transportation law Midterm Coverage by Reymundo Espina

TRANSPORTATION LAWCHAPTER 1 – GENERAL CONCEPTS

I. DEFINITION AND CONCEPTA. CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION

- where a person (common carrier OR a private carrier) obligates himself to transport persons or property from one place to another for a consideration- may involve carriage of passengers OR carriage of goods

B. PARTIESa. Carriage of Passengers

- parties: COMMON CARRIERPASSENGER – one who travels in a public conveyance by virtue of a contract, express or implied, with the carrier as to the payment of fare or that which is accepted as an equivalent thereof; still a passenger even if carried gratuitously (art. 1758: stipulation limiting CC’s liability for negligence is valid) or under a reduced fare

Baliwag Transit Corp. v. CA – release claim made by passenger is valid & binding; only a party to a contract can claim liability against the other in the same way as only a party can make release of claims (had the effect of a compromise agreement)

(exception) Everett Steamship Corp.v. CA – third-party consignee is bound by the terms and conditions of the bill of lading where it was established that he accepted the same and is trying to enforce the agreement

b. Carriage of Goods- parties: SHIPPER – person who delivers goods to CARRIER for transportation; person who pays the consideration or on whose behalf payment is made.

Consignee – person to whom the goods are to be delivered; may be the shipper himself (goods delivered to branch office of shipper); may be a 3rd person not actually a party to a contract

C. PERFECTION- Factors: 1. law applicable – perfected: civil code, code of commerce

– not perfected: provisions of common carrier doesn’t apply; other laws applicable e.g. Private carrier (charter party) – apply terms embodied in contract

2. standard of diligence – common carrier: extraordinary diligence – otherwise: ordinary diligence

3. burden of proof – on common carrier: prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence & breach of contract caused by conditions provided in NCC; burden of proof on the defendant/carrier– ordinary case: burden of proof on the plaintiff

- 2 types of contracts of carriage of passengers: 1. contract to carry – agreement to carry passenger at some future date; consensual/perfected by mere consent2. contract of carriage or of common carriage – real contract; not until the carrier is actually used can the carrier be said to have already assumed the obligation of the carrier

- consensual contract to carry goods – carrier agrees to accept and transport goods at some future date. However, by the act of delivery of the goods (when goods are unconditionally placed in the possession and control of the carrier, and upon their receipt by the carrier for transportation) the contract of carriage is perfected.

a. Aircraft- perfected contract to carry passengers even if no tickets have been issued as long as there was already meeting of minds- perfected contract of carriage between a passenger and airline if the passenger had checked in at the departure counter, passed through customs and immigration, boarded the shuttle bus and proceeded to the ramp of the aircraft. Baggage had already been loaded in the aircraft to be flown with passenger to his destination. (Korean Airlines v. CA)

b. Buses, Jeepneys and Street Cars (Dangwa Transpo v. CA)- once a public utility stops, it is in effect making a continuous offer to riders; duty of drivers to stop for a reasonable length of time to afford passengers an opportunity to board and enter; liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers resulting from sudden starting up of carrierpassenger is deemed to be accepting the offer if he is already attempting to board the conveyances and the contract of carriage is perfected from that points

c. Trains- to be considered a passenger, one must have a bona fide intention to use the facilities of the carrier, possess sufficient fare, and present himself to the carrier for transportation in the place and manner provided

British Airways, Inc. v. CA – recruitment agency has fully complied with the obligation, namely, payment of fare and its willingness for its contract workers to leave for their place of destination. On the other hand, British Airways was remiss in its obligation to transport the contract workers on their flight despite confirmation and bookings made by the agency’s traveling agent.

II. CARRIER- Art 1732: Common Carriers – persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation offering their services to the public.

Public Service (CA 1416) – includes every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in the Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional, or accidental …

Domestic Shipping (RA 9295) – transport of passenger or cargo or both, by ships duly registered and licensed under the Philippine law to engage in trade and commerce between Philippine ports and within Philippine territorial or internal waters, for hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether

SOCIETAS SPECTRA LEGIS 1

permanent, occasional, or incidental, with or without fixed routes and done for contractual or commercial purposes.

- 1. TRADITIONAL CONCEPTNational Steel Corp. v. CA – contract available only to specific persons who entered into it; true test of a common

carrier is the carriage of goods or passengers, provided it has space for all who opt to avail themselves of its transportation for a fee.

FGU Insurance v. Sarmiento – exclusive contractor cannot be considered a common carrier (but Sarmiento still cannot escape from liability)

2. EXPANDED CONCEPTDe Guzman v. CA – Cendena, a junk dealer, back-hauled goods for other merchants. Although such backhauling

was done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner, he was still considered as a common carrier.

CHARACTERISTICS (Ancillary Business, Limited Clientele, Means of Transportation): Art. 1732 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 (“sideline”). (De Guzman v. CA)

Avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or a scheduled basis and one offering such on occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis.

Does not distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the “general public” and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population.

A person or entity is a common carrier and has the obligations of the common carrier under the Civil Code even if it did not secure a Certificate of Public Convenience.

Makes no distinction as to the means of transporting, as long as it is by land, water or air. (First Philippine Industrial Corp. v. CA)

Does not provide that the transportation should be by motor vehicle. Person or entity may be a common carrier even if he has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no

terminals, and issues no tickets. (Asia Lighterage & Shipping, Inc. v. CA) Person or entity need not be engaged in the business of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil

Code on common carriers to apply to them.

First Philippine Industrial Corp. v. CA – pipeline operators are common carriers.TESTS for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods: Must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a public employment, and must hold

himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for person generally as a business and not as a casual occupation;

Must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is confined; Must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and over his established roads;

and Transportation must be for hire.

III. DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATE CARRIER – undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of a general business or occupation, although involving a carriage of goods for a fee; owes only diligence of a good father of a family; may enter into a stipulation exempting him from liability for the negligence of its agents or employees (but such stipulation will not hold in case of liability for gross negligence or bad faith)

EFFECT OF CHARTER PARTY – may transform a common carrier into a private carrier. However, it must be a bareboat or demise charter (charterer mans the vessel with his own people and becomes, in effect, the owner for the voyage or service stipulated)

Fabre v. CA – common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers. The liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. Bascos v. CA – loss of the goods was not due to force majeure. Presumption of negligence was raised against petitioner.

Asia Lighterage & Shipping, Inc. v.CA – petitioner failed to prove that the typhoon is the proximate and only cause of the loss of the goods, and that it has exercised due diligence before, during and after the occurrence of the typhoon to minimize the loss.

Crisostomo v. CA – contract of services, NOT contract of carriage; travel agency in this case is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier.

A.F Sanchez Brokerage v. CA, Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corp. v. Transport Venture, Carlo v. UCPB – customs broker are common carrier; undertaking of customs broker to transport goods to warehouse of consignee

IV. DISTINGUISHED FROM TOWAGE, ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORINGTOWAGE – one vessel is hired to bring another vessel to another place (e.g. tugboat); operator of the tugboat cannot be considered a common carrier.

ARRASTRE OPERATOR – receives, handles, cares for, and delivers all merchandise imported and exported, upon or passing over Government-owned wharves and piers in the port; records or checks all merchandise which may be delivered to said port at shipside; and furnishes light, and water services and other incidental services in order to undertake its arrastre service. Services are not maritime.

STEVEDORING – loading and unloading of coastwise vessels calling at the port.

V. GOVERNING LAWSa. Coastwise Shipping – New Civil Code (Art 1732-1766) – primary law

– Code of Commerce – governs suppletorily in absence of Civil Code provisionsb. Carriage from Foreign Ports to Philippine Ports – NCC – primary law

– Code of Commerce-all matters not regulated by CC– Carriage of Goods by Sea Act – suppletorily to CC

c. Carriage from Philippine Ports to Foreign Ports – laws of country which goods are to be transported


d. Overland Transportation – Civil Code – primary law – Code of Commerce – suppletorily

e. Air Transportation – Civil Code – Code of Commerce – For International Carriage – Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the

International Carriage by Air or “Warsaw Convention”

VII. REGISTERED OWNER RULE AND KABIT SYSTEMA. REGISTRATION LAWS – RA 4136 or Land Transportation and Traffic Code

B. REGISTERD OWNER RULE – registered owner of a vehicle is liable for any damage caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle although the same was already sold or conveyed to another person at the time of the accident. The registered owner is liable to the injured party subject to his right of recourse against the transferee or buyer. (Erezo v. Jepte)

C. KABIT SYSTEM – arrangement whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of public convenience allows other persons who own motor vehicles to operate them under his license, sometimes for a fee or percentage of the earnings.

Pari Delicto Rule – persons who are parties to the kabit system cannot invoke the same as against each other to enforce their illegal arrangement or to invoke the same to escape liability. (Lita Enterprises v. IAC)

Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA – no kabit system since there are 2 CPCs; the determining factor of the presence of a kabit system is the possession of a franchise to operate (and not the issuance of one SSS ID Number for both bus lines)

CHAPTER 2 – OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES

I. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CARRIERA. DUTY TO ACCEPT – GR: common carrier cannot refuse to accept, in order not to prejudice traffic of goods

or commerce (essence of transportation)– Exception: unless the discrimination is reasonable and necessary

Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Co. – grounds for valid refusal to accept goods: Goods are dangerous objects, or substances including dynamites and other

explosives Goods are unfit for transportation Acceptance would result in overloading Contrabands or illegal goods Goods are injurious to health Goods will be exposed to untoward danger like flood, capture by enemies and

the like Goods like livestock will be exposed to diseases Strike Failure to tender goods on time

– significance of acceptance: responsibility (take good care of the goods & deliver to place of destination) of common carrier begins– knowledge of commencement of responsibility

by shipper: perfection of contract of carriageby common carrier: start exercising extraordinary diligence

– starts: upon delivery of goods to the carrierCompania Maritima v. Insurance Co. – no actual delivery of goods on the vessel of the carrier; delivery was from barge to wharf; SC: delivery to wharf was a preparatory step and was part and parcel to the contract of carriage.

– termination of responsibility: when goods are delivered to consignee or person who has the right to receive it

Macam v. CA – there was a valid delivery even if it was made to the notified party and not the consignee; evidences were presented that notified party was also consignee and that there were also previous transactions between same parties

– temporary loading or storage: GR does not terminate obligation; Except stoppage in transitu (right of vendor and unpaid seller); responsibility of Common Carrier ceases; Common Carrier would be liable as a warehousman only (ordinary diligence)– storage of goods when it is in the place of designation (warehouse) – responsibility of CC continues and will cease only if he has advised the shipper and the latter has reasonable opportunity to dispose (Servando v. Phil.Steam)

B. DUTY TO DELIVERa. Time of Delivery – if with specific agreement: must be made on such time

– if no agreement: reasonable time; depends on the nature of goods Saludo v. CA – remains of plaintiff’s mother to Mexico; no specific date of arrival; SC: 1 day delay = reasonable time; but also awarded nominal damages for injury sustainedMaersk Line v. CA – expected date of arrival reflected in the bill of lading may be considered; dissenting opinion: 2 or 3 days delay, carrier may be held liable for damages

b. Consequences of Delay – excusable delays in carriage suspend, but do not generally terminate the contract of carriage; during the detention or delay, vessel continues to be liable as a common carrier, not a warehouseman, and remains duty bound to exercise extraordinary diligence

– delay as a GR: when there is judicial/extrajudicial demand Exception: when there is no need for demand (e.g. transpo)

– delay must not be negligently done or inexcusable for damages to be awarded

Art. 1740: (negligent delay) If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the goods, a natural disaster shall NOT free such carrier from responsibility

Art. 1747: (inexcusable delay) If the common carrier, without just cause, delays the transportation of the goods or changes he stipulated or usual route, the contract limiting


the common carrier’s liability cannot be availed of in case of loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods.

i. code of commerce – Arts 370 to 374

ii. abandonment – in cases of delay on account of the fault of the shipper/carrier, the consignee may leave the goods transported in the hands of the carrier, informing him in writing before the arrival of the same at the point of destination. The carrier shall be liable for the total value/full value of such goods. If abandonment is not made, the indemnification for losses and damages by reason of the delay cannot exceed the current price which the goods transported would have had on the day and at the place in which they should have been delivered. (Art. 371)

– may also be made by virtue of stipulation or agreement between the parties

iii. rights of passengers – Art 698 coc: in case a voyage already begun should be interrupted, passengers shall be obliged to pay the fare in proportion to the distance covered, without right to recover for losses and damages if the interruption is due to fortuitous event or force majeure, but with right to indemnity if the interruption should have been caused by the captain exclusively. If the interruption should be caused by the disability of the vessel and a passenger should agree to await the repairs, he may not be required to pay any increased price of passage, but his living expenses during the stay shall be for his own account.

