transpo cases.doc

8/14/2019 transpo cases.doc

1/49

Eastern Shipping v IAC

- Law applicable? Law of countrytransported to. CC-> cogsa in casesnot covered by cc

- Fire; FE; human means; carrier did

not prove diligence->liable

JPN -> Manila

(P) ESL

(R)s:

LANCE PIPES

(DISC)

GARMENT FABRICS

(NISHHIN)

SURVEYING INSTRUMENTS (D!A)

Fi"# -> $%$al l%ss

- S&%'# n% "#*la" ins+#,$i%n- C%*l n%$ #.+lain ,a*s# %/ /i"#- 01 2%*"s 3#/%"# i$ 4as n%$i,#

Ynchausti v Dexter

- loss thru causes un!nown; carriermust prove that it was thru accident orsome other circumstance"

- no e#planation $ cc liable- rcpt in good order-> arrival in bad

order % prima facie case

&anaa&*s ,as# /%" +*",2asin a#n$ $%

sin !a""an$ (n%$ +a5# /%" a&%*n$ %/

s2%"$a#)

(P) Yn,2a*s$i(R) D#.$#" (a*i$%")Uns%n (+*",2asin

a#n$)

Manila -> Caa5an

!2i$# "%s# &in#"al %il

C%,' 3"an &in#"al %il

->G%6#"nn$ B%L

-s2%"$a#s n%$# in B%L

L%ss *# $% ,a*s#s *n'n%4n

Mirasol v Dollar

- admitted that goods were damages inits possession; &o' on (" to prove

that it was caused by some fact thate#empts it from liability

- perils of the sea) marine casualties*shipwrec!* icebergs* somethingfortuitous

- damage via sea water is not itselfevidence of FE

(P) Mi"as%l

%4n#" %/ 3%%'s

(D) "%3#"$ %lla" ,%7

s$#a&s2i+ Ga"/i#l

NY 8> Manila

A""i6# in 3a %"#"

S#a 4a$#"

B%L: a"##n$ $2a$ n%$ lia3l# /%" FM

9+#"ils %/ $2# s#a

Fail# $% +"%6# a&a# 6ia s#a4a$#"

P#"ils %/ $2# s#a: 4%*l 3# &%"# 4; $2#

'n%4l## %/ $2# () %//i,#"s $2an (P)

Tan chiong v inchausti

- no delay when; since no term fi#ed- no liability when loss due to FE +

carrier not negligent

(P) Tan ,2i%n ,lai&in $2a$ 2# %4n# $2#

,as#s %/ #n#"al ",2anis# /il# a ,as#

aains$ (D) In,2a*s$i 42% /ail# $% #li6#"

$2# sa ($% "#,%6#" $2# a&%*n$)7


2/49

- (D) In,2a*s$i "#,#i6# /"%& n Bi#n Si+

(BS) 0

BS &a# n% +"%$#s$

Iss*#s:

@7!as $2#"# #la5

- in $2# ,%n$"a,$ n% $#"& 4as /i.# as$% 42#n $2# %%s 4#"# $% 3#

#li6#"#

- $2#"# 4as n% #la5 in $2#$"ans+%"$a$i%n as $2# (D) i $2#*s*al an "#*la" &ann#" %/

$"ans+%"$a$i%n %/ all 'ins %/ %%s

/"%& Ca$a"&an $% Manila

07Is $2# (D) lia3l# /%" $2# %%s

- $2# (D) is n%$ lia3l# as i$ 4as n%$n#li#n$ an $2# ,a*s# %/ $2# l%ss

4as #n$i"#l5 *# $% a /%"$*i$%*s #6#n$

- $2#"# 4as n% n%$i,# %/ $2# s$%"& $2a$4as $% ,% in $2# +%"$ %/ G*3a$

- $2# l%ss an a&a# 4as *# $% $2#4"#,' an 2#a65 s$%"&

- (D) 2a a na$*"al in$#"#s$ in+"#s#"6in $2# l%",2a /%" i$ 2a i$s

%4n %%s %n i$7 T2# (D)s a#n$s

an $2# +a$"%n (&as$#" %/ $2# l%",2a)i $2# as*"#s n#,#ssa"5 $% sa6#

$2# l%",2a (,l#a"in $2# 3%a$ %/ #a"

"#sis$in $2# 4in? +"%,*"in an #.$"a

an,2%")

- (D)s a#n$ $%%' all as*"#s $%sal6a# $2# %%s 4; 'n%4l## %/

$2# s2i++#"

- $2# l%",2a 2a n% ans %/ ,2aninan,2%"a#7 !2#"#6#" i$ 4#n$ i$ 4%*l

3# #.+%s# $% $2# 4a6#s %/ $2#

2*""i,an#7

Manrtini v macondray

- seawater; carriage on dec!; consent; whencarrier not liable

'" ,artinichemical products

(" ,acondrayagent of EC

- Plain$i// G7 Ma"$ini L$7 a""an# 4i$2 $2#

D#/#nan$ ,%&+an5 as a#n$s %/ $2# Eas$#"n

an A*s$"alian S$#a&s2i+ C%&+an5 /%" $2#

s2i+n$ %/ $4% 2*n"# an nin#$##n ,as#s

%" +a,'a#s %/ ,2#&i,al +"%*,$s /"%&

Manila P2ili++in# Islans $% %3# Ja+an

- U+%n a""i6al a$ $2# +%"$ %/ #s$ina$i%n i$

4as /%*n $2a$ $2# ,2#&i,als ,%&+"is# in$2# s2i+n$ 2a s*//#"# a&a# /"%& $2#

#//#,$s %/ 3%$2 /"#s2 an sal$ 4a$#"

- $2a$ %n $2# /a,# %/ #a,2 3ill %/ lain is

,l#a"l5 s$a&+# 4i$2 a "*33#" s$#n,il in

,%ns+i,*%*s l#$$#"s $2# 4%"s 9%n #,' a$

s2i++#"s "is'7

- $2# +"#s#n$ a,$i%n 4as ins$i$*$# 35 $2#

Plain$i// $% "#,%6#" $2# a&%*n$ %/ $2# a&a#


3/49

- T2# Plain$i// insis$s $2a$ $2# a"##n$ 4as

$2a$ $2# ,a"% in *#s$i%n s2%*l 3# ,a""i#

in $2# %"ina"5 &ann#" $2a$ is in $2# s2i+s

2%l an $2a$ $2# Plain$i// n#6#" a6# i$s

,%ns#n$ /%" $2# %%s $% 3# ,a""i# %n #,'

Di $2# (P) ,%ns#n$ $% $2# %%s 3#in

,a""i# %n #,'

- Plain$i// ,%ns#n$# $% $2# s2i+n$ %/ $2#

,a"% %n #,'

("ina"il5 $2# s2i++#" is s*++%s# $%

+"%*,# $2# &a$#s "#,#i+$ $% $2# a#n$s %/

$2# s2i+s ,%&+an5 42% $2#"#*+%n iss*# $2#

3ill %/ lain $% $2# s2i++#"7 )

- !2#n #si"#s $% +"%,*"# $2# 3ill %/ lain

3#/%"# 2# %3$ains $2# &a$#s "#,#i+$ i$ is

,*s$%&a"5 /%" 2i& $% #n$#" in$% a 4"i$$#n

%3lia$i%n 3inin 2i&s#l/ a&%n %$2#"

