FIRST READING ASSIGNMENT

GUZMAN v CA
CALVO v UCPB
BASCOS v CA
PLANTERS PRODUCT v CA
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v CA
BENEDICTO v IAC
LITA ENTERPRISES INC v IAC
2ND READING ASSIGNMENT
FISHER v YANGCO STEAMSHIP
TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES INC v CA
BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING v PHIL FIRST INSURANCE
ABETO v PHILI
LU DO v BINAMIRA
LRTA v NAVIDAD
YOBIDO v CA
GACAL v PAL
NECESITO v PARAS
MARANAN v PEREZ
BACHELOR EXPRESS v CA
PAN-AM v RAPADAS
3RD READING ASSIGNMENT
LARA v VALENCIA
CALTEX v SULPICIO
MECENAS v CA
BAYASEN v CA
MALLARI v CA
NOCUM v LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO
KOREAN AIRLINES v CA
BILL OF LADING
MACONDRAY AND COMPANY INC., v ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
YSMAEL v BARRETTO
SWEET LINES INC v TEVES
SALUDO v CA
ACTIONS AND DAMAGES IN CASE OF BREACH
AIR FRANCE v CARRASCOSO
TIU v ARRIESGADO
MARITIME LAW
PH REFINING CO v JARQUE
 PH AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE v CA
SWEET LINES v CA
FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE v METROPORT SERVICES
INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL v PRUDENTIAL
FAR EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY v CA

warehouse of GM in makati and rizal to

petitioner’s establishment in urdaneta
Thereafter respondent loaded in makati the
goods on to his trucks: 150 cartons were loaded
on a truck driven by the PR himself, and 600
cartons were placed on board the other truck
driven by Manuel estrada (pr’s driver and
employee)
The 150 cartons were delivered, but not the
other 600 boxes because the truck was hijacked
along mcarthur highway in tarlac by armed men
who took the truck, the driver and the cargo
Petitioner demanded the payment for the value
of the lost goods
Petitioner argues that PR failed to exercise eod
as common carrier and should be held liable for
the undellivered goods

Issue: WON the private respondent was not a

common carrier

Ruling:
YES he is a common carrier. CC defines
“common carriers” in Art. 1732 which said
provision makes no distinction between one
whose principal business activity is the carrying
FIRST READING ASSIGNMENT of persons or goods or both, and one who does
such carrying only as an ancillary activity. 1732
also carefully avoids making any distinction
between a person or enterprise offering
GUZMAN v CA
transportation service on a regular or scheduled
basis and one offering such service on an
Facts: occasional basis. Episodic or unscheduled basis.
Petitioner pedro de guzman a merchant and Neither does the provision distinguish between a
authorized dealer of general milk company carrier offering its services to the general public
contracted with PR (cendana) for the hauling of and one who offers services or solicits business
750 cartons of liberty filled milk from a only from a narrow segment of the general
population.
It appears to the court that private CALVO v UCPB
respondent is a common carrier even though
he merely “back-hauled” goods for other
Facts:
merchants from mnl to pangasinan, altho
Petitioner virgines calvo is the owner of
such back-hauling was done on a periodic or
transorient container terminal services inc
occasional rather than regular scheduled
(TCTSI), a customs broker
manner, and even though private respondent’s
She entered into a contract with san miguel corp
principal occupation was not the carriage of
for the transfer of 114 reels of semi chemical
goods for others. There is no dispute that PR
fluting paper and 124 reels of kraft liner board
charged his customers a fee for hauling their
from the port area in mnl to SMC’s warehouse
goods; that fee frequently fell below commercial
in ermita mnl
freight rates is not relevant here.
Cargo was insured by respondent UCPB, upon
CA ruled that PR held no CPC hence he was
delivery, the goods were inspected and 15 reels
not a common carrier, however a CPC is not
of the chemical fluting paper and 3 reels of kraft
a requisite for the incurring of liability under
liner board were found damaged
the CC provisions governing common
SMC collected payment from respondent UCPB
carriers. That liability arises the moment a
under its insurance contract
person or firm acts as a common carrier, w/o
regard to whether or not such carrier has also
Issue: WON, petitioner, a customs broker or
complied with the reqs of the applicable
warehouseman who offers his services to select
regulatory statute and implementing regulations
clients a common carrier?
and has been granted a CPC or other franchise.
PR is not liable for the value of the
Ruling:
undelivered goods which was lost because of
YES. According to art 1732, petitioner is a
an event entirely beyond PR’s control.
common carrier as transportation of goods is
Petitioner argues that PR should have hired a
an integral part of her business. Ruling
security guard to observe the extraordinary
otherwise would deprive those whom she
diligence but the court does not believe that in
contracts the protection which the law affords
the instant case, the standard of eod required
them notwithstanding the fact that the obligation
PR to retain a security to ride with the truck
to carry goods for her customers is part and
and to engage in brigands at the risk of his
parcel of petitioner’s business.
own life and the lives of the driver and his
Art 1732 makes no distinction between one
helper. The occurrence of the loss must
whose principal business activity is the carrying
reasonably be regarded as quite beyond the
of persons or goods or both, and one who does
control of the common carrier and properly
such carrying only as an ancillary activity. 1732
regarded as a fortuitous event. It is necessary to
also carefully avoids making any distinction
recall that even CC are not made absolute
between a person or enterprise offering
insurers against all risks of travel and of
transportation service on a regular or scheduled
transport of goods, and are not held liable for
basis and one offering such service on an
acts or events which cannot be foreseen or are
occasional basis. Episodic or unscheduled basis.
inevitable, provided that they shall have
Neither does the provision distinguish between a
complied with the rigorous standard of
carrier offering its services to the general public
extraordinary diligence.
and one who offers services or solicits business
only from a narrow segment of the general cargo truck was hijacked hence it exculpated
population. petitioner from any liability to CIPTRADE
Petitioner is liable because she failed to prove Issues: WON was the petitioner (the
that she exercised eod in the carriage of subcontractor) a common carrier?
goods, presumption of negligence under art Ruling:
1735 applies. 1735: if the goods are proved to YES. 1732 of CC, definition of common carrier.
have been lost, destroyed or deteriorated , The test to determine a common carrier is
common carriers are presumed to have been at “whether the given undertaking is a part of the
fault or to have acted negligently unless they business engaged in by the carrier which he has
prove that they have observed the eod required held out to the general public as his occupation
by law. rather than the quantity or extent of the business
It has been held that the mere proof of delivery transacted.” In this case, petitioner herself
of goods in good order to a carrier, and of their made the admission that she was in the
arrival at the place of destination in bad order, trucking business, offering her trucks to those
makes out a prima facie case against the carrier, with cargo to move. Judicial admissions are
so that if no explanation is given as to how the conclusive and no evidence is required to prove
injury occurred, the carrier must be held the same. Petitioner argues that there was only a
responsible. contract of lease because they offer their
services only to a select group of people but art
1732 makes no distinctions.
Loss of the goods was not due to force majeure.
Common carriers are obliged to observe eod in
BASCOS v CA
the vigilance over the goods transported by
them. There is a presumption of negligence if
Facts: the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated.
Rodolfo Cipriano representing CIPTRADE There are very few instances when the
entered into a hauling contract with Jibfair presumption of negligence does not attach and
shipping agency corporation whereby the former these instances are enumerated in 1734. In this
bound itself to haul the latter’s 2000 m/tons of case, petitioner alleged that hijacking constituted
soya bean meal from Magallanes drive, manila force majeure which exculpated her from
to the warehouse of Purefoods corp in Laguna liability for the loss of the cargo. In de guzman v
To carry out its obligation, CIPTRADE ca, hijacking, not being included in the
subcontracted with petitioner estrellita bascos to provisions of 1734, must be dealt with under
transport and to deliver the 400 sacks of soya 1735 and thus, the common carrier is presumed
bean however, petitioner failed to deliver the to have been at fault or negligent. To exculpate
said cargo the carrier from liability arising from hijacking,
Cipriano paid Jibfair shipping agency the he must prove that the robbers or the hijackers
amount of the lost goods acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence
Cipriano then demanded reimbursement from or force.
petitioner but petitioner refused to pay The presumption of negligence was raised
Petitioner then argues the following defenses: 1) against petitioner. It was petitioner’s burden to
that there was no contract of carriage since overcome it. Thus, contrary to her assertion, PR
CIPTRADE leased her cargo truck, 2) that the need not introduce any evidence to prove her
negligence. Her own failure to adduce sufficient
proof of eod made the presumption conclusive some principal part thereof, is let by the
against her. owner to another person for a specified time
or use; a contract of affreightment by which the
PLANTERS PRODUCT v CA owner of a ship or other vessel lets the whole or
a part of her to a merchant or other person for
the conveyance of goods, on a particular voyage,
Facts: in consideration of the payment of freight”
Planters Products purchased from Mitsubishi It went further on discussing the two types of
Inter’l Corp. 9.3K mt/tons of urea (fertilizer), charter-party: a. contract of affreightment –
46% of which the latter shipped in bulk aboard involves the use of shipping space on vessels
the cargo vessel M/V “Sun Plum” owned by leased by the owner in part or as a whole, to
Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha (KKKK) carry goods for others; may either be: i)time
A time charter Party on the vessel M/V “Sun charter -vessel is leased to the charterer for a
Plum '' pursuant to the Uniform General Charter fixed period of time; or ii)voyage charter - ship
was entered into between Mitsubishi as is leased for a single voyage b.charter by demise
shipper/charter and KKKK as shipowner or bareboat charter – whole vessel is let to the
Before loading the fertilizer aboard the vessel charterer with a transfer to him of its entire
they were inspected by the charterer’s command and possession and consequent
representative and found fit for loading. control over its navigation, including the master
After the Urea fertilizer was loaded in bulk by and the crew, who are his servants In both types,
stevedores (somebody whose job is to load and the charter party provides for the hire of vessel
unload ships), the steel hatches were closed with only, either for a determinate period of time or
heavy iron lids, covered with 3 layers of for a single or consecutive voyage, the ship
tarpaulin, then tied with steel bonds owner to supply the ship’s stores, pay for the
The hatches remained closed and tightly sealed wages of the master and the crew, and defray the
throughout the entire voyage. Port area was expenses for the maintenance of the ship.
windy, certain portions of the route to the Distinction between a “common or public
warehouse were sandy and the weather was carrier” and a “private or special carrier” lies
variable, raining occasionally while the in the character of the business, such that if
discharge was in progress. the undertaking is a single transaction, not a
Survey report revealed a shortage in the cargo of part of the general business or occupation,
106.726 M/T and that a portion of the Urea although involving the carriage of goods for a
fertilizer approximating 18 M/T was fee, the person or corporation offering such
contaminated with sand, rust and dirt. service is a private carrier.
Planters Products sent a claim letter to Common carriers should observe extraordinary
Soriamont Steamship Agencies, the resident diligence in the vigilance over the goods they
agent of the carrier, for damages. carry; in case of loss, destruction or deterioration
of the goods, it is presumed to be at fault or to
ISSUE: WON a common carrier becomes a have acted negligently, and the burden of
private carrier by reason of a charter-party proving otherwise rests on it.
Private carrier -exercise of ordinary diligence in
HELD: the carriage of goods will suffice; no such
Yes. presumption applies to private carriers only
The Supreme Court defined Charter- party when the charter includes both the vessel and its
as a “contract by which an entire ship, or
crew, as in a bareboat or demise that a common Issue: (1) which law should govern — the Civil
carrier becomes private, at least insofar as the Code provisions on Common carriers or the
particular voyage covering the charter-party is Carriage of Goods by Sea Act? and (2) who has
concerned the burden of proof to show negligence of the
when Planters Products chartered the vessel carrier?
M/V “Sun Plum”, the ship captain, its officers
and complement were under the employ of the Ruling:
ship owner and therefore continued to be under 1. The law of the country to which the goods
its direct supervision and control. are to be transported governs the liability of
As stranger to the crew and to the ship, Planters the common carrier in case of their loss,
destruction or deterioration. As the cargoes
Products did not have the duty of caring for its
were transported from Japan to the Philippines,
cargo as it did not have control of the means in the liability of Petitioner Carrier is governed
doing so. primarily by the Civil Code. However, in all
matters not regulated by said Code, the rights
and obligations of common carrier shall be
governed by the Code of Commerce and by
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v CA
special laws. Thus, the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Act, a special law, is suppletory to the
Facts: provisions of the Civil Code.
(G.R. No. L-69044): a vessel operated by 2. Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that
petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., loaded at all cases than those mention in Article 1734, the
Kobe, Japan for transportation to Manila, 5000 common carrier shall be presumed to have been
pieces of calorized lance pipes in 28 packages at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it
consigned to Philippine Blooming Mills Co., proves that it has observed the extraordinary
Inc., and 7 cases of spare parts consigned to diligence required by law. The burden is upon
Central Textile Mills, Inc.; both sets of goods Eastern Shipping Lines to prove that it has
were insured with Development Insurance and exercised the extraordinary diligence required by
Surety Corp. law.
Petitioner-carrier denied liability mainly on the Having failed to discharge the burden of
ground that the loss was due on the ground of proving that it had exercised the
extraordinary fortuitous event extraordinary diligence required by law,
(G.R. No. 71478): the same vessel took on board Eastern Shipping Lines cannot escape
128 cartons of garment fabrics and accessories, liability for the loss of the cargo. here was
in 2 containers, consigned to Mariveles Apparel actual fault of the carrier shown by lack of
Corporation, and two cases of surveying diligence in that when the smoke was noticed,
instruments consigned to Aman Enterprises and the fire was already big; that the fire must
General Merchandise the vessel caught fire and have started 24 hours before the same was
sank, resulting in the total loss of ship and cargo noticed; and that after the cargoes were
Petitioner Carrier denied liability on the stored in the hatches, no regular inspection
principal grounds that the fire which caused the was made as to their condition during the
sinking of the ship is an exempting circumstance voyage.
under Section 4(2) (b) of the Carriage of Goods - Since there was actual fault on the part of the
by Sea Act (COGSA); and that when the loss of carrier, it is liable for the loss. Article 1749
fire is established, the burden of proving allows the limitation of liability. Although the
negligence of the vessel is shifted to the cargo Code expressly permits a stipulation limiting the
shipper. liability of a carrier it does not of itself limit the
liability to a fixed amount per package. Thus,
the COGSA which is suppletory to the
provisions of the Civil Code, supplements by
establishing a statutory provision limiting the Petitioner urges that she could not be held
carrier’s liability in the absence of a declaration answerable for the loss of the cargo, because the
of a higher value of goods, which should not doctrine which makes the registered owner of a
exceed US$500 per package. common carrier vehicle answerable to the public
for the negligence of the driver despite the sale
of the vehicle to another person, applies only to
cases involving death of or injury to passengers.
What applies in the present case, according to
BENEDICTO v IAC petitioner, is the rule that a contract of carriage
requires proper delivery of the goods to and
acceptance by the carrier. Thus, petitioner
Facts: contends that the delivery to a person falsely
Greenhills Wood Industries - bound itself to sell representing himself to be an agent of the carrier
and deliver to Blue Star Mahogany, Inc. 100,000 prevents liability from attaching to the registered
board feet of sawn lumber with the owner.
understanding that an initial delivery would be The registered owner is liable for consequences
made. flowing from the operations of the carrier, even
Greenhills resident manager in Maddela, though the specific vehicle involved may
Dominador Cruz, contracted Virgilio Licuden, already have been transferred to another person.
the driver of a cargo truck, to transport its sawn This doctrine rests upon the principle that in
lumber to the consignee dealing with vehicles registered under the Public
Blue Star in Valenzuela, Bulacan; this cargo Service Law, the public has the right to assume
truck was registered in the name of Ma. Luisa that the registered owner is the actual or lawful
Benedicto, the proprietor of Macoven Trucking, owner thereof
a business enterprise engaged in hauling freight It would be very difficult and often impossible
the Manager of Blue Star called up Greenhills’ as a practical matter, for members of the general
president informing him that the sawn lumber on public to enforce the rights of action that they
board the subject cargo truck had not yet arrived may have for injuries inflicted by the vehicles
in Valenzuela, Bulacan; because of the delay in being negligently operated if they should be
delivery Blue Star was constrained to look for required to prove who the actual owner is.
other suppliers Greenhills is not required to go beyond the
Greenhill’s filed criminal case against driver vehicle’s certificate of registration to ascertain
Licuden for estafa; and a civil case for recovery the owner of the carrier
of the value of the lost sawn lumber plus
damages against Benedicto
Benedicto denied liability as she was a complete
stranger to the contract of carriage, the subject
truck having been earlier sold by her to
Benjamin Tee; but the truck had remained
registered in her name because Tee have not yet
fully paid the amount of the truck; be that as it
may, Tee had been operating the said truck in
Central Luzon from that and Licuden was Tee’s
employee and not hers

