Transportation Law Questions

1. Zia, a surf enthusiast took the Genesis Bus from Manila going to Baler. She deposited her
surfboard, and two luggages carrying her beach essentials in the baggage compartment of the bus
common to all passengers. She did not declare her baggage nor pay its corresponding charges
contrary to the bus company regulations. Then, upon arriving to Zias destination, her luggages are
missing. She demanded Genesis bus to pay for the loss of her articles but the company asserted that
it is not liable. Could the bus company be held liable?
Answer:
Yes, the bus company is liable for the loss of Zias luggages. As a common carrier, it had the duty to
exercise extraordinary diligence over the baggage that were placed in its custody, in the bus
compartment. The fact that the luggages were not declared nor the charges paid thereon would be
immaterial so long as they were received by the carrier for transportation.
2. Ryan, as a paying passenger boarded train 777 of the Philippine National Railways at Camarines
Sur bound for Manila. Since there were a lot of passengers, he sat on the open platform between the
coaches of the train. Then, due to some mechanical defects, the train stopped for repairs, taking
some two hours before the train could resume its trip. Subsequently, upon passing Iyam Bridge in
Lucena which was under repair at that time, the carrier sped up and unfortunately, Ryan fell off the
train resulting in his death. The train did not stop despite the alarm raised by other passengers that
somebody fell off from the train. Instead, the train conductor called the station agent and requested for
verification of the information. Police authorities were dispatched and they discovered the lifeless
body of Ryan.
(a) Is the carrier liable?
(b) Was there Contributory negligence? Will this change your answer in (a)?
Answers:
(a) Yes. The train boarded by the deceased Ryan was so overcrowded that he and many other
passengers had no choice but to sit on the open platforms between the coaches of the train.
Also, the train did not even slow down when it approached Iyam Bridge which was under
repair at that time. Neither did the train stop, despite the alarm raised by other passengers
informing about the incident. The train company has the obligation to transport its passengers
to their destinations safely and to observe extraordinary diligence in doing that. Death or injury
suffered by any of its passengers gives rise to the presumption that it was negligent in the
performance of its obligation under the contract of carriage.
(b) Yes, Ryan was chargeable with contributory negligence but this will not change my answer in
(a). Since he opted to sit on the open platform between the coaches of the train, he should
have held tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal bar found at the side of the said platform
to avoid falling off from the speeding train. Nevertheless, the contributory negligence of Ryan
is not a defense that will exempt the train company from liability. It will only mitigate such
liability.
3. A cargo of 10, 000 packed salmons was loaded on the vessel of JPP Shipping in Manila bound for
Tokyo. The goods were placed in substandard refrigerator equipment. When they were delivered to
the consignee, the salmons were already in bad condition. The shipowner denied any liability on the
ground that it was the bad weather condition which affected the quality of the goods. Is JPP Shipping
correct, and why or why not?
Answer:
No, JPP Shipping is not correct. As provided in Section 3 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, a
carrier, before and at the beginning of the voyage, has the duty to exercise due diligence in making
the holds, refrigerating and cooling chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which good are
carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation.
In the instant case, it is obvious that JPP Shipping is not cargoworthy for storing the frozen perishable
salmons in defective refrigeration equipment. As a carrier, it clearly failed to be equipped in carrying

the contemplated cargo. The bad quality of the goods cannot be attributed to the inclement weather
but only to the negligence of JPP Shipping. Therefore, it is liable for damages.
4. Frodo was driving a jeepney registered in the name Legolas. The jeepney, while being driven
negligently by Frodo, hit and injured Gollum. Consequently, Gollum sued Legolas for damages but the
latter argued that he sold the jeepney to Gandalf and that that the former should sue Gandalf. Rule on
Legolas defense.
Answer:
The defense of Legolas is untenable and he is liable to Gollum. Under the registered owner rile, the
registered owner remains to be liable to third persons without knowledge of the transfer. As to third
persons, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is its true owner regardless of any unregistered sale
of the vehicle. Hence, Legolas, being the registered owner, continues to be the owner of the jeepney
as regards the public and third persons.

