TRANSPORTATION LAW SYLLABUS (COURSE OUTLINE)

University of Asia & the Pacific - Institute of Law

Atty. Alvin T. Claridades

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMON CARRIERS

A. TRANSPORTATION IN GENERAL

Transportation as a component of “public utilities” and “public service”

 Sec. 13(b), Commonwealth Act No. 146 or The Public Service Law (of 1936), as last
amended by Republic Act No. 2677
1. National Power Corp. v. CA, 345 Phil. 9 [1997]

B. PUBLIC UTILITIES

Constitutional provisions on public utilities

 Sec. 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution

2. Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551. July 11, 1989
 Sec. 17, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
3. Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., G.R. No. 155001. May 5,
2003

What constitutes a public utility?

 Secs. 18 and 19, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution

4. The Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Company v. Public Utility Board, G.R. No. L-19857.
March 2, 1923; 44 Phil. 551

Distinction between "operation" and “ownership” of a public utility

5. Tatad v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 114222. April 6, 1995

Power to grant licenses or franchise to operate public utilities

6. Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No.
47065. June 26, 1940; 70 Phil 221

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity distinguished from Certificate of Public

Convenience

7. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, G.R. No. 119528. March 26, 1997

C. COMMON CARRIERS AND CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE

Contract of transportation or Contract of carriage defined

Contract of carriage imbued with public interest

 Art. 1755, Civil Code).

8. Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. No. L-21438. Sept. 28, 1966; 18 SCRA 155
9. Singson v. CA, G.R. No. 119995. Nov. 18, 1997

Parties to contracts of carriage of goods and of passengers

Carrier defined

Classifications of carriers

Private or special carrier

10. Spouses Pereña v. Spouses Zarate, G.R. No. 157917. Aug. 29, 2012
11. National Steel Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 112287. Dec. 12, 1997; 347 Phil. 345

Common or public carriers

 Art. 1732, Civil Code

Elements of a common carrier

Test for determining a common carrier

No legal distinction as to means of transporting; pipeline operator is a common carrier

12. First Philippine Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 125948. Dec. 29, 1998

Common carrier may have no regular schedule or clients, fixed routes, terminals or tickets

13. Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. 147246. Aug. 19, 2003

Common carriers bound to serve all and liable for refusal to so serve without sufficient
reason

No distinction made by law between common carriage as a principal or ancillary activity

 14. De Guzman v. CA, G.R. No. L-47822. Dec. 22, 1988

Distinctions between a common carrier and a private carrier

Laws governing domestic, inter-island and coastwise transportation

Laws applicable to international, foreign or overseas transportation

Liability of a common carrier; extraordinary diligence

 Art. 1733, Civil Code

 Arts. 1734, 1735 and 1745, numbers 5, 6 and 7, Civil Code

Observance of extraordinary diligence in the carriage of goods

15. Gatchalian v. Delim, G.R. No. 56487. Oct. 21, 1991; 203 SCRA 126

When liability of common carrier starts in transport of passengers

16. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 84458. Nov. 6, 1989

When liability of common carrier commences in transport of goods

Requisites of extraordinary diligence in carriages by land and by sea

17. Trans‐Asia Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 118126. March 4, 1996

18. Negros Navigation v. CA, G.R. No. 110398. Nov. 7, 1997

Liabilities of a common carrier for breach of contract

Defenses in culpa contractual

 Art. 1762, Civil Code

Burden of proof in cases of contributory negligence

Damages recoverable for death of a passenger

19. Briñas v. People, G.R. No. L‐30309. Nov. 25, 1983

Causes exempting the common carrier from responsibility

 Art. 1734, Civil Code

Distinctions between an action to enforce liability of the employer of the negligent driver
under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code and an action based on quasi‐delict under the
Civil Code

Liability of common carrier for moral damages

20. China Airlines, Ltd. v. IAC, G.R. No. 73835. Jan. 17, 1989

Common carriers generally presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently

21. Bascos v. CA, G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993

Arts. 1734 and 1735, Civil Code

When presumption of negligence arises; how presumption overcame; when presumption

made absolute

Presumption of fault or negligence of common carrier rebuttable

22. Pilapil v. CA, G.R. No. 52159. Dec. 22, 1989; 180 SCRA 546

Exceptions to the application of presumption of fault or negligence

Philippine American General Insurance Co, Inc. v. MGG Marine Services, Inc. G.R. No.
135645. March 8, 2002
Arts. 1740, 1742 and 1743, Civil Code
23. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. L‐48757. May 30, 1988
24. Southern Lines v. CA, G.R. No. L‐16629. Jan. 31, 1962, 4 SCRA 258
25. Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 119197.
May 16, 1997; 272 SCRA 527

Accidents due to mechanical defects of carrier not fortuitous events

26. Sweet Lines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L‐46340. April 29, 1983
27. Juntilla v. Fontanar, G.R. No. L‐45637, May 31, 1985
28. Vergara v. CA, G.R. No. 77679, Sept. 30, 1987

Fire not considered as a natural disaster or calamity

29. Africa v. Caltex [Phil.], Inc., G.R. No. L-12986. March 31, 1966; 16 SCRA 448
 Art. 1734, Civil Code
 Sec. 4, COGSA
30. Servando v. Philippine Steam Navigation Co., G.R. No. L‐36481‐2, Oct. 23, 1982

Typhoon or storm deemed a fortuitous event; exception

31. Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. CA, G.R. No. L-47851. Oct. 3, 1986; 144 SCRA 596
32. Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. IAC, G.R. No. 74387-90. Nov. 14, 1988;
167 SCRA 379
 33. Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. No. 115024. Feb. 7, 1996; 253 SCRA 303
34. Arada v. CA, G.R. No. 98243. July 1, 1992

Stipulations in a contract of carriage deemed as unreasonable, unjust and contrary to

public policy

 Art. 1745, Civil Code

Acts of strangers that would divest a common carrier of his/its duty of extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried

 Art. 1745, par. (6), Civil Code

Liability of carrier for acts of robbers

Act of God must be the sole and proximate cause of the loss to exempt the carrier from
liability

Common carrier not liable where the proximate cause of passenger’s injury is his own
negligence

 Art. 1761, Civil Code

Liability over perishable goods

Duty of carrier to keep the vessel seaworthy

Rules regarding a carrier's liability for delay in delivery of goods

35. Saludo, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992

Liability for delay in the transportation of goods

 Arts. 1170, 1740, 1747 and 1748, Civil Code);

Certificate of Public Convenience not a requisite for incurring of liability as a common

carrier

Grounds for refusal by common carrier to carry certain goods must be reasonable

36. F.C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R. No. L-8095. March 31, 1915

Presumption of negligence of common carriers; how overcome

 Arts. 1735 and 1752, Civil Code

37. Compania Maritima v. CA, G.R. No. L-31379, 29 Aug. 1988, 164 SCRA 685
Reasons for the requirement of extraordinary diligence