ISSUE: WoN Benedicto, being the registered

owner of the carrier, should be held liable for the
value of the undelivered or lost sawn lumber

HELD:
YES.
LITA ENTERPRISES INC v IAC Although not outrightly penalized as a criminal
offense, the kabit system is invariable
recognized as being contrary to public policy
Facts:
and therefor void and inexistent under 1409 of
Sps Nicasio Ocampo and francisca garcia, PR,
the CC
purchased 5 toyota cars to be used as taxicabs
It is a fundamental principle that the court will
Since they have no franchise to operate taxis,
not aid either part to enforce an illegal contract,
they contracted with petitioner Lite enterprises
but will leave them both where it finds them.
through its representative, Manuel Concordia,
Pari Delicto doctrine.
for the use of the latter’s CPC in consideration
of an initial payment of 1k and monthly rental of
200 per taxi unit 2ND READING ASSIGNMENT
Said cars were registered in the name of
petitioner but possession remained with the
Spouses Ocampo
About a year later, one of the taxicabs driven by FISHER v YANGCO STEAMSHIP
their employee, collided with a motorcycle
whose driver died from injuries sustained
therefrom
A criminal case was filed against the driver and Summary recit ready: fisher is a stockholder
a civil action was instituted against Lita of yangco steamship company. Directors of
enterprises being the registered owner of the
steamship adopted a resolution that the
taxicab
Lita enterprise was adjudged liable for damages company will not carry explosives, power or
and a writ of execution was issued, 2 of the dynamite. Collector of customs required the
vehicles of the spouses ocampo were levied company to accept and carry explosives to
upon and sold at public auction which Yangco refused. CoC suspended the
Nicasio ocampo then decided to register his issuance of clearance docus of the vessels of
taxicabs in his name and requested Lita Yangco unless they consent to accept and
enterprise to turn over the registration papers to
carry explosives for carriage. Despite fisher
him but the latter refused
demand to not accept and carry the
Hence, the spouses filed a complaint explosives, the managers of the company
refuse to cease carriage of such explosives due
Issue: won the spouses ocampo (PR) can be to the severity of the penalties if they will not
declared liable to petitioner for whatever amount consent. Fisher contends that a common
the latter has paid or was declared liable by the carrier may decline to accept for carriage any
CFI to the heir of the victim
object which it expressly declines to accept.
Ruling: SC ruled that Yangco company cannot refuse
No. to accept the questioned goods unless it
The parties herein operated under an appears that for some specific reason the
arrangement, commonly known as the “kabit discrimination against the traffic in such
system”, whereby a person who has been goods is reasonable. Refusal of a common
granted a CPC allows another person who carrier to accept any explosives for carriage
owns motors vehicle to operate under such
franchise for a fee. will result to the violation of prohibition
A CPC is a special privilege granted by the govt, against discrimination penalized under the
abuse of this privileged by the grantees thereof statue, unless for instances that are
cannot be countenanced. reasonable. There is no showing that yangco
is unsuited to carry such explosives hence, He contends “the duty of a common carrier to
they cannot refuse. carry for all who offer arises from the public
profession he has made, and is limited by it”

Facts: Issue: won Yangco steamship company can

Petitioner Fisher is a stockholder in the Yangco refuse the acceptance and carriage of explosives
Steamship company, the owner of a large
number of steam vessels, duly licensed to Ruling:
engage in the coastwide trade of the PH NO.
Directors of Yangco adopted a resolution and it The provision of Sec 3 of Act 98: “No common
declared that the company do not carry carrier engaged in the carriage of passengers or
dynamite, powder or other explosives and property as aforesaid shall, under any pretense
prohibited its officers and agents from offering whatsoever, fail or refuse to receive for carriage
to carry or accepting carriage of the same and to carry any person or property offering for
Acting collector of customs demanded and carriage,” is not to be construed in its literal
required Yangco the acceptance and carriage of sense and without regard to the context o
these explosives, and he refused and suspended The mandatory and prohibitory provisions of the
the issuance of clearance documents of the law was clearly intended to merely forbid
vessels of Yangco until it consents to accept failures or refusal to receive persons or property
such explosives for carriage for carriage involving any “unnecessary or
Fisher is advised and believes that should unreasonable preference or advantage to any
Yangco decline to accept the explosives for particular person, company, firm, corporation or
carriage, a proceeding will be instituted under locality or any particular kind of traffic”
the penal provisions of Act 989 against Yangco Common carriers in this jurisdiction cannot
Despite Fisher’s demands, Managers of the lawfully decline to accept a particular class of
company refuse to cease carriage of such goods for carriage to the prejudice of the traffic
explosives on the ground that by reason of the in those goods, unless it appears that for some
severity of the penalties they are threatened sufficient reason the discrimination against the
upon failure to carry such explosives traffic in such goods is reasonable and
Fisher believes that if Act 98 does indeed necessary. Mere whim or prejudice will not
require the company to carry such explosives, its suffice.
is unconstitutional to that extent The traffic in dynamite, gunpowder and other
Fisher seeks in these proceedings to enjoin the explosives is vitally essential to the material and
steamship company from accepting for carriage general welfare of the people of these islands
on any of its vessels, explosives and prohibit the and must be transported by water from port to
govt officials from all attempts to compel the port
company to accept such explosives for carriage; Therefore the refusal by a vessel, engaged as a
as well as to invoke the penalties if the company common carrier of merchandise in the coastwise
refuse trade of the PH, to accept any or all of the these
Fisher contends that a common carrier in the PH explosives for carriage would constitute a
islands may decline to accept for carriage any violation of the prohibitions against
shipment of merchandise of a class which it discriminations penalized under the statute,
expressly or impliedly declines to accept from unless it can be shown by affirmative evidence
all shippers alike that there is so real and substantial a danger of
disaster necessarily involved in the carriage all Kawit Island. After an hour, passengers who
these articles of merchandise as to render such were suffering mental distress demanded that
refusal a reasonable exercise of prudence and they be brought back to their port of origin.
discretion on the part of the shipowner Upon returning to Cebu, Atty Arroyo
Fisher’s prayer cannot be granted as it is not embarked the vessel and boarded another
alleged that the explosives can not be vessel of trans-asia. Atty arroyo filed a case
transported with the reasonable safety in the due to the failure of the common carrier to
steam vessels and that Yangco’s steamship transport him to his destination. SC ruled
vessels are unsuited to carry the explosives that trans-asia is liable for any pecuniary loss
or loss of profits which Atty Arroyo may have
suffered. However, because Atty arroyo
decided not to complete the voyage and took
another vessel, further delay can be
attributed to Atty bcos of his decision to
embark. But actual or compensatory
damages must be proved, which atty arroyo
failed to do so. There is no showing that he
did not receive his salary on the day of the
said voyage or that his absence was not
excused.

