Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Choco Notes
BA Finance v. CA ................................................. 138
State Regulation art. 1765........................................... 143
Contents
PAL v. CA .................................................................. 1
Contract of carriage......................................................... 9
De Guzman v. CA ..................................................... 14
Bascos v. CA ............................................................. 18
National Steel v. CA ................................................. 24
Fabre v. CA ............................................................... 40
Laws applicable
Art. 1753
PAL v. CA
Republic
of
the
Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
Medina v. Cresencia.................................................. 95
PAL v. CA ................................................................ 97
PHILIPPINE
AIR
LINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON.
CO, respondents.
COURT
OF
APPEALS
and
ISIDRO
GRIO-AQUINO, J.:
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
This is a petition for review of the decision dated July 19,
petitioner airline.
worth
about
various
US$200.00
personal
and
containing
effects
Flight
Francisco,
No.
107
from San
"Plaintiff
then
immediately
notified
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
luggage or paid its corresponding value.
issues which are not reviewable by this Court (Sec. 2, Rule 45,
Rules of Court). The Court reviews only questions of law
WHEREFORE,
judgment
is
hereby
Appeals as follows:
damages;
counterclaim
is
hereby
officer
after
accomplishing
the
court's award.
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Whether or not the lost luggage was ever retrieved by the
of each case.
World Airways, Inc. vs. IAC 164 SCRA 268), the Warsaw
therein did not declare a higher value for his luggage, much
baggage nor pay traditional charges before the flight (p. 3, tsn,
Since the passenger's destination in this case was the
Court ruled:
Insurance, Inc. vs. Simon, 122 Phil. 189 and Bert Osmea and
Associates vs. CA, 120 SCRA 396, the appellant was awarded
attorney's fees because of appellee's failure to satisfy the
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Co., Inc. vs. Royal Oil Products, 102 Phil. 326, this Court
respondent
National
Marine
Corporation
are
foreign
SO ORDERED.
Annex L, p.1).
HLMN-01.
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and NATIONAL MARINE
CORPORATION
and/or
NATIONAL
MARINE
PARAS, J.:
P61,263.41.
and set aside the (a) decision 1 dated May 30, 1990 of the
former.
Court
of
Appeals
reconsideration.
denying
petitioner's
motion
for
Upon
demand
and
submission
of
proper
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
damages/losses suffered by the shipment, hence, the former
Inc.
Resolving the said motion last September 18, 1989, the court
On June 6, 1989, the petitioner, as subrogee, then brought suit
p. 4).
complaint.
xxx
xxx
xxx
five percent of the interest which the claimant may have in the
vessels or cargo if it is gross average, and one percent of the
recovery.
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Edition, p. 172, citing Bargett v. Insurance Co. 3 Bosw. [N.Y.]
395).
maritime venture to make good the loss of one of them for the
(Rollo, p. 30).
Appeals.
for aside from the fact that the two orders dismissing the
complaint for lack of cause of action are final orders within
181 SCRA 811 (1990]). However, where the fact remains that
certiorari with the Court of Appeals to set aside the two orders
But the Court of Appeals in its decision dated May 30, 1990,
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Court of Appeals on the merits against the petitioner in this
case is in order.
Article 1735 of the same Code, in all cases other than those
the Civil Code, the rights and obligations of the parties shall
be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws as
Under the foregoing principle and in line with the Civil Code's
carriers' liability.
[1987] where it was held that "the law of the country to which
truth of the facts alleged in the complaint to the effect that the
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
SCRA 443 [1990]). Such being the case, it is evident that the
NOCON, J.:
fees and the costs as well as the Resolution dated February 15,
SO ORDERED.
During the early part of March 1981, said principal paid to the
Contract of carriage
vs.
SERVICES, respondents.
book the 93 workers with petitioner but the latter failed to fly
said workers, thereby compelling private respondent to borrow
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
vouchers (Exhibits "B", "C" and "C-1 to C-7") for the 93
workers it had recruited who must leave immediately since the
visas of said workers are valid only for 45 days and the
1981.
10
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
travel agent cancelled the booking of 2 passengers while the
4.
5.
reads:
airlines replied that no seat was available on that date and had
follows:
judgment:
1.
2.
3.
Ordering
the
defendant
to
pay
the
plaintiff
11
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
its part. In resolving petitioner's theory that private respondent
namely: (a) the contract "to carry (at some future time),"
for not until the carrier is actually used can the carrier be said
On the other hand, the facts clearly show that appellant was
remiss in its obligation to transport the contract workers on
In the instant case, the contract "to carry" is the one involved
the parties.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Besides, appellant knew very well that time was of the essence
xxx
xxx
xxx
contract
workers
who
were
recruited
for
ROLACO
12
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
transportation. For that matter, the involvement of the appellee
expenses.
appellee thereof. 10
Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides that:
Petitioner also contends that the appellate court erred in
awarding actual damages in the amount of P308,016.00 to
for the 93 airline tickets and P3,600.00 for the travel tax of the
by its principal and not for any other expenses it had incurred
in the process of recruiting said contract workers. Inasmuch as
13
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
damage and besmirched the reputation and business image of
the appellee. 14
case.
Sometime in November 1970, petitioner Pedro de Guzman a
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED
SO ORDERED.
vs.
COURT
OF
APPEALS
and
ERNESTO
CENDANA,
respondents.
the cargo.
FELICIANO, J.:
carrier,
and
having
failed
to
exercise
the
14
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
In his Answer, private respondent denied that he was a
terms:
responsible for the value of the lost goods, such loss having
been due to force majeure.
Article 1732.
attorney's fees.
1.
the law on common carriers set forth in the Civil Code. Under
Section 13, paragraph (b) of the Public Service Act, "public
2.
service" includes:
majeure; and
... every person that now or hereafter may own, operate,
3.
15
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
any class, express service, steamboat, or steamship line,
goods which they carry, "unless the same is due to any of the
(1)
disaster or calamity;
(2)
or civil;
(3)
(4)
(5)
has
not
secured
the
necessary
certificate
of
public
16
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
species of force majeure fall within the scope of Article 1735,
relevant part:
(Emphasis supplied)
xxx
xxx
xxx
firstly that the specific cause alleged in the instant case the
(5)
(6)
diminished; and
(7)
private respondent.
supplied)
ride with the truck carrying the 600 cartons of Liberty filled
standard
private
of
extraordinary
diligence
required
In the instant case, armed men held up the second truck owned
17
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, Branch 2, in Criminal
SO ORDERED.
Bascos v. CA
G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993.
took away the truck and its cargo but also kidnapped the driver
and his helper, detaining them for several days and later
SYLLABUS
1.
Article 1732 of the Civil Code, it held thus: "The above article
makes no distinction between one whose principal business
activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one
who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local
idiom, as a "sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids
18
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the
same case, the Supreme Court also held that: "Under Article
1745 (6) above, a common carrier is held responsible and
2.
OF
NEGLIGENCE
OVERCAME;
ARISES;
WHEN
HOW
PRESUMPTION
PRESUMPTION
MADE
vigilance over the goods carried are reached where the goods
4.
REMEDIAL
LAW;
EVIDENCE;
JUDICIAL
herself has made the admission that she was in the trucking
5.
3.
6.
7.
1745 of the Civil Code which provides: "Art. 1745. Any of the
following or
Granting that the said evidence were not self-serving, the same
were not sufficient to prove that the contract was one of lease.
19
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
It must be understood that a contract is what the law defines it
"1.
DECISION
Cipriano demanded reimbursement from petitioner but the
CAMPOS, JR., J p:
business
under
the
name
CIPRIANO
TRADING
"4.
"(e)
5.
6.
bound itself to haul the latter's 2,000 m/tons of soya bean meal
from Magallanes Drive, Del Pan, Manila to the warehouse of
obligation,
CIPTRADE,
through
Rodolfo
Cipriano,
her cargo truck to load the cargo from Manila Port Area to
20
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
for robbery and carnapping were filed against Jose Opriano, et
CARGO TRUCK.
THE
CONTRACTUAL
PETITIONER
AND
RELATIONSHIP
PRIVATE
BETWEEN
RESPONDENT
WAS
IT
former:
1.
THOUSAND
FOUR
HUNDRED
FOUR
ERRED
DUE
IN
FINDING
TO
FORCE
PETITIONER
MAJEURE,
LIABLE
NAMELY,
HIJACKING.
PESOS
III.
THE
RESPONDENT
COURT
ERRED
IN
2.
The
amount
of
FIVE
THOUSAND
PESOS
RENDERED
MOOT
AND
ACADEMIC
BY
THE
3.
"Urgent
Motion
To
Dissolve/Lift
preliminary
SO ORDERED." 6
she did business under the name A.M. Bascos Trucking and
that said admission dispensed with the presentation by private
"I.
THE
RESPONDENT
COURT
ERRED
IN
21
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
employee of petitioner; and the fact that control of the cargo
contract.
contract was a lease contract. 10 She also stated that: she was
amended complaint, she said that she does business under the
such distinctions."
both the trial and appellate courts have dismissed them as self-
the said evidence were not self-serving, the same were not
22
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
"Under Article 1745 (6) above, a common carrier is held
Common carriers are obliged to observe extraordinary
majeure which exculpated her from liability for the loss of the
affidavit about the hijacking was based on what had been told
provides:
"Art. 1745.
policy;
(6)
diminished;"
criminal cases.
23
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
to prove her negligence. Her own failure to adduce sufficient
proof of extraordinary diligence made the presumption
follows:
hereby AFFIRMED.
1. The sum of P75,000.00 as unpaid freight and P88,000.00 as
SO ORDERED.