$2ins $% a3i# 35 $2# $#"&s %/ $2# &a$#s

"#,#i+$7

- In $2# +"#s#n$ ins$an,# $2# &a$#s "#,#i+$

,a a/$#" $2# Bills %/ Lain ($% n#%"$ia$i#

$2#& a$ $2# 3an') $% 4;, $2# (P) $2# 4as

"#*i"# $% #n$#" in$% $2# 4"i$$#n %3lia$i%n

,allin i$s#l/ a 9l#$$#" %/ *a"an$##

- $2# L#$$#" %/ G*a"an$5 a6# $2# s2i+ $2#

%+$i%n %/ 2a6in $2# ,a"% $% 3# s2i++# %n

%" *n#" #,'7

- In 6i#4 %/ $2# /a,$ $2a$ $2# Plain$i// i

n%$2in 42a$#6#" l%%'in $%4a"s $2#

is,2a"# %/ $2# ,a"% n%$ #6#n s% &*,2 as$% n%$i/5 Ma,%n"a5 C%&+an5 $2a$ $2#

,a"% &*s$ ,% %// $2# +"%%/ "#la$i6# $% $2#

+"a,$i,a3ili$5 %/ is,2a"# is in,%n,l*si6#7

- T2# #6i#n,# s*3&i$$# in 3#2al/ %/ $2#

D#/#nan$ s2%4s $2a$ $2#"# 4as n% s+a,# in

$2# 2%l $% $a'# $2# ,a"%

Is $2# (D) lia3l# /%" $2# a&a#

- $2# (D) is n%$ lia3l#

- T2# /%"#%in a*$2%"i$i#s /*ll5 s*s$ain $2#

+"%+%si$i%n $2a$ 42#"# $2# s2i++#" ,%ns#n$s

$% 2a6# 2is %%s ,a""i# %n #,' 2# $a'#s

$2# "is's %/ an5 a&a# %" l%ss s*s$ain# as

a ,%ns#*#n,# %/ $2#i" 3#in s% ,a""i#7 In

$2# +"#s#n$ ,as# i$ is inis+*$a3l# $2a$ $2#%%s 4#"# in*"# *"in $2# 6%5a# an

s%l#l5 as a ,%ns#*#n,# %/ $2#i" 3#in %n

#,' ins$#a %/ in $2# s2i+s 2%l7 T2# l%ss

&*s$ $2#"#/%"# /all %n $2# %4n#"

- $2a$ $2# a&a# 2#"# 4as ,a*s# 35 "ain

an s#a 4a$#" $2# "is' %/ 42i,2 is

in2#"#n$l5 in,i#n$ $% ,a""ia# %n #,' $2#

D#/#nan$ ,ann%$ 3# 2#l lia3l#

- 9T2# &as$#" is "#s+%nsi3l# /%" $2# sa/# an+"%+#" s$%4a# %/ $2# ,a"% an $2#"# is n%

%*3$ $2a$ 35 $2# #n#"al &a"i$i la4 2# is

3%*n $% s#,*"# $2# ,a"% sa/#l5 *n#"

#,'7 7 7 7 I/ $2# &as$#" ,a""i#s %%s %n #,'

4i$2%*$ $2# ,%ns#n$ %/ $2# s2i++#" 7 7 7 2# %#s

i$ a$ 2is %4n "is'7 I/ $2#5 a"# a&a# %" l%s$

in ,%ns#*#n,# %/ $2#i" 3#in $2*s #.+%s#

2# ,ann%$ +"%$#,$ 2i&s#l/ /"%& "#s+%nsi3ili$5

35 s2%4in $2a$ $2#5 4#"# a&a# %" l%s$

35 $2# an#"s %/ $2# s#as7 7 7 7 !2#n $2#

s2i++#" ,%ns#n$s $% 2is %%s 3#in ,a""i#

%n #,' 2# $a'#s $2# "is' *+%n 2i&s#l/ %/

$2#s# +#,*lia" +#"ils7 7 7 7 T2is is $2# %,$"in#

%/ all $2# a*$2%"i$i#s an,i#n$ an &%#"n7 9

Asia Lighterage v CA

- /yphoon; human intervention;negligence

B#$$#" 4#s$#"n !2i$# !2#a$

Ins*"# 35 (R) P"*#n$ial

A""i6# in Mla -> T"ans $% (P) Asia (#li6 $%

Pasi)

S*s+#n# *# $% $5+2%%n 8> 3a"#

#6#l%+# a lis$

Ma"in# +"%$#s$


4/49

T%4# -> "#/l%a$ s% %%s $% %$2#"

3a"#s

T%4in 3i$s 3"%'# -> 3a"# san'

Biin %/ %$2#" %%s /"%& %$2#" 3a"#s

-

Lea mer v Malayan insurance

- fortuitous event; typhoon; failed toprove* sea worthiness* rebuttals

typhoon not even there"

ilica

0lian ilica,ining

1" ,alayan 0nsurance

'"Lea ,er carrier"

palawan to manila

barge % leased by '" san!

/C % FE* typhoon trining* no adv notice

C % reversed; vessel not seaworthy

Liability for loss- FE; 2 of fact; contract of

affreightment- '" manned and controlled barge3- bound to e#ercise e#od; typhoon was

far from palawan- did not show that it was free from

fault; wtiness could not remember ifanything was done to minimi4e loss

5ot seaworthy- FE not sole cause; no personal

inspection; had holes

C became a trier of facts; cert of inspection;not enough to prove that it was seaworthy at

the time of voyage seaworthiness must be attime of voyage"

Government v Ynchausti

- character of goods; if proved; not

liable for e#ercising diligence inhandling such

- terms and conditions &oL; conditionsstamped on &oL binding; authorityfrom contract

- binding; stamp was placed beforegoods were shipped; deemed to haveassented

brittle tiles"

/iles

,L to 0loilo

6ov &oL

(amage in cargoLC % '" bound by &oL; carried at owner7sris!; must prove negli of carrier

(" proved faulty nature no negli"- delived w3o protective covering- loaded3discharged diligently

89: in conflict w3 code of com :


5/49

C % FF01,E(

L dmitted- strings bro!en

- bags with holes and spilled- personnel collected and distributed unload

Chec!er -> 6@3&@ cargo

1cvd -> Custody of isayan arrasre"

hipment in 2 not in reprt"

1" &inamira too! < cases; signs of pilferage;surveyors

in good order from ship* when 1" rcvd it;&@

Control3'ossession- inspection via customs; turn over to

consignee; carrier loses possession- &oL; limit liability; not liable for

delay3loss; when not in possessionCarrier not responsible; when shipment wasdelivered to customs"

Eastern Shipping v CA

drums riboflavin

apan -> manila

'" eastern shipping* carrier3marine insurancepolicy

discharged to ,etroport arrastre" -> 8 drumin &@

llied bro!erage bro!er" -> accepted* 8drum w3o seal* delived to consignee

Consignee3warehouse* spillages

'" paid under marine insurance policy

LC % Easter3,etro liable; landed -> 8 drum

damaged; when drum -> consignee w3 fa!econtents

C % ffirm LC decision;

Carrier; ointly severally liable w3 arrastre- did not prove e#ercise of e#od

Consignee3arrastre- depositor3warehouseman;

safe!eeping3return; cant deliv to :rdunless e#press stip;

- Carrier3arrastre- @bli to deliv in 6ood cond to

consignee

0nterest- action for damages not loan"- should be paid at legal interest


7/49

C % affirm* failed to e#ercise e#od

Calte# contributory negli on shore tan!?- delsan failed to prove calte#7 contri

neg- pro#i cause was severance of port

bow mooring line; crew of vesselshould have informed shore tender;red light not suffi warning onlye#cuse -> no banca"

(elsan7s argu; delivery to calte#- still in carrier7s possession since

discharge not finished when bac!flowoccurred; duty to preserve goods

- did not prove e#empted causes

"eacoc# v Macondray

(P) H#a,%,' C%7

a5 E&%n Cl%,'s

- +"%+#"l5 3%.#- /"#i2$ +ai

s$#a& s2i+ 3%l$%n ,as$l#

NY -> Mla

C%nsin#

(D) Ma,%n"a5 8 a#n$ %/ 6#ss#l in +%"$

#&an

/ail# $% #li6#"

B%L (0 ,la*s#s)

- @ 8 6al n%$ #.,## =


8/49

Chec!ed in : baggage- suitcase was mistagged

arrival in ,la- suitcase sent to 0iiligan

made a claim

from what was left from the flight* presentedw3 baggage similar to his

refused; not his- he loo!ed for his white

clothes3camera3transistor radio notthere"

- pistol w3c he did not own"

- suitcase found to belong to (elrosario bound for iiligan"

,uni Court % for '" actual* e#emplarydmgs* attys fees3costs"

CF0 % modified* remove e#emplary damages

/ampering of suitcase- since personnel could open it* despite

being under !ey- there was space for the items- '" was as!ed to chec! of things in

suitcase; (" admitted items notfound

- admitted mista!e in tagging- suitcase was tampered unloc!ed"

liable for loss :9: pesos actual cost of items"

Conditions at bac! of tic!et stub

- loss3delay* limited to its value* note#ceed 8KK pesos per tic!et* unlessdeclare a higher value in advance +addtnl charge

