Subject: Transportation Law Case no: 24 Topic: Contributory negligence; force majeure Case: FORTUNE EXPRESS v.

CA Date: March 18, 1999 Ponente: Mendoza Facts: Several armed men seized and torched a Fortune bus as revenge. They shot the driver who thereafter lost consciousness. Atty. Caorong, husband and father of the private respondents, asked to retrieve something inside the bus and while doing so pleaded to the armed men not to torch the bus with its driver. The driver regained consciousness and got out while the armed men shot Atty. Caorong. The latter was pronounced by doctors as dead on arrival. Action against Fortune was breach of contract. Issues: 1. W/N Seizure of Petitioner’s Bus Case of Force Majeure 2. W/N Atty. Caorong Guilty of Contributory Negligence Held: NO and NO. Doctrine: 1. Art. 1174 of the Civil Code defines a fortuitous even as an occurrence which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen, is inevitable. In the present case, this factor of unforeseeablility (the second requisite for an event to be considered force majeure) is lacking because PC agents warned Fortune manager of an intelligence report that armed men are planning to seized and torch a Fortune bus but did nothing about it. 2. Atty. Caorong did not act recklessly. He was allowed to retrieve something. What apparently angered them was his attempt to help the driver of the bus by pleading for his life. He was playing the role of the good Samaritan. Certainly, this act cannot be considered an act of negligence, let alone recklessness.

and that both vessels were to blame for the collision.Subject: Transportation Law Case no: 45 Topic: Maritime Commerce. W/N the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable Held: YES and NO. W/N the doctrine of inscrutable fault is applicable 2. and unequivocally laid down in Article 827 of the Code of Commerce: If both vessels may be blamed for the collision. 2. Doctrine of inscrutable fault. in the Bay of Manila at an early hour. Last clear chance is not applicable.) . (Note: Even if applicable. Issues: 1. Trial Court held that the doctrine of inscrutable fault is applicable hence neither can recover. the responsible officers on both vessels were negligent in the performance of their duties at the time when the accident occurred. doctrine of last clear chance not applicable in maritime collision Case: WILLIAMS v. definitely. it was not shown that Yangco’s Subic failed to recognize the danger that William’s Euclid’s negligence has created before they collided. and 2) both shall be jointly responsible for the loss and damages suffered by their cargoes. collided with the lunch Euclid owned by the Williams. and the Euclid sank five minutes thereafter. YANGCO Date: March 10. Each one may be blamed for its own damages. owned by the Yangco. The rule of liability in this jurisdiction for maritime accidents such as the case at bar is clearly. and the owner of neither one can recover from the other in an action for damages to his vessel. SC held that based on evidence. This action was brought to recover the value of the Euclid. Doctrine: 1. 1) each one shall be liable for its own damages. 1914 Ponente: Carson Facts: The steamer Subic.

owner of the jeepney.Subject: Transportation Law Case no: 57 Topic: Public Service Act. has leased the same to Tahimik. While Ignacio. Ignacio. and that at the time of collision it was the latter who was actually operating it. paragraph h. the contract of lease was null and void because it was not approved by the Public Service Commission. 1953 Ponente: Bautista Facts: A woman was killed when a jeep operated by one Tahimik figured in a collision. Issue: W/N Ignacio is liable for damages Held: YES. BOOM! . owner of the jeep. of the Public Service Law requires the approval of the Public Service Commission in order that a franchise. IGNACIO Date: December 29. approval of transfer of franchise Case: MONTOYA v. The action against Ignacio was for damages for breach of contract of carriage. or any privilege pertaining thereto. argued that he is not liable because he leased the jeep to Tahimik hence he is not the one actually operating it. may be sold or leased without infringing the certificate issued to the grantee. The reason is obvious. Doctrine: Section 16.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful