transpo & public service law[1]
Post on 03-Apr-2018
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 1/619
TRANSPORTATION &
PUBLIC SERVICE LAW
F.A.H…kinawat rani nako…at least
honest ko…
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 2/619
Chapter 1
GENERAL CONCEPTS IN
TRANSPORTATION LAW
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 3/619
Contract of Transportation There is contract of transportation where a person
obligates himself to transport persons or propertyfrom one place to another for a consideration.
The contract may therefore involve carriage of passengers or carriage of goods.
The person who obligates himself to transport thegoods or passengers may be a common carrier or aprivate carrier.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 4/619
Parties in a contract of carriage Passenger – one who travels in a public conveyance
by virtue of contract, express or implied, with thecarrier as to the payment of fare or that which is
accepted as an equivalent thereof (Nueca v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. 31731-R, Jan. 30, 1968)
Common Carrier – one that holds itself out as readyto engage in the transportation of goods for hire as apublic employment and not as a casual occupation.(De Guzman v. CA, G.R. L-47822, Dec. 22, 1988)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 5/619
Baliwag Transit v. CA,
G.R. 80447, Jan. 31, 1989Facts:
The parents of George, who is already of legal agefiled a case against Baliwag for breach of contractalleging that because of the negligent manner by itsdriver, George was thrown off the bus as a result of which the latter sustained multiple serious physicalinjuries.
His parents was seeking reimbursement of their
medical expenses and other incidental expensesincurred by them due to hospitalization of George.
While the case was pending, George signed a waiverof claim in favor of Baliwag‟s insurer, FortuneInsurance.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 6/619
Ruling: Since the suit is one for breach of contract of carriage, therelease of claims executed by George, as the injured party,discharging Fortune Insurance and Baliwag from any and all liabilityis valid.
Significantly, the contact of carriage was actually between George,as the paying passenger, and Baliwag, as the common carrier. x – x – x – x Since the contract may be violated only by the partiesthereto, as against each other, in an action upon that contract, thereal parties in interest, either as plaintiff or as defendant, must beparties to said contract.
In the absence of any contract of carriage between Baliwag and
George‟s parents, the latter are not real parties in interest in anaction for breach of that contract.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 7/619
Parties in Carriage of Goods Shipper – is the person who delivers the goods to the
carrier for transportation. He is the person who pays theconsideration or on whose behalf payment is made.
Consignee – is the person to whom the goods are to bedelivered. The consignee may be the shipper himself ora third person who is not actually party to the contract.
Carrier (Ibid)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 8/619
Everett Steamship Corp. v. CA
G.R. 122494, Oct. 8, 1998Facts: Hernandez Trading imported three crates of bus
spare parts from Japan. The crates were shipped on
board "ADELFAEVERETTE," a vessel owned bypetitioner's principal, Everett Orient Lines. Upon arrival at the port of Manila, it was discovered
that one of the crates was missing. The loss wasconfirmed and admitted by Everett.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 9/619
However, Everett offered to pay only One HundredThousand (Y100,000.00) Yen, the maximum amountstipulated under Clause 18 of the covering bill of
lading which limits the liability of petitioner.Hernandez rejected.
The trial found in favor of Hernandez. On appeal,Everett argued that consent of the consignee to theterms and conditions of the bill of lading is necessary
to make such stipulations binding upon it .
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 10/619
Ruling:
When Hernandez formally claimed reimbursement forthe missing goods from Everett and subsequently filed acase against the it based on the very same bill of lading,it accepted the provisions of the contract and therebymade itself a party thereto, or at least has come to courtto enforce it.
However, the liability of the carrier under the limitedliability clause stands, which is limited to One HundredThousand (Y100,000.00) Yen.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 11/619
Perfection of Contract involving
Carriage In General
If contract to carry, i.e. an agreement to carry thepassenger at some future date, perfection takesplace upon mere consent since such contract is
consensual in nature. If contract of carriage, which is a real contract,
perfection takes place when the carrier is actuallyused and the latter has assumed its obligation as acarrier.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 12/619
Specific Perfections of Contract of
Carriage: AIRCRAFT
If contract to carry, there is perfection even if notickets have been issued provided there was meetingof minds with respect to the subject matter and theconsideration.
If contract of carriage, there is perfection if it wasestablished that the passenger had CHECKED IN atthe departure counter, passed through customs and
immigration, boarded the shuttle bus and proceededto the ramp of the aircraft.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 13/619
Specific Perfections of Contract of
Carriage: BUSES, JEEPNEYS, STREET CARS
Once the bus or jeepney stops, it is in effect makinga continuous offer to the passengers. Hence, it is theduty of the driver to stop their conveyances for a
reasonable length of time in order to affordpassengers an opportunity to board and enter. If passenger is injured upon boarding, liability based
on contract of carriage already attaches to thecommon carrier since the passenger was deemed tobe accepting the offer when he attempted to board.The contract is perfected from that precise moment.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 14/619
Specific Perfections of Contract of
Carriage: TRAINS
Perfection takes place when a person, with bona fideintention to use the facilities of the carrier andpossessing sufficient fare with which to pay for hispassage, has presented himself to the carrier fortransportation in the place and manner that he willbe transported.
Where a person has already purchased a LRT token
and while waiting on the platform designated forboarding fell thereon and hit by the train, he was
deemed a passenger.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 15/619
British Airways v. CA,
G.R. 92288, Feb. 9, 1993
Facts:
On two occasions, private respondent recruitmentagency was not able to send its workers to Saudi Arabia despite the fact that its principal there hadalready purchased pre-paid tickets becausepetitioner‟s computers broke down.
Private respondent thereafter filed a case on breachof contract of carriage. Petitioner argued that there
was no perfected contract.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 16/619
Ruling:
Petitioner's repeated failures to transport privaterespondent's workers in its flight despite confirmed
booking of said workers clearly constitutes breach of contract and bad faith on its part.
There is no dispute as to the Petitioner‟s consent to thesaid contract "to carry" its contract workers from Manila
to Jeddah.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 17/619
The appellant's consent thereto, on the other hand,was manifested by its acceptance of the PTA orprepaid ticket advice that ROLACO Engineering has
prepaid the airfares of the Petitioner's contractworkers advising the appellant that it must transportthe contract workers on or before the end of March,1981 and the other batch in June, 1981.
Accordingly, there could be no more pretensions as
to the existence of an oral contract of carriageimposing reciprocal obligations on both parties.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 18/619
Common Carrier Defined
Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporation,firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or good or both
by land, water, or air, for compensation, offeringtheir services to the public.
A common carrier is also defined as one that holdsitself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire as a public employment and not as a
casual occupation, (De Guzman v. CA, G.R. L-47822,Dec. 22, 1988)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 19/619
Concept of Common Carrier
analogous to Public Service
Public Service includes “every person that now orhereafter may own, operate, manage, or control inthe Philippines, for hire or compensation, withgeneral or limited clientele, whether permanent,occasional or accidental.
Done for general business purposes, any commoncarrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway,subway motor vehicle, either for freight orpassenger, or both, with or without fixed route.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 20/619
Whatever may be its classification, freight or carrierservice of any class, express service, steamboat, orsteamship line, pontines, ferries and water craft.
Engaged in the transportation of passengers orfreight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop, wharf or dock, ice plant, ice-refrigeration plant, canal,irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and power,water supply and power petroleum, sewerage
system, wire or wireless communications systems,wire or wireless broadcasting stations and othersimilar public services.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 21/619
Sorita v. Public Service Commission,
G.R. L-20965, Oct. 29, 1966
Held:
In drawing the line between "steamboats,motorships, and steamship lines" on one side and“pontines, ferries, and water crafts" on the other,Congress apparently means to accept the view that"boat, craft and watercraft" are usually applied tosmall vessels, while larger vessels are usually
referred to by the terms "steamer, steamship orvessel"
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 22/619
Test in determining whether a partyis a common carrier of goods
He must be engaged in the business of carryinggoods for others as a public employment, and musthold himself out as ready to engage in thetransportation of goods for person generally as abusiness and not as a casual occupation
He must undertake to carry goods of the kind towhich his business is confined.
He must undertake to carry by the method by which
his business is conducted and over his establishedroads.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 23/619
The transportation must be for hire. [First Philippine
Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. 125948, Dec. 29, 1998]
Provided it has space, for all who opt to avail
themselves of its transportation service for a fee[National Steel Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 112287, Dec. 12, 1997, quoting Mendoza v. PAL, 90 Phil. 836]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 24/619
Common Carrier: Basic Rules
STILL A COMMON CARRIER:
Even if hauling is only ancillary.
Even if clientele is limited. Even if it has no fixed and publicly known route,
maintains no terminals and issues not tickets.
Even if means transportation is not through motor
vehicle.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 25/619
Ancillary Activity Immaterial
Art. 1732 makes no distinction between one whoseprincipal business activity is carrying of persons orgoods or both, and one who does such carrying only
as an ancillary, nor does it make distinctions betweenone who offers the service to the „general public‟ or anarrow segment of the general population.
Therefore, a party who „back-hauled‟ goods for othermerchants from Manila to Pangasinan, even when
such activity was only periodical or occasional andwas not its principal line of business would besubject to the responsibilities and obligations of acommon carrier. [See De Guzman v. CA, G.R. L-47822, Dec. 22,1988]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 26/619
Limited Clientele Not a Defense
Facts: Petitioner entered into a contract with SMC for the
transfer of paper and kraft board from the port area
to SMC‟s warehouse. Held: She is still a common carrier although she does not
indiscriminately hold her services out to the publicbut offers the same to select parties with whom she
may contract in the conduct of her business. [VirginesCalvo v. UCPB General Insurance Co., G.R. 148496, Mar. 19, 2002]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 27/619
Facts: Respondent shipping company transported the 75,000
bags of cement to Petitioner in its barge. The bags of
cement perished after its barge sank while being towedby a tug boat.Held: Respondent is a common carrier because it was engaged
in the business of carrying goods for others for a fee. The
regularity of its activities in the area indicates more than just a casual activity on its part. Neither can the conceptof a common carrier change merely because individualcontracts are executed or entered into with the patronsof the carrier. [Phil. American General Insurance Co., et al. v. PKS ShippingCo., G.R. 149038, Apr. 9, 2003]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 28/619
No fixed route, No terminal, NoTicket issued also not a Defense
Facts: Petitioner is involved in the business of carrying
goods through its barges. It has no fixed and publicly
known route, maintains no terminals, and issues notickets.Held: Petitioner is still a common carrier because its
principal business is that of lighterage and drayage
and it offers its barges to the public for carrying ortransporting by water for compensation. [Asia Lighterageand Shipping, Inc. v. CA, G.R. 147246, Aug. 19, 2003]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 29/619
Drayage service is usually provided by a nationaltrucking/shipping company or an International shipment brokeragefirm in addition to the transportation of the freight to and from theexhibit site. Drayage service provides for:
- Completing inbound carrier's receiving documents;- Unloading and delivery of the goods to your booth/stand
space from the receiving dock;- Storing of empty cartons/crates and extra products at a
on/near-site warehouse;- Pickup of the goods from your booth/stand space to the
receiving dock and loading back into the carrier; or- Completing outbound carrier's shipping documents.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 30/619
Means used in transporting not material [First
Philippine Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. 147246, Aug. 19, 2003]
Issue:
Are pipeline operators common carriers as to subjectthem to business taxes on common carriers?
Held: Yes. The Code makes no distinction as to the means
of transporting, as long as it is by land, water or air. Itdoes not provide that the transportation of the
passengers or goods should be by motor vehicle. Infact, in the US, oil pipe line operators are consideredcommon carriers. Also under the Petroleum Act ofthe Philippines (RA 387).
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 31/619
Effect when Common Carrier entersinto a charter party
If only by contract of affreightment, whether voyageor time charter, it remains a common carrier.
If by bareboat or demise charter, a common carrier istransformed into a private carrier.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 32/619
Planters Products Inc. v. CA,G.R. 101503, Sept. 15, 1993
It is only when the charter includes both the vesseland its crew, as in a bareboat or demise that acommon carrier becomes private, at least insofar as
the particular voyage covering the charter-party isconcerned.
Indubitably, a shipowner in a time or voyage charterretains possession and control of the ship, although
her holds may, for the moment, be the property ofthe charterer.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 33/619
Common Carrier v. Private Carrier(National Steel Corp. v. CA, supra)
The true nature of a common carrier is the carriage ofpassengers or goods, provided it has space, for allwho opt to avail themselves of its transportationservice for a fee.
As a general rule, private carriage is undertaken byspecial agreement and carrier does not hold himselfout to carry goods for the general public.
In private carriage, the rights and obligations ofparties, including liabilities for damage to cargo, aredetermined primarily by stipulations in their contractof carriage or charter party (demise or bareboat. Insuch case, the burden of proof is on the other party toshow that the private carrier was responsible for theloss of, or injury to the cargo.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 34/619
FGU Insurance v. G.P. SarmientoTrucking, G.R. 141910, Aug. 6, 2002
Facts:
GPS, as the exclusive hauler of ConceptionIndustries, undertook to deliver thirty (30) units of
Condura refrigerators from latter‟s plant in Alabangto Dagupan City. While the truck was traversing thenorth diversion road along McArthur highway inBarangay Anupol, Bamban, Tarlac, it collided withan unidentified truck, causing it to fall into a deep
canal, resulting in damage to the cargoes. PetitionerFGU as subrogee to Concepcion Industries filed acomplaint for damages and breach of contract ofcarriage against GPS and its driver.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 35/619
Issue No. 1:
WHETHER RESPONDENT GPS MAY BECONSIDERED AS A COMMON CARRIER.
Held: GPS, being an exclusive contractor and hauler of
Concepcion Industries, Inc., rendering or offering itsservices to no other individual or entity, cannot be
considered a common carrier. The above conclusionnothwithstanding, GPS cannot escape from liability.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 36/619
In culpa contractual, upon which the action of petitionerrests as being the subrogee of Concepcion Industries,Inc., the mere proof of the existence of the contract andthe failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, acorresponding right of relief.
A breach upon the contract confers upon the injuredparty a valid cause for recovering that which may have
been lost or suffered.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 37/619
The remedy serves to preserve the interests of thepromisee that may include his:
“Expectation interest," which is his interest in having
the benefit of his bargain by being put in as good aposition as he would have been in had the contract beenperformed; or
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 38/619
“Reliance interest," which is his interest in beingreimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract bybeing put in as good a position as he would have been inhad the contract not been made; or
“Restitution interest," which is his interest in havingrestored to him any benefit that he has conferred on theother party
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 39/619
The effect of every infraction is to create a new duty, thatis, to make recompense to the one who has been injuredby the failure of another to observe his contractualobligation unless he can show extenuating
circumstances, like proof of his exercise of due diligence(normally that of the diligence of a good father of afamily or, exceptionally by stipulation or by law such asin the case of common carriers, that of extraordinarydiligence) or of the attendance of fortuitous event, toexcuse him from his ensuing liability. .
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 40/619
In this case, the delivery of the goods in its custody tothe place of destination - gives rise to a presumption oflack of care and corresponding liability on the part of the
contractual obligor the burden being on him to establishotherwise. GPS has failed to do so.
Respondent driver, on the other hand, without concreteproof of his negligence or fault, may not himself be
ordered to pay petitioner.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 41/619
The driver, not being a party to the contract of carriagebetween petitioner‟s principal and defendant, may notbe held liable under the agreement.
A contract can only bind the parties who have enteredinto it or their successors who have assumed theirpersonality or their juridical position.
Consonantly with the axiom res inter alios acta aliis neque
nocet prodest, such contract can neither favor norprejudice a third person.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 42/619
Petitioner‟s civil action against the driver can only bebased on culpa aquiliana, which, unlike culpa contractual,would require the claimant for damages to prove
negligence or fault on the part of the defendant.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 43/619
Issue No. 2: WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR
IS APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE.
Held: Res ipsa loquitur, a doctrine being invoked by petitioner,
holds a defendant liable where the thing which causedthe injury complained of is shown to be under thelatter?s management and the accident is such that, in theordinary course of things, cannot be expected to happenif those who have its management or control use propercare. It affords reasonable evidence, in the absence ofexplanation by the defendant, that the accident arosefrom want of care
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 44/619
It is not a rule of substantive law and, as such, it does notcreate an independent ground of liability. Instead, it isregarded as a mode of proof, or a mere procedural
convenience since it furnishes a substitute for, andrelieves the plaintiff of, the burden of producing specificproof of negligence.
The maxim simply places on the defendant the burden
of going forward with the proof.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 45/619
Resort to the doctrine, however, may be allowed onlywhen (a) the event is of a kind which does not ordinarilyoccur in the absence of negligence; (b) other responsible
causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and thirdpersons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence; and(c) the indicated negligence is within the scope of thedefendant's duty to the plaintiff.
Thus, it is not applicable when an unexplained accident
may be attributable to one of several causes, for some ofwhich the defendant could not be responsible.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 46/619
Res ipsa loquitur generally finds relevance whether or nota contractual relationship exists between the plaintiffand the defendant, for the inference of negligence arisesfrom the circumstances and nature of the occurrence and
not from the nature of the relation of the parties. Nevertheless, the requirement that responsible causes
other than those due to defendant‟s conduct must firstbe eliminated, for the doctrine to apply, should be
understood as being confined only to cases of pure (non-contractual) tort since obviously the presumption ofnegligence in culpa contractual, as previously so pointedout, immediately attaches by a failure of the covenant orits tenor.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 47/619
In the case of the truck driver, whose liability in a civilaction is predicated on culpa acquiliana, while headmittedly can be said to have been in control and
management of the vehicle which figured in theaccident, it is not equally shown, however, that theaccident could have been exclusively due to hisnegligence, a matter that can allow, forthwith, res ipsaloquitur to work against him.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 48/619
Common Carrier v. Towage
In towage, one vessel is hire to bring another vesselto another place. Thus, a tugboat may be hired by acommon carrier to bring the vessel to a port. In this
case, the operator of the tugboat cannot beconsidered a common carrier.
In maritime law, towage refers to a service renderedto a vessel by towing for the mere purpose ofexpediting her voyage without reference to anycircumstances of danger. It usually confined tovessels that have received no injury or damage.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 49/619
Common Carrier v. Arrastre
An Arrastre operator performs the followingfunctions:
Receive, handle, care for, and deliver all merchandise
imported and exported, upon or passing overGovernment-owned wharves and piers in the port; Record or check all merchandise which may be
delivered to said port at shipside; In general, furnish light, and water services and other
incidental services in order to undertake its arrastreservice
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 50/619
Hence, the functions of an arrastre operator has nothingto do with the trade and business of navigation, nor tothe use or operation of vessels.
An arrastre operator is like a depositary orwarehouseman.
Even if the arrastre service depends on, assists, orfurthers maritime transportation, it may be deemedmerely incidental and does not make its service
maritime
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 51/619
Common Carrier v. Stevedoring
The function of stevedores involve the loading andunloading of coastwise vessels calling at the port.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 52/619
Governing Laws on Common Carrier
COASTWISE SHIPPING:
- New Civil Code (Arts. 1732-1766)
- Code of Commerce
CARRIAGE FROM FOREIGN PORTS TO PHILPORTS:
- New Civil Code (primary)
- Code of Commerce (suppletory)- Carriage of Goods by Sea Act [COGSA](suppletory)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 53/619
CARRIAGE FROM PHIL PORT TO FOREIGN PORTS:
- The laws of the country to which the goods are to betransported.
–laws of the country of destination.
OVERLAND TRANSPORTATION:
- Civil Code (primary)
- Code of Commerce (suppletorily)- R.A. 4136 [The Land Transportation and Traffic Code]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 54/619
AIR TRANSPORTATION:
- Civil Code (primary)
- Code of Commerce (suppletorily)- For international carriage – Warsaw Convention[Convention for the Unification of Certain RulesRelating to the International Carriage by Air]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 55/619
Nature of Business of CommonCarriers, KMU V. Garcia, GR 115381, Dec. 23, 1994
Common carriers are public utilities within the contemplationof the public service law.
Public utilities are privately owned and operated businesses
whose services are essential to the general public.
They are enterprises which specially cater to the needs of thepublic and conduce to their comfort and convenience.
When, one devotes his property to a use in which the public hasan interest, he, in effect grants to the public an interest in that use,and must submit to the control by the public for the commongood, to the extent of the interest he has thus created.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 56/619
Salient Provisions in R.A. 4136 onRegistration of Vehicles
Motor vehicle defined: Any vehicle propelled by anypower other than muscular power using the publichighways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars,street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers,bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, andcranes if not used on public highways, vehicleswhich run only on rails or tracks, and tractors,trailers and traction engines of all kinds used
exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when
propelled or intended to be propelled by attachmentto a motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate
motor vehicle with no power rating .
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 57/619
The distinction between "passenger truck" and"passenger automobile" shall be that of common usage:Provided, That a motor vehicle registered for more than
nine passengers shall be classified as "truck": AndProvided, further, That a "truck with seating compartments at the back not used for hire shall beregistered under special "S" classifications. In case of
dispute, the Commissioner of LandTransportation shall determine the classification to
which any special type of motor vehicle belongs.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 58/619
Articulated vehicle - means any motor vehicle with atrailer having no front axle and so attached that part of
the trailer rests upon motor vehicle and a substantialpart of the weight of the trailer and of its load is borneby the motor vehicle. Such a trailer shall be called as"semi-trailer."
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 59/619
Professional driver - means every and any driver hiredor paid for driving or operating a motor vehicle, whetherfor private use or for hire to the public. Any person
driving his own motor vehicle for hire is a professionaldriver.
Owner -The actual legal owner of a motor vehicle, inwhose name such vehicle is duly registered with the
Land Transportation Commission.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 60/619
The "owner" of a government-owned motor vehicle isthe head of the office or the chief of the Bureau to
which the said motor vehicle belongs.
Parking or parked - A motor vehicle is "parked" or"parking" if it has been brought to a stop on the shoulderor proper edge of a highway, and remains inactive inthat place or close thereto for an appreciable period oftime .
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 61/619
A motor vehicle which properly stops merely todischarge a passenger or to take in a waiting passenger,or to load or unload a small quantity of freight with
reasonable dispatch shall not be considered as "parked",if the motor vehicle again moves away without delay.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 62/619
Sec. 5(a) - No motor vehicle shall be used or operated onor upon any public highway of the Philippines unlessthe same is properly registered for the current year inaccordance with the provisions of this Act.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 63/619
Sec. 5(e) Encumbrances of motor vehicles. –
Mortgages, attachments, and other encumbrances ofmotor vehicles, in order to be valid, must be recorded
in the Land Transportation Commission and mustbe properly recorded on the face of all outstandingcopies of the certificates of registration of the vehicle
concerned.
*register of deeds first before LTO
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 64/619
Section 16. Suspension of registration certificate. - If oninspection, as provided in paragraph (6) of Section fourhereof, any motor vehicle is found to be unsightly, unsafe,overloaded, improperly marked or equipped, or
otherwise unfit to be operated, or capable of causingexcessive damage to the highways, or not conforming tominimum standards and specifications, theCommissioner may refuse to register the said motorvehicle, or if already registered, may require the number
plates thereof to be surrendered to him, and uponseventy-two hours notice to the owner of the motorvehicle, suspend such registration until the defects of thevehicle are corrected and/or the minimum standards andspecifications fully complied with.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 65/619
Section 21. Operation of motor vehicles by tourists. - Bonafide tourist and similar transients who are duly licensedto operate motor vehicles in their respective countries
may be allowed to operate motor vehicles during butnot after ninety days of their sojourn in the
Philippines.
After ninety days, any tourist or transient desiring tooperate motor vehicles shall pay fees and obtain andcarry a license as hereinafter provided.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 66/619
If any accident involving such tourist or transient occurs,which upon investigation by the Commissioner or hisdeputies indicates that the said tourist or transient is
incompetent to operate motor vehicles, theCommissioner shall immediately inform the said touristor transient in writing that he shall no longer bepermitted to operate a motor vehicle.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 67/619
Speed Restrictions
Section 35(a) Any person driving a motor vehicle ona highway shall drive the same at a careful andprudent speed, not greater nor less than isreasonable and proper, having due regard for the
traffic, the width of the highway, and of any othercondition then and there existing; and
No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon ahighway at such a speed as to endanger the life, limb
and property of any person, nor at a speed greaterthan will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stopwithin the assured clear distance ahead.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 68/619
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLESPEEDS
Passengers
Cars and Motorcycle Motor trucks and buses
1. On open country roads, withno "blinds corners" not closelybordered by habitations
80 km. per hour 50 km. per hour
2. On "through streets" orboulevards, clear of traffic,
with no " blind corners”,when so designated.
40 km. per hour 30 km. per hour
3. On city and municipalstreets, with light traffic,when not designated “through streets”
30 km. per hour 30 km. per hour
4. Through crowded streets,approaching intersections at"blind corners," passing schoolzones, passing other vehicleswhich are stationery, or forsimilar dangerous circumstance
20 km. per hour 20 km. per hour
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 69/619
Exceptions to Rate Speed
A physician or his driver when the former respondsto emergency calls;
The driver of a hospital ambulance on the way to and
from the place of accident or other emergency;
Any driver bringing a wounded or sick person foremergency treatment to a hospital, clinic, or anyother similar place;
The driver of a motor vehicle belonging to the ArmedForces while in use for official purposes in times ofriot, insurrection or invasion;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 70/619
The driver of a vehicle, when he or his passengers arein pursuit of a criminal;
A law-enforcement officer who is trying to overtake aviolator of traffic laws; and
The driver officially operating a motor vehicle of anyfire department, provided that exemption shall notbe construed to allow useless or unnecessary fastdriving of drivers aforementioned.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 71/619
Section 36. Speed limits uniform throughout the Philippines.
- No provincial, city or municipal authority shall enactor enforce any ordinance or resolution specifyingmaximum allowable speeds other than those provided inthis Act.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 72/619
Correct Driving
Pass to the right when meeting persons or vehiclescoming toward him.
Pass left when overtaking persons or vehicles going thesame direction.
Conduct to the right of the center of the intersection ofthe highway when turning left.
Applicable every person operating a motor vehicle or ananimal-drawn vehicle. (doctrine of last clear chance) The person who had the last oppurtunity to prevent the
accident who did not act to do so, shall be held liable
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 73/619
Exceptions:
Different course of action is required in the interest ofthe safety and the security of life, person or property; or
Because of unreasonable difficulty of operation in itscompliance.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 74/619
f f h l b
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 75/619
Duty of Driver of Vehicle to beOvertaken [Sec. 40]
To give way to the overtaking vehicle on suitable andaudible signal being given by the driver of theovertaking vehicle; and
Not to increase the speed of his vehicle untilcompletely passed by the overtaking vehicle.
k d
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 76/619
Restrictions on overtaking andpassing [Sec. 41]
Do not drive to the left side of the center line of ahighway in overtaking or passing another vehicleproceeding in the same direction, unless such left
side is clearly visible, and is free of oncoming trafficfor a sufficient distance ahead to permit suchovertaking or passing to be made in safety.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 77/619
Do not overtake:
when approaching the crest of a grade;
upon a curve in the highway;
driver's view along the highway is obstructed within adistance of five hundred feet ahead. Exception: When ona highway having two or more lanes for movement oftraffic in one direction where the driver of a vehicle mayovertake or pass another vehicle: Provided,
Exception to exception: On a highway within a businessor residential district, having two or more lanes formovement of traffic in one direction, overtaking orpassing at right is allowed.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 78/619
Do not overtake:
at any railway grade crossing;
at any intersection of highways unless such intersection
or crossing is controlled by traffic signal, or unlesspermitted to do so by a watchman or a peace officer.
Exception: On a highway having two or more lanes formovement of traffic in one direction where the driver ofa vehicle may overtake or pass another vehicle on the
right. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a
driver overtaking or passing upon the right anothervehicle which is making or about to make a left turn.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 79/619
Do not overtake, pass or attempt to pass:
between any points indicated by the placing of officialtemporary warning or caution signs indicating that men
are working on the highway;
in any "no-passing or overtaking zone."
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 80/619
Right of way [Sec. 42]
When two vehicles approach or enter an intersectionat approximately the same time:
Driver of the vehicle on the left to yield the right of
way to the vehicle on the right; Driver of vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed
forfeits right of way.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 81/619
Driver of a vehicle approaching but not having enteredan intersection:
To yield right of way to a vehicle within suchintersection or turning therein to the left across the lineof travel of such first-mentioned vehicle;
Provided, driver of the vehicle turning left has given aplainly visible signal of intention to turn.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 82/619
Driver of any vehicle upon a highway within a businessor residential district:
To yield right of way to a pedestrian crossing suchhighway within a crosswalk;
Exception: at intersections where the movement of trafficis being regulated by a peace officer or by traffic signal.
