost by reason of collision  1213, R.A. No. 1937
 833, Code of Commerce  
  Nature of arrastre function; BOC’s immunity from suit
Role of protest for the recovery of losses and damages 159. Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs
due to collision; when and how made Arrastre Service, G.R. No. L-23139. Dec. 17, 1966
 835, Code of Commerce  
Arrastre operators
Functions of an arrastre operator
160. Hijos de F. Escao, Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 59229. Aug. 22, 1991;
261 SCRA 63
161. Summa Insurance Corp., v. CA, G.R. No.
84680. Feb. 5, 1996; 323 Phil. 214
162. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., v. Metro Port
Service, Inc., G.R. No. 83613. Feb. 21, 1990; 182 SCRA
455
Arrastre operator and carrier solidarily liable
163. Lua Kian v. Manila Railroad Company, G.R.
No. L-23033. Jan. 5, 1967; 19 SCRA 5
164. Northern Motors, Inc. v. Prince Line, G.R. No.
L-13884. Feb. 29, 1960; 107 Phil. 253).
What arrastre operator must prove to avoid liability
165. Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Daehan Fire and
Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 171194. Feb. 4,
2010; 611 SCRA 555
 
Arrastre operator deemed a public utility
166. New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd. v.
Navarro, G.R. No. L-48686. Oct. 4, 1989
 
 Stevedoring service defined
167. Cebu Arrastre Service v. Collector of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. L-7444. May 30, 1966
168. The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the
Philippines v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
L-21835. Aug. 19, 1967
169. Anglo-Fil Trading Corp. v. Lazaro, G.R. No. L-
54958. Sept. 2, 1983
 
 Containerization
 
170. United States Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner of
Customs, G.R. No. L-73490. June 18, 1987
 
When carrier of the containerized cargo may be held
liable
171. Reyma Brokerage, Inc. v. Philippine Home
Assurance Corp., G.R. No. 93464. Oct. 7, 1991
172. Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp. v.
CA, G.R. No. 80256. Oct. 2, 1992
 
1. SALVAGE LAW OR ACT NO. 2616
 
Salvage defined
173. Erlanger & Galinger v. The Swedish East
Asiatic Co., [Ltd.], G.R. No. L-10051. March 9, 1916
 
Elements needed to a valid salvage claim
 
Rules for determining the reward for salvage
 9, Act No. 2616
Proper subjects of salvage
 Salvage Law (Act No. 2616)
 
Flotsam, jetsam, lagan defined
Towage defined
Salvage distinguished from towage
 2142, Civil Code
174. Barrios v. Carlos A. Go thong & Company,
G.R. No. L-17192. March 30, 1963
 
Persons having no right to reward for salvage
 3, Act No. 2616
 
Derelict defined
Basic rules on salvage reward
 9, 11, 12 and 13, Act No. 2616
175. The Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Company of
Manila v. Uchida Kisen Kaisha, G.R. No. L-15871. Nov.
7, 1921
1. CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (COGSA)
OR COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 65
 
U.S. COGSA adopted by the Philippine Congress via C.A.
No. 65
 Public Act No. 521 of the 74th US Congress
 1, C.A. No. 65
 
Application of COGSA in relation to provisions of other
laws
 1753, Civil Code
 1766, Civil Code
 COGSA
 
Significant provisions of COGSA
 
Rationale for limiting common carrier’s liability
176. Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. v. UCPB
General Insurance Co., G.R. No. 146018. June 25,
2003
 
Carriage of goods; period covered
 1(e), Title I of C.A. No. 65 (COGSA)
177. Insurance Company of North America v. Asian
Terminals, Inc., G.R. No. 180784. Feb. 15, 2012
 
Notice of loss or damage 
 3[6], COGSA
 
Action to recover not barred by lack of notice
 
178. E. Elser, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L‐6517. Nov. 29,
1954)
 
Prescriptive period for filing an action under COGSA
 (6), Sec. 3, COGSA
 
179. Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping,
N.V. v. Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No.
143133. June 5, 2002; 383 SCRA 23)
Other persons covered by the one-year prescriptive
period
180. Kuy v. Everrett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L‐
5554. May 27, 1953
 
Insurer covered by the one-year prescriptive period  
181. Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. v.
Alejandro, G.R. No. L‐54140. Oct. 14, 1986
 3(6), COGSA
182. Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. v. CA, G.R. No.
124050. June 19, 1997
Arrastre operator not covered by prescriptive period
 
Rationale for the prescriptive period under COGSA
183. Ang v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc.,
G.R. No. L-22491. Jan. 27, 1967; 19 SCRA 129
 
Not loss or damage but misdelivery
 3(6), COGSA
 
Applicable rule on prescription in case of misdelivery of
goods
 
 1144(1) and 1146, Civil Code
184. Tan Liao v. American President Lines, Ltd.,
G.R. No. L-7280. Jan. 20, 1956; 98 Phil. 203
 
Instances when prescription is suspended
185. Universal Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No.
74125. July 31, 1990; 188 SCRA 170
186. H. Stevens & Co. Inc. v. Norddeuscher Lloyd,
G.R. No. L-17730. Sept. 29, 1962; 6 SCRA 180
Provisions of Civil Code on prescription not applicable to
COGSA
 1155, Civil Code
 3, par. 6, COGSA
187. Chua Kuy v. Everett Steamship Corp., G.R. No.
L-5554. May 27, 1953
 1155, Civil Code
188. The Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co.,
Ltd. v. American President Lines, Inc., G.R. No. No. L-
11081. April 30, 1958; 103 Phil. 1125
189. Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Maritime Company of
the Philippines, G.R. No. L‐61352. Feb. 27, 1987
 
When prescription begins to run 
190. Continental Insurance Company v. Manila
Port Service, G.R. No. L-22208. March 30, 1966, 16
SCRA 425
191. Union Carbide Philippnes, Inc. v. Manila
Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-27798. June 15, 1977
Prescriptive period applies to insurer of goods
When cases for loss or damage of goods must be filed
 
Manner of determining the amount of liability of
common carrier for loss or damage to the goods
transported
 372, Code of Commerce
 
When shipper fails to declare value of goods
 4, par. 5, COGSA
192. Philam Insurance Company, Inc. v. Heung-A
Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 187701. July 23, 2014
Amount of carrier’s liability
4(5), COGSA
193. Eastern Shipping v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69044.
May 29, 1987; 150 SCRA 463).
 
Parties may stipulate higher amount up to actual
damage sustained
Stipulation limiting carrier’s liability for loss of goods
permitted
 1749 and 1750, Civil Code
 4, par. (5), COGSA
 
Stipulation limiting the carrier’s liability; when valid
 1744, Civil Code
 
Rule on packages shipped in a container
 
“Container” construed
194. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 89757.
Aug. 6, 1990
 
Deterioration of goods due to delay in transit constitutes
loss or damage
 3(6), COGSA
 
Instances when carrier or ship not liable
 
CHAPTER VI
AIR TRANSPORTATION
 
1. AIR TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY BODIES
 Republic Act No. 776, as amended by
Presidential Decree 1462
 Republic Act No. 9497
 
1. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)
 
CAB’s authority to issue certain documents, permits
 
Specific powers and duties of the CAB
 10[C], R.A. No. 776, as amended
 
Considerations in CAB’s rate-fixing
 10[C][2], R.A. No. 776, as amended
 
2. The Civil Aviation Authority of the
Philippines (CAAP)
Powers of the CAAP
1. TRANSPORTATION STATUTES AND GLOBAL
ACCORDS
 Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines or
Republic Act No. 776, as amended (1952);
 Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 or
Republic Act No. 9497; and
 Warsaw Convention of 1929 or the
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules
Relating to International Carriage by Air, as amended
by subsequent international agreements.
 
1. The Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines
or Republic Act No. 776, as amended (1952);
 Republic Act No. 776, otherwise known as the
Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines, as amended
by Presidential Decree No. 1462 and Executive Order
No. 217
CAB empowered to issue CPCNs and permits to air
carriers
 
CAB requirements to be satisfied by a foreign air carrier
intending to operate in the country
 
Regulation of airfares
 5.01, IRR of E.O. No. 219, s. 1995 and E.O. No.
32, s. 2001
 
Aviation-specific passenger protection rules and
regulations
 
 CAB’s Economic Regulation No. 9, December
18, 2012
 
Serious aviation crimes under the Anti-hijacking Law of
1971
 1, R.A. No. 6235
 
Shipping, loading or carrying of any substance regulated
by CAB
 2 and 3, R.A. No. 6235
Air Passenger Bill of Rights
 DOTC-DTI Joint Administrative Order No. 1
(2012)
 
The Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 or Republic Act
No. 9497
 Republic Act No. 9497, otherwise known as
the Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008
 
CAAP’s authority to prevent flight
 39, R.A. No. 9497
 
System and procedures for investigation of air accidents
Aircraft accident investigation and Inquiry board
 42, R.A. No. 9497
 