– Memorandum Cir. 112 Maritime Industry Authority: in case the vessel is not able to depart on time and the delay is unreasonable, the passenger may opt to have his/her ticket immediately refunded without any refund service fee from the authorized issuing/ticketing office

C. WHERE AND TO WHOM DELIVEREDa. Place – agreed upon by the parties; if the specific place or warehouse is designated in the bill of

lading, goods must be delivered in such place even if it is not the usual place of delivery in the place of designation.

b. Consignee – delivered to the consignee or any other person to whom the bill of lading was validly transferred or negotiated; shipper, without changing the place of delivery, may change the consignment of the goods

c. Delay to Transport Passengers – carrier must commence its trip within reasonable time

D. DUTY TO EXERCISE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE – element of integrity: goods should be delivered in the same condition that they were received and to transport passengers without encountering any harm or loss– defense of common carrier (v. due diligence – exercised before, during & after the occurrence of event

to lessen liability)– impossible to distinguish between extraordinary diligence and due diligence a. Presumption of Negligence – in case of loss of effects or cargo or passengers or death or injuries

to passengers unless he had observed extraordinary diligence in the vigilance thereof – court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence as

long as it is shown that there exist a contract between passenger/shipper and the common carrier and that the loss, deterioration, injury or death took place during the existence of the contract

– mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier and their arrival in bad order at their destination (or failure to transport the passenger safely) constitutes a prima facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier

Mirasol v. The Robert Doillar Co. – the goods were in bad order upon their arrival and must have been damaged in transit. In the very nature of things, if they were damaged by reason of a tempest, rocks, icebergs, foundering, stranding, or the perils of the sea, that would be a matter exclusively within the knowledge of the officers of defendant’s ship, and in the very nature of things would not be within the plaintiff’s knowledge, and upon all of such questions, there is a failure of proof.

b. Duration of Dutyi. Carriage of Goods – Art. 1736: extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee

Art. 1737: duty remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit (unless shipper/owner made use of the right of stoppage in transitu)

Art. 1738: duty continues UNTIL the consignee has been advised of the arrival of the goods and has had reasonable opportunity thereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of them

Macam v. CA

ii. Carriage of Passengers – by trains or ships, commences the moment the person who purchases the ticket from the carrier presents himself at the proper place and in a proper manner to be transported with a bona fide intent to ride; motor vehicles (Jeepneys and busses) are duty bound to stop their conveyances for a reasonable length of time

– all persons who remain on the premises within a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is reasonable time or a reasonable delay is to be determined from all the circumstances, and includes reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure.


LRTA v. Navidad - while the deceased might not boarded the train, a contract of carriage had already existed. The court exempted the security agency from liability as there was nothing to link it to the death of Navidad. Navidad failed to show that the security guard inflicted fist blows upon the victim and the evidence merely established the fact of death of Navidad by reason of his having been hit by the trained owned and managed by the LRTS and operated at the time by Roman. LRTA failed to present evidence to establish the fact that the application of emergency brakes could not have stopped the train. Roman was absolved from liability since the contractual tie between LRTA and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation between Navidad and Roman; thus Roman can be made liable only for his own fault or negligence.

Dangwa Transportation v. CA – death of Cudiamat was due to the gross negligence of the driver in prematurely stepping on the accelerator and in not waiting for the passenger to first secure his seat especially so when the platform of the bus was at the time slippery and wet because of a drizzle.

La Mallorca v. CA – child ran over by the bus while chasing her father who got on the bus to get baggages; issue: whether as to the child, who was already led by the father to a place about 5m away from the bus, the liability of the carrier for her safety under the contract of carriage also persisted; relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment passenger alights from the carrier’s vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises; the driver, although stopping the bus did not put off the engine; he started to run the bus even before the bus conductor gave him the signal to go and while the latter was still unloading the baggages of the passengers; presence of the passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and thus are to be considered still as passengers of the carrier, entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage.

Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA – passengers of ships are allotted a longer period of time to disembark from the ship than other common carriers (e.g. bus), usually at least an hour; while the victim was admittedly contributorily negligent, still the petitioner’s failure to exercise extraordinary diligence was the proximate and direct cause of, because it could definitely prevented, the former’s death.

E. DEFENSES OF COMMON CARRIERS (exclusive enumeration / closed list) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning and other natural disaster and calamity Acts of the public enemy at war, whether international or civil Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods Character of the packing of the goods in the packing or in the containers Order or act of the competent authority Exercise of extraordinary diligence With respect to passengers, carrier’s defense is exercise of extraordinary or utmost diligence. Other

defenses above can also be invoked against passenger or heirs provided utmost diligence is exercised. However, presumption under Art 1756 applies.a. Fortuitous Event – must be the proximate and only cause of the loss

i. Requisites – cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the failure of debtor to comply must be independent of human will

– must be impossible to foresee the event (caso fortuito) or if can be foreseen, must be impossible to avoid

– occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner

– obligor must be free from any participation in or the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor

ii. Participation of the Carrier – must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before, during and after the occurrence of the flood, storm or other natural disaster in order to be exempted. Same should be exercised in case of an act of public enemy (Art. 1739)

iii. Fire – not considered a natural disaster or calamity; but if due to lightning FE (force majeure – applies to a natural accident caused by lightning, earthquake, tempest or public enemy)

Cokaliong Shipping v. UCPB Insurance – not fortuitous as the fire was caused by unchecked crack in the fuel tank

iv. Hijacking – presumption against common carrier applies unless there is proof of extraordinary diligence

De Guzman v. CA – to exculpate the carrier from liability, he must prove that the robbers or hijackers acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force

v. Mechanical Defects – e.g. tire blow-out; carrier can exculpate liability if he can present during trial that he has no participation

Juntilla v. Fontanar – explosion of the tire of jeepney not fortuitous; no evidence was presented to show that the accident was due to adverse road conditions

PHILAMGEN Ins. Co. v. MCO Marine Services – loss of the cargo was due solely to the existence of fortuitous event (presence of strong winds and huge waves); no findings of the court in so far as negligence of common carrier

Central Shipping v. Insurance Co. – weather condition of a monsoon is something that can be foreseen; negligence for failure to sufficiently secure the logs to be transported; common carrier didn’t use any cable wire to secure the logs

* TIP: allege as many defenses to be safe (734 + fortuitous event + diligence) *

Compania Maritima v. CA – misrepresentation of the payloader; negligence on the part of the carrier because it didn’t check the weight & simply relied on its appearance; if it used larger equipment might have done away w/ liability


Pilapil v. CA – stone-throwing; common carrier not liable since in this instance it was unforeseeable; violation of the contract was due to the willful acts of strangers and the degree of care essential to be exercised is that of a good father of a family

Fortune Express v. CA – ambush in bus; absence of exercise of extraordinary diligence despite warnings; factor of unforeseeability to constitute force majeure is lacking

Lasam v. Smith – accident was caused either by defects in the automobile or else through the negligence of it driver; not caso fortuito or due to the acts of God or adverse road conditions which could have been foreseen

Gacal, et al. v. PAL – under normal circumstances, common carrier can be held liable for failure to prevent a hijacking by frisking passengers and inspecting their baggages; the incident in question occurred during Martial Law where there was military take-over of airport security including the frisking of passengers and the inspection of their luggage preparatory to boarding domestic and international flights. Events rendered it impossible for PAL to perform its obligations and thus cannot be faulted.

b. Other Invalid Defenses – explosion, worms and rats, water damage, barratry (act committed by the master or crew of the ship for some unlawful or fraudulent purpose, contrary to their duty to the owner)

c. Public Enemy – presupposes the existence of an actual state of war and refers to the government of a foreign nation at war with the country to which the carrier belongs, though not necessarily with that to which the owner of the goods owes allegiance; must be the proximate and only cause and that due diligence was exercised to prevent or minimize loss.

d. Improper Packing – Art. 1742: Even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods should be caused by the character of the goods, or the faulty nature of the packing or of the containers, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.

Southern Lines v. CA – improper packing of the sacks of rice; negligence of the common carrier although shipper was also negligent; liable since it accepted the sacks despite defects

d. Order of Public Authority – Art 1743: goods are seized or destroyed, common carrier is not responsible, provided said public authority had power to issue the order

Ganzon v. CA – mayor has no authority; with dissenting opinion

F. DEFENSES IN CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS – primary defense: exercise of extraordinary diligence even if there is fortuitous event

a. Employees – carrier liable for acts of its employees; cannot escape liability by claiming that he exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee; not defense that employee acted beyond the scope of its authority

b. Other Passengers and Third Persons – availability of such defense is also subject to the exercise of a carrier of due diligence to prevent or stop the act or omission; the carrier would still be liable even if the contractual breach concurs with the negligent act or omission of another person

Maranan v. Perez – common carriers are liable for intentional assaults committed by its employees upon its passengers; carrier’s strict obligation to select its drivers with due regard not only to their technical competence and physical ability but also to their total personality; dismissal of the claim against the driver was correct as the action was predicated on breach of contract of carriage and the driver was not a party, his civil liability is covered in the criminal case

De Gillaco v. Manila Railroad Co.- death was fortuitous and that the Civil Code of 1889 did not impose upon common carriers absolute liability for the safety of passengers against willful assaults or negligent acts committed by their employees

Bachelor Express v. CA – common carrier didn’t observe extraordinary diligence; bus driver didn’t immediately stop the bus at the height of the commotion

G. PASSENGER’S BAGGAGES – Arts. 1733-1753 (extraordinary diligence) for those checked-in or not in his personal custody

– Arts. 1998, 2000-2003 (deposit) for hand carried luggage

II. OBLIGATIONS OF SHIPPER, CONSIGNEE AND PASSENGERA. NEGLIGENCE OF SHIPPER OR PASSENGER – degree of diligence is lesser

– GR: if the proximate & only cause was the negligence of passenger = common carrier no liability

– contributory negligence on the part of the passenger (with the shipper) = mitigating / reduction of damages (no fixed formula)

Del Prado v. Meralco – contributory negligence of the plaintiff; reduction of damages

Dangwa Transpo v. CA – not negligence per se to attempt to board a moving vehicle; judicial notice of SC that even if vehicle is slowly moving, passengers would attempt to board

Cervantes v. CA – passenger used expired ticket; negligence of the passenger

Sanez v. Samala – passenger riding bus, extended left hand, truck passed by; negligence of the passenger was the only cause for the injury


a. Last Clear Chance – negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff’s peril, or should have been aware of it in reasonable exercise of due care, had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident; will only apply to 2 colliding vehicles = culpa acquiliana; doesn’t apply to common carriers

b. Assumption of Risk – passengers must take such risks incident to the mode of travel; in air travel, adverse weather conditions or extreme climatic changes are some of the perils involved and consequences of which the passenger must assume or expect; no assumption of risk by the mere fact that the carrier posted notices against such liability

Isaac v. A.L.Ammen Transportation – passenger was guilty of contributory negligence; had he not placed his left arm on the window sill with a portion protruding outside, perhaps the injury would have been avoided; driver of the bus has done what a prudent man could have done to avoid the collision and this relieves bus company from liability

Principles governing the liability of a common carrier: Liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. There is breach if

he fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of each case. Carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with utmost diligence of a very cautious person,

having due regard for all the circumstances. Carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death of, or injury to,

passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence. Carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel.

Compania Maritima v. CA – payloader case

Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co. – conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and thus was not guilty of contributory negligence; in determining the question of contributory negligence in performing such act – whether passenger acted prudently or recklessly – the age sex, and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered. Women, it has been observed are less capable than men of alighting with safety under such conditions, as the nature of their wearing apparel obstructs the free movement of the limbs

PNR v. CA – deceased was chargeable with contributory negligence; while not exempting PNR from liability, it justified the deletion of amount for moral and exemplary damages (there being no fraud, malice or bad faith on the part of petitioner)

B. FREIGHTa. Amount to be paidb. Who will payc. Time to pay

i. Carriage of Passengers by Seaii. Carrier’s Lien

C. DEMURRAGE

CHAPTER 3 – EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE

I. RATIONALE – SC took judicial notice of the gross negligence and the appalling disregard of the physical safety and property of others exhibited by the drivers of passenger buses and similar vehicles.

Kapalaran Bus Line v. Coronado – collision between bus & jeepney; action filed on basis of quasi-delict (not contract of carriage); SC: (1)rationale of the exercise of extraordinary diligence to curb negligence, (2)judicial notice of recklessness, (3)to whom duty is owed: 3rd persons as well (pedestrians, owners & passengers of other vehicles)

II. HOW DUTY IS COMPLIED WITH – no hard and fast ruleJuntilla v. Fontanar – tire explosion case in Mandaue; jeep running at fast speed; no compliance with required diligence; SC: source of a common carrier’s legal liability is the contract of carriage, and by entering into such, it binds itself to carry the passengers safely a far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances

Eastern Shipping Lines v. IAC – fire in one of the hatches of ship; non-compliance of diligence since there was no regular inspection & took 24 hours to discover flame

A. DUTY TO THIRD PERSONS – primarily owed to the passengers and goods being transported; also extends to the members of the crew or complement operating the carrier (PAL v. CA)

Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co. – off-duty employee riding the train on his way home from work, stepped into a sack of watermelon; CC liable for the injuries; even though off-duty, he was still a passenger

III. EFFECT OF STIPULATIONA. GOODS – parties cannot stipulate that carrier will not exercise any diligence in the custody of goods OR that it

will be at shipper’s risk alone.– law allows stipulation whereby carrier will exercise a degree of diligence LESS than extraordinary with respect to goods, provided it be:

(1) in writing, signed by the shipper or owner;(2) supported by a valuable consideration other than the service rendered by the CC; and(3) reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy

plus (4) limitation that it not be lower than ordinary diligence or should at least be that of a good father of a family

!!! stipulation only applies to goods and NOT to passengers

B. PASSENGERS – no stipulation lessening the utmost diligence owed to passengers; cannot be dispensed with or lessened through stipulation or posting of notice

a. Gratuitous Passengers – same level as pedestrians & other owners of vehicles


– Art 1758: When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting the CC’s liability for negligence is valid, but not for willful acts or gross negligence. Reduction of fare does not justify any limitation to CC’s liability. (Kapalaran Bus v. Coronado)

Lara v. Valencia – case not controlling with respect to CCs because defendant was a private carrier who accommodated the deceased passenger

IV. EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN CARRIAGE BY SEAA. SEAWORTHINESS – RA 9295 requires all vessels to be at all times in seaworthy condition

a. Warranty of Seaworthiness of Ship – carrier shall be bound before & at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy– deemed to warrant impliedly the seaworthiness

b. No duty to inquire – since it is an implied warranty, shippers are not expected to inquire into the vessel’s seaworthiness, genuineness of licenses and compliance with maritime laws– carrier has the burden of proving that ship is seaworthy

Delsan Transport Lines v. CA – presentation of certificates of seaworthiness is not sufficient to overcome presumption of negligence

c. Meaning of Seaworthiness

Standard Vacuum Oil v. Luzon Stevedoring – concept of seaworthiness: that strength, durability and engineering skill made a part of the ship’s construction and continued maintenance, together with a competent and sufficient crew, which would withstand the vicissitudes and dangers of the elements which might reasonably be expected or encountered during her voyage without loss or damage to her particular cargo

i. Fitness of vessel

National Steel Corp. v. CA – GR: burden of proof on the CC; case is different; private carrier (charter party agreement) = diligence & burden of proof different; SC: carrier was able to meet exercise of diligence but not extraordinary; diligence required in agreement was only ordinary; burden of proof on the passenger

Loadstar Shipping v. CA – unseaworthiness of the vessel may be established by the fact that it did not withstand the natural and inevitable action of the sea

ii. Cargoworthiness – carrier must not accept goods that cannot properly be transported in the ship

iii. Equipment and Manning – competence of the captain, masters or patronsCaltex v. Sulpicio Lines – implied warranty of seaworthiness; must be adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent officers and crew

Coastwise Lighterage Co. v. CA – unlicensed patron; carrier cannot claim to have exercised EO diligence

iv. Adequate Equipment – exit doors, life boats, life vests, etc.

B. OVERLOADING (proper loading) – duty to take passengers & cargoes that are within the carrying capacity of the vehicle

Negros Navigation Co. v. CA – issue: applicability of Mecenas case (principle of stare decisis); noted equal negligence on the part of CC because of overloading of passengers and at the time of collision there was evidence showing that captain was playing mahjong

C. PROPER STORAGE – cargo must also be properly stored

Phil. Home Assurance Co. v. CA – failure on the part of CC to store cylinders in accommodation area; proximity of accommodation area & engine room was near the passengers area; storing has increased risk for the passengers

Phil. American General Insurance v. CA – NOT GR; cargoes were placed on deck and caused top-heavy; cargoes were supposed to be placed on the hold of the vessel and above the holds are called deck; SC: top-heavy level of vessel was a failure on CC’s part to exercise due diligence; it wasn’t the design of the vessel (but it may happen that cargoes can be placed on deck provided the vessel is designed for such particular purpose)

Belgian Overseas v. Phil. First Insurance – 1st issue: defense of the character of goods; bill of lading mentioned of the character of the metal sheets; ruled out the contention that the character of goods has caused the deterioration; SC: it was accepted by the CC even though there was a defect (waiver); 2nd

issue: exercise of required diligence; SC: failure of captain to undertake measures; master should have known the character of goods and should have prevented the deterioration

D. COMPTENCE OF CAPTAIN AND CREW – doesn’t relate to negligence of captain and crew but rather it is the failure of the CC to provide competent master and crew

Valenzuela Hardwood & Industrial Supply v. CA – charter agreement; failure of captain to secure logs; such failure was supposed to be EO diligence but carrier was absolved from liability since it was only a charter-party agreement; diligence required was different thus shipowner exempted

* if CC not registered = follow rules agreed upon by parties *


a. Passenger Safety – Memorandum Circular No. 114

E. DEVIATION AND TRANSSHIPMENTa. Deviationb. Transshipment

V. EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN CARRIAGE OF LANDA. CONDITION OF VEHICLE

M. Ruiz Highway Transit v. CA – carrier cannot escape liability by claiming that the accident due to the defective brake or tire was a fortuitous event; there was failure on the CC to properly maintain the condition of vehicle (floor of bus was weak) and that there was overloading

B. TRAFFIC RULES – RA 4136 Land Transportation and Traffic Code

BLTB v. IAC – proximate cause of the collision was the sole negligence of the driver of the bus, who recklessly operated and drove the bus in a lane where overtaking is not allowed by Traffic Rules and Regulations

Mallari, Sr. v. CA – driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle in an ordinary situation has the duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do it safely

* all local ordinances are supposed to conform w/RA 4136 ** provisions on traffic laws are important for action for damages & criminal actions *

C. DUTY TO INSPECT – there is no unbending duty to inspect each and every package or baggage being brought inside bus or jeepney; carrier duty bound to conduct such depending on the circumstances

VI. EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN CARRIAGE BY AIRA. AIRWORTHINESS – an aircraft, its engines, propellers, and other components and accessories, are of proper

design and construction, and are safe for air navigation purposes

B. WELL-TRAINED CREW

C. FOLLOWING OF ROUTES

Abeto v. PAL – failed to have exercised EO diligence if the plane didn’t take the designated route and the tragic crash could have been avoided had it taken said designated route

D. INSPECTION - R.A.6235 Act Prohibiting Certain Acts Inimical to Civil Aviation & for Other Purposes

E. PROPER CONDUCT OF THE COMMON CARRIER

Japan Airlines v. CA – eruption of Mt. Pinatubo; fortuitous event valid but there was failure on the CC to exercise EO diligence; didn’t arrange flights for delayed passengers; even if cause of delay was justifiable, it is incumbent on the CC to arrange for the welfare of passengers

Pan American World Airways v. IAC – involves simple lost of luggage; passenger claiming value of lost luggage; Warsaw Convention: limitation of liability printed on the ticket (unless passenger declares higher value); SC: limited liability will apply if passenger didn’t declare higher value

Chapman v. Fargo (US case cited in PanAm) – there was no special circumstance as to prompt delivery of luggage; personnel of carrier was told to do so but SC didn’t hold the CC liable because there was no written evidence on the agreement; actual damages awarded but limited

Alitalia v. IAC – delay in the delivery of luggage (11mos); SC: there was delay but no damage; awarded nominal damages (vindicate right of person that has to be protected)

PAL v. CA – luggage lost; SC awarded damages; bad faith on the part of CC (faked retrieval receipt)

Cathay Pacific v. CA – 1 day delay in delivery of luggage does not ipso facto mean bad faith on the part of the CC; there are other circumstances which would constitute bad faith (e.g. mechanical defect of aircraft, improper conduct by personnel of CC)

* if there is bad faith, damages are automatically awarded *

* presentation of evidences: plaintiff – present contract & breach of that contract defendant – presents defenses & EO diligence Present on the rebuttal – seaworthiness, contributory negligence, etc. surrebuttal – contradict

CHAPTER 4 – BILL OF LADING AND OTHER FORMALITIESI. CONCEPTS

A. DEFINITION of BILL OF LADING – a written acknowledgment, signed by the master of a vessel or authorized agent of the carrier, that he has received the described goods from the shipper, to be transported on the expressed terms to the described place of destination, and to be delivered there to the designated consignee or parties; a contract of adhesion; not material to a perfection of a contract of carriage; obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence is present even without B/L or ticket issued

B. KINDSa. Clean Bill of Lading – does not contain any notation indicating any defect in the goods

Foul Bill of Lading– which contains such notation

Lorenzo Shipping v. Chubb Sons – importance of clean B/L: presumption of negligence not overcome by the common carrier; (1) when a clean B/L is issued, the presumption is that goods


were received in good order and condition, (2) B/L is a symbol of the goods received, thus there was no defect/damage at the time of receipt

b. Spent Bill of Lading – goods were already delivered by carrier but B/L was not returned

RP v. Lorenzo Shipping – no return of B/L but there was another receipt issued; SC did not said that it was spent but the definition is similar

c. Through Bill of Lading – issued by a carrier who is obliged to use the facilities of other carriers as well as his own facilities for the purpose of transporting the goods from the city of the seller to the city of the buyer, which B/L is honored by the second and other interested carriers who do not issue their own lading

d. On Board Bill of Lading – one which is stated that the goods have been received on board the vessel which is to carry the goods; issued when the goods have been actually placed aboard the ship with every reasonable expectation that the shipment is as good as on its way; to make sure that the goods are already in the custody of the vessel