(" limit liab to conds of stub- '" failed to declare a higher value3

pay freight- cannot be compelled to pay '" more

than 8KK

0s '" bound by the limitation? -> 5@

- limitation of liability; under ust andreasonable circumstance

- printed in small letters; hard to read;- (" admits that passengers don7t sign

the tic!et; '" did not sign his tic!et;

cant be bound by it not fairly agreedon"

Liability of carrier; using 89:389:- loss; due to negligence of ees; must

pay value of articles- carrier cannot rely on the limitation

on liability if the loss is due to its ownnegligence

&ng Yiu v CA

'" @ng Diu % passenger- Cebu -> &utuan- ad to attend a case set for hearing;

CF0;

Chec! in a blue maleta

rrival at butuan; claimed luggage could notbe found

1eact indignantly -> porter 6ome4 acted

'L &utuan -> 'L Cebu; message; luggagecarried to ,anila; will be forwarded to&utuan in the same day in the earliestavailable flight; last message around pm notreceived since ees rcvd no more incomingflights luggage to be sent following day"

8Kpm; '" wired 'L cebu demanding for hisluggage to be brought before noon the ne#tday; supervisor assumed &utuan rcvdluggage

ne#t day; went to airport; did not wait for 8Kam flight; porter 6ome4 paged; colorumdriver (agorro volunteered to ta!e luggage;inspect maleta; deliv to '" w3 info that loc!was open


9/49

inspection; found that documents weremissing; refused it

'" granted postponement of hearing;

telegram to 'L Cebu demanding K! foractual3moral damages

messengers of 'L; '"7s office; delivmaleta; conduct investigation of unauthoopening

letter; no way of !nowing contents ofbaggage; no inventory

'" filed a complaint

LC % pal in &F; grantedmoral3e#emplary3attys fees

C % reversed; simple negligence; pay only8KK in lieu of the baggage liability in thetic!et

Ias 'L in &F?- &F $ breach of a !nown duty

through a motive or some ill will"- 'L had a duty to loo! into

miscarried baggage; e#ercise duediligence

- /elegraphic mssge was sent 8 hourafter luggage could not be found;

udges reasoning was forced messagespurious since K trans in less than aminute"

- Failure of 'L cebu to reply; not &F;although assumed; arrived earlier than

what was demanded if in telegram

,oral dmgs; absence of wrongfulact3omission3fraud -> cant be awarded"

E#emplary dmgs; given only if acted inwanton3fraudu3malevolent3fraudulent manner-> must be proved"

0s carrier allowed to avail of the limitation onliability?

- altho pilfered in the custody of (";'" did not uestion validity ofstipulation

- easily readable- being a lawyer3businessman* he must

be fully aware of such- '" did not declare a higher vale3paid

addtnl charge

89K not complied w3* not enter intoagreement?

- did not sign tic!et; but still bound byit; part of cont of carriage; regardlessof consent passengers bound by it

- contract of adhesion; presents readilymade contract to another; other party

can accept or reect; accepting $consent

Cathay paci'ic v CA

lcantara; 8stclass passenger of Cathay- ,la -> = -> Ma!arta- E' of 0iligan Cement Corp;

conference; (irec 6eneral of /rade of0ndonesia

- Chec!ed in luggage; clothes3docs forconf

rrival on Ma!arta- luggage missing; left in =- offered KN inconvenience money- luggage arrived hrs after; to be

pic!ed up by alcantara3phil emba rep;not delived to hotel

Filed complaint against Cathay

/C % ordered Cathay to paymoral3temperate3e#empl3attys feesK!3!38K!3!"

C % increased ,/E OK=3K=38K="

Cathay7s contention


10/49

- uestioned why Iarsaw limitationnot apply

- ees rude to lcantara no factual basis;one day delay not &F

0s cathay liable for ,/E3 in &F?- ,oral dmgs; breach; recoverable

when there is death3fraud3&F;- 6rossly negligent; not aware that it

had left the luggage if = customshadn7t informed them;

- Ees acted in &F; (eposition of 'almaCommercial ttache of 'hil Emba;

basis for moral dmgs; no change ofclothes3answered bac!3Byou can buyanythingB3"

- cathay rep was discourteous*indifferent* impatient* rude; KNlimitation not enough for e#ecutivemtng conference; he was a 8stclass

passenger; had to pic! up luggagehimself

Limited by Iarsaw?- noP- pplication of Iarsaw; does not

preclude civil code3other pertinentlaws; does not e#empt carrier fromliability for dmgs under cont ofcarr"; especially when willfulmisconduct is present

- Iarsaw; art ; cant limit liab if thereis willful misconduct; cant avail of

provs when caused by ees of carrierunder scope

- pecial species of inury; an#iety;losing opportunity for purpose of his

trip; had to postpone conference dueto clothes; embarassment

(amages- reduce moral K!"- temperate deleted- e#emplary maintained- attys same

Isaac v AL Ammen

L mmen % bus

0saac boarded bus- lbay -> Camarines ur- &us collided w3 a pic! up

- Loss of arm- ,edical treatment in diff hospitals

Filed an action for damages; breach of cont

L mmen7s defense % pic! up negli +contributory negligence of 0saac

/C % Collision occurred due to pic! up; busdid everything to avoid collision

Liability of a carrier- contractual; comes upon breach there

is breach if failure of e#od"- carry p7s w3 utmost diligence of a

very cautious person w3 due regardfor all circs

- presumed negli unless- not an insurer of all ris!s against

travel

(id d" e#ercise e#od in avoiding thecollision?

- yes the carrier did- did everything to avoid; moved truc!

over piles of gravel- truc! at moderate speed; pic! up at

full speed; swereved to e#treme right;could not move any further aginst pileof gravel w3o endangering passengers

- when faced w3 sudden emergency;the fact that he has to act uic!ly;

diligence reuired only ordinary sincemust act uic!ly w3o deliberation

Contributory negligence of 0saac- seated on left side; rested arm on

window sill; severance; he was theonly victim

- contri negli 61 % reduction of dmgs;e#ception % protrude an arm3elbow*

beyond edge of window % no recoverywill not result if it were not for such

negli"


11/49

Landingin v %angasinan

pouses Langingin3&ocasaspouses 6arcia3 Landingin

(eath of daughters- Leonilla Landingin3Estrella 6arcia- 'assengers of 'antranco- E#cursion; dagupan -> baguio and

bac!

5egli3fraud3&F of bus- driven by @ligan- open on one side* closed on another- pretended to have special permit- driver7s negli; stall; motor died;

mishandling -> bus slid bac!- suddenly swerved to the mountain

side; leonilla3estrella3others thrownout of bus thru open side; sufferinuries; L3E died

- driver charged w3 multi homicide

Findings of /C- abrupt stop due to brea!ing metal;

rolled bac!; some passengersumped3others stepped down;maneuver on side of mountain;advices passengers not to ump; L3Enot thrown out of bus; panic!ed and

umped; day before % cross ointinspected

- absolve from liability3negligence- ,la

- (river bandonel- Iooden bridge; front wheelsswerved; lost control; truc! on itsright side fell on cree!

- everina drowned; precilliano inured

actions- (" defense; due to

engine3mechanical trouble beyondcontrol of the driver

CF0


12/49

- found that bus prceeded slowly; badcond of road

- fracture of right steering !nuc!le;defective at its core; bubbled

- could not be be !nown despite

inspections; manufactured for heavyduty; last up to 8K yrs

- FE; dismissed both actions

'ro#imate cause of accident- steering !nuc!le- if the truc! was at K mph; other

passengers would have immediatelyprotested

0s the carrier liable for manufacturing defect*

did it e#ercise e#od?- only test applied; visual inspection

every :K days to loo! for crac!s- no test where carrier w3 manufacturer

tested if it were up to standard3loo!for hidden flaws

- visual inspection; will not determine asteel !nuc!les resistance

- steel !nuc!le7s strength can bedetermined

- !nuc!les failure is not an FE that cane#empt a carrier

- carrier7s obligations; safety ofpassengers; periodical tests todetermine condition3strength ofcritical vehicle portions

(mgs- no moral3e#em dmgs- indemnity of ! inuries of !id

death; losses of prop3burial3loss of earnings;

8!