Every pedestrian crossing a highway within a businessor residential district, at any point other than acrosswalk shall yield the right of way to vehicles upon
the highway.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 83/619
When about to approach “through highway” orraildroad crossing:
Full stop before traversing;
Provided, That when it is apparent that no hazard exists,the vehicle may be slowed down to five miles per hourinstead of bringing it to a full stop.
E ti t th i ht f l
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 84/619
Exception to the right of way rule[Sec. 43]
Yield right of way to all vehicles approaching whenentering a highway from a private road or drive;
Yield to police or fire department vehicles andambulances when such vehicles are operated on officialbusiness and the drivers thereof sound audible signal oftheir approach;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 85/619
Yield to all vehicles approaching from eitherdirection when entering a "through highway" or a"stop intersection“.
Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall beconstrued as relieving the driver of any vehicle beingoperated on a "through highway" from the duty ofdriving with due regard for the safety of vehiclesentering such "through highway" nor as protectingthe said driver from the consequence of an arbitrary
exercise off such right of way.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 86/619
NO PARKING
(a) Within an intersection
(b) On a crosswalk
(c) Within six meters of the intersection of curb lines.
(d) Within four meters of the driveway entrance toand fire station.
(e) Within four meters of fire hydrant
(f) In front of a private driveway
(g) On the roadway side of any vehicle stopped orparked at the curb or edge of the highway
(h) At any place where official signs have beenerected prohibiting parking.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 87/619
Ri ht f f li & th
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 88/619
Right of way for police & otheremergency vehicles [Sec. 49]
Upon the approach of any police or fire departmentvehicle, or of an ambulance giving audible signal,
The driver of every other vehicle shall immediatelydrive the same to a position as near as possible andparallel to the right-hand edge or curb of thehighway
Clear of any intersection of highways, and Shall stop and remain in such position, unless
otherwise directed by a peace officer, until suchvehicle shall have passed.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 89/619
Vehicle Tampering [Sec. 50]
No unauthorized person shall sound the horn,handle the levers or set in motion or in any way
tamper with a damage or deface any motor vehicle.
Prohibition on Vehicle Hitching
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 90/619
Prohibition on Vehicle Hitching[Sec. 51]
No person shall hang on to, ride on, the outside orthe rear end of any vehicle; and
No person on a bicycle, roller skate or other similar
device, shall hold fast to or hitch on to any movingvehicle; and
No driver shall knowingly permit any person to hangon to or ride, the outside or rear end of his vehicle or
allow any person on a bicycle, roller skate or othersimilar device to hold fast or hitch to his vehicle.
Prohibition on Sidewalk Driving or
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 91/619
Prohibition on Sidewalk Driving orParking [Sec. 52]
No person shall drive or park a motor vehicle uponor along any sidewalk, path or alley not intended for
vehicular traffic or parking.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 92/619
Driving Under The Influence [Sec.53]
No person shall drive a motor vehicle while under
the influence of liquor or narcotic drug.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 93/619
Duty of Driver In Case of Accident
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 94/619
Duty of Driver In Case of Accident[Sec. 55]
In the event that any accident should occur as a resultof the operation of a motor vehicle upon a highway,the driver present, shall show his driver's license,
give his true name and address and also the truename and address of the owner of the motor vehicle.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 95/619
No driver of a motor vehicle concerned in a vehicularaccident shall leave the scene of the accident withoutaiding the victim, except under any of the followingcircumstances:
1. If he is in imminent danger of being seriouslyharmed by any person or persons by reason of theaccident;
2. If he reports the accident to the nearest officer ofthe law; or
3. If he has to summon a physician or nurse to aidthe victim.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 96/619
Traffic Violations
For registering later than seven days after acquiringtitle to an unregistered motor vehicle or afterconversion of a registered motor vehicle requiringlarger registration fee than that for which it wasoriginally registered, or for renewal of a delinquentregistration.
For failure to sign driver's license or to carry samewhile driving.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 97/619
Driving a vehicle with a delinquent or invalid driver'slicense
Driving a motor vehicle with delinquent, suspended or
invalid registration, or without registration or withoutthe proper license plate for the current year
Driving a motor vehicle without first securing a driver'slicense
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 98/619
Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence ofliquor or narcotic drug.
Violation of Section thirty-two, thirty-four (a), (b) and (b-
1), thirty-five and forty-six Violations of Sections forty-nine, fifty and fifty-two.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 99/619
For making, using or attempting to make or use adriver's license, badge, certificate or registration, numberplate, tag or permit in imitation or similitude of thoseissued under this Act, or intended to be used as or for a
legal license, badge, certificate, plate, tag or permit orwith intent to sell or otherwise dispose of the same toanother, or false or fraudulently represent as valid andin force any driver's license, badge, certificate, plate, tagor permit issued under this Act which is delinquent orwhich has been suspended or revoked
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 100/619
For using private passenger automobiles, private trucks,private motorcycles, and motor wheel attachments forhire, in violation of Section seven, subsections (a), (b),and (c), of this Act
For permitting, allowing, consenting to, or tolerating theuse of a privately-owned motor vehicle for hire inviolation of Section seven, subsections (a), (b), and (c), ofthis Act,
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 101/619
For violation of any provisions of this Act or regulationspromulgated pursuant hereto, not hereinbeforespecifically punished
In the event an offender cannot pay any fine imposedpursuant to the provisions of this Act, he shall be madeto undergo subsidiary imprisonment as provided for inthe Revised Penal Code.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 102/619
If, as the result of negligence or reckless or unreasonablefast driving, any accident occurs resulting in death orinjury of any person, the motor vehicle operator at fault
shall, upon conviction, be punished under the provisionsof the Revised Penal Code.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 103/619
Presumption of Negligence
Art. 2185, Civil Code – It is presumed that a persondriving a motor vehicle is negligent if at the time ofthe mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation,
unless the contrary.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 104/619
Registered Owner Rule
The person who is the registered owner of a vehicle isliable for any damage caused by the negligentoperation of the vehicle although the same wasalready sold or conveyed to another person at thetime of the accident.
This is subject to the right of recourse by theregistered owner against the transferee or buyer.
The registered owner rule is applicable whenever the
persons involved are engaged in what is known asthe „kabit system‟.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF MOTOR
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 105/619
CLASSIFICATIONS OF MOTORREGISTRABLE VEHICLES [Sec. 7]
a) Private passengerautomobiles;
b) Private trucks;c) Private motorcycles,
scooters, or motorwheel attachments
d) Public utilityautomobiles;
e) Public utility trucks;f) Taxis and auto-calesasg) Garage automobilesh) Garage trucksi) Hire trucks;
j) Trucks owned bycontractors andcustoms brokers andcustoms agents;
k) Undertakes;l) Dealers;m) Government
automobilesn) Government trucks;o) Government
motorcycles;p) Motor vehicles of
tourists [for 90 days];
q) Special
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 106/619
Vehicles registered under classification under (a), (b) &(c) cannot be used for hire under any circumstances andcannot be used to solicit, accept, or be used to transportpassengers or freight for pay.
Laborers necessary to handle freight in private trucksmay ride on it (but not to exceed 10 laborers)
Dealer‟s vehicle can be operated only for the purpose oftransporting the vehicle itself from the pier or factory to
the warehouse or sales room or for delivery to aprospective purchaser or for test or demonstration
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION OF
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 107/619
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION OFA VEHICLE IS FOR HIRE
A vehicle habitually used to carry freight notbelonging to the registered owner thereof, orpassengers not related by consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth civil degree to such owner, shall beconclusively presumed to be "for hire."
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 108/619
KABIT SYSTEM
It is an arrangement whereby a person who has beengranted a certificate of public convenience allowsother persons who own motor vehicles to operatethem under his license, sometime for a fee orpercentage of earning.
Such arrangement is void for being contrary to publicpolicy [Abelardo Lim, et al. v. CA, GR 125817, Jan. 16,2002]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 109/619
Teja Marketing v. IAC, GR 65510,
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 110/619
Teja Marketing v. IAC, GR 65510,Mar. 9, 1987
Facts: Petitioner was constrained to file an action fordamages because private respondent allegedly failedto pay the balance of the purchase price of itsmotorcycle sold. The motorcycle which was used forsidecar remained under the name of petitioner andoperated under its franchise under an arrangementcalled „kabit system‟.
Held: Dismissal of case sustained. Both parties are in
pari delicto. The court will not aid either party toenforce an illegal contract.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 111/619
Chapter 2
OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 112/619
OBLIGATION OF CARRIER:
Duty to Accept;
Duty to Deliver Goods On Time;
Duty to Deliver Goods at the Place and to the person
named in the BL; and Duty to Exercise Due Diligence
OBLIGATION OF SHIPPER OR
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 113/619
OBLIGATION OF SHIPPER ORPASSENGER
Duty to exercise due diligence.
Duty to pay the amount of freight or passage on time.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 114/619
1. Carrier‟s Duty to Accept
A common carrier granted CPC is duty bound to acceptpassengers or cargo without any discrimination.
Exceptions:
Dangerous objects or substances including dynamitesand other explosives;
Unfit for transportation;
Acceptance would result in overloading;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 115/619
Contrabands or illegal goods;
Goods are injurious to health;
Good will likely be exposed to untoward danger likeflood, capture by enemies and the like;
Livestock with disease or exposed to disease;
Strike; and
Failure to tender goods on time
Rule on Hazardous and Dangerous
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 116/619
gSubstances
A carrier may be granted authority to carry goodsthat are by nature dangerous and hazardous. Acarrier specially designed to carry dangerous
chemicals and goods may be granted CPC for suchpurpose.
All other carriers may validly refuse to accept suchcargoes.
MARINA Memorandum Circular
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 117/619
No. 105, Apr. 6, 1995
Documentary Requirements for Special Permit toCarry Dangerous/Hazardous Cargoes and Goods inPackaged Form:
Letter of Intent PPA Clearance on packaging, marking and labeling
of cargoes or goods in packaged forms
Cargo Stowage Plan
Classification of Dangerous orHazardous Goods Under MC 105
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 118/619
Hazardous Goods Under MC 105
Class 1 – Explosives Class 2 – Gases: Compressed, liquefied or dissolved
under pressure Class 3 – Inflammable Liquids Class 4 – Inflammable Solids or Substances: a)
Inflammable Solid; b) Inflammable Solids, or Substancesliable to spontaneous combustion; and c) InflammableSolids, or Substances which in contact with waters emitinflammable gases;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 119/619
Class 5 – a) Oxidizing Substances; b) OrganicPeroxide
Class 6 - a) Poisonous (toxic) substances; b)
Infectious Substances Class 7 – Radioactive Substances
Class 8 – Corrosives
Class 9 – Miscellaneous Dangerous Substances
MARINA Memorandum Circular
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 120/619
No. 147
Rules on carriage of vehicles, animals, forestproducts, fish and aquatic products, minerals andmineral products & toxic and hazardous materials on
board vessels: Master to accept only if these are covered by
necessary clearance from appropriate agencies;
Non-compliance will subject the shipowner and
master administrative penalties without prejudice tocriminal or civil suits
2. Carrier‟s Duty to Deliver The
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 121/619
yGoods
General Rule:
Carrier is not an insurer against delay intransportation of goods.
Exception: When there is agreement as to the time of delivery
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 122/619
When delay is deemed reasonable
Ordinary Goods – 2 months [Maersk Line v. CA, May17, 1993]
Perishable Goods – 2 to 3 days [Dissenting: Tan
Chiong Sian v. Inchausti, GR 6092, Mar. 8, 1912]
Rules on Delay on Overland
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 123/619
yTransportation (Code of Commerce)
Art. 358, Code of Commerce:
If there is no period fixed for the delivery of thegoods the carrier shall be bound to forward them in
the first shipment of the same or similar goods whichhe may make to the point of delivery; and should henot do so, the damages caused by the delay should befor his account.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 124/619
Delay When Period Is Fixed
Art. 370. If a period has been fixed for the delivery of thegoods, it must be made within such time, and, for failureto do so, the carrier shall pay the indemnity stipulated inthe bill of lading, neither the shipper nor the consignee
being entitled to anything else. If no indemnity has beenstipulated and the delay exceeds the time fixed in the BL,the carrier shall be liable for the damages which thedelay may have caused.
Procedure in Abandonment by
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 125/619
yConsignee In Case of Delay (Type 2)
Art. 371. In case of delay through the fault of thecarrier referred to in the preceding articles, theconsignee may leave the goods transported in thehands of the former, advising him thereof in writing
before their arrival at the point of destination. When this abandonment takes place, the carrier shall
pay the full value of the goods as if they had beenlost or mislaid.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 126/619
If the abandonment is not made, the indemnificationfor the losses and damages by reason of the delaycannot exceed the current price which the goodstransported would have had on the day and at theplace in which they should have been delivered; thissame rule is to be observed in all other cases in whichthis indemnity may be due.
FIVE TYPES OF ABANDONMENT
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 127/619
UNDER MERCANTILE LAW
WHEN DAMAGE IS SO GREAT [Art. 365, Code ofCommerce]
WHEN GOODS ARRIVE BEYOND THE DATEAGREED ON [Art. 371, Code of Commerce]
ABANDONMENT BY SHIPOWNER WHENLIABILITY EXCEEDS VALUE OF VESSEL [Art. 578,Code of Commerce]
DAMAGE TO GOODS IN LIQUID FORM [Sec. 687,Code of Commerce]
CONSTRUCTIVE LOSS UNDER THE INSURANCECODE [Sec. 138, Insurance Code of the Phil.]
1st Type: WHEN DAMAGE IS SO
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 128/619
yGREAT
Where the shipper ships goods and goods arrive indamaged condition and damage is so great thatshipper may not use goods for the purpose for whichthey have been shipped, the shipper may exercise
right of abandonment. NOTICE TO THE CARRIER IS SUFFICIENT –
consent of carrier is not necessary and once perfected,the ownership over damaged goods passes to the
carrier and carrier must pay the shipper market valueof goods at point of destination.
2nd Type: WHEN GOODS ARRIVE
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 129/619
BEYOND DATE AGREE ON
Under this set-up, shipper and carrier agreed inadvance that cargo must arrive on a certain date.
The date has passed but the cargo has not yet arriveddue to carrier‟s fault.
Shipper/consignee may exercise the right ofabandonment by NOTIFYING the carrier.
Once carrier has been notified, ownership over thegoods undelivered passes to carrier.
But carrier must pay shipper market value of thegoods at the point of destination.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 130/619
4th Type: DAMAGE TO GOODS IN
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 131/619
LIQUID FORM
Charterers and shippers may abandon themerchandise damaged if cargo should consist ofliquids;
The contents have leaked out; What remains in the container is but ¼ of its content;
The cause was on account of inherent defect orfortuitous event.
5th Type: CONSTRUCTIVE LOSS
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 132/619
UNDER THE INSURANCE CODE
Shipowner‟s right of abandonment for constructive loss;
Takes place when vessel suffers damage in excess of ¾ ofits insured value;
Notice to Insurer from the insured is sufficient; Thereafter, ownership over the damaged vessel passes to
the insurer; and
Insurer must pay insured as if it were an ACTUAL
LOSS.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 133/619
Characteristics of Abandonment
It is unilateral right;
It is perfected by mere notice;
Once perfected, ownership over damaged goods
passes to carrier; and Carrier must pay the shipper market value of goods
at the point of destination
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 134/619
Bar, Mercantile Law [1979]
Problem:
A, in Manila, shipped on board a vessel of B, chairs tobe used in the moviehouse of consignee C in Cebu.No date for delivery or indemnity for delay wasstipulated. The chairs, however, were not claimedpromptly by C and were shipped by mistake back toManila, where it was discovered and re-shipped toCebu. By the time the chairs arrived, the date of
inauguration of the moviehouse passed by and it hadto be postponed. C brings an action for damagesagainst B claiming loss of profits during theChristmas season when he expected the moviehouseto be opened. Decide the case with reason
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 135/619
Suggested Answer:
C may sue B for the loss of his profits provided thatample proof thereof are presented in court. The carrier is
obligated to transport the goods without delay. Thecarrier is liable if he is guilty of delay in the shipment ofcargo, causing damages to the consignee.
Mora in Civil Law distinguished
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 136/619
from Mora in Mercantile Law
Under Art. 1169, Civil Code requires demand by thecreditor in order that delay may exist.
Exceptions:
Obligation or law expressly so provides; Time is of the essence; and
Demand would be useless.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 137/619
BUT under the Code of Commerce, demand, as a generalrule, is not necessary in commercial contracts in orderfor the obligor to incur delay [Arts. 61, 62 & 63, Code ofCommerce].
Exceptions: a) When fixed by contract, b) whenrecognized or allowed by law.
In commercial contracts, time is always of the essence.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 138/619
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 139/619
Art. 63. The effect of default in the performance ofcommercial obligation shall commence:
1. In contracts with a day for performance fixed bythe will of the parties or by the law, on the day following
their maturity;2. In those which do not have such day fixed, fromthe day on which the creditor makes judicial demand onthe debtor or notifies him of protest of loss and damagesmade against him before a judge, notary or other public
official authorized to admit the same.
SUMMARY: When Debtor incursD l C l C
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 140/619
Delay in Commercial Contracts
If period of performance is fixed, debtor incurs delaythe day following the day fixed, without need ofdemand;
If no period fixed, ten (10) days from execution of
contract and on 11th day, debtor incurs delay withoutneed of demand; Potestative period (e.g. when the debtor desires) –
debtor in delay from date of demand.Note: distinguish from a potestative condition, e.g. „if
the debtor desires‟. Under the Civil Code and Codeof Commerce, such condition is void.
KINDS OF DELAY UNDER CIVILCODE
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 141/619
CODE
Mora solvendi – Delay of an obligor to deliver or toperform an obligation:
a. Mora solvendi ex re – delay when the obligation is togive or to deliver;
b. Mora solvendi ex persona – delay when theobligation is to do or to perform a personal service.
Mora accipiendi – Delay of an obligee in accepting thedelivery of the thing due;
Compensatio morae – Delay in reciprocal obligations(Art. 1169, last par.). Neither party is in default unlessthe other is ready to comply with his obligation.
UNDER CIVIL CODE: DEMANDNECESSARY FOR DELAY
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 142/619
NECESSARY FOR DELAY
In Compania General de Tabacos vs. Araza, 7 Phil.455, held: ‘The contract does not provide for the paymentof any interest. There is no provision in it declaring
expressly that the failure to pay when due should put thedebtor in default. There was therefore no default whichwould make him liable for interest until a demand wasmade. There was no evidence of any demand prior to the
presentation of the complaint. The plaintiff is therefore
entitled to interest only from the commencement of theaction’.
DEEMED MERCHANCE UNDERTHE CODE OF COMMERCE
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 143/619
THE CODE OF COMMERCE
Those who, having legal capacity to engage incommerce, habitually devote themselves thereto [Art.1]
Legal presumption of habituality: „From the momenta person who intends to engage in commerceannounces through circulars, newspapers, handbills,posters exhibited to the public, or in any mannerwhatsoever, an establishment which has for its object
some commercial operation‟ [Art. 3]
COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 144/619
GOVERNED BY CODE OF COMMERCE
Art. 50. Commercial contracts, in everything relativeto their requisites, modifications, exceptions,interpretations, and extinction and to the capacity oftheir contracting parties, shall be governed in all
matters not expressly provided for in this Code or inspecial laws, by the general rules of civil law.
HIERARCHICAL APPLICABILITY OF LAWS TOCOMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS:
1. Code of Commerce2. Commercial customs (in the absence of #1);
and
3. Civil Code (in the absence of 1 & 2)
PERFECTION OF COMMERCIALCO C S Y CO S O C
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 145/619
CONTRACTS BY CORRESPONDENCE
Art. 54. Contracts entered into by correspondenceshall be perfected from the moment an ANSWER ISMADE ACCEPTING THE OFFER OR THE
CONDITIONS by which the latter may be modified. Above is in contrast to Art. 1319, NCC where
negotiated contracts by correspondence are perfectedonly FROM THE TIME THE OFFEROR HASACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF ACCEPTANCE
PERFECTION OF COMMERCIALCONTRACTS BY AGENT OR BROKER
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 146/619
CONTRACTS BY AGENT OR BROKER
Art. 55. Contracts in which an agent or brokerintervenes shall be perfected WHEN THECONTRACTING PARTIES SHALL HAVEACCEPTED HIS OFFER.
Compare Art. 1989, NCC: If the agent contracts in thename of the principal, exceeding the scope of his authority,and the principal does not ratify the contract, it shall bevoid if the party with whom the agent contracted is awareof the limits of the powers granted by the principal. In thiscase, however, the agent is liable if he undertook to securethe principals ratification.
CONSEQUENCE OF DELAY
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 147/619
CONSEQUENCE OF DELAY
Art. 1740, NCC: If the common carrier negligentlyincurs in delay in transporting the goods, a naturaldisaster shall not free such carrier from
responsibility. Art. 1747: If the common carrier, without just cause,
delays the transportation of the goods or changes thestipulated or usual route, the contract limiting thecommon carrier‟s liability cannot be availed of in caseof the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods
RIGHT OF PASSENGER IN CASEOF DELAY
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 148/619
OF DELAY
Code of Commerce: Art. 698 In case a voyage already begun has been interrupted; Passengers to pay the fare in proportion to the
distance covered; No right to recover for losses and damages if
interruption is due to fortuitous event or forcemajeure;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 149/619
Except when interruption was caused by the Captainexclusively.
If interruption is due to disability of the vessel andpassenger agrees to await the repair;
He is not required to pay any increased price ofpassage; BUT HIS LIVING EXPENSES DURING THE STAY
FOR HIS OWN ACCOUNT. (But see MARINA MC112)
MARINA MEMORANDUMCIRCULAR NO 112
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 150/619
CIRCULAR NO. 112
In case the vessel cannot continue or complete hervoyage FOR ANY CAUSE;
Carrier is under obligation to transport the passenger
to his/her destination AT THE EXPENSE OF THECARRIER including FREE MEALS and LODGINGbefore said passenger is transported to hisdestination.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 151/619
A passenger may opt to have his ticket refunded in full ifthe cause of the unfinished voyage is due to thenegligence of the carrier; or
To an amount that will suffice to defray transportationcost at the shortest possible route towards hisdestination if the cause is fortuitous event.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 152/619
If arrival is delayed, carrier shall provide for meals, freeof charge, during mealtime.
If departure is delayed due to carrier‟s negligence,carrier is also under the obligation to provide meals, free
of charge, during meal time to TICKETEDPASSENGERS for the particular voyage.
If departure is delayed due to fortuitous event, thecarrier is under no obligation to serve free meals to thepassengers.
3. CARRIER‟S DUY TO DELIVERGOODS AT THE PLACE DESIGNATEDAND TO PERSON NAME IN BL
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 153/619
AND TO PERSON NAME IN BL
Art. 360 (Code of Commerce):
The shipper may change the consignment of goods,without necessarily changing the place of delivery;
But must, at the time of ordering the change ofconsignee in the BL signed by the carrier;
Return the BL to the carrier in lieu of another BLcontaining the novated contract.
Expenses of the change of consignee at the expense of
the shipper.
Bar Mercantile Law [1975]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 154/619
Bar, Mercantile Law [1975]
Bar Question:
If a shipper, without changing the place of deliverychanges the consignment of consignee of the goods
(after said goods had been delivered to the carrier),under what condition will the carrier be required tocomply with the new order of the shipper?
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 155/619
Suggested Answer:
Art. 360 of the Code of Commerce provides that if theshipper should change the consignee of the goods
without changing their destination, the carrier shallcomply with the new order provided the shipperRETURNS TO THE CARRIER the bill of lading and anew one is issued shoving the novation of the contract.However, all expenses for the change must be paid bythe shipper.
4. CARRIER‟ DUTY TO EXERCISEEXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 156/619
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
Art. 1733 (NCC). Common carriers, from the nature oftheir business and for reasons of public policy, arebound to observe extraordinary diligence in thevigilance over the goods and for the safety of thepassengers transported by them, according to all thecircumstances of each case.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 157/619
Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over thegoods is further expressed in Arts. 1734, 1735, and 1745,Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for thesafety of the passengers is further set forth in Arts. 1755
and 1756.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 158/619
Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry thepassengers safely as far as human care and foresight canprovide, using the utmost diligence of very cautiouspersons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 159/619
The foregoing provisions in the Civil Code modify Arts.363, 364 & 365 of the Code of Commerce:
Art. 363 on the requirement of the carrier to deliver thegoods shipped in the same condition where they were
found at the time they were received; and Art. 364 on when damage is merely diminution in the
value of the goods, carrier‟s liability shall be reduced tothe payment of the amount constituting the difference invalue determined by experts.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 160/619
Art. 365 on instance when goods are rendered useless forsale and consumption for the purposes they aredestined, consignee may not receive them and maydemand only their value at the current price of the day.
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 161/619
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
In case of loss of effects or cargo; or
In case of death or injury of passenger;
Common carrier is presumed to be at fault;
Unless, it can prove that it had observedextraordinary diligence in the vigilance thereof.
BATANGAS TRANSPORT CO. v.CAGUIMBAL, ET AL.,G R L 22985 Jan 24 1968
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 162/619
G.R. L-22985, Jan. 24, 1968
In an action based on a contract of carriage, the courtneed not make an express finding of fault ornegligence on the part of the carrier in order to holdit responsible to pay the damages sought;
It is sufficient that plaintiff shows: a) there exist acontract between the passenger or the shipper andthe common carrier; and b) the loss, deterioration,injury or death took place during the subsistence ofthe contract.
MRASOL v. THE ROBERT DOLLARCOMPANY, G.R. L-29721, Mar. 27,1929
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 163/619
1929
Facts:
Mirasol is consignee of two cases of EncyclopediaBritannica books that he ordered from New York,
shipped in good order and condition on board MSPresident Garfield, principal defendant company.The books arrived in bad order and condition. Therewas total loss of one case and partial loss on theother, all in all amounting to P2,080.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 164/619
Held:
Defendant having received the two boxes in goodcondition, its legal duty was to deliver them to the
plaintiff in the same condition in which it received them. As the boxes were damaged while in transit, the burden
of proof then shifted, and it devolved upon thedefendant to both allege and prove that the damage wascaused by reason of some fact which exempted it from
liability.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 165/619
As to how the boxes were damaged, was a matterpeculiarly and exclusively within the knowledge of thedefendant.
To require plaintiff to prove as to when and how thedamage was caused would force him to call and relyupon the employees of the defendant‟s ship. That is notthe law.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 166/619
The evidence for the defendant shows that the damagewas largely caused by „sea water‟, from which itcontends that it is exempt.
Damage by „sea water‟, standing alone and within itself,is not evidence that they were damaged by force majeureor for a cause beyond defendant‟s control.
The words „perils of the sea‟ apply to all kinds of marinecasualties, such as shipwreck, foundering, stranding, etc.
Where the peril is the proximate cause of the loss, theshipowner is excused. But something fortuitous and outof the ordinary must be involved in both words „peril‟ or„accident‟
DURATION OF DUTY TOEXERCISE EXTRAORDINARYDILIGENCE [Carriage of Goods]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 167/619
DILIGENCE [Carriage of Goods]
Art. 1736, NCC:
The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrierlasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed
in the possession of, and received by the carrier fortransportation until the same are delivered, actually orconstructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or theperson who has a right to receive them, withoutprejudice to the provisions of Art. 1738.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 168/619
Art. 1737 (NCC):
The common carrier‟s duty to observe extraordinarydiligence over the goods remains in full force and effecteven when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in
transit, unless the shipper or owner has made use of theright of stoppage in transitu.
Note: Right to stoppage in transitu is the right of theunpaid seller who has parted with the possession of thegoods, when the buyer is or becomes insolvent, to stopthem and resume possession while they are in transit.The unpaid seller will become entitled to the same rigthsto the goods, as if he had never parted with possession.[Art. 1530, NCC]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 169/619
Art. 1738 (NCC):
The extraordinary liability of the common carriercontinues to be operative even during the time the goodsare stored in a warehouse of the carrier at the place ofdestination, until the consignee has been advised of thearrival of the goods and has had reasonable opportunitythereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of them.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 170/619
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 171/619
As per letter of credit requirement, copies of the BL andcommercial invoices were submitted by Ben-Mac toSolidBank. The latter then paid Ben-Mac the total valueof the shipment.
Upon arrival in Hongkong, the shipment was delivereddirectly to GPC, not to Pakistan Bank and without therequired BL having been surrendered.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 172/619
GPC failed to pay Pakistan Bank. Pakistan Bank refusedto pay Ben-Mac through Solidbank.
Since SolidBank already pre-paid Ben-Mac the value ofthe shipment, it demanded payment from Wallem but
was refused. Ben-Mac was forced to refund SolidBank.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 173/619
Held: We emphasize that the extraordinary responsibility of
the common carriers lasts until actual or constructivedelivery of the cargoes to the consignee or TO THEPERSON WHO HAS A RIGHT TO RECEIVE THEM.
