TRANSPORTATION LAW

(Midterms Focus)

I. GOVERNING LAWS

TRANSPORTATION LAWS IN THE Philippines whether by land, sea or air are

generally governed by the New Civil Code more particularly Articles 1732 to
Article 1766.

Art. 1766 provides:

In all matters not regulated by the Code, the rights and obligations of
common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special
laws.

Other special laws on transportation which may apply are the following:

1. Carriage of Goods by the Sea Act (COGSA)

2. Salvage Law
3. Warsaw Convention
4. Civil Aviation Authority Law

MORE SPECIFICALLY, different transportation modes are governed by the

following laws:

1. Coastwise Shipping

a. The Civil Code Articles 1732 to 1766

b. Code of Commerce in suppletory character. It applies only in the
absence of provisions under the Civil Code

2. Overland Transportation

a. The Civil Code of the Philippines (primary law applicable)

b. The Code of Commerce, which shall apply in suppletory manner

3. Air Transportation

a. The Civil Code

b. Code of Commerce
c. Warsaw Convention
d. Chicago Convention
e. RA 9497 known as the Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 passed on
March 4, 2008
 f. RA 776 known as An Act to Reorganize the Civil Aeronautics Board
and the Civil Aeronautics Association, passed on June 20, 1952

II CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

1. Constitutional Provisions regulation/limiting or restricting the issuance

of franchise to public utilities.

a. Article XII of the National Economy and Patrimony

Section 11. –

- Franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the

operation of a public utility shall be granted ONLY TO CITIZENS
OF THE PHILIPPINES or to corporations or associations organized
under the laws of the Philippines AT LEAST 60 PERCENT of whose
capital is owned by such citizens.

READ:

TATAD ET AL. VS. SEC. GARCIA AND EDSA LRT CORP LTD. GR NO.
114222, April 16, 1995

a. What constitutes a public utility is not their ownership BUT THEIR

USE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.

b. The Constitution clearly requires a franchise for the operation (not

ownership) of a public utility.

Section 11 of Article XII of the Constitution provides:

Franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the

operation of a public utility shall be granted ONLY TO CITIZENS OF
THE PHILIPPINES or to corporations or associations organized under
the laws of the Philippines AT LEAST 60 PERCENT of whose capital is
owned by such citizens.

HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE a franchise before one can

own the facilities needed to operate a public utility so long as
it does not operate them to serve the public.

c. In law there is a clear distinction between the OPERATION of a

public utility and the OWNERSHIP of the facilities and
equipment used to serve the public.
 Ownership is defined as a relation in law by virtue of which a thing
pertaining to one person is completely subject to his will in everything
not prohibited by law or the concurrence with the rights of another.

d. The exercise of the rights encompassed in ownership is limited by law

so that a property cannot be operated and used to serve the public as
a public utility UNLESS THE OPERATOR HAS A FRANCHISE.

e. The right to operate a public utility may exist independently

and separately from the ownership of the facilities thereof.

One can own said facilities without operating them as a public utility,
or conversely, one may operate a public utility without necessarily
owning the facilities used to serve the public.

f. The devotion of property to serve the public may be done by the owner
or by the person in control thereof who may not necessarily be the
owner thereof.

g. A mere owner and lessor of the facilities used by a public

utility is not a public utility. Neither are owners of tank,
refrigerator, wine poultry and beer cars who supply cars under
contract to railroad companies considered as public utilities.

h. Even the mere formation of a public utility corporation does not ipso
facto characterize the corporation as one operating a public utility.
THE MOMENT FOR DETERMINING THE REQUISITE FILIPINO
NATIONALITY (As required under the constitution) IS WHEN THE
ENTITY APPLIES FOR A FRANCHISE, CERTIFICATE OR ANY
OTHER FORM OF AUTHORIZATION FOR THAT PURPOSE.

READ:
Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative vs. La Trinidad Water District GR no.
166471, March 22,

HELD:

a. The president, the congress, and the court cannot create directly
franchises for the operation of a public utility that is exclusive in
character. The Constitution expressly and clearly prohibits the creation
of franchises that are exclusive in character. The Constitutional prohibition
on exclusive franchises admits of no exception.
 b. Any franchise or right may be granted under the condition that it shall BE
SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT, ALTERATION, OR REPEAL by Congress when
the common good so requires.

Section 17 Art. XII Constitution

In times of emergency, when the public interest so requires, the

state may during the emergency and under reasonable terms
prescribe by it, TEMPORARILY TAKE OVER THE DIRECT
OPERATION OF ANY PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC UTILITY or
business affected with public interest.