%AL v CA ) Samson

1" amson flew for 'L- ,la -> Legaspi- ad stops at (aet3Cam 5or3Cam ur- Co pilot of Captain &ustamante

Landing at (aet

- overshot airfield; slow reaction ofCap &

- amson diligent efforts to avoid- Crashlanded beyond runway into a

mangrove- Molt caused amson to hit the wind

shield; brain concussion

- 'L gave him comp physician;limited e#amination on e#teriorinuries; not given proper medattention despite severity of inus

- everal days later %> active duty;despite reuest for e#pert medicalattendance

- uffered di44y spells3nervousness- 'L discharged him; physical

disability;

CF0- prayed for unearned income3 moral3

ttys3 e#penses- 8OK!3K!3K!3!

C % affirmed LC- modified damages; imposed legal rate

of interest on unearned income-

Ias there a causal connection betweenthe superficial inuries and the subseuenthead aches3general debility?- 'L -> psychosomatic symptoms- C agrees w3 amson; di44y spells

caused by crash landing; reected physicians opinions; possibly due topost traumatic stress; could notdetermine cause

- amson7s specialists; cerebralconcussion; blood from nose3ears;

abnormality in encephalogram;

Ias 'L grossly negligent in allowing&ustamante to fly?

- DE- ic!; tumor of nasopharyn#- (oes not pass the C standard- llowed only to fly as a co pilot- Complained of pains in the face- ,onth prior; landed outside air strip;

almost hit ,ayon


13/49

- Crash report; although signed; notrelieve captn from fault; 5egligenceof busta; did not maintain pressure on

bra!es; overshot

(uty of Qtmost diligence- for the safety of the passengers3crew

operating carrier- reason; lapse will result to the death

of '3C

(amages- compensatory damages; affirm;- moral damages given due to &F-

Sulpicio v CA

'"ulipicio transport for

gro Lumber Comp LC"

/imber

Loading of timber- '" sent tugboat3barge- raining; no loading- ne#t day; LC hired C&L to load

timber on the storeroom of barge- warning on heat3gas due to copra- still a stevedore entered; fell

unconscious; others followed;'amalaran of the " died of gas

poisoning

/C % heirs filed against ulpicio3C&L3LC- solidarily liable

- 3,3ttys- K!3K!3K!

C % affirmed

0s ulpicio liable* although 'amalaran wasnot its passenger?

- DEP- loading3unloading; services permitted

on the boat; loading3service was thevaluable consideration paid for by

transpo fare"

- the presence of stevedores was calledfor by cont of carriage; who else canload the goods other than thestevedores; sulipicio then responsiblefor their safety

Ias the warning sufficient?- 5oP- Failed to prove that ees had training

on handling the safety of goods andfor people loading the cargo

- hould have instructed the ees; thatthe hatch should not be opened by anyunauthori4ed person

- 'recautionary measures should havebeen met to ma!e sure that it was safe

to enter- Failed to e#ercise due diligence in the

supervision and selection of ees- Compensatory damages increased to

K!

*AL v Asuncion

1" suncions

,anila -> L

top over 5arita- they were to have an overnight stay at

ni!!o- reuired to get a shore pass; for

foreigners staying not more than 9hrs

- michl appeared shorter than his heightcompared to passport"; denied

shorepass; brought to narita resthouse; notice to higuchi watched soas not to escape"

- 0C; agency handling people deniedof shorepasses; charged suncionsKKN for accommodations

- suncions filed a complaint fordamages; rudely detained; notapprised w3 travel reuirements

/C % ML liable for- OKKN e#penses incurred


14/49

- , E ttys- KK 8KK 8KK

C affirm

(id ML breach its contract?- 5@P- (uty to inspect travel documents of

passengers; does not cover theveracity of every entry of thedocument; the power to admit an aliennot w3 in the ambit of the cont ofcarriage

- &efore departure they !new that shorepasses were reuired; testimony ofvillavicencio; responsibility on shore

pass involves passenger only notairline"

Failed to e#haust all means; cont of carriage;overnight passes to hotel?

- ML had no authority to interfere w3immigration

- ,ost reps could do was to endorse;higuchi could not assist; forbidden tointerfere w3 immigration;

- 5otice to sign; cannot interfere;decision of immigration

- iguchi did all she could;immediately made reservations fornrta rest house

- 5owhere in testi did ML3ees treatthem rudely

(amages- moral; willfully causes inury- e#emplary; imposed by way of

e#ample when IF@,- attys fees; when e#em awarded; whencompelled to incur e#penses to

protect his interest- 5@ &1EC; no basis for award

OKK- payments did not bene ML- it was for payment of accomos to 0C

Counterclaim of ML litig e#penses"

- C dismissed

- suncions honeslty believed that MLbreached its cont

Del %rado v Meralco

,eralco operated street cars- teodorico motorman; in charge of one

of the cars; e -> w hidalgo street- stopped; where passengers got on3off;

proceeded at mod speed at directionof motorman

- after a short distance; '" del 'rado;

ran across to catch the car

/estimony; 6uevara- raised hands; indication of his desire

to board car- motorman slowed down slightly; but

did not stop- '" was a able to get a hand at the

handle- but before '" secured his position;

motorman applied the power; er!edforward

- '" fell on the ground; right footcrushed; amputated

,otorman /eodorico; testi- did not see '"; did not accelerate; did

not !now anything until after '" hurtand someone called him to stop;

- C not convinced; the position of thehandpost held on to by the '"; frontportion; immediately left side ofmotorman

5o obligation to stop; other than designatedstops

- it was his duty not to increase the '"peril in boarding

- premature acceleration was a breach

of his duty


15/49

&reach of an obligation- breach of positive duty- ,eralco7s defense of sufficient

training of motorman; ordinarydiligence; irrelevant

Contri negli- boarding of '" not pro#i cause- ,eralco7s negli pro#i cause- Contri negli is a mitigating circ

La Mallorca v CA

&eltran Family % w3 daughters;,ilagros3Fe31auel latter and yrs";'assengers of 'ambusco &us; baggage

'ampanga -> anao

(" La ,allorca; owner of 'ambusco- conductor; half brother of &eltran- : tic!ets; parents3eldest child; no fare

for Fe31a

rrival at anao- stoped for passengers to step off;

beltran family alight; father led to ashaded spot

- left bayong; went bac! for it; 1auelfollowed; unnoticed;

- waiting for the conductor to hand himthe bayong; motor not shut off startedmoving; conductor not give the signalto start moving; traveled 8K meters

before stopping- since bus was moving; mariano

umped off to the shaded spot; w3o

getting bayong- people gathered around the body of achild; crushed s!ull; 1auel

Filed a complaint see!ing moral3actual3attysfees

/C % breach of cont;death3compensatoryRburial e#penses:KKK3KK

C % sustained theory of La ,allroca; childnot passenger anymore; liable for uasidelict;damages

Ias there still a cont of carriage?

- father; yes; when he went bac! for thebayong; relationship subsisted

- child; yes; although meters awayfrom bus

- relationship; passenger3carrier; doesnot cease upon alighting; continuesuntil passenger has had a reasonableopportunity to leave

- reasonable time; circumstances of thecase

(id the carrier7s agent e#ercise Q( of 's?- based on circumstances 5@- 8stdid not put off engine; ndly

started to run the bus w3o theconductors signal still unloading

baggage"- presence of passengers near bus; not

unreasonable;

llegation for uasidelict- alternative C@; sufficiently pleaded

negligence- before giving the signal to go; while

persons on running board; bus started;- La ,allorca failed to prove; ordinary

diligence; selec3supervi ofS- La mallorca liable for the death

!ataclan v Medina

fter midnight

Cavite -> 'asay

(river saylon; ,edina /rans; owned by,ariano ,edina

8O persons in the bus- @ne of them; Muan &ataclan; seated

beside driver to the right- 0n 0mus; one of the tires burst; 4ig4ag;

fell into canal rightside"; overturned- ome passengers were able to escape


16/49

- passengers near the driver;Muan3isaya3Lara35atalia; could notget out

- shouts for help; no evidence thatdriver3conductor helped trapped

passengers escape- 8 hour later; 8K men; help; fire

started; gas spread; lighted by torch- brought by one of the men 8K men"

eirs of &ataclan filed a suit against medinafor moral3compensatory3e#emplary3attys fees