1.

What is a common carrier?

Article 1732 of the New Civil Code defines a common carrier as persons, corporations, firms or
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by
land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public.
2.
National Oil Company is a pipeline operator engaged in transporting petroleum products
through underground pipelines, and not through motor vehicles. It offers it services for a fee. Is
National Oil Company a common carrier?
Yes, National Oil Company is a common carrier. In the case of First Philippine Industrial Corporation
vs. Court of Appeals, it was held that the definition of common carrier under the New Civil Code
makes no distinction as to the means of transporting, as long as it is by land, water, or air. It also does
not provide that the transport should be by motor vehicle.
3.
Sulpicio Lines, Inc., a carrier and operator of cargo vessels, accepted for shipment from
Manila to Tacloban a cargo consisting of 1,000 cavans of rice. The carrier noticed that the sacks had
big holes causing some rice to spill. As expected, there was spillage. When Sulpicio Lines was sued,
it interposed the defense that the spillage was caused by the defective conditions of the sack. Is
Sulpicio Lines liable?
Yes, Sulpicio Lines is still liable for the spillage. The New Civil Code provides that where the carrier
accepts the goods despite the defective condition of its packaging, it will not be relieved of liability for
loss or deterioration. It appears from the given case that the defective packaging was apparent and
was observed by the carrier, and this notwithstanding, it accepted the goods without protest.
Accordingly, it is still liable for the spillage of the rice.
4.
ABC Shipping, a carrier, accepted for shipment several boxes of merchandise from Juan
Diego, the shipper, for delivery to a certain Pedro Jose, the consignee. It was agreed that the freight
will be paid for by Pedro Jose at the destination. However, upon delivery of the goods at the point of
destination, Pedro Jose has not made any payment. What are the options of available to ABC
Shipping?
If the consignee fails to pay within 24 hours from delivery, it may demand the judicial sale of goods in
an amount necessary to cover the cost of transportation and the expenses incurred. This must be
done within eight days after is made.
5.
GL Bus Company regularly transports passengers from its terminal in Cubao to Matnog,
Sorsogon and vice versa. On the instruction of its owner, Mr. George Lina, GL caused the printing of
new ticket booklets where the reverse-side stipulates that the passenger would not hold bus company
liable for any untoward incident that might happen during the trip. Is this stipulation legal?

No, this stipulation is not legal. The New Civil Code provides that a common carrier cannot dispense
with its responsibility to exercise extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers by stipulation or
by statements on the tickets. Accordingly, this stipulation is in violation of this provision.