National Steel v. CA
[G.R. No. 112287. December 12, 1997]
NATIONAL
STEEL
CORPORATION,
petitioner,
vs.
3. Cost of suit.
respondents.
[G.R. No. 112350. December 12, 1997]
SO ORDERED. [2]
The Facts
The Case
24
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The MV Vlasons I is a vessel which renders tramping service
and, as such, does not transport cargo or shipment for the
8. x x
xx
xx
vessel.
follows:
xxx
xxx
x x x
1. x x
xx
x x.
x x x
(Underscoring supplied).
xx
xx
4.
Freight/Payment:
equipped and supplied and to make the holds and all other
parts of the vessel in which cargo is carried, fit and safe for its
(15) days.
supplied and to make the holds and all other parts of the vessel
Holidays Included).
in which cargo is carried, fit and safe for its reception, carriage
and preservation; xxx; perils, dangers and accidents of the sea
25
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
any other loss or damage arising from inherent defect, quality
while it was still on board the vessel and later at the NDC
skids were rusting all over. MASCO ventured the opinion that
It was also
On
(5)
Report No. 1770, plaintiff filed with the defendant its claim
for damages suffered due to the downgrading of the damaged
(3)
nearly all the skids of tinplates and hot rolled sheets were
holds and all other parts of the vessel in which the cargo was
carried, fit and safe for its reception, carriage and preservation
--
the NSC dated March 17, 1975 (Exhibit G), MASCO made a
26
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
(7) In its answer, defendant denied liability for the alleged
had agreed to pay defendant the sum of P8,000.00 per day for
(c)
court came out with the following findings which were set
case.
of the cargo; and that the cargo was exposed to rain and
plaintiffs
grossly
complied with all its duties and obligations under the Voyage
claim
was
highly
speculative
and
27
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
of Customs (Exh. 9). That being a vessel engaged in both
hatches.
that it would be easy for them to resume work when the rains
certificates of seaworthiness.
(d)
(e)
The
the 1,769 skids of the tinplates could not have been damaged
steel bars, angular bars and the like but also tinplates and hot
28
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
freight. Thus plaintiff was able to ship high grade cargo at a
(I)
The trial court erred in finding that NSC violated the contract
VI
Questions of Law
III
1.
interruption;
29
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
II. Whether or not the terms and conditions of the Contract of
3. Whether or not a charterers failure to insure its cargo
Questions of Fact
1.
worthy;
1. Questions of Fact
(4)
P44,000.00.
expenses of litigation.
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as
Amplifying the foregoing, VSI raises the following issues in
services to the public. It has been held that the true test of a
provided it has space, for all who opt to avail themselves of its
a private carrier.
30
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
agreement and the carrier does not hold himself out to carry
the vessel.
goods for the general public. The most typical, although not
the shipowner, obtains the use and service of all or some part
In the instant case, it is undisputed that VSI did not offer its
holds and all other parts of the vessel in which cargo [was]
Burden of Proof
stipulated.
Cargo
dated July 17, 1974, that VSI shall not be responsible for
losses except on proven willful negligence of the officers of
31
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Art. 362. The carrier, however, shall be liable for damages
plaintiff.
really were.
plaintiff, and proof that the goods were lost or damaged while
It is a
was negligent or unseaworthy, and the fact that the goods were
lost or damaged while in the carriers custody does not put the
proof.[21]
know the cause of the loss and that it was not one involving its
for the intended purpose under the charter party; (2) whether
32
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
tinplates was caused by its own sweat or by contact with
seawater.
respective evidence.
hatches through which the cargo was loaded into the cargo
used the old tarpaulin, only in addition to the new one used
The
reverse this finding of both the trial and the appellate courts.
winds and big waves continued pounding the vessel at her port
side causing sea water to overflow on deck andhatch (sic)
As noted earlier, the NSC had the burden of proving that the
holding on;
33
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
That the weather condition improved when we reached
Dumali Point protected by Mindoro; that we re-secured the
opening?
A:
xxx
xxx [28]
A:
Q:
follows:
A:
A:
A:
And will you describe how the canvas cover was secured
A:
A:
A:
No, sir.
canvas flowing over the sides and we place[d] a flat bar over
the canvas on the side of the hatches and then we place[d] a
Q:
opening?
A:
Q:
And will you tell us the size of the hatch opening? The
xxx
xxx
xxx
A:
hatch beam.
34
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The stevedores employed only a tent-like material to cover the
Q: And is there a space between the hatch boards?
A:
A:
ATTY ZAMORA:
Yes, sir.
Q: How tight?
Q:
That due diligence was exercised by the officers and the crew
tinplates were inside the hall, all the hatches were opened.
Q:
A:
At the Pier.
ATTY LOPEZ:
ATTY ZAMORA:
NSC who were negligent in unloading the cargo from the ship.
Precisely, your Honor, we would like to go on detail, this is
the serious part of the testimony.
35
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
COURT:
Q:
ATTY LOPEZ:
A:
Q:
weather?
Yes, sir, I did the first time I saw it, I called the attention
of the stevedores but the stevedores did not mind at all, so, I
called the attention of the representative of the National Steel
but nothing was done, just the same. Finally, I wrote a letter
A:
to them. [31]
to protect the cargo from the rain. Now, will you describe [to]
out that he wrote his letter to petitioner only seven days later.
A:
The tents are just a base of canvas which look like a tent
side separated down to the hatch, the size of the hatch and it is
soaks [sic] at the middle because of those weather and this can
by rains.
Q:
A:
No, sir, at the time they were discharging the cargo, there
was a typhoon passing by and the hatch tent was not good
you see in fact the water enter and soak into the canvas and
tinplates.
A:
36
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
think so.
spray to enter the hatches and to drift to and fall on the cargo.
unnecessary.
closed down and covered with canvas and the hatch tents
the cargo from the ship during unfavorable weather will not
A stevedore company
Third
Issue:
Seaworthiness
Admissibility
of
Certificates
Proving
loss of, cargo caused by its negligence xxx and where the
officers and members and crew of the vessel do nothing and
xxx the vessel is not liable for loss of, or damage to, the cargo
The said
Cebu
37
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
vessel VLASONS I was drydocked x x x and PCG
2. Certificate of Inspection from the Philippine Coast Guard
Coast Guard
Philippine Coast Guard and sailed for Cebu Port on July 10,
1974. (sic) NSCs claim, therefore, is obviously misleading
and erroneous.
As
It
xxx
xxx
xxx
We find, however, that Exhibit 11 is admissible under a wellsettled exception to the hearsay rule per Section 44 of Rule
xxx
xxx
xxx
38
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The Court defined demurrage in its strict sense as the
a party for the reason alone that the judgment rendered was
A qualification of weather
courts found that such damage was brought about during the
for the trial court and the Court of Appeals to have found and
NSC has not satisfactorily shown that this case is one of them.
specifically August 13, 1974 to August 24, 1974, the only day
by half.
Ranged
39
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
shipper in regard to possible loss or damage to the cargo. In
shipper should insure the cargo to protect itself from the risks
failure or neglect.
No
pronouncement as to costs.
whom they hired in 1981, after trying him out for two weeks.
His job was to take school children to and from the St.
Scholasticas College in Malate, Manila.
SO ORDERED.
Fabre v. CA
MARIETTA
ROSARIO
C.
CLAVO,
MARA-MARA,
ELVIE
TERESITA
SENIEL,
REGALA,
40
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
kilometers per hour, to skid to the left road shoulder. The bus
hit the left traffic steel brace and sign along the road and
rammed the fence of one Jesus Escano, then turned over and
landed on its left side, coming to a full stop only after a series
of impacts. The bus came to rest off the road. A coconut tree
In its decision dated April 17, 1989, the trial court found that:
Antonio was thrown on the floor of the bus and pinned down
by a wooden seat which came off after being unscrewed. It
properly checked for travel to a long distance trip and that the
The driver, petitioner Cabil, claimed he did not see the curve
until it was too late. He said he was not familiar with the area
and he could not have seen the curve despite the care he took
in driving the bus, because it was dark and there was no sign
holding:
following amount:
41
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
II.
4) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
FOR
THE
INJURIES
SUFFERED
BY
PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS.
5) 25% of the recoverable amount as attorneys fees;
III. WHETHER OR NOT DAMAGES CAN BE AWARDED
6) Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
of
award
of P600,000.00
P1,000.00 monthly.
1) P93,657.11 as actual damages;
is unconscionable
and
highly
devoid of merit.
6) Costs of suit.
Trial Court and the Court of Appeals held, for although the
the operation of his vehicle considering the time and the place
and nature, nevertheless the act that breaks the contract may
Hence, this
NEGLIGENT.
42
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
we regard as final and conclusive, supported as they are by the
evidence. Indeed, it was admitted by Cabil that on the night in
Cabil had been driving for school children only, from their
late for him to avoid falling off the road. Given the conditions
of the road and considering that the trip was Cabils first one
moderate speed.
Petitioners argue that they are not liable because (1) an earlier
departure (made impossible by the congregations delayed
meeting) could have averted the mishap and (2) under the
the road was slippery, that it was dark, that he drove his bus at
of departure had not been fixed. Even if it had been, the delay
that:
[A] person who hires a public automobile and gives the driver
With
actual
implementation
and
monitoring
of
consistent
43
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms
petitioners are liable under Arts. 2176 and 2180 for quasi
Neither does
beauty products and the fact that the possibility that she might
such distinctions.
With respect to the other awards, while the decisions of the
As common carriers, the Fabres were bound to exercise
indicate the factual and legal basis for them, we find that they
negligence.