Pakistan Bank was indicated in the BL as consigneewhereas GPC was the notify party. However, in theexport invoices GPC was clearly named asbuyer/importer. Ben-Mac also referred to GPC as suchin his demand letter to Wallem.
This premise draws us to conclude that the delivery toGPC as buyer/importer which, conformably with Art.1736 had, other than the consignee, the right to receivethem was proper.
DURATION OF DUTRY TO EXERCISEDILIGENCE [Carriage of Passengers]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 174/619
DILIGENCE [Carriage of Passengers]
For Trains: Starts from the moment the person whopurchases the ticket (or token or card) from the carrierpresents himself at the proper place and in a proper
manner to be transported with bona fide intent to ridethe coach. Same for Ships & Aircrafts.
For jeepneys/buses: Starts from the time the personsteps on the platform.
WHEN CONTRACT OF CARRIAGEENDS
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 175/619
ENDS
The relation of carrier does not cease at the momentthe passenger alights from the carrier‟s vehicle butcontinues until the passenger has had a reasonabletime or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier‟spremises.
La Mallorca v. CA, G.R. L-20761, July27, 1966
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 176/619
27, 1966
Facts: Plaintiffs, as husband and wife boarded Pambusco
Bus No. 352 together with their (3) minor daughtersfrom San Fernando, Pampanga to Anao, Mexico,
Pampanga. All alighted at the designated place of unloading but
Mariano, the father had to return to the bus to getone of his bayong left under his seat.
Unknown to him, her daughter Raquel followed him.
She was ran over by the bus when it started to runagain.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 177/619
Held:
There can be no controversy that as far as the father isconcerned, when he returned to the bus for his bayongwhich was not unloaded, the relation of passenger andcarrier does not necessarily cease where the latter, afteralighting from the car, aids the carrier‟s conductor inremoving his baggage.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 178/619
The issue to be determined here is whether as to thechild, who was already led by the father to a place about5 meters away from the bus, the liability of the carrier forher safety under the contract of carriage also persisted.
In the present case, the father returned to the bus to getone of his baggages which was not unloaded when theyalighted from the bus.
Raquel, the child that she was, must have followed the
father.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 179/619
However, although the father was still on the runningboard of the bus awaiting for the conductor to hand himthe bag or bayong, the bust started to run, so the eventhe father had to ump down from the moving vehicle.
It was at this instance that the child, who must be nearthe bus, was run over and killed. In the circumstances, itcannot be claimed that the carrier‟s agent had exercisedthe utmost diligence required under Art. 1755.
The presence of said passengers near the bus was notunreasonable and they are, therefore, to be consideredstill as passengers of the carrier, entitled to theprotection under their contract.
ABOITIZ SHIPPING v. CA, G.R.84458, Nov. 6, 1989
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 180/619
, ,
Facts: Anacleto was a passenger of MV Antonia from San
Jose, Mindoro to Manila. Upon reaching Pier 4, NorthHarbor, he disembarked from the ship by jumping
from the 3rd
deck which is at level with the pier. After 1 hour when all the passengers have already
disembarked and the crane started unloading thecargoes, Anacleto went back to the vessel afterrealizing that he left some of his cargoes there.
It was while he was pointing to the crew the placewhere his cargoes were loaded that the crane hit him.He later died. His heir sued Aboitiz for breach ofcontract of carriage.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 181/619
Held: In consonance with common shipping procedure as to
the minimum time of 1 hr. allowed for the passengers todisembark, it may be presumed that the victim had justgotten off the vessel when he went to retrieve his
baggage. Yet, even if he had already disembarked an hour earlier,
his presence in petitioner‟s premises was not withoutcause. The victim had to claim his baggage which waspossible only one (1) hour after the vessel arrived since it
was admittedly standard procedure in the case ofpetitioner‟s vessels that the unloading operations shallstart only after that time.
Consequently, the victim Anacleto is still deemedpassenger at the time of his tragic death.
DEFENSES OF COMMONCARRIERS [Art. 1734, NCC]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 182/619
[ , ]
1. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or othernatural disaster or calamity;
2. Act of public enemy in war, whether internationalor civil;
3. Act or omission of the shipper or owner of thegoods;4. The character of the goods or defects in the packing
or in the containers; and5. Order or act of competent public authority.
Note: The enumeration is exclusive; no other defensemay be raised by the CC.
DEFENSE NO. 1: FORTUITOUSEVENT
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 183/619
Requisites:
Independent of human will;
Impossible to foresee or if it can be foreseen,impossible to avoid;
Must be such as to render it impossible for theobligor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner;and
Obligor must be free from any participation in or the
aggravation of the injury [Lasam v. Smith, No. 19495,Feb. 2, 1924]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 184/619
For fortuitous event to be a valid defense:
It must be the PROXIMATE AND ONLY CAUSE OFTHE LOSS;
Carrier must be free from any participation in causing
the damage or injury; It must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize the
loss BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER the fortuitousevent. [Art. 1739, NCC]
TAN CHIONG SIAN v. INCHAUSTI,G.R. No. 6092, March 8, 1921
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 185/619
Justice Moreland speaking:
An act of God cannot be urged for the protection of aperson who has been guilty of gross negligence in not
trying to avert its results. One who has accepted responsibility for pay can not
weakly fold his hands and say that he was preventedfrom meeting that responsibility by an act of God, whenthe exercise of the ordinary care and prudence wouldhave averted the results flowing from that act.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 186/619
One who has placed the property of another, intrusted tohis care, in an unseaworthy craft, upon dangerouswaters, cannot absolve himself by crying, „an act of God‟,when every effect which a typhoon produced upon that
property could have been avoided by the exercise ofcommon care and prudence.
When the negligence of the carrier concurs with an act ofGod producing a loss, the carrier is not expempted fromliability by showing that the immediate cause of the
damage was the act of God, or, as it has been expressed,“when the loss is caused by the act of God, if thenegligence of the carrier mingles with it as an active andcooperative cause, he is still liable”.
FIRE NOT A NATURAL DISASTER ORCALAMITY [Cokaliong v. UCPB Gen.
Insurance, G.R. 146018, June 25, 2003]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 187/619
J
Facts:
M/V Tandag sank after a crack from her auxiliaryengine‟s fuel tank caused the spurt of fuel towards the
heating exhaust manifold ignited a fire in the engineroom
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 188/619
Held:
Fire is not considered a natural disaster or calamity. Thismust be so as it arises almost invariably from some act ofman or by human means.
It does not fall within the category of an act of Godunless caused by lighting or by other natural disaster or
calamity.
HIJACKING NOT AN EXEMPTINGCAUSE
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 189/619
A Common Carrier can be held liable for failing toprevent a hijacking by frisking passengers andinspecting their baggages, especially when it hadreceived prior notice of such threat. (Fortune Expressv. CA, 305 SCRA 14)
BATANGAS TRANS. v.CAGUIMBAL, 22 SCRA 171 (1967)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 190/619
( )
Problem: A BLTB Bus going north stopped on thehighway because a passenger wanted to alight.Another bus was going south fast and recklessly,trying to pass a carretela. In trying to overtake the
carretela, the driver of the approaching bus made amiscalculation and hit the bus of BLTB. Thepassenger who was then alighting was thrown outand killed. The heirs of the victim sought recovery.BLTB raised the defense of fortuitous event.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 191/619
Answer: BLTB is still liable. In civil law, where afortuitous event concurs with negligence, liability isnot extinguished. The BLTB bus was then in a „stop‟
position but since it did not stop on the shoulder ofthe road at the time the passenger was alighting, thesame can be considered negligence that concurredwith fortuitous event and did not operate toextinguish the liability.
FIRECRACKERS EXPLODING FROMPASSENGER BAGGAGE: CARRIEREXCUSED (Nocum v. LTD, 30 SCRA 69)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 192/619
Facts: One of the bus passengers had firecrackers inside his
bag. They exploded after another passenger smokedcigarettes causing injuries to another passenger. The
injure passenger sought to recover from the carrier.Held: Carrier not liable. The carrier cannot be expected to
examine and search each and every piece of baggageof passengers, otherwise the bus may not all together
be able to leave. This is only true so long as the cause of the accident
was not apparent and the carrier or its employees arenot guilty of negligence.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 193/619
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 194/619
Held:
As a rule, a passenger is entitled to recover damagesfrom a carrier for injury resulting from a defect in anappliance purchased from a manufacturer PROVIDED
IT APPEARS THAT THE DEFECT WOULD HAVEBEEN DISCOVERED BY THE CARRIER IF IT HADEXERCISED THE DEGREE OF CARE WITH REGARDTO INSPECTION AND APPLICATION OF THENECESSARY TESTS.
When the defect is LATENT, i.e. cannot be discovered bythe application of any known tests, then it qualifies as afortuitous event to exempt the common carrier fromliability.
YOBIDO v. CA, G.R. 113003, Oct. 17,1997
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 195/619
Held:
The explosion of a new tire cannot by itself beconsidered a fortuitous event to exempt the commoncarrier from liability in the absence of showing on the
part of the carrier that other human factors that couldhave intervened to cause the blowout of the new tiredid not in fact occur.
Moreover, a common carrier may not be absolvedfrom liability in case of force majeure or fortuitousevent alone. It must still prove that it was notnegligent in causing the death or injury resultingfrom the accident.
PESTANO v. SUMAUYANG, 346SCRA 870 (2000)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 196/619
Held:
The fact that the driver was able to use a buswith a faulty speedometer shows that the
employer was remiss in the supervision of itsemployees and in the proper care of itsvehicles. Under Arts. 2180 and 2176 of theCivil Code, owners and managers are
responsible for damages caused by theiremployees.
SPS. LANDINGAN v.PANTRANCO, 33 SCRA 284
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 197/619
Facts: A married couple with two children werepassengers in a bus going to Baguio. Whilenegotiating Kennon Road, the motor suddenlystopped and the bus backed down. The driverexpertly guided the bus to rest on the mountainsideof the road. But because of the noise, the two childrenbecame frightened and they jumped out of the busand were killed.
Held: The bus when it stopped, was not in perfectrunning condition. It is the carrier‟s duty to see to it
that the bus is always in perfect condition. Here, thedefect was not latent.
TRANS-ASIA v. CA, 254 SCRA 260(1996)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 198/619
Held:
Before commencing the contracted voyage, thecarrier undertook some repairs on one of the vessel‟stwo engines, but even before it could finish these
repairs, it allowed the vessel to leave the port oforigin on only one functioning engine, instead oftwo.
Moreover, even the lone functioning engine was notin perfect condition as sometime after it had run itscourse, it conked out. Plainly, the vessel wasunseaworthy even before the voyage began.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 199/619
For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequatelyequipped for the voyage and manned with a sufficientnumber of competent officers and crew.‟
The failure of common carrier to maintain in seaworthycondition its vessel is clear breach of its duty prescribed
under Art. 1755 of the Civil Code, which binds thecarrier to carry the passengers safely as far as humancare and foresight could provide, using the utmostdiligence of a very cautious person, with due regard forall the circumstances.
OTHER INVALID CAUSES
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 200/619
Explosion – Damage to cargo from explosion ofanother cargo is not ordinarily attributable to peril ofthe sea or accidents of navigation particularly whereit occurs after the vessel has ended its voyage and is
finally moored to unload; Worms & rats – Whenever the ship is damaged by
worms resulting in damage to cargo, the same cannotbe cited as an excuse. The same is true with respect todamage of cargo by rats whether the cargo was
directly damaged by the rats or by water let inthrough holes gnawed by rats in the ship or herfixtures.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 201/619
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 202/619
OTHER CASES/BAR PROBLEMS
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 203/619
Problem: P shipped a box of cigarettes to a dealer inNaga City through Bicol Bus. When the bus reachedLucena City, it developed engine trouble. The driverbrought the bus to a repair shop in Lucena where he wasinformed by the mechanic that an extensive repair was
necessary which would at least take two days. While thebus was in the repair shop, Typhoon Coring lashed atQuezon Province. The cargoes inside the bus, includingMauricio‟s cigarettes, got wet and were totally spoiled.Mauricio sued BBC for the damage to his cargoes. (Bar1987)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 204/619
Answer: The bus company is liable. While a typhoonis a natural disaster, the same cannot be consideredthe only cause of the loss. The engine trouble isforeseeable and could have been detected if only the
bus company exercised reasonable case. Moreover,carrier‟s employee should have secured the cargoeswhile the bus was being repaired for two days.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 205/619
Problem: P boarded a Victory Liner bus bound forOlongapo. He chose a seat at the front near the busdriver. P told the bus driver that he had valuable itemsin his bag which was placed near his feet. Since he had
not slept for 24 hours, he requested the driver to keep aneye on the bag should he doze off during the trip. Uponarrival at his destination, the bag was nowhere found.
Answer: P may not hold the carrier liable. The drivercould not have set his eyes on the luggage as his
attention was on the road during the trip.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 206/619
Problem: M, a paying passenger was hit above her lefteye by a stone hurled at the bus by an unidentifiedbystander as he bus was speeding through the NationalHighway. The bus owner‟s personnel lost no time in
bringing M to the provincial hospital where she wasconfined and treated. M wants to sue the bus companyfor damages and seeks your advise. (Bar 1994)
Answer: M cannot legally hold the bus company if thestone throwing was entirely unforeseeable and thecarrier exercised utmost diligence. However, I will alsoinform her that the burden is on the carrier to prove suchexercise of due diligence. If she decides to file a case, allthat she will prove is that she was a passenger and shewas injured while on board the bus
RAYNERA v. HICENTA, 306 SCRA102 (1999)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 207/619
Held:
Drivers of vehicles who bump the rear of anothervehicle must be presumed to be the cause of theaccident, unless contradicted by other evidence, sincethe rear driver is deemed to have the last clear chanceof avoiding the accident, and therefore deemednegligent.
Bar Problem 1992
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 208/619
Facts: Marino was a passenger on a train. Another
passenger, Juancho, had taken a gallon of gasolineplaced in a plastic bag into the same coach whereMariano was riding. The gasoline ignited andexploded causing injury to Marino who filed a civilsuit for damages against the railway companyclaiming that Juancho should have been subjected toinspection by its conductor.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 209/619
The railway company disclaimed liability resultingfrom the explosion contending that it was unaware ofthe contents of the plastic bag and invoking the rightof Juancho to privacy. A) Should the railway
company be held liable for damages? B) If it were anairline company involved, would your answer be thesame? Explain your answer briefly.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 210/619
Held: A) No. The railway company is not liable for damages.
This is subject to the qualification that the companyshould prove that it, through the exercise of
extraordinary diligence, cannot detect the presence ofgasoline. It should be noted that in overlandtransportation, the common carrier is not bound norempowered to make an examination on the contents ofpackages or bags particularly those handcarried bypassengers.
B) No, my answer would not be the same. If an airlinecompany was involved, it is duty bound to inspect eachand every cargo this brought into the aircraft (R.A. 6235).Exercise of extraordinary diligence would thereforeresult in the discovery of the gasoline.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 211/619
DEFENSE NOS. 3 & 4: ACT OROMISSION OF OWNER & IMPROPERPACKING
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 212/619
COGSA also provides for similar defense, i.e. carriershall not be liable for (1) wastage in bulk or weight orany other loss or damage arising from inherentdefect, quality or vice of goods, (2) insufficiency of
packing, (3) insufficiency or inadequacy of the marks,or (4) latent defect not discoverable by due diligence.
However, common carrier are still required toexercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the lossnotwithstanding the existence of improper packing.
SOUTHERN LINES v. CA, G.R. No.L-16629, Jan. 31, 1962
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 213/619
Facts: More than a thousand sacks of rice wereshipped through the vessel of petitioner SouthernLines. There was shortage when the sacks of ricewere delivered to the consignee although it wasalleged that the shortage in the shipment was due to
shrinkage, leakage or spillage of the rice on accountof the bad condition of the sacks at the time itreceived them.
Held: Carrier still liable because it was aware of thecondition of the sacks when it received the goods.
VIRGENES CALVO v. UPCB GEN.INSURANCE, G.R. 148496, Mar. 19, 2002
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 214/619
Held: Art. 1734 cannot apply where the carrieraccepted the goods despite such defects.
For this provision to apply, the rule is that if theimproper packing or, in this case, the defect in thecontainer is known to the carrier or his employees orapparent upon ordinary observation, but itnevertheless accepts the same without protest orexception notwithstanding such condition, the carrier
is not relieved of liability for the resulting damage.
BELGINA OVERSEAS CHARTERING &SHIPPING v. PHIL. FIRST INSURANCECO., G.R. 143133, June 5, 2002
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 215/619
Facts: Carrier tried to escape liability by citing thenotation „metal envelopes rust stained and slightlydented‟ printed in the BL as evidence that the characterof the goods or defect in the packing or the containers
was the proximate cause of the damage.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 216/619
Held: It cannot be reasonably concluded that the damage to
the four coils was due to the condition noted on the BL. The aforecited exception refers to cases when goods are
lost or damaged while in transit as a result of the natural
decay of perishable goods or the fermentation orevaporation of substances liable therefor, the necessaryand natural wear of goods in transport, defects inpackages in which they are shipped, or the naturalpropensities of animals. None of these is present.
Even if the fact of improper packing was known to thecarrier or its crew or was apparent upon ordinaryobservation, it is not relieved of liability for loss or injuryresulting therefrom, once it accepts the goodsnotwithstanding such condition.
DEFENSE NO. 5: ORDER OFPUBLIC AUTHORITY
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 217/619
Requisite: Such public authority must had power toissue the order.
GANZON v. CA & TUMAMBING, G.R.L-48757, May 30, 1988
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 218/619
Facts: Tumambing contracted the service of Ganzonto haul 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataanto Manila on board LCT Batman. While loadingabout half of the total cargo, the elected Mayor
arrived and demanded P5,000 from Tumambing. Thelatter refused hence was shot and later hospitalized.
After sometime, the loading resumed. But, the ActingMayor accompanied by 3 policemen order thecaptain to dump some of the scrap iron at sea and the
rest were brought to by the former, which issued areceipt in behalf of the municipality.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 219/619
DEFENSES IN CARRIAGE OFPASSENGERS
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 220/619
Art. 1759: Common carriers are liable for the death ofor injuries to passengers through the negligence orwillful acts of the former‟s employees, although suchemployees may have acted beyond the scope of their
authority or in violation of the orders of the commoncarriers.
The liability of the common carriers does not ceaseupon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a
good father of a family in the selection andsupervision of their employees.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 221/619
Art. 1763: A common carrier is responsible for theinjuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willfulacts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, ifthe common carrier‟s employees through the exercise of
the diligence of a good father of a family could haveprevented or stopped the act or omission
CARRIER LIABLE FOR ACTS OFITS EMPLOYEES
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 222/619
Unlike in quasi-delict, a common carrier cannotescape liability by claiming the he exercised duediligence in the selection and supervision of theemployee.
It is not a defense that the employee acted beyond thescope of his authority because the riding public is notexpected to inquire from time to time before theyboard the carrier whether or not the driver or anyother employee is authorized to drive the vehicle or
that said driver is acting within the scope of hisauthority and observing the existing rules andregulations required of him.
Willful acts of the employees include theft.
YU CON v. IPIL, GR No. L-10195,Dec. 29, 1916
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 223/619
Held:
It is well and good that the shipowner be not heldcriminally liable for such crimes or quasi-crimes; buthe cannot be excused from liability for the damageand harm which, in consequence of those acts, maybe suffered by the third parties who contracted withthe captain, in his double capacity of agent andsubordinate of the shipowner himself.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 224/619
In maritime commerce, the shippers and passengers inmaking contracts with the captain do so through theconfidence they have in the shipowner who appointedhim; they presume that the owner made a most carefulinvestigation before appointing him, and above all, they
themselves are unable to make such an investigation,and even though they should do so, they could notobtain complete security, inasmuch as the shipownercan, whenever he sees fit, appoint another captaininstead.
The shipowner is in the same case with respect to themembers of the crew, for, though he does not appointdirectly, he expressly or tacitly, he contributes to theirappointment.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 225/619
On the other hand, if the shipowner derives profits fromthe results of the choice of the captain and the crew,when the choice turns out successful, it is also just thathe should suffer the consequences of an unsuccessful
appointment, by application of the rule of natural lawcontained in the Partidaz, viz., that he who enjoys thebenefits derived from a thing must likewise suffer thelosses that ensue therefrom.
3 REASONS UNDERLYING RULE[Art. 1759, NCC]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 226/619
The special undertaking of the carrier requires that itfurnish its passenger that full measure of protectionafforded by the exercise of the high degree of careprescribed by the law, inter alia, from violence and
insults at the hands of strangers and otherpassengers, but all, from the acts of the carrier‟s ownservants charged with the passenger‟s safety;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 227/619
Said liability of the carrier for the servant‟s violation ofduty to passengers, is the result of the former‟s confidingin the servant‟s hands the performance of his contract tosafely transport the passenger, delegating thereiwth the
duty of protecting the passenger with the utmost careprescribed by law; and
As between the carrier and the passenger, the formermust bear the risk of wrongful acts or negligence of thecarrier‟s employees against passengers, since it, and not
the passengers, has power to select and remove them.(Maranan v. Perez, infra.)
PAL v. CA, 275 SCRA 621 (1997)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 228/619
Held:
Even assuming arguendo that airline passengershave no vested right to hotel accommodationallowances in case a flight is cancelled due to force
majeure, nevertheless the airline company would beliable for damages when its employees blatantlyrefused to accord the so-called amenities equally toall its stranded passengers, and there was nocompelling or justifying reason advanced for such
discriminatory and prejudicial conduct.
BACHELOR EXPRESS v. CA, G.R.85691, July 31, 1990
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 229/619
Held:
The act of passenger stabbing another passenger inthe bus is considered as force majeure.
However, to be absolved from liability in the case of force majeure, the common carrier must still prove thatit was not negligent in causing the injuries resultingfrom such accident. Otherwise, it would still be heldliable.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 230/619
FORTUNE EXPRESS v. CA,305 SCRA 14
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 231/619
Held:
A common carrier can be held liable for failing toprevent a hijacking by frisking passengers andinspecting their baggage, especially when it hadreceived prior notice of such threat.
Note: Compare with Nocum v. LTD, infra.
NOCUM v. LTD, G.R. L-23733, Oct.31, 1969
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 232/619
Facts: One of the bus passengers had firecrackersinside his baggage, which ignited when anotherpassenger smoked cigarettes, causing injuries toanother passenger. The injured passenger sought to
recover damages from the carrier. Held: Carrier is not liable. The reason is that the
carrier cannot be expected to examine and searcheach and every piece of baggage of passengers,otherwise the bus may not altogether be able to leave.
Note: This in only true so long as the cause of theaccident was not apparent and the carrier or itsemployees are not guilty of negligence.
FABRE v. CA, 259 SCRA 426 (1996) [on due diligence in selection andsupervision of employees]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 233/619
Held:
For a bus company, due diligence in selection ofemployees is not satisfied by finding that the applicantpossessed a professional driver‟s license. The employer
should also examine the applicant for his qualifications,experience and record of service.
Due diligence in supervision, on the other hand, requiresthe formulation of rules and regulations for the guidanceof employees and issuance of proper instructions as wellas actual implementation and monitoring of consistentcompliance with the rules.
CARRIER ALSO LIABLE FOR ACTS OFSTRANGERS AND OTHERPASSENGERS
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 234/619
But subject to defense of EXERCISE BY THECARRIER OF DUE DILIGENCE TO PREVENT ORSTOP THE ACT OR OMISSION.
Defense is not available if the carrier‟s driver allowed
another person who is not an employee or a regulardriver to take over the task of driving the vehicle.
MARANAN v. PEREZ, 20 SCRA 413
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 235/619
Facts: A taxi driver tried to hold-up his passenger,who resisted and was killed. His heirs sued based onculpa contractual against the taxi company, whichdenied liability on the ground that the driver actedbeyond the scope of his authority.
Held: It may be true that the taxi driver was actingbeyond the scope of his authority, but Art. 1759 ofthe Civil Code expressly provides that the owner isliable for negligence of the employees even if suchacts are beyond the scope of his authority.
Note: This case repealed the doctrine in De Gillaco v.Manila Railroad, 97 Phil. 884 which absolved thecarrier for liability caused by its security guard whokilled one of its passengers while already off-duty.
MANILA RAILROAD v.BALLESTEROS, 6 SCRA 641
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 236/619
Facts: A bust of the Manila Railroad reached one ofthe towns along its route. The bus driver stopped thebus and went down to answer a call of nature. Whilethe driver was outside the bus, one of the passengers
went into the driver‟s seat and drove off the bus. Itmet an accident causing injuries to other passengers.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 237/619
RULES ON PASSENGERBAGGAGE
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 238/619
Art. 1754: The provision of Articles 1733 to 1753 shallapply to the passenger‟s baggage which is not in hispersonal custody or in that of his employee. As toother baggage, the rules in Articles 1998 and 2000 to2003 concerning the responsibility of hotel-keepers
shall be applicable. Art. 1998: The deposit of effects made by the travelers
in hotels or inns shall also be regarded as necessary.The keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible forthem as depositaries, PROVIDED THAT NOTICE
WAS GIVEN TO THEM, or to their employees, of theeffects brought by the guests and that, on the part ofthe latter, they take the precautions which said hotel-keepers or their substitutes advised relative to thecare and vigilance of their effects.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 239/619
Art. 1998: The deposit of effects made by the travelersin hotels or inns shall also be regarded as necessary.The keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible forthem as depositaries, PROVIDED THAT NOTICEWAS GIVEN TO THEM, or to their employees, of the
effects brought by the guests and that, on the part ofthe latter, they take the precautions which said hotel-keepers or their substitutes advised relative to thecare and vigilance of their effects.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 240/619
Art. 2000: The responsibility referred to in the twopreceding articles shall include the loss of, or injury tothe personal property of the guests caused by theservants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns aswell as strangers; but not that which may proceed fromany force majeure. The fact that travelers are constrainedto rely on the vigilance of the keeper of the hotels or innsshall be considered in determining the degree of carerequired of him.
Art. 2001: The act of a thief or robber, who has enteredthe hotel is not deemed force majeure, unless it is donewith the use of arms or through an irresistible force.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 241/619
Art. 2002: The hotel-keeper is not liable forcompensation if the loss is due to the acts of the guests,his family, servants or visitors, or if the loss arises fromthe character of the things brought into the hotel.
Art. 2003: The hotel-keeper cannot free himself fromresponsibility by the posting notices to the effect that heis not liable for the articles brought by the guest. Anystipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guestwhereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in
Articles 1998 to 2001 is suppressed or diminished shallbe void.
SARKIES TOURS PHIL. v. CA, 280SCRA 58
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 242/619
Held: Where a common carrier accepts its passenger‟s
baggage for transportation and even had it placed inthe vehicle by its own employee, its failure to collect
the freight charge is the common carrier‟s ownlookout, and the common carrier is responsible forthe consequent loss of the baggage.
PAL v. IAC, 216 SCRA 334
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 243/619
Held: Although the baggage of a passenger was eventually
delivered to him, that did not constitute a case ofmere delay in delivery since the baggage was notdelivered at all to the passenger for the purpose ofthe trip in contravention of a common carrier‟sundertaking to transport the goods from the place ofembarkation to the ultimate point of destination.
The non-delivery of luggage during the entire lengthof passenger‟s stay abroad is a breach of carrier‟s
obligation.
OBLIGATION OF SHIPPER &PASSENGER
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 244/619
The shipper and passenger have the correspondingobligation to exercise due diligence in avoidingdamage to the goods or injury to himself.
However, contributory negligence on the part of the
passenger is not a defense that will excuse the carrierfrom liability. It will only mitigate such liability.
BUT IF HIS CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS THESOLE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE, CARRIER ISABSOLVED.
WHAT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 245/619
Proximate cause is that which, in the natural andcontinuous sequence, unbroken by an efficientintervening cause, produces injury and withoutwhich the result would not have occurred. [Sabena
Belgian World Airlines v. CA, 255 SCRA 38]
f h h l b d
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 246/619
Art. 1741: If the shipper or owner merely contributed tothe loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, theproximate cause thereof being the negligence of thecommon carrier, the latter shall be liable in damages,which however, shall be equitably reduced.
Art. 1761: The passenger must observe the diligence of agood father of a family to avoid injury to himself.
Art. 1762: The contributory negligence of the passengerdoes not bar recovery of damages for his death or
injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligenceof the common carrier, but the amount of damages shallbe equitably reduced.