1. Cavaliers Trucking entered into hauling contract with GS Warriors Co whereby the former bound
itself to haul the latters 200 sacks of soya bean meal from Manila Port Area to Lucena City, Quezon.
To carry faithfully its obligation Cavaliers subcontracted with Kevin Ravena the delivery of 400 sacks
of the soya bean meal. Aside from the driver, three male employees of Ravena rode on the truck with
cargo. While the truck was on its way to Lucena two strangers suddenly stopped the truck and
hijacked the cargo. Investigation by the police disclosed that one of the hijackers was armed with
bladed weapon while the other was unarmed. For failure to deliver the 400 sacks, GS Warriors sued
Cavaliers for damages. Cavaliers in turn set up a 3rd party complaint against Ravena which the latter
registered on the ground that the loss was due to force majeure. Did the hijacking constitute force
majeure to exculpate Ravena from any liability to Cavaliers? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The hijacking in this case cannot be considered force majeure. Only one of the two hijackers was
armed with bladed weapon. As against the 4 male employees of Ravena, 2 hijackers, with only one of
them being armed with a bladed weapon, cannot be considered force majeure. The hijackers did not
act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force.
2. Phil-Pacific Flight 367 was on a scheduled passenger flight from Manila when it crashed as it
landed at the Zamboanga airport; the pilot miscalculated the planes approach and undershot the
runway. Of the 150 people on board, ten (10) passengers died at the crash scene. Of the ten who
died, one was a passenger who managed to leave the plane but was run over by an ambulance
coming to the rescue. Another was an airline employee who hitched a free ride to Zamboanga and
who was not in the passenger manifest. It appears from the Civil Aeronautics Authority investigation
that the co-pilot who had control of the planes landing had less than the required flying and landing
time experience, and should not have been in control of the plane at the time. He was allowed to fly
as a co-pilot because of the scarcity of pilots Philippine pilots have been recruited by foreign airlines
under vastly improved flying terms and wages so that newer and less trained pilots are being locally
deployed. The main pilot, on the other hand, had a very high level of blood alcohol at the time of the
crash. You are part of the team that the victims hired to handle the case for them as a group. In your
case conference, the following questions came up:
(A) Explain the causes of action legally possible under the given facts against the airline and the
Pilots; whom will you specifically implead in these causes of action?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A complaint for breach of contract of carriage can be filed against Phil-Pacific for failure to exercise
extraordinary diligence in transporting the passengers safety from their point of embarkation to their
destination (Article 1755, Civil Code). A complaint based on a quasi-delict can be filed against the
pilots because of their fault and negligence (Article 2176, Civil Code). Phil-Pacific Air can be included
for negligence in the selection and supervision of the pilots (Article 2180, Civil Code). A third cause of
action may be a criminal prosecution for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide against two pilots.
The airline will be subsidiarily liable for the civil liability only after the pilots are convicted and found to
be insolvent.
(B) How will you handle the cases of the passenger run over the ambulance and the airline employee
allowed to hitch a free ride to Zamboanga?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is the driver of the ambulance and his employer who should be held liable for damages, because a
passenger was run over. This is in accordance with Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. There
could also be a criminal prosecution for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide against the
ambulance driver and the consequent civil liability. Since the airline employee was being transported
gratuitously, Phil-Pacific was not required to exercise extraordinary diligence for his safety and only
ordinary care.

3. Miami Heat Railways, Inc. (MRI) provides train service, for a fee, to commuters from Manila to
Calamba, Laguna. Commuters are required to purchase tickets and then proceed to designated
loading and unloading facilities to board the train. Ricardo Santos purchased a ticket for Calamba and
entered the station. While waiting, he had an altercation with the security guard of MRI leading to a
fistfight. Ricardo Santos fell on the railway just as a train was entering the station. Ricardo Santos was
run over by the train. He died.
In the action for damages filed by the heirs of Ricardo Santos, MRI interposed lack of cause of action,
contending that the mishap occurred before Ricardo Santos boarded the train and that it was not
guilty of negligence. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
MRI is liable for death of Ricardo Santos because it failed to exercise extraordinary diligence (LRTA v.
Navidad G.R. No. 145804, 06 February 2003). The contract of carriage began when the passenger
purchased his ticket and proceeded to the designated loading facilities to board the train (Dangwa
Transp. Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95582, 07 October 1991), MRI is also liable for all
persons in its employ.
4. One of the passenger buses owned by Continental Transit Corporation (CTC), plying its usual route
figured in a collision with another bus owned by Universal Transport, Inc. (UTI). Among those injured
inside the CTC bus were: Romeo, a stow away: Samuel, a pickpocket then in the act of robbing his
seatmate when the collision occurred; Teresita, the bus drivers mistress who usually accompanied
the driver on his trips for free; and Uriel, holder of a free riding pass he won in a raffle held by CTC.
(A) Will a suit for breach of contract of carriage filed by Romeo, Samuel, Teresita, and Uriel against
CTC prosper?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Romeo cannot sue for breach of contract of carriage. A stowaway like Romeo, Who secures passage
by fraud, is not a passenger. Samuel and Teresita cannot sue for breach of contract of carriage. The
Elements in the definition of a passenger are: an undertaking of a person to travel in the conveyance
provided by the carrier and an acceptance by the carrier of the person as a passenger. Samuel did
not board the bus to be transported but to commit robbery. Teresita did not board the bus to be
transported but to accompany the driver while he was performing his work. Uriel can sue for breach of
contract. He was a passenger although he was being transported gratuitously, because he won a free
riding pass in a raffle held by CTC (Article 1753, New Civil Code).
5. Stephen hailed a taxicab owned and operated by Klay Fajardo and driven by Marvin Abueva.
Stephen asked Abueva to take him to his office in Malate. On the way to Malate, the taxicab collided
with a passenger jeepney, as a result of which Stephen was injured , i.e. he fractured his left leg.
Stephen sued Fajardo for damages, based upon a contract of carriage, and Stephen won. Fajardo
wanted to challenge the decision before the SC on the ground that the trial court erred in not making
an express finding as to whether or not Fajardo was responsible for the collision and, hence, civilly
liable to Stephen. He went to see you for advice. What will you tell him? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
I will counsel Klay Fajardo to desist from challenging the decision. The action of Stephen being on
culpa contractual, the carriers negligence is presumed upon the breach of contract. The burden of
proof instead would lie on Stephen to establish that despite an exercise of utmost diligence the
collision could not have been avoided.