44
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
damages, we hold that it was also error for it to increase the
quasi-delict.[20]
below held, petitioners, who are the owners and driver of the
bus, may be made to respond jointly and severally to private
case, this Court held the bus company and the driver jointly
but that is because that case was expressly tried and decided
passenger.
there explained:
The trial court was therefore right in finding that Manalo [the
speeding bus and suffered injuries, was held also jointly and
passengers.
contract of carriage.
driver, the operator of the other vehicle and the driver of the
her co-plaintiffs did not stake out their claim against the
thus:
45
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
twice for the same injury. What is clear from the cases is the
intent of the plaintiff there to recover from both the carrier and
the driver, thus justifying the holding that the carrier and the
driver were jointly and severally liable because their separate
and distinct acts concurred to produce the same injury.
MARTINEZ, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision
of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1995, in CAG.R. SP No. 36801, affirming the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 84, in Civil Case No.
4293, which dismissed petitioners' complaint for a business
following amounts:
damages.
based on its gross receipts for the fiscal year 1993 pursuant to
the Local Government Code.[3] The respondent City Treasurer
receipts for products pumped at GPS-1 for the fiscal year 1993
which amounted to P181,681,151.00. In order not to hamper
6) costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
On January 20, 1994, petitioner filed a letter-protest
First Philippine Pipeline v. CA
PHILIPPINE
CORPORATION, petitioner,
INDUSTRIAL
vs. COURT
OF
46
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
"Moreover, Transportation contractors are not included in the
(P239,019.01
per
quarter)
is
not
contractor.
[4]
Code.[5]
On June 15, 1994, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Batangas City a complaint[6] for tax refund with
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against respondents
City of Batangas and Adoracion Arellano in her capacity as
City Treasurer. In its complaint, petitioner alleged, inter alia,
that: (1) the imposition and collection of the business tax on its
gross receipts violates Section 133 of the Local Government
Code; (2) the authority of cities to impose and collect a tax on
the gross receipts of "contractors and independent contractors"
under Sec. 141 (e) and 151 does not include the authority to
1.
133
(j)
encompasses
47
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
only common carriers so as not to
contract."
to
make
them
to
accept
certain
1.
Code."[9]
2.
[10]
3.
[13]
Petitioner
4.
48
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
choose to employ its services, and transports the goods by land
petroleum,
[16]
we ruled that:
sewerage
system,
wire
or
wireless
Supplied)
common carriers.[17]
49
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
petroleum, is hereby declared to be a public utility."
(Underscoring Supplied)
Still on page 95, subparagraph 5, on taxes on the business of
The Bureau of Internal Revenue likewise considers the
petitioner a "common carrier." In BIR Ruling No. 069-83, it
declared:
the business tax as provided for in Section 133 (j), of the Local
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Gentleman would care to go to page
98 of Book II, one can see there that provinces have the power
"Section 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of
the following :
xxx
(j)
deliberations
conducted
in
the
House
of
rate.
50
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Petitioner is already paying three (3%) percent common
[19]
ASIDE.
Calvo v. UCPB
kraft liner board were likewise torn. The damage was placed
VIRGINES CALVO doing business under the name and style
at P93,112.00.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
Terminal
Services,
Inc.
(TCTSI),
sole
Corporation (SMC) for the transfer of 114 reels of semichemical fluting paper and 124 reels of kraft liner board from
51
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
. . . we opine that damages sustained by shipment is
extraordinary
diligence
required
by
law,
hence
the
sustain [her] defense that [she is] are not liable. Defendant by
following amounts
SURMISES,
MISTAKEN INFERENCE.
SPECULATIONS
AND
MANIFESTLY
required by law. Thus, it has been held that the mere proof of
delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and of their arrival
must be held
52
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
although both the trial court and the Court of Appeals held
fault or negligence.
the law on common carriers set forth in the Civil Code. Under
service includes:
services out to the public but only offers the same to select
parties with whom she may contract in the conduct of her
business.
terms:
communications
systems,
wire
or
wireless
distinction
offering
unscheduled basis.
between
person
or
enterprise
53
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Now, as to petitioners liability, Art. 1733 of the Civil Code
provides:
PERU-204209-4
portion
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary
TOLU-213674-3
diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of
MAXU-201406-0
panel
ICSU-412105-0
explained thus:
the cargo came from. Thus, the damage to the cargo could not
She
were unloaded and who allegedly kept them in open air for
ICSU-363461-3
distorted/partly loose
54
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
vans, covered by clean EIRs. Except for slight dents and paint
the loss (or damage) was due to his fault, unless there is proof
. . . .
Anent petitioners insistence that the cargo could not have
Transfer/Delivery:
was
[withdrawn]
by Transorient
Container
[The cargo]
storage
warehouse
located
at
Tabacalera
Compound,
Petitioner
failed to do this.
From the [Survey Report], it [is] clear that the shipment was
discharged from the vessel to the arrastre, Marina Port
. . . .
the containers.
. . . .
To put it
cargo
55
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
container vans. Hence, for failure of petitioner to prove that
holds.
SO ORDERED.
GPS, instead of
TRUCKING
CORPORATION
and
DECISION
VITUG, J.:
allegation, xxx.
x x x x x x
xxx
56
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Under the law on obligation and contract, negligence or fault
"x x x x x x
xxx
Art. 2185.
traffic regulation.
court is justified.
"x x x x x x
xxx
"x x x x x x
xxx
Code) to arise, the appellant must first prove that the appellee
57
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied;[6]
carrier.
II
CARRIER
BE
breach upon the contract confers upon the injured party a valid
OR
PRIVATE
CARRIER,
MAY
On the first issue, the Court finds the conclusion of the trial
unless they are made the basis for action.[15] The effect of
58
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Respondent trucking corporation recognizes the existence of a
allowed only when (a) the event is of a kind which does not
this case, the delivery of the goods in its custody to the place
failed to do so.
Consonantly with the axiom res inter alios acta aliis neque
A word in passing.
59
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
WHEREFORE, the order, dated 30 April 1996, of the
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
The RTC dismissed the complaint after finding that the total
PHILIPPINE
AMERICAN
GENERAL
INSURANCE
the negligence of the captain and crew of the vessel and that,
under Article 587 of the Code of Commerce adopting the
Limited Liability Rule, the ship owner could free itself of
DECISION
VITUG, J.:
American
General
Insurance
carrier,
was
not
expected
to
observe
the
stringent
Company
60
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
In the instant appeal, Philamgen contends that the appellate
is not a common carrier and that it is not liable for the loss of
which such carrier can be held exempt for the loss of the cargo
terms:
service to be
jurisprudence.
wireless
(Underscoring supplied).
communication
systems,
wire
or
wireless
61
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Applying Article 1732 of the Code, in conjunction with
Section 13(b) of the Public Service Act, this Court has held:
clients.
Neither does
such distinctions.
disaster or calamity;
civil;
not hold itself out to carry the goods for the general public or
to a limited clientele, although involving the carriage of goods
of a charter party which includes both the vessel and its crew,
62
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Limar I and MT Iron Eagle, that there was no way by which
SO ORDERED.
Asia Lighterage v. CA
[G.R. No. 147246. August 19, 2003]
PUNO, J.:
On appeal is the Court of Appeals May 11, 2000 Decision[1]
in CA-G.R. CV No. 49195 and February 21, 2001
Resolution[2] affirming with modification the April 6, 1994
Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court of Manila which
found petitioner liable to pay private respondent the amount of
indemnity and attorney's fees.
conflicting; (9)
All given then, the appellate court did not err in its judgment
absolving PKS Shipping from liability for the loss of the
DUMC cargo.
63
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
On August 15, 1990, 900 metric tons of the shipment was
loaded on barge PSTSI III, evidenced by Lighterage Receipt
approaching typhoon.
with counterclaim.[17]
barge.[9] The hole was then patched with clay and cement.
Upon reaching the Sta. Mesa spillways, the barge again ran
against defendant.[18]
The next day, September 6, 1990, the towing bits of the barge
SO ORDERED.
1990 to the private respondent for the value of the lost cargo.
64
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as
Hence, this petition. Petitioner submits the following errors
(1)
COMMON CARRIER.
(2)
public.[20]
We disagree.
(3)
AND/OR
WAS
NEGLIGENT
IN
ITS
CARE
AND
(2)
65
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
(1)
We therefore hold that petitioner is a common carrier whether
disaster or calamity;
(2)
or civil;
(3)
(4)
or in the containers;
(5)
held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the
quantity or extent of the business transacted.[25] In the case
In the case at bar, the barge completely sank after its towing
show that, even before the towing bits of the barge broke, it
had already previously sustained damage when it hit a sunken
It even
To
its hole was patched with only clay and cement. The patch
further damage.
xxx
xxx
xxx
66
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
qq - Can you tell us what else transpired after that incident?
safer to just allow the Barge to lie where she was instead of
towing it?
a -
since they needed badly the wheat that was loaded in PSTSI-3.
You said there was another accident, can you tell the
And this is the reason why you towed the Barge as you
did?
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
q-
a-
q-
petitioner, reveals:
aDIRECT-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. LEE:[33]
xxx
xxx
xxx
q-
But the fact is, the typhoon was incoming? Yes or no?
67
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
a-
Yes.
Crisostomo v. CA
[G.R. No. 138334. August 25, 2003]
q -
APPEALS
and
CARAVAN
TRAVEL
&
TOURS
Yes, sir.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
q-
typhoon, right?
a-
Yes, sir.
of
respondent
Caravan
Travel
and
Tours
q-
a-
even with the typhoon if you are already inside the vicinity or
Surely, meeting a
common carrier.
