UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS

COLLEGE OF LAW
MIDTERM-FINAL EXAMINATION 2020
TRANSPORTATION LAW

INSTRUCTIONS: Answer the questions in your notebook. Answer each number in a

separate page. Sub-questions may be answered on the same page. Give brief and concise
answers with your legal and factual basis. A mere YES or NO answer will not be given
credit.

1. Abu Rido is the owner of three large trucks which he offers for hire to a limited number
of small-scale pocket miners operating in the mining communities in Itogon, Benguet
for the carriage of mining tools, equipment and chemicals from Poro Point, La Union to
Itogon, Benguet. On his way back to La Union, he offers to carry vegetable and other
farm products from La Trinidad to San Fernando, La Union. His trucks do not have
regular or scheduled trips to and from La Union. The trucks do not travel an
established route. Abu Rido is not even issued a certificate of public convenience. On
January 25, 2019, after delivering one truck load of chemicals from Poro Point, La
Union to Itogon, Benguet, Abu Rido agreed to transport 200 sacks of potatoes belonging
to Mario Gardinero from La Trinidad, Benguet to Bauang, La Union. Abu Rido explained
to Mario that his back-load is not his main business but he will accommodate him
since he is not carrying anything on his way back to the lowlands. The cargo did not
reach Bauang as the truck’s brakes malfunctioned and fell off a bridge scattering all
200 sacks of potato in the river. Mario sued Abu Rido for damages. The court ruled in
favour of Mario ruling that Pedro, as a common carrier, is liable for breach of contract
of carriage of goods. On appeal, Pedro claims that although he is a common carrier with
respect to the carriage of mining equipment and chemicals, he should not be treated as
such with respect to his transaction with Mario considering that said agreement was an
isolated transaction different from his main business which he held out to the public. Is
the appeal meritorious? Explain with legal basis. (5%)

2. Bar Co., Inc., the owner of M/V Nal Mess is engaged in the business of transporting
goods anywhere in the Philippines. On June 16, 2018, M/V Nal Mess transported 50
metric tons of fertilizer belonging to Abo No, a Filipino-Japanese businessman, from
Poro Point, La Union to the port of Cebu City. Prior to its voyage, a time charter-party
on the vessel M/V Nal Mess was entered into between Abo No as shipper and Bar Co.,
Inc. as ship owner. Upon arrival at the port of Cebu, the fertilizers were unloaded and
delivered to the warehouse of Abo No. It was later found out that the cargo was three
tons short due to spillage during the voyage. Abo No filed an action for damages against
Bar Co. Inc. to recover his losses. Abo No claims that Bar Co. is presumed negligent as
it is a common carrier. By way of defense, Bar Co claims that although it holds out
itself to the public as one engaged in the carriage of goods, it was converted into a
private carrier on account of the time charter-party it entered into with Abo No. Is the
defense tenable? Explain with legal basis. (5%).

3. Tim Mc Key is the registered owner and franchise holder of several units of taxi
operating in Baguio City. Dim Manug upon the other hand is the owner of a transient
house in Baguio City. Dim Manug leased two units of taxi from Tim Mc Key for the
purpose of transporting several of his guests in key tourist spots in Baguio City and
Benguet. One of the taxi units was driven by Dim Manug himself and the other was
driven by his cousin, Kim Mugtar. While traversing Loakan Road, Dim Manug lost
control of the steering wheel of the taxi he was driving. The taxi collided with an
oncoming motorcycle driven by Pedro seriously injuring the latter. Pedro sued Dim
Manug and Tim Mc Key for damages.

a. Discuss fully the liabilities of Dim Manug and Tim Mc Key (5%)
 b. If you were approached by Tim Mc Key prior to the lease of the taxi units by Dim
Manug, what advice would you give to Tim Mc Key in order that he would avoid any
liability for damages resulting from the operation of the taxi units? (5%)

4. Simeon Madot, fondly called, Sim Madot, is the registered owner and holder of
certificate of public convenience of a Public Utility Jeepney plying the route Baguio City
to Ampucao, Itogon, Benguet and vice versa. Sim Madot sold his jeepney to Gimeno
Maget, more popularly known as, Gim Maget. The jeepney unit, however remained
registered under the name of Sim Madot. Gim Maget continued to operate the same
under the franchise of Sim Madot. On January 1, 2017, while traversing Ampucao
Road, the said jeepney, then driven by Gim Maget, was bumped head-on by a ten-
wheeler truck owned and operated by Jack Amu. The force of the impact rendered the
jeepney wrecked beyond repair. Miraculously, except for Gim Maget, not one of the
passengers of the jeepney suffered any serious injuries. It was obvious from the police
report that Jack Amu invaded the lane of the jeepney and that Jack Amu was
intoxicated at the time of the incident. Gim Maget sued Jack Amu for damages. By way
of defense, Jack Amu contends that the case should be dismissed as Gim Maget is not
the registered owner and franchise holder of the vehicle, thus he is not a real party in
interest. The court dismissed the case on that ground.

a. Is the ruling of the court correct? Explain fully. (5%)

b. Suppose it was Gim Maget who was intoxicated and it was his jeepney which
invaded the lane of the oncoming truck resulting to serious injuries on the part
of Jack Amu, who should be held liable for the injuries sustained by the latter?
(5%)

5. Dinah Maganda is the owner of several buses plying the route from Bontoc, Mt.
Province to Lagawe, Ifugao via Mt. Polis Highway. Early in the year 2018, there have
been widespread reported incidents of hijacking and throwing of stones at passing
vehicles along Mt. Polis Highway especially in the evening. The drivers and operators of
public transport in that area were well aware of this. Sometime in June 2018, Pedro
Guapito boarded one of the buses of Dina Maganda bound for Banaue. It was already
dark when the bus left Bontoc. While traversing the Highway, a huge stone suddenly
went flying through the window of the bus hitting Pedro Guapito right on the forehead.
He suffered near-fatal injuries and could have died were it not for the immediate
medical attention he received. It was later found that several unknown individuals
hurled stones at the bus. Pedro sued Dina Maganda for damages. As a defense, Dinah
alleged that the incident was purely an accident which could not have been foreseen by
the driver as it was dark and the individuals who threw the stones were hidden from
the view of the driver.

a. If you were the judge, will you sustain the defense of Dinah Maganda? Explain.
(5%)
b. Suppose the bus was hijacked by three persons armed with guns who threatened
to kill anyone who resists, and they took off with the valuables of Pedro and many
other passengers, may Dinah Maganda be held liable for the damages sustained
by the passengers? Explain. (5%)

6. Ban Ca Lines, Inc., a common carrier, accepted one thousand sacks of Arabica coffee
beans from Barako Co. for shipment from Manila to Davao City. The employees and
crew of Ban Ca Lines observed and noted that many sacks had big holes on them and
that others had their openings loosely tied with flimsy strings. Due to the spillage of the
coffee beans during the voyage, there was a shortage in the coffee beans delivered to the
consignee. Baraco Co. sued Banca Lines for breach of contract and damages due to the
shortage. By way of defense, Ban Ca lines contends that it should not be held liable for
damages because the spillage resulting to the shortage of coffee beans delivered to the
consignee was due to the defective conditions of the sacks in which the coffee beans
were packed. Is the defense tenable? Reason with legal basis. (5%)
7. Des Gracia Inc. is the owner and operator of several buses plying the route of Baguio
City to Bugias and vice-versa, via Halsema Highway, a commonly known treacherous
highway due lessened visibility caused by thick fog and sharp curves. Every bus owned
by Des Gracia Inc. carried the following printed signage: “Do not disturb or talk to
the driver while the bus is in motion, otherwise the company will not assume
liability for any accident”. Pedro De Storbo, a law student from U.C., boarded one of
Des Gracia’s bus bound for Bugias, driven by his childhood friend, Mario Kaskasero.
Pedro was seated beside Mario. During the travel, Mario and Pedro engaged in an
animated conversation. Pedro was regaling Mario with his exploits in the college of law.
Mario, upon the other hand, boasted of his driving skills and was showing-off how fast
he could drive. While traversing Halsema Highway, Pedro dared Mario to show him his
driving skills and familiarity with the highway by overtaking other fast moving buses
ahead. Mario accepted the challenge. To the delight of Pedro, Mario overtook every bus
ahead of them. The bus, however, missed a sharp curve due to the thick and milky fog
which greatly reduced visibility. The bus headed straight down to a ravine. Several
passengers, including Pedro were seriously injured. Pedro and the other injured
passengers sued Des Gracia, Inc. for breach of contract and damages due to the
injuries they sustained. As a defense, Des Gracia Inc. contends that it should not be
held liable as the incident was a caso fortuito which exempts it from any liability.
a. If you were the judge, will you sustain the defense of Des Gracia, Inc.? Reason
with legal basis. (5%)