Received for Shipment – stated that the goods have been received for shipment with or without specifying the vessel by which the goods are to be shipped; issued whenever conditions are not normal and there is insufficiency of shipping space

Magellan Mfg. v. CA – right of consignee to refuse acceptance or abandon goods; 2 conditions of buyer to be able to abandon: (1) B/L must be ON BOARD, and (2) there must be no transshipment (transfer of goods from 1 vessel to another); buyer refused to accept because of violation of condition; abandoned goods so that CC can sell it at public auction; SC: correct! Also upheld that Magellan will not be liable; Magellan can sue for damages as it was apparent in the B/L and B/L was issued as a receipt for shipment; in transshipment, there must be a fact of actual transfer from 1 vessel to another

e. Custody Bill of Lading – goods are already received by the carrier but the vessel indicated therein has not yet arrived in the port

f. Port Bill of Lading – the vessel indicated in the B/L that will transport the goods is already in the port

II. NATURE OF BILL OF LADING (only applicable to carriage of goods) - as a (1) receipt, (2) contract, and (3) document of title

III. WHEN EFFECTIVE – upon its delivery to and acceptance by the shipper; presumption that the stipulations in the bill were, in the absence of fraud, concealment or improper conduct, known to the shipper, and he is generally bound by his acceptance whether he reads the bill or not

IV. BILL OF LADING AS CONTRACT – applies to goods and tickets issued to passengers; parties are bound by the terms in the contract but QUALIFIED by Art. 1733: EO diligence, 1735: presumption of negligence, 1744: limiting degree of diligence, and Art 1749: stipulation limiting liability is valid unless shipper declares a higher value; if contrary to qualifications, stipulation can be declared void

A. CONTRACT OF ADHESION – contracts drafted only by one party, usually a corporation; the only participation of the party is the signing of his signature or his ‘adhesion’ thereto

- factors that must be considered if stipulation is void or not1. peculiar circumstances 2. nature of conditions or terms sought to be enforced

Sweet Lines v. Teves – passengers bound for TGN (from CDO) but were told to transfer to another vessel bound for Surigao and hid in the cargo area; filed a case in Misamis (residence of passengers); Sweet Lines filed motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue (accdg to the contract); SC: stipulation of venue is not valid; (as to 2nd factor) purpose of providing venue in rules of court is for the convenience of parties, thus parties would be inconvenienced by the contract of adhesion; to achieve the ends of justice

Servando, et.al v. Phil. Steam Navigation – goods stored in warehouse; SC: stipulation concerning fortuitous event is valid because it would not violate any law; merely a reiteration of Art 1174: not liable in case of fortuitous event

Maersk Line v. CA – shipment of gelatin capsules from Puerto Rico to Phils. but misdelivered to US; arrived in the Phils. 2 mos from estimated date of arrival; no specific time stipulated in the B/L, such would be at a sole determination of delivery; stipulation is absurd; must be reasonable time and not at any time; if there is specific time (different from estimated time) = follow; no specific time = within reasonable time

Provident Insurance v. CA – shipment of fertilizer from Toledo to CDO; damages on the shipment; CC moved to dismiss; stipulation pertaining to notice of claim (to be filed immediately to afford carrier to assert validity of claim (same reason as Art 366); SC: upheld stipulation; parties must allege in the complaint that there is such a condition in the B/L with regards to the notice of claim; formal offer of evidence

Ong Yiu v. CA – stipulation on limited liability clause; to be valid, it is not sufficient that the liability of the carrier is stated in a fixed sum…there must be an OPTION on the part of the shipper to declare higher value (without option = invalid stipulation)

B. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE – parties not allowed to present oral evidence contrary to the B/L

C. BILL OF LADING AS EVIDENCE – expresses the terms and conditions of the agreement between parties, provided not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy

D. AS ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT – B/L must be properly pleaded wither in causes of action or defenses; genuineness and due execution of which are deemed admitted unless specially denied under oath by the adverse party


E. BASIC STIPULATIONS – formalities not important; Art 352: parties given freedom to issue different forms of B/L; particular items may be omitted; purpose: advantage to commerce; important: mere acknowledgment by the CC on the receipt of goods

F. PROHIBITED AND LIMITING STIPULATIONSa. Civil Code – 3 kinds of limiting stipulations have often been made in a B/L: (1) exempting carrier

from any and all liability for loss or damaged occasioned by its own negligence (invalid-contrary to public policy), (2) providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed valuation (invalid-contrary to public policy), and (3) limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight (valid and enforceable)

– Art 1745 to 1752

i. Purpose – to protect the common carrier; obliges the shipper/consignee to notify the CC of the amount that the latter may be liable for in case of loss of goods; shipper/consignee that undervalues the real worth of the goods he seeks to transport does not only violate a valid contractual stipulation, but commits a fraudulent act when it seeks to make the CC liable for more than the amount he declared in the B/L

ii. Stipulation Reducing Negligence (limited liability clause) – parties may stipulate that the diligence to be exercised by the CC in the carriage of goods be less than the extraordinary diligence (only applies to carriage of goods and NOT to passengers) provided the following requisites are complied with (Art 1744):

(1) stipulation be in writing signed by both parties;(2) stipulation be supported by a valuable consideration other than the service rendered by the CC; and(3) stipulation be reasonable, just and not contrary to law.

- cannot be availed with (1) when the shipper declares higher value and (2) when there is delay on the part of the CC without just cause or change of route without just cause

- no effect in the presumption of negligence; as long as there is loss, destruction or deterioration, presumption exists on the part of the CC but the CC can always reason out limited liability based on the clause stated; there must be proof or must overcome negligence

- stipulation on carriage of passengers – GR: cannot be lessened or dispensed with by stipulation; Except: gratuitous carriage but cannot dispense liability…only limit (art 1758); reduction of fare does not less or limit liability

V. BILL OF LADING AS RECEIPT

VI. BILL OF LADING AS CONTRACT

CHAPTER 5 – ACTIONS AND DAMAGES IN CASE OF BREACHI. DISTINCTIONS

CULPA CONTRACTUAL CULPA ACQUILIANA

- breach of contractual obligation- incidental to the performance of the contract of carriage

- direct and primary (no pre-existing relationship between plaintiff and defendant)

Defense of a good father of a family

- cannot be availed - can be availed

Presumption of negligence- there is! No need to prove that defendant was negligent (presumed)

- none

Burden of proof - contract & there was breach of the contract

- plaintiff has burden of proving negligence

Defendants - common carrier - driver & common carrier

II. CONCURRENT CAUSES OF ACTION – the same act that breaches the contract may also be a tort; cause of action of a passenger or shipper may be culpa contractual or culpa acquiliana while the basis if liability on the part of the driver is culpa delictual or culpa acquiliana (cannot be liable based on culpa contractual because there is no privity of contract between him and the passenger or shipper)– liability of third person (driver and/or employer) may be based on quasi-delict, driver alone may be held criminally liable and civil liability may be imposed on him based on delict (here, employer is subsidiarily liable)- if injury of passenger is due to negligence of driver of the vehicle he was riding and the driver of another vehicle, drivers and owners of the 2 vehicles are jointly and severally liable (solidary; can go after the driver, carrier, or both) for damages; if 3rd party not implead, carrier can file a 3rd party complaint

Air France v. Carrascoso – concurrent causes of action (breach of contract & culpa acquiliana); Filipino passenger was unseated in 1st class in favor of American; SC: passengers do not contract merely for transportation, they have a right to be treated by the carrier’s employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration; negligence on the part of carrier


La Mallorca v. CA – negligence on the part of the driver

Fabre v. CA – CC and driver and third person are solidarily liable

Gelisan v. Alday (154 scra 388) – G is owner of truck with a certain franchise; Espiritu has a contract with G to use the truck; A had a contract with Atlas Fertilizer; Espiritu & A entered into a contract for the delivery of the fertilizers; Espiritu absconded; fertilizers were already in the truck of G; A filed case against G being the holder/registered owner of truck; I: w/n liability of F is solidary or subsidiary; sc: citing Vargas v. Langhay, registered owner of public service vehicle is jointly and severally liable with the driver

Vargas v. Langhay – V former owner of jeepney; sold to the father of his driver thus contended that he cannot be liable with driver; SC: registered owner still solidarily liable with driver (so as not to evade responsibility

see also Erezo v. Jepte (102 Phil 103) and St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos (2/6/2002)

Phil. Rabbit Bus Line v. IAC – driver not held solidarily liable with the CC; passengers riding on the jeepney owned by sps Mangune and Carreon; wheel of jeepney was detached and made a u-turn; Phil. Rabbit bus ran into the rear of jeepney; passengers died; filed case against driver and owners of jeepney and of bus line; I: who is liable? w/n drivers should be held solidarily liable with CC; SC: exonerated the jeepney driver from liability to the injured passengers and families while holding the owners of the jeepney solidarily liable, but that is because the case is expressly tried and decided exclusively in the theory of culpa contractual

III. RECOVERABLE DAMAGES

DAMAGES – is the pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or violation of some rights

When there is death: (1)actual damages P50,000 (law only allows P3,000, basis for the change of amount is jurisprudenceFortune Express v. CA 305 scra 14)(2) moral damages (4) attorney’s fees(3) exemplary damages (5) interests

KINDS OF DAMAGESA. ACTUAL (pecuniary loss suffered; can recover only the amount stated in the receipts or based on the proofs presented) or COMPENSATORY DAMAGES (unrealized profits)

i. Loss of earning capacity – applied when the breach of the carrier resulted in the plaintiff’s permanent incapacity

Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x (Gross Annual Income – Necessary Living Expenses)Where: Life Expectancy = 2/3 x 80 – age of death

SC: Amount of living expenses fixed at 50% of gross income in the absence of proof of the amount of living expenses to be deducted from the gross income

Victory Liner v. Gammad – proving income of the deceased; GR: documentary evidence must be presented to substantiate income in connection with the loss of earning capacity; EXCEPTIONS: (1) deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased’s line of work no documentary evidence is available, or (2) deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws; in the absence documentary evidence and if case does not belong to exceptions to GR, cannot recover actual damages (PP v. Oco 2003)

There are also cases wherein the SC allowed oral testimonies to prove income:PAL v. CA (185 scra 110) – testimonies of witnesses can be used aside from the payroll records

Gabriel v. CA (grn128474 10/0/2004) – testimony is sufficient to warrant award of loss of earning capacity (P1,500/month)

ii. Attorney’s Fees

iii. Interests

Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA – obligation consists in the payment of sum of money, in the absence of stipulation = 12% per annum to be computed from time of default (from judicial or extrajudicial demand); obligation not constituting a loan, court may impose interest on the amount of damages at rate of 6% per annum; no interest adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty; when judgment of court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, rate of legal interest = 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction

B. MORAL DAMAGES – include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury

– amount of the award subject to the discretion of the court– amount alleged is not necessary the amount that will be granted; it is not mandatory

upon the court to grant it; must be proved in the course of trial– in transpo: prove fraud, bad faith– elements that must be present and proved to be awarded moral damages:

(1) there must be satisfactory proof of the existence of the factual basis of the damages to be awarded, and(2) there must be a causal connection with the defendant’s act

– GR: CC not liable in actions for breach of contract Exceptions: (1) there is death of passenger (art 1764)

(2) fraud or bad faith even if there is no death– if plaintiff fails to take the witness stand, moral damages cannot be awarded (K ierulf v.

