Scribd
Upload
56 views2 pages

BARQ

Vivian Martin booked a roundtrip flight from Manila to Hong Kong to Manila with PAL acting as the ticketing agent for Far East Airlines. However, her ticket from PAL incorrectly listed the departure time. When she arrived at the airport according to the listed time, she was told her flight had already left. PAL rescheduled her on one of their flights instead. Vivian sued both airlines for damages. The court found that only Far East Airlines could be held liable since they were the carrier according to the contract of carriage, not PAL who was just the ticketing agent. PAL could only be liable for their own negligent acts in performing their duties as the agent.

Uploaded by

Greggy Law
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views2 pages

BARQ

Vivian Martin booked a roundtrip flight from Manila to Hong Kong to Manila with PAL acting as the ticketing agent for Far East Airlines. However, her ticket from PAL incorrectly listed the departure time. When she arrived at the airport according to the listed time, she was told her flight had already left. PAL rescheduled her on one of their flights instead. Vivian sued both airlines for damages. The court found that only Far East Airlines could be held liable since they were the carrier according to the contract of carriage, not PAL who was just the ticketing agent. PAL could only be liable for their own negligent acts in performing their duties as the agent.

Uploaded by

Greggy Law
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Topic: Common Carrier, Breach of Contract

Question: Vivian Martin was booked by PAL, which acted as a ticketing agent of Far East
Airlines, for a round trip flight on the latter‘s aircraft, from Manila-Hongkong-Manila. The ticket
was cut by an employee of PAL. The ticket showed that Vivian was scheduled to leave Manila at
5:30 p.m. on 05 January 2002 aboard Far East‘s Flight F007. Vivian arrived at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport an hour before the time scheduled in her ticket, but was told that Far
East‘s Flight F007 had left at 12:10 p.m. It turned out that the ticket was inadvertently cut and
wrongly worded. PAL employees manning the airport‘s ground services nevertheless scheduled
her to fly two hours later aboard their plane. She agreed and arrived in Hongkong safely. The
aircraft used by Far East Airlines developed engine trouble, and did not make it to Hongkong
but returned to Manila. Vivian sued both airlines, PAL and Far East, for damages because of her
having unable to take the Far East flight. Could either or both airlines be held liable to Vivian?
Why?
Answer: No. The instant petition was based on breach of contract of carriage; therefore, Vivian
can only sue Far East Airlines alone, and not PAL, since the latter was not a party to the
contract. In this case, the carrier (PAL), acting as an agent of another carrier, is also liable for its
own negligent acts or omission in the performance of its duties. Far East Airline may also file a
third-party complaint against PAL for the purpose of determining who was primarily at fault
between them.

Topic: MARITIME COMMERCE; BAREBOAT


Question: For the transportation of its cargo from the Port of Manila to the Port of Kobe, Japan,
Osawa & Co., chartered ―bareboat‖ M/V Ilog of Karagatan Corporation. M/V Ilog met a sea
accident resulting in the loss of the cargo and the
death of some of the seamen manning the vessel. Who should bear the loss of the cargo and
the death of the seamen? Why?
Answer: Osawa and Co must bear. Under the law, a bareboat charter, the charterer mans the
vessel with his own people and becomes in effect, the owner of the vessel for that voyage or
service stipulated, thus it is subject to liability for damages for by negligence.
Topic: PRIOR OPERATOR RULE
Question: Bayan Bus Lines had been operating satisfactorily a bus service over the route Manila
to Tarlac and vice versa via the McArthur Highway. With the upgrading of the new North
Expressway, Bayan Bus Lines service became seemingly inadequate despite its efforts of
improving the same. Pasok Transportation, Inc., now applies for the issuance to it by the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board of a certificate of public convenience for the
same Manila-Tarlac-Manila route. Could Bayan Bus Lines, Inc., invoke the ―prior operator‖
rules against Pasok Transportation, Inc.? Why?
Answer: No. Under the Public Service Act, the rule only applies as a policy of law to issue a
public convenience certificate to a second operator when the prior operator is rendering
adequate service, and has been complying with the rules and regulation. In the present case,
Bayan Bus services were inadequate thus the interest of providing efficient public transport
services, the use of prior operator rule should not be upheld in this case.

You might also like