Menor the full payment for the package tour. Menor then told
the vessel broke that caused its sinking and the total loss of the
Airways.
intervened.
NAIA on Saturday, June 15, 1991, to take the flight for the
first leg of her journey from Manila to Hongkong. To
11, 2000 and its Resolution dated February 21, 2001 are
learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on
SO ORDERED.
68
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Scotland and Wales in its itinerary. For this tour package,
and the amount she owed respondent for the British Pageant
tour.[3]
refundable.[1]
City.
package tour.
1.
was clearly and legibly printed on the plane ticket. The travel
per annum starting January 16, 1992, the date when the
scheduled trip.
missing the flight, as she did not bother to read or confirm her
flight schedule as printed on the ticket.
2.
69
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
this decision becomes final and executory, the rate of
3.
merit; and
4.
SO ORDERED.[5]
SO ORDERED.[6]
grounds:
aside the decision of the trial court by ruling that the petitioner
is not entitled to a refund of the cost of unavailed Jewels of
Europe tour she being equally, if not more, negligent than the
better than to simply rely on what was told to her. This being
II
III
70
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The Honorable Court erred in not granting to the petitioner the
consequential damages due her as a result of breach of
contract of carriage.[8]
the efforts of respondent company, this does not mean that the
latter ipso facto is a common carrier. At most, respondent
that petitioner was properly booked with the airline for the
gross negligence.
Such person or
very cautious persons and with due regard for all the
petitioner from one place to another since its covenant with its
71
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
whether negligence attended the performance of an obligation
employee, but also petitioners niece. It was thus error for the
is: did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
is guilty of negligence.[13]
parties.[16]
did not call Menor to the witness stand to refute the allegation.
her claim.
departure was legibly written on the plane ticket and the travel
papers were delivered two days in advance precisely so that
72
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
to book petitioner for the tour. Had petitioner exercised due
no reason for her to miss the flight. Needless to say, after the
computed from the time the counterclaim was filed until the
credit.[23]
obligation renders him liable for damages for the resulting loss
suffered by the obligee. Fault or negligence of the obligor
SO ORDERED.
SCHMITZ
TRANSPORT
&
BROKERAGE
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Transport
Brokerage
Corporation
(Schmitz
73
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Sea) 545 hot rolled steel sheets in coil weighing 6,992,450
metric tons.
futile.[14]
Industrial Insurance.
with interest from the date the complaint was filed until fully
pier, however.
to the vessel. The barge pitched and rolled with the waves and
eventually capsized, washing the 37 coils into the sea.[12] At
74
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
To the trial courts decision, the defendants Schmitz Transport
[20]
supervision thereover.[30]
trial court, [22] it finding that all the defendants were common
carriers Black Sea and TVI for engaging in the transport of
goods and cargoes over the seas as a regular business and not
court ruled that each one was essential such that without each
(2) If there was negligence, whether liability for the loss may
attach to Black Sea, petitioner and TVI.
absolves any party from any and all liability arising therefrom:
to anchor the vessel, where discharge will take place and even
when the discharging will commence.[26]
75
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be
his obligation in any manner; and (4) the obligor must be free
That no tugboat towed back the barge to the pier after the
cargoes were completely loaded by 12:30 in the morning[39]
of the loss of the cargoes. Had the barge been towed back
barge was left floating in open sea until big waves set in at
approaching.[36]
that there was greater risk in loading the cargoes outside the
breakwater.
normally.[37]
Atty. Jubay: Will you please tell us what [are you] functions x
Company?
76
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Mr. Aro: Well, I oversee the entire operation of the brokerage
and all other related functions that the President may assign to
Pipe Corporation?
Company.
Q: And whose trucks do you use from BASECO compound to
Q: And since when have you been the brokerage firm of that
Q: Now, you said that you are the brokerage firm of this
xxx
operation?
xxx
(Emphasis
supplied)[43]
Q: Now, what precisely [was] your agreement with this Little
Giant Steel Pipe Corporation with regards to this shipment?
Appeals,[44] held:
77
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The appellate court did not err in finding petitioner, a customs
xxx
undertakes
to
deliver
the
goods
for
pecuniary
consideration.[45]
with whom [it] contracts the protection which the law affords
In effecting the
78
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The foundation of LRTAs liability is the contract of carriage
Was the reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily
exercised by TVI?[52]
In the
carriage.
the loss.
could only be for tort under the provisions of Article 2176 and
that the barge does not have any power of its own and is
Civil Code. x x x [O]ne might ask further, how then must the
fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where
goods.
to apply.[57]
This Court holds then that petitioner and TVI are solidarily
liable[56] for the loss of the cargoes.
The following
79
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
shipment provides that delivery be made to the port of
discharge or so near thereto as she may safely get, always
SO ORDERED
Loadmaster v. Glodel
was compelled to litigate its rights, such fact by itself does not
justify the award of attorneys fees under Article 2208 of the
Civil Code. For no sufficient showing of bad faith would be
reflected in a partys persistence in a case other than an
- versus -
Present:
80
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
MENDOZA, JJ.
X ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
five (5) reached the destination. One (1) truck, loaded with 11
cargo.
Later on, the said truck, an Isuzu with Plate No. NSD-
insurance indemnity.
81
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
recover from the party/parties who may be held legally liable
for the loss.[2]
Both R&B Insurance and Glodel appealed the RTC decision to
On November 19, 2003, the RTC rendered a decision[3]
the CA.
holding Glodel liable for damages for the loss of the subject
cargo and dismissing Loadmasters counterclaim for damages
2.
herein DISMISSED.
3.
SO ORDERED.[5]
ISSUES
SO ORDERED.[4]
82
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
rights of the insured to the extent of the amount it paid the
consignee under the marine insurance, as provided under
Article 2207 of the Civil Code, which reads:
To totally exculpate itself from responsibility for the lost
goods, Loadmasters argues that it cannot be considered an
agent of Glodel because it never represented the latter in its
insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the
With
tort.
The
issue
now
is
who,
between
Glodel
and
carriers.
At the outset, it is well to resolve the issue of whether
R&B Insurance, for its part, claims that Glodel is
their liability for the loss of the subject cargo. Under Article
corporations.[8]
public.
83
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
does not hold itself out to carry goods for the general
This
business.
84
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Court held that a tort may arise despite the absence of a
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged
It is not disputed that the subject cargo was lost while in the
shipment.
the Courts consistent ruling that the act that breaks the
the contract. In the present case, Phoenix and McGee are not
suing for damages for injuries arising from the breach of the
ART. 2180.
Glodel
demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but also
xxxx
85
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or
more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured
representative and not for himself; (4) the agent acts within the
the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole
liability is solidary since both of them are liable for the total
rule that the basis for agency is representation, that is, the
the scope of his authority and said acts have the same legal
liable for the resulting damage under Article 2194 of the Civil
primarily liable for the loss of the subject cargo. In this case,
not even pray that Loadmasters be liable for any and all claims
86
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Equity, which has been aptly described as a justice outside
cannot be a lawyer and take the cudgels for a party who has
FISHER, J.:
from his seat in the second class-car where he was riding and,
making, his exit through the door, took his position upon the
steps of the coach, seizing the upright guardrail with his right
Brokerage
Corporation
against
petitioner
Loadmasters
SO ORDERED.
also, but one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack of
watermelons with the result that his feet slipped from under
JOSE CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving car,
87
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. It
appears that after the plaintiff alighted from the train the car
stop.
Court of First Instance, his Honor, the trial judge, found the
had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and
large lot had been brought to the station for the shipment to
the plaintiff was due to the fact that his foot alighted upon one
is readily to be credited.
examination was made and his arm was amputated. The result
examined.
88
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
immediate, differing essentially, in legal viewpoint from that
to culpa contractual.
Civil Code, which imposes upon all persons who by their fault
or negligence, do injury to another, the obligation of making
and 1104 of the Civil Code, clearly points out this distinction,
case of Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. (7 Phil. rep.,
out
and
good the damage arises at the very instant that the unskillful
direct. But, if the master has not been guilty of any negligence
the
difference
between
"culpa,
substantive
liable for the acts of the latter, whatever done within the scope
In the Rakes case (supra) the decision of this court was made
The acts to which these articles [1902 and 1903 of the Civil
those duties are subject to article 1101, 1103, and 1104 of the
same code. (Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil.
89
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
contractual ties, and he incurs no liability whatever if, by
is that under article 1903 of the Civil Code the law creates a
who says (vol. 12, p. 611) that the liability created by article
215.)
between the person called upon to repair the damage and the
Phil. rep., 624), which was an action brought upon the theory
of the extra-contractual liability of the defendant to respond
Code, said:
From this article two things are apparent: (1) That when an
regard does not relieve the master of his liability for the breach
of his contract.
him after the selection, or both; and (2) that that presumption
liability.
his own negligence and not on that of his servant. This is the
90
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
the injured party. The fundamental distinction between
recovery.
over them. The legislature which adopted our Civil Code has
repair it, and the bailee, by a personal negligent act causes its
free him from his liability for the breach of his contract, which
his action fails. But when the facts averred show a contractual
91
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
would no doubt be true in most instances that reasonable care
permit the bank to relieve itself of liability for the breach of its
the case."
saying:
defendant was riding at the time. The court found that the
damages were caused by the negligence of the driver of the
automobile, but held that the master was not liable, although
the owner for such length of time that the owner by his
acts of their servants will show that in no case has the court
Garage & Taxicab Co. (33 Phil. Rep., 8), it is true that the
court rested its conclusion as to the liability of the defendant
In the case of Johnson vs. David (5 Phil. Rep., 663), the court
upon article 1903, although the facts disclosed that the injury
held that the owner of a carriage was not liable for the
92
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
dealing with the liability of a master for the negligent acts of
court would have held that it would have been a good defense
result must have been the same in any event. The proof
under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the
safe means of entering and leaving its trains (civil code, article
and leaving its trains, the direct and proximate cause of the
the selection and control of its servants, that in such a case the
93
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
should be apportioned. It is, therefore, important to ascertain if
court in Picart vs. Smith (37 Phil. rep., 809), we may say that
the test is this; Was there anything in the circumstances
It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had
that to get off the train under the conditions then existing was
negligence.1awph!l.net
As the case now before us presents itself, the only fact from
by the fact that it came to stop within six meters from the
from trains under these conditions every day of the year, and
sustain no injury where the company has kept its platform free
passengers facilities for safe egress from its trains, the plaintiff
had a right to assume, in the absence of some circumstance to
warn him to the contrary, that the platform was clear. The
revealed.
the age, sex and condition of the passenger, would have acted
as the passenger acted under the circumstances disclosed by
the evidence. This care has been defined to be, not the care
ground. The distance from the steps of the car to the spot
94
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
incident to stepping off. The nature of the platform,
constructed as it was of cement material, also assured to the
hereby rendered plaintiff for the sum of P3,290.25, and for the
Medina v. Cresencia
[G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.]