CF0 % awarded 8!3


17/49

- (efense of 1"7s in the 8st cases;should not be limited -> aboiti4negligent

- :rdcase; failed e#od; no limitation

6FLC case 6eneral accident fireS"- one of the many insurers; offshoot of

an earlier 8HHK 6FLC case; finaland e#ecutory;

- /C % granted 6FLC7s prayer fore#ecution

- 8HH: 6FLC case; boiti4 arguedthat hypothecary doctrine warrantedimmediate stay of e#ecution; preventimpairment of other creditors shares

- limited liability; limited to e#tent of

the value of the vessel; e#ec must bestayed pending other claims;collation; pro rate each share

- boiti4 not negligent; no finding ofnegligence; abpiti4 then can claim thelimited liab rule

- 5o vessel no liability; shipowner7sliability is co e#tensive w3 his interestin the vessel

Limited liability code of commerce)O93HK3O:9"

- 61 limitation on libilty; to value ofthe vessel3appurtenances3freightageearned during voyage; owner abandonvessel

- E#ception) liability even if there isabandonment; loss due to fault of theshipowner3captain; shipowner can beliable for inuries to passengers if itwas due to his fault

Finding of negligence why 6FLC doesnot apply"

- captain negligent in preventing thevessel from sailing into the typhoon

- failed e#od in steering3sailing intotyphoon

- failed to ensure seaworthiness- cant avail of the limitation on

liability; limited to insuranceproceeds"; instead liable for thevalue

of the lost cargo

upervening cases- ,onarch insurance; sin!ing due to

unseaworthiness; negli of crew;application of 6FLC; cred in aninsolvent corp w3 not enough assets to

cover claims against it; circumstanceswarranted procedural rules to be setaside; institute limitation peculiarcircs made doctrine applicable"

- 5ew 0ndia; damage due to shipowner3concurrent negli of shipownerand captain; limited liab cant beapplied; failed to prove e#od

1eal and hypothecary nature of maritime

law- 61; shipowner7s liability is co

e#tensive w3 his interest in the vessel- E#ception) when the fault is

attributable to the ship owner- hipowner then can be liable for

damages if the sin!ing of the vessel isattributable to his fault3negli3failure toensure seaworthiness

%AL v CA ) ,apatos

'edro Japatos- one of 8 passengers; flight 99

cebu-o4amis-cotabato"; he wasbound for cebu-> o4ami4

- on the nd; before landing in o4amis;radio message; airport closed; heavyrains; proceed to cotabato

rrival at cotabato- station agent informed them of theiroptions; 8 flight


18/49

- 'L issued free tic!et; for iiligan;accepted under protest

- Could not hitch a ride w3 fiera for ees- 'urchased a tic!et for iiligan the

following day; not use free tic!et3file

case

t iiligan- hired a car from airport -> o4amis- he never recovered his thing + camera

/C % for Japatos- awarded

ctual3moral3e#emplary3attys fees3costs

- KK trans e#pnss;O cota->iiligan;KK iiligan-> o4ami4; KKK lost bnessops"3K! hurt feelings un!indtrtmnt38K! prov comfort to stranded

pssngrs3:! atys

C % affirmed /C

(id Japatos fail to impute 'L7s negligencein the pleadings?

- 5@P- amended complaint; alleged 'L7s

indifference; refusal to accommodate;allowing other passngrs instead ofhim; forced to be stranded incotabato; e#posed to danger ofmuslim rebels; suffered mentalanguishS

- 'L7s apathy; testi; last person onairport among ees; war near airport;transpo to cota city; rode a eep;

uestioned; could not hitch w3 ees onfiera- Evidence; no obection; did not

contest evi focusing on its negli;becomes prop of case; 'L tried torebut failed its counter allegation;as!ed for offer of transpo Anot ourfaultB; hotel accomo; not offeredalready riding pic! up eep"

- Lac! of care for passengers; issuesnot raised in pleadings; tried via E30

consent; treated as if raised inpleadings

Iere the dmgs unfounded? 5ot responsiblefor comfort of passengers due todiversion3FE"?

- cont of air carriage; invites people ofthe comforts and advantages it offers

- diversion due to FE; did not terminatecont of carr; 'L deemed euipped todeal w3 such situations; responsibilitycontinues until passenger reaches portof desti3leaves premises; e#od insafeguarding comfort of stranded

passengers- 'L F0LE( in e#ercising e#od in

safeguarding the convenience3safety

of its stranded passenger; stranger tothe place; war between gov3muslims;9 others not accomo;

- FE not sole cause; diversion couldhave been prevented; 'L did notcontest that o4ami4 had no all weatherairport"

(id 'L fail to inform him of his nonaccomo3inattentive to his ueiries?- no basis to say that 'L failed;

Japatos boisterous at counter; stationagent; J insisted diverted should be

prioriti4ed; policies; accepted tic!et;the rest left w3 tic!ets readied for thefollowing day

- 'L gave info in options ofpassengers; station agent report primafacie evi of facts; apart from J othersstranded too

- 0nsistence on being given priotity;

unreasonable due to FE3seuence inboo!ing; stayed long; arguing w3 'Lees

- 5o evidence tha 'L eesdisrespectful; attended by ees and,anager

mount of dmgs- lost earnings; speculative; shar! liver

oil; actual dmgs cant be presumed;

scheduled on morning aug :- = 3 , 8@=3 E =


19/49

-uisum+ing v CA

Fo!!er AFriendshipB plane

- mactan -> manila

'assengers- uisumbing3gunther- sr nbi agent villarin- 4aldy; suspect in !illing of udge

alde4; at the front near coc!pit- thru stewardess; villarin found out

that 4aldy AcardenteB alias !nown tovillarin" had : companions

- villarin sent a note to the captain;

reuest for around < nbi agents tomeet the plane due to the suspect

- cap7n; approached ; not send msg;would be recvd by all aircraft stations;villarin warned of the notorious 4aldy

iac!ing- one of J7s companions wal!ed behind

cap and ; after cap -> coc!pit; compreturned to seat; ugly loo!s to ; went to his orig seat

- gunshots between and J +companions

- J announced hold up; pilot not send@; got belongings of passengers

- 2uisumbing; divested ofelwelries3cash; 8O! worth; recov !

- 6unther; divested of watch3cash;8*9KK

- Qpon landing; J and co escaped- 236 made demands on 'L for the

loss

&rought suit against 'L- value of loss; ,3E3attys3e#penses- not F,; no use of irresistible force in

gaining entrance

'L7s answer- Force maeure; not notified of ewelry

and amount of cash

CF0 % dismissed complaint- not notified of valuables3cash

- armed robbery that occurred $ F,;could not be avoided; not authori4edto search passengers for fire arms

C % affirm cfi

- reected '"7s argument; F, only ifirresistible force used to gain entry

- it was F,; hiac!ers do not board theplane displaying their firearms;display 0rresistible force when it ismost effective

Ias 'L negligent?- 5@P- lthough amateurish cap7n; open

coc!pit door; still F,; even if

precautions were ta!en; hiac!ingwould still occur; screening

procedures although minimi4ehiac!ers it wont stop determinedhiac!ers"; negligence did not minglew3 F, here

- iac!ers showed willingness to !ill;one passenger !illed; another shot;

See !ataclan

De Gillaco v M..