CA)– trend: increasing award in the amount; award for moral is higher than exemplary


Makabali v. CA (1/22/88) principle # 1: supposed to compensate the injury of the awardee (thus personal)principle # 2: award of damage (moral/exemplary) will be limited to the claim in the pleading

C. NOMINAL DAMAGES – adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him

– award is justified in the absence of competent proof of the specific amounts of actual damages suffered

Japan Airlines v. CA – plaintiffs sued airline because it failed to transport them to Manila due to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption; award justified because JAL failed to make the necessary arrangements to transport the plaintiffs on the first available connecting flight to Manila

Northwest Airlines v. Cuenca – rudely compelled to transfer to tourist class from 1st class threatening to leave him in Okinawa

D. TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES – more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty

E. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES – agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach

F. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES – imposed for correction for the public good– when CC fails to overcome presumption of negligence, then CC is presumed to have acted

recklessly (art 1756)– requisites: (1) may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages, and

only after the claimant’s right to them has been established; (2) cannot be recovered as a matter of right, determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant; (3) the act must be accompanied with bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner

* attorney’s fees included when awarded with moral or exemplary damages* moral and exemplary can be claimed if it can be proved that there was fraud or bad faith* take note of amount of damages – basis of jurisdiction

TRANSPORTATION LAW

MARITIME LAW

GENERAL CONCEPTS

MARITIME LAW – system of laws which particularly relates to the affairs and business of the sea, to ships, their crews and navigation, and to marine conveyance of persons and property.

- primary law on maritime commerce: New Civil Code on common carriers Suppletory: code of commerce and special laws

Real and hypothecary nature of maritime law- means that the liability of the carrier in connection with the losses related to maritime contracts is confined to the vessel, which is hypothecated for such obligations or which stands as a guaranty for their settlement- liability of vessel owner and agent arising from the operation of such vessel were confined to the vessel itself, its equipment, freight and insurance- reasons why it is impossible to do away with these privileges:

1. to offset risks involved2. to encourage persons to invest in maritime transportation

Limited Liability Rule (arts. 587, 590, 643, 837 of code of commerce)- no vessel, no liability- liability of shipowner is limited to value of the vessel and of freight- when there is valid abandonment of the vessel: liability of shipowner (SO) is extinguished- only applicable when there is TOTAL loss of vessel (sank/lost) declared by owner (may be subject to challenge if it is only partial loss)- there must be pronouncement by the court as to damages- civil code provisions will still apply EXCEPT as to the liabilities of SO (since NCC is silent, provisions on the CoC will apply)- if the vessel sank, SO can offer vessel as payment of liability (from the proceeds of the salvage)- claimant cannot refuse the offer of owner- claimants cannot go after the SO outside the value of the vessel & freight (cannot claim the remaining balance even if it is awarded by the court)- how can SO present in court that he is availing this right? Through the filing of an answer; must allege the defense of assailing liability- can he raise it anytime? Possible if there is no opposition but remember the omnibus motion rule- can also file a petition that the SO is availing the doctrine of limited liability. But this is not practical, because as SO you are not sure if there will be claims against you

SALVOR’S LIEN – payment for the salvaging of the vessel; it is possible for 3 rd party to salvage vessel and a portion will be paid to cover lien and the rest to the plaintiffs

Statutory provisions (cases where total loss would extinguish liability of SO):- articles 587, 590, and 837 cover only: (1) liability to third persons, (2) acts of the captain, and (3) collisions

(universal principle of limited liability in all cases)ARTICLE 587. The ship agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of third persons which may arise from the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which he loaded on the vessel; but he may exempt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all her equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage.


ARTICLE 590. The co-owners of the vessel shall be civilly liable in the proportion of their contribution to the common fund…may exempt from liability be abandonment of tat part of the vessel belonging to him.

- if there is loss of lives as a result of the sinking, can it recover under this provision?Monarch Insurance v. CA – expanded the article to cover all cases relating to the conduct of the captain; will cover cases of passengers and not merely goods- there is no conflict as it can be covered under the liability to 3rd persons

ARTICLE 643. If the vessel or her cargo should be totally lost, by reason of capture or wreck, all rights shall be extinguished, both as regards the crew to demand any wages whatsoever, and as regards the ship agent to recover advances made…

(principle of limited liability in cases of collision)ARTICLE 837. The civil liability incurred by the shipowners in the cases prescribed in this section, shall be understood as limited to the value of the vessel will all her appurtenances and freight earned during the voyage.

Aboitiz v. General Accident Insurance – vessel loaded with cargo from Hong Kong to Phils.; loss of cargo; Aboitiz’s defense was force majeure; issue: enforcement of claim; purpose of Aboitiz was to suspend execution of judgment on the ground of real & hypothecary nature; under the rule, all claims must be collated first before claim can be executed; SC: Aboitiz was right; there was no finding of negligence, thus Aboitiz can avail of the doctrine.

Yangco v. Laserna – doctrine of limited liability will not apply if there is an actual finding of negligence by the shipowner

Monarch Insurance v. CA – vessel sank; awarded with claims; writ of execution was issued; CA reversed decision and held that the doctrine is applicable; accdg to Monarch, the doctrine will not apply because there was a concurring negligence on the SO & captain; burden of proof was very important in this case; SC: captain and crew of Aboitiz was concurrently negligent with SO; initial burden of proof was on the claimants to prove negligence which was shifted to the SO upon allegations in the answer or when it asserted right to avail the limited liability rule; Aboitiz failed to present sufficient evidence

Chua Yek Hong v. IAC – there is nothing in the records showing negligence of SO; SO did not present evidence that it cannot avail of the rule

Abandonment (only an opinion; not pronouncement of the court)- of the vessel, its appurtenances and the freightage- indispensable requirement before the shipowner or shipagent can enjoy the benefits of the limited liability principle- what is important is to allege that there was abandonment Ohta v. Steamship Pompey – pier sunk and the merchandise was lost due to the fault of the steamship that was docked at the pier; SC: liability of the owner of Pompey cannot be limited to its value under art587 as there was no abandonment of the ship and that art837 cannot apply as it refers to collisions (of vessels)

-compare-Yangco v. Laserna – steamer encountered rough seas as a result of which it capsized; many of passengers died in the mishap; SC: whether the abandonment of the vessel sought by the Yangco was in accordance with law or not is immaterial; the vessel having totally perished, any act of abandonment would be an idle ceremony

Exceptions to the limited liability rule:1. where the injury or death to a passenger is due either to the fault of the shipowner or to the concurring negligence

of the shipowner and the captain;2. where the vessel is insured; and 3. in workmen’s compensation claims.

(but the total destruction of the vessel does not affect the liability of the owner for repairs of the vessel completed before it’s loss)

NegligenceMonarch v. CA - if the failure to maintain the seaworthiness of the vessel can be ascribed to the SO alone or the SO concurrently with the captain, limited liability rule cannot be invoked

Negros Navigation v. CA – the carrier is liable for the damages to the full extent and not up to the value of the vessel if it was established that the carrier was guilty of negligence in allowing the captain and crew to play mahjong during the voyage, in failing to maintain the ship as seaworthy and in allowing the ship to carry more passengers than it was allowed to carry

Loadstar v. CA - authorizing the voyage notwithstanding its knowledge of a typhoon is tantamount to negligence

PhilAm Insurance v. CA – sinking of the vessel was because it was top heavy

Insurance- MARINA will not grant CPC if it has no insurance (passenger and haul), but not covered is cargo insurance- total loss of the vessel did not extinguish the liability of the carrier’s insurance- insurance should still answer for the damages that a SO or agent may be held liable for by reason of the death of its passengers

PROTEST – written statement by the master of a vessel or any authorized officer, attested by proper officer or a notary, to the effect that damages has been suffered by the ship- usually undertaken in maritime collisions- made within 24 hours- even if the captain made a protest but such execution of protest was not alleged, complaint may be dismissed- should only be limited in the 4 instances:

1. when the vessel makes an arrival under stress 2. where the vessel is shipwrecked3. where the vessel has gone through a hurricane or the captain believes that the cargo has suffered damages or averages4. maritime collisions

- not required when collision does not involve a vessel


Jurisdiction – RTC if demand or claim exceeds 300k or 400k in Metro Manila

VESSELS

- any barge, lighter, bulk carrier, passenger ship freighter, tanker, container ship, fishing boats, or other artificial contrivance utilizing any source of motive power, designed, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation operating either as a common contract carrier, including fishing vessels, except those owned and operated by the AFP and by foreign governments for military purposes, and bancas, sailboats and other waterbone contrivance of less than 3 gross tons capacity and not motorized

Lopez v. Duruelo – subject carrier is not a motorboat; transportation of motorboat was not from one port to another; SC: it is not a vessel thus no need for a protest nor allege its execution; must be involved in coastwise shipping

Yu Con v. Ipil – small vessel used for the transportation of merchandise from one port to another thus it was considered a vessel; but the issue was not the definition of vessel but of the negligence of the SO; mere obiter dictum

Vessel as a personal property – importance: it can be mortgaged by a chattel (Ship Mortgage Act PD 1521 of 1978)

Modes of acquisition of vessels:1. sale2. prescription – possession in good faith, for 3 years, just title duly recorded

– possession in bad faith, continuous possession for 10 years – captain is merely an agent thus cannot acquire the vessel by prescription– co-owners of vessels have the right of repurchase and redemption in sales made to strangers, but must exercise it within 9 days following the inscription of the sale in the registry, and by depositing the price at the same time

Registration – in Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) to affect or bind 3rd persons– presumption: registered owner of the vessel is the owner of the vessel (rebuttable presumption)

Memorandum Circular No. 182 (2003)- registration of vessels foreignly owned- government allowed lease of foreign-owned vessels to be registered and be used- only temporary or would depend on the period of lease (must not be less than 5 years)- lessee provides the captain and the rest of the boat (bareboat)- EOs issued by the Philippines extending the 5-year lease period which is not to exceed 2009 unless further extended by the President- requirements:

to whom shall it be leased? Philippine nationals (citizen of the Phils. or a partnership or association wholly owned by and composed of citizens of the Phils. or of which at least 60% of the capital stock outstanding and entitled to vote is owned and held by Phil. citizens or a trustee of funds for pensions or other employee retirement or separation of benefits, where the trustee is a Phil. national and at least 60% of the funds will accrue to the benefit of the Phil. national

1. prior approval by MARINA2. not less than 5 years validity3. shall be used exclusively in the coastwise trade in the Philippines4. operation shall be entrusted entirely in the hands of Philippine nationals5. registered vessel shall be manned completely by Filipino crew

Presidential Decree No. 1521 – Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 -for future reference-- all reference to the Coast Guard has already been vested or transferred to the MARINA- (sec 4) preferred mortgages – (1) recorded, (2) affidavit filed with the record of such mortgage to the effect that the mortgage is made in good faith and without any design to hinder, delay, or defraud any existing or future creditor of the mortgagor or any lien or of the mortgaged vessel, and (3) mortgage does not stipulate that the mortgagee waives the preferred status thereof (no waiver)- (sec 10) lien of preferred mortgage; foreclosure; jurisdiction; procedure - preferred mortgage shall constitute a lien upon the mortgaged vessel in the amount of the outstanding mortgage indebtedness secured by such vessel; lien of a preferred ship mortgage may also be enforced by a suit in rem in admiralty or otherwise in any foreign country in which the vessel may be found pursuant to the procedure of said country for the enforcement of ship mortgages constituting maritime liens on vessels documented under the laws of said country; judicial foreclosure or extrajudicial foreclosure (sec 14); caveat: should not extrajudicially foreclose if you are not in possession of the vessel- (sec 11) arrest of vessels – upon the filing of petition for judicial foreclosure, or immediately thereafter, applicant may apply ex-parte for an order of the arrest of the mortgaged vessel/s; arrest is the taking of possession in preparation for foreclosure- (sec 12) discharge of order of arrest; counterbond – after order of arrest has been granted, party whose vessel has been arrested or person appearing on his behalf, may apply for an order of discharge by posting a counterbond (amount double the value of the claim)- (sec 13) discharge of order of arrest for improper or irregular issuance – filing of a pleading; reason may be that the debtor-owner has not defaulted payment or debt has not yet matured- replevin is what is filed by the creditor when it wants to take possession of the vehicle and would foreclose it extrajudicially; no such case yet for vessels, only arrest of vessels

Enforcement of Maritime Safety Rules and Regulations (1998)- secretary of DOTC delineated functions of MARINA and Coast Guard- MARINA: quasi-judicial body; policy making; registration of vessels and deputize Coast Guard with respect to the enforcement of maritime safety- Coast Guard: implementation and enforcement

PERSONS WHO TAKE PART IN MARITIME COMMERCE-for future reference-

SHIPOWNER- person who is primarily liable for damages sustained in the operation of vessel

SHIPAGENT- person entrusted with provisioning of the vessel, or who represents her in the port in which she happens to be - jointly and severally liable with the owner for breach of contract and extra-contractual obligation (such as tort)


ARTICLE 586. Shipowner and ship agent shall be civilly liable for the acts of the captain and for the obligations contracted by the latter to repair, equip, and provision the vessel, provided the creditor proves that the amount claimed was invested for the benefit of the same.