ISAAC v. AMMEN TRANSPORT,101Phil. 1046 (On contributorynegligence)
F Th d hi h h b i
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 247/619
Facts: The road on which the bus was passing waswide enough for 2 buses only. A passenger placed hiselbow outside the window railing of the bus. Anoncoming bus hit the passenger‟s elbow, injuring it insuch a manner that it had to be amputated.
Held: Carrier is not liable because the proximatecause of the injury was the passenger‟s owncontributory negligence. This is a complete defense tothe common carrier, and absolves it from liability.
Note: While contributory negligence will only serve
to diminish the liability of the carrier under Art. 1761,NCC, the same will not apply if the proximate causeof his injury is his contributory negligence and notthat of carrier‟s negligence.
CERVANTES v. CA, GR 125138, Mar.2, 1999
F PAL i d d i i k P i i
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 248/619
Facts: PAL issued a round trip ticket to Petitionerwhich expressly provides for an expiry date of 1-yearfrom issuance. A separate written agreementprovides that the 1-year period may be extended
provided that the petitioner sends a letter to theairline‟s counsel asking for extension. Petitionerfailed to do the terms in the agreement.
Held: Petitioner cannot sue PAL for breach when hewas not allowed to board. Although he was booked
for the flight through PAL‟s agent, the latter was notauthorized to change the agreement.
DOCTRINE ON AVOIDABLECONSEQUENCES
Th ff i l i j i h
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 249/619
The party suffering loss or injury must exercise thediligence of a good father of a family to minimize thedamages resulting from the act or omission inquestion. (Art. 2203, NCC)
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCEINAPPLICABLE TO PASSENGERCLAIM
Th i i l f l l h li i i
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 250/619
The principle of last clear chance applies in a suitbetween the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles.
It does not arise where a passenger demandsresponsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations. It would be inequitable to exempt the negligent
driver of the jeepney and its owner on the groundthat the other driver was likewise guilty ofnegligence.
DOCTINE ON ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Th t t t k h i k i id t t th
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 251/619
That passengers must take such risks incident to themode of travel he takes since carriers are not insurersof the lives of their passengers.
In air travel, adverse weather conditions or extreme
climactic changers are some of the perils involved,the consequence of which the passenger must assumeor expect. (Japan Airlines v. CA, GR No. 118664, Aug.7, 1998).
But there is no assumption of risk in case the
passenger voluntarily boarded a carrier that wasoverloaded.
YOBIDO v. CA, 281 SCRA 1 (1997)
H ld
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 252/619
Held: As a rule, when a passenger boards a common
carrier, he takes the risks incidental to the mode oftravel he has taken, since after all, a carrier is not aninsurer of the safety of its passengers and is not
bound absolutely and at all e vents to carry themsafely and without injury.
However, when a passenger is injured or dies whiletraveling, the law under Art. 1755 of the Civil Codepresumes that the common carrier is negligent, andtherefore the burden of proof is upon such commoncarrier to prove that it has exercised theextraordinary diligence required under the law toavoid damage or injury to the passenger.
H h i i j d di hil
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 253/619
However, when a passenger is injured or dies whiletraveling, the law under Art. 1755 of the Civil Codepresumes that the common carrier is negligent, andtherefore the burden of proof is upon such common
carrier to prove that it has exercised theextraordinary diligence required under the law toavoid damage or injury to the passenger.
CALALAS v. CA, G.R. 122039, May31, 2000
F t A t d t t k j t d
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 254/619
Facts: A student took a passenger jeepney operatedby petitioner. As the jeepney was filled to capacity ofabout 24 passengers, the student was given by theconductor an extension seat. The jeepney stopped onits way to let a passenger off and the student gaveway to the outgoing passenger. Just as she was doingso, a truck bumped the rear end portion of the
jeepney. She suffered injuries as a result.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 255/619
COMPANA MARITIMA v. CA &CONCEPCION, G.R. L-31379, Aug. 29,1988
F t
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 256/619
Facts: Respondent Concepcion loaded his construction
equipment aboard MV Cebu to Cagayan de Oro City.
Upon arrival, one of his cargoes, a payloader fell on
the pier while being unloaded and damaged. Heclaimed for replacement of the unit. Petitioner deniedthe claim contending that Respondent furnished itwith inaccurate weight of his equipment. The excessweight caused the crane cables to snap.
Held
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 257/619
Held: While the act of private respondent in furnishing
petitioner with an inaccurate weight of the payloadercannot successfully be used as an excuse by petitioner toavoid liability, said act constitute a contributory
circumstance to the damage which mitigates the liabilityof petitioner.
We find equitable the conclusion of the CA reducing therecoverable amount of damages by 20% or 1/5 of thevalue of the payloader.
CANGCO v. MANILA RAILROADCO., G.R. 12191, Oct. 14, 1918
Facts:
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 258/619
Facts: Cangco was clerk of Manila Railroad with a monthly
wage of P25. In going to his workplace daily, he rodeon the trains to from his town of San Mateo, Rizal.
One day while returning home and while the trainwas slowing down alighted from his coach but one offeet came in contact with a sack of watermeloncausing him to fell violently on the platform. Hesustained serious injuries.
Held:
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 259/619
Held: The test by which to determine whether the passenger
has been guilty of negligence in attempting to alightfrom a moving railway train, is that of ordinaryreasonable care.
It is to be considered whether an ordinarily prudentperson, of the age, sex and condition of the passenger,would have acted as the passenger acted under thecircumstances disclosed by the evidence.
This care has been defined to be, not the care which mayor should be used by the prudent man generally, but thecare which a man of ordinary prudence would useunder similar circumstance, to avoid injury.
Or if we prefer to adopt the mode of exposition used by
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 260/619
Or, if we prefer to adopt the mode of exposition used bythis court in Picart v. Smith (37 Phil. 809), we may saythat the test is this: Was there anything in thecircumstances surrounding the plaintiff at the time healighted from the train which would have admonished a
person of average prudence that to get off the trainunder the conditions then existing was dangerous? If so, the plaintiff should have desisted from alighting;
and his failure so to desist was contributory negligence. Our conclusion is that the conduct of the plaintiff in
undertaking to alight while the train was yet slightlyunder way was not characterized by imprudence andthat therefore he was not guilty of contributorynegligence.
Plaintiff was earning P25 a month His expectancy of lifedi h d d li bl i
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 261/619
Plaintiff was earning P25 a month. His expectancy of life,according to the standard mortality tables, isapproximately 33-years.
We are of the opinion that a fair compensation for thedamage suffered by him for his permanent disability is
the sum of P2,500, and that he is also entitled to recoverof defendant the additional sum of P790.25 for medicalattention, etc.
Note: Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy [2/3 x 80less the age of the plaintiff] x Gross Annual Incomeless Living Expenses [computed @ 50% of GrossAnnual Income]
DEL PRADO v. MANILA ELECTRICCO., G.R. 29462, Mar. 7, 1929
Facts:
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 262/619
Facts: Manila Electric operated a street in Manila for
conveyance of passengers. While still moving,plaintiff ran across the street to catch the car, hisapproach being made from the left. The car was of
the kind having entrance and exit at either end, andthe movement of plaintiff was so timed that hearrived at the front entrance of the car at the momentwhen the car was passing.
Upon approaching the car, plaintiff raised his handas an indication to the motorman of his desire toboard. In response, the latter eased up a little,without stopping.
Upon this the plaintiff seized with his left hand the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 263/619
Upon this the plaintiff seized, with his left hand, thefront perpendicular handpost, at the same time placinghis left foot upon the platform.
However, before the plaintiff‟s position had become
secure, and even before his raised right foot had reachedthe platform, the motorman applied power whichcaused plaintiff‟s foot to slip. He fell to the ground andhis right foot crushed by the moving car.
Held:
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 264/619
Held: Although the motorman was not bound to stop to let the
plaintiff on, it was his duty to do no act that would havethe effect of increasing the plaintiff‟s peril while he wasattempting to board the car. The premature acceleration
of the car was a breach of this duty. As to contributory negligence of plaintiff, it should be
treated as a mitigating circumstance. It is obvious that the plaintiff‟s negligence in attempting
to board the moving car was not the proximate cause of
the injury. The direct and proximate cause was the act ofappellant‟s motorman in putting on the powerprematurely.
DUTY TO PAY FREIGHT
Rates charged by vessels for hire is now deregulated
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 265/619
Rates charged by vessels for hire is now deregulated(R.A. 9295).
However, on overland transportation, deregulatedrates are applied only to aircon buses.
Person to pay: The shipper or the consignee if carrierand shipper stipulates in the BL.
Time to pay: NCC is silent but Art. 374 provides for24-hr period to pay the freight.
CARRIER‟S LIEN
If consignee fails to pay the freight within the period
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 266/619
If consignee fails to pay the freight within the periodprescribed, the carrier may exercise it lien inaccordance with Art. 375 of the Code of Commerce.
Art. 375: The goods transported shall be especially
bound to answer for the cost of transportation andfor the expenses and fees incurred for them duringtheir conveyance and until the moment of delivery.
This special right shall PRESCRIBED EIGHT (8)DAYS AFTER THE DELIVERY HAS BEEN MADE,
and once prescribed, the carrier shall have no otheraction that that corresponding to him as an ordinarycreditor.
DEMMURRAGE
In its strict sense it is the compensation provided for
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 267/619
In its strict sense, it is the compensation provided forin the contract of affreightment for the detention ofthe vessel beyond the time agreed on for loading andunloading. It is essentially a claim for damages for
failure to accept delivery. In its broad sense, every improper detention of a
vessel may be considered demurrage.
Liability for demurrage, viewed in its strict sense, existsonly when expressly stipulated in the contract
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 268/619
only when expressly stipulated in the contract.
In its broader sense, damages in the nature of demurrageare recoverable for a breach of the implied obligation toload or unload the cargo with reasonable dispatch, but
only by the party to whom the duty is owed and onlyagainst one who is a party to the shipping contract.Notice of arrival of the vessel or conveyance, or theirplacement for purposes of unloading is CONDITIONPRECEDENT to the right to collect demurrage charges.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 269/619
Chapter 3
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
RATIONALE IN THE REQUIREMENTOF UTMOST DILIGENCE
A common carrier is bound to carry the passengerssafely as far as human care and foresight can provide
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 270/619
safely as far as human care and foresight can provide,using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons,with due regard for all circumstances.
This extraordinary diligence required of common
carriers is calculated to protect the passengers fromthe tragic mishaps that frequently occur inconnection with rapid modern transportation.
This high standard of care is imperatively demandedby the preciousness of human life and by the
consideration that every person must in every way besafeguarded against all injury. [Report of the CodeCommission, pp. 35-36]
HOW DUTY IS COMPLIED WITH
Source of common carrier‟s legal liability is contract
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 271/619
Source of common carrier s legal liability is contractof carriage binding itself to carry the passengerssafely as far as human care and foresight can provide,using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person,with due regard for all the circumstances.
It is not enough to exercise ordinary diligence; whatis required is extraordinary diligence. There is, however no fixed definition on what
extraordinary diligence means. In most cases,exercise of extraordinary diligence are given meaning
by way of illustrative examples.
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENGEAPPLICALBE TO THIRD PERSONS
Primarily the duty is owed by the common carrier to
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 272/619
Primarily, the duty is owed by the common carrier toits passengers and cargoes.
But, the duty also extends to:
- the members of the crew or complement;
- the pedestrians; and
- even to the owners and passengers of othervehicles.
KAPALARAN BUS LINES v.CORONADO, GR 85331, Aug. 25, 1989
Judicial notice is made on the gross negligence andthe appalling disregard of the physical safety and
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 273/619
Judicial notice is made on the gross negligence andthe appalling disregard of the physical safety andproperty of other so commonly exhibited today bythe drivers of passenger buses and similar vehicleson our highways.
In requiring the highest possible degree of diligencefrom common carriers and crating a presumption ofnegligence against them, the law compels them tocurb the recklessness of their drivers.
While the immediate beneficiaries of the standard ofextraordinary diligence are, of course the passengersand owners of cargo carried by a common carrier,they are not the only persons that the law seeks tobenefit.
For if common carriers carefully observed the statutory
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 274/619
For if common carriers carefully observed the statutorystandard of extraordinary diligence in respect of theirown passengers,
They cannot help BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFITPEDESTRIANS AND THE OWNERS ANDPASSENGERS OF OTHER VEHICLES who are equallyentitled to the safe and convenient use of our roads andhighways.
The law seeks to stop and prevent the slaughter and
maiming of people (whether passenger or not) and thedestruction of property (whether freight or not) on ourhighways by buses, the very size and power of whichseem often to inflame the minds of their drivers.
EFFECT ON STIPULATION LOWERTHAN THE REQUIRED DEGREE
On Goods:
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 275/619
On Goods: Art. 1744: A stipulation between the common carrier and
the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the formerfor the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods toa degree less than extraordinary diligence shall be valid,
provided it be:1. In writing, signed by the shipper or owner;2. Supported by a valuable consideration other than
the service rendered by the common carrier; and3. Reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy.
On passengers in general:A t 1757 Th ibilit f i f th
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 276/619
On passengers in general: Art. 1757: The responsibility of a common carrier for the
safety of passengers as required in Articles 1733 and1755 cannot be dispensed with or lessened bystipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on
tickets, or otherwise.On gratuitous passengers: Art. 1758: When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a
stipulation LIMITING THE COMMON CARRIER‟SLIABILITY for negligence is valid, BUT NOT FOR
WILLFUL ACTS OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE.The reduction of fare does not justify any limitationof the common carrier‟s liability.
LARA v. VALENCIA,GR 9907, June 30, 1958
Facts: The deceased Lara was inspector of the BFD at Davao
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 277/619
Facts: The deceased Lara was inspector of the BFD at Davao
City. Defendant Valencia was engaged in thebusiness of exporting logs from his timber concessionin Cotabato. Lara went to Valencia‟s area uponinstruction of his chief to classify the logs ofDefendant.
After six days of work, Lara, who was then eager toreturn home asked Valencia if he could take him inhis pick-up truck to which defendant agreed.
Lara was with the five other passengers who werewith Lara at the back of the pick-up. Lara was seatedon a bag.
While the pick-up was cruising along Km 96, Laraaccidentally fell from the pick-up and died.
After six days of work, Lara, who was then eager to
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 278/619
After six days of work, Lara, who was then eager toreturn home asked Valencia if he could take him inhis pick-up truck to which defendant agreed.
Lara was with the five other passengers who were
with Lara at the back of the pick-up. Lara was seatedon a bag.
While the pick-up was cruising along Km 96, Laraaccidentally fell from the pick-up and died.
Held:Deceased were merely accommodation passengers who
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 279/619
e d: Deceased were merely accommodation passengers who
paid nothing for the service and so they can beconsidered invited guests within the meaning of the law.
The rule is established by the weight of authority that
the owner or operator of an automobile owes the duty toan invited guest to exercise reasonable care in itsoperation, and not unreasonably to expose him todanger and injury by increasing the hazard of travel.
Note: Lara is not controlling upon common carriers sinceValencia was a private carrier who accommodated Lara.
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 280/619
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE INCARRIAGE BY SEA
WARRANTY OF VESSEL‟SSEAWORTHINESS
First step in complying with the requiredt di d f i il
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 281/619
p p y g qextraordinary degree of vigilance.
Seaworthiness of vessel is impliedly warranted underthe Insurance Code and the Carriage of the Goods bythe Sea Act (COGSA).
Shippers when transacting with common carriers arenot expected to inquire into the vessel‟sseaworthiness, genuineness of its license andcompliance with all maritime laws. Also true withpassengers.
The burden of proof on seaworthiness is with thecarrier.
SEAWORTHINESS DEFINED
Generally, seaworthiness is that strength, durability
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 282/619
y, g , yand engineering skill made a part of s ship‟sconstruction and continued maintenance, togetherwith a competent and sufficient crew, which would
withstand the vicissitudes and dangers of the of theelements which might reasonably be expected orencountered during her voyage without loss ordamage to her particular cargo. [Delsan TransportLines v. CA, GR 127897, Nov. 15, 2001]
STATUTORY PROVISIONS ONSEAWORTHINESS
Section 116, Code of Commerce: A warranty of
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 283/619
, yseaworthiness extends not only to the condition ofthe structure of the ship itself, but requires that it beproperly laden, and provided with a competent
master, a sufficient number of competent officers andseamen, and the requisite appurtenances andequipment, such as ballasts, cables and anchors,cordage and sails, food, water, fuel and lights, andother necessary or proper stores and implements forthe voyage.
Sec. 119, Insurance Code: A ship is seaworthy for thef i th hi
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 284/619
, p ypurpose of an insurance upon the ship may,nevertheless, by reason of being unfitted to receive thecargo, be unseaworthy for the purpose of insuranceupon the cargo.
Sec. 3[1] COGSA: The carrier shall be bound befored t th b i i f th t i d
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 285/619
[ ]and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise duediligence to –
(a) Make the ship seaworthy;(b) Properly man, equip, and supply the ship;(c) Make the holds, refrigerating and coolingchambers, and all other parts of the ship in whichgoods are carried, fit and safe for their reception,carriage and preservation.
Sec. 3[2] COGSA: The carrier shall properly andcarefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, anddischarge the goods carried.
SUMMATION OF THE REQUIREMENTON SEAWORTHINESS
A vessel must have such degree of fitness which anh i i i t di dili
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 286/619
gowner who is exercising extraordinary diligencewould require his vessel to have at thecommencement of the voyage, having regard to allthe probable circumstances of it.
Seaworthiness includes fitness of the vessel itself towithstand the vicissitudes of the voyage, fitness ofthe vessel to store the cargoes and accommodatepassengers to be conveyed and adequately equipped
with and properly manned with sufficient andcompetent officers and crew.
FITNESS OF VESSEL: HOWPROVED
It was drydocked and inspected by the PGC before it
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 287/619
y p yproceeded to its destination.
PGC cleared it as searworthy, fitted, equipped andmet all the requirement for trading.
Note: A ship will not normally sink if the sea ismoderate and if it is seaworthy or if the carrier andits employees were not negligent. [Loadstar Shippingv. CA, G.R. 131621, Sept. 28, 1999]
CARGOWORTHY
Ship must not only be seaworthy. IT MUST ALSO BECARGO WORTHY
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 288/619
p y yCARGO WORTHY.
To be cargo-worthy, the ship must be an efficientstorehouse for her cargo.
Cargo-worthiness means that the vessel must besufficiently strong and equipped to carry theparticular kind of cargo which she has contracted tocarry and her cargo must be so loaded that it is safefor her to proceed on her voyage. [Lord Chorley and
O.C. Siles, Shipping Law, 6th
Ed., p. 120]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 289/619
Art. 609, Code of Commerce: Captains, masters orpatrons of vessels must be Filipinos have legal capacity
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 290/619
ppatrons of vessels must be Filipinos, have legal capacityto contract in accordance with this code, and provenskill, capacity, and qualifications necessary to commandand direct the vessel, as established by marine or
navigation laws, ordinances, or regulations, and mustnot be disqualified according to the same for thedischarge of the duties of the position
If the owner of a vessel desires to be the captainthereof, without having the legal qualifications therefor,he shall limit himself to the financial administration ofthe vessel, and shall instrust the navigation to a personpossessing the qualifications required by said ordinancesand regulations.
OVERLOADING
Duty to exercise due diligence also includes the dutyto take passengers or cargoes that are within the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 291/619
y g yto take passengers or cargoes that are within thecarrying capacity of the vessel.
A carrier fails in this requirement where it allowedon 1,004 passengers when it total passenger capacityis only 864 [Negros Navigation v. CA, G.R. 110398, Nov.7, 1997]
REQUIREMENT OF PROPERSTORAGE
It is not enough that vessel must be suited for thecargo it contracted It must also be properly stored
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 292/619
cargo it contracted. It must also be properly stored.
Hence, where it was found out that the cause ofexplosion was due to the improper storage of anacetylene cylinder which caught fire which wasplaced in the accommodation area near the engineroom instead at the storage, the common carrier washeld to be negligent. [Phil. Home Assurance Corp. v.CA, G.R. 106999, June 20, 1996]
LIMITED LIABILITY RULE
The liability of the carrier in connection with lossesl d i i i fi d h l
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 293/619
related to maritime contracts is confined to the vessel,which is hypothecated for such obligations or whichstands as the guaranty for their settlement.
„No vessel, no liability‟ rule
NEGLIGENCE OF CAPTAIN &CREW
If the negligence of the captain or crew can be tracedto the fact that they are incompetent and that the ship
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 294/619
to the fact that they are incompetent and that the shipowner was negligent in their selection, the LimitedLiability Rule will not apply.
If simple negligence only by the captain or crew, whoare otherwise competent to discharge their duties, atthe time of the accident, the rule applies.
RULES ON PASSENGER SAFETYAND COURTESY DUE HIM
Failure to comply with MARINA rules andl ti tit t li th t f th
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 295/619
regulations constitutes negligence on the part of thecaptain and crew and of the shipowner.
MARINA Memorandum Circular 112 provides that
„passengers have the right to be treated by the carrierand its employees with kindness, respect, courtesyand due consideration. The are entitled to beprotected against personal misconduct, injurious
language, indignities and abuses from the carrier andits employees.
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 114
Provisions on:
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 296/619
Emergency exits
Handling of Handcarried Luggage
Lifevests or Lifejackets
Watertight doors, potholes, ramps and manholes
Wearing of proper prescribed uniform by Ship‟sofficers and crew.
Other safety measures
DEVIATION
Art. 359, CoC: If there is an agreement between theshipper and the carrier as to the road over which the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 297/619
shipper and the carrier as to the road over which theconveyance is to be made, the carrier may not changethe route, unless it be by reason of force majeure; andshould he do so without this cause, he shall be liable
for all the losses which he goods he transports maysuffer from any of other cause, beside paying the sumwhich may have been stipulated for such case.
When on account of said cause of force majeure, the
carrier had to take another route which produced anincrease in transportation charges, he shall bereimbursed for such increase upon formal proofthereof.
TRANSSHIPMENT
The act of taking cargo out of one ship and loading itin another; or
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 298/619
in another; or The transfer of goods from the vessel stipulated in
the contract of affreightment to another vessel beforethe place of destination named in the contract has
been reached; or The transfer for further transportation from one ship
or conveyance to another.Notes: Improper deviation and Transshipment without
consent of the shipper is violation of the required
standard of care. Improper deviation may be a validground to deny a marine insurance claim; whiletransshipment of freight without legal excuse is aviolation of the contract of carriage.
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 299/619
CARRIAGE BY AIR
AIRWORTHINESS
Airworthiness means that an aircraft, it engines,ll d h d i f
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 300/619
propellers, and other components and accessories, are ofproper design and construction, and are safe for airnavigation purposes, such design and construction being
consistent with accepted engineering practice and inaccordance with aerodynamic laws and aircraft science.(R.A. 779)
IT MUST BE PROVIDED WITH COMPETENT AND
WELL TRAINED CREW.Assigning a pilot inflicted with a tumor for a long time
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 301/619
- Assigning a pilot inflicted with a tumor for a long timefails in the requirement.
IT MUST FOLLOW THE DESIGNATED ROUTE.- A plane did not take the designated route resulting tothe tragic crash. The tragic crash could have beenavoided had it taken said designated route. (Abeto v.PAL, 115 SCRA 489)
IT MUST INSPECT ALL CARGO AND/OR BAGGAGEFOR LOADING. (R.A. 6235)
Saludo v. CA, G.R. 95536, Mar. 23,1992
Held:Wh i h bl d t
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 302/619
Where a common carrier has reasonable ground tosuspect that the offered goods are of a dangerous orillegal character, the carrier has the right to know the
character of such goods and to insist on aninspection, if reasonable and practical under thecircumstances, as a condition of receiving andtransporting such goods.
Northwest Airlines v. Laya, G.R.146020, May 29 2002
Held: Thorough inspection of the briefcase of Plaintiff as
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 303/619
Thorough inspection of the briefcase of Plaintiff asdeemed justified pursuant to the directive of the FAAof the US brought about by the tragic event thatunfolded on Sept. 11, 2001.
The fact that Plaintiff was greatly inconvenienced bythe fact that his attache case was subjected to furtherinspection does not warrant imposition of liabilitybecause he was not singled out and discriminated by
the employees of the carrier.
Protection of passengers must take precedence overconvenience. Nevertheless, the implementation of the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 304/619
security measures must be ATTENDED BY BASICCOURTESIES.
Hence, the carrier was made liable not for implementingthe security measure BUT FOR TREATING THEPLAINTIFF IN A RUDE, BRUSQUE, ARROGANT ANDDOMINEERING manner that caused his humiliation.
PAL v. CA & ZAPATOS, GR 82619,Sept. 15, 1993
Facts:O A 2 1976 Z t t th ith 20 th
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 305/619
On Aug. 2 1976, Zapatos, together with 20 otherpassengers, boarded PAL flight 477 from Cebu-Ozamis. The flight route was Cebu-Ozamis-Cotabato.
While on flight, the pilot received a radio messagethat the Ozamis airport was closed due to heavyrains and inclement weather and that the planeshould instead proceed to Cotabato.
Upon arrival at Cotabato, PAL agent informed thepassengers of their option to return to Cebu on-board
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 306/619
passengers of their option to return to Cebu on boardFlight 560 on the same day and take the next availableflight to Ozamis City on Aug. 5, 1975. Zapatos chose theoption offered but was not accommodated on the returnflight to Cebu because he was checked in as passengerno. 9 on Flight 477. He insisted to be given priority overconfirmed passengers but the station agent refused.
He tried to stop the departure of Flight 560 as his
personal belongings, including a package containing acamera was still on board.
Held:
The position taken by PAL in this case clearly illustratesits failure to grasp the exacting standard required by
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 307/619
its failure to grasp the exacting standard required bylaw. PAL‟s diversion of its flight due to inclementweather was a fortuitous event.
Nonetheless, such occurrence did not terminate itcontract with its passengers. Being in the business of aircarriage and the sole one to operate in the country, PALis deemed equipped to deal with situations as in the caseat bar.
What we said in one case once again must be stressed,i.e. the relation of carrier and passenger continues until
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 308/619
i.e. the relation of carrier and passenger continues untilthe latter has been landed at the port of destination andhas left the carrier‟s premises.
Hence, PAL necessarily would still have to exerciseextraordinary diligence in safeguarding the comfort,convenience and safety of its stranded passengers untilthey have reached their final destination.
ABETO v. PAL, GR L-28692, July 30,1982
Facts: Judge Abeto boarded PAL flight from Iloilo toManila on Nov. 23, 1960. The plane did not reach
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 309/619
, pManila. After 3 days, it was ascertained that itcrashed at Mt. Baco, Mindoro. All passengersperished.
Held: It is clear that the pilot did not follow thedesignated route for his flight between Romblon andManila. The weather was clear and he was supposedto cross airway “Amber I” over Romblon. Instead, hemade a straight flight to Manila in violation of anytraffic rules.
Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA (256 SCRA746)
Held: A common carrier breaches its contract of carriage when
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 310/619
A common carrier breaches its contract of carriage whenit failed to deliver its passengers to their destination safeand sound. A common carrier is bound to carry itspassengers safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautiousperson, with due regard for all the circumstances.
In contract of carriage, it is presumed that thecommon carrier was at fault or was negligent when a
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 311/619
common carrier was at fault or was negligent when apassenger dies or is injured.
Unless presumption is rebutted, the court need noteven make an express finding of fault or negligence
on the part of the common carrier. This statutorypresumption may only be overcome by evidence thatthe carrier exercised extraordinary diligence asprescribed in Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.
Chapter 4
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 312/619
BILL OF LADING
CONCEPT OF BL
A bill of lading, like a passage ticket, is not necessaryfor the perfection of a contract of carriage.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 313/619
p g
Art. 354, Code of Commerce: In the absence of a billof lading, disputes shall be determined by the legalproofs which the parties may present in support oftheir respective claims, according to the generalprovisions established in this Code for commercialtransaction.
Note: If involving common carrier, disputes without
BL is governed by the Civil Code. In respect toelectronic commerce, it is governed by R.A. 8792 ofthe Electronic Commerce Act.
BILL OF LADING DEFINED
A written acknowledgment, signed by the master ofa vessel or other authorized agent of the carrier, that
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 314/619
a vessel or other authorized agent of the carrier, thathe has received the described goods from theshipper, to be transported on the expressed terms to
the described place of destination, and to bedelivered there to the designated consignee orparties. [70 Am Jur 2d 924]
KINDS OF BILLS OF LADING
Negotiable or Non-negotiable Bill of Lading Clean Bill of Lading or Foul Bill of Lading
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 315/619
Clean Bill of Lading or Foul Bill of Lading
On-board Bill or Received-For-Shipment Bill ofLading
Spent Bill of Lading
Through Bill of Lading
Custody Bill of Lading
Port Bill of Lading
Negotiable or Non-negotiable Bill ofLading
When delivered to the Order or to bear, negotiable. Otherwise non-negotiable
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 316/619
Otherwise, non-negotiable.