Section 8 Art. XII

The state may, in the interest of national welfare or defense,

establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just
compensation, transfer to public ownership UTILITIES and OTHER
PRIVATE ENTERPRISES to be operated by the government

c. A FRANCHISE is NOT in the strict sense a simple contract but

rather it is, more importantly, a mere PRIVILEGE especially in
matters which are within the government’s power to regulate and
even prohibit through the exercise of police power. (Lim vs.
Pacquing GR No. 115044, Jan. 27, 1995)

III CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE OR TRANSPORTATION

A. Contract of Transportation Defined:

Contract of carriage may be either of the following:

a. Common or private
b. Goods or passengers
c. For a fee/for hire or for free/gratuitous
d. Over land/water/air
e. Domestic (Inter-island/coastwise) or international/foreign

B. Parties to a contract of transportation

The parties to a contract of transportation depends on whether the

contract is one for transportation of goods or of persons.

1. The parties in a contract for transportation of passengers-

 Who is a passenger?

Jesus Vda De Nuesca vs. The Manila Railroad GR no. 31731, Jan
30, 1960

READ: Article 1758 Civil Code

Who is the real party-in-interest in a suit for breach of

contract of transportation?

Baliwag Transit Corp. vs. CA 169 SCRA 849 Jan. 31, 1989.

Sps. Fabre v. Court of Appeals July 26, 1996 GR No. 111127-

2. The parties in a contract for transportation of goods-

SHIPPER-

CARRIER-

CONSIGNEE-

Q. May the CONSIGNEE, who is not the shipper, be bound by the

contract of carriage of goods?

READ: MOF Co. Inc., vs. Shin Yang Brokerage Corp GR No.
172822, Dec. 18, 2009-

Bill of lading

PhilAm Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Heung-A shipping Corp. GR

no. 187812 July 23, 2014

C. PERFECTION OF THE CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION

1. Two types of contract of carriage

a. Contract to carry-

b. Contract of carriage or contract of common carriage-

READ: Compania Maritima vs. Insurance Co. of North America Oct.

10, 1964 GR no. L-18965)
 Operative fact for the perfection of a contract of carriage of goods
Test to determine when the relationship of carrier and shipper has been
established.

2. Perfection of the contract of carriage of passengers

Nature of the contract-

Contract to carry vs. contract of carriage-

a. Air Transport Of Passengers-

Korean Airlines Co. vs. CA GR No. 114061, 234 SCRA 717

b. Land Transportation (Bus, Jeepneys, etc.)-

Who is a passengner-

The “continuing offer rule” –

Dangwa vs. CA GR No. 95582 202 SCRA 574 (1992)

c. Land Transportation (TRAINS)

Jesusa Vda. Vs. The Manila Railroad Co. GR no. 31731, Jan. 30,
1968.

LRTA, et al, vs. Marjorie Natividad, et al, GR No. 145804,

February 6, 2003-

READ: Compania Maritima v. Insurance Company of North America

GR No. L-18965, October 30, 1964)- In contract of carriage of goods, the
contract is perfected when the goods are unconditionally placed in the
possession and control of the carrier and upon receipt by the carrier for
transportation.

IV COMMON CARRIER

A. DEFINITION AND ELEMENTS

Art. 1732 Civil Code

De Guzman v. CA GR No. L-47822 Dec. 22, 1988.

The elements of common carrier

B. TEST IN DETERMINING WHETHER ONE IS A COMMON CARRIER

READ:

First Philippines Industrial Corporation vs. CA

GR No. 125948, Dec. 29, 1998

SPS. Perena and SPs Nicolas

GR No. 157917, August 29, 2012

C. CHARACTERISTICS OF A COMMON CARRIER

READ:

De Guzman vs. CA
GR No. L-4782, Dec. 22, 1988

Engracio Fabre vs. court of Appeals

GR No. 111127 July 26, 1996

Asia Lighterage and shipping Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,

GR no. 147246, Aug. 19, 2003

Bascos vs. Court of Appeals

GR No. G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993.

D. CASES WHERE THE SC CONSIDERED A PERSON, PARTNERSHIP,

FIRM OR CORPORATION AS A COMMON CARRIER:

Sps. Cruz vs. sun Holidays G.R. no. 186312, June 29, 2010.

De Guzman vs. CA GR No. L-47822, December 22, 1988-

First Philippine Industrial Cor[p. vs CA GR GR No. 125948, December

29, 1989-

NOTE: RA 387 The Petroleum Act of the Philippines considers OIL

PIPELINE OPERATORS AS COMMON CARRIERS.

