1732-1766

Warsaw convention

Montreal convention 99 – for damages

Code of commerce

Carriage of goods by SEA-ACT

Salvage Law

Republic Act 11659 – on public services/utility

- Art. 11, sec. 11 – 60 per centum must be owned by Filipinos

- Public utility – definition limiting to 6 utilities: telecommunications are excluded; can be foreign-
owned
o Elec
o Petro
o Water/pipeline
o ports
- Public service is broader than public utility
- Art. 11, Sec. 17 – temporary takeover of private businesses which has public interest. No just
compensation. Not eminent domain.

School bus – common carrier in the eyes of the law even if it had limited clientele – Sp. Perena

National Steel Corp. vs CA – common carrier vs. private carrier

- Note the diligence required

- What law will govern

Arrastre vs Stevedoring

- Arrastre – custodian/storage of cargo

- Stevedore – labor

Art. 1732 – no distinction, limited or for public

If goods – carrier and consignee

Kabit system and the registered owner rule

- Registered owner is primarily liable. Protects public interest

- Kabit system – a person a cert. of convenience allows another person who owns another vehicle
to operate under the cert. for a fee
o The court may not give them recourse to enforce an invalid contract.

Pedro de guzman vs CA

- He is a common carrier. ancillary activity but still a common carrier.

 - Cert. of Public Convenience is immaterial and not a requisite to consider a person a common
carrier. it is enough that he acts in the interest of a common carrier.

GR: common carriers are presumed negligent

- Except on instances provided in Art 1734. This list is exclusive.

o Hijacking is not force majeure to exempt from liability. They are presumed negligent.
Unless, there prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence and unless it was coupled
with force, threat or use of arms.

Aberlado Lim vs CA and Donato Gonzales – kabit system cannot be applied if the damage or accident was
caused by another vehicle. Aggrieved party engaged in a kabit system is not being held liable.

Vigilance over the goods – extraordinary diligence

Code of Commerce – obliged to deliver the goods the same condition they were received and as stated
in the bill of lading.

- Value of the goods at the point of destination is to be considered.

Presumption of negligence if bad condition upon arrival

Defenses of the common carrier: 1734; exempting circumstances. It must be the only cause. If there is
human intervention or if the proximate cause is the negligence of the common carrier; they can be
liable.

Effect of delay

- Delay in the performance of the duty of a common carrier even if it is under 1734 – the common
carrier is still liable.

Delivery of goods

- If there is no period. The common carrier is still bound to deliver it

Amparo Servando vs. Steam Navigation Co.

- In the warehouse of BOC was razed by fire. The BOL provided that the common carrier is not
liable for any loss or damage of the goods when they are under the custody of the customs.
o It is valid and reasonable stipulation

Bascos vs CA and Cipriano

- Hijacking must acted with grave, violence, force, and irresistible threat to be considered force
majeure.
o The common carrier must still exercise extraordinary to prevent or diminish the loss

Belgian Overseas vs Phil. Insurance Company

- 3 functions of bill of lading:

o Receipt for the goods
o It is a contract
Vigilance over passengers

- Utmost diligence.
- Presumption of negligence.
o Death or injury. Unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence.
- Duration of liability
o From the moment of purchasing token for fare or within the station
- Negligence/willful acts of carriers employee even if it acted beyond the scope of their authority
or in violation of lawful orders of the common carrier.
o They must prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection of employees.
- Acts of strangers/passenger
o Common carriers are responsible if the employees of the carrier could have prevented
the injury or death of passenger by exercising the diligence of a good father of a family.
 Maranao case.

If passenger is carried gratuitously – limit the liability is valid. Not for willful acts or gross negligence

If discounted – no limitation is allowed.

American Airlines Vs. CA

- Warsaw Convention – applies to all international transportation of persons. To regulate the

conditions of international transportation by Air

Aboitiz vs CA

- Tung namatay kay nibalik kay nabilin ang luggage.

- Aboitiz is liable because anacleto is still a passenger

Dangwa Trans

- Stepping on the platform of the bus. The person is already a passenger entitled to the rights and
protection of the law on common carriers.

Tung case na nakanaog na sa bus unya namatay ang anak. – still a passenger

JAL vs CA

- JAL has the obligation to transport the passengers in the first flight. It reneged on its duty the
moment they converted transit passengers to new passengers. They failed to provide the care
required from a common carrier.

GACAL vs PAL

- Hijackers fly to Libya

- Martial law. The common carrier was not allowed to frisk passengers because it was the duty of
the military.
o “could have been prevented” was not applied

CAORONG VS CA
 - Compensation for loss of earning capacity
o Please check the formula

JOSE PILAPIL VS CA AND ALATCO

- By stander hurled a stoned

- The common carrier was not liable. It could not have prevented.

MARANAN VS PASCUAL PEREZ

- Common carrier has the duty to select employees

o The driver killed the passenger
o Even the driver acted beyond the scope of duty. The common carrier is still liable.

SINGAPORE AIRLINES VS FERNANDEZ

- 2332 on exemplary awards

o Petitioners employees acted in wanton, oppressive manner. Exemplary damages are
awarded

MORAL and Exemplary – when carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith

Compania Maritima - If the shipper only contributed to the loss or damage and the common carrier’s
negligence the liability of the common carrier is equitable reduced – payloader was underdeclared.
Nahulog sa pantalan. Contributory negligence

- Shipper must exercise diligence of a good father of a family

Tung naputol and kamot. Purely negligence of passenger

Case: demurage. Delay and the nature of the goods. Urea shit

RA 4136 – land transporation and traffic rules

Bill of Lading

- Legal document issued by the carrier containing the goods loaded

- Document of title between the shipper and carrier
- A contract, receipt, document of title.
o Document title – is negotiable or non-negotiable

HEA vs Mac Condray

- 3 stipulations in a bill of lading

o First and second are invalid
o Third is valid and enforceable.

Santos vs NOA

- Minor.
- Issue on jurisdiction
o If round trip ticket – the ultimate destination is the last destination.
  Jurisdiction in warsaw convention provides for the jurisdiction
 Exclusive. Cannot be filed in the PH.

Cause of action on breach of contract of carriage.

- Culpa contractual, aquiliana, delictual

Article 2176 – please memo

- Basis why employers are liable for acts of employees

Prescriptive period

- Coastwise shipping – if apparent. Inform immediately

- If not apparent – with 24 hrs
- COGSA
o If apparent – immediate
o If not apparent – 3 days from date of delivery