DECISION
95
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
operator of the jeepney in question. Defendant Brigido
Avorque
chan
public
the
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
did
not
file
any
answer;
or
reason
the
for
Service
this
Commission;
rule
to
chan
be
as
protect the interest of the public. In fact, the law requires that,
thereof
chan
interest cralaw .
at
the
time
of
the
accident;
vs. Osias, L-7547, April 30, 1955 and Roque vs. Malibay
the
legal
owner
of
the
jeepney in
question;
chan
its operation. Wherefore, the lower court did not err in holding
him, and not the buyer Rosario Avorque, responsible for the
Phil., 182 (December 29, 1953), which the court below cited,
96
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Vicente Medina resulting from the reckless negligence of the
concur.
PAL v. CA
[G.R. No. L-46558 : July 31, 1981.]
DECISION
preclude
further
roblesvirtualawlibraryand
contest
not
for
thereon;
the
purpose
chan
of
for
all
the
foregoing
considerations,
97
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
litigation, or a total of P273,000.00. Costs against the
defendant.
disability, thereby causing plaintiff not only to lose his job but
defendant-appellant.
P255,000.00.
Camarines
Sur,
with
Captain
Delfin
Bustamante
as
In its answer filed on July 28, 1954, defendant PAL denied the
the head of the plaintiff to hit and break through the thick front
from
neurosis
and
in
view
of
this
unfitness
and
98
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Further, defendant alleged that by the very nature of its
Petition).
Dismiss was denied in the order of April 14, 1958. After the
earlier cited.
complained every now and then, on the one hand, and such
periodic dizzy spells, headache and general debility
99
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
pilot on a guaranteed basic salary of P750.00 a month. He was
making a landing at Daet, the pilot, with his slow reaction and
From the evidence adduced by the parties, the Court finds the
mangrove. The jolt and impact caused plaintiff to hit his head
strip; that the jolt caused plaintiffs head to hit the front
the brain of the plaintiff; that the Medical Director and Flight
family.
100
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
the ailment of the plaintiff complained of, he demanded for
expert medical assistance for his brain injury and to send him
competent
appellants brief)
medical
experts.cralaw
cranad(pp.
11-12,
are not fully borne out by the evidence on record and insists
In the case at bar, the following facts are not the subject of
controversy:
services.
101
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
probably, most probably due to psychogenic factors and have
no organic basis.
on
the
outlandishly exaggerated.
the
contrary,
testimonial
evidence
establish
days after the accident, the wound was already healed and
found nothing wrong with his ears, nose and throat so that he
possibilities.
102
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
landing. Be it brain injury or psychosomatic, neurasthenic or
did not agree and that plaintiff was completely ignored by the
doctors.
The spot is very near the brain and the eyes. Tumor on the
spot will affect the sinus, the breathing, the eyes which are
very near it. No one will certify the fitness to fly a plane of
K, K-1).
. cra . The fact First Pilot Bustamante has a long standing
The opinion of these two specialist renders unnecessary that of
103
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
allowed Bustamante to fly as a First Officer on January 8,
accidents,
competence anyway.
affect the pilot in managing the plane, the evidence shows that
mangrove was caused by the pilot for which acts the defendant
reported to the Chief Pilot who did nothing about it. Captain
negligence
The fact that the complaint was not in writing does not detract
of
defendants
employee,
it
is
liable
not in the vicinity of Daet but above the town of Ligao. The
glanced at the system pressure which indicated 900 lbs. per sq.
m.
104
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
pressure on the brakes the plane would not have overshot the
1755.
carrier, the airplane in the case at bar. And this must be so for
evidence.:onad
plaintiff-appellee.
total of P273,000.00.
105
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
years, he being only 38 years at the time the services were
before the trial court does not fall under any of the cases
for the entire period. This claim of the plaintiff for loss or
permanent
injury.
1951 whose slow reaction and poor judgment was the cause of
on Appeal)
personal
106
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
out of and in the course of the employment. The employer is
also liable for compensation if the employee contracts any
drunkenness,
for
of blood out of his ears, nose and mouth; the intermittent dizzy
equitably reduced.
the
employer
shall
not
be
liable
xxx
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
basic salary and P300.00 a month for extra pay for extra flying
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(CA
Records)
Resolution,
pp.
151-152,
court and affirmed by the appellate court and under the law
for extra flying time at the same rate of P300.00 a month totals
P78,000.00. Adding P126,000.00 cranad(1964 to 1968
damages.
107
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Even from the standpoint of the petitioner that there is an
employer-employee relationship between it and private
from the date of the judgment in the lower court, not from the
does not mean that it should not be computed from the filing
of the complaint.
Articles 1169, 2209 and 2212 of the Civil Code govern when
faith.
340). Under Article 2212 of the Civil Code, interest due shall
that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(CA
Records).
Resolution,
pp.
153-154,
affirmance thereto.
The correct amount of compensatory damages upon which
With respect to the award of attorneys fees in the sum of
SO ORDERED.
NATIONAL
TRUCKING
AND
FORWARDING
108
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
of lading, but the latter merely presented certified true copies
For review on certiorari are the Decision[1] dated January 16,
thereof.
are as follows:
In its letter of April 26, 1989, the respondent explained that
On June 5, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, through the
country.
suit.
SO ORDERED.[5]
109
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
for not holding that respondent failed to deliver the cargo, and
to the respondent.[6]
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not commit
any reversible error. It dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the
following errors:
SUSTAINED
transported by it.
THE
BASELESS
AND
ARBITRARY
the mercy of the common carrier once the goods have been
lodged for shipment.
110
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
transit, the common carrier is presumed under the law to have
been at fault or negligent.[10] However, the presumption of
In the instant case, we agree with the court a quo that the
the certified true copies of the bills of lading. They also asked
the latter and in his absence, his designated subordinates, to
disapprove
Abdurahmans
resignation
until
after
the
ART. 353. . . .
After the contract has been complied with, the bill of lading
that its original complaint for sum of money with damages for
cancelled, .
111
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The right to litigate should bear no premium. An adverse
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
of its claim.
thereat in time to board the M/V Elbia which was set to sail on
CA-G.R. CV No. 48349 dated January 16, 2002 and May 13,
SO ORDERED.
On April 1, 1989, Chiong arrived at the Manila International
Northwest Airlines v. Chiong
G.R. No. 155550
Airport4 (MIA), at about 6:30 a.m., three (3) hours before the
scheduled time of departure. Marilyn Calvo, Philimares
Liaison Officer, met Chiong at the departure gate, and the two
112
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
complying with government requirements for departing
seafarers.
following:
counter told him to simply wait and that he was being a pest.
(a) Whether [Chiong] was bumped-off by [Northwest] from
Frustrated, Chiong went to Calvo at the PCG counter and
flight.
U.S.A. time).
that he had left the country on April 17, 1989, and returned on
October 5 of the same year. Chiong did not participate in the
No. 90-89722.
113
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Petition for Certiorari before the CA imputing grave abuse of
fraud; and
respectively.16
trial,
the
RTC
rendered
Decision
finding
SO ORDERED.
before the 10:15 a.m. departure time for Northwest Flight No.
Costine.
24. Contrary to Northwests claim that Chiong was a "noshow" passenger, the CA likewise concluded, as the RTC did,
that Chiong was not allowed to check-in and was not issued a
boarding pass at the Northwest check-in counter to
defense that Chiong had left the country after April 1, 1989
costs of suit; and (3) Northwests Exhibits "2" and "3," the
114
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also
The petition must fail.
greater number.
costs of suit.
(3) the Flight Manifest and the Passenger Name Record both
Chiong was able to board the plane, as it was part of her duties
evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all
TransOcean in this case, that the seafarer had left the country
115
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
It is true that Chiongs passport and seaman service record
It is of no moment that Chiongs witnesses who all
book indicate that he had left the country on April 17, 1989
Appeals,22 thus:
cases, we deem that the same principle may apply in this case,
name, and the name W. Costine written above it. The reason
116
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Mendoza and Amelia Meris who were, admittedly, not
left the Philippines on April 17, 1989. The argument was not
tangent.
and seaman record book. Had this new matter alleged been
proven by Northwest, it would prevent or bar recovery by
On this point, we uphold the RTCs and CAs ruling that the
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there
(Emphasis supplied)
waived.
confirmed ticket for April 1, 1989, and first passed through the
117
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
if Chiong is adjudged guilty, it will have little effect on the
outcome of this case. As we held in Leyson v. Lawa:27
traveling public and thus, imbued with public interest. The law
considered.
to prove the existence of the contract and the fact of its nonperformance by Northwest, as carrier, in order to be awarded
evidence and is not a positive rule of law, and the same is not
xxxx
Professor
Wigmore
gives
the
following
enlightening
commentary:
merely tells the jury what they may do in any event, not what
question of intention.31
unimportant in themselves.