Art. 86 and 87 of Act No. 387 provides:

Fabre vs CA-

Asia Lighterage and Shipping vs. CA GR No. 147247, August 2003-

E. PRIVATE CARRIER VERSUS COMMON CARRIER

READ:

PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., vs. COURT OF APPEALS,

G.R. No. 101503. September 15, 1993

Vlasons shipping, Inc. v. court of Appeals and National Steel

Corporation GR No. L-112350, Dec. 12, 1997

Common Carrier versus Other Contracts

Common Carrier versus Stevedoring

Q: Is s stevedore a common carrier?

Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. v. Phoenix Assurance

Company of New York GR no. 162467, May 8, 2009

Common Carrier versus Arrastre

Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. v. Phoenix Assurance

Company of New York GR no. 162467, May 8, 2009)

Q: what are the functions of an arrastre?

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Allied Guarantee, Inc. GR No. 182208, Oct.
14, 2015)

Delgado Brothers Insurance v. Home Insurance Inc. GR No. L-16567,

March 27, 1961.

Summa Insurance Corporation v CA and Port Service Inc., 323 Phil

214 (1996)

Q: When does the liability of the carrier end and the liability of
the arrastre operator begin?

The Regional container Lines (RCL) of Singapore vs. The Netherlands

Insurance Co. GR No. 168151, September 4, 2009)
 Asian Terminals vs. Philam Life Insurance Inc.

Eastern shipping Lines Inc. vs. court of Appeals, G.R. no. 97412, July
12, 1994

Common Carrier vs. Towage

Towage Defined-

Tug boat-

Barge-

Q: What is the diligence required of the person who provides towage

service?

Cargolift shipping Inc. vs. L. Actuario Marketing Corp, GR No. 146426,

June 27, 2006

Standard Vacuum Oil Company vs. Luzon Stevedoring Co. Inc. GR no. L-
5203, April 18, 1956-

Common carrier vs. Travel Agency

Travel Agency -

Q: Is a travel agency a common carrier?

Q: what is the degree of care required of a common carrier?

Common Carrier vs. Tramp Service and Line Service

NOTE: Republic Act No. 9515 December 19, 2008

F. NATURE OF BUSINESS OF COMMON CARRIERS

Public utility- heavily invested with PUBLIC INTEREST

Read: De Guzman v. C.A. GR No. L-4782; Fisher v. Yangco
Steamship Company GR no. 8095, Nov. 5, 1914, 31 Phil 1, 18

G. REGISTERED OWNER RULE

READ: R.A. 4136 - Land Transportation and Traffic Code.

Sec 5 - registration of all motor vehicles is mandatory, thus:

Sec. 5. Compulsory registration of motor vehicles- All motor

vehicles and trailer of any type used or operated on or upon any
highway of the Philippines must be registered with the Bureau of
Land Transportation for the current year in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.

Section 14. Issuance of certificates of registration.- A properly

numbered certificate of registration shall be issued for each
separate ,otor vehicle after due inspection and payment of
corresponding registration fees.

Q: What is the registered owner rule?

READ:

1. Erezo vs. Jepte GR No. L-9605- Rationale behind the Registered

Owner Rule
2. Villanueva v. Domingo G.R. No. 144274, September 20, 2004-
Remedy/recourse of a registered owner/franchise holder for tortious acts
of actual operator of motor vehicle
3. Filcar Transport Services v. Jose A. Espinas, G.R. No. 174156, June
20, 2012- Definition of Registered Owner Rule, liability of the registered
owner, liability of the actual operator of the vehicle, defenses of the
registered owner/employer, recourse of the registered owner/employer
for tortious acts of the actual operator
4. Gilberto M. Duavit v. Court Of Appeals, G.R. No. 82318 May 18,
1989- liability of the registered owner if the vehicle was driven without
his consent /knowledge, or against his will,
5. Abelardo Lim And Esmadito Gunnaban vs. Court Of Appeals And
Donato H. Gonzales- G.R. No. 125817 January 16, 2002-
Kabit System, liability of the registered owner and franchise holder,
 personality of the registered owner/franchise holder to sue, when the
rule on Kabit system does not apply
6. Spouses Francisco M. Hernandez, et al., v Spouses Lorenzo Dolor, et
al, - G.R. No. 160286. July 30, 2004- liability of the registered
owner/franchise holder, boundary system
7. Philtranco Service Enterprises v. Court of Appeals GR No. 120553,
June 1, 1997- Liability of the registered owner of a common carrier –
primary, direct and solidary with the driver

H. OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMMON CARRIER

(Ref. Aquino and Hernando -Transpo law)

1. Basic Obligations of the Carrier

a. ACCEPT passengers or goods without discrimination

READ:
Fisher v. Yangco Steamship GR No. 8095- The giving of unreasonable or
unnecessary preference or advantage to any person for purpose of
transportation is Not allowed.

