B. Yes. With respect to the jurisdiction.

A and B have an option to file the case on th*

following:
1. Court of domicile of the carrier;
2. Principal place of business of the carrier;
3. The place where the contract has been made; and
4. Court of the place of final destination

Since PAL is domiciled and has a principal place of business in the Philippines, Phippine
courts may validly take QPQWdUC^of the case. Also in one case. • //as neid -no* warsaw
is not an exclusive enumeration of the instances of absolute limi* of abfity Hence.
Warsaw does not operate to prevent the application of Civil Code and other percent
local laws.

p 6. I wJI uphold the decision of the court. Under Article 587 of -ne Code - Commerce
i he shipowner or ship agent is civilly liable to third persons arising from rhe negligent acts
of his captain. However, under the same provision, the shipowner or ship agent, qpcw'-rg
the rule or the doctrine of limited liability, may exempt —emseiVes from
liabilities by abandoning the vessel with all the equipment andexpec'ea ‘'egr^eQmrgs
Under the doctrine of limited liability, the ship agent's liabi b is ono wim aspect to
interest in the vessel. As such, when there is total loss of the vessel xe r *njs case. *he
liabilit y of the- ship agent is also extinguished because his liability is onx m*ec *o ,rx? -due
of the vessel and other things appertaining thereto, including freight eamngs. Although,
there is a finding of concurrent negligence between the captan and the
doctrine of limited liability rule will still apply because in order to tai
of the limited liability rule, the concurrent negligence must be that ot the cap
the ship owner. Hence, I will uphold the decision ot the cowl.

'7'. nautical
13. Vessel from Japan to Manila
a. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs the
liability of the common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration. As
the cargoes in question were transported from Japan to the Philippines, the liability
of Petitioner Carrier is governed primarily by the Civil Code. However, in all matters
not regulated by said Code, the rights and obligations of common carriers shall
be governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws. Thus, the COGSA a
special law, is S.u.pplelocy. to the provisions of the Civil Code.

b. Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault - In case of collision where if cannot be determined

which between the two vessels was at fault, both vessels bear meir respective
damage, but both should be liable for damage to *-e cargo of both
vessels.
r- Pvph if thA muse of action aqainst the common carrier is based on quasi-defict.

s” - coXT: » ■»«* -
Code of Commerce. (Manila Steamship vs. !ma
stockholders to be liable from the liability of the corporation and not —e other way
around. Hence, DEF law firm, through the Sheriff, may not valid , pierce the crxcorate
veil

19. The effect of H’s failure to present the note for payment is that ne w?ii not know
whether the instrument will be paid or not. As such, H will not be abe to send -once of
. ir it. j __ Xi— —. .. .--re nrsxisrifWi tCW
 Code of Commerce. (Monifa Sfeom^ip ™ «-

14. Based on the tacts, it is submitted that there is no valid salvage in this case. Under
Salvage Law, in older to constitute valid salvage, the following elements must be present
to wit:
a. Marine Peril;
b. Voluntary Service; and
c. Success in whole or in part

It appears that that the first element is lacking because based on the facts mvabc
suffered from engine trouble which is not within the contemplation of marine per..
Moreover, MV ABC may not also fall under the definition of shipwreck and derelict. As
such, there is no valid salvage in this case.

15.
A. Yes. Based on the facts, the contract of transportation between A and B and Twa is
covered by Warsaw and Montreal Conventions. The Warsaw convent on applies on re

a. International transportation;
b. Air transportation; and
c. Carriage of passengers, baggage or goods
Based on the facts, it appears that the contract may be considered as international
transportation because the place of departure and the place or destination are situated
within territories of two high contracting parties. Hence, the contracts are properly within

the scope of Warsaw and Montreal Conventions.

 essel and other things appertaining thereto ~inr 11’^”"»"r"",,cu ,w vaiue
there is a finding of concurrent ncgligencfFbetwnrn thl re,ght earnin9s- Although,
doctrine of limited liability rule will still apply becamn ir ?'n Qnd the shiP-ogent, the
of the limited liability ru£ the conc'^^
the ship owner. Hence, I will uphold the decision of t£ Xt ** "

17.
A. Under the nautical rules, steamship is required Io exercise higrest diiigencn ro orient
a collision between steamship and sailing vessel. As such, the steomshp has to keep out
of the wav and the sailing vessel may keep its course.

B. Error in extremis refers to the sudden movement of the faustles; vessel r me fhrd zone
of collision which does not produce legal consequences ever, if such movement is not in
accordance with the nautical rules. Applying in the case of sail r g snip ord a steamship
if the soiling vessel strictly complied with the nautical rules such rhar ir retains its course
and the steamship did not comply with the nautical rules to give way ro the sailing vessel
in the second zone, under the doctrine of error in extremis, even if me sahrg vessel -cce
a sudden wrong movement in the third zone it will not be held responsible.

A8'no. Under the doctrine of separate judicial

£* attributed to ABC corporation.