118
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
a boarding pass, and eventually barred from boarding
which they refer; (c) the entrant was in a position to know the
facts stated in the entries; (d) the entries were made in his
business or duty.
testify that the account was prepared under his supervision and
expenses and exert effort for almost two (2) decades in order
the entries was dead nor did the defendant-appellant set forth
SO ORDERED.
Aboitiz v. ICNA
ABOITIZ SHIPPING
CORPORATION,
119
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Petitioner,
Present:
The Facts
YNARES-
SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
-
versus
AUSTRIA-
MARTINEZ,
CHICO-
UK Limited of London.
NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF
Promulgated:
policy,[4] stating:
NORTH AMERICA,
Respondent.
August 6, 2008
x------------------------------------------
--------x
DECISION
The cargo, packed inside one container van, was
shipped freight prepaid from Hamburg, Germany on board
REYES, R.T., J.:
M/S Katsuragi.
As
subrogee, the insurer steps into the shoes of the assured and
may exercise only those rights that the assured may have
The CA
outside warehouse.
120
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The container van was stripped and transferred to
The letter stated that the crate was broken at its bottom part
such that the contents were exposed. The work tools and
nailed onto all the edges. The letter concluded that apparently,
of
the
consignee,
Science
Teaching
Corporation
(CAC)
conducted
an
ocular
call from Willig informing him that the cargo sustained water
found that the container van and other cargoes stuffed there
from
cargo.[11]
the
Philippine
the shipment.
Atmospheric,
Geophysical
and
121
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
when it was delivered on July 26, 1993. The shipment was
complaint
is
hereby
DISMISSED.
The
defendants
basis.[18]
The RTC ruled that ICNA failed to prove that it is the real
in its favor.
RTC Disposition
delivery.
Subsidiary Companies.
and the suit was premature there being no claim made upon
Aboitiz.
plaintiff did not present on the witness stand or took (sic) the
states:
The
122
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Plaintiff, further, claims that it has been subrogated to the
a cause of action. It argued that the formal claim was not filed
assured in the open policy, and not Willig, who is merely the
thereon at the legal rate from the date of the institution of this
A new judgment is
to
obtain
these
licenses/authority,
such
foreign
insurance claim.
CA Disposition
xxxx
123
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Plaintiff insurer, whether the foreign company or its duly
(3)
THERE WAS
therefore the real party in interest to bring this suit and recover
countervailing evidence.
MERELY
HEARSAY
AND
SELF-SERVING
REPRESENTATIVE
(4)
OF
STIP
TO
IDENTIFY
AND
OR NEGLIGENCE OF ABOITIZ.[23]
(Underscoring
supplied)
(1)
STIP
WAS
NOT
MADE
WITHIN
THE
PERIOD
(2)
Our Ruling
124
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
be necessary before it can institute suits.[24] It may, however,
license, and not the lack of license per se, which bars a foreign
As found by the CA, the RTC erred when it ruled that there
insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the
The acceptance
of the insurer.
125
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
assignment of claim. It accrues simply upon payment of the
After
supplied)
the
periods
mentioned
have
elapsed,
or
the
(Emphasis
wrongdoer who caused the loss from liability, the insurer loses
this case presented the terms for giving notices of claim under
August 15, 1993, that letter, together with the notice of claim,
For damages that are visible from the outside of the package,
claim for damages was denied. This Court ruled that such a
The
notice did not comply with the notice requirement under the
Article 366. Within twenty four hours following the receipt of
126
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
As adverted to earlier, there are peculiar circumstances in the
case, albeit this ruling is being made pro hac vice, not to be
institute the claim for damages against petitioner; and pro hac
and purpose.[36]
corroded.
The
127
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
presumption that the carrier was at fault or that it acted
noted that the subject cargo was under the custody of appellee
for Cebu. During the period between July 26 to 31, 1993, the
petitioner.
the
notation
grounded
outside
warehouse,
fell over Manila during the same period, We can conclude that
the cargoes.
where did they place or store the subject goods from the time
To prove the exercise of extraordinary diligence, petitioner
must do more than merely show the possibility that some other
Extraordinary
from July 26, 1993 to July 31, 1993. What the records showed
is that the subject cargo was stripped from the container van of
notation referred not to the crate for shipment but only to the
and finally loaded into the appellees vessel bound for Cebu
show that the crate was properly stored indoors during the
appellees vessel, it was noted that only one (1) slab was
128
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
SO ORDERED.
CO., INC.,
Petitioner,
Present:
MARTINEZ,*
CORONA,**
-
versus -
TINGA,
Acting
Chairperson,
BRION, JJ.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x
129
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Asia Star Freight Services, Inc. undertook the delivery of the
subject shipment from the pier to the consignees warehouse
in Quezon City,[10] while the final inspection was conducted
downgrading.[11]
subrogation receipt.
130
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
1.
2.
3.
the arrastre operator to the tug boats then to the ports.[25] The
said goods;
4.
cargo.
lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the
receive them.[28]
arrastre operator.
provides that the ship captain is liable for the cargo from the
time it is turned over to him at the dock or afloat alongside the
vessel at the port of loading, until he delivers it on the shore or
131
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
on the discharging wharf at the port of unloading, unless
(Citations omitted)
carrier shall commence from the time when the goods are
loaded on board the vessel and shall cease when they are
discharged from the vessel.
clarification that the arrastre operator and the carrier are not
the vessel?
possession.[33]
132
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
that the carriers liability for loss or damage to the goods
ceases after its discharge from the vessel. Article 619 of the
Yes, sir.
from the time it is turned over to him until its delivery at the
port of unloading.
the acts of the master, the crew, the stevedore, and his other
agents. It has also been held that it is ordinarily the duty of the
xxx
to such unloading.[40]
sir.[43]
The exercise of the carriers custody and responsibility over
the subject shipment during the unloading actually transpired
in the instant case during the unloading of the shipment as
Atty. Repol:
shipping [company]?
A
Yes, sir.
area before and after discharged that cause the bags to torn
[sic].[44] (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
133
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The records are replete with evidence which show that the
damage to the bags happened before and after their
discharge[45] and it was caused by the stevedores of the
Wallem.
settled:
SO ORDERED.
134
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
its first delivery, private respondent's resident manager in
vs.
HON.
APPELLATE
COURT
and
Nos. 3259 and 3260 both of which were initialed by the latter
at the bottom left corner. 2 The first invoice was for the
amount of P11,822.80 representing the value of 5,374 board
feet of sawn lumber, while the other set out the amount of
FELICIANO, J.:
135
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
On 25 June 1980, after confirming the above with Blue Star
trial court in toto. Like the trial court, the appellate court held
No. 668 against driver Licuden for estafa. Greenhills also filed
negligence of said driver and bear the loss of the sawn lumber
success. 10
Petitioner urges that she could not be held answerable for the
the said truck in Central Luzon from that date (28 February
the public for the negligence of the driver despite the sale of
and holding that Licuden was her employee, the trial court
adjudged as follows:
owner.
trial court's holding that petitioner was liable for the cost of
cargo truck, with legal rate of interest from the filing of the
SO ORDERED. 8
136
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The prevailing doctrine on common carriers makes the
has the right to assume that the registered owner is the actual
public to enforce the rights of action that they may have for
A common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for
packaging or container. 14
contracted Licuden who was then driving the same cargo truck
for her own benefit and convenience, that is, to secure the
137
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
and real in the case of carriage of goods as it is in the
reimbursement or contribution. 17
doctrine.
SO ORDERED.
BA Finance v. CA
[G.R. No. 102998. July 5, 1996]
The
The decisions of both the appellate court and the court a quo
are based on a like finding of the facts hereinafter briefly
narrated.
138
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The spouses Reynaldo and Florencia Manahan executed, on
defendants within thirty (30) days from the writ's issuance, the
that arise from this practice, plaintiff failing to heed the Order
139
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
On 27 February 1989, the trial court rendered a decision
On 09 March 1988, private respondent filed a motion praying
In turn,
show any legal basis for said respondent's liability. The court
ratiocinated:
March 1988 contending that: (a) the dismissal of the case was
tantamount to adjudication on the merits that thereby deprived
117, of the Rules of Court; (b) the order to return the vehicle
chattel mortgage, and (c) there were no legal and factual bases
upon the plaintiff to return the seized vehicle unto the said
for the court's view that the filing of the replevin case was
Roberto M. Reyes."[18]
140
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one's person
to the mortgage.
possession.
rem," the gist of the replevin action is the right of the plaintiff
Code); that good faith is always presumed, and upon him who
possession of the same (Art. 559, ibid.). Thus, it has been held
has a good legal basis, i.e., a clear title thereto, for seeking
Kapunan, 104 Phil. 110; Yu, et al. vs. Hon. Honrado, etc., et
al., 99 SCRA 237). In the case at bar, the trial court did not
err in holding that the complaint does not state any cause of
In rem actio est per quam rem nostram quae ab alio possidetur
petimus, et semper adversus eum est qui rem possidet. In
for reconsideration.
"There can be no question that persons having a special right
In the instant appeal, petitioner insists that a mortgagee can
141
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
therefor. Where the mortgage authorizes the mortgagee to
them."[23]
In a suit for
thereto.