Principles on the liability of a common carrier

38. Isaac v. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-9671. Aug. 23, 1957

Periods when the liability of a common carrier begins and ceases

 Arts. 1736 and 1738, Civil Code

 Art. 619 of the Code of Commerce
39. Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. v. Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc. G.R. No. 165647.
March 26, 2009

To whom goods must be delivered

 Art. 1736, Civil Code

Parties may agree to relieve carrier from liability while goods are in custom’s custody

40. Lu Do & Lu Ym Corp. v. Binamira, G.R. No. L-9840. April 22, 1957

Rule as to unloading, storage and stoppage in transitu

Implied warranty of seaworthiness of ships as common carriers

41. Caltex [Philippines], Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 131166. Sept. 30, 1999; 374
Phil. 325

Passenger defined

Persons not deemed as passengers

42. Lara v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-9907. June 30, 1958

Defenses of a common carrier in the carriage of goods

 Art. 1734, Civil Code

43. Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 104685. March 14, 1996

Caso fortuito defined; characteristics; exempting circumstances

44. Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 661

45. Republic of the Philippines v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., G.R. No. L-21749. Sept. 29,
1967; 128 Phil. 313, citing Art. 1179, Civil Code
 46. Metal Forming Corp.. v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 111386. Aug. 28, 1995; 317
Phil. 853
 Art. 1740, Civil Code
 Art. 1734, Civil Code
 Sec. 4, COGSA
47. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69044 and L-71478, May 29, 1987,
150 SCRA 463
48. La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Co. v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-21486. May 14, 1966;
123 Phil. 875

Defense of negligence of the shipper or owner

 Art. 1741, Civil Code

Proximate cause defined

49. Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corp., G.R. No. 184905. Aug. 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 526

Character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers

 Art. 1742, Civil Code

50. Southern Lines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L-16629. Jan. 31, 1962; 4 SCRA 258

Order or act of competent public authority

 Art. 1743, Civil Code

51. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. L-48757. May 30, 1988; 161 SCRA 646

Liability of a common carrier for the death of or injuries to passengers due to the acts of its
employees, other passengers or strangers

 Art. 1762, Civil Code

 Art. 1764, Civil Code

Basis of carrier's liability

52. Maranan v. Perez, G.R. No. L-22272. June 26, 1967

Doctrine of respondeat superior

 Art. 1759, Civil Code

53. Manila Railroad Company v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. L-19161. April 29, 1966; 16 SCRA
641
 Art. 1763, Civil Code
 Sec. 48 (b), Motor Vehicle Law or Republic Act No. 4136
Degree of diligence required of common carriers for willful acts of strangers

 Art. 1763, Civil Code

Causes of liability of common carriers

Duration of the liability of the common carrier in a contract of carriage of goods

 Arts. 1736, 1737 and 1738, Civil Code

Periods within which the common carrier in a contract of carriage of passengers may be
held liable

54. Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad, G.R. No. 145804. Feb. 6, 2003
55. Del Prado v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-29462. March 7, 1929; 52 Phil. 900

Duty of common carriers to afford passengers the opportunity to board safely

56. Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 95582. Oct. 7, 1991; 202 SCRA 574

Person attempting to board a common carrier already considered a passenger

Passenger must be allowed a reasonable time to leave the carrier’s premises

57. La Mallorca v. CA, G.R. No. L‐20761. July 27, 1966

Presumption of negligence

 Art. 1735, Civil Code

Rationale for the presumption

58. Mirasol v. The Robert Dollar Co., G.R. No. L-29721. March 27, 1929).
59. Coastwise Lighterage Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 114167. July 12, 1995
 Art. 1755, Civil Code

Burden of proof falls on carrier to prove extraordinary diligence

Defenses to overcome presumption of fault or negligence

 Arts. 1734, 1735 and 1736, Civil Code

Valid stipulations in contracts of carriage of goods

 Art. 1744, Civil Code

 Arts. 1748, 1749 and 1750, Civil Code
  Art. 1744, Art. 1745, No. 4, Civil Code
 Art. 1758, Civil Code

Void stipulations in contracts of carriage of goods

 Art. 1745, Civil Code

 Arts. 1733, 1755 and 1757, Civil Code

Rules on checked-in baggage

 Arts. 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, Civil Code

Rule in case of non‐paying passengers or if the fare is reduced

 Art. 758, Civil Code

Concurring causes of action

 Art. 1759, Civil Code.

60. Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil. 768
 Art. 2180, Civil Code
 Arts. 826-939, Code of Commerce
61. Martinez v. Barredo, G.R. No. L-49308. May 13, 1948; 81 Phil. 1
 Arts. 102 and 103, Revised Penal Code
62. Viluan v. CA, G.R. No. L-21477-81. April 29, 1966
63. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 8896. Dec. 29, 1913; 56 Phil. 177

Stipulations limiting the liability of the carrier in a bill of lading

64. H. E. Heacock Company v. Macondray & Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-16598. Oct. 3,
1921; 42 Phil. 205
65. Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. v. Gabino Barretto & Co., Ltd., G.R. No. L-28028. Nov. 25,
1927; 51 Phil. 90

When a stipulation limiting common carrier's liability may be annulled by the shipper or
owner

 Arts. 1746 and 1747, Civil Code

When the limitation of the amount of liability is valid

 Art. 1750, Civil Code

CHAPTER II
THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW
A. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ITS FUNCTIONS

 Commonwealth Act No. 146 enacted on November 7, 1936

 Secs. 1 and 2, C.A. No. 146

Jurisdiction and powers of the Public Service Commission

 Sec. 13[a], C.A. No. 146

Public service

 Sec. 13[b], C.A. No. 146

Public character and interest not number of people served determinative of public utility
or service

66. Luzon Stevedoring Company, Inc. v. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-
5458. Sept. 16, 1953

Public utility defined

67. JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 124293. Sept. 24, 2003

Statutory definition of public utility abandoned

68. JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, Id.; Tinga, J., Sep. Op.

Public use

69. Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. v. Public Utility Board, G.R. No. L-19857. March 2,
1923; 44 Phil. 551

Exempted services

 Sec. 13, Public Service Act or C.A. No. 146, as amended

 Sec. 14, C.A. No. 146, as amended by C.A. No. 454, R.A. Nos. 2031 and 2677

Why shipyards are not deemed as public utilities; definition

 Sec. 13 (b), C.A. No. 146

 Sec. 15, C.A. No. 146
 Sec. 1(d), P.D. No. 666 reads:
70. Mecano v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 103982. Dec. 11, 1992; 216 SCRA 500
 Sec. 20 of B.P. Blg. 391 expressly and categorically repealed the whole of Sec. 1 of
P.D. No. 666.
 E.O. No. 226 (law) dated July 16, 1987
Other service not deemed as public utilities

1. Automobile and aircraft manufacturers

2. Oil company

 R.A. No. 387, otherwise known as the Petroleum Act of 1949

 Act No. 3108 and C.A. No. 146 included oil in the definition of public utility
 C.A. Nos. 146 and 454, R.A. Nos. 1270 and 2677 covered petroleum.

3. Wharf or dock

71. Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551. July 11, 1989; 175 SCRA 264

4. Operator of trucks

72. United States v. Tan Piaco, G.R. No. L-15122. March 10, 1920; 40 Phil. 853
Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended

5. Owner and lessor of equipment and facilities for a rail system

73. Tatad v. Garcia, G.R. No. 114222. April 6, 1995; 243 SCRA 436
Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended

6. Ice plant

74. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc. v. John Bordman, G.R. No. L-43668. March
31, 1938; 65 Phil. 401

7. Others included in the definition of public utilities

Public utility determined not by law but by courts

 Sec. 1, R.A. No. 2677, amending Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended
75. North Negros Sugar Co. v. Hidalgo, G.R. No. L-42334. Oct. 31, 1936; 63 Phil. 664

B. FRANCHISE FOR PUBLIC SERVICES

Franchise defined

Franchise as a legislative grant

Congress has no exclusive authority to issue franchises

 Sec. 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution

Public Service Commission abolished and replaced

Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) or Certificate of Public Convenience and

Necessity (CPCN) defined

76. Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065.
June 26, 1940; 70 Phil. 221
77. Luque v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-22545. Nov. 28, 1969; 30 SCRA 408
 Sec. 14 of the Public Service Act (C.A. No. 146)
 Sec. 15, par. 1, C.A. No. 146

CPC included in the term "property"

78. Raymundo v. Luneta Motor Co., G.R. No. L-39902, L-39903. Nov. 29, 1933; 58 Phil.
889

Conditions for the issuance of CPC or CPCN

 Par. 1, Sec. 15, C.A. No. 146, as amended

 Sec. 15, par. 2, C.A. No. 146, as amended

Requisites for the grant of CPC or CPCN

79. Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 115381. Dec. 23, 1994

Other applications of the CPC or CPCN

 Sec. 15, par. 4, C.A. No. 146, as amended

Law not the title in certificate that determines the requirements for the issuance of such
certificate

Unlawful acts of public service companies

 Secs. 18 and 19, C.A. No. 146, amended

Prior operator rule or Old operator rule

80. Halili v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-21061. June 27, 1968; 23 SCRA 1174

Exceptions to the prior operator rule

Prior applicant rule

Third operator rule

 81. Yangco v. Esteban, G.R. No. 38586. Aug. 18, 1933

Protection of investment rule

82. Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes, G.R. No. L-28865. Dec. 19, 1928; 52 Phil.,
455
83. Tiongson v. Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-24701. Dec. 16, 1970

CHAPTER III
COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS FOR TRANSPORTATION

A. CODE OF COMMERCE PROVISIONS AND CONCEPTS

Relevant Code of Commerce provisions and scope of their application

 Arts. 349 to 379, Code of Commerce

Contract of transportation; when deemed commercial

 Art. 349, Code of Commerce

Bill of lading defined

84. Bus Company v. The Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-14078. Feb. 24, 1961

Lading defined

Two-fold character of a bill of lading

Functions of the bill of lading

Kinds of bills of lading

85. Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 95529. Aug. 22, 1991

Bill of lading not indispensable to contract of carriage

86. Compañia Maritima v. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No. L-18965. Oct.
30, 1964

When liability of the carrier commences

Determination of indemnity if not stipulated

 Art. 370, Code of Commerce

Bill of lading as a contract of adhesion

87. Philippine Commercial International Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 97785. March 29, 1996;
325 Phil. 588

Effect of acceptance of a bill of lading sans objection

Contract ambiguities how construed

 Art. 1377, Civil Code

88. Power Commercial and Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 119745. June 20, 1997; 274
SCRA 597

Instances when consignee is bound by the bill of lading

89. Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 75118. Aug. 31, 1987; 237 Phil. 531
 Art. 1311[2], Civil Code
90. Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., G.R. No. L-3678. Feb. 29, 1952; 90 Phil 836

Duties of the carrier

Carrier’s obligation to accept the goods

91. F.C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R. No. L-8095. March 31, 1915

When a common carrier may lawfully decline to accept the goods

Carrier not absolutely obliged to accept a cargo

92. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 119706. March 14, 1996

Carrier’s duty to deliver the goods

Period of delivery of goods

 Art. 358, Code of Commerce

 Art. 370, Code of Commerce

Effects of delay in the delivery of the goods

 Art.1740, Civil Code

 Art.1747, Civil Code

Instances when the consignee may refuse to receive the goods

 Arts. 363, 365 and 371, Code of Commerce

Claim for damage, when and how made

 Art. 366, Code of Commerce

93. New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Choa Joy, G.R. No. L-7311. Sept. 30, 1955

When claim for damage may no longer be admitted

 Art. 366, Code of Commerce, pars. 1 and 2

Effects of paying the transportation charges

 Art. 366, Code of Commerce

Rationale for the requisite period of giving notice of claim

94. Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc., G.R. No.
87434. Aug. 5, 1992; 212 SCRA 194

24-hour claim a condition precedent to an action against carrier

95. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. v. Chemoil Lighterage Corp., G.R. No. 136888.
June 29, 2005

Patent damage vis-à-vis latent damage

Rules on claim do not apply to undelivered goods

96. Roldan v. Lim Ponzo & Co., G.R. No. L-11325. Dec. 7, 1917

Shorter period may validly be stipulated by the parties

Application of prescriptive periods under the Civil Code

Doctrine of combined or connecting services

 Art. 373, Code of Commerce

Special right of carrier over the goods transported and prescription of action to enforce
such right

 Art. 375, Code of Commerce

CHAPTER IV
LAND TRANSPORTATION
A. GOVERNING LAWS

 Republic Act No. 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code - June 20, 1964
 Republic Act No. 6374;
 Presidential Decree No. 98;
 Presidential Decree No.109;
 Presidential Decree No. 843;
 Presidential Decree No. 896;
 Presidential Decree No.1057;
 Presidential Decree No.1958;
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 43;
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 74;
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 398;
 Republic Act No. 8750;
 Republic Act No. 10586 or the “Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013;” and
 Other laws which expressly or impliedly modified some of its provisions.

B. IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES AND BODIES

1. The Land Transportation Office (LTO)

 Book IV, Title XV, Chapter 1, Sec. 2, Administrative Code of 1987).