1.
One of the passenger bus owned by Continental Transit Corp. (CTC) playing its usual route,
figured in a collision with another bus owned by Universal Transport Inc. Among those injured inside
the CTC were:
a)
Romeo, a stow away
b)
Samuel, a pickpocket then in the act of robbing his seatmate when the collision occurred

c)
d)

Teresita, the bus drivers mistress who usually accompanied the driver on his trips for free
Uriel holder of a free riding pass he won in a raffle held by CTC

Will a suit for breach of contract of carriage filed by Romeo, Samuel, Teresita and Uriel against CTC
prosper?
Romeo cannot sue for breach of contract of carriage because he is a stow away and he secured his
passage thru fraud, hence he is not a passenger.
Samuel and Teresita cannot also sue for breach of contract of carriage. The elements in the definition
of a passenger were not complied with. Samuel did not board the bus to be transported but to commit
robbery and Teresita did not board the bus to be transported but to accompany the driver while he
was performing his work.
Only Uriel can sue for breach of contract, even if he was transported gratuitously because he won a
free riding pass in a raffle held by CTC.
2.
Nelson owned and controlled Sonnel Construction Company. Acting for the company, Nelson
contracted a construction for a building. Without first installing a protective net atop the sidewalks
adjoining the construction site, the company proceeded with the contraction work. One day a heavy
piece of lumber fell from the building. It smashed a taxi cab which at that time had gone off road and
onto the sidewalk in order to avoid traffic. The passenger of the taxi cab died as a result.
Could the heirs of the passenger hold the taxi cab owner and driver liable?
Yes. The heirs can hold the taxi cab owner and the driver solidarily liable for breach of contract of
carriage and for quasi-delict. The common carrier has the duty to safely transport the passenger,
which it failed to do in this case. It cannot escape liability by passing on the blame to the construction
company as the taxi cab driver himself is concurrently negligent.
3.
Procopio purchased an Isuzu passenger jeepney from Enteng a holder of certificate of public
convenience for the operation of public utility vehicle plying the Calamba- Los Banos route. While
Procopio continued offering the jeepney for public transport services he did not have the registration
of the vehicle transferred in his name. Neither did he secure for himself a certificate of public
conveinience for its operation. This per the records of the Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board, Enteng rained its registered owner and operator. One day, while th e jeepney was
traveling southbound, it collided with a ten-wheeler truck owned by Emmanuel The driver of the ruck
admitted responsibility for the accident, explaining that the truck lost its brakes.
Procopio sued Emmanuel for damages, but the latter moved to dismiss the case on the ground that
Procopio is not the real party in interest since he is not the registered owner of the jeepney.
The motion to Dismiss should be denied because the rule enjoining the registered owner of the motor
vehicle under the kabit system from proving another person is the owner is intended to protect third
parties. Since this case does not involve liability of the registered owner to third parties, and it is the
owner of the motor vehicle who is seeking compensation for damages, the rule is not applicable.
4.
Baldo is a driver of Yellow Cab Company under the boundary system. While cruising along
South Expressway, Baldos cab figured in a collision, killing his passenger, Pedro. The heirs of Pedro
sued Yellow Cab Company for damages but the latter refused to pay the heirs, insisting that it is not
liable because Baldo is not their employee.
Yellow Cab Company is liable because there exists an employee-employer relationship between a
jeepney owner and a driver under the boundary system arrangement. Exmpting the owner from
liability of a public vehicle who operates it under a boundary system on the ground that he is a mere
lessor would be not only flagrant violations of the Public Service Law but also to place the riding public
at the mercy of reckless and irresponsible drivers because the measure of their earnings largely
depend on the number of trips they make and the speed to which they drive.