Facts:
Atty Renato Arroyo, PAO, bought a ticket from
Trans-Asia Shipping lines, Inc for the voyage of
M/V Asia Thailand vessel to CDO from Cebu
Upon boarding, he noticed that the engine of the
vessel was being repaired. Regardless, he
boarded the same
The vessel departed on time with one engine
running, then its engine conked out
The vessel the stopped near Kawit island and
dropped its anchor thereat
After half an hour of stillness, the passengers,
who already were suffering from mental distress,
demanded that they be brought back to their port
TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES INC v CA of origin
Upon arrival at Cebu, passengers who wished to
disembark were allowed 10 mins to do so, Atty
Summary: Atty Arroyo bought a ticket from Arroyo disembarked
trans asia shipping lines for the voyage of one After which, the vessel continued its voyage to
of its vessel from Cebu to CDO. He noticed CDO and Atty. Arroyo boarded another vessel,
upon boarding that the engine of the vessel also of Trans-Asia
was being repaired but nevertheless boarded
the same. During the voyag, the engine of the
vessel conked out and the vessel stopped near
Due to the failure of the common carrier to This, however, assumes that he stayed on the
transport him to his destination, Atty. Arroyo vessel and was with it when it thereafter
filed a case resumed its voyage; but he did not because he
decided to not complete the voyage and then
Issue: won Trans-asia is liable to Atty. Arroyo took another vessel
considering that the delay occurred during the Further delay was caused by the respondent’s
voyage decision to disembark. Had he remained on the
first vessel, he would have reached his
Ruling: destination earlier and thus been able to report
Yes. to his office in the afternoon
Although there was no delay in the But actual or compensatory damages must be
commencement of the contracted voyage a delay proved, which the PR failed to do. There is no
was incurred after the commencement convincing evidence that he did not receive his
specifically when the voyage was interrupted salary for 13 Nov 1991 nor that his absence was
when the only functioning engine conked out not excused
As to the rights and duties of the parties strictly
arising out of such delta, the CC is silent
However, art 698 of the code of commerce BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING v
which states: In case a voyage already begun PHIL FIRST INSURANCE
should be interrupted, the passengers shall be
obliged to pay the fare in proportion to the
distance covered, without right to recover for Facts:
losses and damages if the interruption is due to On June 13, 1990, CMC Trading A.G. shipped
on board the M/V 'Anangel Sky' at Hamburg,
fortuitous event or force majeure, but with a
Germany 242
right to indemnity if the interruption should have coils of various Prime Cold Rolled Steel sheets
been caused by the captain exclusively. If the for transportation to Manila consigned to the
interruption should be caused by the disability of Philippine Steel
the vessel and a passenger should agree to await Trading Corporation. On July 28, 1990, M/V
the repairs, he may not be required to pay any Anangel Sky arrived at the port of Manila and,
increased price of passage, but his living within the
subsequent days, discharged the subject cargo.
expenses during the stay shall be for his own Four (4) coils were found to be in bad order.
account” is applied suppletory pursuant to Art Finding the four
1766 of the CC (4) coils in their damaged state to be unfit for the
The cause of the delay or interruption was the intended purpose, the consignee Philippine Steel
petitioner’s failure to observe eod Trading
Art 698 read together with 2199, 2200, 2201, Corporation declared the same as total loss.
Petitioners refused to submit to the consignee's
and 2208 in relation to art 21 of the CC, means
claim. Consequently, respondent paid the
that the Trans-asia is liable for any pecuniary consignee and was
loss or loss of profits which Atty. Arroyo may subrogated to the latter's rights. Subsequently,
have suffered by reason thereof. For the respondent instituted this complaint for recovery
passenger, such would be the loss of income if of the amount
unable to report to his office on the day he was paid by them, to the consignee as insured.
supposed to arrive were it not for the delay Petitioners imputed that the damage and/or loss
was due to pre-shipment damage. In addition
thereto, they
argued that their liability, if there be any, should steel sheets found in bad order were wet with
not exceed the limitations of liability provided fresh water.
for in the bill of
lading and other pertinent laws. Finally, they Fifth, petitioners -- in a letter 31 addressed to the
averred that, in any event, they exercised due Philippine Steel Coating Corporation and dated
diligence and
October 12, 1990 -- admitted that they were
foresight required by law to prevent any
damage/loss to said shipment. aware of the condition of the four coils found in
RTC dismissed the Complaint because bad order and condition.
respondent had failed to prove its claims. In
reversing the trial court, the All these conclusively prove the fact of shipment
CA ruled that petitioners were liable for the loss in good order and condition and the consequent
or the damage of the goods shipped, because damage to the four coils while in the possession
they had failed to of petitioner,33 who notably failed to explain
overcome the presumption of negligence why.34
imposed on common carriers.
Further, petitioners failed to prove that they
Issue: won the petitioners have overcome the observed the extraordinary diligence and
presumption of negligence precaution which the law requires a common
carrier to know and to follow to avoid damage to
Ruling: or destruction of the goods entrusted to it for
safe carriage and delivery.35
That petitioners failed to rebut the prima facie
presumption of negligence is revealed in the
case at bar by a review of the records and more
so by the evidence adduced by respondent.25
ABETO v PHILI
First, as stated in the Bill of Lading, petitioners
received the subject shipment in good order and Facts:
condition in Hamburg, Germany.26 Judge Quirico Abato boarded the Philippine
Airline' plane at the Mandurriao Airport, Iloilo
Second, prior to the unloading of the cargo, an
City for Manila 2. The plane did not reach its
Inspection Report27 prepared and signed by
destination and there was news that the plane
representatives of both parties showed the steel
went missing. After 3 weeks, it was ascertained
bands broken, the metal envelopes rust-stained
that the plane crashed at Mt. Baco. All the
and heavily buckled, and the contents thereof
passengers have been killed including Judge
exposed and rusty.
Quirico Abeto. Condrada, Abeto’s wife, became
Third, Bad Order Tally Sheet No. 154979 28 the administratrix of the estate of Judge Abeto
issued by Jardine Davies Transport Services, and filed a complaint for damages against PAL
Inc., stated that the four coils were in bad order for the death of Judge Abeto. PAL on the other
and condition. Normally, a request for a bad hand, contends that the plane crash was due to a
order survey is made in case there is an apparent fortuitous event.
or a presumed loss or damage.29
Issue: won PAL is liable for violation of its
Fourth, the Certificate of Analysis30 stated that, contract of carriage
based on the sample submitted and tested, the
Ruling:
Yes. LU DO v BINAMIRA
Yes The Civic Code, as the law governing the
liability of common carriers, is clear and
Facts:
explicit: • Art. 1773 - binds common carriers
On August 10, 1951, the Delta Photo Supply
from the nature of their business and by reason
Company of New York shipped on board the
of public policy to observe extraordinary in
M/S "FERNSIDE" at New York, 6 cases of
vigilance for the safety of the passengers
films and/or photographic supplies consigned to
transported by them according to all the
the order of respondent Binamira. The ship
circumstances of each case. • Art. 1755 - a
arrived at the port of Cebu and cargo was
common carrier is required to carry the
discharged including the shipment in question,
passengers safely as far as human care and
placing it in the possession and custody of the
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence
arrastre operator of said port, the Visayan Cebu
of every cautious persons, with due regard for
Terminal Company, Inc. Petitioner hired a
all the circumstances. • Art. 1756 - in case of
stevedoring company to unload its cargo. During
death of or injuries to passengers, common
the discharge, good order cargo was separated
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to
from the bad order cargo on board the ship, and
have acted negligently, unless proved that they
a separate list of bad order cargo was prepared
observed extra ordinary diligence. • Art. 1757 -
by the checker of the stevedoring company. All
the responsibility of a common carrier for the
the cargo unloaded was received at the pier by
safety of passengers cannot be dispensed with or
the arrastre operator of the port. The terminal
lessened by stipulation, by posting of notices, by
company had also its own checker who also
statements on tickets, or otherwise, PAL is liable
recorded and noted down the good cargo from
for the death of Judge Abeto: • The plane did not
the bad one. The shipment in question, was not
take the designated route which was Iloilo-
included in the report of bad order cargo of both
Romblon-Manila or "Amber I", if it had taken
checkers, indicating that it was discharged from
this route, then the crash would have not
the, ship in good order and condition. Three
happened. This was even supported by the
days after the goods were unloaded from the
statements of Ramon Peroza (Administrative
ship, respondent took delivery of his 6 cases of
assistant of Philippine Air Lines Inc.)and Cesar
photographic supplies from the arrastre operator.
Mijares (Assistant Director of the Civil
He discovered that the cases showed signs of
Aeronautics Administration) The weather during
pilferage. Respondent hired marine surveyors, to
that time was clear and the pilot was supposed to
examine them. The surveyors examined the
cross airway "Amber I"' instead he made a
cases and made a physical count of their
straight flight to Manila in violation of air traffic
contents in the presence of representatives of
rules. Since there’s no satisfactory explanation
petitioner, respondent and the stevedoring
by PAL with regard to the accident, then the
company. The finding of the surveyors showed
presumption is it is at fault.
that some films and photographic supplies were
missing valued at P324.63.

ISSUE: Whether the carrier is responsible for

the loss considering that the same occurred after
the shipment was discharged from the ship and
placed in the possession and custody of the
customs authorities?
 it be made responsible for what may happen
RULING: NO. As a rule, a common carrier is during the interregnum. And this is precisely
responsible for the loss, destruction or what was done by the parties herein. In the bill
deterioration of the goods it assumes to carry of lading that was issued covering the shipment
from one place to another unless the same is due in question, both the carrier and the consignee
to any to any of the causes mentioned in Article have stipulated to limit the responsibility of the
1734 and that, if the goods are lost, destroyed or carrier for the loss or damage that may cause to
deteriorated, for causes other that those the goods before they are actually delivered
mentioned, the common carrier is presumed to
have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
unless it proves that it has observed
extraordinary diligence in their care and that this LRTA v NAVIDAD
extraordinary liability lasts from the time the
goods are placed in the possession of the carrier
until they are delivered to the consignee, or "to Facts:
the person who has the right to receive them". Navidad entered the EDSA LRT station after
These provisions only apply when the loss, purchasing a “token”. While Nicanor was
destruction or deterioration takes place while the standing at the platform near the LRT tracks, the
goods are in the possession of the carrier, and Escartin (guard) approached him. Due to
not after it has lost control of them. The reason misunderstanding, they had a fist fight. Nicanor
is that while the goods are in its possession, it is fell on the tracks and was killed instantaneously
but fair that it exercises extraordinary diligence upon being hit by a moving train. The widow of
in protecting them from damage, and if loss nicanor filed a complaint for damages against
occurs, the law presumes that it was due to its the petitioner.
fault or negligence. This is necessary to protect Petitioner insist that Escartin’s assault upon
the interest of the owner who is at its mercy. The Navidad, which caused the latter to fall on the
situation changes after the goods are delivered to tracks, was an act of strangers that could not
the consignee. While the Court of Appeals is have been foreseen or prevented.
correct in saying that while delivery of the cargo
to the consignee, or to the person who has a Issue: won LRTA is liable according to the
right to receive them", contemplated in Article contract of carriage
1736, because in such case the goods are still in
the hands of the Government and the owner Ruling:
cannot exercise dominion over them, SC Yes. the foundation of LRTA’S liability is the
believes however that the parties may agree to contract of carriage and its obligation to
limit the liability of the carrier considering that indemnify the victim arises from the breach of
the goods have still to through the inspection of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise
the customs authorities before they are actually the high diligence required of the common
turned over to the consignee. This is a situation carrier. In the discharge of its commitment to
where we may say that the carrier losses control ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may
of the goods because of a custom regulation and choose to hire its own employees or avail itself
it is unfair that of the services of an outsider or an independent
firm to undertake the task. In either case, the
common carrier is no relieved of its
responsibilities under the contract of carriage.
 with his obligations, must be
independent of human will
It must be impossible to foresee the
event which constitutes the caso
fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must
be impossible to avoid
The occurrence must be such as to
render it impossible for the debtor to
YOBIDO v CA fulfill his obligation in a normal manner
The obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of the
Facts: injury resulting to the creditor
Spouse Tito and Leny Tumboy and their minor As art 1174 provide, no person shall be
children, Ardee and Jasmin, boarded at Surigao responsible for a fortuitous event which could
del Sur, a bus of Yobido not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was
In the middle of its journey, the left front tire of inevitable.
the bus suddenly exploded. The bus fell into a
ravine and struck a tree which resulted in the
GACAL v PAL
death of Tito Tumboy and physical injuries to
other passengers Facts:
Thereafter, a complaint for breach of contract of Plaintiffs boarded a PAL plane bound from
carriage was filed by Leny and her children Davao to Manila
against Alberta Yobido who is the owner of the 6 members of Moro national Liberation Front
bus and Crecencio who is the driver (MNLF) hijacked the plane and ordered the crew
In this petition, petitioner allege that the tire to land in Zamboanga for refueling for a
blowout that caused the death of Tito Tumboy subsequent flight to Sabah
was a caso fortuitio (force majuere) Negotiations took place (that rebels demanded
they be taken to Libya with the president of PAL
Issue: won the tire blowout was a fortuitous as hostage, that they be given 376k us dollars,
event and 6 armalites otherwise they will blow up the
plane) in Zamboanga between the hijackers and
Ruling: the military but it failed and a battled ensued
Once a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is between them
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted The surviving crew and passengers were able to
negligently. This disputable presumption may escape because of the battle that ensued
only be overcome by evidence that the carrier 10 passengers and 3 hijackers were dead on the
had observed extraordinary diligence or that the spot
death or injury of the passenger was due to a Plaintiffs sue for recovery of damages
fortuitous event.
In the case at bar, the contention of the petitioner Issue: won the hijacking is a fortuitous event
must fail. which would exempt PAL from liability
Requisites of a fortuitous event:
The cause of the unforeseen occurrence Ruling:
or the failure of the debtor to comply Yes.
Carriers are presumed at fault or to have acted
negligently whenever a passenger dies or is
injured.
There is a breach of contract of carriage if it fails
to exert extraordinary diligence according to all
NECESITO v PARAS
the circumstances of the case in exercise of the
utmost diligence of a very cautious person Facts:
Such presumption is only overcome when there Severino Garces and her 1 year old son,
is a showing of the exercise of an extraordinary Precillano Necesito, boarded passenger of the
diligence or the accident was caused by a PH rabbit Bus lines at Agno, Pangasinan
fortuitous evident The bus was driven by Francisco Bandonell and
In the case at bar, all the elements of fortuitous after passing Mangatarem, the bus entered a
event are present: wooden bridge, but the front wheels swerved to
Cause of the breach of the obligation the right
must be independent of the human will - Driver lost control, and after wrecking the
failure to transport of the passengers bridge’s wooden rails, the bus fell on its right
safely was due to the skyjacking caused side into a creek where water was breast deep
by the MNLF members without Severina was drowned and Precillano was
connection with PAL, hence injured
independent of the will of either PAL or He was brought to the provincial hospital at
of its passenger Dagupan
Event must be unforeseeable or The money, wrist watch and cargo of vegetables
unavoidable - incident occurred during were lost
Martial Law where there was a military Hence 2 actions for damages were filed
take over of airport security including
the frisking of of passengers and the Issue: won PH rabbit bus line Is liable for
inspection of their luggage preparatory damages caused by engine or mechanical defect
to boarding domestic and intl flights
Event must be such as to render it Ruling:
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his Yes.
obligation in a normal manner - martial A carrier is liable for passengers who suffer
law and military take over of airports injuries due to mechanical issues with the
rendered it impossible for PAL to vehicle. His breach of the utmost degree of care
perform its obligations in a normal required by law constitutes negligence, which
manner and obviously it cannot be justifies his liability and in case of a passenger’s
faulted with negligence in the death or injury the carrier bears the burden of
performance duty takne over by the AFP satisfying the court that he has duly discharged
Debtor must be free from any the duty of prudence required
participation in, or aggravation of the The passenger has neither choice nor control
injury to the creditor - no dispute as to over the carrier in the selection and use of the
this element equipment and appliances in use by the carrier
Hence, PAL is exempted from payment of and has no connection with the manufacturer of
damages. the defective equipment, therefore has no legal
remedy against him but the carrier typically The carrier’s liability is absolute in the sense
does, which justifies the carrier’s liability that it practically secures the passengers from
assaults committed by its own employees

MARANAN v PEREZ
BACHELOR EXPRESS v CA
Facts:
Rogelio Corachea was a passenger of a taxicab Facts:
owned and operated by the defendant when he Bus 800, which is owned by Bachelor Expresss,
was stabbed and killed by the driver, Simeon was driven by Cresencio Rivera, came from
Valenzuela. davao on its way to CDO passing Butuan city
The driver was prosecuted for homicide and was While at Butuan city, the bus picked up a
convicted. passenger
An appeal from said conviction was taken to the 15 mins later, a passenger suddenly stabbed a
CA and while appeal was pending, the mother of PC soldier which caused commotion and panic
the deceased initiated an action to recover among the passengers
damages from the driver and operator Ornominio Beter and Narcisa Rautraut were
Defendants claimed that it was fortuitous event found lying down the road, both of them were
since the deceased was the first one to assault dead
the driver and the driver killed the deceased in The passenger assailant alighted from the bus
an act of self-defense and ran toward the bushes but was killed by the
police
Issue: won Perez is liable under Art 1759 of the The heirs of Beter and Rautrat filed a complaint
civil code for sum of money against Bachelor Express
CA found Bachelor Express liable to pay the
Ruling: heirs of deceased damages
Yes.
The new civil code expressly makes the Issue: won the sudden act of passenger who
common carrier liable for intentional assaults stabbed another passenger within the context of
committed by its employees upon its passengers. force majeure and therefore, absolve Bachelor
There are 2 basis of the carrier’s liability for Express from liability
assaults on passengers committed by its drivers
rests either on Ruling:
Doctrine of respondeat superior Yes.
Principle of carrier’s implied duty to The sudden act of the passenger who stabbed
transport the passenger safely another in the bus within the context of force
The second doctrine was applied in this case, majeure. However, the common carrier must
which is the majority view, where the carrier is prove that it was not negligent in causing
liable as long as the assault occurs within the injuries resulting from such accident in order
course of the performance of the employee’s that a common carrier may be absolved from
duty liability in case of force majeure, it is not
It is no defense for the carrier that the act was enough that the accident was caused by force
done in excess of authority or in disobedience of majeure.
the carrier’s orders
Court held that the running amuck of the who checked it in for him without declaring its
passenger was the proximate cause of the contents or the value thereof
incident such that the passengers started running Upon arrival in manila, Rapadas claimed and
to the sole exit shoving each other resulting in was given all his checked baggage except the
the falling off the bus by passengers Beter and samsonite attache case
Rautraut Pan-Am was unable to locate the lost bag so
The negligence of the common carrier, through Pan-Am offered to settle the lost bag for $160
its employees, was exemplified by the driver’s which is the airline’s limit of liability for loss or
belated stop and the reckless opening of the damage to a passenger’s personal property
doors of the bus while the same was traveling at Rapadas refused to settle and filed an action for
a fast speed damages alleging that Pan-Am that airlines
The common carrier also acknowledge the fact neglected in its duty in handling and safekeeping
that the bus was commissioned to travel and his luggage and that the value of the lost bag
take on passengers while equipped with only a amounts to $42,000
solitary door for a bus its size and loading Petitioner maintains that its liability for the lost
capacity which contravenes the rules and baggage was limited to $160 since Rapadas did
regulations of land transportation and traffic not declare a higher value for his baggage
code Rapadas insists that he is entitled to as much
Hence, the petitioner failed to overcome the damages as those awarded by the court
presumption of fault and negligence
Issue: won a passenger is bound by the terms of
a passenger ticket declaring the limitations of
liability

Ruling:
Yes.
In the case at bar, the baggage check is
PAN-AM v RAPADAS combined with the passenger ticket in one
document of carriage
The provisions in the plane ticket sufficient to
Facts: govern the limitations of liabilities of the airline
Jose Rapadas purchased a plane ticket from Pan- for loss of luggage
Am Airways bound for Manila from Guam The passenger, upon contracting with the airline
While Rapadas was waiting to check in at the and receiving the plane ticket, was expected to
Guam Airport, he was ordered by Pan-Am’s be vigilant insofar as his luggage is concerned. If
hand carry control agent to check in his the passenger fails to adduce evidence to
Samsonite attache case overcome stipulations, he cannot avoid the
Rapadas protested arguing that other passengers application of the liability limitations
were allowed to hand carry bulkier baggage The facts show that Rapadas actually refused to
He went to the end of the line hoping he would register the attache case and chose to take it with
not have to register his luggage but the same him despite having been ordered by Pan-Am to
man in charge of hand carry control ordered him check it in
to register his bag
Fearing that he would miss his flight, he agreed
to check it in. He gave his bag to his brother
Prudence of a reasonably careful person also
dictates that cas and jewelry should be removed
from checked-in-luggage 3RD READING ASSIGNMENT
Alleged lack of enough time to declare the value
of the said lost bag cannot justify his failure to
comply with the requirement that will exclude
that application of limited liability. If he LARA v VALENCIA
registered his luggage on the first time that he
Facts:
was ordered by the person in charge, he could
The deceased, Demetrio Lara Sr, was an
have had enough time to disclose the true worth
inspector of the Bureau of Forestry stationed in
of articles or remove them from the checked-in-
Davao. Defendant, Valencia is engaged in the
luggage
business of exporting logs from his lumber
If Rapadas was not allowed to hand-carry the
concession in Cotabato
lost attache case, it can only mean that he was
Lara went to siad concession upon instructions
carrying more than the allowable weight for all
of his chief to classify the logs of Valencia
his luggage or more than the allowable number
which were about to be loaded on a ship
of hand carried items
anchored in the port of Parang
We cannot hold the carrier liable because of
His work lasted for 6 days during which he
arbitrariness, discrimination or mistreatment
contracted malaria fever
absent proof of any inexcusable negligence on
One morning, Lara asked Valencia if he could
the part of the carrier
take him in his pick up to Davao as there was no
The reasons behind stipulations on liability
other means of transportation, to which Valencia
limitations arise from the difficulty of
agreed
establishing the contents of a lost suitcase
The pick-up left Parang bound to Davao taking
If the loss of life or property is caused by the
along six passengers including Lara. Lara was
gross negligence of the airline or the contents of
invited by the defendant to come sit with him on
the lost luggage are proved by satisfactory
the front seat, but he declined.
evidence other than the self-serving declarations
During the trip, Lara sat at the back of the pick-
of one party, the court will not hesitate to
up, on a bag in the middle with his arms on a
disregard the fine print in a contract of adhesion.
suitcase and his head covered by a jacket.
Otherwise, the court is constrained to rule on the
Upon reaching barrio Catidtuan, Lara
basis of the provisions of the contract
accidentally fell from the pick-up and then
suffered serious injuries
They brought Lara to the nearest place where
they could find a doctor and not having to found
any, they took him to St. Joseph’s Clinic of
Kidapawan. But when Lara arrived, he was
already dead.
It therefore appears that the deceased as well as
his companions who rode in the pick-up of
defendant, were merely accommodation
passengers who paid nothing for the service, and
so they can be considered as invited guests.
As accommodation passengers or invited guests, own negligence, the carrier cannot be held
defendant as owner and driver of the pick-up liable.
owes to them merely the duty to exercise
reasonable care so that they may be transported
safely to their destination.
Defendant is only required to observe ordinary CALTEX v SULPICIO
care, and is not duty bound to exercise
extraordinary diligence as required of a common
carrier by the law. Facts:
Motor tanker MT Vector left Bataan enroute to
Issue: won the Valencia failed to observe Masbate, loaded with 8,800 barrels of petroleum
ordinary care or diligence in transporting the products shipped by petitioner Caltex
deceased MT Vector is a tramping motor tanker owned
and operated by Vector Shipping Corporation,
Ruling: engaged in the business of transporting fuel
No. products
The Supreme Court held that all things During that particular voyage, the MT vector
considered, the accident occurred not due to the carried on board gasoline and other oil products
negligence of the defendant but to circumstances owned by Caltex by virtue of a charter contract
beyond his control and that he should be exempt between them
from liability. The next day, passenger ship MC Dona Paz,
The Supreme Court stated that there is nothing owned and operated by Sulpicio lines, left the
to indicate that the defendant has acted with port of Tacloban headed for Manila with with a
negligence or without taking the precaution that complement of 59 crew members and
an ordinary prudent man would have taken passengers
under similar circumstances. Thereafter, the 2 vessels collided in the open sea
There is every reason to believe that the within the vicinity of Dumali point between
unfortunate happening was only due to an Marinduque and Oriental Mindoro
unforeseen accident by the fact that at the time Only 24 survived the tragedy after having been
the deceased was half-asleep and must have rescued from the burning waters
fallen from the pick-up when it ran into some The board of marine inquiry found that Vector
stones causing it to jerk considering that the road Shipping Corporation was at fault and
was then bumpy, rough and full of stones. responsible for its collision with MV Dona Paz
The Supreme Court also states that they may Teresita and Sotera Canezal, wife and mother of
rather attribute the incident to lack of care on the Sebastian Canezal, one of the victims, filed a
part of the deceased considering that the pick-up complaint for damages arising from breach of
was open and he was then in a crouching contract of carriage against Sulpicio lines
position Sulpicio filed a third-party complaints against
. Indeed, the law provides that “A passenger Vector and Caltex
must observe the diligence of a good father of a
family to avoid injury to himself” (Article 1761, Issue: won Caltex, being the charterer/shipper,
NCC), which means that if the injury to the is liable for breach of warranty of seaworthiness
passenger has been proximately caused by his
Ruling:
No.
Under a demise or bareboat charter, the charterer When the collision occurred, the sea was calm,
mans the vessel with his own people and the weather fair and visibility good
becomes subject to liability for damages caused As a result of this collision, MV Don Juan sank
by negligence. If the charter is a contract of and hundreds of its passengers perished
affreightment, which leaves the general owner in Among the dead victims were the parents of
possession of the ship as owner for the voyage, petitioners, Sps Perfecto and Sofia Mecenas
the rights and the responsibilities of ownership Petitioners filed a complaint in CFI QC against
rests on the owner. The charterer is free from Negros Navigation and Capt Roger Santisben
liability to third persons in respect of the ship. the captain of DOnjuan
In this case, the charter party agreement did not Petitioners claim that it was the negligence of
convert the common carrier into a private Negros Navigation and Capt Santisteban
carrier. The parties entered into a voyage
charter, which retains the character of the vessel Issue: won the common carrier is liable for the
as a common carrier. death resulting from the collision
Under the COGSA, the carriers are deemed to
warrant impliedly the seaworthiness of the ship. Ruling:
For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be Yes.
adequately equipped for the voyage and manned Negros Navigation and Capt Santistiben are
with a sufficient number of competent officers jointly and severally liable to pay plaintiffs
and crew. The failure of a common carrier to In case of death of or injuries to passengers,
maintain in seaworthy condition the vessel common carriers are presumed to have been at
involved in its contract of carriage is a clear fault or to have acted negligently, unless they
breach of its duty prescribed in art 1755 of the prove that they observed extraordinary
CC. negligence
Caltex and Vector shipping corporation had Common carrier are liable for the death of or
been doing business for about two years before injuries to passengers through the negligence or
the tragic incident. Past services rendered willful acts of the former’s employees, although
showed no reason for Caltex to observe a higher such employees may have acted beyond the
degree of diligence scope of their authority or in violation of the
Clearly, as a mere voyage charterer, Caltex had orders of the common carriers
the right to presume that the ship was seaworthy SC believe that the behavior of the Don Juan
as even the PH Coast guard itself was convinced captain in this instance – playing mahjong
of its seaworthiness. before and up to the time of collision –
constitutes behaviors that is simply unacceptable
on the part of the master of a vessel to whose
MECENAS v CA hand the lives and welfare of at least 750 had
been entrusted
Whether the capt was on duty or no around the
Facts: actual time of collision is quite immaterial as
MT “Tacloban City”, a bargetype oil tanker and there is no “off duty” hours, in contemplation of
MV Don Juan, an inter island vessel, owned and law, for the master of a vessel at sea that is a
operated by Negros Navigation Co collided at common carrier upon whom the law imposes the
the Talbas Strait in the vicinity of the island duty of EOD
Mindoro
Records also show that this is not the first time That based on the testimony of Dolores, there
that Capt had entertained himself during a was no conversation between the them inside the
voyage by playing mahjong with his jeep that could have distracted the attention of
officers/passengers; hence Negros navigation in the accused while driving the jeep
permitting, or in failing to discover and correct As to the condition of the jeep, there was
such behavior, must be deemed grossly nothing wrong with it according to dolores
negligent That according to petitioner, Elena Awichen
suddenly held the steering wheel to the opposite
side of the mountain and he felt her foot stepped
BAYASEN v CA on his foot which was pressed on the accelerator
then the jeep swerved to the right and went off
Obvious that the proximate cause of the tragedy
Facts: was the skidding of the rear wheels of the jeep
Saturnino Bayasen, rural health physician in and not the “unreasonable speed” of Bayasen
Sagada Mt Province, went to barrio Ambasing to because there is no evidence to prove that
visit a patient It is a well known physical tact that cars may
2 nurses from the St. Theodore’s Hospital in skid on greasy or slippery roads, as in the instant
Sagada case, without fault on account of the manner of
Elena Awichen and Dolores Balcita, rode with handling the car. Skidding means partial or
him in the jeep assigned for the use of the Rural complete loss of control of the car under
health unit to go to Ambasing circumstances not necessarily implying
The girls again asked if they could ride with him negligence. It may occur without fault.
up, they wanted to gather flowers, to Barrio SKidding being an unforeseen event, petitioner-
Suyo which he intended to visit anyway driver who skidded could not be regarded as
He allowed the girls to ride with him negligent
That otw to the Barrio suyo, at barrio langtiw,
the jeep went over a precipice about 8ft below
the road, it was blocked by a pine tree
MALLARI v CA
The 3 were thrown out of the jeep, Elena was
found lying in a creek below, suffered skull
fracture which caused her death Facts:
Bayasen was charged with Homicide with The passenger jeepney driven by Mallari Jr and
reckless imprudence owned by Mallari Sr collided with the delivery
van of Bulletin along the National Highway in
Issue: won bayasen was negligent in driving his Dinalupihan, Bataan
jeep Mallari Jr testified that he went to the left lane of
the highway and overtook a Fiera which had
Ruling: stopped on the right lane
No. Before he passed by the Fiera, he saw the van of
There was no legally sufficient proof that Bulletin coming from the opposite direction
showed that the accused was negligent in which was driven by Felix Angeles
driving his jeep The collision occurred after Mallari Jr overtook
Dolores Bacita testified that Bayasen was the Fiera while negotiating a curve in the
driving his jeep moderately highway
The impact caused the jeepney to turn around failing to consider the speed thereof since it was
and fall on its left side resulting in the injuries to still dark at 5 am mindlessly occupied the left
its passengers one of whom was Israel Reyes lane and overtook 2 vehicles in front of it at a
who eventually died due to the gravity of his curve in the highway
injuries Clearly, the proximate cause of the collision
Claudia Reyes, widow of Israel Reyes, filed a resulting in the death of Israel was the sole
complaint for damages against Mallari Sr and Jr negligence of the driver of the jeepney, Mallari
and against Bulletin driver Jr who recklessly operated and drove his jeepney
The complaint alleged that the collision which in a lane where overtaking was not allowed by
resulted in the death of Israel was cause by the the traffic rules
fault and negligence of both drivers of the Under 2185 of the CC, unless there is proof to
passenger jeepney and the Bulletin delivery van the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving
RTC ruled that the proximate cause of the motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of
collision was the negligence of driver of the the mishap he was violating a traffic regulation
bulletin delivery van In this case, Mallaris failed to present
CA modified the decision and ruled that the satisfactory evidence to overcome this legal
proximate cause of the collision was due to the presumption
negligence of Mallari Jr The negligence and recklessness of the driver of
the passenger jeepney is binding against Mallari
Issue: won Mallari Jr and Mallari Sr are liable Sr who is the owner of the passenger jeepney
for the death of Israel engaged as a common carrier considering the
fact that in an action based on contract of
Ruling: carriage, the court need not make an express
Yes. finding of fault or negligence on the part of the
The collision occurred immediately after Mallari carrier in order to hold it responsible for the
Jr overtook a vehicle in front of it while payment of damages sought by the passenger
traversing a curve on the highway. This act of (1755, 1756, and 1758 of common carrier’s
overtaking was in clear violation of Sec 41 pars liability)
(a) and (b) of RA 4136 or the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code
A driver abandoning his proper lane for the NOCUM v LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO
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 Facts:
do so in safety Nocum was a passenger in Laguna Tayabas Bus
When a motor vehicle is approaching or No. 120 then making a trip within the barrio of
rounding a curve, there is a special necessity for Dita in Laguna, Nocum was injured as a
keeping to the right side of the road and the consequence of the explosion of firecrackers,
driver does not have right to drive on the left contained in a box, loaded in said bus and
hand side relying upon having time to turn to the declared to its conductor as containing clothes
right if a car approaching from the opposite and other items by a co-passenger
direction comes into view Nocum sued Laguna tayabas for breach of
Mallari Jr already saw that the Bulletin delivery contract of carriage
van was coming from the opposite direction and Trial Court held Laguna Tayabas liable as it was
found that it did not observed EOD
 Arabia, for a period of one year through Pan
Issue: whether or not Laguna Tayabas is liable Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services Inc
Lapuz was supposed to leave on Nov 8 1980, via
Korean Airlines
Ruling: Initially he was wait-listed meaning he could
No. only be accommodate if any passengers failed to
In overland transportation, the common carrier show up at the airport before departure and
is not bound nor empowered to make an when 2 of such passengers did not appear, Lapuz
examination on the contents of packages or and another person, Perico, were given the 2
bags, or particularly those handcarried by unclaimed seats
passengers Lapuz was allowed to check in with one suitcase
Additionally, 1733 is not as unbending as the and one shoulder bag at the check-in counter of
Trial Court has held because it reasonably KAL, he passed through customs and
qualifies that the eod required of cc for the immigration for routine check-up and was
safety of the passengers transported by them to cleared for departure
be “according to all the circumstances of each He rode in the shuttle bus and proceeded to the
case” ramp of the KAL aircraft for boarding.
It must be considered that while it is true that However, when he was at the third or fourth
passengers of the bus should not be made to rung of the stairs, a KAL officer pointed to him
suffer for something over which they had no and shouted “Down, down!” and was barred
control, fairness demands that in measuring a from taking the flight
common carrier’s duty, allowance must be given When he later asked for another booking, his
to the reliance that should be reposed on the ticket was canceled by KAL and was unable to
sense of responsibility of all the passengers in report for his work in Saudi and lost his
regard to their common safety employment
It is to be presumed that a passenger will not Thereafter, KAL alleged that the agent of Pan
take with him anything dangerous to the loves Pacific was informed that there are 2 seats
and limbs of his co-passengers, not to speak of possibly available and priority was given to
his own. Perico, supervisor of the hiring company in
Not to be lightly considered must be the right to Saudi. The other seat was won through lottery
privacy which each passenger is entitled to. He by Lapuz
cannot be subjected to unusual search when he However, only one seat became available and
protest, as in the case at bar. Constitutional was given to Perico bcos he was given the
boundaries are already in danger of being priority
transgressed
Issue: won KAL committed a breach of contract
of carriage

Ruling:
KOREAN AIRLINES v CA Yes.
KAL committed a breach of the contract of
carriage between them when it failed to bring
Facts: Lapuz to his destination.
Juanito Lapuz, an automotive electrician, was
contracted for employment in Jeddah, Saudi
The status of Lapuz as standby passenger was
changed to that of a confirmed passenger when
his name was entered in the passenger manifest
of KAL. His clearance through immigration and
customs clearly shows that he had indeed been
confirmed as a passenger of KAL in that flight.
A contract to transport passengers is different in
kind and degree from any other contractual
relation.
The contract of air carriage generates a relation
attended with a public duty. Passengers have the
right to be treated by the carrier’s employees
with kindness, respect, courtesy and due
consideration. Any discourteous conduct on the
part of these employees toward the a passenger
give the latter an action for damages against the
carrier
The breach of contract was aggravated in this
case when instead of courteously informing
Lapuz of his being a “wait listed”passenger, a
KAL officer rudely shouted “Down! Down!”
while pointing at him, causing public
humiliation
The evidence presented by Lapuz shows that he
had indeed checked in at the departure counter,
passed through customs and immigration,
boarded the shuttle bus and proceeded to the
ramp of KAL’s aircraft. In fact his baggage had
already been loaded in KAL’s aircraft, to be
flown with him to Jeddah. Hence the contract of
carriage between him and KAL had already been
perfected when he was prevented from boarding
the aircraft BILL OF LADING

MACONDRAY AND COMPANY INC., v

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Facts:
- The vessel S/S TAI PING, of which
petitioner is the local agent, arrived at
the port of Manila from San Francisco,
California, USA, conveying various
shipments of merchandise
- Among which was a shipment of (1) one declare correctly the cargoes they
of each: coil carbon steel, bundle of convey as covered by the pertinent bill
carbon steel flat and carton containing of lading. That the vessel of the
carbon tool holders carbide cutters, all petitioner oftentimes been reported
of which appeared in the Bill of Lading committing the same violations, which
no. 22, consigned to Bogo Medellin conduct is tantamount to willful and
Millings Co Inc (BMMCI) deliberate defiance of constituted
- The 1 coil carbon steel was not reflected authority
in the Inward Cargo Manifest as - Petitioner paid under protest the fine
required by Section 1005 in relation to imposed
Sec 2521 of the TCCP - Collector of Custom ordered the
- Allied Brokerage Corp, acting in behalf dismissal of the said protest for lack of
of consignee of BMMCI, requested merit
petitioner Macondray & Co, to correct - Appealed to the Commissioner of
the manifest of the steamer so that it Custom which sustained the decision of
may take delivery of the goods at Collector of Customs
Custom House - Court of Tax Appeals affirmed the
- The Collector of Custom required herein previous decisions
petitioner to explain and show cause - Hence the instant case
why no administrative fine should be
imposed upon said vessel Issue: won the bill of lading whereon the
- Counsel for petitioner wrote a letter to shipment was correctly manifested was not
the CoC which says that, appearing substantial compliane with the provision of Sec
from its client’s records, the disputed 1005 of the TCC
shipment was described in the ship’s
manifest as “1 coil carbon steel” only. Ruling:
However, the bill of lading issued and Yes.
surrendered to our client, called for the - Petitioner contends that from “the fact
delivery of 1 coil carbon steel, 1 bundle the whole shipment was indicated in the
carbon steel flat and 1 carbon containing bill of lading, it is clear that the
tool holders carbide cutters ground deficiency of the original vessel’s
- That upon investigation of its client, it manifest was adequately supplied by the
was verified that the vessel actually entries of said bill of lading hence no
carried on board and discharged at violation of TCC” – which conclusion is
Manila the 3 as called for in the bill of erroneous
lading and that its client immediately - Sec 1005: manifest required of vessel
applied with the Bureau for the from foreign port – that every vessel
appropriate amendment to reflect the from a foreign port must have on board
true correct description of the shipment a complete manifest of all her cargo
and to effect its release from the custom - Inclusion of the unmanifested cargoes in
house the Bill of Lading does not satisfy the
- The CoC replied that: records show that requirement of the aforequoted sections
the vessels under the agency of the of the TCC
petitioner have oftentime failed to
- It is to be noted that nowhere in the said YSMAEL v BARRETTO
section is the presentation of Bill of
Lading is required, but only the
Facts:
presentation of a Manifest containing a
- Plaintiff, Juan Ysmael & Co Inc, a
true and accurate description of the
domestic corp, seeks to recover from the
cargoes
defendants the amount of P9,904 which
- This is for the simple reason that while a
is the alleged value of 4 cases of
manifest is a declaration of the entire
merchandise which it delivered to the
cargo, a bill of lading is but a
steamship Andres at Manila to be
declaration of a specific part of the
shipped to Surigao, but which were
cargo and is a matter of business
never delivered to Salomon Sharuff, the
convenience based exclusively on a
consignee, or returned to the plaintiff
contract
- Defendant answered and denied all
- The object of a manifest is to furnish the
allegations and alleged that the 4 cases
customs officers with a list to check
of merchandise in question were never
against, to inform our revenue officers
delivered to them.
what goods are being brought into the
- Additionally, provision of paragraph 7
country, and to provide a safeguard
of the printed conditions appearing on
against goods being brought into this
the back of the bill of lading, plaintiff’s
country and to provide a safeguard
right of action is barred for the reason
against goods being brought into this
that it was not brought within 60 days
country
from the time the cause of action
- While a bill of lading is ordinarily
occurred
merely a convenient commercial
- Lower court rendered judgment for the
instrument designed to protect the
plaintiff
importer or consignee, a manifest of the
cargo is absolutely essential to the
Issue: won plaintiff is bound by the terms of the
exportation or importation of property in
bills of lading covering the shipments
all vessels
- Since, the purpose served by the
Ruling:
manifest is far different from that of the
No.
bill of lading, the contention of the
- Par 7 of the BoL states that “suits based
petitioner do not hold water that the
upon claims arising from shortage,
entries in the bill of lading adequately
damage, or nondelivery of shipment
supplied the deficiency of the manifest
shall be instituted within 60 days from
and cured of its infirmity
date of accrual of the right of action.
- Law imposes the absolute obligation
Failure to make claims or to institute
and provides a penalty for failure to
judicial proceedings as herein provided
perform such an obligation. Hence,
shall constitute a waiver of the claim or
where the law requires a manifest to be
right of action.”
kept or delivered, it is not complied with
- Plaintif’s original complaint was filed a
unless the manifest is true and accurate.
little less than 6 months after the
shipment was made.
- Appellants argues on the ff grounds that were delivered to the plaintiff and
in the absence of express statutory therefor, not binding upon the plaintiff
prohibition, it is competent for the
parties to a contract of shipment to agree
on a limitation of time shorter than the
statutory limitation, within which action
for breach of the contract shall be
brought but in order for the limitation to
be effective, it must be reasonable. SWEET LINES INC v TEVES
- Hence the trial court held that such
stipulations in the BoL are not
reasonable, therefore, do not bar an Facts:
action - Private respondents, Atty. Tandog and
- Additionally, it said that granting that Rogelio Tiro, a contractor by
said conditions appearing on the back of professions, bought tickets for Voyage
the originals might have legal effect, in 90 at the branch office of petitioner, a
view of the fact that said conditions are shipping company transporting inter-
not printed on the triplicate copies island passengers and cargoes at CDO
which were delivered to the plaintiff, - Respondents were to board the
such conditions are not binding upon the petitioner’s vessel M/S Sweet Hope
plaintiff bound for Tagbiliran City via the port of
- All things considered, the court clearly Cebu
of the opinion that the action was - PRs went to the branch office for proper
brought with a “reasonable time” relocation to M/S Sweet Town because
- It is true that both the plaintiff and the the first vessel they were bound to board
defendants are residents of Manila, but was not proceeding to Bohol because
it is also true that Surigao where the many passengers were bound for
goods in question were to be delivered Surigao
is one of the most distant places from - Because the said vessel was already
Manila filled to capacity, they were forced to
- In the very nature of things, plaintiff agree “to hide at the cargo section to
would not want to commence its action avoid inspection of the PH coastguard”
until such time as it had made a full and - PR alleged that they were exposed to the
careful investigation of all of the scorching heat of the sun and dust
material facts and even the law of the coming from the ships’s cargo during
case the trip
- With regard to the issue of the clause of - That the tickets they bought at CDO for
12 BoL expressing that the carrier shall Tagbilaran were not honored hence they
not be liable for loss or damage from were constrained to pay for other tickets
any cause unless the value and contents - PR sued petitioner for damages and for
of such packages are correctly declared breach of contract of carriage before
in the BoL, such conditions are not CFI of Misamis Oriental
printed on the triplicate copies which - Petitioner moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of improper
venue because the condition printed at
 the back of the tickets reads that “any provisions of which have been drafted
and all actions arising out of the only by one party. Such contracts are
conditions and provisions of this ticker, contracts of adhesions, because the only
irrespective of where it is issued, shall participation of the party is the signing
be filed in the competent courts in Cebu of his signature or his “adhesion”.
City Insurance contracts, bills of lading fall
- Motion filed by petitioner was denied by into this category
the Trial court hence this instant petition - By the peculiar circumstance under
which contracts of adhesion are entered
Issue: won the condition no. 14 printed at the into, certain guidelines in the
back of the petitioner’s passage tickets determination of their validity or
purchased by PR valid and enforceable enforceability have been formulated.
Such contracts obviously cap for greater
Ruling: strictness and vigilance on the part of
No. the courts of justice with a view to the
- It is no question that there was a valid protecting the weaker party from abuses
contract of carriage entered into by and imposition.
petitioner and private respondents and - Additionally, the protection of the
that the passage of tickers are the best disadvantaged is expressly enjoined by
evidence. Whenever the passenger NCC.
boards a ship for transportation, he is - Condition 14 is void and unenforceable
issued a ticket which has all the for the ff reasons: 1) under
elements of a written contract: 1) circumstances obligation in the inter-
consent manifested by the fact that the island shipping industry, it is not just
passenger boards the ship and the and fair to bind passenger to the terms
shipper accepts him in the ship for of the conditions printed at the back of
transportation; 2) cause or consideration the passage tickets; 2) the condition
is the fare paid; 3) object which is the subverts the public policy on transfer of
transportation of the passenger from the venue proceedings of this nature, since
place of departure to the place of the same will prejudice rights and
destination which are stated in the ticket interests of innumerable passengers in
- With respect to the 14 conditions – one different parts of the country who, under
of which is condition 14 – printed at the the said condition, will have to file suits
back of the tickets, are commonly agianst petitioner only in Cebu CIty
known as “contracts of adhesion”, the
validity of which will have to be
determined by the peculiar SALUDO v CA
circumstances obtaining in each case
and the nature of the conditions or terms
sough to be enforced Facts:
- Generally, stipulations in a contract - After the death of plaintiffs’ mother,
come about after being drafted by the Crispina Saludo, in Chicago, Pomierski
parties thereto, there are certain and Son Funeral Home of Chicago,
contracts where almost all the made the necessary preparations and
 arrangements for the shipment, of the with the TWA counter and was told that
remains from Chicago to the PH there was no body on that flight
- The funeral home had the remains - They took the TWA flight upon
embalmed and secured a permit for the assurance of her cousin that the latter
disposition of dead human body will look into the matter and inform her
- PH Vice consul in Chicago, Llante at about it on the plane but no confirmation
the aforementioned funeral home, sealed from her cousin reached her
the shipping case containing a - Upon arrival at San Francisco, she went
hermetically sealed casket that is airtight to the TWA counter there to inquire
and waterproof wherein was contained about her mother’s remains, they told
the remains, on the same date Pomierski her that they did no know anything
brought the remains to CMAS about it
(continental Mortuary Air Services) at - Upon informing Pomierski that her
the Chicago airport mother’s remains were not at the West
- CMAS is national service used by Coast terminal, Pomierkso was informed
undertakers to throughout US, they by CMAS that the remains were on a
furnish the air pouch which the casket is plane to Mexico City, that there were 2
enclosed in and they see that the remains bodies at the terminal and somehow
are taken to the proper air freight they were switched. CMAS then called
terminal again and told him they were sending
- CMAS booked the shipment with PAL the remains back to CA via Texas
thru the carrier’s agent Air Care - Based on the incident report by
International with Pomierksi F.H as the Pomierski, the remains of Crispina
shipper and Mario Saludo as consignee Saludo were taken to CMAS at the
- PAL Airway bill Ordinary was issued airport; that there were 2 bodies at the
wherein the requested routing was from Chicago airport terminal and somehow
Chicago to San Francisco (oct 27) on they were switched, that the remains of
board TWA flight and then from San Crispina Saludo were on a plane to
Francisco to Manila (oct 27) and from Mexico
Manila to Cebu (oct 29) - Thereafter, the shipment of remains
- Originally the plaintiffs were booked Crispina Saludo arrived in San
with United Airlines from Chicago to Francisco from Mexico and was
California and with PAL California to transferred to PAL, that the casket was
Manila. However, upon knowing from opened in Mexico and was resealed for
the funeral director that her mother’s shipment to the PH
remains were booked with TWA flight, - The shipment arrived in Manila, a day
she and her brother changed their after its expected arrival
reservation flight from UA to the TWA - Damage suit was filed by the petitioners
flight upon confirmation the her before the CFI against TWA (for
mother’s remains should be on that misshipment and eventual delay in the
TWA flight delivery of the remains and) and PAL
- When they went to the airport, she saw (for delay in delivery)
no body being brought so she check - CFI absolved the two airlines
 - CA affirmed the decision of the lower - However, there are instances of an
court inverse order of events that is, the
execution of the bill of lading even prior
Issue: won the PR failed to exercise to actual possession and control by the
extraordinary diligence required which resulted carrier of the cargo to be transported as
to switching and/or delay in the delivery of the there is no law which requires the
remains of petitioners’ mothers delivery and the issuance of the bill of
lading must coincide in point of time
Ruling: No. - In the case at bar, on Oct 26 the cargo
- TWA and PAL are not liable for containing the casketed remains of
switching of caskets prior to their Crispina Saludo was booked for PAL
receipt of agreed cargo flight leaving San Francisco for Manila
- TWA is without authority to verify the on Oct 27, PAL airway bill was issued,
contents of casket and when the cargo not as evidence of receipt of delivery of
was received from CMAS at the the cargo but merely as confirmation of
Chicago airport terminal for shipment, the booking made for the San Francisco-
TWA had no way of determining its Manila flight but it was not actually
actual contents, since the casket was until October 28 that PAL received
hermetically sealed by the PH Vice physical delivery of the body at San
consul in Chicago and in an air pouch of Francisco
CMAS, to the effect that TWA had to - As a rule provided under art 1736 that
rely on the information furnished by the the eod responsibility of the common
shipper regarding the cargo’s content carrier begins from the time the goods
- Thus, under said circumstances, no fault are delivered to the carrier, this
or negligence can be attributed to PAL responsibility terminates only after the
and TWA, the entire fault or negligence lapse of reasonable time for the
being exclusively with CMAS acceptance of the goods by the
- It can be correctly concluded that the consignee. And there is delivery to the
switching happened while the cargo was carrier when there is delivery to the
still with CMAS, well before the same carrier when the goods have been placed
was placed in the custody of PR in the exclusive possession and control
- CMAS classified as forwarder, is an of the carrier
agent of the shipper and not of the - The facts in the case at bar belie the
carrier, hence it it is erroneous to averment that there was delivery of the
conclude that CMAS acted as agent for cargo to the carrier on Oct 26, rather the
TWA and PAL body intended to be shipped as agreed
- A bill of lading is a written upon was really placed in the possession
acknowledgment of the receipt of the and control of PAL on Oct 28 and it was
goods and an agreement to transport and from the date that PR became
deliver them at a specified place to a responsible for the agreed cargo under
person named or on his order. Foreign their undertakings in the aforementioned
and local jurisprudence, bill of lading is PAL airway bill.
prima facie evidence of the receipt of
the goods by the carrier.
 - For the will malevolent act of
petitioner’s manager, petitioner, his
employer, must answer
ACTIONS AND DAMAGES IN CASE OF
- Art 21 of the CC: any person who
BREACH
willfully causes loss or injury to another
in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall
AIR FRANCE v CARRASCOSO compensate the latter for the damage
- A contract to transport passengers is
quite different in kind and degree from
Facts:
any other contractual relation. And this,
- Carrascoso is a civil engineer, was a
because of the relation which an air-
member of a group of 48 Filipino
carrier sustains with the public. Its
pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes.
business is mainly with the travelling
Air France, through PAL, issued to
public. It invites people to avail of the
Carrascoso a first class round trip
comforts and advantages it offers. The
airplane ticket from MNL to Rome
contract of air carriage, therefore,
- From MNL to Bangkok, Carrascoso, Air
generates a relation attended with a
france told Carrascoso to vacate his first
public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of
class seat because there was a white man
the carrier's employees, naturally, could
who had allegedly a better right
give ground for an action for damages.
- Carrascoso refused to vacate his first
- Passengers do not contract merely for
class seat and told the Air France’s
transportation. They have a right to be
manager that his seat would be taken
treated by the carrier's employees with
over his dead body, hence a commotion
kindness, respect, courtesy and due
ensued
consideration. They are entitled to be
- According to Ernesto Cuento, many
protected against personal misconduct,
filipino passengers got nervous in the
injurious language, indignities and
tourist class and when they found out
abuses from such employees. So it is
the Carrascoso was having a hot
that any rule or discourteous conduct on
discussion with the manager they
the part of employees towards a
pacified Carrascoso to give his seat to
passenger gives the latter an action for
the white man but Carrascoso refuse to
damages against the carrier.
gave his first class seat in the plane
- Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso is
- CFI ruled in favor of the airline and
one attended with public duty. The
ordered to pay Carrascoso
stress of Carrascoso's action, as we have
- CA reduced the amount but affirmed the
said, is placed upon his wrongful
decision of the CFI
expulsion. This is a violation of public
duty by the petitioner air carrier — a
Issue: won the employer be liable for the
case of quasi-delict. Damages are
tortious act of its employees
proper.
Ruling: Yes.
 was brought to Danao City hospital and
then transferred to another hospital
TIU v ARRIESGADO where she died shortly thereafter
- Respondent Pedro filed a complaint for
breach of contract of carriage against D
Facts: Rough Riders bus operator William Tiu
- At about 10pm, of march 15 1987, the and Laspinas
cargo truck marked “condor hollow - Respondent alleged that the bus was
blocks and general merchandise” was cruising at a fast and high speed along
loaded with firewood in Bogo, cebu and the national road
left for cebu
- Upon reaching Sition Aggies, Issue: won there was a breach of contract of
Poblacion, Compostela, Cebu, just as carriage
the truck passed over a bridge, one of its
rear tires exploded Ruling: Yes.
- Sergio Pedrano, the driver, parked along - Petitioner Tiu failed to overcome the
the right side of the national highway presumption of negligence against him
and removed the damaged tire to as one engaged in the business of
vulcanized at a nearby shop common carriage
- Pedrano left his helper, Jose Mitante Jr - The rules which common carriers should
to keep watch over the stalled vehicle, observe as to the safety of their
and instructed the latter to place a spare passengers are set forth in the Civil
tire behind the stalled truck to serve as a Code, Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756.
warning for oncoming vehicles, truck - In this case, respondent Arriesgado and
tail lights were also left on his deceased wife contracted with
- Around 4 am, D Rough passenger bus petitioner Tiu, as owner and operator of
driven by Virgilio Laspinas was cruising D’ Rough Riders bus service, for
along the national highway of Sitio transportation from Maya,
Aggies, also bound for Cebu City and Daanbantayan, Cebu, to Cebu City. It is
had come from Maya, Daanbantayan, undisputed that the respondent and his
Cebu wife were not safely transported to the
- Among its passengers were the spouses destination agreed upon.
Pedro Arriesgado and Felisa Arriesgado, - In actions for breach of contract, only
who were seated at the right side of the the existence of such contract, and the
bus, about 3 or 4 places from the front fact that the obligor, in this case the
seat common carrier, failed to transport his
- As the bus was approaching the bridge, passenger safely to his destination are
Laspinas saw the stalled truck and the matters that need to be proved.
applied the breaks and tried to swerve to - This is because under the said contract
the left to avoid hitting the truck but it of carriage, the petitioners assumed the
was too late as the bus rammed into the express obligation to transport the
trucks respondent and his wife to their
- The impact left several passengers destination safely and to observe
injured, Pedo Arriesgado suffered a
fracture in his right colles and his wife
 extraordinary diligence with due regard Zaragoza and was entered in the chattel
for all circumstances. mortgage registry of the register of
- While evidence may be submitted to deeds
overcome such presumption of - These proceedings were begun when a
negligence, it must be shown that the petition was filed with the CFI of cebu
carrier observed the required in which it was prayed that Jarque be
extraordinary diligence, which means declared an insolvent debtor, which was
that the carrier must show the utmost granted and with the result that an
diligence of very cautious persons as far assignment of all the properties of the
as human care and foresight can insolvent was executed in favor of Jose
provide, or that the accident was caused Corominas
by a fortuitous event. - Judge Hontiveros declined to order the
- As correctly found by the trial court, foreclosure of the mortgages, but on the
petitioner Tiu failed to conclusively contrary sustained the special defense of
rebut such presumption. The negligence fatal defectiveness of the mortgages
of petitioner Laspiñas as driver of the - Vessels are considered personal
passenger bus is, thus, binding against property under the civil law. Code of
petitioner Tiu, as the owner of the commerce, art 585.
passenger bus engaged as a common - Under the common law, vessels are
carrier personal property although occasionally
referred to as a peculiar kind of personal
property
MARITIME LAW
- Since the term “personal property
includes vessels, they are subject to
PH REFINING CO v JARQUE mortgage agreeably to the provisions the
Chattel Mortgage Law
Facts: - Mortgage on a vessel is in nature a
- Petitioner, on varying dates, and chattel mortgage
respondent executed three mortgages on - It is not now necessary for a chattel
the motor vessels Pandan and Zaragoza mortgage of a vessel to be noted in the
- These documents were recorded in the registry of the register of deeds but it is
record of transfers and incumbrances of essential that a record of documents
vessels for the port of cebu and each affecting the title to a vessel be entered
was labeled a “chattel mortgage” in the record of the collector of customs
- Neither of the first two mortgages had at the port of entry
appended an affidavit of good faith - Chattel mortgage law, sec 5: in
- The third mortgage contained such an describing what shall be deemed
affidavit but this mortgage was not sufficient to constitute a good chattel
registered in the customs house or mortgage, includes the requirement of
within the period of thirty days prior to an affidavit of good faith appended to
the commencement of insolvency the mortgage and recorded therewith
proceedings against Jarque - Absence of affidavit vitiates a mortgage
- A fourth mortgage was executed by as against creditors and subsequent
Jarque and Aboitiz on the motorship encumbrancers
 - As a consequence a chattel mortgage of Felman Shipping (FELMAN), 7,500
a vessel wherein the affidavit of good cases of 1-liter of coca-cola softdrink
faith required by the Chattel Mortgage bottles to be transported from
Law is lacking, is unenforceable against Zamboanga to Cebu for consignee
third persons. CCBPI Cebu
Issue: won the documents appearing in the - Shipment was insured with petitioner
record do not constitute chattel mortgages PH American General Insurance Co
Ruling: (PHILAMGEN)
- MV Asilda left the port of Zamboanga
in fine weather at 8pm of the same day
- At around 8:45am the next morning, the
vessel sank in the water of Zamboanga
del norte bringing down her entire cargo
with her including the cases of coca-cola
softdrink bottles
- CCBPI Cebu filed a claim with the
respondent FELMAN for recovery of
damages it sustained as a result of the
loss of its softdrink bottles that sank
with the vessel
- FELMAN denied the claim thus CCBPI
PH AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE v
Cebu filed an insurance claim with
CA
PHILAMGEN which paid its claim
Doctrine: Ship’s liability can be limited through - Claiming its right of subrogation
abandonment of the vessel, its equipment and PHILAMGEN sought recourse against
freightage as provided in Art. 587. Nonetheless, FELMAN which disclaimed any
there are exceptional circumstances wherein the liability for the loss and then sued the
ship agent could still be held answerable despite shipowner for sum of money and
the abandonment, as where the loss or injury damages
was due to the fault of the shipowner and the - PHILAMGEN alleged that the sinking
captain. The international rule is to the effect and total loss of the vessel and its cargo
that the right of abandonment of vessels, as a were due to the vessel’s
legal limitation of a shipowners liability, does unseaworthiness as she was put to sea in
not apply to cases where the injury or average an unstable condition, that it was
was occasioned by the shipowners own fault. improperly manned and its officers were
Where the shipowner is likewise to be blamed, grossly negligent in failing to take
Art. 587 will not apply, and such a situation will appropriate measures to proceed to a
be covered by the provisions of the Civil Code nearby port/beach after the vessel started
on common carrier. to list
- FELMAN filed a motion to dismiss
Facts: arguing that no right of subrogation in
- Coca-cola Bottler’s PH inc (CCBPI) favor of PHILAMGEN was transmitted
loaded on board MV Asilda, a vessel by the shipper, and that, in any event,
owned and operated by respondent FELMAN had abandoned all its rights,
 interests and ownership over MV Asilda - It was already established that the
together with her freight for the purpose sinking of the vessel was due to the
of limiting and extinguishing its liability vessel’s unseaworthiness and that closer
under 587 of COC supervision on the part of the shipowner
- RTC dismissed the complaint of could have prevented this fatal
PHILAMGEN miscalculation hence FELMAN was
- CA set aside the dismissal and equally negligent
remanded the case to the lower court - It cannot escape liability through the
- RTC rendered judgment in favor of filing of a notice of abandonment of the
FELMAN, that the vessel was vessel under art 587
seaworthy - Art 1733 of the cc provides common
- CA reversed said ruling carriers are bound to observe eod and
hence, in the event of loss of goods,
Issue: won the limited liability under 587 of common carries are presumed to have
COC should apply acted negligently
- FELMAN, the shipowner, was not able
Ruling: NO. to rebut this presumption
- MV Asilda was unseaworthy because - Need p ba yung sa issue ng subrogation
the proximate cause of the sinking of the dito?
vessel was its being top-heavy. Carried
a cargo of softrdrink bottles on the
vessel’s deck cargo even though MV
asilda is not designed to carry a SWEET LINES v CA
substantial amount of cargo on deck.
- The ship agent is liable for the negligent Doctrine: A captain who, having agreed to
acts of the captain in the care of goods make a voyage, fails to fulfill his undertaking,
loaded on the vessel without being prevented by fortuitous event or
- This liability however can be limited force majeure, shall indemnify all the losses
through abandonment of the vessel, its which his failure may cause, without prejudice
equipment and freightage as provided in to criminal penalties which may be proper. In
587 case of interruption of a voyage already begun,
- The exceptional circumstances is when the passengers shall only be obliged to pay the
the loss or injury was due to the fault of fare in proportion to the distance covered,
the shipowner and the captain then the without right to recover damages if the
ship agent could still be held answerable interruption is due to fortuitous event or force
despite the abandonment majeure, but with a right to indemnity, if the
- Art 587 speaks only of situations where interruption should have been caused by the
the fault or negligence is committed captain exclusively. If the interruption should be
solely by the captain. caused by the disability of the vessel, and the
- Therefore, where the shipowner is passenger should agree to wait for her repairs,
likewise to be blamed, 587 will not he may not be required to pay any increased
apply and such situation will be fare of passage, but his living expenses during
covered by the provisions of the CC on the delay shall be for his own account.
common carrier
Facts:
 - Private respondents purchased first-class repairs, he may not be required to pay
tickets from petitioner Sweet Lines at any increased fair of passage, but his
the latter’s office in Cebu living expenses during the delay shall be
- They were to board petitioner’s vessel, for his own account.
MV Sweet Grace, bound for - Crucial factor: force majeure
Catbalogan, Western Samar - Without it, the right to damages and
- The vessel set sail at 3am of July 9, indemnity exists against a captain who
1972 instead of the scheduled hour of fails to fulfill his undertaking or where
about midnight on July 8, however they the interruption has been caused by the
were towed back to Cebu due to engine captain exclusively
trouble, arriving there at 4pm on the - There was no force majeure which
same day prevented the vessel from fulfilling its
- After the repairs, the vessel proceed to undertaking of taking private
sail again on July 10 at around 8am respondents to Catbalogan because
- Instead of docking at Catbalogan, the mechanical defects are not considered a
vessel proceeded direct to Tacloban caso fortuito that exempts the carrier
therefore PR disembarked and boarded a from responsibility
ferryboat to Catbalogan - Additionally, even granting arguendo
- Hence this suit for damages for breach that the engine failure was a force
of contract of carriage majeure, it accounted only for the delay
in departure
Issue: won there is a breach of contract of - When the vessel left the port of Cebu,
carriage there was no longer any force majeure
that justified by-passing a port of call
Ruling: YES. - Reason for by-passing port of
- Art 614 of the COC: a captain who, Catbalogan was to enable the vessel to
having agreed to make a voyage, fails to catch up with its schedule for the next
fulfill his undertaking, w/o being week
prevented by force majeure, shall - The voyage to Catbalogan was
indemnify all the losses which his interrupted by the captain upon
failure may cause, w/o prejudice to instruction of management. The
criminal penalties which may be proper. interruption was not due to force
- Art 698: in case of interruption of a majeure nor to the disability of the
voyage already begun, the passengers vessel
shall only be obliged to pay the fare in - Having been caused by the captain, the
proportion to the distance covered, passenger’s right to indemnity is evident
without right to recover damages if the - The owner of a vessel and the ship agent
interruption is due to force majeure, but shall be civilly liable for the acts of the
with a right to indemnify, if the captain
interruption should have been caused by
the captain exclusively. If the FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE v
interruption should be caused by the METROPORT SERVICES
disability of the vessel, and the
passenger should agree to wait for her Doctrine: The legal relationship between the
consignee and the arrastre operator is akin to
that of a depositor and warehouseman. The broken, dented, cracked and no longer
relationship between the consignee and the useful for their purposes
common carrier is similar to that of the - The value of damage was paid by the
consignee and the arrastre operator. Since it is petitioner insurance company to the
the duty of the arrastre to take good care of the consignee
goods that are in its custody and to deliver them - Petitioner, under its subrogation rights,
in good condition to the consignee, such then filed a suit against Maerks Line, the
responsibility also devolves upon the carrier. carrier as agent and E. Razon Inc for the
Both the arrastre and the carrier are recovery of the amount it paid
therefore charged with and obligated to deliver - Trial court ruled in favor of the
the goods in good condition to the consignee petitioner insurance company
- The carrier and Maersk Line negotiated
Facts: with the petitioner and no longer
- Vulcan Industrial and Mining pursued their appeal
Corporation imported from the US - On appeal of the arrastre, CA reversed
several machineries and equipment the previous decision
which were loaded on board the S/S
Albert Maersk at the port of Issue: won Maerks (carrier) and Metro Port
Philadelphia, USA and transhipped for (arrastre) be held liable solidarity
Manila through the vessel S/S Maersk
Tempo Ruling: Yes.
- The cargo which was covered by a clean - The legal relationship between the
billd of lading issued by Maersk Line consignee and the arrastre operator is
and Compania General De Tabacos de akin to that of a depositor and
Filipinas (the carrier) warehouseman. The relationship
- Shipment arrived at the port of MNL between the consignee and the common
and was turned over complete and in carrier is similar to that of the consignee
good order condition to the arrastre and the arrastre operator. Since it is the
operator E. Razon Inc (now Metro Port duty of the arrastre to take good care of
Service Inc and is referred to as the the goods that are in its custody and to
Arrastre) deliver them in good condition to the
- Few days later, Danilo Librando, a consignee, such responsibility also
tractor operator, and employed by the devolves upon the carrier. Both the
arrastre, was ordered to transfer the arrastre and the carrier are therefore
shipment to the equipment Yard at Pier charged with and obligated to deliver
3 the goods in good condition to the
- While Librando was maneuvering the consignee
tractor, the cargo fell from the chassis - To carry out its duties, the Arrastre is
and hit one of the container vans of required to provide cargo handling
American President Lines because there equipment which includes among others
were no twist locks at the rear end of the trailers, chassis for containers. In some