 Sec. 4 (d) [1], Art. III, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 Sec. 27, Land Transportation and Traffic Code or R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Driver’s license issued by the LTO

Specific powers and functions of the LTO

 Sec. 4 (d) [1], Art. III, R.A. No. 4136, as amended,

2. The Land Transportation, Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)

 E.O. No. 202, dated 19 June 1987

97. Land Transportation Office v. Butuan, G.R. No. 131512. Jan. 20, 2000

"To regulate" and "to register" construed

Key powers and functions of the LTFRB

 E.O. No. 202, s. 1987

3. The Local Government Units (LGUs)

Power to regulate the operation and grant franchises to tricycles devolved to LGUs
  Sec. 458. R.A. No. 7160

Rationale for the devolution

LTO powers on vehicle registration and drivers’ licensing not devolved to LGUs

4. The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)

MMDA’s power to enforce traffic laws in Metro Manila

 Sec. 5(f), Republic Act No. 7924

C. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ROAD USERS

98. Caminos, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 147437. May 8, 2009

Duty of drivers to have license

 Sec. 19, R.A. No. 4136, as amended by B.P. Blg. 398

Right of way construed

Right of way rule in intersections

 Sec. 42, R.A. No. 4136

Duty to yield

Rule determined by imminence of collision

Crossing a thru-stop street

99. Adzuara v. CA, G.R. No. 125134. Jan. 22, 1999; 301 SCRA 657

Driving on right side of highway

 Sec. 37, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Overtaking a vehicle

 Sec. 39, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Driver to give way to overtaking vehicle

 Sec. 40, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Turning right or left at intersections

 Sec. 45[a] and [b], R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Parking prohibited in specified places

 Sec. 46, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Hitching to a vehicle prohibited

 Sec. 51, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Obstruction of traffic

 Sec. 54, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Prohibited acts specifically penalized under R.A. No. 4136

Retroactive effect of penal laws

 Sec. 19 of R.A. No. 10586 expressly modified Sec. 56(f) of R.A. No. 4136
 Art. 22, RPC, in relation to Sec. 3(e), RA 10586

D. RECKLESS DRIVING AND ROAD ACCIDENTS

Reckless driving and reckless imprudence

 Sec. 48, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Imprudence defined

Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property; elements

Presumption of imprudent driving; burden of proof on the accused

When motor vehicle operator at fault may be held criminally liable

 Sec. 56[n], R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Negligence of other party not a defense in reckless driving case

Instance when presumption of driver’s negligence arises

 Art. 2185, Civil Code

Rate of speed a basic factor in determining reckless driving

Restriction as to speed

 Sec. 35[a], R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Reasonable rate of speed

100. Gabriel v. CA, G.R. No. 128474. Oct. 6, 2004; 440 SCRA 136
 Sec. 35, R.A. No. 4136

Swerving per se not violative of traffic law

 Sec. 48, R.A. No. 4136

101. Sydeco v. People, G.R. No. 202692. Nov. 12, 2014

Driving under the influence of alcohol

 Sec. 5, R.A. No. 10586

 Sec. 3(g), IRR of R.A. No. 10586

Driving under the influence of dangerous drugs and other similar substance

 Sec. 3[f], R.A. No. 10586

Conduct of field sobriety tests

 Sec. 6, R.A. No. 10586

 Sec. 3[g], R.A. No. 10586

Use of breath analyzer

 Sec. 3[b], R.A. No. 10586

Chemical and confirmatory tests

 Sec. 3[c], R.A. No. 10586

Mandatory alcohol and chemical testing of drivers involved in motor vehicular accidents

 Sec. 7, R.A. No. 10586

Refusal to submit to mandatory tests

 Secs. 6, 7, 8 and 15, R.A. No. 10586

Children prohibited from sitting in front seat

 Sec. 5, R.A. No. 8750

Duty of driver in case of accident

 Sec. 55, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

E. ARRESTS AND SEARCHES

When refusal to get off of the vehicle for a body and vehicle search not deemed as serious
disobedience to a lawful order

102. Abenes v. CA, G.R. No. 156320. Feb. 14, 2007; 515 SCRA 690
 Art. 151, Revised Penal Code

Reasonable suspicion of a crime that would justify stop-and-frisk action

103. People v. Sy Chua, G.R. No. 136066-67. Feb. 4, 2003; 444 Phil. 757

General rule is confiscation of driver’s license not arrest

 Sec. 29. R.A. 4136

No warrant of arrest to be issued for offense penalized only by fine; effect of issuance of
traffic citation ticket

104. Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788. Feb. 29, 2012

Requirements for a valid arrest

105. Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-61016. April 26, 1983; 206 Phil. 466

Invalid arrest does not authorize warrantless search

106. People v. Bolasa, G.R. No. 125754. Dec. 22, 1999; 378 Phil. 1073

Evidence seized not in plain view

107. People v. Macalaba, G.R. No. 146284-86. Jan. 20, 2003; 443 Phil. 565

Consented warrantless search

108. Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 136292. Jan. 15, 2002; 424 Phil. 263

Inadmissibility of articles seized during illegal arrest

 109. People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366. Dec. 13, 2010

F. MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND FRANCHISING

Motor vehicle defined

Compulsory registration of motor vehicles

 Sec. 5(a) and (e), R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Unregistered sale or lease of motor vehicle not binding on third persons injured in
vehicular accidents

110. First Malayan Leasing and Finance Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 91378. June 9, 1992; 209
SCRA 660
111. Roxas v. CA, G.R. No. 92245. June 26, 1991; 198 SCRA 541
112. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No.
162267. July 4, 2008

Nature of motor vehicle registration fees: taxes or regulatory fees

113. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Edu, G.R. No. L- 41383. Aug. 15, 1988

Mandatory emission standards for motor vehicles

 Sec. 46, R.A. No. 8749 or the Clean Air Act of 1999

Seat belt device defined

 Sec. 3, R.A. No. 8750

Mandatory use and provision of seat belts in certain motor vehicles

 Sec. 4, R.A. No. 8750

Penalties and fines for violation of the Seat Belts Use Act

 Sec. 12, R.A. No. 8750

Permanent number plates

 Sec. 17, R.A. No. 4136, as amended by B.P. Blg. 43

Certificate of Public Convenience issued by LTFRB

Franchise defined

Public convenience or necessity construed

Public hearing an indispensable requirement in issuance of CPC

114. Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes, G.R. No. L-28865. Dec. 19, 1928; 52 Phil.,
455
115. Manila Electric Company v. Pasay Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-37655. Feb.
9, 1933; 57 Phil. 825

Requisites for the grant of CPC

 Sec. 16(a), C.A. No. 146, as amended

LTFRB cannot redelegate its delegated power to a common carrier

116. United States v. Barrias, G.R. No. 4349. Sept. 24, 1908; 11 Phil. 327

Kabit system

117. Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 57493. Jan. 7, 1987; 147 SCRA 82
 Art. 1409, Civil Code
118. Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 125817. Jan. 16, 2002

Purpose behind the proscription against the kabit system

Kabit system not a criminal offense but void under civil law

 Art. 1412, Civil Code

119. Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 64693. April 27, 1984
Boundary system

120. Paguio Transport Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119500.
Aug. 28, 1998

Relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the driver under a "boundary system”