5.
A severe typhoon was raging when the vessel SS Masdaam collided with M/V Princess. It is
conceded that the typhoon was the major cause of the collision, although there was a very strong
possibility that it could have been avoided if the captain of SS Masdaam was not drunk and the
captain of M/V Princess was not asleep at the time of collisions.
Who should bear the damages to the vessels and their cargoes?
The shipowners of SS Masdaam and M/V Princess shall each bear their respective loss of vessels.
For losses and damages suffered by the cargoes, both ship owners are solidarily liable.

1.
A as charterer and B as owner entered into a Contract of Voyage Charter Hire whereby A
hired Bs vessel MV Bright to make 1 voyage to load shell and steel products at Davao City and
discharge them at North Harbor, Manila. B carried passengers or goods only for those it chose under
a special contract of charter. The vessel arrived with the cargo in Manila but several cargoes were
damaged. A filed a complaint claiming that it sustained losses B denied liability claiming that MV
Bright was seaworthy and that the vessel was not a common carrier. Is MV Bright a common carrier?
Suggested Answer
No. B did not offer its services to the general public. It carried on passenger goods only for those it
chose under special contract of charter party. The rights and obligations of B and A including their
respective liability for damage to the cargo are determined primarily by stipulation in their contract of
private carriage or charter party.
2.
Bart Lee contracted the services of Cera Travel & Tours to facilitate his booking for
Spelunking Package in Australia through his nephew who was a former ticketing manager, Ernest
Hong. Hong delivered the ticket to his uncles house and told the latter to be at the airport on
Wednesday 2 hours before the flight. Without checking his travel documents, Bart arrived at the
airport and discovered that his flight had departed the day before. His nephew offered another
package, Diving Deep Waters Package to which he availed.
Upon his return, Bart demanded from respondent a reimbursement of P50, 831 representing the sum
he paid for Spelunking Package. The company refused to reimburse. Bart filed a complaint for breach
of contract. Will his action prosper?
Suggested Answer
No. Cera Travel & Tours is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or
goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier. Cera Travel and Tours did not
undertake to transport Bart from one place to another since the covenant with its customers is simply
to make travel arrangements in their behalf. Cera Travel & Tours services as a travel agency include
procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as booking customers for tours.
3.
Bus No. 8001 owned by Lexis Express, Inc and driven by Dan Vasquez was travelling from
Aklan to Iloilo. The bus picked up a passenger in Capiz. About fifteen minutes later, a passenger
stabbed a soldier which caused commotion and panic among the passengers that when the bus
stopped, Edison Sison and Editha Tambis were found lying down the road. The former was already
dead while the latter was suffering from severe injuries which caused her death later. The passengerassailant alighted from the bus and ran toward the bushes and killed by the police. The heirs of Sison
and Tambis filed a complaint for sum of money against Lexis Express, Inc.
The company denied liability for the death of Sison and Tambis. They alleged that the driver was able
to transport the passengers safely to their respective places of destination except Edison Sison and
Editha Tambis who jumped off the bus without knowledge and consent, much less, the fault of the
driver and conductor and the defendants in this case; the defendant corporation had exercised due
diligence in the choices of its employees to avoid as much as possible accidents; the incident was not
a traffic accident or a vehicular accident; it was an incident or event very much beyond the control of
the defendants; the defendants were not parties to the incidents complained of as it was an act of a
third party who is not in any way connected with the defendants. Was the accident caused by force
majeure?