b. Suppose Des Gracia, Inc. interposes the defense as against Pedro De Storbo
that the latter violated the sign posted on the bus thus he should assume the
risk of the resulting injury to himself as he urged and encouraged the driver to
accept his challenge, will you sustain the defense? (5%)
c. Discuss the basis of liabilities, if any, of Des Gracia, Mario, and Pedro. (5%)
8. Baldo delivered to Bruno Shipping Line, Inc., a common carrier, three units of pay
loader for transportation to Cebu City from Manila. Baldo was issued a bill of lading
where it was declared that the three pay loader weighed 4.5 tons each. The pay loaders
were loaded in M/V Ba Porr, which thereafter commenced its voyage to Cebu. When the
pay loaders were being unloaded from M/V Ba Porr, the 5-ton capacity chain which was
used to hoist one of the three pay loaders snapped due to the weight of the pay loader
causing substantial damage to one of the pay loaders as well as to M/V Ba Porr where
the pay loader landed. It was later found that the pay loader’s actual weight was 8 tons
instead of 4.5 tons, as declared in the bill of lading. Baldo filed an action for recovery of
damages. Bruno Shipping Lines denied liability for damages contending that had Baldo
declared the actual weight of the pay loader, damage to their vessel and to the pay
loader could have been avoided. Baldo countered that it cannot be reasonably
concluded that the damage caused to the pay loader was due to the alleged
misrepresentation as to the correct and accurate weight of the pay loader. Baldo faulted
Bruno shipping Lines, Inc. for using only a 5-ton chain for a visibly obvious heavy cargo
like the pay loader.
a. Whose contention will you sustain. Reason (5%)
b. Assuming that Bruno Shipping Lines Inc., was negligent in unloading the
payloader, what is the effect, if there are any, of Baldo’s representation of a
weight lower than the actual weight of the cargo? Explain. (5%)

9. Brando boarded a bus bound for Ilocos Norte owned and operated by Maria and driven
by Pedro. Mario, an off-duty conductor of the said bus, boarded the same bus. Upon
the request of Pedro, Mario helped the bus conductor on-duty in issuing tickets and
collecting fares from passengers. When Mario was about to collect the fare of Brando,
the latter challenged Mario to a fist-fight. Mario, without any word, brought out a fan
knife and stabbed Brando. It was later on found out that Brando and Mario had an
earlier altercation during a drinking spree. Luckily, Brando survived the attack. Brando
sued Mario and Maria for breach of contract and damages. For her defense, Maria
 claimed that she should not be held liable because at the time the incident happened,
Mario was not on-duty as a bus conductor.
a. Is the defense of Maria plausible? Reason with legal basis. (5%)
b. Suppose Maria was able to prove that she exercised the diligence of a good father of
a family in the selection and supervision of Mario, will she be exculpated from
liability? (5%)
c. Assuming that Maria and Mario are liable, discuss the basis of their liability. (5%)

10. Bim Mutyog rode the jeepney operated by Tim Mangken and driven by Kim Muttong
bound for Barangay Sipsipnget, Laoag City. While traversing the road to Sipsipnget, the
jeepney driven by Kim Muttong figured in a head-on collision with another jeepney plying
the same route and driven by Sam Yutong. The collision occurred in the middle of the road
and it appeared from the investigation of the police that both Sam Yutong and Kim Muttong
were both at fault. Kim Muttong, however claim that Sam Yutong should be blamed for the
accident as he had the last clear chance to avoid the occurrence, but he did not. Several
injured passengers of the jeepney sued Kim Muttong and Tim Mangken for damages on
account of the incident. In resisting the claims of the passengers, Kim Muttong and Tim
Mangken put forward the “Doctrine of Last Clear Chance” as a defense. The court upheld
the defense and dismissed the action. Is the court correct? Explain (5%)
11. Discuss at least 7 characteristics of a common carrier. (5%)
12. Distinguish fully a common carrier from a private carrier. (5%)

“May we, in our dealings with all peoples of the earth, ever speak truth and
serve justice.”
Dwight Eisenhower