Clean Bill of Lading or Foul Bill ofLading
When it does not contain any notation indicating anydefect in the goods – Clean BL
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 317/619
g
Otherwise, it is Foul BL
On-board Bill or Received-For-Shipment Bill of Lading
On-board BL is one in which it is stated that thegoods have been received on board the vessel which
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 318/619
is to carry the goods
Received for shipment BL is one which it is statedthat the goods have been received for shipment withor without specifying the vessel by which the goodsare to be shipped.
Custody Bill of Lading
One which states that the goods are already receivedby the carrier but the vessel indicated therein has not
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 319/619
yyet arrived at port.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 320/619
NATURE OF BILL OF LADING
It operates both as:1. A receipt for the goods shipped; and
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 321/619
1. A receipt for the goods shipped; and
2. A contract to transport and deliver the goods asstipulated therein. Being a contract, it is the law
between the parties who are bound by its terms andconditions sol longs as they are not contrary to law,morals, good customs, public order and publicpolicy.
It is also a document of title.
DOCUMENT OF TITLE
Includes any bill of lading, dock warrant, „quedan’, orwarehouse receipt or order for the delivery of goods,
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 322/619
p y gor any other document used in the ordinary course ofbusiness in the sale or transfer of goods, as proof of
the possession or control of the goods, or authorizingor purporting to authorize the possessor of thedocument to transfer or receive either byendorsement or by delivery, goods represented bysuch document. [Art. 1636, NCC]
EFFICACY OF BL
Upon delivery to and acceptance by the shipper. It is presumed that the stipulations of the BL were
k t th hi i th b f f d
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 323/619
known to the shipper, in the absence of fraud,concealment or improper conduct, and he generallybound by his acceptance whether he reads the bill or
not.
A shipper who receives a BL without objection afteran opportunity to inspect it, and permits the carrier
b d h h h
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 324/619
to act on it by proceeding with the shipment ispresumed to have accepted it as correct and assentedto its terms.
A BL accepted without dissent raises thepresumption that all the terms therein were broughtto the knowledge of the shipper and agreed to byhim, and in the absence of fraud or mistake, he is
estopped from thereafter denying that he assented tosuch terms.
BL AS CONTRACT OF ADHESION
BLs, like tickets constitute a class of contracts ofadhesion.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 325/619
Construed liberally in favor of the passenger orshipper.
But, they are not ENTIRELY prohibited.
One who adheres to the contract is in reality free toreject it entirely.
If he adheres, he gives his consent.
Receipt of the BL or ticket is tantamount to adherenceto the stipulation embodied therein
Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union and
Rock Insurance Co., 25 SCRA 70[1968]
Held: The courts cannot ignore that nowadays,monopolies, cartels and concentration of capitalendowed with overwhelm economic power, manage to
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 326/619
endowed with overwhelm economic power, manage toimpose upon parties dealing with them cunninglyprepared „agreements‟ that the weaker party may notchange one with his participation in the „agreement‟being reduced to the alternative „to take it or leave it‟,labelled since Raymond Sleilles „contracts of adherence‟(contracts d‟ adhesion) in contrast (of which policies ofinsurance and international bill of lading are primeexamples) obviously cap for greater strictness and
vigilance on the part of the court with view to protectingthe weaker party from abuses and imposition, andprevent their becoming traps of the unwary.
RULE ON PROTECTION OF THEDISADVANTAGED
Art. 24, NCC: In all contractual property or otherrelations, when one of the parties is at the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 327/619
disadvantage on account of his moral dependence,ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age
and other handicap, the courts must be vigilant forhis protection.
Servando, et al. v. Phil. Steam Navigation
Co., G.R. No. L-36481-2 October 23, 1982
Held: While it may be true that petitioner had not signed
the plane ticket (Exh '12') he is nevertheless bound
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 328/619
the plane ticket (Exh. '12'), he is nevertheless boundby the provisions thereof.
Such provisions have been held to be a part of the
contract of carriage, and valid and binding upon thepassenger regardless of the latter's lack of knowledgeor assent to the regulation.
It is what is known as a contract of 'adhesion', inregards which it has been said that contracts of
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 329/619
gadhesion wherein one party imposes a ready madeform of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in
the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free
to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent.
Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corp.v. CA, G.R. 95529, Aug. 22, 1991
Issue 1: On the argument that there could have beenno agreement in the transshipment even if the BL
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 330/619
contained such since the same is prohibited in theLetter of Credit, and that, therefore, it had no
intention to allow transshipment of the subject cargo,it was:
Held: As between such stilted thesis of petitioner and the
contents of the bill of lading evidencing the intention of
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 331/619
g gthe parties, it is irremissible that the latter must prevail.
The terms of the contract as embodied in the bill oflading are clear and thus obviates the need for anyinterpretation. The intention of the parties which is thecarriage of the cargo under the terms specifiedthereunder and the wordings of the bill of lading do notcontradict each other.
The terms of the contract being conclusive upon theparties and judging from the contemporaneous and
b t t ti f titi t it
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 332/619
subsequent actuations of petitioner, to wit:personally receiving and signing the bill of ladingand paying the freight charges, there is no doubt that
petitioner must necessarily be charged with fullknowledge and unqualified acceptance of the termsof the bill of lading and that it intended to be boundthereby.
Issue No. 2: Can a consignee refuse a bill of lading on theground that there was overshipment of goods than thequantit co ered b the letter of credit?
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 333/619
quantity covered by the letter of credit?
Held: In a letter of credit, there are three distinct andindependent contracts: (1) the contract of sale betweenthe buyer and the seller; (2) the contract of the buyerwith the issuing bank; and (3) the letter of credit properin which the bank promises to pay the seller pursuant tothe terms and conditions stated therein.
It is clearly settled in law that the three contracts which
make up the letter of credit arrangement are to bemaintained in a state of perpetual separation.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 334/619
p p p
A transaction involving the purchase of goods may alsorequire, apart from a letter of credit, a contract of
transportation specially when the seller and the buyerare not in the same locale or country, and the goodspurchased have to be transported to the latter.
Hence, the contract of carriage, as stipulated in the bill oflading must be treated independently of the contract ofsale between the seller and the buyer, and the contract
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 335/619
sale between the seller and the buyer, and the contractfor the issuance of a letter of credit between the buyerand the issuing bank.
Any discrepancy between the amount of goodsdescribed in the commercial invoice in the contract ofsale and the amount allowed in the letter of credit willnot affect the validity and enforce-ability of the contractof carriage as embodied in the bill of lading.
As a bank cannot be expected to look beyond the
documents presented to it by the seller pursuant to theletter of credit, neither can the carrier be expected to go
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 336/619
p gbeyond the representations of the shipper in the bill oflading and to verify their accuracy vis-à-vis the
commercial invoice and the letter of credit.
Having no actual knowledge of the kind, quantity, orcondition of the contents of the container, the carrierissues the corresponding bill of lading based on the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 337/619
issues the corresponding bill of lading based on thedeclaration of the shipper, and the bill of lading simplystates the contents of the container either as advised by
the shipper or prefaced by the phrase “said to contain”. The matter of quantity, description and conditions of the
cargo inside the container is the sole responsibility of theshipper.
PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE
Sec. 9, Rule 130, Rules of Court: When the terms of anagreement have been reduced to writing, it isconsidered as containing all the terms agreed upon
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 338/619
considered as containing all the terms agreed uponand there can be, between the parties and theirsuccessors in interest, no evidence of such terms
other than the contents of the written agreement. BL is covered by the parole evidence rule.
EXCEPTIONS TO PAROLEEVIDENCE RULE
However, a party may present evidence to modify,explain or add to the terms of the written agreementif he puts in issue in his pleading:
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 339/619
if he puts in issue in his pleading:
a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection inthe written agreement;
b) The failure of the written agreement to express thetrue intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
c) The validity of the written agreement; or
d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors in interest after theexecution of the written agreement.
The term “agreement” includes wills.
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS ONBILL OF LADING
Art. 353, Code of Commerce: The legal evidence ofthe contract between the shipper and the carrier shallb th bill f l di b th t t f hi h th
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 340/619
be the bills of lading, by the contents of which thedisputes which may arise regarding their execution
and performance shall be decided, no exceptionsbeing admissible other the those of falsity andmaterial error in the drafting.
After the contract has been complied with, the bill oflading which the carrier has issued shall be returned tohim, and by virtue of the exchange of this title with thething transported the respective obligations and actions
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 341/619
thing transported, the respective obligations and actionsshall be considered cancelled, unless in the same act theclaim which the parties may wish to reserve be reduced
to writing, with the exception of that provided for inArticle 366 In case the consignee, upon receiving the goods, cannot
return the bill of lading subscribed by the carrier,because of its loss or of any other cause, he must give the
latter a receipt for the goods delivered, this receiptproducing the same effects as the return of the bill oflading.
Art. 709, Code of Commerce: A bill of lading drawn upin accordance with the provisions of this title shall beproof as between all those interested in the cargo and
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 342/619
proof as between all those interested in the cargo andbetween the latter and the insurers, proof to the contrarybeing reserved for the latter.
Art. 710, Code of Commerce: If the bills of lading arecontradictory, and no change or erasure can be observedin any of them, those possessed by the shipper orconsignee signed by the captain shall be proof againstthe captain or ship agent in favor of the consignee orshipper; and those possessed by the captain or shipagent signed by the shipper shall be proof against theshipper or consignee in favor of the captain or shipagent.
Sec. 3[4] & [5], COGSA, C.A. No. 65: [4] Such a bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of
the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 343/619
the receipt by the carrier of the goods as thereindescribed in accordance with paragraphs 3(a), (b), and(c), of this section.
[5] The shipper shall be deemed to have guaranteed tothe carrier the accuracy at the time of the shipment of themarks, number, quantity, and weight, as furnished byhim; and the shipper shall indemnify the carrier againstall loss, damages, and expenses arising or resulting frominaccuracies in such particulars. The right of the carrierto such indemnity shall in no way limit his responsibilityand liability under the contract of carriage to any personother than the shipper.
MATTERS TO BE ENTERED IN ABL OR AIRWAY BILL
For BL (Art. 706, Code of Commerce): Name, registry and tonnage of the vessel Name of captain and his domicile [not anymore
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 344/619
Name of captain and his domicile [not anymoreapplicable as of present]
Port of loading and unloading Name of shipper Name of consignee Quantity, quality, number of packages and marks of
the merchandise; and
Freight and primage
For Airwaybill (Art. 3[1], Warsaw Convention on AirTransport:
Place and date of issue
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 345/619
Place of departure and destination;
Agreed stopping places, provided the carrier may
reserve the right to alter the stopping places in case ofnecessity, and that if he exercises that right, thealteration shall not have the effect of depriving thetransportation of its international character;
Name and address of the carrier or carriers; and Statement that the transportation is subject to the rules
relating to liability in this convention.
KINDS OF STIPULATIONS IN ABILL OF LADING
First kind: One exempting the carrier from any andall liability for loss or damage occasioned by its ownnegligence – VOID;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 346/619
Second kind: One providing for an unqualifiedlimitation of such liability to an agreed valuation – VOID; and
Third kind: One limiting the liability of the carrier toan agreed valuation unless the shipper declares ahigher value and pays a higher rate of freight –VALID.
[H.E. Heacock Co. v. Macondray & Co., G.R. 16598l, Oct.3, 1991]
LIABILITY OF CARRIER UNDERCOGSA
If goods are to be shipped from a foreign port to the aPhilippine, COGSA is applicable suppletority to theCivil Code
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 347/619
Civil Code.
Liability of the carrier is US$500 per package, in the
absence of a shipper‟s declaration of a higher value inthe BL.
The above condition is deemed part of the BL even ifnot expressly stated.
MEANING OF PACKAGE
If goods are shipped in cartons – Each carton isconsidered a package even if they are stored incontainer vans.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 348/619
If what ordinarily considered as packages areshipped in a container supplied by the carrier and the
number of such unit is disclosed in the BL – Each ofthose units (not the container) constitutes thepackage referred to in COGSA.
Belgian Overseas Chartering v. Phil. FirstInsurance Co., G.R. 143133, June 5, 2002
Facts: Steel sheets numbering 242 coils were shippedon board a vessel of Petitioner in Germany to Manila.The coils were shipped inside the container vans
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 349/619
The coils were shipped inside the container vansprovided by the carrier. The LC covering theshipment state the per metric ton price of the coils.Upon arrival, it was found out that 4 coils weredamaged.
Held: Each coil is considered one package. Theliability of the carrier should not be based on the
price declared in the Letter of Credit.
WARSAW CONVENTION ON AIRTRANSPORT
Liability to passenger – P250,000 francs (passenger &carrier may agree to a higher limit of liability
Liability to baggage and cargo – P250 francs per kg
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 350/619
Liability to baggage and cargo P250 francs per kg(unless the passenger or consignor has made, at thetime when the package was handed over to the
carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery atdestination and has paid a sup- plementary sum notexceeding the declared sum, unless he proves thatsum is greater than the actual value to the consignorat delivery.
In case of loss, damage or delay of part of registeredbaggage or cargo, or of any object contained in thewaybill – The weight shall be taken into consideration in
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 351/619
determining the amount and carrier‟s liability is limitedto the TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE PACKAGE/S
However, when the loss, damage or delay of a part ofthe registered baggage or cargo, or of an object containedtherein, affects the value of other packages covered bythe same baggage check of the same airway bill, theTOTAL WIEHT OF SUCH PACKAGE/S shall also be
taken into consideration in determining the limit ofliability.
Liability to hand carried items – 5,000 francs perpassenger
The above limitations are without prejudice to the local
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 352/619
court‟s award in accordance to its own law, in addition,the whole or part of the court cost and other expenses of
litigation incurred by plaintiff.
Not applicable if the amount of damages awarded,excluding court costs and other expenses of litigation,does not exceed the sum which the carrier has offered in
iti t l i tiff ithi 6 th f th d t f
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 353/619
writing to plaintiff within 6 months from the date ofoccurrence causing the damage or before
commencement of the action, if that is later. If damage is caused by willful misconduct or by such
default on the part of the carrier: Carrier cannot invokethe provisions in Warsaw Convention on limitedliability.
HAGUE PROTOCOL AMENDMENT TOWARSA CONVENTION ON AIR TRANSPORT
Removed the provision that exculpates the airlinecompletely if it took all necessary steps to avoid thedamage.Th t l d l th t th t t d li it f li bilit
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 354/619
The protocol declares that the stated limits of liabilityare not applicable „if it is proved that the damageresulted from an act or omission of the carrier, itsservants or agents, done with intent to cause damageor recklessly and with knowledge that damagewould probably result.
Note: Montreal Agreement of 1966 allows a passengerto recover unlimited damages upon proof of willful
misconduct.
LIABILITY UNDER COGSA
If no value is state – Maximum: US$500. If value is stated – Rule on Qualified Liability.
Q lifi d Li bilit R l
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 355/619
Qualified Liability Rule:
A carrier may fix a maximum liability in the event
the shipper does not declare any value or a valude upto a certain amount. Should shipper declare a highervalue, and willing to pay higher freightage, thecarrier shall accordingly be liable for greater damage.
CASES INVOLVING BILLS OFLADING
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 356/619
LADING
Maersk Line v. CA, 222 SCRA 108
Held: Bill of lading, although contracts of adhesion, are not
prohibited and the terms thereof binding since the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 357/619
prohibited and the terms thereof binding, since theother party is free to reject it, and yet has accepted
the terms thereof. But the terms of the bill of ladingwhich create an absurd situation as having the effectof practically leaving the date of arrival of theshipment to the sole determination and will of thecarrier cannot be enforced.
Telengtan Bros. v. CA, 236 SCRA 617
Held: A bill of lading is both a receipt and a contract. As a
contract its terms and conditions are conclusive on
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 358/619
contract, its terms and conditions are conclusive onthe parties, including the consignee, as to the route,
destination, freight rates or charges, and stipulatesthe rights and obligations assumed by the parties.
Saludo, Jr. v. CA, 207 SCRA 498
Held: A bill of lading is a written acknowledgment of the
receipt of the goods and an agreement to transport
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 359/619
p g g pand deliver them at a specific place to a personnamed or on his order.
Acceptance thereof without dissent raises thepresumption that all the terms therein were broughtto the knowledge of the shipper and agreed to byhim and estops him thereafter from denying thesame.
United States Lines v. Commissionerof Customs, 151 SCRA 189
Held: The containerization system was devised to facilitate
the expeditious and economical loading, carriage andunloading of cargoes
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 360/619
unloading of cargoes. Under that system, the shipper loads his cargoes in a
specially designed container, seals the container anddelivers it to the carrier for transportation. The carrier does not participate in the counting of the
merchandise for loading into the container, the actualloading thereof nor the sealing of the container.
Everett Steamship v. CA, 287 SCRA496
Held:
A stipulation printed in BL limiting common carrier‟sliability for loss or destruction of a cargo to a certainsum unless shipper or owner declare a greater value
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 361/619
sum, unless shipper or owner declare a greater valueis sanctioned by law, particularly Arts. 1749 and 1750of the Civil Code, provided such stipulation must bereasonable and just under the circumstances and hasbeen freely and fairly agreed upon.
The printing of such limiting stipulation in a smallprint on the BL does not make the BL invalid nor can
it be argued that the stipulation has not been fairlyand freely agreed upon as to be binding on thecarrier.
At most, the situation only calls for a greater vigilanceon the part of courts when dealing with such contracts ofadhesion in that said contracts must be carefully
d d h ld h ( k
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 362/619
scrutinized in order to shield the unwary (or weakerparty) from deceptive schemes contained in ready-made
covenants. In this case, since the shipper is engaged in trading
business, it cannot be said to be ignorant of the businesstransactions it entered into involving the shipment of itsgoods to its customers.
The shipper could have known, or should know thestipulations in the BL and there it should have declared ahigher valuation of the goods shipped.
Valenzuela Hardwood v. CA, 274SCRA 642
Held:
A stipulation in a charter party that the owners shallnot be responsible for loss, split, short-landing,breakages and any kind of damage to the cargo is
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 363/619
breakages and any kind of damage to the cargo, isNOT VOID as being contrary to public policy, when
it is clear from the arrangement that the carriermerely acted as private carrier under the terms of thecharter party.
In a contract of private carriage, the parties mayvalidly stipulate the responsibility for the cargo rests
solely on the charterer, exempting the shipownerfrom liability for loss of or damage to the cargocaused even by the negligence of the ship captain.
PAL v. CA, 255 SCRA 48 on theperiod provided in Way bill
Held:
Where the failure to file the formal claim within theprescriptive period contemplated in the air waybillwas largely due to the fault of carrier‟s
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 364/619
was largely due to the fault of carrier srepresentatives, the condition was deemed fulfilled
considering the collective action of the carrier‟spersonnel in tossing around the claim and leaving itunresolved for an indefinite period of time, whichwas tantamount to „voluntarily preventing itsfulfillment‟, and therefore the filing of the baggage
freight claim constituted substantial compliance withthe requirement of the filing of a formal claim
Chapter 5PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS IN CLAIMS
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 365/619
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS IN CLAIMS
FILING OF CLAIM IN INTER-ISLANDCOMMERCE (Art. 366, Code ofCommerce)
If goods arrived in damaged condition: Apparent – Must file a claim immediately (oral or
written)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 366/619
tte )
Not apparent – Must file a claim within 24 hours
from deliver
FILING OF ACTION ININTERISLAND TRADE
Period to file action if claim is filed but CARRIERREFUSES TO PAY:
6 years – if no BL
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 367/619
y
10 years – if there is BL
Note: Filing of the claim under Art. 366, CoC isCONDITION PRECEDENT for recovery. If no claimis filed, there will be no recovery, even if an actiontherefor is meritorious since the claim is part of the
cause of action
FILING OF CLAIMS IN OVERSEASTRADE
If damage is APPARENT – CLAIM SHOULD BEFILED IMMEDIATELY.
If damage is NOT APPARENT – CLAIM SHOULD
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 368/619
g
BE FILED WITHIN 3 DAYS.
FILING OF ACTION IN OVERSEASTRADE
1 year from the time vessel departs from port withoutmaking delivery; or1 f th d t th d d i d li d
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 369/619
1 year from the date the damaged cargo is deliveredto arrastre.
Note: the 1 year period applies also to collision cases. If mis-delivered: 10 years; If claim is based on delay:
10 years.Note: Filing of claim is NOT A CONDITION
PRECEDENT in the filing of action.
Rizal Surety v. Macondray, 22 SCRA902
Facts: A vessel arrived in Manila on Oct. 25. It leftManila on Oct. 31. The BL showed that the cargo wasaboard the vessel, but it was never delivered. Theshipper brought an action against the carrier for non-
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 370/619
pp g gdelivery.
Held: Since there was no tally sheet AND NODELIVERY, the 1- year prescriptive period for filingthe action should be counted from the LAST DAYON WHICH THE CARRIER HAD ANOPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE DELIVERY, i.e. Oct.31 when the vessel departed from port.
Union Carbide v. Manila Railrod, 77SCRA 359
Held: In the case when the vessel docked at the pier, where
the cargo has been unloaded and delivered to the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 371/619
garrastre, the 1-year period begins to run from the
date of delivery to the arrastre operator.
Ang v. American SS Agencies, 19SCRA 631
Held: Where there was delivery to the wrong person, the
prescriptive period is (10) years because there is a
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 372/619
p p p ( ) yviolation of contract, and COGSA does not apply to
misdelivery.
US Insurance v. Cia. Maritima, 21SCRA 998
Facts: Cargo was loaded in New York for Davao City. Since
most of the cargo was for Manila, the carrierl d d ll th i l di th t f D Cit
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 373/619
unloaded all the cargo, including that for Davao City,in Manila and did not make a trip to Davao. Instead,
the goods for Davao were transshipped on an inter-island vessel. The cargo arrived in a damagedcondition.
Held:
The 1-year period provided in COGSA shall still applysince the contract of carriage is from New Yor to Davao.The inter-island vessel from Manila to Davao is
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 374/619
The inter island vessel from Manila to Davao isconsidered merely a connecting vessel and the
transshipment did not constitute a separate contract ofcarriage.
Filipino Merchants Ins. Co. v.Alejandro, 145 SCRA 42
Held: The insurer of the goods is also bound by the 1-year
prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 375/619
p p p g ySea Act.
Dole Philippines v. Maritime Co., 148SCRA 118
Held: The written extrajudicial demand by creditor DOES
NOT TOLL the running of the 1-year prescriptive
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 376/619
period under COGSA since an action must be filed
within the period.
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines v. CA, 287 SCRA366
Facts:
Carrier undertook loading. However, while in Taiwan,goods were not transshipped immediately, with theresult that goods arrived in France late during the „off
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 377/619
result that goods arrived in France late during the off-season‟. Consignee paid only half of the value of the
goods and balance was charged against loss sustaineddue to late arrival. Shipper now seeks to recover unpaidbalance from the carrier which opposes the same sincethe loss or damage to goods shipped under Sec. 3(6) ofthe Carriage of the Goods by Sea Act has been barred by
the lapse of 1-year period.
Held: Indeed, what is in issue here is not the liability of carrier
of its handling of goods as provided under Sec. 3(6) ofCOGSA, but its liability under its contract of carriage
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 378/619
COGSA, but its liability under its contract of carriagewith shipper as covered by the laws of more generalapplication.
Since the concept of „loss or damage‟ involves hedeterioration of goods DUE TO DELAY in theirtransportation, the claims of shipper DO NOTCONSTITUTE LOSS OR DAMAGE within the meaningof COGSA which requires the suit to be brought within
1-year from the time the cause of action accrued. The 1-year prescriptive period under COGSA is
inapplicable. What is applicable is Art. 1144 of the CivilCode providing for a 10-year prescriptive period.
Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. v. CA, 274SCRA 432
Facts:
The shipper has insured the merchandise against allrisks with South Sea Surety During the voyage the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 379/619
risks with South Sea Surety. During the voyage, themerchandise were damaged. Insurer opposed claim on
the ground, inter alia, that it was filed more than one (1)year from discovery of the damage to the merchandiseand therefore barred by the provisions under COGSA.
Held:
The provision applies only to carrier‟s liability which isextinguished if no suit is brought within one year.
The liability of the insurer is not extinguished becausethe insurer‟s liability is based not on the contract of
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 380/619
the insurer s liability is based not on the contract ofcarriage but on the contract of insurance.
COGSA governs relationship between carrier andshipper, the consignee and/or the insurer on the otherhand and defines the obligations of the carrier under thecontract of carriage.
It does not, however, affect the relationship between
shipper and insurer which is governed by InsuranceCode.
MEANING OF DAMAGES
The pecuniary compensation, recompense, orsatisfaction for an injury sustained; or
The pecuniary consequences which the law imposes
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 381/619
for the breach of some duty or violation of somerights.
DAMAGES RECOVERABLE
Actual Damages (dano emergente) Unrealized Profits (lucro cesante)
Moral Damages
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 382/619
Nominal Damage
Temperate or Moderate Damages Liquated Damages
Exemplary or Corrective Damages
Other damages
ACTUAL & COMPENSATORYDAMAGES
Art. 2205, NCC: Damages may be recovered:(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity incases of temporary or permanent personal injury;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 383/619
(2) For injury to the plaintiff‟s business standing or
commercial credit. Amount of damages in case of death: P100,000 per
passenger for overland; P200,000 for marinetransportation.
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITYUNDER ART. 2206
Formula: Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy [2/3 x 80 –
age at death] x Gross Annual Income less NecessaryLi i E [fi d 50% f h i i
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 384/619
Living Expenses [fixed at 50% of the gross income inthe absence of proof]
MORAL DAMAGES (Art. 2219, CivilCode)
Include Physical suffering, Mental anguish, Fright
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 385/619
Fright, Serious anxiety, Besmirched reputation, Wounded feelings, Moral shock, Social humiliation, and
Similar injury
PRINCIPLES INVOLVING AWARDOF MORAL DAMAGES
As a general rule, no moral damages may beawarded where the breach of contract is NOTMALICIOUS.
Moral damages may be awarded if the contractual
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 386/619
Moral damages may be awarded if the contractualnegligence is considered gross negligence.
Though incapable for pecuniary estimation, moraldamages may be recovered if they are the proximateresult of the defendant‟s wrongful act or omission.
The award of moral damages is designed tocompensate the claimant for actual injury and is notmeant to enrigh the complainant at the expense ofthe defendant.
CASES WHEN MORAL DAMAGES
MAY BE AWARDED (Arts. 2219 & 2220,NCC)
Criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts Adultery or concubinage
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 387/619
Adultery or concubinage Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest Illegal search Libel, slander or any other form of defamation Malicious prosecution Acts mentioned in Art. 309 [disrespect to the dead, or
wrongful interference with a funeral] Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 32, 34 and 35 [on human relations]
In culpa contractual, moral damages may be awarded:
Where the mishap resulted in the death of the passenger.(Art. 1764 in relation to Art. 2206)
When the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith, even if
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 388/619
death did not result. (Art. 2220; Sabena Belgian World
Airlines v. CA, 171 SCRA 620) Note: If the cause of action is culpa aquiliana where the
passenger suffered physical injuries, there is no moreneed to prove that the carrier acted fraudulent or in badfaith (Art. 2210[2], Civil Code)
Lopez v. Pan Am, 16 SCRA 431(1966)
Facts: VP Lopez with his wife, daughter and son-in-law had
tickets for 1st class bound for SF. When they arrivedin Tokyo, the plane‟s crew found out that the 1st class
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 389/619
in Tokyo, the plane s crew found out that the 1 classtickets had been overold, and Lopez and his family
were compelled to take the economy seats. When the plane arrived at SF, Filipino official and the
Filipino community with a band waited for Lopez toappear from the 1st class section. It caused himhumiliation.
Held:
Pan-Am should have informed Lopez of the possibledowngrading to prevent his humiliation
The court award Lopez P300,000 in moral damages andP150 000 in attorney‟s fees
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 390/619
P150,000 in attorney s fees.
The substantial amount of damages was awarded inview of the importance of the person of the passenger
Zulueta v. Pan-Am (1972)
Facts: Zulueta was a passenger on a Pan-Am flightwith his wife and children from SF to Manila. Onstopover at Wake Island, the passengers were toldthat the plane would leave in 30 minutes. After 30mins Zulueta failed to show up the crew had to look
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 391/619
mins. Zulueta failed to show up, the crew had to lookfor him. When he was found, the plane captain called
him „a brown monkey. Bitter exchanged followed.The captain then order the crew to unload Zulueta‟sbaggage and he was left behind.
