NAME: GAZZINGAN, YVETTE A

STUDENT NUMBER: 20193016-M

Give clear, complete, and concise answers to the following questions. State the legal basis for
your arguments. Quotes lifted from jurisprudence unless cited properly shall be considered
plagiarism.

1. Mang Boy, was contracted by ABC junkshop (ABC) to collect scrap electronics being
thrown away by the residents of Malabon City. Using only his kariton, Mang Boy
collected and delivered junk to ABC. ABC in turn, paid Mang Boy Php20 per kilo of junk
delivered by 5:00PM every day. One day, Mang Boy was hit by an oncoming vehicle
driven by Juan. Although Mang Boy suffered minor injuries, his kariton was destroyed
while almost 50 kilos of junk that he collected were scattered and never recovered. Due
to the accident, Mang Boy failed to meet ABC’s 5:00PM deadline. (15pts.)

A. Can ABC sue Mang Boy based on a contract of carriage for the 50 kilos of lost junk?
(5pts.)
No, ABC cannot sue Mang Boy based on a contract of carriage for the 50 kilos of lost
junk.
Under the law, a contract of carriage is only applicable to contracts covered by bill of
lading or any form or document evidencing the contract between the carrier and the
holder of the replationship.
In the given case, the relationship between Mang Boy and ABC is an employer-employee
relationship based on the manner and method Mang Boy performs his duties and
obligations.
Therefore, ABC cannot sue Mang Boy.

If Mang Boy decides to file a case against Juan for damages, what kinds of damages can
Mang Boy claim? (5pts.)

Mang Boy can file an actual or compensatory damages against Juan to make good or
replace the loss caused by the wrong.
In the given case, Mang Boy suffered minor injuries and total damage to his kariton.
Thus, Juan must compensate for the injuries and damages incurred including the loss
profit for the 50 kilos junk.

B. Assuming that Mang Boy is a common carrier, can he argue that the cause of the loss
was due to a fortuitous event? (5pts.)
 Yes, Mang Boy can argue that the cause of loss was due to a fortuitous event.
Under the law, a fortuitous event must have the following elements to use as a defense to
escape liability: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, must have been
independent of human will; (b) the event must have been impossible to foresee or, if
foreseeable, impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must have been such as to render it
impossible for the debtors to fulfill their obligation in a normal manner, and; (d) the obligor
must have been free from any participation in the aggravation of the resulting injury to the
creditor.
In the given case, all of the elements are present. The breach of duty or obligation is
independent of the will of Mang Boy. The accident is unforeseeable and there is no
indication that he committed an act or omission that aggravates the injury caused to
ABC.

2. Judge Perez purchased a flight t the UK to attend an official conference. He bought his
ticket form Cebu Pacific, a domestic corporation. The trip consisted of three flights
wherein Cebu Pacific would bring Judge Perez to Hong Kong for transfer to an Emirates
flight to the UAE and then a British Airways flight to the UK. Both Emirates and British
Airways are foreign corporations. While on the British Airways flight, Judge Perez slipped
on puddle of spilled juice while making his way to the lavatory. Judge Perez suffered a
broken hip as a result and was hospitalized in the UK for a month. (25pts.)

A. Judge Perez is not that familiar with transportation law and therefore asks you where he
should file his case and against which corporation. What would be your advice? (10pts.)
I would advice Judge Perez that he should file his case against Cebu Pacific, as the ticket-
issuing carrier because it is considered as the principal in the contract of carriage.
Under the Warsaw Convention, in case of transportation performed by various
successive carriers, the passenger can take action only against the carrier who
transported him during which the accident presupposes the occurrence of the accident
in the course of the air trip. The transportation performed by several successive carriers
is regarded as a single operation, under one ticket.
The law on Warsaw Convention is applicable. The Warsaw Convention governs all
international carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward or
consideration.
In the present case, Judge Perez’s flight is an international flight. Thus, the law on
Warsaw Convention applies.
What law/s would be applicable in the present case? (5pts.)
B. Is there a limit to the damages that Judge Perez can recover against any of the
corporations? (5pts.)
Yes, there is a limit to the damages that Judge Perez can recover against any of the
corporations. Under the Warsaw Convention, the liability of the carrier for each
 passenger is limited to the sum of 125,000 francs. However, the carrier and the
passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.
In addition, the damage that Judge Perez can recover shall be proportionate to the
injury suffered by him.

C. If Judge Perez was injured due to the willful act of one of the passengers, can any of the
airlines still be held liable for the injury? (5pts.)
Yes, any of the airlines can be held liable for the injury.
Under the law, the liability of common carriers for the death or injury to the passenger
if caused by another passenger depends on whether or not its employees exercised
ordinary diligence to prevent or stop the act or omission which caused such death or
injury.

3. Kuya Orly, lost his job as a disc jockey (DJ) due to the pandemic. Nevertheless, due to his
years of hard work, Kuya Orly was able to buy two vehicles. It has been a year since he
lost his job, and his savings were slowly being depleted by everyday expenses. The
situation forced Kuya Orly to get a franchise for his vehicles so that he could use the
same as taxis. A former co-worker of his, Kathy was interested in Kuya Orly’s business
endeavor. The two agreed that Kathy would transfer registration of her vehicle to Kuya
Orly and for Kuya Orly to use his franchise to operate Kathy’s vehicle as a taxi. Kuya Orly
never charged Kathy for anything and remitted to latter all earnings borne out of her
vehicle’s operation. (25pts.)