142
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective,
complete, or equitable.
AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
multiple litigation.'
vs.
"Without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or
(Footnotes omitted.)
IGNACIO
VILLAMOR,
as
Attorney-General
of
the
entitled to, the possession of the property unless and until the
mortgagor defaults and the mortgagee thereupon seeks to
CARSON, J.:
from any and all shippers who may offer such explosives for
replevin.
143
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Summarized briefly, the complaint alleges that plaintiff is a
follows:
acceptance
of
such
explosives
for
carriage;
that
144
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, their deputies
carrier to carry for all who offer arises from the public
this jurisdiction are defined and fully set forth in Act No. 98 of
provisions.
which the shipper offers them for carriage; and further without
traffic.
145
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
SEC. 3. No common carrier engaged in the carriage of
Act which prescribes that, "No common carrier ... shall, under
carriers to accept for carriage, and to carry all and any kind of
could not have intended and did not intend to prescribe that a
steamer,
expressly
constructed
in
small
watertight
in its provisions or
on alleged
146
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
kind of traffic, or of subjecting any person, locality, or
States, 217 U.S., 349; U.S. vs. Pico, 18 Phil. Rep., 386.) We
judicial investigation. If it turns out that the rates are too low
Cotting vs. Goddard (183 U.S., 79, 102); Mercantile Trust Co.
for that purpose, then they are illegal. Now, to impose upon a
vs. Texas Co. (51 Fed., 529); Louisville Ry. vs. McCord (103
Fed., 216); Cons. Gas Co. vs. Mayer (416 Fed., 150). We are
147
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The distinction is obvious between a case where the validity of
discriminations,
unreasonable
restraints
of
trade,
and
Young, supra, it will be seen that the validity of the Act does
legislature" over the subject with which the statute deals "is
proposition.)
business,
such
as
that
of
carrying
explosives,
is
148
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
and because it deprives him of his liberty by compelling him
as follows:
Chicago & N.W. Ry. vs. Dey (35 Fed. Rep., 866, 880), and
first section of the bill of rights of this state that "all men are
expensive
pneumatic
tires,
unsuitable
for
freight
149
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
transportation, ha may nevertheless carry passengers. The only
jusi on the ground that he has carried for others only jusi that
for anyone."
the statute would not control his action in any wise whatever.
151 U.S., 556, 571; Connecticut etc. R. Co. vs. Woodruff, 153
U.S., 689.)
150
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
discretion in the conduct of his business. But since the
(Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U.S., 113, 130; Chicago etc. R. Co. vs.
Cutts, 94 U.S., 155; Budd vs. New York, 143 U.S., 517;
Cotting vs. Goddard, 183 U.S., 79.) The right to enter the
interfere
services to the public for hire does not carry with it the right to
interest of the public and free from such reasonable and just
unless the case presents, clearly and beyond all doubt, such a
with
regulations
established
and
palpably
private property taken for the public use. (Chicago etc. R. Co.
Business of certain kinds, including the business of a common
vs. Wellman, 143 U.S., 339; Smyth vs. Ames, 169 U.S., 466,
592, 614.)
(Budd vs. New York, 143 U.S., 517, 533.) When private
property is "affected with a public interest it ceases to be juris
indifferently for all who may employ them, and in the order in
130, 134, 138; Louisville etc. Ry. Co. vs. Quezon City Coal
113; Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. vs. Smith, 128 U.S., 174; Budd
vs. New York, 143 U.S., 517; Louisville etc. Ry. Co. vs.
151
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
business his will or to make use of his facilities in a manner or
It was found, in the course of time, that the correction of
public for hire, that the statute steps in and prescribes that he
must treat all alike, that he may not pick and choose which
make
Canal Traffic Act in 1854, and since the passage of those Acts
any
undue
or
unreasonable
preferences
or
(1906); and most if not all of the States of the Union have
clear that whatever may have been the rule at the common
litigation
their
has
arisen
under
these
statutes
and
penalize
unreasonable
There can be little doubt, however, that cases may and will
all
and
any
unnecessary
or
152
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
owner of a large number of vessels" engaged in that trade to
determined
therefore
is
whether
such
prejudice
or
of the opinion that the facts alleged in the complaint are not
both land and sea, and there can be little doubt that a general
153
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
gasoline, and similar products, even when offered for carriage
ground to fear that his vessel or those on board his vessel will
form and under the conditions in which they are offered for
merchandise.
154
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
reasonable exercise of prudence and discretion on the part of
the shipowner.
of action.
case."
LAUREL, J.:
The petitioner has been engaged for the past twenty years in
the business of transporting passengers in the Province of
Pangasinan and Tarlac and, to a certain extent, in the Province
of Nueva Ecija and Zambales, by means of motor vehicles
commonly known as TPU buses, in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the certificates of public convenience issued
in its favor by the former Public Utility Commission in cases
Nos. 24948, 30973, 36830, 32014 and 53090. On August 26,
1939, the petitioner filed with the Public Service Commission
an application for authorization to operate ten additional new
155
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Brockway trucks (case No. 56641), on the ground that they
functions in the premises, and for that reason, the Act, in so far
condiciones:
2. That even if it be assumed that section 1 of Commonwealth
Que los certificados de conveniencia publica y authorizacion
because: (a) The Act applies only to future certificates and not
adquisicion.
necessity," as the case may be, to the effect that the operation
156
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The Commission may prescribed as a condition for the
into consideration.
being that said period shall not exceed fifty years (sec. 16 (a),
U.S.A., 287 U.S. 12, 24, 25, 77 Law. ed. 138, 145, 146;
157
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be "for
mandate. More than this, it has thereby also declared its will
shall not be longer than fifty years. All that has been delegated
2d. 973, 976, 165 Tenn. 319.) In harmony with such growing
constitutionally objectionable.
46077, promulgated June 12, 1939; and Robb and Hilscher vs.
158
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
properties." We have examined the legislative proceedings on
xxx
xxx
xxx
attempt failed:
The petitioner is mistaken in the suggestion that, simply
xxx
xxx
xxx
159
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
police power, are applicable not only to those public utilities
Law. ed. 239, Law v. Railroad Commission, 184 Cal. 737, 195
& Bkg. Co. vs. Smith, 128 U.S. 174; Budd vs. New York, 143
U.S. 517; New York etc. R. Co. vs. Bristol 151 U.S. 556, 571;
Louisville etc. Ry Co. vs. Kentucky, 161 U.S. 677, 695.) This
J., sec. 21, pp. 9-10.) in the light of authorities which hold that
a certificate of public convenience constitutes neither a
160
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Brockton, 235 Mass. 95, 100, 126 N. E. 456; Roberto vs.
583, 160 N. E. 321; Scheible vs. Hogan, 113 Ohio St. 83, 148
N. E. 581; Martz vs. Curtis [J. L.] Cartage Co. [1937], 132
Ohio St. 271, 7 N. E. [d] 220; Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. vs.
concur.
PAL v. CAB
[G.R. No. 119528. March 26, 1997]
PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES,
INC.,
petitioner,
vs.
CIVIL
161
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
private respondent's Application for the issuance of a
Inc. (PAL) to support its petition is the fact that GrandAir does
substance in that:
of the Constitution.
lot) etc.
applied for.
result in
franchise.
162
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
2, 1995.[8] In the said Resolution, the Board justified its
On December 20, 1994, the Chief Hearing Officer of CAB
'(c) The Board shall have the following specific powers and
duties:
No. 23365, it has been ruled that under Section 10 (c) (I) of
R.A. 776, the Board possesses this specific power and duty.
hereby denied.
SO ORDERED."
WHEREAS, such authority was affirmed in PAL vs. CAB,
Meantime, on December 22, 1994, petitioner this time,
(23 SCRA 992), wherein the Supreme Court held that the
CAB can even on its own initiative, grant a TOP even before
"1. The applicant does not possess the required fitness and
and,
accordance with its mandate, the CAB can issue not only a
TOP but also a Certificate of Public Convenience and
every public utility may operate when the law has granted
163
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
b) The Constitutional provision in Article XII, Section 11 that
utilities.
Dr. Arturo C. Corona
WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 219 which took effect on 22
Executive Director
Ermita, Manila
Sir:
This has reference to your request for opinion on the necessity
RESOLVED,
(T)HEREFORE,
that
the
Motion
for
considering that the grounds relied upon by the movant are not
indubitable."
however, for the reason that under R.A. No. 776, as amended,
the CAB is explicitly empowered to issue operating permits or
that,-
164
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
sovereign and legislative in nature; it can be conferred only by
the lawmaking authority (17 W and P, pp. 691-697). The
(supra).
In both cases, the issue resolved was whether or not the Civil
380-381).
the latter.
Secretary of Justice"
165
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The power to authorize and control the operation of a public
Congress are not required before each and every public utility
166
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
SECTION 10. Powers and Duties of the Board. (A) Except as
and control over air carriers, general sales agents, cargo sales
petitioner in Congress.
Act.
Many and varied are the definitions of certificates of public
In support of the Board's authority as stated above, it is given
(C) The Board shall have the following specific powers and
duties:
indispensable thing.[21]
Petitioner argues that since R.A. 776 gives the Board the
an
by law.[20]
"Certificate
of
Public
Convenience"
which
is
167
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
future of foreign and domestic commerce of the Philippines,
Congress, by giving the respondent Board the power to issue
legal
delegate."[23]
National Defense;
Philippines; and,
performance of its powers and duties under this Act, the Civil
Philippines;
SECTION 21. Issuance of permit. The Board shall issue a
(b) The
encouragement and
development of an
air
168
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
fit, willing and able to perform such service properly in
Crowborough.