When Common Carriers may not accept goods

a. Goods are DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE or objects

READ: MARINA Memorandum Circular No. 147- requires compliance

with clearances for the carriage and transport of vehicles, animals, forest
products, fish and aquatic products, minerals and its derivative
products, and TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATETRIALS to be loaded on
board inter-island vessels.

b. Goods are UNFIT for transportation

READ: Art. 1742 - Civil Code- CC is still bound to observe due diligence
in order to forestall or lessen the loss of goods unfit by their character or
by reason of its packaging or container.

READ: Calvo vs. General Insurance Co. 379 SCRA 5120 March 19,
2002- For this provision to apply, the rule is that if the improper packing
or defect in the container is known to the carrier or his employees or
apparent upon ordinary observation, but he nevertheless accepts the
 same without protest or exception notwithstanding such condition, he is
not relieved of liability for damages resulting therefrom

READ: Iron bulk shipping co. Ltd v. Remington Industrial Sales

Corp, 417 SCRA 229, December 8, 2003- even if the loss, destruction,
or deterioration of the goods should be caused, among others, by the
character of the goods, the common carrier must exercise due diligence
to forestall or lessen the loss. This extraordinary responsibility lasts
from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the
possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until
the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to
the consignee or to the person who has a right to receive them.

READ: Saludo Jr. vs. CA GR No. 95536, March 23, 1992- A CC has
the right to validly rely on the representation of a shipper as to the value
and nature of the goods to be carried. The CC has no obligation to
inquire or investigate as to the correctness, accuracy or veracity of the
representations of the shipper as to the nature and value of the goods
carried

c. Acceptance would result in OVERLOADING

d. Goods are considered ILLEGAL or contrabands
e. Goods are INJURIOUS to health
f. Goods will be EXPOSED to untoward danger like flood, capture by
the enemies, etc.
g. Goods/livestock will be exposed to disease/s

READ: Section 4 of RA 8485 or the Animal Welfare Act prohibits

the transportation of wildlife and all other animals without a written
permit from the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry. It likewise
penalizes cruelty to wildlife and all animals during its transport.

h. STRIKE

i. FAILURE to tender goods on time.

b. TIMELY DELIVER the goods or BRING passengers to the destination

 1. Basis of timeliness- stipulation of the parties as to time of
delivery.

READ: Saludo v. CA 207 SCRA 498, 1992- Where a carrier has

made an express contract to transport and deliver property within
a specified time, it is bound to fulfill its contract and is liable for
any delay, no matter from what cause it may have arisen.

2. Rules where there is no stipulated period/time of arrival or

delivery:

READ: Art. 358 Code of Commerce

- Delivery within a reasonable time.

o Q: What is a reasonable time/period?

3. Effect of delay

- Under the Civil Code

READ: Art. 1740 Civil Code negligently delays in transporting

goods- he shall be liable even for loss by reason of natural disaster

Maersk Line v. C.A. et al., GR No. 94761, May 17, 1993

ART. 1747 Civil Code

- Under the Code of Commerce

READ: Arts- 370 to 374- Code of Commerce

4. Rule on timeliness of delivery of passengers

Q: What is the rule with regards to delay in the transportation of

passengers?

READ: Art. 698 Code of Commerce

READ- Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. CA GR No. 118126

March 4, 1996- effect of the Decision of passenger to disembark and
not to await repairs on the vessel

c. Deliver the goods or bring the passengers to the PROPER

DESTINATION

READ: Art. 360 of the Code of Commerce

 d. Deliver the goods to the PROPER PERSON

-What is a Bill of Lading

- Parties to a bill of lading
-READ: Art. 1738 Civil Code; Arts. 368, 369- Code of Commerce
-Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam and the East Asiatic v. Glow Laks
Enterprises, Ltd. GR No. 156330, Nov. 19, 2014.

e. Exercise EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE

2. DILIGENCE in the carriage of goods and of passengers

READ: Art. 1733, 1734, 1735, 1745, 1755, 1756 Civil Code
Art. 363, 364, 365- Code of Commerce

a. Extraordinary diligence defined

b. Ordinary vs. Extraordinary diligence

READ:

1. Aboitiz shipping v. Insurance Co. of North America GR

No. 168402, August 6, 2008;
2. Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. CA GR no. 104685,
March 14, 1996;
3. Westwind v. UCPB Insurance Co. GR No. 200289 and
200314, Nov. 25, 2013;
4. Ceballos vs. Cotabato Bus Co. Oct. 30, 1975;
5. Caguimbal v. Batangas Transportation Co. 21913-R April
6, 1964
6. Caltex v. Sulpicio Lines GR no. 131166, Sept. 30, 1999-
Warranty of Seaworthiness of a vessel

c. Vigilance over the goods

READ: Art. 1734, 1735, 1174- Civil Code

1. Eastern Shipping Lines v. Nishin Fire and Marine Insurance

et. Al., GR No. L-71478, May 29, 1987
2. Cokaliong v. UCPB General Insurance GR No. 146018, June
25, 2003
3. Phil. American General Insurance v. CA GR No. 116940,
June 11, 1997
 4. Sarkies tours Philippines Inc. v. CA and Dr. Elino Fortales et
al., GR No. 108897, Oct. 2, 1997

d. Stipulation of the parties other than extraordinary diligence

READ: Art. 1744, Art. 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1752- Civil
Code
Evette Steamship Corp v. CA and Hernandez Trading Co. Inc.
GR No. 122494, Oct. 8, 1998

e. Prohibited stipulations in contract of carriage of goods

READ: Art. 1745 Civil Code

Loadstar Shipping Co. Inc. v. CA GR No. 131621, Sept. 28, 1999

f. Duration of the observance of extraordinary diligence in the

carriage of goods

READ: Art. 1736, 1737, 1738 Civil Code

1. Saludo vs. CA GR No. 95536, March 23, 1992

2. Westwind shipping Corporation v. UCPB GR No. 200289 and
200314, Nov. 25, 2013
3. Easter Shipping Lines vs. BPI /MS Insurance Corp. GR No.
193986 Jan. 15 2014
4. Samar Mining Company v. Nordeutsher Lloyd and C.F.
Sharp Company
5. Amparo Servando et. Al., v. Philippine Steam Navigation Co.
GR No. 36481-1, Oct. 23, 1982

g. Governing law in the liability of common carriers

READ: Art. 1753 Civil Code

Eastern Shipping Lines v. IAC et. Al., GR No. L-69044, May 29,
1987

h. Obligation of the shipper/consignee

READ: Art. 1762 Civil Code

i. Vigilance over the safety of passengers

 Extraordinary diligence
READ: 1733, 1755 Civil Code

1. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO

ROMAN vs MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late
NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY
G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003
2. Dangwa Transportation Co,. v. CA 202 SCRA 574
3. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA GR No. 84458, Nov. 6, 1989
4. Bacarro, et. Al., v. CA GR L-34597, Nov. 5, 1982
5. Trans-Asia shipping Lines v. CA GR No. 118126, March 4,
1996
6. CESAR L. ISAAC, vs. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION
CO., INC., GR. No. L-9671 August 23, 1957

j. Duration of the carrier-passenger relationship

READ: Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA GR No.84458, Nov. 6,

1989- It continues until the passenger has been landed at the port
of destination and has left the vessel-owner’s premises
READ also- Dangwa Transportation Co,. v. CA 202 SCRA 574

k. Presumption of negligence

READ: Art. 1756 Civil Code

Instances showing negligence of the carrier’s driver/employees

1. WILLIAM TIU, and VIRGILIO TE LAS PIAS vs PEDRO A.

ARRIESGADO, et al., G.R. No. 138060. September 1,
2004
2. Pestano v. Sumayang GR No. 139875, Dec. 4, 2000
3. Mallari v. CA 324 SCRA 147
4. Rayrena v. Hiceta 306 SCRA 102
5. Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA GR No. 116110, May 15, 1996

Duty to overcome the presumption of negligence.