A. Is a kabit system established in the present case? (5pts.)

No, kabit system is not established in the present case.
Under the law, a kabit system is an arrangement whereby a person who has been
granted the certificate allows other persons who own motor vehicles to operate
under his license, sometimes for a fee or percentage of the earnings.
In the given case, Kuya Orly never charged Kathy for anything, thus a kabit system is
not established in the present case.

B. If Kathy’s vehicle figures in accident wherein a third person was injured, against
whom should the injured party file his/her claim? (5pts.)
The injured party may file his claim against Kathy.
Under the registered owner rule, the person who is the registered owner of a
vehicle is liable for any damages caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle
although the same was already sold or conveyed to another person at the time of
the accident.

C. If a passenger was injured in the operation of Kathy’s vehicle, against whom should
the injured passenger file his/her claim (5pts.)
 The injured passenger may file his/her claim against Kuya Orly on the ground of
breach of contract of carriage.
Under the law, the operator of the common carrier is liable for any damages caused
to its passengers while the contract is existing.
D. If damages were caused by a third person to Kathy’s vehicle and she decides to file a
claim for damages, can the third person deny any liability on the basis that at the
time of the accident, Kathy’s vehicle was under a kabit system, assuming a kabit
system exists? (10pts.)
No, the third person cannot deny any liability on the basis that at the time of the
accident, Kathy’s vehicle was under a kabit system.
Kathy, under the kabit system, is still the registered owner of the vehicle.

4. You were contacted by XYZ Inc. (XYZ), a foreign shipping corporation, fully owned by
Japanese citizens. XYZ wants to do business in the Philippines and plans to engage in the
delivery of goods from the port of Manila to La Union and Cebu. They also do not want
to establish a local office to avoid additional expenses. What would be your advice to
XYZ? (5pts.)
I will advise XYZ that it cannot engage in the delivery of goods within the Philippine
ports on the ground that it is fully owned by Japanese citizens.
A person or corporation that is entitled in this kind of service applies to Filipino citizens
or a corporation, in which 60 % of its capital must be owned by Filipinos.

5. Beru, a wealthy pet shop owner had 10,000 kilos of Jojo’s beef-flavored dog food
delivered to the Philippines from the USA. The shipment was delivered by sea through
Kepner Cargo. Beru upon seeing that the goods were intact, received the shipment.
After three months, she noticed that the dog food wasn’t selling very well despite the
same being her bestseller for the past few years. Against the advice of her own
employees, Beru investigated the cause of the weak sales by tasting the dog food
herself. She was surprised when it tasted like chicken and not beef. Beru calls you, her
lawyer and asks you whether she could file a claim against Kepner Cargo given that
Jojo’s did not have a domestic agent or local office. What would be your advice to Beru?
(10pts.)

I would advice Beru to to file a claim against Kepner Cargo.

Under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), the recipient has one year after the
delivery of the goods within which to file a claim against the carrier for any damage
which the goods have suffered.
 In the given case, Beru only discovered the defect after three months, the one year
period has not yet prescribed. Therefore, he can file a claim aagainst Kepner Cargo.
6. Bobby had fresh oysters delivered daily from Ilo-Ilo by air for his seafood restaurant.
One day, the carrier SF Airlines failed to transport Bobby’s oysters due to an engine
problem with the plane carrying Bobby’s goods. Apparently, a bird was caught in one of
the plane’s turbines which forced the pilot to return to the airport and make an
emergency landing. Bobby demands that SF Airlines reimburse him the cost of the
oysters which were now spoiled. SF Airlines claims however, that under the Code of
Commerce, it was not liable for damages in case of losses or delay caused by fortuitous
events. Bobby, who was a practicing lawyer prior to being a chef argues that the
Warsaw Convention as amended entitles him to reimbursement regardless of SF
Airlines’ reason for non-delivery. SF Airlines did not heed Bobby’s demands which
resulted in Bobby filing a claim for damages against the former. The above arguments
were raised in court.

A. If you were the judge in the present controversy, how would you decide the case
after hearing the parties’ arguments? (10pts.)
If I were the judge, I will decide that the carrier SF Airlines is not liable for the
spoilage of Bobby’s oysters due to delay.
Under the law, the carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by
air of goods.
However, in the given facts, the cause of delay was due to fortuitous event, in which
a bird was caught in one of the plane’s turbines. SF Airlines cannot be held liable for
a cause which is beyond its control.

B. Would your answer be different if the reason for SF Airlines’ failure to deliver the
goods was due to a cancellation of their franchise? (10pts.)
No, my answer will still be the same because the cancellation of their franchise has
the effect

SPECIAL QUESTION (this must be answered only by students who have not recited for the
second half of the semester)

1. If the carrier incurred in delay in the delivery of goods from Hong Kong to the
Philippines, within what period must a claim be filed against the erring carrier and under
what law?
2. Given the hypothecary nature of the vessel, its liability is limited to the value of the
vessel. If a carrier’s vessel is valued at 100 million pesos, and a claim for 110 million
pesos was filed by the vessel’s crew against the carrier for back-wages and
compensation for work-related injuries and diseases, for how much shall the carrier be
liable?