121. Jardin v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119268. Feb. 23, 2000
122. National Labor Union v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-14183. Nov. 4, 1993

Effect of transfer or lease of franchise

123. Montoya v. Ignacio, G.R. No. L-5868. Dec. 29, 1953; 94 Phil. 182

Registered owner liable despite transfer of ownership of vehicle

 124. Perez v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. L-30115. Sept. 28, 1973; 53 SCRA 149
125. Benedicto v. IAC, G.R. No. 70876. July 19, 1990

Approval of sale, encumbrance or lease of property

 DOTC Order No. 2010‐34

Sale or lease of franchise requires prior approval by LTFRB

Prior approval of the sale, lease or encumbrance of property not a condition precedent to
validity of contract

126. Fores v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-12163. March 4, 1959

Solidary liability of a registered owner/operator of a public service vehicle

127. Gelisan v. Alday, G.R. No. L-30212. Sept. 30, 1987

CHAPTER V
MARINE TRANSPORTATION

A. MARINE TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME LAWS

Marine transportation defined

Governing law

Admiralty or maritime law

Admiralty law differentiated from the Law of the Sea

B. THE KEY ACTORS IN MARITIME COMMERCE

1. The shipowner and ship agent

 Art. 586, Code of Commerce and Sec. 1, R.A. No. 9515

Powers and functions of a ship agent

Civil liabilities of the shipowner and ship agent

 Art. 587, Code of Commerce

Authority of the ship agent to discharge the captain and members of the crew
  Art. 603 and 605, Code of Commerce

2. The ship captain and master of the vessel

128. Yu Con v. Ipil, G.R. No. L-10195. Dec. 29, 1916

Nature of the position of captain and master

Qualifications of a captain or master

 Art. 609, Code of Commerce

Inherent powers of a captain or master

 Art. 610, Code of Commerce

Hull

Rigging

Fund sources

 Art. 611, Code of Commerce

Duties of a captain or master

 Art. 612, Code of Commerce

“Log book” and its contents

“Accounting book” and its contents

“Freight book” and its contents

Solidary liability of the captain and ship agent

 Art. 618, Code of Commerce

Instances when the captain incurs no liability

 Art. 620, Code of Commerce

Ship's captain discretionary authority

129. Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,

G.R. No. 115286. Aug. 11, 1994
Captain cannot be substituted without ship agent’s consent

 Art. 615, Code of Commerce

Cases when the captain and crew members may rescind their contracts of employment

 Art. 647, Code of Commerce

(1) The officers and crew of the vessel

Cases when the officers and crew are exempted from all obligations

 Art. 647, Code of Commerce

Sailing mate or First mate

 Art. 627, Code of Commerce

Duties of a Sailing mate or First mate

 Arts. 628 to 631, Code of Commerce

"Binnacle book" and its contents

 Arts. 629 to 631, Code of Commerce

Second mate

Duties of a Second mate

 Art. 632, Code of Commerce

Marine engineers

Duties of the Chief engineer

“Engine book” and its contents

The crew and its composition

 Art. 634, Code of Commerce

Just causes for the discharge of a seaman

 Art. 637, Code of Commerce

Rules if a seaman should die or be captured during the voyage

 Art. 645, Code of Commerce

Complement of a vessel

 Art. 648, Code of Commerce

4. Supercargoes

 Art. 649, Code of Commerce

5. The pilot

130. Far Eastern Shipping Company v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. Oct. 1, 1998

Harbor pilot

Pilotage defined

Compulsory pilotage

Liability of a pilot

 Sec.11, Art. III, PPA Admin Order 03-85

C. IMPORTANT CONCEPTS IN MARITIME COMMERCE

Essential terms used in maritime commerce

1. Merchant vessel defined

 P.D. No. 1521

2. Maritime lien

131. Philippine National Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 128661. Aug. 8, 2000; 337 SCRA 381
 Secs. 17 and 21 of P.D. No. 1521 or "The Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978"

3. Preferred maritime lien

 Sects. 17 and 21 of P.D. No. 1521

4. Doctrine of limited liability or the Limited liability rule

  Art. 587, Code of Commerce
132. Yangco v. Laserna, G.R. No. L-47447-47449. Oct. 29, 1941; 73 Phil. 330

Rationale for the doctrine

Doctrine of limited liability; specific applications

 Arts. 587, 590, 643 and 837, Code of Commerce

Limited liability rule under the provisions of the Code of Commerce

 Arts. 587, 590 and 837, Book III, Code of Commerce

Exceptions to the limited liability rule

133. Chua Yek Hong v. IAC, G.R. No. 74811. Sept. 30, 1988
 Art. 827, Code of Commerce

Abandonment defined

 Sec. 140, Insurance Code, as amended

General limitation on abandonment

 Sec. 142, Insurance Code, as amended

Abandonment of the vessel; when needed

 Art. 837, Code of Commerce

134. Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. L-58897. Dec. 3, 1987; 156 SCRA 169

Abandonment; how done

 Secs. 145 and 146, Insurance Code, as amended

Acceptance of abandonment

 Secs. 152 to 155, Insurance Code, as amended

Effect of refusal to accept a valid abandonment

 Sec. 156, Insurance Code, as amended

Abandonment no longer required when vessel is totally lost

 Arts. 587, 590 and 837, Code of Commerce

 135. Vasquez v. CA, G.R. No. L-42926. Sept. 13, 1985; 138 SCRA 553

When abandonment becomes ineffectual

 Sec. 144, Insurance Code, as amended

Causes justifying resort to abandonment

 Sec. 141, Insurance Code, as amended

Subsidiary liability of the shipowner and agent

136. The Philippine Shipping Company v. Vergara, G.R. No. L-1600. June 1, 1906; Phil.
281
 Art. 837, Code of Commerce
137. Manila Steamship Co., Inc. v. Abdulhaman, G.R. No. L-9534. Sept. 29, 1956; 100
Phil. 32

Limitations on the right of abandonment

138. Philippine American General Insurance Company, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 116940. June
11, 1997; 339 Phil. 455
139. Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 110398. Nov. 7, 1997; 346 Phil. 551

Effect of abandonment of vessel and earned freight

 Art. 587, Code of Commerce

140. Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Ramirez, G.R. No. L-48264. Feb. 21,
1980; 96 SCRA 297

Right of abandonment

Extent of liability of the shipowner and ship agent

141. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 121833, 130752, 137801. Oct. 17, 2008;
569 SCRA 294).