READ: Gacal v. PAL GR No. 55300, March 15, 1990

l. Force Majeure in carriage of passengers

READ:

1. Yobido v. CA GR No. 113003, Oct. 17, 1997

 2. Bachelor Express et al., v. CA GR No. 85691, July 31,
1990

m. Stipulation other than extraordinary diligence in carriage of

passengers

READ:

Art. 1757, 1758-Civil Code

n. Duty and liability of carriers for the acts of the carrier’s

employees and third persons

READ: Art. 1759, 1760, 1763 Civil Code

1. Sulpicio Lines v. Napoleon Sesante et.al., GR No. 172782,

July 27, 2016
2. Fortune Express, Inc. v. CA et al., GR No. 119756, March
18, 1999

o. Duty of common carriers to third persons

READ: Kapalaran bus Lines bs. Coronado, GR No. 85331, August

25, 1989.

p. Obligation of the passenger

READ: Art. 1761, 1762 Civil Code

Contributory negligence- Travel and Tours v. Cruz, et. Al., GR
No. 199282, March 14, 2016

I DEFENSES OF A COMMON CARRIER

1. Damages for breach of contract of common carriers

READ: Article 1764, and 1766 Civil Code

READ also: Art. 1157, Civil Code, Art. 100, 103- RPC

1. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd v. Spouses Arnulfo Fuentebella, R

No. 188283, July 20, 2016
2. Fernando v. Northwest Airlines GR No. 212038, February 8,
2017
3. PNR v. CA GR No. L-55347

2. Defenses in the carriage of goods

 READ: Article 1734, 1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743 Civil Code

1. Philippine Charter Insurance vs. Unknown owner of the vessel

MV/Honor [G.R. No. 161833. July 8, 2005] – Exclusivity of
defense
2. FRANKLIN G. GACAL and CORAZON M. GACAL, ,
vs. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., G.R. No. L-55300 March 15,
1990- Caso Fortuito
3. Yobido vs. C.A. CA GR no. 113003, Oct. 19, 1997
4. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. IAC GR No. May 29, 1987
5. De Guzman vs. CA GR No. L-47822, December 22, 1988
6. Compania Maritima vs. CA GR No. 31379, December 12, 1997 .
7. Philippine Charter Insurance vs. Unknown owner of the vessel
MV/Honor [G.R. No. 161833. July 8, 2005]
8. Iron bulk Shipping Philippines, Co. Ltd v. Remington
Industrial Sales GR No. 136960, December 8, 2003
9. Ganzon v. CA GR No. L-48757 May 30, 1988

3. Defenses in the carriage of passengers

READ: Art. 1733, 1755, 1756, 1759 Civil Code

1. Maranan v. Perez GR no. L-22272, June 26, 1967

2. MRR vs. Ballesteros GR No. L-19161, April 26, 1966
3. Rosito Bacarro vs. Gerundo Castano 118 SCRA 187
4. PNR vs. Brunty GR No. 169891, November 2, 2006 (Last Clear
chance Doctrine)
5. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS vs. Vizcara G.R. No.
190022 Nov. 2012 (Doctrine not applicable)
6. LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL and vs. MICHAEL RAYMOND
ANGALA G.R. No. 153076 June 21, 2007 (Doctrine Applicable)
7. Japan Airlines vs. CA GR no. 118664, August 7, 1998

====================================================
 COVID-19 Quarantine/Lockdown thoughts

C- Concentrate on fundamental provisions of law.

O- Organize your materials.
V- Verify vague concepts, principles, etc.
I- Internalize basic principles of law.
D- Discuss with a classmate (chat group) what you have read or studied.

19- Point Agenda During Lockdown/Quarantine

(For your study of law)

1. READ- Your textbooks are waiting.
2. WRITE- Practice writing legibly. Improve your handwriting.
3. DIGEST- Read and digest cases. No more excuses. You have all the time.
4. TEST- Do some self-administered simulated/mock exams.
5. OUTLINE- Make your own memory aid.

(For your health)

6. EAT- Nourish yourself with nutritious foods.
7. EXERCISE- Be physically active even if you can’t go out.
8. THINK- Be mentally active. Get off the TV and Facebook.
9. REST- Get enough sleep. You need it.
10. CLEAN- Sanitize your surroundings. Organize/declutter your physical
and electronic files.

(For your community)

11. HELP- Find time to be of service to others.
12. GIVE- Share. Do Not hoard.
13. COOPERATE- Support your community leaders and volunteers during
this crisis.
14. LISTEN- Follow rules and/or instructions from the authority.
15. VOLUNTEER- Be ready, willing and available to render service to the
community when needed.

(For your spiritual and mental health)

16. PRAY- Acknowledge that God is in control and will see us through this
trying times.
17. REFLECT- Look inside.
18. PLAN- Talk about future plans. It is psychologically healthy. It
encourages us to hope for the better.
19. RE-DIRECT- Deflect negative thoughts.

Stay safe folks. Nothing is more important now than our safety and
health.
God Bless Us All.