ARTICLE 587. Ship agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of third parties which may arise from the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which he loaded in the vessel; but he may exempt himself by abandoning the vessel with all her equipments and the freight it may have earned during the voyage.

ARTICLE 588. Neither the shipowner nor the ship agent shall be liable for the obligations contracted by the captain, if the latter exceeds the powers and privileges pertaining to him by reason of his position or conferred upon him by the former.

Sweet Lines – involving contractual obligations; principles: (1) solidary liability of SO & SA involving acts of the captain (art 586), and (2) action is based on breach of contract of carriage; ship from cebu to catbalogan; passengers disembarked at tacloban because the boat was full; passengers have to take another vessel to catbalogan

Wing Kee v. Bark – does not involve contract of carriage; collection case; non-payment of supplies (provision of vessels); ship agent was held liable

Smith v. Cadwaddler Gibson Lumber – no pre-existing contract between parties; steamer struck wharf owned by Smith; wharf was damaged; trial court dispensed complaint as wharf was very old; court ruled on the basis of principles of quasi-delict (evidence: negligence); defense of the SO was that it exercised due diligence in the selection & supervision of employees; SC: owner was able to prove due diligence (captain was duly licensed; owner hired captain because of his reputation)

Ohta Dev’t – not applicable or cannot be held similar as that of the Smith case; ship agent was found liable due to lack of skill or negligence of the captain; steamship was carrying cargo for Ohta (owner of the pier); principles: (1) no abandonment thus rule of limited liability will not apply & that collision did not involve vessels (only vessel and pier) and (2) there was a contractual relationship (unlike in Smith)

Sontua v. Ossorio – fire in motor boat spread to the steamer Sontua causing damages to her deck; SC: explosion of the motor boat was imputable to the negligence of the persons having charge at that time of the motor boat

CAPTAINS and MASTERS OF VESSELS- captain: governs vessels that navigate the high seas or ships of large dimensions and importance, although they be engaged in the coastwise trade master: those who command smaller ships engaged exclusively in the coastwise trade- for purposes of maritime commerce, both have the same meaning; both being the chiefs of commanders of ships- roles or functions (Inter-Orient v. CA):

1. a general agent of the shipowner – has authority to sign bills of lading, carry goods aboard and deal with the freight earned, agree upon rates and decide whether to take cargo

2. commander and technical director of the vessel – most important role; operation and preservation of the vessel during its voyage and the protection of the passengers and crew and cargo

3. representative of the country under whose flag he navigates- grounds for discharge of captain

ARTICLE 605. If the contracts of the captain and members of the crew with the ship agent should be for a definite period or voyage, they may not be discharged until after the fulfillment of their contracts, EXCEPT by reason of insubordination in serious matters, robbery, theft, habitual drunkenness, or damage caused to the vessel or to its cargo through malice or manifest or proven negligence.

- discretion of captain or master – if the ship captain is convinced, as a reasonably prudent and competent mariner acting in good faith that the SO’s and SA’s instructions will result, in the very specific circumstances facing him, in imposing unacceptable risks of loss or serious danger to ship or crew, he cannot casually seek absolution from his responsibility, if a maritime casualty occurs by following those instructions

Inter-Orient v. CA – damage due to the delay of navigation thus captain was relieved from vessel; principles: (1) captain retains control over vessel free to exercise reasonable discretion as to its navigation; (2) captain exercised reasonable discretion in waiting for the supplies to arrive

Compagnie v. Hamburg – high court recognized the discretionary authority of the master of a vessel and his right to exercise his best judgment, with respect to navigating the vessel he commands

PILOTAGE- pilot: person duly qualified, and licensed, to conduct a vessel into or out of our ports, or in certain waters; person taken on board at a particular place for the purpose of conducting a ship through a river, road or channel, or from a port- compulsory pilotage: when States possessing harbors have enacted laws or promulgated rules requiring vessels approaching their ports to take on board pilots licensed under the local laws- can association of pilots be held solidarily liable? Not on the basis of quasi-delict but on the basis of MARINA or Customs AO 15-65; association’s liability is not on the concept of employer-employee relationship between the captain and the association as the captain has never been an employee but a member only; rights and liabilities between a pilots’ association and an individual member depend largely upon the constitution, articles or by-laws of the association, subject to appropriate government regulations

Far Eastern Shipping v. CA – in general, a pilot is personally liable for damages caused by his own negligence or default to the owners of the vessel, and to 3rd parties for damages sustained in collision; such negligence constitutes maritime tort; but captain still retains over-all command of vessel; it was already apparent that there was negligence on the part of the pilot and that the captain did not do anything; captain was held liable

OFFICERS and CREW of VESSELS- complement of a vessel: all the persons on board the vessel excluding the passengers1. sailing mate or first mate – person 2nd in command2. second mate – 3rd in command3. engineer4. members of the crew- crew: an aggregate of seamen to man a ship or vessel including the master or officer


ARTICLE 636. If there is no fixed period for which a seaman has been contracted, he may not be discharged until the end of the return voyage to the port where he is enlisted. ARTICLE 637. Neither may the captain discharge a seaman during the time of his contract EXCEPT for just cause, the following being considered as such: (1) perpetration of a crime which disturbs order on the vessel, (2) repeated insubordination, want of discipline, or non-fulfillment of service, (3) repeated incapacity and negligence in the fulfillment of the service he should render, (4) habitual drunkenness, (5) any occurrence which incapacitates the seaman to perform work entrusted to him with the exception of that provided in art644, and (5) desertion – act by which seaman abandons the ship before expiration of his term

CHARTER PARTIES

- contract whereby an entire ship, or some principal part, is let by the owner to a merchant or other person for a specified time or use for the conveyance of goods, in consideration of payment of freight- parties: charterer – merchant or the person who desires to lease a ship or vessel owned by another for the transport of his

or her goods for commercial purposes or of persons from one port to anothershipowner

- kinds: bareboat or demise charter – SO leases to the charterer the whole vessel, transferring to the charterer the entire command, possession and consequent control over the vessel’s navigation, including the master and the crew, who becomes the charterer’s “servants”; charterer becomes the owner “pro hac vice”

contract of affreightment – charterer hires the vessel only, either for a determinate period of time or for a single or consecutive voyage, with the SO providing for the provisions of the ship, wages of master and crew, and expenses for maintenance of the vessel

time charter – vessel is leased to the charterer for a fixed period of timevoyage charter – vessel is leased for a single or particular voyage

- it is a contract, hence, parties are free to stipulate upon such terms and conditions that would suit their purposes, subject to the caveat that these should not be contrary to law or public policy - requisites of a valid charter party: (1) consent of the contracting parties, (2) an existing vessel which should be placed at the disposition of the shipper, (3) the freight, and (4) compliance with the requirements of art652 of CoC - effect of charter on character of carrier: generally, the character of the common carrier is not affected by the charter party if it is a contract of affreightment

Caltex v. Sulpicio Lines – voyage charter; collision between MT Vector (tanker) and Doña Paz (owned by Sulpicio); breach of contract filed by the passengers’ heirs against Sulpicio; 3rd party complaint against registered owner of the tanker including Caltex (that they were negligent and in bad faith by not seeing to it that the tanker was seaworthy); issue: w/n charterer shall be liable under maritime law; SC: liability cannot be attached to Caltex; the charter did not affect the nature of the business of Sulpicio as a common carrier; rights and responsibilities of ownership still rested on the owner

Planters Products v. CA – time charter; Planters purchased fertilizers from US; voyaged to Phils.; upon arrival, shortage in the cargo was discovered; filed action against carrier for damages (breach of contract); RTC: ruled in favor of Planters; CA: reversed & absolved carrier as it was converted from common to private carrier; SC: cannot become a private carrier; bareboat charter can become a private carrier but in contract of affreightment remains as common carrier (action based on contract of carriage; presumption of negligence); carrier was able to rebut the presumption of negligence (result of the inherent character of the fertilizers)

Coastwise Lighterage v. CA – w/n private carrier would convert to a common carrier; contract of affreightment; SC: reiterated Planters ruling; difference with Planters: wasn’t able to rebut presumption of negligence; didn’t exercise EO diligence (hired an unlicensed patron)

Home Insurance v. American Steamship – case mostly used by common carriers as defense; Home Insurance is a subrogee (paid SMC of loss cargo shipped thru American Steamship; no reference as to what contract but there was a mention that it was an affreightment; SC: common carrier’s undertaking to carry special cargo (chartered to special person only) becomes a private carrier and stipulation exempting owner from liability for loss due to negligence of its agent is valid; ruling reiterated in Valenzuela Hardwood v. CA

Jurisdiction of Admiralty Cases- depends on the jurisdictional amount- important element of the contract = subject matter of the contract (nature & character of the contract)

International Harvester v. Aragon – involving loss of cargo shipped from LA to Mla; cargo owner filed action against common carrier; SC: liability of petitioner was predicated upon contract of carriage; admiralty would involve all maritime contract in whatever form and wherever made

Macondray v. DelgadoBrothers – Delgado was an operator of pier services; w/n operator exercised its duty in loading/unloading of cargos; no contract of carriage; obligation was only to load to ship; no application of admiralty

FREIGHT or FREIGHTAGE – price for carriage; shall accrue according to the conditions stipulated in the contract; should there be no stipulation or if it is ambiguous, rules shall be that (1) freight shall begin to run from the day of loading on the vessel; (2) in charters with a fixed period, the freight shall begin upon that very day; and (3) if the freight is charged according to weight, payment shall be made according to the gross weight, including weight of the containers

LAY DAYS – period or time stipulated for loading and unloading (provided for in the Charter Party); if no lay days provided for in the Charter Party, it is understood that the charterer will unload and discharge cargos within a reasonable time or with reasonable diligence

DEMURRAGE – a sum of money due by express contract for the detention of the vessel in loading or unloading, beyond the time allowed for that purpose in the charter party; sum of which is usually fixed by the parties in the charter party; liability for this exists only when expressly stipulated (NFA v. CA)

DEADFREIGHT – where the charterer failed to occupy the leased portion of the vessel, he may thereby be liable by the shipowner for the deadfreight that occurred

Stipulation in Charter PartiesGR: parties are free to stipulate subject to Art 1744-54 of ncc

ARTICLE 653. If the cargo should be received without the charter party having been signed, the contract shall be understood as executed in accordance with what appears in the B/L, the sole evidence of title with regard to the cargo for determining the rights and obligations of the ship agent, captain, and chaterer.


- if there is charter party or B/L = no contract at all; but according to BLANCO, if there is delivery and receipt of cargo combined with GF and mutual consent = contract present, better than B/L

ARTICLE 656. if in the charter party the time in which the loading and unloading are to take place is not stated, the usages of the port where these acts shall be observed. After the stipulated or the customary period has passed, and there is no express proviso in the charter party fixing the indemnity for the delay, the captain shall be entitled to demand demurrage for the lay days and extra lay days which may have elapsed in loading and unloading.