Ship agent defined

 Art. 587, Code of Commerce

"No vessel, no liability" rule

142. The Government of the Philippine Islands v. The Insular Maritime Co., G.R. No. L-
21495. March 18, 1924; 45 Phil. 805).
Origin of the rule and the rationale for its adoption in maritime law

143. Abueg v. San Diego, G.R. No. L-773. Dec. 17, 1946; 77 Phil. 730

Real and hypothecary nature of maritime law

144. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp., Ltd.,
G.R. No. 100446. Jan. 21, 1993; 217 SCRA 359

“Real” and “hypothecary” construed

145. Rubiso v. Rivera, G.R. No. L-11407. Oct. 30, 1917; 37 Phil. 72

Primary governing law on liability of ship owners or agents for total loss or destruction of
the vessel

 Arts. 1732-1766, Civil Code

 Art. 587, Code of Commerce

a. Package liability limitation

b. Causes of revocation of voyage

 Art. 640, Code of Commerce

Interdiction of commerce

Blockade

Embargo

Order of preference in case of sale of vessel

Effect of sale of vessel

 Sec. 17, P.D. No. 1521

 Art. 587, Code of Commerce
 Art. 687, Id.
 Sec. 138, Insurance Code

c. Participants in maritime commerce

d. Charter party

146. Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 119197.
May 16, 1997; 272 SCRA 527
Charter party as a special contract in maritime commerce

Parties to a charter party

Kinds of charter party

147. Puromines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 91228. March 22, 1993

Charter of demise or bareboat

Owner pro hac vice

Contract of affreightment

Kinds of contract of affreightment

Time charter

148. Litonjua Shipping Company Inc. v. National Seamen Board, G.R. No. L-51910. Aug.
10, 1989

Voyage charter

Distinctions between a civil law lease and a charter party

Distinctions between a charter party and a bill of lading

Distinctions between a demise or bareboat charter party and a contract of affreightment

Persons who can make a charter

 Art. 598, Code of Commerce

 Art. 609, Id.
 Art. 679, Id.

Requirements of a valid charter party

Instances when a charter party may be rescinded

Freight defined

Freightage

 Sec. 104, P.D. No. 612 or the Insurance Code, as amended by R.A. No. 10607
Requisites and contents of charter party

 Art. 652, Code of Commerce

Charter party clauses

Jason clause

Paramount clause

 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (46 U.S.C.A. § 1300)

Rights and obligations of the shipowner or ship agent

 Arts. 669-678, Code of Commerce

Lay days defined

Extra lay days

Demurrage

Obligations of charterers

 Arts. 679-687, Code of Commerce

Primage

Rescission of a charter party at the charterer’s request

 Art. 688, Code of Commerce

Rescission of a charter party at the shipowner’s request

 Art. 689, Code of Commerce

Rescission of a charter party due to fortuitous causes

 Art. 690, Code of Commerce

Transshipment defined

 Sec 2[m], R.A. No. 10668

149. Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 95529. Aug. 22, 1991

e. Loans on bottomry and respondentia

  Art. 719, Code of Commerce

Aleatory contract

Distinctions between a loan on bottomry and a loan on respondentia

Requisites of loan on bottomry or respondentia

When loan on bottomry or respondentia treated as a simple loan

 Arts. 726 and 727, Code of Commerce

Interest rate on the loan; Usury law and CB Circular 905-92

 Central Bank Circular No. 905-82

150. Dio v. Japor, G.R. No. 154129. July 8, 2005; 463 SCRA 170
151. Almeda v. CA, G.R. No. 113412. April 17, 1996; 256 SCRA 292

Distinctions between a loan on bottomry or respondentia and marine insurance

Hypothecary nature of bottomry and respondentia

 Art. 731, Code of Commerce

Hypothecary

Barratry defined

Barratry clause

152. Roque v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66935. Nov. 11, 1985

Marine insurance and loan on bottomry and respondentia

 Sec. 101, Insurance Code

 Art. 735, Code of Commerce

f. Accidents in maritime commerce

(1) Averages

 Art. 806, Code of Commerce

Ordinary expenses
  Art. 807, Code of Commerce

Kinds of averages

 Art. 808, Code of Commerce

Simple or particular averages

 Arta. 809 and 810, Code of Commerce

General or gross averages

 Art. 811, Code of Commerce

Requisites for general average

 Arts. 816-818, Code of Commerce

Procedure for recovery expenses for gross average

 Arts. 813 and 814, Code of Commerce

Contribution to the general average

 Art. 812, Code of Commerce
 Art. 859, Id.
 Art. 732, Id.
153. A. Magsaysay, Inc. v. Agan, G.R. No. L-6393. Jan. 31, 1955
 Art. 812, Code of Commerce

Jettison defined

Order of goods or cargo to be jettisoned or cast overboard

 Art. 815, Code of Commerce

Cargo not covered by general average

 Art. 855, Code of Commerce

 Rule IX, York-Antwerp Rule

Rationale for the rule on deck cargo

 Subsec. 1, Art. 815, Code of Commerce,

154. Standard Oil Company of New York v. Castelo, G.R. No. L-13695. Oct. 18, 1921).

Rule different in coastwise and inland waters navigation

Requisites for inclusion of jettisoned goods in the general average

 Art. 816, Code of Commerce

(2) Arrival under stress

 Art. 819, Code of Commerce

Steps to be followed in arrival under stress

 Art. 819, Code of Commerce

Protest in arrival under stress only a disclaimer on owner’s liability

When arrival deemed unlawful

 Art. 820, Code of Commerce

Who bears the expenses of arrival

 Art. 821, Code of Commerce

Duty of the captain to continue the voyage

 Art. 825, Code of Commerce

(3) Collision and allision

Vessel at fault liable for indemnity

 Art. 826, Code of Commerce

Liability if both vessels at fault or if it cannot be determined which vessel caused the
collision

 Arts. 827 and 828, Code of Commerce

Doctrine of last clear chance and Rule on contributory negligence

 Art. 827, Code of Commerce

Doctrine of inscrutable fault

Divisions of time or zones in collisions of vessels

 155. G. Urrutia & Co. v. Baco River Plantation Co., G.R. No. L-7675. March 25, 1913).

Error in extremis defined

Liability in collision through fortuitous event or force majeure

 Art. 830, Code of Commerce

Presumption of fault against a moving vessel striking a stationary object; doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur

156. Far Eastern Shipping Company v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. Oct. 1, 1998
157. Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., G.R. No. L-21749. Sept. 29, 1967; 21 SCRA
279

Civil tort vis-à-vis maritime tort

Liability of third vessel causing the collision

 Art. 831, Code of Commerce

Liability of properly anchored and moored vessel colliding with nearby vessels due to
storm or force majeure

 Art. 832, Code of Commerce

When vessel presumed as lost by reason of collision

 Art. 833, Code of Commerce

Role of protest for the recovery of losses and damages due to collision; when and how made

 Art. 835, Code of Commerce

Who can file maritime protest in case of collision

 Arts. 835-836, Code of Commerce

158. Verzosa v. Lim, G.R. No. 20145. Nov. 15, 1923

Effect of absence of protest on persons not on board

 Art. 836, Code of Commerce

Limitation on the shipowners’ civil liability

 Art. 837, Code of Commerce

Indemnity for death or injury of persons

 Art. 838, Code of Commerce

Summary investigation of the accident

 Art. 839, Code of Commerce

Presumptions to determine negligence

Rules to prevent collision

Port and starboard

Windward and leeward

Rules governing sailing vessels and steamships

Maritime protest defined; by whom and when made; to whom filed

 Art. 835, Code of Commerce

Persons not required to file protest

 Art. 836, Code of Commerce

Cases where protest requirement applies

 Art. 835, Code of Commerce

 Art. 612[8], Id.
 Arts. 612[15] and 843, Id.
 Art. 624, Id.