Held: Zulueta is entitled to moral damages ofP500,000 and Attorney‟s fees of P50,000
Ong Yui v. CA, 91 SCRA 223
Held: In repealing the Shewaran Doctrine, the SC ruled that
the qualified liabilityappearing on the ticket isbinding even if the passenger did not sign it
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 392/619
binding even if the passenger did not sign it.
ARRASTRE
In its generic term, it refers to a contract for theunloading of goods from a vessel.
In maritime law, arrastre applies only to overseastrade.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 393/619
When a person brings in cargo from abroad, he
cannot unload and deliver the cargo by himself. Thisis done through the arrastre operator, which will beobligated to deliver the cargo to the importer.
Firemen‟s Fund v. Cia. General deTabacos, 34 SCRA 392 (1970)
Held:
The Arrastre operator, for the privilege of thoseundertaking signs a Management Contract with thePhilippine Government. But among the stipulations
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 394/619
pp g pin the MC are provisions that adversely affect the
importer. The management contract contains stipulations pour
autrui and there is stamped across the DeliveryPermit that the importer received the goods subjectto the management contract, then he shall be bound
by the same.
PARTIES IN ARRASTRECONTRACT
The Government (RP) The Arrastre Operator being awarded the privilege of
operating an arrastre service
Thi d t b fi i h i th hi
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 395/619
Third party beneficiary, who is the shipper or person
being serviced by the arrastre.
4 STIPULATIONS IN THE REVISEDMANAGEMENT CONTRACT AFFECTINGTHE IMPORTER OR SHIPPER
Formal claim against arrastre:
- Within 30 days from date of final entry with the Bureauof Customs supported by invoices and other shippingdocuments. (A condition precedent)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 396/619
Action on claim by arrastre: 60 days from receipt. (A
condition precedent)
If claim is refused: Action to be filed within 1 years.
If claim is not acted upon: The 1 year period begins torun from the date of the expiry of the 60-day period.
Qualified liability of arrastre: P2,000 per package unless
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 397/619
Q y , p p ghigher value is declared.
NATURE OF LIABILITY OF ARRASTRE & CARRIER:Solidary
Metro Port Services v. IAC, 213SCRA 103 (1992)
Held: A provision limiting the liability of arrastreoperator through the imposition of a requirementthat a formal claim must be made within 30 daysfrom filing of entry is complied with when theconsignee filed a provisional claim within the 30-day
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 398/619
consignee filed a provisional claim within the 30 dayperiod.
As of that date, the arrastre operator was givenreasonable opportunity to check the validity of theclaim while the facts were still fresh in the minds ofthe person who took part in the transaction andwhile pertinent documents were still available.
It did not matter that the provisional claim was forthe whole amount of the invoice. It is sufficient aslong as the name of the carrying vessel, its date ofarrival and BL are attached.
Firemen‟s Fund v. Tabacalers, 34SCRA 392
Held: The adverse stipulations of the Revised Management
Contract will affect the importer only if the deliverypermit is stamped: „subject to RMC‟
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 399/619
permit is stamped: subject to RMC .
Where there is none, the importer cannot be bound.
DEGREE OF DILIGENCEREQUIRED IN ARRASTRE
In the performance of its obligations, an arrastreoperator should observe the same degree of diligenceas that required of a common carrier and awarehouseman, i.e. EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 400/619
, N N
Being custodian of the goods discharged from avessel, an arrastre operator‟s duty is to take goodcare of the goods and to turn them over to the partyentitled to their possession. [Summa Insurance v. CA,253 SCRA 175]
BURDEN OF PROOF IN ARRASTRECLAIMS
In a claim for loss filed by a consignee, the burden ofproof to show compliance with the obligation todeliver the goods to the appropriate party devolvesupon the arrastre operator.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 401/619
The reason is because the safekeeping of the goods
rest within its knowledge. Hence, it must prove thatthe losses were not due to its negligence or that of itsemployee. [ICTSI v. Prudential Guarantee & AssuranceCo., Inc., 320 SCRA 244]
„SHIPPER‟S LOAD & COUNT‟SHIPMENT
When consigned goods are shipped under „shipper‟sload and count‟, the shipper is solely responsible forthe container‟s load as the carrier would then beoblivious of the contents of the shipment.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 402/619
Protection against pilferage of the shipment are then
the consignee‟s lookout. The arrastre operator is, like any ordinary depositary,
duty-bound to take good care of the goods receivedfrom the vessel and to turn the same over to the partyentitled to their possession, subject to such
qualification as may have validly been imposed inthe contract between the parties.
The arrastre operator is not required to verify
the contents of the container received and tocompare them with those declared by theshipper because the cargo was at the shipper‟s
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 403/619
shipper because the cargo was at the shipper sload and count, and is expected to deliver to theconsignee only the container received from thecarrier.
COMMERCIAL TERMS WHENCARRIER INTERVENES
FOB (Free on Board) – Delivery to the vessel isdelivery to the buyer. Carrier becomes the AGENTOF THE BUYER.
FAS (Free Alongside Ship) – The seller pays all
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 404/619
FAS (Free Alongside Ship) The seller pays allcharges and bears the risk until the goods are placedalongside overseas vessel and within the reach of itsloading tackle. The same presumption as FOB.
CIF (Cost, Insurance & Freight) – The quotation price
quotation on CIF presumes that the seller shall pay thecost of rating and packaging, insurance and thefreightage. Carrier is deemed the agent of the seller andownership is retained by him throughout the trip It
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 405/619
ownership is retained by him throughout the trip. It
passes to the buyer only upon reaching the port ofdestination and the cargo is discharged and delivered tothe buyer. Insurable interest is with the SELLER. Taxesare not yet due since the sale is not yet deemed perfecteduntil the cargo reaches the port of destination.
PART IIMARITIME LAW
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 406/619
Chapter 6GENERAL CONCEPTS
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 407/619
MARITIME LAW
The system of laws which particularly relates to theaffairs and business of the sea, to ships, their crewsand navigation, and to marine conveyance of personsand property.
I l d
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 408/619
Includes:
Book II, Code of Commerce (Maritime Commerce Act No. 2616 (The Salvage Law)
C.A. No. 65 (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act)
P.D. 1521 (Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978)
R.A. 9295 (The Domestic Shipping Act of 2004) Other special laws relating to maritime commerce
ORIGINS OF SHIPPING
Man‟s first use of the sea started 3,000 years ago – Fishing developed into highly organized activity.
At that time, ships were used to carry large andheavy piece of cargo which neither man nor beast ofburden can carry.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 409/619
bu de ca ca y. In one account, the Queen of Ancient Egypt move her
stone obelisks weighing 700 tons through the entirelength of Egypt on the Nile River.
Egyptians were credited in revolutionizing shippingwhen they invented the SAIL.
But it is the ROMANS who conceived the basic principle
of marine transport on economic dimension of shippingwhen they found out that carting a large quantity ofgrain to the empire‟s frontier 75 miles away would costmore than to ship it by sea.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 410/619
more than to ship it by sea.
CODE OF HAMURRABI
In 2000 BC, Babylonian Ruler Hamurrabi codified thefollowing maritime laws on:
- Marine Collisions
- Bottomry
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 411/619
Bottomry
- Reimbursement for Leased Watercraft
DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSALMARITIME LAW
Phoenician‟s Sea Law
Code of Rhodes, which regulated Greek Commercefor a very long time
Roman Maritime Law
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 412/619
Roman Maritime Law
RHODIAN - ROMAN MARITIMELAW
1st Section (MARE) – Deals with the sea and concernsof public law of the sea. Mare liberium did not existyet.
2nd Section (NAVIS) – Deals with the ship andenunciates the classification of watercrafts into
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 413/619
enunciates the classification of watercrafts into
freighter or passenger vessels and seagoing or inlandcrafts.
3rd Section (MERX) – Deals with cargo and theadmiralty principles as known today.
4th Section (OBLIGACIONES) - Deals with theresponsibilities of ship owners and masters.
5th Section (ACTIONS) – Deals with disputesettlement arising from shipping transactions.
EVOLUTION OF MODERN LAWON MERCHANT SHIPPING
1896: Comite Maritime Internationale (CMI) organizedfor the purposed of unification of merchant marinerules.
Conference Diplomatique De Droit Maritime (Brussels) -
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 414/619
f p q ( )16 International Conventions and protocolsapproved, i.e. collision at sea, salvage, bill of lading,carriage of goods by sea, etc.
UN AGENCIES IN MARITME LAW
International Maritime Organization (IMO) – established the Technical Regulation of Shipping.
United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment (UNCTAD) – established the EconomicRegulations of Shipping.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 415/619
g pp g International Labor Organization (ILO) – established
the International Merchant Labor RegulationsStandards.
UN Conferences – Established UNCLOS (1982),Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea(1958/1960)
REAL AND HYPOTHECARYNATURE MARITIME LAW
That which distinguishes the maritime from the civillaw and even from the mercantile law in general isthe REAL AND HYPOTHECARY nature of theformer, and the many securities of a real nature thatmaritime customs from time immemorial, the laws,
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 416/619
maritime customs from time immemorial, the laws,the codes, and the later jurisprudence, have providedfor the protection of the various and conflictinginterest which are ventured and risked in maritimeexpeditions. [Phil. Shipping Co. v. Vergara, G.R. No.16000, June 1, 1906]
MEANING OF REAL ANDHYPOTHECARY NATURE
The liability of the carrier in connection with lossesrelated to maritime contracts is confined to the vessel,which is hypothecated for such obligations or whichstands as the guaranty for their settlement.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 417/619
NO VESSEL, NO LIABILITY RULE.
SUMMARY OF THE NATURE OFMARINE TRANSACTIONS
REAL – A vessel is essentially a personal propertybecause it is movable. But the Supreme Courtcharacterized maritime transactions as having a realnature insofar as these transactions are similar totransactions over real property with respect to
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 418/619
transactions over real property with respect toeffectivity against third persons which are effectedthrough registration. Registration of vessels nowlodged at MARINA.
HYPOTHECARY – The liability of the owner of thevessels is limited to the vessel itself. If he vessel sinks,
generally the liability of the owner is extinguished,although he may have other properties
EVIDENCE OF REAL NATURE OFMARITIME LAW
Limitation of the liability of the agents to the actualvalue of the vessel and the freight money; and
Right to retain the cargo and the embargo anddetention of vessel even in cases where the ordinarycivil law would not allow more than a personal
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 419/619
civil law would not allow more than a personal
action against the debtor or person liable. [LuzonStevodoring v. CA, 156 SCRA 169]
Aboitiz Shipping v. General AccidentFire Ins., 217 SCRA 359
Held:
The rights of vessel owner or agent under theLimited Liability Rule are akin to those of the rightsof shareholders to limited liability under ourCorporation Law
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 420/619
Corporation Law.
In both insolvency of a corporation and the sinking ofa vessel, the claimants or creditors are limited in theirrecovery to the remaining value of accessible assets.
Monarch Insurance v. CA,333 SCRA 71
The Limited Liability Rule in Maritime Law has notbeen rendered obsolete by the advances in moderntechnology which have considerably lessen the risksinvolved in maritime trade, and the courts continuet l th id l i i t
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 421/619
to apply the said rule in appropriate cases.
ICTSI v. PRUDENTIALGUARANTEE, 320 SCRA 244
Held:
As both nature of the function and the place of theirperformance, an arrastre operator‟s service areclearly not maritime in character.
The legal relationship between an arrastre operator
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 422/619
The legal relationship between an arrastre operator
and a consignee is akin to that between awarehouseman and a depositor.
PROVISIONS ON LIMITEDLIABILITY RULE
Art. 587, CoC: The ship agent shall also be civilly
liable for the indemnities in favor of third personswhich may arise from the conduct of the captain inthe care of the goods which he loaded on the vessel;but he may exempt himself therefrom by abandoningthe vessel with all her equipment and the freight it
h d d i h
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 423/619
may have earned during the voyage. Art. 590: The co-owners of the vessel shall be civilly
liable in the proportion of their contribution to thecommon fund for the results of the acts of thecaptain, referred to in Art. 587.
Each co-owner may exempt himself from this
liability by the abandonment, before a notary, of thatpart of the vessel belonging to him
Art. 643 (Ibid): If the vessel and her cargo should
be totally lost, by reason of capture or wreck, allrights shall be extinguished, both as regards thecrew to demand any wages whatsoever, and asregards the ship agent to recover the advancesmade
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 424/619
made. If a portion of the vessel or of the cargo, or both,
should be saved, the crew engaged on wages,including the captain shall retain their rights onthe salvage, so far as they go, on the remainderof the vessel as well as on the amount offreightage of the cargo saved;
But sailors who are engaged on shares shall not have any
right whatsoever on the salvage of the hull, but only onthe portion of the freightage saved. If they should haveworked to recover the remainder of the shipwreckedvessel they shall be given from the amount of the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 425/619
y gsalvage an award in proportion of the efforts made andto the risks encountered in order to accomplish thesalvage.
Art. 837 (Ibid): The civil liability incurred by theshipowners in the cases prescribed in this section, shallbe understood as limited to the value of the vessel withall her appurtenances and freight.
N t A t 837 li t lli i l
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 426/619
Notes: Art. 837 applies to collision cases only.
EXCEPTIONS
Where the injury or death to a passenger is due eitherto the fault of the ship owner or to theCONCURRING NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIPOWNER AND THE CAPTAIN.
Where the vessel is insured.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 427/619
Where the vessel is insured.
In workmen‟s compensation claims. Where vessel is partially lost.
Liability on repairs made prior to the loss of thevessel.
Foreclosure of mortgage on the ship
SHIPOWNER‟S FAULT
The well-entrenched rule in our jurisprudence is thata ship owner may be held liable for injuries topassengers notwithstanding the exclusively real and
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 428/619
p g g y
hypothecary nature of Maritime Law, if fault can beattributed to the ship owner. [Negros Navigation v.CA, 281 SCRA 534]
CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE OFSHIPOWNER & CAPTAIN
Although the ship agent is liable for the negligent actof the captain in the care of goods loaded on thevessel, this liability can be limited throughabandonment of the vessel, its equipment andfreightage as provided in Art. 387.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 429/619
g g p
Nonetheless, there are exceptional circumstanceswherein the ship agent could still be held answerabledespite the abandonment as where loss or injury wasdue to fault OF SHIPOWNER AND CAPTAIN.
Manila Steamship v. Abdulhman,100 Phil. 32
Facts:
Abdulhaman bought a submarine chaser of WWIIvintage, which he converted into a passenger ship.The chaser, being at fault collided with a new steelvessel of Manila Steamship and it sank. ManilaSteamship sued to recover damanges as Adbulhaman
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 430/619
Steamship sued to recover damanges as Adbulhaman
had other properties. The latter put up the defense that his liability was
extinguished by the loss of the chaser.
It was proven that the chaser, being of a certaintonnage, should have been commanded by onehaving qualifications of captain and not a merepatron.
Held:
Abdulhaman is still liable. The hypothecary nature willnot apply when the ship owner is personally at fault dueto:
- Lack of proper equipment; or
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 431/619
- Lack of proper technical training of the officers andcrew.
PARTIAL LOSS
In the event the vessel is not entirely lost, thehypothecary nature of the maritime transactionunder Art. 837 of the Code of Commerce will notapply, unless the shipowner or agent abandons thevessel [Luzon Stevedoring v CA 156 SCRA 169]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 432/619
vessel. [Luzon Stevedoring v. CA, 156 SCRA 169]
REPAIRS ON VESSEL
The limited liability rule in maritime law does notapply in case where the liability was for repairs onthe vessel that was completed before her loss.[Government of P.I. v. Insular Maritime Co.. 45 Phil. 805]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 433/619
LOSS COVERED BY INSURANCE
Where vessel is at fault sinks but is insure, theinsurance takes the place of such vessel.
The liability subsists but only to the extent of theinsurance proceeds.
Th ll b h h h l
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 434/619
The excess is still subject to the hypothecary rule.[Pedro Vazquez v. CA, 138 SCRA 553]
Abueg v. San Diego, 77 Phil. 32
Facts:
A vessel of San Diego, a shipping operator, sank andone crew member died. When the heirs of thedeceased sought compensation under the Workmen‟sCompensation Law San Diego put up the defense of
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 435/619
Compensation Law, San Diego put up the defense of
the hypothecary nature of maritime transactions toavoid liability.
Held:
San Diego is still liable. Workmen‟s compensation is anexception to the hypothecary nature of maritimetransactions in view of two reason, to wit:
(1) The Code of Commerce was promulgated in 1880
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 436/619
while the Workmen‟s Compensation Law was enacted in1925. In case of conflict, the latter prevails.
(2) Provisions on hypothecary nature of maritimetransactions contained in the Code of Commerce aregeneral provisions while that in Workmen‟s
Compensation Law are specific. In case of conflict,specific provisions of law prevail.
Loadstar Shipping v. CA,315 SCRA 339
Held:
Failure of common carrier to maintain in seaworthycondition its vessel involved in a contract of carriageis a clear breach of its duty prescribed in Art. 1755 ofthe Civil Code
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 437/619
the Civil Code.
The doctrine of limited liability will not apply.
ABANDONMENT OF VESSEL
Abandonment of the vessel, its appurtenances and
freightage is an indispensable requirement before theshipowner can enjoy the benefits o the limitedliability principle.
In case of collision, abandonment of the vessel is
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 438/619
necessary in order to limit the liability of theshipowner or the agent to the value of the vessel, itsappurtenances and freightage earned in the voyage.
Only instance abandonment is dispensed with iswhen the vessel was entirely lost. [Phil. Shipping Co.
v. Garcia, 6 Phil. 281
Protest
A written statement by the master of a vessel or any
authorized officer, attested by a proper officer or anotary, to the effect that damages has been sufferedby the ship.
Protest is required under the Code of Commerce in
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 439/619
the following cases:1. Arrival under stress
2. Shipwrecked
3. Gone through a hurricane or the captain believesthat the cargo has suffered damage or average
4. Maritime collisions
Admiralty Jurisdiction
RTC or MTc, depending on the amount of thedemand or claim.
Amount determines jurisdiction of the court.
The proceeding is in rem.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 440/619
Chapter 7
Vessels
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 441/619
Vessels
Ship or vessel
Ship or Vessel - means any kind, class or type of craft
or artificial contrivance capable of floating in water,designed to be used, or capable of being used, as ameans of floating in water transport in the domestictrade for the carriage of passengers or cargo, or both,utili ing its own moti e power or that of another
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 442/619
utilizing its own motive power or that of another.[R.A. 9295]
Prescriptive Period on Vessels
Acquisitive prescription: Good faith – 4 years; badfaith – 8 years. Prescription doesn‟t run in favor thecaptain since he holds the position that of a trustee.[Art. 573]
Right of pre-emption and legal redemption available
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 443/619
Right of pre emption and legal redemption available
to co-owners to be exercised within 30-days fromsale of the vessel. [Art. 575]
Rules on Co-ownership of Vessel
Co-ownership of vessel gives rise to a partnership
ipso jure . No agreement is needed before apartnership is created. {Note: This is one instance of a partnership coming into existence by mereoperation of law. Another instance when there iscommingling of similar good of fungible nature.}
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 444/619
Majority may perform acts of administration but actsof ownership require the concurrence of all the co-owners.
Majority is determined in accordance to the following:1 vote given to the co-owner who contributed the
least capital, 2 votes to the one who gave double, etsequitur.
Importance of the Definition
The word „vessel‟ (Spanish: buque or nave) was not
intended to include all ships, craft or floatingstructures of every kind without limitation, and theprovisions of that section should not be held toinclude minor craft engaged only in river and baytraffic.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 445/619
The word „nave‟, which is used inter-changeably with „buque‟ means a “SHIP, A VESSEL WITH DECKS ANDSAILS. A deck is not a feature of the smallest typesof watercraft.
Such type of watercraft is not contemplated in Art.835 requiring protest in case of collision
. [Lopezv.Dureolo, 52 Phil. 229]
It is therefore clear that a passenger on a boat like
the Jison, in the case before us, is not required tomake protest as a condition precedent to his right of action for the injury suffered by him in the collisiondescribed in the complaint. Art. 835 does not apply.
Nevertheless, under Article 836, it is provided that
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 446/619
, , p
want of protest cannot prejudice a person not in acondition to make known his wisher. An individual who has suffered a compound fracture
of the femur and received other physical injuriessufficient to keep him in a hospital for many months,cannot be supposed to have been in a condition tomake protest within 24-hours of such occurrence.
Peculiar nature of vessels (Philippine
Refining Co. v. Jarque, G.R. 41506, Mar.25, 1935)
Vessels are considered personal property under civil
law. Similarly under the common law, vessels arepersonal property although referred to as a peculiarkind of personal property.
Since the term personal property includes vessels
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 447/619
Since the term personal property includes vessels,
they are subject to mortgage agreeably to theprovisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No.1508, Sec. 2).
The only difference between a chattel mortgage of avessel and of other personalty is that it is not nownecessary for a chattel mortgage of a vessel to benoted in the register of deeds, but it is essential thata record of documents affecting title to a vessel beentered in the record of the Collector of Customs
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 448/619
entered in the record of the Collector of Customs(now with MARINA by virtue of M.C. 90) at the portof entry (now at the port of registry, in case of coastwise vessel).
Otherwise, a mortgage on a vessel is generally like
other chattel mortgages as to its requisites andvalidity.
Mortgage of Ship (P.D. 1521)
Sec. 3. Mortgage of Vessel of Domestic Ownership;
records – (a) No mortgage is valid in respect to such vesselagainst any person other than the mortgagor, his heiror assign, and a person with actual notice thereof unless recorded with the PCG (now MARINA)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 449/619
( )
Sec. 4. Preferred Mortgages: Mortgage is preferredbased on the date of recording if:- It is recorded with PCG (MARINA)- An affidavit in good faith is filed together with therecord of mortgage.
- No waiver of preferred status.
Suit in Admiralty(Sec. 10. P.D. 1521)
Preferred mortgage constitutes as a lien upon the
vessel. In case of default, the mortgage lien may beenforced by SUIT IN REMAINING ADMIRALTY,wherein the vessel itself may be made a partydefendant and be arrested in accordance with Sec.11.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 450/619
Original jurisdiction: CFI (now depending on theamount of the claim) Requirement of notice by publication and actual
notice to:- the master or other ranking officer, or caretaker of
the vessel; and- Any person who has recorded a notice of claim of an un-discharged lien upon the vessel.
Arrest of Vessels[Sec. 11, P.D. 1521]
Upon filing of petition for judicial foreclosure of a
Preferred Ship Mortgage or immediately thereafter, Applicant may apply ex-parte for an order for the
arrest of the mortgaged vessel. Judge to immediately issue arrest order, if it is made
to appear by affidavit of the applicant, or of some
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 451/619
to appear by affidavit of the applicant, or of some
other person who personally know the facts that adefault in the mortgage has occurred and thatapplicant files a bond executed to the adverse partyin an amount to be fixed by the judge, not exceedingthe applicant‟s claim, conditioned that the latter willpay all the costs which may be adjudged to theadverse part and all damages sustained.
Procedure in discharge of arrest(Sec. 12, P.D. 1521)
File counter-bond in an amount double of the claim;or
Apply for order on the ground of improper orirregular issuance of order.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 452/619
Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Vessel(Sec. 14, P.D. 1521)
Applicable provisions in Chattel Mortgage Law
govern. For purpose of taking possession of the vessel, the
foreclosing creditor to secure from RTC Judge of theprovince where the vessel may be our or where thecreditor or debtor resides, an order for the arrest or
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 453/619
seizure of the vessel. Upon issuance of the order, the sheriff to
immediately take possession of the vessel for thepurpose of foreclosure and sale.
Foreign Ship Mortgage(Sec. 15, P.D. 1521)
Preferred mortgage in foreign ship includes those
duly recorded by virtue of Sec. 4 (supra) and:
Preferred mortgage lien in foreign ship is subordinateto maritime liens for repairs, supplies towage, use of drydock or marine railway, or other necessaries
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 454/619
y y,
performed or supplied in the Philippines.
How proceeds of sale disposed(Sec. 17, P.D. 1521)
Preferred mortgaged lien takes priority over all claims
against the vessel. Exceptions:1. Expenses and fees allowed and costs taxed by the
court and taxes due to the government.2. Crew‟s wages. 3 General average
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 455/619
3. General average.
4. Salvage, including contract salvage.5. Maritime liens arising prior in time to the recording of
the preferred mortgage.6. Damages arising out of tort.
7. Preferred mortgaged registered prior in time.
If proceeds of the sale is not sufficient to pay all
creditors included in one number or grade, theresidue shall be divided among them pro rata.
All credits not paid, whether fully or partially shallsubsist as ordinary credits enforceable by personal
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 456/619
action against the debtor.
Suit in Personam in Admiralty uponDefault (Sec. 18. P.D. 1521)
Allows the creditor to bring suit in personam in
admiralty against the mortgagor for the amount of the outstanding mortgage indebtedness even if secured by the vessel.
If the debt is also secured by other realty or
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 457/619
y y
personalty, the creditor may proceed upon the same.
Maritime Lien for Necessaries(Sec. 21, P.D. 1521)
Repairs, supplies, towage, use of drydock or marine
railway, or other necessaries were furnished to thevessel.
The work is done on orders of the ship owner orperson authorized by the owner.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 458/619
p y
Such credit must be alleged or proved that it wasgiven to the vessel.
Enforceable by suit in rem.
MARINA M.C. 100 (Guidelines onAnnotation/Cancellation of Mortgage)
Documentary requirements:
Letter of Intent & Duly accomplished applicationform;
Duly notarized mortgage contract;
Proof of payment of documentary stamp tax with the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 459/619
Proof of payment of documentary stamp tax with theBIR; and
Original copy of CO and CVR.
Note: The annotation of mortgage to be reflected at theback of the CVR and CO.
Other applicable MARINA regulationson vessels
M.C. No. 48 – Measure to control overcrowding/
overloading and scalping of tickets in the interislandvessels. M.C. No. 72 – Guidelines on the Implementation of at
least 10-minute film on safety features of eachspecific passenger/passenger-cargo vessels as
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 460/619
amended by M.C. No. 136. M.C. No. 83 – Guideline on the issuance of
endorsement certificates in accordance with theSTCW (Standards for Training, Certification andWatchkeeping) 1978 Convention.
M.C. No. 89 – Implementing guidelines for vesselsafety regulations as amended by 89-B.
M.C. No. 114 – Preventive Safety Measure and other
concerns M.C. No. 123 – Wearing of lifejackets during boarding
and/or prior to departure by all passenger vesselswith open deck accommodation.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 461/619
M.C. No. 135 – Rules on the implementation of voicetape on the safety features of a vessel.
M.C. No. 143 – Rules and regulations to implementthe International Safety Management (ISM) Code inDomestic Shipping ( M.C. No. 159 for NSM).
Republic Act 9295
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 462/619
The Domestic ShippingDevelopment Act of 2004
State policies on shipping(Sec. 2)
(a) promote Filipino ownership of vessels operated
under Philippine flag;
(b) attract private capital to invest in the shippingindustry by creating a healthy and competitiveinvestment and operating environment;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 463/619
(c) provide necessary assistance and incentives forthe continued growth of the Philippine domestic
merchant marine fleet;
(d) encourage the improvement and upgrading of the
existing domestic merchant marine fleet and Filipinocrew to meet international standard;
(e) ensure the continued viability of domesticshipping operations; and
(f) encourage the development of a viable
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 464/619
(f) encourage the development of a viableshipbuilding and ship repair industry to support theexpansion and modernization of the Philippinedomestic merchant marine fleet and its strictadherence to safety standards which will ensure theseaworthiness of all sea-borne structures.
Important terms in R.A. 9295 & IRR
Domestic Shipping - means the transport of
passengers or cargo, or both, by ships duly registeredand licensed under Philippine law to engage in tradeand commerce between Philippine ports and withinPhilippine territorial or internal waters, for hire orcompensation, with general or limited clientele,
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 465/619
p g
whether permanent, occasional or incidental, with orwithout fixed routes, and done for contractual orcommercial purposes.
Domestic Trade - means the sale, barter or exchange
of goods, materials or products within thePhilippines.
Domestic Ship Operator" or "Domestic Ship Owner" -
means a citizen of the Philippines, or a commercialpartnership wholly owned by Filipinos, or acorporation at least sixty percent (60%) of the capitalof which is owned by Filipinos, which is dulyauthorized by the Maritime Industry Authority(MARINA) to engage in the business or domestic
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 466/619
( ) g gshipping.
Shipper - means any person, partnership orcorporation who shall procure for itself the servicesof a domestic ship operator for the carriage of itscargo in the domestic trade upon payment of proper
compensation.