O’ Farrel v. Meralco – suspensive condition must be complied with

LOANS ON BOTTOMRY AND RESPONDENTIA

BOTTOMRY – is a contract whereby the owner of a ship borrows for the use, equipment or repair of the vessel, for a definite term, and pledges the ship as security, with the stipulation that if the ship is lost during the voyage or during the limited time on account of the perils enumerated, the lender shall lose his money

LOAN ON RESPONDENTIA – where the goods, or some part thereof, are hypothecated as security for a loan, the repayment of which is dependent upon maritime risks; usual form is that of a bond; borrower’s personal responsibility which is deemed to be the principal security for the performance of the contract

- have to be in writing (art 720: 3 ways that contract can be executed: public instrument, policy signed by the contracting parties and the broker taking part, private instrument)- if not in writing = no judicial action thus cannot be enforced judicially (but extrajudicially can be)- registration of loans 1. preference against other credits

2. period within 8 days = date of effectivity retroacts to date of execution otherwise = date of execution

- common characteristics:1. rate of interest not subject to usury laws2. last lender has preference over previous ones (art 730 inverse order in the preference of loans); last loan contributed

to the preservation of the thing loaned3. must be reduced into writing to give rise to judicial action4. perfected from the moment of delivery of the thing loaned5. action pertaining to the lender is extinguished if there is absolute loss on the effects (vessel/cargo)

- registered at the Registry of Vessels- there must be a maritime risk upon which the loan is predicated such that if the vessel or the cargo is lost by virtue of that risk, the lender loses the capital or money lent

Risks in Maritime Commerce: (1) averages, (2) collision, (3) arrival under stress, and (4) shipwreck

AVERAGES

ARTICLE 806. The following shall be considered as averages:1. All extraordinary or accidental expenses which may be incurred during the voyage in order to preserve the

vessel, the cargo, or both.2. Any damages or deteriorations which the vessel may suffer from the time it puts to sea from the port of

departure until it casts anchor in the port of destination, and those suffered by the merchandise from the time they are loaded in the port of shipment until they are unloaded in the port to their consignment.

American Home Assurance v. CA – applicability of the law on averages; National Marine (owner of CC) filed an answer instead of a motion to dismiss; claim of American Home did not exceed 5% of the total interest of claimant; relate with art848 (claims shall not be admitted if they don’t exceed 5% of the interest of claimant; SC: before dealing with averages, court must consider as to the extent of liability of the CC as to averages, 1st thing to be addressed is on the presence or issue of negligence; civil code applicable on liability of negligence and code of commerce on averages; law on averages cannot be applied in this case because the law cannot be applied if CC is negligent; SC said that CC was negligent as it file a motion to dismiss (hypothetically admitted allegation in the complaint, one of which is negligence)

- law on averages does not apply in collision cases where the same was caused by the negligence of the captains of the colliding vessels and the cargoes were not jettisoned to save some of the cargoes and the vesselcargo which have NOT incurred to the common benefit and profit of all persons interested in the vessel and her cargo; if a

damage is not a general average, it can be considered particular average; owner of the goods that suffered the damage bears the loss

General or gross average – shall include all the damages and expenses which are deliberately caused in order to save the vessel, its cargo or both at the same time, from real and known risk; 4 requisites (Magsaysay v. Agan): 1. there must be a common danger;

- both ship and cargo, after has been loaded, are subject to the same danger, whether during voyage, or in the port of loading or unloading

Kinds of Averages:Simple or particular average – shall include all the expenses and damages caused to the vessel or to her - danger arises

from the accidents of the sea, dispositions of the authority, or faults of men, provided that the circumstances producing the peril should be ascertained and imminent or may rationally be said to be certain and imminent

International Harvester – war between Germany and Russia; vessel took refuge in Manila; law on average did not apply as the cargo was not exposed to an imminent danger and was solely for the benefit of the vessel; no danger of goods being seized

2. that for the common safety part of the vessel or of the cargo or both is sacrificed deliberately;- there must be voluntary sacrifice of a pert for the benefit of the whole - it cannot involve a damage which resulted beyond the control of the captain and crew or without any intention on their part- normally, the sacrifice is made through the jettison of the cargo or part of the ship is thrown overboard during the voyage


- there can also be general average even if the sacrifice was not made during the voyage where the sinking of a vessel is necessary to extinguish a fire in a port, roadstead, creek or bay; and where the cargo is transferred to lighten the ship on account of a storm to facilitate entry into a port- loss can no longer be considered a general average it the thing was inevitably lost

3. that from the expenses or damages caused follows the successful saving of the vessel and cargo, and- no general contribution can be demanded if the vessel and other cargo that are sought to be saved were in fact not saved- if the ship was saved from the typhoon, there will be liability for general average contribution even if the vessel will be subsequently lost for some other reason during the voyage

4. that the expenses or damages should have been incurred or inflicted after taking proper legal steps and authority.

- resolution should be recorded in the minutes and these must be heard and objections noted- if art 813 and 814 are not complied with = no general average (Phil Home Assurance)

Distinctions between Particular and General Average

Liquidation of Averages (Standard Oil case) -for future reference-- liquidation of captain is not a condition precedent before the owner can file an action for recovery of claim- it is the duty of the captain to initiate proceedings but if the captain will not initiate, it will not bar the owners of the cargos who lost to file action for recovery

YORK-ANTWERP RULES -for future reference-- parties may, by stipulation in the charter party or any written agreement, agree that these Rules shall be applied- GR: apply if there is no provision in the Code of Commerce; suppletorily- exception to GR is the case of

Eastern Shipping v. Margarine-Verkaufs-Union – claim should have been barred if art848 was applied but SC didn’t apply art848 because there was a B/L where a provision that in cases of averages the York-Antwerp Rule shall apply particularly Rule III (extinguished fire on shipboard – damage done to a ship and cargo, or either of them, by water or otherwise, including damage by beaching or scuttling a burning ship, in extinguishing a fire on board the ship, shall be made good as general average; except that no compensation shall be made for damage by smoke or heat however caused)

COLLISIONS

- impact or sudden contact of a moving body with an obstruction in its line of motion, whether both bodies are in motion or one stationary and the other, no matter which, in motion- strictly speaking, collision refers to contact of 2 moving vehicles and allision if one vessel is moving while the other is stationary- 3 divisions of time or zones:

FIRST division – covers all the time up to the moment when the risk of collision may be said to have begun; no rule is applicable since none is necessary; each vessel is free to direct its course as it deems best without reference to the movements of the other vesselSECOND division – time between the movement when the risk of collision begins and the moment when it has become a practical certainty; burden is on the vessel to keep away and avoid the dangerTHIRD division – time between the moment of actual contact; covers the period in which errors in extremis occur; rule is that the vessel which has forced the privileged vessel into danger is responsible even if the privileged vessel has committed an error within that zone; thus, if it was during that time when the sail vessel was passing through the third zone that it changed its course to port in order to avoid, if possible, the collision, the act may be said to have been done in extremis, and, even if wrong, the sailing vessel is not responsible for the result

- 3 classes of situation:1. fortuitous – if there was fortuitous event that caused the collision, each is liable in its own damages

– 2 different rules: ARTICLE 830. If a vessel should collide with another, through fortuitous event or force majeure, each vessel and its cargo shall bear its own damages.

ARTICLE 832. If by reason of a storm or other cause of force majeure, a vessel which is properly anchored and moored should collide with those nearby, causing them damages, the injury occasioned shall be considered as particular average of the vessel run into.

2. culpability of captainARTICLE 826. If a vessel should collide with another, through or the fault, negligence, lack of skill of the captain, sailing mate, or any other member of the complement, the owner of the vessel at fault shall indemnify the loses and damages suffered, after an expert appraisal.

ARTICLE 827. If the collision is imputable to both, each one shall suffer its own damages, and both shall be solidarily responsible for the losses and damages occasioned to their cargos.

Negros Navigation v. CA – captain playing mahjong; failure to comply with the international rules of the road is not automatic negligence; case has to be considered or evaluated in the totality of circumstances (on the question of who is negligent)

Smith Bell and Co. v. CA – w/n there was negligence on the part of the captain of the ship owned by Gothong; 3 factors considered: (1)failure to comply with the international rules of the road (3 rd zone-vessels about to reach point of impact have to turn star-board and not port side); (2)no proper look-out (is one who has been trained as

SOCIETAS SPECTRA LEGIS

Particular Average General Average

- no common danger - danger similar or common to vessel and cargo

- no such requirement as to deliberate sacrifice and no legal steps to be complied with

- deliberate sacrifice of vessel or cargo or both

- damage suffered not inured to the common carrier - successful saving of vessel or cargo

- owner of the thing bears the loss - all persons having interest shall proportionately contribute

19

such and who is given no other duty save to act as a look-out and who is stationed where he can see and hear best and maintain good communication with the officer in charge of the vessel, and who must also be vigilant); (3)second mate was operating vessel despite the presence of the captain

3. doubtful collisionARTICLE 828. The provisions of art.827 are applicable to the use in which it cannot be determined which of the two vessels has caused the collision (each shall bear its own loss).

ARRIVAL UNDER STRESS AND SHIPWRECKS

ARRIVAL UNDER STRESS – arrival of a vessel at the nearest and most convenient port which was decided upon after determining that there is well-founded fear of seizure, privateers, or pirates, or by reason of any accident of the sea disabling it to navigate

- IMPT: captain must make a protest - steps to be taken in the determination of the propriety of arrival under stress:

1. captain should determine during the voyage if there is well founded fear of seizure, privateers of other valid grounds;2. captain shall then assemble the officers;3. captain shall summon the persons interested in the cargo who may be present and who may attend but without right

to vote;4. the offices shall determine and agree if there is well founded reason after examining the circumstances. captain

shall have the deciding vote;5. agreement shall be drafter and the proper minutes shall be signed and entered in the log book;6. objections and protests shall likewise be entered in the minutes

- absence of one of the steps, can still be considered as arrival under stress- expenses

ARTICLE 821. Shall always be for the account of the shipowner or agent, but they shall not be liable for the damages which may cause the shippers by reason of the arrival provided the latter is legitimate. Otherwise, ship agent and the captain shall be jointly liable.