(4) Shipwreck defined

Owners bear the losses due to shipwreck

 Art. 840, Code of Commerce

Indemnity from the captain due to his fault

 Art. 841, Code of Commerce

When the captain may be held liable for shipwreck

  Art. 841, Code of Commerce

D. SPECIAL CONCEPTS IN MARITIME COMMERCE

(a) Arrastre defined

Arrastre services

 Sec. 1213, R.A. No. 1937

Nature of arrastre function; BOC’s immunity from suit

159. Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service, G.R. No. L-23139.
Dec. 17, 1966

Arrastre operators

Functions of an arrastre operator

160. Hijos de F. Escao, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 59229.
Aug. 22, 1991; 261 SCRA 63
161. Summa Insurance Corp., v. CA, G.R. No. 84680. Feb. 5, 1996; 323 Phil. 214
162. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., v. Metro Port Service, Inc., G.R. No. 83613. Feb. 21,
1990; 182 SCRA 455

Arrastre operator and carrier solidarily liable

163. Lua Kian v. Manila Railroad Company, G.R. No. L-23033. Jan. 5, 1967; 19 SCRA 5
164. Northern Motors, Inc. v. Prince Line, G.R. No. L-13884. Feb. 29, 1960; 107 Phil.
253).

What arrastre operator must prove to avoid liability

165. Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Daehan Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No.
171194. Feb. 4, 2010; 611 SCRA 555

Arrastre operator deemed a public utility

166. New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Navarro, G.R. No. L-48686. Oct. 4, 1989

(b) Stevedoring service defined

167. Cebu Arrastre Service v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-7444. May 30,
1966
168. The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines v. Collector of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. L-21835. Aug. 19, 1967
169. Anglo-Fil Trading Corp. v. Lazaro, G.R. No. L-54958. Sept. 2, 1983
(c) Containerization

170. United States Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-73490. June 18,
1987

When carrier of the containerized cargo may be held liable

171. Reyma Brokerage, Inc. v. Philippine Home Assurance Corp., G.R. No. 93464. Oct.
7, 1991
172. Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 80256. Oct. 2, 1992

E. SALVAGE LAW OR ACT NO. 2616

Salvage defined

173. Erlanger & Galinger v. The Swedish East Asiatic Co., [Ltd.], G.R. No. L-10051.
March 9, 1916

Elements needed to a valid salvage claim

Rules for determining the reward for salvage

 Sec. 9, Act No. 2616

Proper subjects of salvage

 Salvage Law (Act No. 2616)

Flotsam, jetsam, lagan defined

Towage defined

Salvage distinguished from towage

 Art. 2142, Civil Code

174. Barrios v. Carlos A. Go thong & Company, G.R. No. L-17192. March 30, 1963

Persons having no right to reward for salvage

 Sec. 3, Act No. 2616

Derelict defined

Basic rules on salvage reward

  Secs. 9, 11, 12 and 13, Act No. 2616
175. The Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Company of Manila v. Uchida Kisen Kaisha, G.R. No.
L-15871. Nov. 7, 1921

F. CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (COGSA) OR COMMONWEALTH ACT NO.

65

U.S. COGSA adopted by the Philippine Congress via C.A. No. 65

 Public Act No. 521 of the 74th US Congress

 Sec. 1, C.A. No. 65

Application of COGSA in relation to provisions of other laws

 Art. 1753, Civil Code

 Art. 1766, Civil Code
 COGSA

Significant provisions of COGSA

Rationale for limiting common carrier's liability

176. Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., G.R. No.
146018. June 25, 2003

Carriage of goods; period covered

 Sec. 1(e), Title I of C.A. No. 65 (COGSA)

177. Insurance Company of North America v. Asian Terminals, Inc., G.R. No. 180784.
Feb. 15, 2012

Notice of loss or damage

 Sec. 3[6], COGSA

Action to recover not barred by lack of notice

178. E. E. Elser, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L‐6517. Nov. 29, 1954)

Prescriptive period for filing an action under COGSA

 Par. (6), Sec. 3, COGSA

179. Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping, N.V. v. Philippine First Insurance Co.,
Inc., G.R. No. 143133. June 5, 2002; 383 SCRA 23)
Other persons covered by the one-year prescriptive period

180. Kuy v. Everrett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L‐5554. May 27, 1953

Insurer covered by the one-year prescriptive period

181. Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. v. Alejandro, G.R. No. L‐54140. Oct.
14, 1986
 Sec. 3(6), COGSA
182. Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 124050. June 19, 1997

Arrastre operator not covered by prescriptive period

Rationale for the prescriptive period under COGSA

183. Ang v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. L-22491. Jan. 27, 1967; 19
SCRA 129

Not loss or damage but misdelivery

 Sec. 3(6), COGSA

Applicable rule on prescription in case of misdelivery of goods

 Arts. 1144(1) and 1146, Civil Code

184. Tan Liao v. American President Lines, Ltd., G.R. No. L-7280. Jan. 20, 1956; 98 Phil.
203

Instances when prescription is suspended

185. Universal Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 74125. July 31, 1990; 188 SCRA
170
186. F. H. Stevens & Co. Inc. v. Norddeuscher Lloyd, G.R. No. L-17730. Sept. 29, 1962;
6 SCRA 180

Provisions of Civil Code on prescription not applicable to COGSA

 Art. 1155, Civil Code

 Sect. 3, par. 6, COGSA
187. Chua Kuy v. Everett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L-5554. May 27, 1953
 Art. 1155, Civil Code
188. The Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. American President Lines,
Inc., G.R. No. No. L-11081. April 30, 1958; 103 Phil. 1125
189. Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Maritime Company of the Philippines, G.R. No. L‐61352.
Feb. 27, 1987
When prescription begins to run

190. Continental Insurance Company v. Manila Port Service, G.R. No. L-22208. March
30, 1966, 16 SCRA 425
191. Union Carbide Philippnes, Inc. v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-27798. June 15,
1977

Prescriptive period applies to insurer of goods

When cases for loss or damage of goods must be filed

Manner of determining the amount of liability of common carrier for loss or damage to the
goods transported

 Art. 372, Code of Commerce

When shipper fails to declare value of goods

 Sec. 4, par. 5, COGSA

192. Philam Insurance Company, Inc. v. Heung-A Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 187701. July
23, 2014