SO ORDERED.
American
Steamship
Agencies,
Home
Insurance
attorney's fees.
April 4, 1968
In answer, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation alleged that it
vs.
and quality that it had received the same from the carrier. It
appellant.
169
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
American Steamship Agencies denied liability by alleging that
with legal interest plus P1,000 attorney's fees. Said court cited
the following grounds:
servants; and
(d) When goods are delivered to the carrier in good order and
the same are in bad order at the place of destination, the carrier
170
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Regarding the stipulation, the Court of First Instance declared
captain in the care of the goods and Article 1744 of the Civil
and the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the former for
loss or destruction of the goods to a degree less than
No costs. So ordered.
taken
from
Anglo-American
law.7
Under
American
Arada v. CA
G.R. No. 98243 July 1, 1992
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
PARAS, J.:
171
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: Alejandro
1,276.00
24 CS
PLP MTS
456.00
121).
37 CS
On March 24, 1982. petitioner entered into a contract with
private respondent to safely transport as a common carrier,
CS WOODEN MTS
673.40
8 CS
NO. OF CASES
CARGO
128.00
VALUE
640 CS
7,515 CS
14,080.00
P136.773.00
9,824 CS
1,542 CS
P176,824.80
23,438.40
58 CS
Coast Guard for M/L Maya to leave the port of San Carlos
City, but due to a typhoon, it was denied clearance by SNI
172
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Antonio Prestado PN who was then assigned at San Carlos
reads
was no storm and the sea was calm. Hence, said vessel left for
Mandaue City. While it was navigating towards Cebu, a
(1)
On March 27, 1982 at about 4:00 a.m., the vessel sank with
(2)
(3)
(4)
Defendant's
counterclaim
not
having
been
The
Board's
report
containing
its
findings
and
(1)
(2)
the Regional Trial Court its first cause of action being for the
173
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
In its decision Promulgated on April 8, 1991, the Court of
complaint on March 25, 1983, until fully paid, and the costs.
(Rollo, p. 37)
A.
Q.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
A.
Yes, sir,
Q.
carrier?
174
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
A.
Yes, sir,
If only for the fact that he was first denied clearance to depart
on March 24, 1982, obviously because of a typhoon coming,
A common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for
True, the sea was calm at departure time. But that might be the
1982 when the Philippine Coast Guard denied M/L Maya the
(Benedicto v. IAC, G.R. No. 70876, July 19, 1990, 187 SCRA
since the time of the denial of said clearance and the time a
could have anticipated the strong winds and big waves and
1982 is as follows:
Q.
was?
A.
xxx
xxx
xxx
175
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
March 25, 1982 were slight to rough and the weather
2 AM
30
skies with rainshowers and the small waves grew larger and
3.7
larger, to wit:
rough
SPEED
sea heaps up
WAVE HT.
SEA
breaking waves
WEATHER
begin to be blown
KNOTS
in streaks along
(METERS)
CONDITIONS
Spindrift begins
March 25
8 AM
(Exh. 3)
15
1-2
slight
cloudy skies
the storm and the weather condition of the path they would be
w/ rainshowers
2 PM
20-25
2.0-3.0
moderate
overcast skies
to rough
from loss or damage, and if loss occurs, the law presumes that
w/ some rains
8 PM
30
3.7
rough
sea heaps up
white foam from
Furthermore, the records show that the crew of M/L Maya did
breaking waves
begin to be blown
in streaks along
the direction of
special permit to man the vessel, such permit was issued at the
the wind;
Spindrift begins
176
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Finally, petitioner claims that the factual findings of the
COURT
Special
Board
of
Marine
Inquiry
exonerating
the
OF
APPEALS,
SORIAMONT
STEAMSHIP
respondents.
respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Annex A, p. 7)
Chapter
XVI
thereof
entitled
to its cargo?
"Marine
CONSIDERED,
the
appealed
AFFIRMED.
decision
is
SO ORDERED.
Planters Products v. CA
G.R. No. 101503 September 15, 1993
177
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Before loading the fertilizer aboard the vessel, four (4) of her
iron (GI) sheets, with an opening at the front where the dump
16.
It took eleven (11) days for PPI to unload the cargo, from 5
hatches were closed with heavy iron lids, covered with three
(3) layers of tarpaulin, then tied with steel bonds. The hatches
voyage. 5
dirt. 12
the steel pontoon hatches were opened with the use of the
vessel's boom. Petitioner unloaded the cargo from the holds
dirt. 13
Each time a dump truck was filled up, its load of Urea was
certificate and not a formal claim, and that this "request" was
cargo. The port area was windy, certain portions of the route
178
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
policy governing common carriers does not apply to them
ruled thus: 15
failed to prove the basis of its cause of action, i.e. the alleged
damage was due to any of the causes which exempt him from
court and absolved the carrier from liability for the value of
Inc., 17 the appellate court ruled that the cargo vessel M/V
179
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
As earlier stated, the primordial issue here is whether a
carrier.
including the master and the crew, who are his servants.
vessel M/V "Sun Plum", the ship captain, its officers and
the crew and to the ship, with the duty of caring for his cargo
the ship's stores, pay for the wages of the master and the crew,
when the charterer did not have any control of the means in
officers and crew who were screened, chosen and hired by the
shipowner. 27
180
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
by one or many. The master and the crew are in each case his
It is therefore imperative that a public carrier shall remain as
control of the ship, although her holds may, for the moment,
negligence.
The master of the carrying vessel, Captain Lee Tae Bo, in his
the four (4) hatches of the vessel were cleaned, dried and
common carriers.
in the ship's holds, the steel pontoon hatches were closed and
sealed with iron lids, then covered with three (3) layers of
hatches remained close and tightly sealed while the ship was
in transit as the weight of the steel covers made it impossible
It was also shown during the trial that the hull of the vessel
of the cargo into the sea or seepage of water inside the hull of
But where her services only are let, the same grounds for
181
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
presence of a representative of the shipowner, the foreman, the
the cargo was to be done by the charterer, free from all risk
therefore under his control and supervision, not when the same
is done by the consignee or stevedores under the employ of the
latter. 36
the inherent defect of the goods, shall be for the account and
by the defendant carrier; that the hull of the vessel at the time
be liable for the loss and damage resulting from the preceding
open the same except in the presence of the owner of the cargo
14); that the cover of the hatches was made of steel and it was
persons. 38
charge after the vessel's holds were duly inspected and passed
182
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
percent (1%) against the bill of lading is deemed "normal" or
The Court notes that it was in the month of July when the
vessel arrived port and unloaded her cargo. It rained from time
clamped shell which does not seal very tightly. Also, the wind
process.
consignee's warehouse.
risk the shipper or the owner of the goods has to face. Clearly,
respondent carrier has sufficiently proved the inherent
highly improbable for sea water to seep into the vessel's holds
during the voyage since the hull of the vessel was in good
the then Court of the First Instance, now Regional Trial Court,
to carry the cargo she was chartered for. If there was loss or
contamination of the cargo, it was more likely to have
occurred while the same was being transported from the ship
to the dump trucks and finally to the consignee's warehouse.
SO ORDERED.
Loadstar Shipping v. CA
[G.R. No. 131621. September 28, 1999]
183
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
P6,075,000 to the insured in full settlement of its claim, and
Petitioner
Loadstar
Shipping
Co.,
Inc.
(hereafter
LOADSTAR.
the shippers goods and claimed that the sinking of its vessel
said decision.
for shipment:
voyage. The court noted that the charter of the vessel was
crew.[4]
On 20
Agusan del Norte, the vessel, along with its cargo, sank off
184
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
3) The vessel was not seaworthy because it was undermanned
on the day of the voyage. If it had been seaworthy, it could
these premises?
at the trial.
nor a fixed route, and there was only one shipper, one
the
destination.
contractual.
shippers
goods
never
reached
their
regarding the shipment of the cargo. The singular fact that the
6) Art. 361 (of the Code of Commerce) has been judicially
devolves upon the shipowner to both allege and prove that the
Transportation of the
nature and defects of the goods, but not those caused by the
Philippine Coast Guard, who certified that the ship was fit to
proved.[7]
185
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
licensed and unquestionably competent.
November 1984; yet, the case for recovery was filed only on 4
February 1985.
fault or negligence.
points out that when the vessel left Nasipit, Agusan del Norte,
on 19 November 1984, the weather was fine until the next day
WELFRING
and
YOLING,
inside
the
tantamount to negligence.
eventually sink.
Anent the first assigned error, we hold that LOADSTAR is a
LOADSTAR goes on to argue that, being a private carrier, any
shipper and the carrier, and not to the insurer of the goods,
186
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
v. Court of Appeals,[13] both of which upheld the Home
Insurance doctrine.
Neither does
case at bar for simple reason that the factual settings are
different.
such distinctions.
xxx
for hauling their goods; that that fee frequently fell below
definition
of
common
carriers
with
the
peculiar
terms:
has
not
secured
the
necessary
To exempt private
certificate
of
public
187
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
of a common carrier impinges directly and intimately upon the
two cases that after paying the claim of the insured for
merely to the rights of the assured, that is, it can recover only
bill of lading which the parties may enter into, provided that
For a vessel to be
the same was freely and fairly agreed upon (Articles 1749-
crew.
(Articles 1744 and 1745), that is, the carrier is not liable for
lading. The first is one exempting the carrier from any and all
enforceable.[21]
that when MIC paid the shipper, it was subrogated to all the
LOADSTAR.
188
Transportation Law
Choco Notes
Neither is there merit to the contention that the claim in this
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
189