,11; early morning train; Calamba -> ,la- 6illaco; passenger- (evesa; guard of ,11; anf

Fernando -> ,la; on his way totutuban station; had grudge against6illaco; since Mapanese time

- hot 6illaco w3 carbine provided by,11; gillaco died

- 6illaco convicted w3 homicide

,117s argument- no liability for deve4a7s acts; acts

done not in ordinary course of hisduties;

LC % ,11 responsible; cont of trans;implied protection from violence by its ees

E#tent of protection from its ees

- limited to what the carrier canforesee3avoid thru diligence reuired


20/49

Ias the shooting a FE?- DEP- hooting due to grudge;

unforeseeable; no means to ascertain;- Comple# activites of modern day

trans; guarding against allmisunderstandings between

passengers; beyond what humancare3foresight can give

(ev4a; no duties at the time- duties to start hours after the crime;

Ham;- assigned to guard F -> ,la trains; at

paco-

Maranan v %ere

/a#icab; owned by 'ere4; driver alen4uela- 1ogelio; passenger- alen4uela; stabbed and !illed

1ogelio- alen4uela guilty of homicide;

imprisonment3indemnity to heirs; heappealed

- 'ending appeal; ntonia maranan;rogelio7s mother; filed action fordmgs against pere43valen

CF0 % for maranan; :! damages- claim angst dismissed- ,aranan3'ere4 appealed

C % affirmed CF0

,aranan wanted more dmgs

'ere4; non liab

'ere47 argument- 6illaco case; passenger !illed outside

scope of duty of ee

Ias it in the line of duty? Facts diff from

gillaco

- !illing done by driver; oneresponsible for cont of carr

- driver definitely w3 in the scope of hisduties

- gillaco decided under old civ code;

did not impose absolute liability forwilfull3negli acts of ees

- new civil code; 89H; ma!es carrierliab for intentional acts of ees

basis of carrier7s liab for assaults made bydrivers

- minority view; liab only if w3 in thescope

- maority view; sufficient that done w3in course of ees duty implied; safely

trans passenger"; absolute liab for eesassaults; Ain e#cess of B not adefense

1easons for maority view- special underta!ing; full measure of

protection pursuant to high measureof care given by law; specially fromown ees

- liability for ees; delegation of duty toees to safely trans passenger

- carriers bear the ris! of wrongful actsof ees; power to select3remove

Carrier liable- correctly claim against driver;

covered by crim case w3c included civliab

see dmgs

L.TA v (avidad

Edsa L1/ station- 9):Kpm; 5avidad entered station;

bought to!en; entered platform towait for train

- Escartin; guard on station- llegedly had an altercation between

; fist fight- 5avidad fell on trac!s; 1oman

operator"; train came in; ran over

5avidad -> died


21/49

- eirs of navidad filed suit againstguard3operator3metrotrans3lrta3prudent

/C % held prudent3escartin liable

- dismissed case as to 1oman3L1/

C % e#onerated prudent- held roman3lrta liable- there was a cont of carr; perfection of

cont- prudent; 5avidad failed to prove fist

blows;

L1/7s arguments

- guards acts; that of a stranger7s; couldnot be prevented

- roman not ee of lrta; roman testi thathe of ,etro trans

&asis of Liability- cont of carr; breach of cont- in discharge of its commitments;

carrier may hire ees @1outsiders3indep firms

- not relieved of responsibilities undercont of carr

hould prudent be liable?- insufficient evi lin!ing secu agency to

death of navidad

1omanno showing as well that roman was guilty

%ilapil v CA

&us; owned by L/C@ trans; 0riga ->5aga; cagayan de oro- passed thru butuan; a passenger came

on board; later the passenger stabbeda 'C soldier

- caused panic; when bus stopped;@rnominio &eter died;headinuries"35arcisa 1autrautdied later;sever inuries"

- heirs of &31; parents; filed complaint

/C % dismissed complaint

C % reversed- bach e# solidarily liab

- &; 9!; loss of earnings; support;moral; death;attys


22/49

- 1; !; moral;death;attys;costs

'ro#i cause; bach e#7s arguments- bach e#7s arguments; pro#i cause

passenger who stabbed another; &31

self preservation; umped off whilebus still running; not negli since; nocontrol over :rdperson; drive carefully

before3during incident;

Fortuitous Event- cause unforeseen3indep of human will- impossible to foresee3inevitable- impossible to render obli in a normal

manner

- obligor free from participation fromcausing inury to credi

89 defeatedconductor7s testi"; door opened when

people panic!ed forced by onrushingpassengers; other testi son fell outwhen door opened"; conductor

panic!ed and opened door- peed; :K-Kmph; not slow

considering coming from a full stop;- Carrier negligent; belated

stop3rec!less opening of doorspassengers fell"; blew whistle after

passengers had fallen; not euippedw3 proper doors vis a vis loadingcapacity not in accordance w3regulations"

89


23/49

- arm amputated; brought to anotherhospi; further amputated

- incurred e#penses3curation

CF0 % recovery of dmgs; due to negli of ees;

melons- ruled in favor of ,11; cangco was

deemed precluded from recovering;failed to use due caution in alighting

Liability of ,11- cont of carriage; direct; failed to

e#ercise due care;- breach of cont vs uasidelict;

presence of negli

(efense of ,11; main cause was cangco7scontri neg

- admitting that ees negligent; cangcoshould have waited for the train tostop before alighting

&ut* only ordinary diligence is reuired ofcangco

- was there anything in the circs thatwould ma!e the passenger dootherwise given the same circs?

- Cangco was did not !now of theobstruction; dar!;

Ias there contri negli?- still young; no ris! in alighting from a

moving train slowly"; place wasfamiliar to cangco; there was nocontri negli

Contributory negligence; determination; didperson act rec!lessly; physical conditionsconsidered; if not characteri4e imprudenceno contri neg"

Isaac v AL Ammen

L mmen % bus

0saac boarded bus

- lbay -> Camarines ur- &us collided w3 a pic! up- Loss of arm- ,edical treatment in diff hospitals

Filed an action for damages; breach of cont

L mmen7s defense % pic! up negli +contributory negligence of 0saac

/C % Collision occurred due to pic! up; busdid everything to avoid collision

Liability of a carrier- contractual; comes upon breach there

is breach if failure of e#od"

- carry p7s w3 utmost diligence of avery cautious person w3 due regardfor all circs

- presumed negli unless- not an insurer of all ris!s against

travel

(id d" e#ercise e#od in avoiding thecollision?

- yes the carrier did- did everything to avoid; moved truc!

over piles of gravel- truc! at moderate speed; pic! up at

full speed; swereved to e#treme right;could not move any further aginst pileof gravel w3o endangering passengers

- when faced w3 sudden emergency;the fact that he has to act uic!ly;diligence reuired only ordinary sincemust act uic!ly w3o deliberation

Contributory negligence of 0saac- seated on left side; rested arm onwindow sill; severance; he was theonly victim

contri negli 61 % reduction of dmgs;e#ception % protrude an arm3elbow* beyondedge of window % no recovery will not resultif it were not for such negli"

C%n$"i n#li? n%$ "#li#6# ,a""i#" %/ lia3ili$5?

"#*,$i%n %/ a&%*n$ %/ a&a#s?


24/49


25/49

- supply : films ,abait* 'angit* at,asungit3&ig appening w3Chi!iting and 0!ing3=ambal (ragon

- e#hibition in the Q

'angan visited 6uam; agreed w3 lutchni!; fils e#hibition in

'repared promo materials handbills3stillpics3clutchbags3 8*HKK; barongtagalong3capi4 lamps *KK

@btained economy tic!et from pan am forguam; chec!ed in his luggage; no space ineconomy; paid 88 for 8stclass

rrival at guam; luggage not arrive;agreements w3 lutchni!32uesada cancelled;claim for luggage

Contact lawyer; 'an am assured toinvestigate; failed to communicate on

protests; filed action

CF0 % 'an m liable; O:! actualdamages38K! attys fees3O! addtl actual dmgs

0C % affirmed CF0

Conditions of contract- Iarsaw applies unless not

international carriage- Limited to KN per !ilo

'an m argues- limited to


26/49

- 0n alcantara; none of partiesuestioned year basis; it was not therule w3 regard to time; no uniformrule; depends on circumstance

1ate of damages?- here not of full amount of earning;

support intestate heirs"- earning % necessary e#penses $ net

earnings

%AL v CA ) %adilla

'L; flight,la- crashed in ,indoro; plane made in

8H;acuired in 8HO; airworthy

C- :: passengers; one of them; 5icanor

'adilla; H single; only heir mother

,other filed suit-


27/49

- passengers inured; including 1",iranda; fracture upper righthumerus; hospi3operations; notrecover use of right arm

- driver; charged w3 phys inu via

rec!less impru

Fores7 arguments- evidence not suffi id vehicle- one day before sold to c!erman

0s the approval of the pub serv com necessaryto sell a pub service vehicle w3 autho tooperate"?

- until approved; owner in records of

'C considered; protection of public

,oral damages- must be discarded- breach of cont; for moral to be given;

must prove &F; analogous cases8H; K; uasidelicts does notinclude previous contractual relations

- death of a passenger; allows recov ofmoral dmgs

- if passenger does not die; no moralrecov; unless &F proven

- negligently is not a breach ofconfidence"; hence not automatically&F;

Air 0rance v Carrascoso

Carrascoso; passenger; civ engineer- ,la -> Lourdes; irfrance issued hima 8stclass roundtrip tic!et ,la->1ome

- t &ang!o!; forced him to vacate 8stclass; whiteman had better right;commotion; reluctantly gave

CF0 granted ,3E3attys3costs- !38K!3:H: diff"3:!