Amount of carrier’s liability

 Sec. 4(5), COGSA

193. Eastern Shipping v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69044. May 29, 1987; 150 SCRA 463).

Parties may stipulate higher amount up to actual damage sustained

Stipulation limiting carrier's liability for loss of goods permitted

 Arts. 1749 and 1750, Civil Code

 Sec. 4, par. (5), COGSA

Stipulation limiting the carrier’s liability; when valid

 Art. 1744, Civil Code

Rule on packages shipped in a container

“Container” construed

194. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 89757. Aug. 6, 1990

Deterioration of goods due to delay in transit constitutes loss or damage

  Sec. 3(6), COGSA

Instances when carrier or ship not liable

CHAPTER VI
AIR TRANSPORTATION

A. AIR TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY BODIES

 Republic Act No. 776, as amended by Presidential Decree 1462

 Republic Act No. 9497

1. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)

CAB’s authority to issue certain documents, permits

Specific powers and duties of the CAB

 Sec. 10[C], R.A. No. 776, as amended

Considerations in CAB’s rate-fixing

 Sec. 10[C][2], R.A. No. 776, as amended

2. The Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP)

Powers of the CAAP

B. TRANSPORTATION STATUTES AND GLOBAL ACCORDS

 Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines or Republic Act No. 776, as amended (1952);
 Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 or Republic Act No. 9497; and
 Warsaw Convention of 1929 or the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules
Relating to International Carriage by Air, as amended by subsequent international
agreements.

1. The Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines or Republic Act No. 776, as amended
(1952);

 Republic Act No. 776, otherwise known as the Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines,
as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1462 and Executive Order No. 217

CAB empowered to issue CPCNs and permits to air carriers

CAB requirements to be satisfied by a foreign air carrier intending to operate in the

country
Regulation of airfares

 Sec. 5.01, IRR of E.O. No. 219, s. 1995 and E.O. No. 32, s. 2001

Aviation-specific passenger protection rules and regulations

 CAB’s Economic Regulation No. 9, December 18, 2012

Serious aviation crimes under the Anti-hijacking Law of 1971

 Sec. 1, R.A. No. 6235

Shipping, loading or carrying of any substance regulated by CAB

 Secs. 2 and 3, R.A. No. 6235

Air Passenger Bill of Rights

 DOTC-DTI Joint Administrative Order No. 1 (2012)

The Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 or Republic Act No. 9497

 Republic Act No. 9497, otherwise known as the Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008

CAAP’s authority to prevent flight

 Sec. 39, R.A. No. 9497

System and procedures for investigation of air accidents

Aircraft accident investigation and Inquiry board

 Sec. 42, R.A. No. 9497

Establishment of registry of aircrafts

 Sec. 43, R.A. No. 9497

Eligibility for registration of aircraft

 Sec. 43, R.A. No. 9497, citing R.A. No. 776, P.D. No. 1278, E.O. No. 546, and B.P.
Blg. 504

Nationality of aircraft
  Sec. 47, R.A. No. 9497

Conveyance of aircraft required to be recorded in CAAP to be valid against third parties

 Sec. 49, R.A. No. 9497

Form of conveyance

 Sec. 50, R.A. No. 9497

CAAP’s aviation safety powers and functions

 Sec. 55, R.A. No. 9497

The Chicago Convention

2. The Warsaw Convention of 1929

 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by

Air, commonly known as the Warsaw Convention (WC)
195. Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines, G.R. No. 101538. June 23, 1992

Warsaw Convention; its application vis-à-vis Philippine laws

196. Mapa v. CA, G.R. No. 122308. July 8, 1997; 341 Phil. 281
197. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., v. CA, G.R. No. 60501. March 5, 1993; 219 SCRA
520

Principal goal of the treaty

Twin purposes of the treaty

Scope of application of the treaty

International transportation

 Art. 1[2], Warsaw Convention

High contracting party

Transportation by several successive air carriers deemed as one undivided transportation

 Art. 1[3], Warsaw Convention

Carrier’s liability for damage in case of passenger’s death or injury

  Art. 17, Warsaw Convention

Liability for damage for destroyed, lost or damaged articles

 Art. 18, Warsaw Convention

Period of transportation by air

Liability of carrier for delay

 Art. 19, Warsaw Convention

Provision limiting carrier’s liability for damage caused by its willful misconduct removed
by Hague Protocol

198. Alitalia v. IAC, G.R. No. 71929. Dec. 4, 1990

Limit of carrier’s liability

 Art. 22, Warsaw Convention

Exceptions to the limitations

Willful misconduct

199. Luna v. CA, G.R. No. 100374-75. Nov. 27, 1992

200. Northwest Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 120334. Jan. 20, 1998
201. Lhuiller v. British Airways, G.R. No. 171092. March 15, 2010

Airway bill defined

Warsaw Convention does not preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other laws

Stipulation relieving the carrier from or limiting its liability

 Art. 23, Warsaw Convention

202. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 70462, 164 SCRA 268
203. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca, G.R. No. L-22425. Aug. 31, 1965; 14 SCRA
1063); or
204. Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines, G.R. No. L-28773. June 30, 1975; 64
SCRA 610
205. Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. CA, G.R. No. 114061. Aug. 3, 1994; 154 SCRA 211
206. Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., G.R. No. L-28589. Jan. 8, 1973; 43
SCRA 397

Validity of stipulation relieving the carrier from or limiting its liability

  Art. 23[1], Warsaw Convention

Notices of claim in case of damage or delay

 Art. 26, Warsaw Convention

When right to damages is extinguished by prescription

 Art. 29, Warsaw Convention

207. United Airlines v. Uy, G.R. No. 127768. Nov. 19, 1999

Recovery of claim covered by the Convention after 2 years

 Art. 19, Warsaw Convention

 Art. 24, Id.
208. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Savillo, G.R. No. 149547. July 4, 2008; 557 SCRA 66

Jurisdiction

“Destination" and “agreed stopping place”

Article 28(1) refers to jurisdiction not venue

 Art. 28(1), Warsaw Convention

 Art. 32, Id.

Special rules on the liabilities of airline carriers

209. Philippine Airlines, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. L-82619. Sept. 15, 1993);
210. Zalamea v. CA, G.R. No. 104235. Nov. 18, 1993
211. Lufthansa German Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 83612. Nov. 24, 1994
212. KLM Dutch Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. No. L-31150. July 22, 1975; 65 SCRA 237

Rule in case of various successive carriers

Remedies of parties in carriage of passengers and goods

 Art. 30, Warsaw Convention

Contract of carriage performed by different carriers

213. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corp., G.R. No. L-
65773-74. April 30, 1987,
 Art. VI, Res. 850 of the IATA
214. American Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 116044-45. March 9, 2000; 384 Phil. 227
Distinction between damage to baggage and injury to passenger due to the misconduct of
airline employees

Limitations to the liability of air carriers under the Convention

 Art. 22, Warsaw Convention

 Art. 25, Id.