Certificate of Public Convenience - means the license
or authority issued by MARINA to a domestic shipoperator to engage in domestic shipping. Cargo Handling Equipments - means any machinery
gear or equipment used by the ship operator or aduly authorized and licensed port operator to serviceor handle cargo on board the vessel at the pier or
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 467/619
or handle cargo, on board the vessel, at the pier, orin the terminal or container yard such as, but notlimited to, cranes, forklifts, top lift, stacker, tractorheads, containers, pallet boards, and the like,including all spare parts, replacement parts,appurtenances, accessories, articles, supplies, and
material thereof.
Shipbuilding - means the design, construction,
launching and outfitting of all types of ships andwatercraft;
Ship repair - means the overhaul, refurbishment,renovating, improvement, or alternation of the hull,machineries equipment outfits and components of
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 468/619
machineries, equipment, outfits and components of all types of ships;
Shipyard - means the shipbuilding or repair facilitieswhich have the capability to lift vessels above thewaterline in order to effect ship work vessels,
appendages, structure, machinery and equipment.
Investment incentives to domesticshipping industry (Sec. 4)
(a) Exemption from value-added tax on the
importation and local purchase of passenger and/orcargo vessels of one hundred fifty (150) tons andabove, including engine and spare parts of saidvessels.
Vessels to be imported must comply with the age
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 469/619
limit requirement, at the time of acquisition countedfrom the date of the vessel‟s original commissioning,as follows: 1) For passenger and/or cargo vessels,the age limit is fifteen (15) years old, 2) For tankers,the age limit is ten (10) years old, and 3) For high-speed passenger craft, the age limit is five (5) years
old;
(b) Exemption from value-added tax on the
importation of life-saving equipment, safety andrescue equipment and communication andnavigational safety equipment, steel plates, and othermetal plates including marine-grade aluminum plates,used for transport operations.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 470/619
CONDITIONS IN THE GRANT OF (a) & (b): Not manufactured domestically in sufficient quantity,
of comparable quality and at reasonable prices;
Directly imported by a MARINA-registered domestic
shipping operator;
Reasonably-needed and will be used exclusively by
the registered domestic shipping operators in itstransport operations;
Approval of a MARINA was obtained prior to theimportation of said articles;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 471/619
Valid up to ten (10) years from effectivity.
Deregulation of the DomesticShipping Industry (Sec. 8)
Domestic ship operators authorized to establish their
own domestic shipping rates provided that effectivecompetition is fostered and public interest is served.
MARINA shall monitor all shipping operations andexercise regulatory intervention where it is
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 472/619
established, after due process that public interestneeds to be protected and safeguarded.
Safety Standards(Sec. 9)
All vessels shall at all times be in seaworthy
condition, properly equipped with adequate life-saving, communication, safety and other equipment,operated and maintained in accordance with thestandards set by MARINA, and manned by duly
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 473/619
licensed and competent vessel crew. The MARINA given the power to inspect vessels and
all equipment on board vessels to ensure compliancewith safety standards.
Jurisdiction of MARINA(Sec. 10)
Register vessels;
Issue certificates of public convenience, or anyextensions or amendments thereto, authorizing theoperation of all kinds, classes and types of vesselsin domestic shipping: Provided, That no suchcertificate shall be valid for a period of more than
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 474/619
twenty-five (25) years; Modify, suspend or revoke at any time, upon notice
and hearing, any certificate, license or accreditationit may have issued to any domestic ship operator;
Establish and prescribe routes, zones of areas of
operations of domestic ship operators;
Require any domestic ship operator to provide
shipping services to any coastal area, island orregion in the country where such services arenecessary for the development of the area, to meetemergency sealift requirements, or when publicinterest so requires;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 475/619
Set safety standards for vessels in accordance withapplicable conventions and regulations;
Require all domestic ship operators to comply with
operational and safety standards for vessels set byapplicable conventions and regulations, maintain itsvessels in safe and serviceable condition, meet thestandards of safety of life at sea and safe manningrequirements, and furnish safe, adequate, efficient,
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 476/619
reliable and proper service at all times;
Inspect all vessels to ensure and enforce compliancewith safety standards and other regulations;
Ensure that all domestic ship operators shall have
the financial capacity to provide and sustain safe,reliable, efficient and economic passenger or cargoservice, or both;
Determine the impact which any new service shallhave to the locality it will serve;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 477/619
y ;
Adopt and enforce such rules and regulations whichwill ensure compliance by every domestic shipoperator with required safety standards and otherrules and regulations on vessels safety;
Adopt such rules and regulations which ensure the
reasonable stability of passengers and freight ratesand, if necessary, to intervene in order to protectpublic interest;
Hear and adjudicate any compliant made in writinginvolving any violation of this law or the rules and
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 478/619
regulations of the Authority; Impose such fines and penalties on, including the
revocation of licenses of, any domestic shipoperator who shall fail to maintain its vessels insafe and serviceable condition, or who shall violateor fail to comply with safety regulations;
Investigate any complaint made in writing against
any domestic ship operator, or any shipper, or anygroup of shippers regarding any matters involvingviolations of the provisions of this Act;
Upon notice and hearing, impose such fines,suspend or revoke certificates of publicconvenience or other license issued, or otherwise
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 479/619
,penalize any ship operator, shipper or group of shippers found violating the provisions of this Act;and
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 480/619
Prohibited Acts and Practices of Domestic Ship Operators (Sec. 16)
Operate without a valid certificate of public convenience,
accreditation or other form of authority required by this Act; Refuse to accept or carry any passenger or cargo without
just cause;
Fail to maintain its vessels in safe and serviceable condition,or violate safety rules and regulations;
Fail to obtain or maintain adequate insurance coverage;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 481/619
q g ;
Fail to meet or maintain safe manning requirements; and
Such other acts which the MARINA shall determine, afterdue notice and hearings, to be detrimental or prejudicial tothe safety, stability and integrity of domestic shipping.
CPC Issuance (Sec. 2, Rule IV, IRR of R.A. 9295 on Deregulation)
Power of MARINA to issue CPC or any
amendments/extensions/renewals.Requirements:
Economic and beneficial effect which the proposedservice shall have to the port, province or region
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 482/619
which it proposes to serve; and Financial capacity of the domestic
shipowner/operator to provide and sustain safe,reliable, adequate, efficient and economical service inaccordance with the standards set by government
regulations.
Amendment to CPC(Sec. 3, Rule IV IRR)
Permanent Addition or Deletion of a route/port/link;
or, Permanent Addition/ Reduction/ Replacement of
Ship/Fleet or Change in Ship‟s Name; or,
Permanent Addition/ Reduction/ Replacement of
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 483/619
Ship/Fleet or Change in Ship‟s Name; or, Change in name of the
entity/corporation/partnership/cooperative.
Validity of CPC
(Sec. 5, Rule IV IRR)
Years of Operation Validity of CPC
More than 10 years 25 years
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 484/619
More than 5 years up to 10years
15 years
5 years and below 10 years
Qualification Requirements(Sec. 6, Rule IV, IRR)
Must be a MARINA-registered shipowner/operator
per MARINA MC 79/79-A or their subsequentamendments. Must be financially capable to provide and sustain
safe, reliable, adequate, efficient and economicalservice in undertaking the proposed shipping
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 485/619
service.Formula on Financial Capability: Capitalization = (Equity – fixed assets net of long-term liabilities) + totaldepreciation
Must provide a service that has economic and
beneficial effect on the port, province or region itproposes to serve.
Jurisdictional Requirements(Sec. 8, Rule IV, IRR)
Affidavit of publication with the newspaper
clipping; Copy of the whole newspaper where the Order was
published;
Photographs showing proof of the required posting
f d
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 486/619
of Order.
Safety Standards(Sec. 1, Rule VI, IRR)
All ships shall, at all times, be in seaworthy condition
as to their hull and machinery Properly outfitted with adequate navigational aids
and equipment, firefighting, life-saving,communication, and other safety
li / i
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 487/619
appliances/equipment. Operated and maintained in accordance with
prescribed standards, and manned by duly licensedand competent ship crew.
Rates(Sec. 1, Rule VIII, IRR)
Domestic shipowners/operators are authorized to
establish/fix their own domestic shipping rates,passenger or cargo rates or both.
Limitation: Effective competition is fostered andpublic interest is served.
Eff i i 7 l d d f h d f
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 488/619
Effectivity: 7 calendar days from the date of publication.
Conditions in Fixing Rates(Sec. 2, Rule VIII, IRR)
Shipowners/operators with Entity/Company CPC to
submit under oath with the MARINA their Notice forthe adoption of initial/ subsequent upward ordownward adjustment of deregulated rates in aprescribed form.
Th ti h ll i di t th th f
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 489/619
The notice shall indicate, among others, the name of covered ship(s), authorized route(s)/link(s), rate(s)per route/link and the grounds for the adjustment.
Publication Requirement of Adjusted Rates
The notice shall be published in any of the five (5)
major newspapers of national circulation, if theroute(s)/area(s) of operation to be served is nationaland/or inter-regional in scope.
If the route(s)/area(s) to be served is local or intra-
i l i bli ti i f l l
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 490/619
regional in scope, publication in a newspaper of localcirculation is sufficient.
And, posting of the notice in in all conspicuous placesat the affected port(s), vessel(s), company premises,
passenger terminals and ticketing office(s).
Instances Warranting MARINAIntervention (Sec. 4, Rule VIII, IRR)
Monopoly of a route/link, lack of effective
competition in a route/link, and practices whichconstitute combinations in restraint of trade.
Any complaint against the rates charged and/orservices rendered by the shipowners/operatorsprovided sufficient basis/justification is submitted.
A d fi di / d ti lt
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 491/619
Any adverse findings/recommendations as a resultof monitoring activities undertaken by the MARINA.
Other analogous instances.
Compulsory Insurance Coverage(Sec.1, Rule IX, IRR)
(1) Not less than Php 200,000.00 per manifested
passenger; (2) Adequate insurance coverage for cargo, in an
amount to be computed in accordance with existinglaws, rules and regulations, and the total amount of such coverage shall be equivalent to the total cargocapacity being offered by the vessel.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 492/619
(3) If a domestic shipowner/operator should offerboth passenger and cargo service, then the totalinsurance coverage shall be in the total sumequivalent to that stipulated in paragraphs (1.1)and (1.2) of this Section.
Amount of Insurance If Operatingmore than (1) ship
The amount equivalent to the total authorized
number of passengers, or total cargo capacity, orboth, of the largest operating ship.
But must not exceed the value of such ship.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 493/619
Prohibited Acts(Sec. 1, Rule XII, IRR)
Operating without a valid certificate of public
convenience, accreditation or other form of authority. Refusal to accept or carry any passenger or cargo
without just cause, except for tramp operations.
Failure to maintain the vessels in safe andserviceable condition, or violation of the safety rules
d l ti
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 494/619
and regulations.
Failure to obtain or maintain adequate insurancecoverage.
Failure to meet or maintain safe manning
requirements.
Failure to submit the required Quarterly Report and
an audited Annual Report of Operations andFinances, attaching the copy of the Official Receipt(OR) of Quarterly and Monthly Common Carriers TaxPayments to the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Othe det imental o p ej dicial to the safet
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 495/619
Other detrimental or prejudicial to the safety,stability and integrity of domestic shipping.
Those prohibited acts defined in existing MARINA Circulars.
Powers of MARINA(Rule XIV, IRR)
Power to Investigate
Power to Hear and Adjudicate
Power to Issue Summons
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 496/619
Rules on Appeals to MARINA RegionalOffices’ CPC Decisions (Rule XV, IRR)
Order, ruling, decision or resolution rendered by
MARINA Regional Office relating to CPC application MR – 15 days from receipt;
If denied, appeal to Administrator – 15 days fromreceipt.
If denied by MARINA Administrator:
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 497/619
If denied by MARINA Administrator:- ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL to the MARINA Boardwithin 15 days from receipt; or
- Special Civil Action on Certiorari with CA within 30days from receipt.
All other Decisions
MR – 15 days from receipt;
If denied, appeal to MARINA Administrator – 15 daysfrom receipt.
If denied by MARINA Administrator: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL to the MARINA Board
within 15 days from receipt
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 498/619
within 15 days from receipt.
Perfection of Appeal
File a Notice of Appeal with the MARINA
Administrator and the concerned CO/MRODirector/OIC.
Copy to be served upon the adverse party.
Within 15 days from receipt of the appealed from
decision etc
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 499/619
decision, etc.
Payment of Docket Fee of P1,000.
Temporary Take-Over of Operations
(Sec. 1, Rule IX, IRR)
In times of national emergency;
When the public interest so requires; Under reasonable terms prescribed by the Flag state; Flag state may temporarily take over or direct the
operations of any vessel engaged in domestic tradeand commerce or prescribe its rates or routes of
operation
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 500/619
operation. Immediately upon the cessation of the emergency,
the State shall immediately reinstate to the domesticshipowner/operator the operation of the ship underthe same terms and conditions existing prior to the
occurrence of the emergency.
Chapter 8
Persons Who Take Part In Maritime
Commerce
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 501/619
Commerce
Ship owner and Ship agent
Ship owner – the person primarily liable for damages
sustained in the operation of vessel. Ship agent – the person entrusted with provisioning
of the vessel, or who represents her in the port inwhich she happens to be.
Both are civilly liable for the acts of the captain and
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 502/619
Both are civilly liable for the acts of the captain andfor the obligations contracted by the him to repair,equip, and provision the vessel. [Art. 586, Code of Commerce]
Domestic Shipowner/operator
A citizen of the Philippines, or a commercial
partnership wholly owned by Filipinos, or acorporation at least sixty percent (60%) of the capitalof which is owned by Filipinos, which is dulyaccredited by the MARINA under MemorandumCircular No. 79/79-A or their subsequentamendments to engage in the business of domestic
shipping which may include cooperative or
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 503/619
shipping, which may include cooperative orassociation duly registered with relevant governmentagency. [IRR, R.A. 9295]
Captain and Masters
Captain – those who govern vessels that navigate the
high seas or ships of large dimensions andimportance, although they may be engaged incoastwise trade.
Masters – those who command smaller ships
engaged exclusively in the coastwise trade
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 504/619
engaged exclusively in the coastwise trade.Note: For purposes of maritime commerce, both have
the same meaning, i.e. they command ships.
Powers & Functions of Captains(Masters)
Nature of his position: confidential and managerial.
3 distinct roles he performs:(1) As general agent. If he is also a co-owner, hisagency becomes one coupled with interest. He maynot be dismissed if he is a co-owner or thepartnership agreement stipulates as a condition asship captain [see Art 602 & 606 -607];
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 505/619
ship captain [see Art. 602 & 606 -607];
(2) As commander and technical director of thevessel; and
(3) As representative of the country under whose flag
he navigates.
Vessel Pilot
A person duly qualified, and licensed, to conduct a
vessel into or out of ports, or in certain waters. In a broad sense, the term „pilot‟ includes:
- Those whose duty it is to guide vessels into or outof ports, or in particular waters; and
- Those entrusted with navigation of vessels on the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 506/619
- Those entrusted with navigation of vessels on thehigh seas.
Compulsory pilotage is enforced in the Port of Manila,Port of Cebu, Port of Tacloban, among others.
Pro Hac Vice Nature of Position of Pilot
Under English and American authorities, generally
speaking, the pilot supersedes the master for thetime being in the command and navigation of theship, and his order must be obeyed in all mattersconnected with her navigation.
He becomes master pro hac vice and should give alldirections as to speed, course, stopping andreversing anchoring towing and the like
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 507/619
reversing, anchoring, towing and the like. And when a licensed pilot is employed in a place
where pilotage is compulsory, it is his duty to insiston having effective control of the vessel or to declineas pilot. [Far Eastern Shp., v. CA, G.R. No. 130068, Oct.
1, 1998]
Occasions When Master MayInterfere or Even Displace Pilot
When Pilot is obviously incompetent or intoxicated;
In cases of danger which pilot does not foresee; In all cases of great necessity.
To advise or offer suggestions to the pilot consideringthat he is still in command of the vessel, except so
far as her navigation is concernedT th t th i ffi i t t h d k d th t
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 508/619
far as her navigation is concerned. To see that there is sufficient watch on deck and that
the men are attentive to their duties, etc.
Failure on the part of the Master to comply withabove duties makes him personally liable for resulting
damage cause. [Ibid]
Liability of Pilot
Rule: a pilot is personally liable for damages caused
by his own negligence or default to the owners of thevessel and to third parties for damages sustained in acollision.
Negligence of Pilot is known as „MARITIME TORT‟
As held In Far Eastern Shipping:
In the United States the owners of a vessel are not
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 509/619
In the United States, the owners of a vessel are notpersonally liable for the negligent acts of acompulsory pilot, but by admiralty law, the fault ornegligence of a compulsory pilot is imputable to the
vessel and it may be held liable therefor in rem.
Where, however, by the provisions of the statute the
pilot is compulsory only in the sense that his feemust be paid, and is not in compulsory charge of thevessel, there is no exemption from liability.
Even though the pilot is compulsory, if his negligencewas not the sole cause of the injury, but thenegligence of the master or crew contributed thereto,the owners are liable
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 510/619
the owners are liable. But the liability in rem does not release the pilot from
the consequences of his own negligence. Therationale for this rule is that the master is not entirelyabsolved of responsibility with respect to navigation
when a compulsory pilot is in charge.
Other Officers and Crew
Deck Officer – an officer qualified in accordance with
the provision of the International Convention onStandards of Training, Certification andWatchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) 1978, asamended, Chapter II.
Chief Engineer – a senior licensed marine engineofficer responsible for the mechanical propulsion andthe operation and maintenance of the mechanical
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 511/619
the operation and maintenance of the mechanicaland electrical installations of the ship.
Engineer Officer – an officer qualified in accordancewith the provision of (STCW) 1978, as amended,Chapter III.
Radio Officer –a person holding an appropriate
certificate issued and recognized by the MARINA under the provisions of the Radio regulations.
Ratings – a member of the ship‟s crew other than themaster or an officer.
Major Patron (MAP) – a marine deck officer duly
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 512/619
Major Patron (MAP) a marine deck officer dulyregistered and certificated to act as officer or masterof vessel of not more than 500 GT navigating in themajor coastwise trade routes within the territoriallimits of the Philippines.
Minor Patron (MIP) – a marine deck officer duly
registered and certificated to act as officer or masterof vessel of not more than 250 GT navigating withina specified body of water in the minor coastwisetrade route in the Philippines.
Marine Diesel Mechanic (MDM) – a person authorizedb MARINA to ope ate and maintain the ship‟s diesel
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 513/619
Marine Diesel Mechanic (MDM) a person authorizedby MARINA to operate and maintain the ship‟s dieselengines or the qualification/license to act as such.
Supercargoes – administrative officers of the ship
with duties to keep an account and record of theirtransaction. Powers and duties of the captain withregard to that part of the administration shall ceasewhen thee is a supercargo.
Supernumerary - a person who is not a regularmember of the crew but performing functions
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 514/619
Supernumerary a person who is not a regularmember of the crew but performing functions
appropriate to the certificate possessed.
Chapter 9Charter Party
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 515/619
Definition of a Charter Party
A written contract whereby the ship owner or the
ship agent leases the vessel to transport passengersor cargo for a fixed price. [Art. 652, Code of Commerce]
A contact by which an entire ship or some principalpart thereof, is left by the owner to another person
for a specified time or use. [Caltex Philippines, Inc. v.S l i i Li I 315 SCRA 709]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 516/619
for a specified time or use. [Caltex Philippines, Inc. v.Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 315 SCRA 709]
National Union Fire Insurance v.Stolt-Nielsen Phil., 184 SCRA 682
Held:
Where BL has been issued covering goods shippedaboard a vessel under a charter party, and chartererremains the holder of the BL, it operates as a receiptfor the goods, and as document of title passing theproperty of the goods, but not as varying thecontract between the charterer and ship owner.
The BL becomes merely a receipt and not the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 517/619
The BL becomes merely a receipt and not thecontract of carriage in a charter of the entire vessel.
Ouano vs. CA, 211 SCRA 740
Held:
Even if a charter party has a condition against sub-chartering, and the vessel was in fact sub-charteredwithout knowledge on the part of the sub-chartererof the prohibition, no cause of action arises in favorof the owner of the vessel against the sub-charterer.
Neither does such owner have any lien against thecargo of sub-charterer.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 518/619
Neither does such owner have any lien against thecargo of sub charterer. Carrier has a lien on the goods only while he retains
possession of the goods
Obligation of the Charterer
Charterer, before transporting its cargo, is of no
obligation to ensure that the vessel it charteredcomplied with all legal requirements. The duty restsupon the common carrier as it is the one engaged in „public service‟. [Caltex v. Sulpicio Lines, infra]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 519/619
Important Terms Used in CharterParty
Primage – the bonus to be paid to the captain after asuccessful voyage.
Demurrage – A penal clause intended to compensatethe owner of the vessel for its non-use.
Lay days – The period when the vessel will bedelayed in port for loading and unloading.
Deadfreight –The portion of the cargo under acharter not loaded It is also used as the amount
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 520/619
Deadfreight The portion of the cargo under acharter not loaded. It is also used as the amountrecoverable by the ship owner from the charterer forthat portion of the ship‟s capacity that the latterfailed to occupy despite the stipulation in the charterparty.
Cases on Demurrage
In its strict sense, demurrage is the compensation
provided for in the contract of affreightment for thedetention of the vessel beyond the lay time or thatperiod of time agreed on for loading and unloading of cargo and is given to compensate the ship owner forthe non-use of the vessel. [National Steel v. CA, 283
SCRA 45] D i th fi d i h t t
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 521/619
SC 5] Demurrage is the sum fixed in a charter party as
remuneration to the ship owner for the detention of his vessel beyond the number of days allowed by thecharter party for loading or unloading or for sailing.
[NFA v. CA, 311 SCRA 700]
NFA v. CA, 311 SCRA 700
The shipper or charter is liable for the payment of demurrage claims when he exceeds the period of loading or unloading as agreed upon or the agreedlay days. The period for such may or may not bestipulated in the contract. A charter party may eitherprovide for a fixed lay days or contain general orindefinite words such as „customary quick dispatch‟ or
„as fast as the steamer can load‟. C t i k di t h i li th t l di d
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 522/619
Customary quick dispatch implies that loading andunloading of the cargo should be within a reasonableperiod of time. Due diligence should be exercisedaccording to the customs and usages of the port or
ports of call.
The circumstances obtaining at the time of loadingand unloading are to be taken into account.
When the provision is for „demurrage/dispatch:NONE‟ it will be deemed a waiver of the right to claimdemurrages.
Delay in loading or unloading, to be deemed asdemurrage, runs against the charterer as soon as thevessel is detained for an unreasonable length of timef h l f h l b l bl
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 523/619
gfrom the arrival of the vessel because no availableberthing space was provided for the vessel due to thenegligence of the charterer or by reason of thecircumstances caused by the fault of the chartere.
Keng Hua Paper Products v. CA, 286SCRA 257
Held:
A claim for demurrage by carrier involves anobligation NOT ARISING from a loan or forbearanceof money. The applicable interest rate is 6% P.A.pursuant to Art. 2209, NCC.
When the BL does not specify the demurrageamount, and the total amount claimed by the carrierincreased as the days went by, the total amount
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 524/619
y y,demanded cannot be deemed to have beenestablished with reasonable certainty until the trialcourt rendered its judgment. Hence, the 6% is to becomputed from the date of the trial court‟s decision
imposing demurrage charges against the consignee.
Kinds of Charter Party
Contract of Affreightment – one whereby the owner
of the vessel leases a part or all of its space to haulgoods for others. It is a contract for special servicesto be rendered by the ship owner. The ship ownerRETAINS the possession, command and navigation of the ship, the charterer merely having use of the
space in the vessel in return for his payment.B b t D i Ch t h th hi
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 525/619
p p y Bare-boat or Demise Charter – where the shipowner
turns over possession of his vessel to the charterer,with the latter undertaking to provide the crew,victuals, supplies and fuel during the term of the
charter. Charterer is owner PRO HAC VICE.
Two Classes of Contract of Affreightment
Voyage Charter –The vessel is leased to the
chartered for a single voyage only; Time Charter – The vessel is leased for a fixed period
of time.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 526/619
Substantive Provisions Relating toCharter Party
If charterer‟s cargo is not sufficient to fill up 3/5 of the capacity of the vessel, carrier has the right tounload the cargo and put it on a smaller vessel at theexpense of the charterer. If cargo exceeds 3/5 of thecpacity, the carrier cannot exercise the right. [Arts.670 & 671, CoC]
If vessel has been chartered in whole by one party,
the owner cannot receive the cargo of any otherperson as the charter party becomes an exclusive
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 527/619
g yperson as the charter party becomes an exclusivecontract. [Art. 672]
The owner of the vessel is liable to the charterer fordamages in case the captain unduly delays the
voyage. [Art. 673]
If charterer brings more than that agreed upon, thecarrier may accept the increase in cargo and demandincrease of freightate provided the vessel is notoverloaded. [Art. 674]
If vessel has been chartered to load cargo in anotherport and upon arrival in that port there is no cargodelivered, the captain has two options:
a) Look for other cargo; or
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 528/619
) g ;b) After expiry of lay days there is still no cargo, thecaptain should file a marine protest and return tohome port in full ballast. The charterer should payfreightage in full. [Art. 675]
No right to freightage if charterer can prove that the
vessel is not in condition to navigate. [Art. 676] Charter may sub-charter where there is no express
prohibition. [Art. 679]
Charterer who cannot fill the vessel is liable for fullfreightage. [Art. 680]
Charterer is liable for damages if loaded cargo
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 529/619
C a e e s ab e o da ages oaded a gosubjects the vessel to forfeiture or confiscation.Under Art. 356, carrier can open the packages of shipper to find out whether they contain items which
may subject the vessel to forfeiture. [Art. 681]
If merchandise should have been shipped for
purpose of illicit commerce, and were taken on boardwith knowledge of the person from whom the vesselwas chartered or of the captain, the captain is jointlyliable with the ship owner for all the losses whichmay cause the other shippers. [Art. 682]
Where the vessel is in need of repairs, chartere mustwait until vessel is repaired [Art 683]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 530/619
wait until vessel is repaired. [Art. 683]
Before beginning of the trip, charterer may unloadthe cargo by paying ½ of the freightage. [Art. 685 inrelation to Art. 688]
Charterer is under obligation to pay the freightage
after the discharge of the cargo. [Art. 686] Charterer and shippers cannot abandon the cargo
unless it consist of liquids and ¾ leaks out due toinherent defect of the cargo and with not more than
¼ remaining in the container. [Art. 687]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 531/619
Other rules affecting charter party
and cargo
If merchandise sold to make necessary repairs,
charterer shall still pay for the freightage. [Art. 659] If merchandise is jettisoned, lost at sea or seized by
pirates, no obligation to pay freightage. Consideredas general average. [Arts. 660 & 661]
Merchandise damaged due to inherent defect: payfull freightage [Art 663]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 532/619
full freightage. [Art. 663]
Where payment is based on weight and the cargo
increases in weight during the voyage, the charterermust pay the increase. [Art. 664]
Cargo carried is subject to retaining lien by the shipowner. Retaining lien – while in possession; Carrier‟slien – subsists up to 30 days from date of release of cargo. [Arts. 665 - 667]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 533/619
Valid Rescission By Charterer of
Charter Party (Arts. 688 – 690, CoC)
Before loading by paying ½ of the freightage agreedupon. The consent of ship owner is NOT NECESSARY.Mere notice to him is sufficient. {Note: This is the 1st distinction between charter party and in ordinarylease. In lease, none of the parties may unilaterallycancel the contract without paying the fullconsideration plus damages};
When the vessel is not up to the capacity agreedupon or the flag under which she sails differs from
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 534/619
upon or the flag under which she sails differs fromthat agreed upon. No obligation to pay thefreightage.
When the vessel is not place at the disposal of the
charterer. No obligation to pay the freightage.
When the vessel returns due to pirates or to bad
weather and charterer decides to unload. He mustpay the full freightage.
When the vessel returns for repairs. If repairs takeless than 30 days, charterer must pay in full the
freightage; if it exceeds 30 days, he must pay thatportion of the freightage proportionate to the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 535/619
portion of the freightage proportionate to thedistance covered.
Total Rescission by the Ship owner
(Art. 689)
When the charterer fails to load the vessel and laydays have expired. In this case, charterer is underobligation to pay ½ of the freightage.
When the owner sells the vessel and the new owner,despite knowledge of the charter party, decides toload the vessel with his own cargo. There is noobligation on the part of the ship owner to
compensate the charterer. But if the new owner hasno cargo to load he must respect the charter party
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 536/619
no cargo to load, he must respect the charter party.{Note: This is the 2nd distinction between charterparty and in ordinary lease. In ordinary leasecontract, if the buyer of the object of lease was
aware of the lease, he must respect the contract.}
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 537/619
Chapter 10
Bottomry & Respondentia
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 538/619
Concepts of Bottomry &
Respondentia
Bottomry: A maritime contract whereby the owner of
a ship borrows for the use, equipment or repair of the vessel, for a definite term, and pledges the ship(or the keel or bottom of the ship pars pro toto ) assecurity, with the stipulation that if the ship is lostduring the voyage or during the limited time on
account of the perils enumerated, the lender shalllose his money.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 539/619
y
Respondentia: A maritime contract where it is thegoods, or some part thereof, are hypothecated assecurity for a loan, the repayment of which is
dependent upon maritime risks.