- after arrival under stress, captain should continue voyage or else he shall be liable for damages caused by his delay

SHIPWRECKS – demolition or shattering of a vessel caused by her driving ashore or on the rocks and shoals in the midseas, or by the violence of winds and waves in tempests- loss of vessel at sea, either by being swallowed up by the waves or running against a thing at sea or at coast (Agbayani)- cause of shipwreck must be force majeure or accident (no participation of the captain or crew); if with negligence, shipowner bears the loss- important to make protest- liability for loss – owner of vessel or cargo EXCEPT if the wreck was caused by the malice, negligence, or lack of skill of the captain, or because the vessel put to sea was insufficiently repaired and equipped = shipowner and agent may demand indemnity of the captain for the damages caused to the vessel or cargo

SALVAGE

SALVAGE – a service which one person renders to the owner of a ship or goods, by his own labor, preserving the goods or the ship which the owner or those entrusted with care of them have either abandoned in distress at sea, or are unable to protect and secure- only those with permit issued by MARINA can salvage (PD 890 penalty/convicting people salvaging without permit)- salvor enters into contract so as not to have problems with the compensation- objective is to save vessel and cargos- saving persons is a duty of every humanity – thus not salvage- there must be shipwreck, abandonment or no intention to return- contracts entered into by salvor and insurance company relation to salving of vessels are enforceable- remuneration can be reduced if excessive- relate with PD 1521 (ship mortgage decree) – sec.17 on preference of claims (#4 salvage reward; #7 preferred mortgage)- requisites for allowing expenses of salvor: necessary and reasonable

Urrutia v. Pasig Steamer – decided when Salvage Law was not enacted; it this was to be decided under the law, the service should be that of towage; SC obtained principles from the U.S; mere breaking of shaft; principle: question on w/n physical presence of owner or salvor is necessary for vessel to claim salvage reward – not necessary; enough that the vessel of salvor is placed at a particular risk entitled to remuneration

Barrios v. Gothong – distinction between towage and salvage; Barrios was the captain of MV Henry owned by William Lines; Barrios received distress call from Gothong vessel Don Alfonso (engine trouble only); SC: noted the following facts: (1)smoothness of the sea, (2) weather was fair, (3) crew didn’t lower motorboats to evacuate passengers; (4) neither did they jettison cargo for safety; Barrios filed action for remuneration; SC: mere towage as it lacked marine peril

- 3 elements which must be established in order for a salvage claim to be valid:1. there must be a marine peril2. the service is voluntarily rendered and is not required as an existing duty or a form of contract3. there must be success in whole or in part or that the service rendered contributed to such success4. vessel is shipwrecked beyond the control of the crew or shall have been abandoned

- principal circumstances to be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of compensation:1. labor expanded by the salvors in rendering the salvage service2. promptitude, skill, and energy displayed in rendering the service and saving the property3. value of the property employed by the salvors in rendering the service, and the danger to which such property were

exposed4. risk incurred by the salvors in rescuing the property from the impending peril5. value of the property salved6. degree of danger from which the property was rescued

SOCIETAS SPECTRA LEGIS

Salvage Towage- there has to be a present and perspective danger

- objective is not to escape from present and perspective danger

- captain and crew of salvor can claim remuneration

- remuneration will only be in favor of the owner of vessel

20

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (COGSA)

- Public Act No. 521 by US Congress (enacted when the Philippines was governed by the Commonwealth gov’t)- applicability: involving contract of carriage from foreign ports to Philippines (if Philippines to foreign ports = law applicable is that of point of destination)- order of applicability: NCC primary law applicable, Code of Commerce, COGSA (suppletory) – when NCC and CoC is silent, COGSA will prevail (e.g. prescription under sec. 3(6) )

PRINCIPLE #1 – rights and obligations of parties (NCC, CoC, COGSA)- example: parties free to stipulate, no maximum amount in NCC (1749) but in COGSA (sec 4(5)) $500 per package as maximum amount of liability of common carrier in the absence of a higher stipulation of liability- provision in COGSA will apply if there is a question about liability of common carrier but parties may agree on a LESSER amount (Eastern & Australian Steamship 108 SCRA 248)

PRINCIPLE #2 – prescriptive period- sec 3(6) of COGSA – 1 year from time of delivery or when goods shall have been delivered

Q: will prescriptive period apply of there is transshipment (transfer of goods from 1 vessel to another)?A: yes, prescriptive period still applies; American Insurance v. Compania – transshipment does not remove transaction under COGSA; one transaction only

Q: is it only the shipper that can file suit under COGSA?A: provision also mentions about delivery, thus, not only the shipper but also the consignee and legitimate owner of the B/L can file suit (Chua v. Everett 5/27/1953)

Q: is the 1-year period computed from the delivery of goods to arrastre operator or to the consignee?A: delivery means delivery to arrastre operator (Union v. Mea Railroad 77 scra 359); reason is that if the delivery to consignee is made as a basis, it would be unrealistic and would be a basis for confusion; to prevent questions pertaining to damages and losses

Q: prescriptive period renewed for another year (Stevens & Co. 6 scra 180)A: another year from date of dismissal; bases: (1) Art 1155 NCC pertaining to interruption of filing of case, and (2) Sec 49, Act 190 dismissal of case other than leave of merits, at the time of institution of another action, plaintiffs may commence new action for another year

Q: can be suspended by agreement of parties?A: can be…correspondence between parties made as basis (Universal Shipping v. IAC 188 scra 170)

Q: mere proposal for arbitration or negotiation for adjustment of conflict from foreign port to PhilippinesA: will not suspend prescriptive period

- COGSA not applicable: (1) when it involves liability of an insurer (Maya Steel v. CA 274 scra 432) (should be governed by Insurance Law)

(2) misdelivery of goods (Ang v. American Steamship)

- damage to goods and damage to shipper = no difference; still applicable under COGSA (Tan v. Ameriacan President Lines)PUBLIC UTILITIES

PUBLIC UTILITY – privately owned and operated business whose service are essential to the general public; impressed with public interest and concern (KMU v. Garcia)

PUBLIC SERVICE – includes every person that may own, operate, manage, or control in the Philippines, for hire or for compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business purposes, any common carrier, etc… (sec 13 of CA 146 Public Service Act); will not only refer to land transportation but also includes telecommunications, railroads, vessels, etc…

Commonwealth Act 146 – Public Service Act - powers of the Public Service Commission are now separated to the following agencies: LTFRB (Land Transportation Franchising Regulatory Board), MARINA (Maritime Industry Authority), and CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board)- basis of agency: charter or Executive Order or proclamation creating the agency- in case of conflict: Public Service Law prevails (per GCapanas)- police power of the state justifies the regulation of public utilities- Protection of Investment Rule – the law was also enacted to promote the interest of the investors- can grant franchise and certificate of public convenience should there charter provide- franchise: more of a rightCPC: not a right but only a privilege, thus can be revoked by the agency

Lagman v. City of Manila – CPC of buses owned by Lagman grants them the right to pass thru City of Manila; ordinance limiting their loading and unloading to certain areas; SC: upheld ordinance; (1) CPC is not a right, only a privilege and (2) granting of the CPC does not and will not prohibit or prevent the LGU from enacting ordinances which concerns such public utility; condition of granting CPC is that it has to comply will all laws and ordinances

- CPC is only an authorization, it can be amended to include additional vehicles- paramount consideration should always be public interest and public convenience- requisites for the issuance of CPC:

1. applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines, or a corporation or co-partnership, association or joint stock company constituted and organized under the laws of the Philippines, 60% at least of the stock or paid-up capital of which belong entirely to citizens of the Philippines;

2. applicant must be financially capable of undertaking the proposed service and meeting the responsibilities incident to its operation; and

3. applicant must prove that the operation of the public service proposed and the authorization to do business will promote the public interest in a proper and suitable manner

- transfer of CPC: registered owner rule


San Pablo v. Pantranco – request of Pantranco for authority to lease particular vessel from sorsogon to samar; requested from MARINA; w/n CPC to operate buses already sufficient to allow them to operate ferry; SC: no, different or separate application needed since the ferry will cross open seas, the service is not merely a ferry service but is actually coastwise service

De Guzman v. CA – very important case; private respondent said that he is not a common carrier as he has no CPC; SC: violative of public policy because it would reward a person who did not comply with the law

Manzanal v. Ausejo – Ausejo was allegedly held-up and the suspects boarded a taxi cab; petition to revoke CPC of taxi (operated by Manzanal); SC: single incident of hold-up will not violate conditions of CPC; no proof that operator had a hand at the incident; no need for a passenger-operator relationship before you can attack its CPC; CPC may be revoked if the operator failed to render safe, proper and adequate service, however, these cannot be established by just citing a single hold-up incident; must be interpreted in consonance with Public Service Law

- when 2 or more persons may be in equal footing in the request for the granting of application, opposition to application should cite all rules but make sure to challenge the capacity of the other party (focus on interest and public convenience) - while public interest, convenience and necessity is the controlling policy, administrative body may also consider prior operator rule, third operator rule, prior applicant rule and protection of investment rule

MMDA v. Dante Garin – regarding police power; Atty. Garin was apprehended for traffic violation and his license confiscated; SC: MMDA does not possess police power because it is not provided for in its charter; LGUs have the power to confiscate; LTO has the authority but not exclusive

WARSAW CONVENTION ON AIR TRANSPORT

- international carriage of goods, passengers, or both (in COGSA, carriage of goods by sea only)- governing laws: NCC, CoC, Warsaw- enacted in Warsaw, Poland- Philippines was not an original party to the convention; only after several years did the president signed the accession- application with respect to jurisdiction (art 28)

1. domicile of carrier2. principal place of business3. execution of contract – where passenger purchased the ticket4. place of destination

Santos v. Northwest Airlines – Santos was a resident of the Philippines; filed breach of contract against Northwest in the Philippines; domicile of carrier: USA; principal place of business: Minnesota; destination & execution: San Francisco; SC: case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

- carrier is liable in the international air transportation in the following instances:ARTICLE 17…death or injury of passengerARTICLE 18…destruction, loss, damage to luggageARTICLE 19…delay in transportation of passengers

- general principle: WC can be applied or ignored depending on the circumstances of the case

Cases where damages were awarded: IMPT element in the 3 cases – bad faith & malice of CC in the treatment of passengers (thus WC was inapplicable)

Northwest Airlines v. Cuenca – WC does not exclude liability for other breaches of contract by the carrier; Cuenca bound for Tokyo from Manila, when at Okinawa he was forced to transfer to tourist from first class because he will be left behind if he did not move; filed case for damages; carrier’s defense is that under the WC it can only be liable under the 3 circumstances (art 17-19); SC: argument of carrier not meritorious; 3 articles under WC are just instances when an international carrier can be liable for damages, but such are not exclusive; if there are breaches of contract where they can be liable not under WC but other governing laws of the Philippines, it can be held liable; court used the NCC; awarded nominal damages because of the unfair treatment by the personnel of the CCAir France v. Carascoso – ejected in favor of white manZulueta case – referred to as a monkey

Pan American v. IAC – simple loss of luggage; WC provides limitation of liability of CC (limited liability clause); SC: agreed with CC that the amount to be paid is what is stated in the ticket as it only involves simple loss and that there was absence of improper conduct in the personnel of the carrier

Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. CA (255 SCRA 38) – loss of luggage; plaintiff was a passenger; luggage containing jewelries were missing; Airline said that it was the fault of the passenger in placing the jewelries in the checked-in luggage; SC: still award damages because the luggage was lost twice; underscores wanton negligence and lack of care thereby damages can be awarded (and as such, WC on negligence of passenger cannot be applied)Luna v. CA (216 SCRA 107) – WC does not preclude the operation of NCC and other pertinent laws; no decision by SC on merits; Luna was bound for Korea; checked-in luggage; due to engine trouble passengers have to transfer to another airline and was assured that luggage will be transferred; carrier filed motion to dismiss for failure to state cause of action; lower court dismissed case; SC: reversed; reinstated to the lower court; WC does not operate to enumerate the exclusive instances for declaring airline liable for breach of contract; there can be other cases for breach of contract under the NCC (which the lower court have to determine)

- contracts entered into by the parties are binding (manifested by plane ticket)- ARTICLE 22…limited liability of CC…unless there is a declaration of higher value- carrier is entitled to the benefits of limited liability too!

Ong v. CA (91 SCRA 223) – did not involve international carriage (cebu-butuan); issue is on the validity of stipulation of ticket; SC: upheld validity of stipulation limiting liability of carrier; CA: stipulations were in reasonably big letter and easily readable

Shewaram v. PAL – SC en banc did not sustain the validity of stipulation as it was small and hard to read as to warrant the presumption that passenger was aware

- if no reasonable and timely objection made at the course of the trial = waiver of such defense


British Airways v. CA (285 SCRA 450) – SC: in order for passenger to be able to claim damages higher than stated in the ticket, passenger has to declare higher value; passenger presented evidences that he is entitled to damages higher than that stated; lawyer of the carrier failed to object presentation of such evidences; court accepted evidence and was tantamount to waiver of defense

- prescription under WC: 2 years from date of arrival at destination OR from date on which aircraft ought to have arrived, OR from the date on which the transportation stopped

United Airlines v. Uy – passenger filed action because of stolen items in luggage, he also claimed for damages because of embarrassment suffered; filed case beyond 2 years; SC: the first cause of action has already prescribed (under WC) but on the claims of damages it would prescribe after 4 years based on torts (under the civil code)


transportation law Midterm Coverage by Reymundo Espina

Documents

Transcript of transportation law Midterm Coverage by Reymundo Espina