chassis where the cargo was loaded cases, however, the shipping lines has
- There was heavy damage to the cargo as its own cargo handling equipment
the parts of the machineries were
- In this case, the records reveal that INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL
Maersk Line provided the chassis and v PRUDENTIAL
the tractor which carried the subject
Doctrine: When cargo is placed on a vessel at
shipment, it merely requested the
the “shipper’s load and count,” the arrastre
arrastre to dispatch a tractor operator to
operator is required only to deliver to the
drive the tractor inasmuch as the foreign
consignee the container van received from the
shipping line did not have any truck
shipper, not to verify or to compare the contents
operator in its employ
thereof with those declared by the shipper. A
- It is the arrastre which had the sole
claim for reimbursement for the loss, damage or
discretion and prerogative to hire and
misdelivery of goods must be filed within 15
assign Librando to operate the tractor,
days from the date the consignee of such
and arrastre’s sole decision to detail and
problem(s).
deploy Librando for that particular task
from among its pool of tractor
Facts:
operators/drivers. It is, therefore,
- Mother vessel “Tao He” loaded and
inaccurate to state that Librando should
received on board in San Francisco, CA,
be considered an employee of Maersk
a shipment of 5 lots of canned foodstuff
Line on that specific occasion
complete and in good order and
- Handling cargo is mainly the Arrastre’s
condition for transport to MNL in favor
principal work so its drivers/operators,
of Duel Food Enterprises (consignee)
or employees should observe the
- China Ocean Shipping Company
standards and indispensable measures
(COSC) issued the corresponding BoL
necessary to prevent losses and damage
therefore
to shipments under its custody
- Consignee insured the shipment with
- It is then the duty of the arrastre to see
Prudential Guarantee and Assurance
to it that the driver’s under its employ
against all risks
must exercise due diligence in the
- Thereafter, the shipment arrived at the
performance of their work
Port of Manila and discharged by the
- From the testimonies of witnesses
vessel MS Wei He in favor of petitioner
presented, it shows that driver Librando
Intl Container Terminal Services for
was remiss in his duty, that as tractor-
safekeeping
operator he should have first inspected
- D. Reyna Customs Brokerage
the chassis and made sure that the cargo
(defendant brokerage) withdrew the
was securely loaded on the chassis
shipment and delivered the same to the
- Whether or not the twist lock can be
consignee, the inspection revealed that
seen by the naked eye when the cargo
161 cartons were missing
has been loaded on the chassis, an
- Claim for indemnification of the loss
efficient and diligent tractor operator
having been denied by ICTSI and the
must nevertheless check if the cargo is
brokerage, consignee sought payment
securely loaded on the chassis
from Prudential, hence consignee
received a compromised sum in
settlement thereof
 - As subrogee, Prudential instituted the - 2) Yes. In order to hold the arrastre
instant complaint against said operator liable for lost or damaged
defendants (ICTSI and brokerage) goods, the claimant should file with the
- ICTSI counters that it observed eod over operator a claim for the value of said
the shipment while under its custody; goods “within 15 days from the date of
the loss is not attributable to its fault or discharge of the last package from the
its agent that consignee failed to file a carrying vessel”
formal claim against it; that the - The filing of the claim for loss within
complaint states no cause of action the 15 days period is in the nature of a
- Trial court dismissed Prudential’s prescriptive period for bringing an
complaint against ICTSI action and is a condition precedent to
- CA reversed said decision holding the arrastre operator liable
- The said requirement gives the arrastre
Issue: 1) won ICTSI is negligent in its duty to contractor a reasonable opportunity to
exercise due diligence over the shipment? check the validity of the claim, while
2) won the consignee failed to file a formal the facts are still fresh in the minds of
claim within 15 days from the date of issuance the persons who took part in the
of bad order certificate, which is stated on the transaction, and while the pertinent
dorsal side of the arrastre and wharfage receipt documents are still available. The
period of 15 days is sufficient for the
Ruling: consignee to file a provisional claim
- 1) No. The consigned goods were after the discharge of the goods from
shipped under “Shipper’s Load and the vessel.
Count.” This means that the shipper was - In the case at bar, the consignee had all
solely responsible for the loading of the the time to make a formal claim from
container, while the carrier was the day it discovered the shortage in the
oblivious to the contents of the shipment. After discovering the loss,
shipment. The arrastre operator was the consignee asked the adjuster to
duty-bound to take good care of the investigate the reason for the short-
goods received from the vessel and to landing of the shipment. By the time the
turn the same over to the party entitled claim for loss was filed, four months
to their possession, subject to such had already elapsed from the date of
qualifications as may have validly been delivery
imposed in the contract between the - The failure to file the claim within 15
parties days from the time the loss was
- Arrastre operator was not required to discovered, relieved the arrastre
verify the contents of the container operator of any liability for the
received and to compare them with nondelivery of the goods
those declared by the shipper because - Rational behind the time limit is that,
the cargo was at the shipper’s load and without it, a consignee could too easily
count. The arrastre operator was concoct or fabricate claims and deprive
expected to deliver to the consignee the arrastre operator of the best
only to the container received from the opportunity to probe immediately their
carrier veracity
 - The vessel lifted anchor and proceeded
to the MIP
FAR EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY v CA - When the vessel reached the landmark
(the big church by the Tondo North
Doctrine: A pilot, in maritime law, is a person Harbor), one half mile from the pier,
duly qualified, and licensed, to conduct a vessel Gavino ordered the engine stopped and
into or out of ports, or in certain waters, to guide then ordered the anchor dropped when
vessels into or out of ports, and entrusted with the vessel was already about 2,000 feet
the navigation of vessels on the high seas. The from the pier
pilot supersedes the master for the time being in - Kavankov relayed the orders to the
the command and navigation of the ship, and his crew of the vessel but when the left
orders must be obeyed in all matters connected anchor were dropped, the anchor did
with her navigation. He becomes the master pro not take hold as expected and the speed
hac vice and should give all directions as to of the vessel did not slacken
speed, course, stopping and reversing - Kavankov assured Gavino that there
anchoring, towing and the like. The master is was nothing to it when a commotion
still in command of the vessel notwithstanding ensued between the crew members and
the presence of a pilot. There are occasions a brief conference also ensued between
when the master may and should interfere and kavankov and the crew members
even displace the pilot, as when the pilot is - Then Gavino noticed that the anchor did
obviously incompetent or intoxicated and the not take hold so he ordered the engines
circumstances may require the master to half-astern
displace a compulsory pilot because of - But Abellana, who was then on the pier
incompetency or physical incapacity. apron, noticed that the vessel was
approaching the pier fast, Kavankov
FACTS: also noticed that the anchor did not take
- MV PAVLODAR, flying under the hold therefore, Gavino gave the “full-
flagship of the USSR, owned and astern” code
operated by Far Eastern Shipping - The bow of the vessel rammed into the
Company (FESC), arrived at the port of apron of the pier causing considerable
MNL from Vancouer, British Columbia damage to the pier and to the vessel
at 7am - Per contract and supplemental contract
- The vessel was assigned Berth 4 of the of the PH Ports Authority (PPA) and
MNL international port (MIP) the contractor for the rehabilitation of
- Captain Abellana was tasked by the PH the damaged piers, the same cost the
Port authority to supervise the berthing PPA the amount of Php1,126,132.25
of the vessel - PPA then filed before the RTC a
- Senen Gavino was assigned by the complaint for a sum of money against
Manila Pilot’s Association (MPA) to FESC, Capt. Gavino and the MPA
conduct docking maneuvers for the safe - Trial court ordered the defendants to
berthing of the vessel to berth no. 4 PPA the amount
- Gavino boarded the vessel and stationed - CA affirmed said decision of the RTC
himself in the bridge, with the master of - Hence FESC and MPA elevated the
the vessel, Victor Kavankov beside him case to SC via separate petitions
 the vessel and the pilot under a
ARGUMENTS compulsory pilotage? Yes.
FESC: asserts the MV PAVLODAR was under
compulsory pilotage of Capt Gavino at the time RULING:
of the incident. It is him who was in command - Bear in mind the evidentiary rule in
and had complete control in the navigation and American jurisprudence that there is a
docking of the vessel. Hence, he was solely presumption of fault against a moving
responsible for the damage caused upon the pier vessel that strikes a stationary object
apron, and not the owners of the vessel. The such as a dock or navigational aid. The
master of the boat did not commit any act of moving vessel must show that it was
negligence when he failed to countermand or without fault or that the collision was
overrule the orders of the pilot because he did occasioned by the fault of the stationary
not see any justifiable reason to do so. The object or was the result of an inevitable
master of the ship cannot be faulted for relying accident. In absence of proof in rebuttal,
absolutely on the competence of the compulsory the presumption of fault attaches to a
pilot moving vessel which collides with a
fixed object and makes a prima facie
PPA: there is concurrent negligence of the pilot case of fault against the vessel.
Capt Gavino and the shipmaster Capt - A pilot, in maritime law, is a person
Kavankov. Vessel was being piloted by both of duly qualified, and licensed, to conduct
them when the vessel rammed and damaged the a vessel into or out of ports, or in
apron of the pier. Their concurrent negligence certain waters, to guide vessels into or
was the immediate and proximate cause of the out of ports, and entrusted with the
collision between the vessel and the pier – Capt navigation of vessels on the high seas.
gavino, for his negligence in the conduct of The pilot supersedes the master for the
docking maneuvers for the safe berthing of the time being in the command and
vessel; and Capt Kavankov, for failing to navigation of the ship, and his orders
countermand the orders of the harbor pilot and must be obeyed in all matters connected
to take over and steer the vessel himself in the with her navigation. He becomes the
face of imminent danger master pro hac vice and should give all
directions as to speed, course, stopping
ISSUE: and reversing anchoring, towing and the
1) won the pilot of a commercial vessel, like.
under compulsory pilotage, solely liable - It is quite common for states and
for the damage caused by the vessel to localities to provide for compulsory
the pier for his negligence? General pilotage, and safety laws have been
rule, Yes. BUT if there is a contributory enacted requiring vessels approaching
negligence of the master or the crew, their ports to take on boards pilots duly
then both the pilot and the master licensed under local law. The purpose is
should be held solidary liable. to create a body of seaman thoroughly
2) won the owner of the vessel be likewise acquainted with the harbor, to pilot
liable if the damage is caused by the vessels seeking to enter or depart, and
concurrent negligence of the master of thus protect life and property from the
dangers of navigation
- Chapter II of Customs Administrative made sure that his directions were
Order no. 15-65 prescribes the rules of promptly and strictly followed.
compulsory pilotage in the covered - Generally, the degree of care required is
pilotage districts, among which is the graduated according to the danger a
Manila Pilotage district: that the person or property attendant upon the
pilotage for entering a harbor and activity which the actor pursues or the
anchoring thereate, shall be instrumentality which he uses. The
compulsory, except Govt vessels and greater the danger, the greater the
vessels of foreign govts entitled to degree of care required. Extraordinary
courtesy, other vessels engaged solely risk demands extraordinary care. The
in river/harbor work, in a daily ferry more imminent the danger, the higher
service between ports which shall be the degree of care.
exempt from compulsory pilotage, - SC agrees with the conclusion of the
provided, however, that compulsory CA that Gavino was negligent in the
pilotage shall not apply in pilotage performance of his duties: Gavino
districts whose optional pilotage is ordered to drop the anchor at 8:30am.
allowed under these regulations. Ordered the engines of the vessel
- Pursuant thereto, capt Gavino was stopped at 8:31am. By then, he must
assigned to pilot MV PAVLODAR and have realized that the anchor did not hit
upon assuming such office as a hard object and was not clawed so as
compulsory pilot, he is held to the to reduce the speed of the vessel
universally accepted high standards of because the vessel continued moving
care and diligence required of a pilot, towards the pier at the same speed.
whereby he assume to have skill and Gavino failed to react. It was only 4
knowledge in respect to navigation in mins after the anchor was dropped that
the particular waters. He is not held to Gavino reacted but his reaction was
the highest possible degree of skill and even haphazard because he merely
care, but must have and exercise the ordered “half-astern” and it took him
ordinary skill and care demanded by the another minute to order a “full stern”.
circumstances. Under extraordinary By then, it was too late. Patently,
circumstances, a pilot must exercise Gavino miscalculated, failed to react
extraordinary care and undertake adequate measures to
- Therefor, SC affirm the CA’s finding arrest fully the momentum of the vessel.
that Capt Gavino failed to measure up - The negligence on the part of Gavino is
to such strict standard of care and evident because he was already an
diligence required of pilots in the experienced pilot and by this time
performance of their duties should have long familiarized himself
- Gavino’s testimony that he is not sure with the depth of the port and the
what could have caused the incident distance he could keep between the
manifests a seeming indifference for the vessel and port in order to berth safely.
possibly injurious consequences his - However, capt Kavonkov is no less
commands as pilot may have. Prudence responsible for the allision. While it is
required that he, as pilot, should have unquestionable that in exercising his
functions a pilot is in sole commander
 of the ship and supersedes the master - If gusto mo basahin testimony ni
for the time being in the command and Kavankov, gew lang beh, pero basically
navigation of a ship and becomes yung gist kasi ng testimony nya is:
master pro hac vice of a vessel piloted 1. Nagrely lang sya sa expertise ni
by him, the master does not surrender Gavino as a pilot
his vessel to the pilot and the pilot is not 2. Di nya alam yung port area like
the master. The master is still in yung depth ng seabed etc kaya
command of the vessel notwithstanding ni-leave up nya lahat ng
the presence of a pilot. decision kay Gavino
- There are occasions when the master 3. Sinasabi ni Kavankov na wala
may and should interfere and even naman daw syang naramdaman
displace the pilot, as when the pilot is na nasa imminent danger yung
obviously incompetent or intoxicated vessel at any point kaya agree
and the circumstances may require the lang sya ng agree kay Gavino,
master to displace a compulsory pilot kahit na the anchor did not take
because of incompetency or physical hold of the bottom as expected,
incapacity. wala daw danger to the ship
- The master is not wholly absolved from - Capt Kavankov’s shared liability is due
his duties while a pilot is on board his mainly to the fact that he failed to act
vessel and may advise with or offer when the perilous situation should have
suggestions to him. He is still in spurred him into quick and decisive
command of the vessel and must cause action as master of the ship. In the face
the ordinary work of the vessel to be of imminent danger, he did not have to
properly carried on and the usual wait for the happenstance to occur
precaution taken. before countermanding the pilot. Capt
- Perusal of capt Kavankov’s testimony Kavankov concurred with Capt
makes it apparent that he was remiss in Gavino’s decisions, and this is precisely
the discharge of his duties as master of the reason why he decided not to
the ship, leaving the entire docking countermand any of the latter’s orders.
procedure up to the pilot, instead of By expressing full agreement of
maintaining watchful vigilance over the Kavankov, he was just as negligent as
risky maneuver. Gavino
- Where there is a compulsory pilot in - A shipowner is not liable for injuries
charge of a ship, the master being inflicted exclusively by the negligence
required to permit him to navigate it, if of a pilot accepted by a vessel
the master observes that the pilot is compulsorily. However, even though
incompetent or physically incapable, the pilot is compulsory, if his negligent
then it is the duty of the master to refuse was not the sole cause of the injury, but
to permit the pilot to act. But if no the negligence of the master or crew
reasons are present, then the master is contributed thereto, the owners are
justified in relying upon the pilot but liable
not blindly. - Hence, SC agrees with the findings of
the lower court that FESC and Capt
Gavino are solidary liable to pay PPA
the amount which represents actual
damages caused by the dame to Berth 4
of the MIP