Suggested Answer
The running amuck of the passenger was the proximate cause of the incident as it triggered
off a commotion and panic among the passengers such that the passengers started running to the
sole exit shoving each other resulting in the falling off the bus by passengers Sison and Tambis
causing them their fatal injuries. The sudden act of the passenger who stabbed another passenger in
the bus is within the context of force majeure.
However, in order that a common carrier may be absolved from liability from force majeure, it
is not enough that the accident was caused by force majeure. The common carrier must still prove
that it was not negligent in causing the injuries resulting from such accident.
4.
James Jose was a first class passenger of CXP on its flight from Manila to Hongkong and
onward from Hongkong to Jakarta. The purpose of the trip was to attend a Conference in Indonesia.
He checked in his luggage which contained not only his clothing and articles for personal use but also
papers and documents he needed for the conference. Upon his arrival in Jakarta, Jose discovered
that his luggage was missing. He was told by CXPs representative that his luggage was left behind in
HongKong and was offered $20 as "inconvenience money" to buy his immediate personal needs until
the luggage could be delivered to him. When his luggage finally arrived at Jarkarta after 24 hours, he
was required that the said luggage be picked up by an official of the Philippine Embassy. Jose filed a
complaint for temperate, moral and exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees. Was there a breach of
contract of carriage when it failed to deliver his luggage?
Suggested Answer
CXP breached its contract of carriage with private respondent when it failed to deliver his luggage at
the designated place and time, it being the obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers and
their luggage safely to their destination which includes the duty not to delay their transportation, and
the evidence shows that CXP acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
5.
What are the instances when a common carrier becomes liable for the death of or injury to a
passenger or passengers?
Suggested Answer
The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers
(a) through the negligence or willful acts of its employees or (b) on account of willful acts or
negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees through the
exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

1.
The AAA Bus Company picks up passengers along EDSA. X, the conductor, while on board
the bus, drew his gun and randomly shot the passengers inside. As a result, Y, a passenger, was shot
and died instantly. Is AAA Bus Company liable?
a.
The bus company is not liable for as long as the bus company can show that when they hired
X, they did the right selection process.
b.
The bus company cannot be held liable because what X did is not part of his responsibility.
c.
The bus company is liable because common carriers are liable for the negligence or willful act
of its employees even though they acted beyond the scope of their responsibility.
d.
The bus company is not liable because there is no way that the bus company can anticipate
the act of X.
2.
X took the Benguet Bus from Baguio going to Manila. He deposited his maleta in the baggage
compartment of the bus common to all passengers. He did not declare his baggage nor pay its
charges contrary to the regulations of the bus company. When X got off, he could not find his baggage
which was obviously taken by another passenger. Determine the liability of the bus company.
The bus company is liable for the loss of the maleta. The duty of extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods is due on such goods as are deposited or surrendered to the common carrier
for transportation. The fact that the maleta was not declared nor the charges paid thereon, would not
be consequential so long as it was received by the carrier for transportation. (Art. 1754, in relation to
Arts. 1733-1753, Civil code)

3.
Peter So hailed a taxicab owned and operated by Jimmy Cheng and driven by Hermie Cortez.
Peter asked Hermie to take him to his office in Malate. On the way to Malate, the taxicab collided with
a passenger jeepney, as a result of which Peter was injured.
Peter sued Jimmy for damages, based upon a contract of carriage, and Peter won. Jimmy wanted to
challenge the decision before the Supreme Court on the ground that the trial court erred in not making
an express finding as to whether or not Jimmy was responsible for the collision and hence, civilly
liable to Peter. He went to see you for advice. What will you tell him? Explain your answer.
I will counsel Jimmy to desist from challenging the decision. The action of Peter being based on culpa
contractual, the carriers negligence is presumed upon the breach of contract. The burden of proof
instead would lie on Jimmy to establish that despite an exercise of utmost diligence the collision could
not have been avoided.
4.