C % :H: to :O: affirmed all other"

Ias he entitled to 8stclass?- irfrance argues; tic!et not true

intent; allegedly !new that notreserved 8stclass; issuance of 8stclassnot guarantee; depend on availability

- /C; (" witness Amar!e @=; firstclassB; C; why would it give out atic!et it did not mean to honor;

- dherence to the tic!et issued; isdesirable; oral cannot prevail overwritten evi; showed that he rcved and

paid 8stclass

hould ,oral damages be granted?- yesP

- From 8stclass to tourist class;compelled to leave after being seated;due to embarrassment too! pan aminstead ,adrid -> ,la

- Failure to furnish 8stclass; sufferedmental anguish3embarrassment

- 8stclass &ang!o! to teran; breach ofcont when failed to giv 8stclass* &F-> compelled to tourist class afterseated;

- ousted by manager to give white manhis seat; captain refused to intervene;did not present mgr to deny statementon captain; no evidence if whitemanhad reservation; did not prove if whiteman did have a better right -> defsilent

- manager; did not ust preventcarrascoso from enoying his right;imposed his arbitrary will; threatenedto throw him out of the plane

Lope v %an Am

'an m Flight ; /o!yo -> san Francisco- reservations for 8stclass; senator

lope43 wife3son in law3daughter- 8stclass tic!ets then issued3paid

Lope4- flew northwest from manila to M'5


28/49


29/49

- @rtigas; not willing to ta!e economy;Lufthansa called +ac#) 8stclassavailable; ortigas immedialtely as!edfor the seat; as!ed for his traveldocus; alitalia attached validation

stic#er on 'light coupon/Irome-> h!"; called again to ma!esure;

/erminal; Counter of Lufthansa- no space for him; apologi4ed tic!et in

order- handed tic!et to ee at counter; name

was called; ee as!ed for his passport;AFilipino nationalityB; could not

board; seat to be given to a &elgian;only replied sorry he could not leave

- Fearing recurrence of heart ailment;too! nitroglycerin pill; as!ed &elgianover to see if he had a better right;turned down reuest; offeredeconomy3refund

- rgument happened in front ofamando castro; ortigas was humiliatedsince ee was shouting at him; ortigasas!ed for flights to h!; turned downoffered economy and will be in 1stclass 'rom cairo to h#2

Arrival at cairo 3Egypt2 asia4

- as!ed if will be transfrd to 8st

- promised to be trans to 8stat (rham;ortigas reuested to find out if otherairlines had 8stclass

rrival at (arham- as!ed to be trans; not rcv commu forchange

- rrived at Calcutta; still did not allow8st

- t &ang!o!; only then offered 8st

Arrival at "5

- protested; file in ,L

/C for ortigas

- distinguished privciti4en3lawyer3outstandingachievements

- heart ailment; represented &oard ->red him to trav 8stclass

- disrimi against- ,3E3ttys- 8KK!3:K!3K!

C - affirmed

/ic!et was validated3confirmed by alitalia

0s Lufthansa bound by such agreement?- yes- RL members of 0/

0nternational ir /rans ssoc"- litalia can issue tic!ets for other

mems li!e L and 'an am- RL are pool partners in in

EQ3FE3Q- dhere to 0/ regs; direct sales

offices; cooperation; confirm tic!etsof one another

@4ayta7s testi; gen manager Luf; 'hils- reservation via phone; valid;

according to regulations- @= in stat bo# $ confirmed 8stclass

'lacing of a stic!er- revalidation; alteration; 0/

resolution; prior indorsment not neceto revalidate

Confirmed days before flight- there was ample time to tele# rome; to

reserve 8st

class- could not fly in other airlines since hisbaggage was at Luf

Is there &F?- DE- saw pinoy passport; seat given to

&elgian w3o e#pla; reuest turneddown

- as!ed if other have 8stto =; offered

8st

instead at cairo; false


30/49

representation; at cairo said samething as to darham

- &F2 $hile assuring him 1st class atcairo2 ee $rote on tic#et traveled

economy .ome 67 "52w3c

disallowed him from demanding 8stclass; only deliberately ma!e him

believe he was from Cairo -> =

- lac! of care; 'ailure to accommodatein class contracted$ &F allowingmoral

- much worse here; preference of&elgian passenger; done willfully andin disregard of ortigas7 rights

- made to believe to be given 8stclass at

cairo; even had to ta!e pills sinceembarrassed; only offered 8stclass at&ang!o! to h!;3 w3c ortigas refused

- as to ovial mood; passenger avails forit for a higher price; doctor7s adviceto ta!e 8stclass due to heart condition

Lufthansa7s defense- ee made mista!e; informed only

waitlisted;- no racism; would be against their

image; whiter than his witness- ortigas in a good mood; not much diff

in 8stclass 3 econ

,oral- must be increased from 8KK to 8K!- cuenca; K! not apply; here offense

repeated times rome Calcutta cairodarham w3 indifference

- luf argu that lope4 8KK! e#cessive;not pub official &Q/ cant disregardortigas in an inferior position

- aggravated by falsely noteing tic!et times

- 4ulueta case; wife3daughter on board;late ; shouted at3left; award of 8K!to KK!

E#emplary- awarded as correction for the public

good

- imposed on amount necessary to detersuch breach

- 8KK!

%AL v Miano

@n &oard 'L; bound for Fran!furt- ,iano passenger; mabuhay class- Chec!ed in brown suitcase; did not

declare a higher value- Contain money3ni!!on3clothes

connecting flight to ienna; via Lufthansa

rrival at ienna;- baggage missing; reported to

Lufthansa; waited :hrs; then left andwent to piestany

- 88 days after; suitcase delivd to himin his hotel in piestany; he claimeddue to delay he borrowed money to

buy clothes3 KK for trans ofbaggage3loss of camera

- sent a letter demanding cost ofcam3trans cost of baggage3dmgs

- 8K!3KKN38KK!- filed suit since letter unheeded

'L- no report of mishandled baggage;

limitation; Iarsaw- :rdparty complaint against Lufthansa;

failed to prosecute -> dismissed

/C for ,iano

- transpo cost3,3E3- KKN3K!3K!38!

&reach of contr of carr; moral- awarded only if carrier in &F- bf; breach of duty through

motive3illwill

,oral damages- no &F;

- testi showed; no receipt o' a tracertelex 3report from station that


31/49

passenger not rcv baggage"; w3o itpresumed that handling was normal;at airport discovered that airline tag$as accidentally ta#en o''2tagless

baggage on hold until 0(

- effort to find baggage; investigation;- &F cant be presumed; must be

established and proved by clear andconvincing evi

E#em- not granted; not act in wanton of

fraudulent manner

ttys fees

- no legal basis; plus 'L is willing topay for KKN transpo fee due todely3according to limitation inwarsaw

Cathay v /as8ue

asue4es- (aniel3Luisa asue4; w3 maid and

friends- Freuent fliers; gold card mems of

marco polo club- /o = for business3pleasure

1eturn flight to ,la; from =- chec!ed in luggage at airport; given

their boarding passes; business classfor asue4es and friends; economyfor maid;

Ihen &oarding was announced

- departure gate presented boarindngpasses; 6round ttendant Chiu sawthat there was a seat changefrom&usiness to 8stclass for vasue4es

- asue4 refused 8st class accomo * notloo! nice as hosts to friends; discuss

bsness; Chiu -> b class fully boo!ed;since polo club mems upgraded to 8stclass; if not avail; can ta!e flight

- asue4es gave in- (emand letter; 8 mill for humiliation;

written apology;- Duen; promised investi

- 5o feedbac!; filed suit

Complaint- Chiu was loud discourteous; not

helped by stewardess in putting his

carry on on the compartment;aggravated carpal tunnel

Cathay7s answer- it is its practice to upgrade passengers

to better accommo when opportunityarises

- could not boo! to orig seats sincefully boo!ed;

/C for vasue4es- 53,3E3ttys costs- 8KK!3mill3mill38mill- passengers are allowed to choose; obli

to trans in class chosen- over+oo#ing2 maximie revenues2

deceit gross negli 97 !0

C- breach of cont; novated; pushed thru

w3 upgrading w3o consent- chiu not discoteous; bro!en eng;