Distinguished from Simple Loan
Firstly, in bottomry & respondentia, rate of interest isnot subject to the Usury Law on account of theextraordinary risks involved while in simple loan, therate of interest must not exceed the ceiling fixed bythe Usury Law (note: read now as unconscionable).
Secondly, in the former, there must necessarily be amarine risk, the existence of which must be dulyestablished while there is no need for such risk underthe latter
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 540/619
the latter. Thirdly, in the former, it must be executed in
accordance with form and manner required in theCode of Commerce while in the latter, the formal
requisites on contract apply.
Fourthly, loan on bottomry or respondentia must berecorded in the registry of vessels in order to bindthird persons while no such registration is required insimple loan.
Lastly, in the former, preference is extended to thelast lender if there are several lenders upon the
theory that were it not for the last lender, then theprior lenders would not have benefited from the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 541/619
p o e de s ou d ot a e be e ted o t epreservation of the security. Whereas in the latter,the first lender, as a general rule, enjoys preferenceover subsequent ones. [Art. 730, CoC]
Characteristics/Common Elements
of Bottomry & Respondentia
Exposure of security to marine peril. [Art. 732]
Obligation of debtor conditioned only upon the safearrival of the security at the point of destination.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 542/619
Who May Contract Bottomry or
Respondentia
Bottomry: General rule – only the owner. If owner is
absent – the captain. [Art. 728] Respondentia: only the owner of the cargo.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 543/619
Hypothecary Nature of Bottomry &
Respondentia (Art. 731)
General Rule:
The loss of the security, i.e. vessel in bottomry orcargo in respondentia, extinguishes the obligation.
Exceptions:
Due to inherent defect (cargo);
Due to barratry on the part of the captain, i.e.malfeasance;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 544/619
Due to fault or malice of borrower;
Vessel was engaged in contraband; and
Cargo loaded different from that agreed upon.
Other Relevant Provisions on
Bottomry & Respondentia
No bottomry on the salaries of the crew. [Art. 725]
If loan given in excess of security throughovervaluation by borrower, the excess must bereturned with legal interest. [Art. 726]
When respondentia loan is not all utilized for thecargo, the excess must be returned. [Art. 727]
If the security in bottomry or respondentia is notsubject to a marine peril, it becomes an ordinaryloan [Art 729]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 545/619
loan. [Art. 729]
Lenders of bottomry and respondentia mustcontribute to the general average once jettison has
made possible the safe arrival of the security. [Art.732] Exposure to marine peril takes place from the time
the anchors are a weighed at the port of departureuntil anchors are dropped at the port of destination.
[Art. 733] In case of shipwreck and there is salvage, loan will
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 546/619
p g ,depend on the repayment on what may be salvaged.[Art. 734]
The concurrence of bottomry loan with insurance, the
insurable interest of the owner of the vessel is thevalue of the vessel less the loan in bottomry, inreference to Sec. 101 of the Insurance Code. [Art.735]
Failure to pay the premium on time of bottomry orrespondentia loans gives rise to liablility for legal
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 547/619
interest (delay ex re). [Art. 736]
Chapter 11Averages
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 548/619
Average Defined
Any damage deliberately caused, or any expensedeliberately incurred due to a marine peril andbecause of which the vessel and/or cargo is saved.
Art. 806: All extraordinary or accidental expenseswhich may be incurred during the voyage in order topreserve the vessel, the cargo, or both.
Excludes: Petty and ordinary expenses incident tonavigation, e.g., pilotage, lighterage, towage,anchorage, inspection, health, quarantine, lazaretto
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 549/619
anchorage, inspection, health, quarantine, lazaretto[i.e., quarantine station for maritime travellers ] , andother so-called port expenses, costs of barges andunloading until the merchandise is place in the wharf,
and any other usual expenses in navigation.
Kinds of Average
Particular (or Simple) Average – All the damages andexpenses caused to the vessel or to her cargo whichhave NOT INURED TO THE COMMON BENEFIT ANDPROFIT of all the persons interested in the vessel andher cargo. The damages sustained shall be borne bythe owner of the vessel or the goods only. [Art. 809]
General Average – All the damages and expenses
which are DELIBERATELY caused in order to save thevessel, its cargo or both, AT THE SAME TIME, from
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 550/619
, g , ,REAL AND KNOW RISKS. [Art. 811]
Examples of Particular Average
(Art. 809)
Losses suffered by the cargo from the time of itsembarkation until it is unloaded, either on account of inherent defect of the goods or by reason of anaccident of the sea or force majeure, and theexpenses incurred to avoid and repair the same.
Losses and expenses suffered by the vessel in itshull, rigging, arms, and equipment, for the same
causes and reasons, from the time it puts to sea fromthe port of departure until it anchors and lands in the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 551/619
p pport of destination.
Losses suffered by the merchandise LOADED ONDECK, except in coastwise navigation, if the marine
ordinances allow it.
The wages and victuals of the crew when the vesselis detained or embargoed by legitimate order or force majeure , it the charter has been contracted for afixed sum for the voyage.
The necessary expenses on arrival at a port, in orderto make repairs or secure provisions.
The lowest value of the goods sold by the captain inarrivals under stress for the payment of provisions
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 552/619
p y pand in order to save the crew, or to meet any otherneed of the vessel, against which the proper amountshall be charged.
The victuals and wages of the crew while the vesselis in quarantine.
The loss inflicted upon the vessel or cargo by reasonof an impact or collision with another, if it isaccidental and unavoidable. If the accident shouldoccur through the fault or negligence of the captain,the latter shall be liable for all the losses caused.
Any loss suffered by the cargo through the fault,negligence, or barratry of the captain or of the crew,
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 553/619
g g , y p ,without prejudice to the right of th owner to recoverthe corresponding indemnity from the captain, thevessel, and the freightage.
Requisites of General Average
There must be common danger;
That for the common safety, part of thevessel or of the cargo or both is sacrificedDELIBERATELY;
That from the expenses or damages causedfollows the successful saving of the vesseland cargo; andThat the expenses or damages should have
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 554/619
That the expenses or damages should havebeen incurred or inflicted after taking properlegal steps and authority
Procedure in General Average
Before the loss is caused or the expenses incurred,the captain must call a meeting with the chief mate
and other officers and any cargo owner who may beon board;
They shall decide by voting on a resolution of thecaptain. If majority disagrees with the captain, thelatter shall have the final decision;
The minutes must be entered in the deck log book,signed by all the persons present and stating in detail
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 555/619
g y p p gall the goods jettisoned and the injuries caused tothose kept on board;
Copy of the minutes to be filed within 24 hours after
arrival at first port of entry.
Examples of General Average
The goods or cash invested in the redemption of thevessel or of the cargo captured by enemies,
privateers, or pirates, and the provisions, wages, andexpenses of the vessel detained during the time thesettlement or redemption is being made.
The goods jettisoned to lighten the vessel, whetherthey belong to the cargo, to the vessel, or to the
crew, and the damage suffered through said act bythe goods which are kept on board.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 556/619
The cables and masts which are cut or rendereduseless, the anchors and the chains which areabandoned, in order to save the cargo, the vessel or
both.
The expenses of removing or transferring a portion of the cargo in order to lighten the vessel and place it in
condition to enter a port or roadstead, and thedamage resulting therefrom to the goods removed ortransferred.
The damage suffered by the goods of the cargo bythe opening made in the vessel in order to drain it
and prevent its sinking. The expenses caused in order to float a vessel
ll d d f h f
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 557/619
intentionally stranded for the purpose of saving it. The damage caused to the vessel which had to be
opened, scuttled or broken in order to save the
cargo.
The expenses for the treatment and subsistence of the members of the crew who may have beenwounded or crippled in defending or saving thevessel.
The wages of any member of the crew held ashostage by enemies, privateers, or pirates, and the
necessary expenses which he may incur in hisimprisonment, until he is returned to the vessel or tohi d i il h ld h f it
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 558/619
his domicile, should he prefer it.
The wages and victuals of the crew of a vesselchartered by the month, during the time that it is
embargoed or detained by force majeure or by orderof the government, or in order to repair the damagecaused for the common benefit.
The depreciation resulting in the value of the goodssold at arrival under stress in order to repair the
vessel by reason of gross average. The expenses of the liquidation of the average.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 559/619
Who Will Contribute for the
General Average
Those who benefited from the sacrifice: the ship
owner and owners of the cargoes that were saved. Contribution may also be imposed on the insurers of
the vessel or cargoes that were saved as well aslenders on bottomry or respondentia.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 560/619
Who Are Entitled To The
General Average
All the owners whose goods were sacrificed
pro rata .Exceptions:
Goods carried on deck unless the law orcustoms of the place allow such stowage.
Goods that are not recorded in the books orrecords of the vessel
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 561/619
records of the vessel.
Fuel for the vessel if there is more thansufficient fuel for the voyage.
American Home Assurance v. CA,
208 SCRA 343
Held:
A particular average presupposes that the loss ordamage is due to an inherent defect of the goods, anaccident of the sea, or a force majuere or thenegligence of the crew of the carrier governed by the
Code of Commerce. The claims for damages due to the negligence of the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 562/619
common carrier are governed by the Civil Codeprovisions on common carriers.
Magsaysay Inc. vs. Agan,
96 Phil. 504
Facts: An interisland vessel of petitioner sailed fromManila to Aparri. The vessel entered the Aparri river
where she stopped to load and unload. Overnight, asand bar formed at the mouth of the river. On herway out, the vessel hit the sand bar and got stuck. A tug boat was sent by the owner to town the vessel.In Manila, the captain demanded from Agan and
other cargo owners to reimburse him for theexpenses of hiring the tugboat.Held: Particular average only The cargo was not
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 563/619
Held: Particular average only. The cargo was notbenefited since it was not perishable nor the cargoowner in a hurry. Even assuming it was generalaverage, the captain did not call the meeting.
Philippine Home Assurance v. CA,
257 SCRA 468
Facts:
A vessel, with cargo on board, caught fire due to asmall flame coming from the acetylene cylinder whichwere stored in the accommodation area near theengine room and which exploded despite efforts toextinguish the fire. The vessel was subsequently
towed to port with the expenses of having the cargotransshipped to port of destination was charged tothe consignees Petitioner sought recovery as
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 564/619
the consignees. Petitioner sought recovery assubrogee.
Held: The consignee of the cargo cannot be made toshare with the carrier for additional freight and
salvage charges. Fire cannot be considered a natural disaster or
calamity since it almost always arises from some actof man. It cannot be an act of God unless caused bya lightning or a natural disaster or casualty not
attributable to human agency. While the facts of the case may technically fall within
the purview of general average the formalities
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 565/619
the purview of general average, the formalitiesprescribed were not complied with. Consequently,the carrier‟s claim for contribution from the
consignees cannot be enforced.
Jettison of Cargo
Cargo on deck shall be first to be jettisoned followedby those from the lower deck then those of biggerbulk but of smaller value. [Art. 815]
Cargo jettisoned, to be entitled to reimbursement forgeneral average, must be covered by a bill of lading.[Art. 816]
Expenses to lighten a vessel by the transfer of goodsto other vessels is general average. Also when therei fi t d th i d t i k th l t
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 566/619
is fire on port and there is need to sink the vessel tosave the goods. [Arts. 817 & 818]
Liquidation of Average
Whether general or particular average, the
person benefited by the damage or expenseincurred must contribute his proportionateshare, to be determined by the amount of damages or expenses incurred and
apportioned among the those benefited inproportion to the value of their property save.
I ti l it i i li d th t th
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 567/619
In particular average, it is implied that thereis only one interest involved and the
proportion pertains to him 100%.
The York-Antwerp Rules
Allow deck cargo on coastwise shipping but prohibitsit on overseas trade.
Hence, a deck cargo stowed on deck, with consent of the shipper in an overseas trade must alwayscontribute to general average. But if it is the one jettisoned, it will not be entitled to reimbursement.
On the other, a deck cargo stowed on deck in acoastwise trade with consent of the shipper whilel t t ib t t l i lik i
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 568/619
also must contribute to general average is likewiseentitle to reimbursement if jettisoned.
Chapter 12
Collisions
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 569/619
Collision & Allision
Collision – occurs when both vessels are onmotion.
Allision – happens when one of the vessels isstationary.
Rule on Collision: The guilty vessel shall payfor the damage caused by the collision.Exception: If guilty vessel sinks due to thehypothecary nature of maritime transactions.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 570/619
yp yException to exception: When there isnegligence of ship owner [see Abdulhaman
case]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 571/619
Five Cases Covered by Collision/
Allision
One vessel is at fault – Vessel at fault is liable for thedamage caused to the innocent vessel as well as to
the damage suffered by the owners of cargo of bothvessels.
Both vessels at fault – Each vessel must bear its ownloss, but the shippers of both vessels may go againstthe ship owners, being solidarily liable to them.
Vessel at fault is unknown – Same rule when bothvessels are at fault.Thi d l t f lt S l h l
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 572/619
Third vessel at fault – Same rule as when one vesselis at fault.
Fortuitous Event – No liability; res perit domino .
Three stages in Collision
When the 2 vessels approach each other.
When the vessel are so near each other that contactis imminent.
Actual contact or collision.
Note: The foregoing rule was laid down in Urrutia v.
Baco River Plantation, 26 Phil. 623 to apply thedoctrine of last clear chance. But this ruling wasb d d i Willi Y 27 Phil 68 (i f )
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 573/619
abandoned in Williams v. Yangco, 27 Phil. 68 (infra)
Williams v. Yangco,
27 Phil. 68 (1914)
Held:
The doctrine of last clear chance is inapplicable formarine collision since the rule of liability in this jurisdiction for maritime accidents such as that nowunder consideration is clearly, definitely, andunequivocally laid down in Art. 827 of the Code of
Commerce. Under the rule, the evidence disclosing that both
vessels were at fault gives neither of the owners an
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 574/619
vessels were at fault gives neither of the owners anaction against the other for the loss or injurysustained by their respective vessel.
Villacarlos v. Everett Steamship,
4 CA Reports 961
Facts:
A fishing vessel of Philippine registry collided with avessel from Europe. The foreign vessel was at faultbut its owner was beyond the jurisdiction of thecourts. The owner, however, had a shipping agent inthe Philippines who, nonetheless denied liability.
Held:
Th t i li bl i th b f th hi
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 575/619
The agent is liable in the absence of the ship owner.The shipping agent or naviero acts as owner in theabsence of the ship owner.
Code of Commerce uses the word „buque‟ in
reference to collision of vessel, i.e.a draft with deck. A fishing vessel here had no deck, hence, not abuque so that Art. 835 on marine protest does notapply.
Failure of the captain of the fishing vessel to filemarine protest does not bar recovery.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 576/619
Duty of the Overtaking or Crossing Vessel
(Sulpicio Lines v. CA, 305 SCRA 478)
Under Rule 24-C of the Regulations for PreventingCollision at Sea, the duty of overtaking or crossingvessel to keep out of the way subsists even if theovertaking vessel cannot determine with certaintywhether she is at forward or aft more than twopoints from the vessel being overtaken.
In case of collision, it would be beyond cavil that theovertaking vessel must assume responsibility as shewas in a better position to avoid the collision
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 577/619
was in a better position to avoid the collision.
She should have blown its horn or given signs towarn the other vessel that she was overtaking her.
When moving vessel strikes stationary
object (Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, 297
SCRA 30)
Held:
American evidentiary rule provided for a presumptionof fault against a moving vessel that strikes astationary object, such as a dock or navigational aid.
In admiralty, this presumption does more thanmerely require the ship to go forward and produce
some evidence on the presumptive matter. Themoving vessel must show that it was without fault orthat the collision (allision) was occasioned by the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 578/619
that the collision (allision) was occasioned by thefault of the stationary object or was the result of inevitable accident.
Chapter 13Arrival Under Stress & Shipwrecks
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 579/619
Steps To Be Taken In Determination
Of Propriety Of Arrival Under Stress
Captain to determine during voyage if there is well-founded fear of seizure, privateers or other valid
grounds. He then assembles all the officers. He summons the persons interested in the cargo who
are present and who may attend. They have no rightto vote.
Officers to be determined and agree if there is well-founded reason after examining the circumstances.The captain has the deciding vote
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 580/619
The captain has the deciding vote. Agreement to be drafted and minutes to be signed
and entered in the deck log book. Also objections.
Instances of Arribada
Lack of provision or fuel Pirates Inability to navigate.Note: If the lack of fuel or provision is not due to lack of
foresight, or the fear of pirates is well-founded or theinability to navigate is not attributable to fault of captain or crew, then these arrivals under stressbecomes particular average of the vessel. Shippersmust wait.N d d t b id t th hi B t if
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 581/619
No damage needs to be paid to the shippers. But if due to bad faith, the damages must be paid toshippers for delay and the vessel bears the loss.
Improper Arribada
If lack of provisions should rise from the failure totake the necessary provisions for the voyage
according to usage and customs, or if they shouldhave been rendered useless or lost through badstowage or negligence in their care.
If the risk of enemies, privateers, or pirates shouldnot have been well-known, manifest, and based on
positive and provable facts. If the defect of the vessel should have arisen from
the fact that it was not repaired rigged equipped
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 582/619
the fact that it was not repaired, rigged equipped,and prepared in a manner suitable for the voyage, orfrom some erroneous order of the captain.
When malice, negligence, want of foresight, or lack
of skill on the part of the captain exists in the actcausing the damage.
Expenses. [Art. 820, Code of Commerce]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 583/619
Shipwreck (Agrounding)
The demolition or shattering of a vessel caused by
her driving ashore or on rocks and shoals in themidseas, or by the violence of winds and waves intempests.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 584/619
Rules on Shipwrecks (Arts. 840-845)
Losses/deterioration due to shipwreck or stranding tothe account of the owners & ship owner.
If caused by malice, negligence, or lack of skill of thecaptain or because vessel put to sea wasinsufficiently repaired and equipped: Shippers candemand indemnity from the captain.
The goods saved from the wreck to be specially
bound for the payment of the expenses of therespective salvage.
If several vessels sail under convoy and any of them
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 585/619
If several vessels sail under convoy, and any of themshould be wrecked, the cargo saved will bedistributed among the rest in proportion to the
amount which each one is able to take.
If any captain should refuse, without sufficient cause,to receive what may correspond to him, the captain
of the wrecked vessel to enter a marine protestagainst him.
If it is not possible to transfer to the other vesselsthe entire cargo of the vessel wrecked, the goods of the highest value and smallest volume to be saved
first. Designation to be made by the captain withconcurrence of his officers. The captain taking on-board the goods saved from
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 586/619
The captain taking on board the goods saved fromthe wreck to continue his course to the port of destination and upon arrival he should deposit the
goods for disposal to their owners.
In case the captain changes his course, and if he canunload them at the port of which they were
consigned, he may make said port if the shippers orsupercargoes present and the officers andpassengers of the vessel consent thereto. But he isnot required to do so even if he has the consentduring time of war or when the port is difficult and
dangerous to make. The owners of the cargo to defray all the expenses of
this arrival and the payment of the freightage.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 587/619
p y g g If cannot be, proceed to judicial sale complying with
the formalities and on publicity.
Chapter 14Salvage
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 588/619
Definition and Philosophy of Salvage
Salvage is a service which one person renders to theowner of a ship or goods, by his own labor,preserving the goods or the ship which the owner orthose entrusted with the care of them have eitherabandoned in distress at sea, or are unable to protectand secure.
Salvage Law provides for the compulsory reward tothose who brave the perils of the sea to save thecargo or vessel in order to encourage such services.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 589/619
g gWhether the owner of the property save likes it ornot, he must give a reward. The maximum amount is
50% of the value of the property save.
Kinds of Salvage Services
Voluntary – compensation is dependent on thesuccess.
Under contract for a per diem or per horam wage,payable at all event.
Under contract for compensation payable only in case
of success.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 590/619
Requisites For Salvage Reward
Valid object of salvage.
Such object must be exposed to marine peril. Must be rendered voluntarily.
Must be successful.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 591/619
Derelict
A vessel or cargo badly damaged and abandoned bythe crew to the mercy of the sea.
Mere abandonment does not make such vessel orcargo res nullius.
Proper procedure must be followed by the salvors tobe entitled of the reward.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 592/619
Procedure In Derelict If vessel is abandoned, salvor must tow her to the
nearest port where it will be delivered to the
municipal treasurer or collector of customs who willadvertise the fact of salvage. If owner of salvaged vessel or cargo appears, he may
take possession of vessel or cargo and pay thereward amount not exceeding 50% of the value of
the vessel. Reward is determined by considering:
- the value of the property save; zeal employed;
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 593/619
the value of the property save; zeal employed;danger posed to the salvors; number of persons whotook part; services render; and expenses incurred.
If no claim for the vessel is made within 3 monthsafter publication, the municipal treasurer to sell the
property salvaged at public auction. The reward andexpenses will be deducted from the proceeds. Thebalance to be deposited with the treasury.
If no one claims for the balance after 3 years, ½ willgo to the salvors and the other half to the
government. If one vessel saves another:
- ½ to the ship owner of the saving vessel
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 594/619
½ to the ship owner of the saving vessel.- ¼ to the captain- ¼ to the crew
Honorio Barrios v. Go Thong & Co.,
G.R. L-17192, March 30, 1963
Facts: Go Thong is the owner of a vessel plying theroute from Mindanao to Cebu. The engine of his
vessel conked out while she was in the middle of thesea. The captain radioed the owner and was advisedthat a sister ship was on its way to tow the vessel.The sea at the time was calm. The radio messagewas picked up by another vessel which thereafterproceeded to the stranded vessel of Go Thong. Thecaptain agreed that the vessel be towed. The ownerof the towing vessel knew the owner of the strandedvessel He waived charges of towing But the captain
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 595/619
vessel. He waived charges of towing. But the captainand the crew the responding vessel complained of their respective ¼ shares in the reward.
Issue: Was there salavage or towage?
Held: There was no salvage because there was nomarine peril at the time. There was no danger for thestranded ship. The sea was calm and a sister shipwas nearby. Hence, no reward is due. Also, there isno need for compensation for the towage because of
the waiver of the towing vessel.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 596/619
Chapter 15COGSA
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 597/619
History of COGSA
Originally passed by Congess of the US on April 16,1936 as Public Act No. 521.
Adopted by the Phil Commonwealth on October 22,1936 as Commonwealth Act No. 65.
When the New Civil Code took effect on August 30,1950, it became the primary law on carriage of goodsby sea.
Art. 1753, NCC: The law of the country to which thegoods are to be transported shall govern the liabilityof the common carrier for their loss, destruction or
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 598/619
,deterioration.
COGSA remains suppletory law for international trade
Chapter 16
Public Service Laws
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 599/619
Meaning and Concept of Public Utility
A business or service engaged in regularly supplyingthe public with some commodity or service of public
consequence such as electricity, gas, water,transportation, telephone or telegraph service.[National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.No. 112702, September 26, 1997]
In a very real sense, a public utility is engaged inpublic service-- providing basic commodities andservices indispensable to the interest of the general
bli [R bli M l G R N 141314 A il
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 600/619
public. [Republic v. Meralco, G.R. No. 141314, April 9, 2003]
When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use inwhich the public has an interest, he, in effect grantsto the public an interest in that use, and must submitto the control by the public for the common good, tothe extent of the interest he has thus created.[Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Hon. Jesus B.Garcia Jr., G.R. No. 115381, December 23, 1994 citing Pantranco v. Public Service Commission, 70 Phil.221]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 601/619
Constitutional Provisions
Public utilities – must be owned by Filipino citizen or60% owned by Filipino citizens. [Art. XII, Sec. 11]
Mass media – must 100% Filipino.
Government take-over: In times of nationalemergency, when the public interest so requires, theState may, during the emergency and under
reasonable terms, temporarily take over or direct theoperation of any privately owned public utility orbusiness affected with public interests. [Art. XII, Sec.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 602/619
17]
Operation of vital industries: The State, may, in theinterest of national welfare or defense, establish andoperate vital industries and upon payment of justcompensation, transfer to public ownership utilitiesand other private enterprises to be operated by thegovernment. [Art. XII, Sec. 18]
Prohibition against monopolies: The State shallregulate or prohibit monopolies when the publicinterest so requires; no combination in restraint of t d f i titi h ll b ll d [A t XII
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 603/619
trade or unfair competition shall be allowed. [Art. XII,Sec. 19]
Public Service
Includes every person who may own, operate,manage, or control in the Philippines for hire or
compensation, with general or limited clientele,whether permanent, occasional or accidental, anddone for general business purposes, any commoncarrier, railroad, street railway, fraction railway,subway motor vehicle, steamboat, or steamship lineferries, and water craft, shipyard, ice plant, electriclight, heat and power or any other public utility. [Sec.13(b) Act 146]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 604/619
13(b), Act. 146]
PAL V. CAB, 270 SCRA 538
Held: The terms „convenience and necessity‟ if usedtogether is a statute, are usually held not to be
separable, but are construed together. Both wordsmodify each other and must be construed together.The word „necessity‟ is so connected, not as anadditional requirement but to modify and qualifywhat might otherwise be taken as the strictsignificance of the word necessity.
Public convenience and necessity exists when theproposed facility will meet a reasonable want of the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 605/619
proposed facility will meet a reasonable want of thepublic and supply a need which the existing facilities
do not adequately afford.
It does not mean or require an actual physicalnecessity or an indispensable thing.
The use of the word „necessity‟, in conjunction with „public convenience‟ in a certificate of authorization toa public service entity to operate, does not in anyway modify the nature of such certification, or therequirements for the issuance of the same.
It is the law which determines the requisite for theissuance of such certification, and not the titleindicating the certificates.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 606/619
Public Utilities
Public utilities are privately owned and operatedbusinesses whose services are essential to the
general public. They are enterprises which speciallycater to the needs of the public and conduce to theircomfort and convenience. As such, public utilityservices are impressed with public interest andconcern. The same is true with respect to thebusiness of common carrier which holds such apeculiar relation to the public interest that there issuperinduced upon it the right of public regulation
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 607/619
superinduced upon it the right of public regulationwhen private properties are affected with publicinterest, hence, they cease to be juris privati only.
When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use inwhich the public has an interest, he, in effect grantsto the public an interest in that use, and must submitto the control by the public for the common good, tothe extent of the interest he has thus created.[Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Hon. Jesus B.Garcia Jr., G.R. No. 115381, December 23, 1994 citing Pantranco v. Public Service Commission, 70 Phil.221]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 608/619
Difference Between Operation of a
Public Utility and Ownership of Facilities
While the Constitution in no uncertain terms requiresa franchise for the operation of a public utility, it does
not require a franchise before one can own thefacilities needed to operate a public utility so long asit does not operate them to serve the public.
In law, there is clear distinction between the
operation of a public utility and the ownership of thefacilities and equipment used to serve the public.[Ibid]
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 609/619
Telecommunications
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 610/619
Radio Industry
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 611/619
Broadcasting
Broadcast is an undertaking the object of which is totransmit over-the-air commercial radio or televisionmessages for reception of a broad audience in ageographic area.
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 612/619
Cable Television Operations (E.O.
436, Sept. 9, 1997)
Classified as mass media
Essential components:
Reception facilities which extract the broadcast signalfrom the air, or microwave transmission.
Input equipment, which converts and amplifies thesignal received; and
Distribution system, which consists of feeder or trunk lines originating from the input equipment; smallerdistribution cables which carry the signal to the
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 613/619
y gimmediate vicinity of the subscriber; and drop lineswhich carry the signal into the subscriber‟s premises.
Electronic Commerce Act
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 614/619
Internet and Value Added-Services
Electronic Mail (Email) –
Bulletin Board System (BBS) – World Wide Web (www)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 615/619
Mass Media
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 616/619
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 617/619
Build-Operate-Transfer Law (R.A.
6957, as amended by R.A. 7718)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 618/619
BOT Schemes
Build-Operate-and-Transfer (BOT Build-and-Transfer (BT) Build-Own-Operate (BOO) Build-Lease-Transfer (BLT Build-Transfer-and-Operate (BTO)
Contract-Add-and-Operate (CAO) Develop-Operate-and-Transfer (DOT) Rehabilitate-Operate-and-Transfer (ROT)
7/29/2019 Transpo & Public Service Law[1]
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-public-service-law1 619/619
p ( ) Rehabilitate-Own-and-Operate (ROO)
top related