What is the test for determining whether or not one is a common carrier?

The test for determining whether or not one is a common carrier is whether the person or entity, for
some business purpose and with general or limited clientele, offers the service of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both for compensation.
5.
Philip Mauricio shipped a box of cigarettes to a dealer in Naga City through Bicol Bus
Company (BBC). When the bus reached Lucena City, the bus developed engine trouble. The driver
brought the bus to a repair shop in Lucena where he was informed by the mechanic that an extensive
repair was necessary, which would take at least two days. While the bus was in the repair shop,
typhoon Coring lashed at Quezon province. The cargoes inside the bus, including Mauricios
cigarettes got wet and were totally spoiled. Mauricio sued BBC for damage to his cargoes. Decide.
The Bicol Bus Company (BBC) is liable for damages to the cargoes lost by Mauricio. A natural
disaster would relieve liability if it is the proximate and only cause of the damage. The carrier itself, in
this case, had been negligent. The presumption of negligence in culpa contractual is not overcome by
engine trouble which does not preclude its having been due to the fault of the common carrier. The
fact that an extensive repair work was necessary which, in fact, took two (2) days to complete
somehow justifies and impression that the engine trouble could have been detected, if not already
known, well before the actual breakdown.

Question 1: When is a carrier considered a Common or Private carrier?

Proposed answer:
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as persons, corporations, firms or
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by
land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public. It has been held that the
true test of a common carrier is the carriage of passengers or goods, provided it has space, for all
who opt to avail themselves of its transportation service for a fee. A carrier which does not qualify
under the above test is deemed a private carrier.
Generally, private carriage is undertaken by special agreement and the carrier does not hold
himself out to carry goods for the general public. In a contract of private carriage, the parties may
freely stipulate their duties and obligations which perforce would be binding on them.
Question 2. What is the extent of liability in case of loss in a private carrier?
Proposed Answer:
Since in a contract of private carriage, the parties may freely stipulate their duties and
obligations which shall he binding upon them, the carrier may limit its liability in cases of loss. This
view finds support in the Code of Commerce Art 361. Merchandise shall be transported at the risk and
venture of the shipper, if the contrary has not been expressly stipulated.
Therefore, the damage and impairment suffered by the goods during the transportation, due to
fortuitous event, force majeure, or the nature and inherent defect of the things, shall be for the
account and risk of the shipper.

Ganzon vs CA (GR.L-48757; May 30, 1988)

Question 3:
Ganzon was contracted to transport 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles Bataan to the port
of Manila. Upon arrival in Manila and about half of it was already loaded, Mariveles Mayor Advincula
demanded 5000 pesos from Ganzon. The latter refused and was eventually shot. After sometime the
loading was resumed. However the policemen ordered the captain to dump the scrap of iron. Shipper
demanded payment of the value of the iron and damages. The carrier refused alleging that they are
not liable. Decide.
Proposed answer:
The carrier is liable. before the appellee Ganzon could be absolved from responsibility on the
ground that he was ordered by competent public authority to unload the scrap iron, it must be shown
that Acting Mayor Basilio Rub had the power to issue the disputed order, or that it was lawful, or that it
was issued under legal process of authority. The appellee failed to establish this. Indeed, no authority
or power of the acting mayor to issue such an order was given in evidence. Neither has it been shown
that the cargo of scrap iron belonged to the Municipality of Mariveles.
The order of the acting mayor did not constitute valid authority for appellee Mauro Ganzon and his
representatives to carry out.
Question 4: In the carriage of goods what are the instances that will exempt the common carrier from
liability in cases of loss, destruction or deterioration of goods?
Proposed answer:
Article 1734 of the New Civil Code:
(1)
Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2)

Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;

(3)

Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;

(4)

The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;

(5)

Order or act of competent public authority.