Chinese; hard to understand; cultdiffs; not in !0

Is there a breach of cont?- yes there was- normally one would appreciate

upgrading; &Q/ vasue4es had everyright to decline2as it was designated

in their boarding passes; clearlywaived when as!ed if others couldavail of it;

- by insisting upgrade; cathay breached

Is there &F?- no- Fraud; insidious machinations;

deceitful plot; conceal to induceconsent

- &F; dishonest purpose; wilfull doing

of something wrong;


32/49


33/49


34/49

- breach of cont; liab for death;negligence; allows for moral

- C I I1@56

E#emplary damages- Commandant of phil coast guard;

/acloban negligent; minister ofnational defense affirmed thenreversed; both vessels at fault

- Cap of don uan; playing mahongvefore collision; off duty; no suchthing as off duty for master of vessel;not the first time entertainng himself;groslly negli for not correcting him

- Failed measures to prevent sin!ing;

officer on watch failed to inform capof imminent danger

- Carried more than it should;passengers allowed O8K; coast guradrep O9O allowed not included 8 ,la- ganas3Francisco;

ection 8: '"

a"

'C urisdiction; supervision3cont; necessarypowers

- public services3franchises3euipment- 'Qs owned by government36@CCs";

not reuired C'C3C'C5- 5@ authority to reuire

steamboats3steamships3motorshipsC'C3prescribed routes

b"

'ublic service includes- any person who may

operate:cont:managein the 'hils- for hire3compensation- for general or limited clientele- permanent or occasional- for business- an5 common carrier; "ail"%a; s$"##$;

"ail4a5; $"a,$i%n "ail4a5; s*3 4a5

&%$%" 6#2i,l# (42#$2#" /%"

/"#i2$;+ass#n#")- w3 or w3o fi#ed route- ,a""i#" s#"6i,#; #.+"#ss s#"6i,#;

s$#a&3%a$; s$#a&s2i+ lin#; +%n$in#s;

/#""i#s; 4a$#" ,"a/$s

- s2i+5a" ; &a"in# "#+ai"s2%+;4a"#2%*s#; 42a"/; %,'

- i,# +lan$; i,# "#/"i#"a$i%n +lan$;,anal i""ia$i%n s5s$#&

- as ; #l#,$"i,; li2$; 2#a$; +%4#";+#$"%l#*&; s#4#"a# s5s$#&;

- 4i"#;4i"#l#ss ,%&&*ni,a$i%n s5s$#&;3"%a,as$in s$a$i%ns

- 'ersons in agriculture; motor vehicle;special contract; for hire3 :rdparties inagriculture; limited time3specific

prupose; operated by latter; forcultivation of his farm; transpo of of

agri prods of such :rdparty; notconsidered as operating 'ublic service

c"

'erson- every individual; co partnership; oint

stoc! or corpo- domestic3foreign- lessees3trustees3receiver- municipality3province3city3gooc3agen

y of gov3 persons operate publicutilities

rt U00

ec 88

Franchise; certificates; authori4ation foroperation of a 'ublic Qtility; grantees

- citi4ens of the 'hils- Corporations; orgd under the 'hils;


36/49


37/49

- freed gradually from gov controls;passenger fares deregulated; e#ceptlowest class

- 8G above or below reference rate- lac! of comp on certain specific

routes3commodities; ma#imummandatory freight rates3passengerfares temporarily set to increasecompetition

- unserved3single op routes; contractservices to gov3pub; public bids

Apecial 0ncentives and financingB- shall not engage in special financing;

incentive programs; direct subsidies

for fleet e#pansion- will only be considered; when mar!et

situation warrants governmentintervention

- e#isting progs; phased out gradually

@ct 8HH

(@/C ec 6arcia; memo to L/F1&Chairman

- suggested adoption andimplementation of department order;deregulation3lib policies

- prereuisite; economic integrationloan I&

Feb 8HH:

L/F1&; memo; guidelines on implementingdepartment order

Challenged portions)

A0ssuance of C'CB- issuance determined by public need- presumption of 'ub need; in favor of

appli;- burden of proving Ano needB;

oppositor

A1ate and fare settingB- control in pricing liberali4ed; subect

to prior notice3hearing

- general structure of rates; + or % 8Gprovincial buses3eeps; +KG -Gin 8HH; authori4ed fare to bereplaced by reference rate fore#panded fare range

- fare systems; aircon buses; liberali4edto cover 8stclass3premier

,arch 8HH

'&@'; availed of +KG %G- did not file a petition- no public hearing- made effective march 8 vendee; liab to one w3ocapab to pay for the dmgs;

- @wner need not go beyond cert of reg

Ias there a cont of carr; even if &ene3/eedid not consent to; or that there was no proofof licuden7s aut?

- yesP- Licuden; cont3poss of truc!; had

implied autho- 0n law; Licuden &enedicto7s ee;

&enedicto has a right of recourse against /ee

%hiltranco v CA

ersion of eirs


46/49

- suddenly cuesta overtoo! tricyclesthen swerved left to center of road

- even bra!ed3horn due to abruptswerve; cuesta bumped from behind

- not willfull to proceed; rear view;

crowd- police boarded- 'hil failed to present evi; failed to

appear

/C for heirs- a3death3m3e3attys3costs- !3KK!38mill3KK!3K!

C affimed /C- 'hil not denied ('; given opportunity

to present defense; notified of assignof case

- &ut counsel did not appear; did noteve file motion for postponement;waived right to present

- (river liab; ump start; common!nowledge; initial movement abrupt;

- hould not ump start bus in a busysection of the city; ump started where

bus had to ta!e a left turn; pedestriansfrom 6ome4 would be unaware of the

umpstarted bus- ustained m3e3attys- 6ross negli

Last clear chance does not apply; victimbumped from behin; did not !now of theump started bus

(id 'hiltranco waive its right to present evi?- counsel busy; campaigning; councilor

tacloban; slight fever; waited forformal offer inwriting- bur orally delivered e#hibits; ->

admitted- notified but did not appear

2Q0(EL0C/

89 uasi delict

8OK

- obli in 89


47/49

ttys fees- must be reduced- 61 no premium on attys; winning

does not mean granting attys

- 0t must be reasonable; unli!ely that hedemanded 8KK! from his sisters3rels

- (id not present written contract- 6rant attys* in line w3 e#emplary;- !

Santos v Si+ug

idad; eepney operator; current owner- before accident date pril < 8H


48/49


49/49

income since L/C impoundmotorcycle

- purchased for transpo business; /eaowner in reg;

/ea filed suit against 5ale- sum of money w. damages

City Court for /ea- ordered 5ale to pay outstanding

balance; 8*9KK- < attys- KK e#penses of litig

CF0 affirmed

0C set aside- !abit system; illegal

Ias the C correct in applying 0n paridelicto?

- obviously operated under the =abitsystem

- contra to pub policy; void; 88; ifact is not a criminal offense; fault of

both; neither party may demandenforcement

- defect in the e#istence of the contractis permanent and cannot be cured by

prescription3ratification;

Mag+oo v !ernardo

&ernardo; owner of eepney- Cesar ,agboo; passenger; !illed in a

vehicular accident

&ernardo had a cont w3 1oue- 1oue pay &ernardo O pesos for

driving eep- Ihatever earnings roue made in

,la; his

ccident- death of C ,agboo;

- 1oue served sentence; insolvent;could not pay

CF0 held &ernardo Liable- :! and costs

C certified to C; s of law

&ernardo7s defense; lessor lessee; underboundary system; ee %er releationship

- &oundary sys; although driver no f#dwage; only e#cess of the receipt offares;

- pplies in negligence cases; :rdpartrecov for inuries3damages; lease w3o'C approval; owner conitunued to

be operator in legal contemplation- /o hold otherwise; public at the

mercy of rec!less drivers; no positionto pay damages

ubsidiary liability- bernardo7s defense; subsidiary liab- 1oue pleaded guilty; he did not have

a chance to prove roue innocent; toolate

%hil .a+ !us Lines v IAC

Catalino3caridad 'ascua; ant others;- boarded eep; owned by

,anguna3Carreon; driver ,analo- 'ampanga -> 'angasinan- top over at /arlac; proceeded toward

Carmen 'angasinan"-

transpo cases.doc

Documents