Establishment of registry of aircrafts
 43, R.A. No. 9497
 
Eligibility for registration of aircraft
 43, R.A. No. 9497, citing R.A. No. 776, P.D.
No. 1278, E.O. No. 546, and B.P. Blg. 504
 
Nationality of aircraft
 47, R.A. No. 9497
 
Conveyance of aircraft required to be recorded in CAAP
to be valid against third parties
 49, R.A. No. 9497
 
Form of conveyance
 50, R.A. No. 9497
 
CAAP’s aviation safety powers and functions
 55, R.A. No. 9497
 
The Chicago Convention
2. The Warsaw Convention of 1929 
 
 Convention for the Unification of Certain
Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air,
commonly known as the Warsaw Convention (WC)
195. Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines, G.R.
No. 101538. June 23, 1992
 
Warsaw Convention; its application vis-à-vis Philippine
laws
196. Mapa v. CA, G.R. No. 122308. July 8, 1997;
341 Phil. 281
197. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., v. CA, G.R. No.
60501. March 5, 1993; 219 SCRA 520
 
Principal goal of the treaty
 
Twin purposes of the treaty
 
Scope of application of the treaty
 
International transportation
 1[2], Warsaw Convention
High contracting party
 
Transportation by several successive air carriers deemed
as one undivided transportation
 1[3], Warsaw Convention
 
Carrier’s liability for damage in case of passenger’s death
or injury
 17, Warsaw Convention
 
Liability for damage for destroyed, lost or damaged
articles
 18, Warsaw Convention
Period of transportation by air
 
Liability of carrier for delay
 19, Warsaw Convention
 
Provision limiting carrier’s liability for damage caused by
its willful misconduct removed by Hague Protocol
198. Alitalia v. IAC, G.R. No. 71929. Dec. 4, 1990
 
Limit of carrier’s liability
 
 22, Warsaw Convention
Exceptions to the limitations
Willful misconduct
199. Luna v. CA, G.R. No. 100374-75. Nov. 27, 1992
200. Northwest Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 120334.
Jan. 20, 1998
201. Lhuiller v. British Airways, G.R. No. 171092.
March 15, 2010

Airway bill defined
Warsaw Convention does not preclude the operation of
the Civil Code and other laws
 
Stipulation relieving the carrier from or limiting its
liability
 23, Warsaw Convention
202. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. IAC, G.R.
No. 70462, 164 SCRA 268
203. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca, G.R. No. L-
22425. Aug. 31, 1965; 14 SCRA 1063); or
204. Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines, G.R.
No. L-28773. June 30, 1975; 64 SCRA 610
205. Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. CA, G.R. No.
114061. Aug. 3, 1994; 154 SCRA 211
206. Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.,
G.R. No. L-28589. Jan. 8, 1973; 43 SCRA 397
 
Validity of stipulation relieving the carrier from or
limiting its liability 
 23[1], Warsaw Convention
Notices of claim in case of damage or delay
 26, Warsaw Convention
 
When right to damages is extinguished by prescription
 29, Warsaw Convention
207. United Airlines v. Uy, G.R. No. 127768. Nov.
19, 1999
 
Recovery of claim covered by the Convention after 2
years
 19, Warsaw Convention
 24, Id.
208. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Savillo, 209. G.R.
No. 149547. July 4, 2008; 557 SCRA 66
Jurisdiction
“Destination” and “agreed stopping place”
Article 28(1) refers to jurisdiction not venue
 28(1), Warsaw Convention
 32, Id.
 
Special rules on the liabilities of airline carriers
209. Philippine Airlines, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. L-
82619. Sept. 15, 1993);
210. Zalamea v. CA, G.R. No. 104235. Nov. 18,
1993
211. Lufthansa German Airlines v. CA, G.R. No.
83612. Nov. 24, 1994
212. KLM Dutch Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. No. L-
31150. July 22, 1975; 65 SCRA 237
 
Rule in case of various successive carriers
 
Remedies of parties in carriage of passengers and goods
 30, Warsaw Convention
 
Contract of carriage performed by different carriers
213. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British
Overseas Airways Corp., G.R. No. L-65773-74. April
30, 1987,
 VI, Res. 850 of the IATA
214. American Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 116044-45.
March 9, 2000; 384 Phil.
215. 227Distinction between damage to baggage
and injury to passenger due to the misconduct of
airline employees
 
Limitations to the liability of air carriers under the
Convention
 
 22, Warsaw Convention
 25, Id