Question 5: When does the duty of extraordinary diligence to transport goods of the common carrier
commences?
Proposed Answer:
Soon after the goods were delivered to, and received by the common carrier, the goods were
unconditionally placed in the possession and control of the common carrier, and upon their receipt by
the carrier for transportation, the contract of carriage was deemed perfected.
Consequently, the carrier's extraordinary responsibility for the loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods commenced. Pursuant to Art. 1736, such extraordinary responsibility would
cease only upon the delivery, actual or constructive, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person
who has a right to receive them. The fact that part of the shipment had not been loaded on board the
carrier did not impair the said contract of transportation as the goods remained in the custody and
control of the carrier, albeit still unloaded.

QUESTION
Mr. Pogi entered the LRT station
after having purchased a token.
While he was on the platform
waiting for the arrival of the next
train he fell on the tracks and was
struck by a moving train which was
coming in at the exact moment that

ANSWER
Yes. Mr. Pogi should be treated as a
passenger because he entered the
LRT station after having purchased a
token and he fell while he was on
the platform waiting for a train.
Thus, Mr. Pogi was in the place
designated for boarding the train

Mr. Pogi fell from the platform.

Should Mr.Pogi be treated as a
passenger?
Ms. Ganda was involved in the
business of carrying goods through
its barges. It has no fixed and
publicly known route, maintain no
terminals, and issues no tickets. Is
Ms. Gandas business considered a
common carrier?
A ship sank due to fire which
resulted from a crack in the auxiliary
engine fuel oil service tank. Fuel
spurted out of the crack and dripped
to the heating exhaust manifold,
causing the ship to burst into
flames. The crack was located on
the side of the fuel oil tank, which
had a mere two-inch gap from the
engine
room
walling,
thus
precluding constant inspection and
care by the crew. Was the sinking of
the vessel considered due to
fortuitous event?
More than a thousand sacks of rice
were shipped through the vessel of
X. There was a shortage when the
sacks of rice were delivered to the
consignee although it was alleged
that the shortage in the shipment
was due to shrinkage, leakage or
spillage of the rice on account of the
bad condition of the sacks at the
time it received the same. Was X
still liable?
Y took the The Super Clean Bus from
Isabela
going
to
Manila.
He
deposited his bag in the baggage
compartment of the bus common to
all passengers. He did not declare
his baggage nor pay its charges
contrary to the regulations of the
bus company. When Y got off, he
could not find his baggage. Is the
bus company liable?

with the intention of riding the

oncoming train. (LRTA, et al v.
Marjorie Navidad, et al.)
Yes. A common carrier need not
have a fixed and publicly known
route nor does it have to maintain
terminals or issue tickets. (Asia
Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals)
No. The sinking of the vessel was
not considered due to fortuitous
event. Having originated from an
unchecked crack in the fuel oil
service tank, the fire could not have
been caused by force majeure.
(Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines,
Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance
Company)

Yes. X was still made liable because

it was aware of the condition of the
sacks when it received the goods.
(Southern Lines, Inc. v Court of
Appeals)

Yes. The bus company is liable for

the loss of the bag. The carrier had
the duty to exercise extraordinary
diligence over the bag that was
turned over to the carrier or placed
in the baggage compartment of the
bus. (Art. 1754, Civil Code)

1.
May a registered owner of a vehicle and granted with a certificate of public convenience be
liable if he allows another person to operate under his franchise for free?

Yes. A person who has been granted a certificate of public convenience allows another person who
owns motor vehicles to operate under such franchise for a fee. Thus, for the safety of passengers and
the public who may have been wronged and deceived through the baneful kabit system, the
registered owner of the vehicle is not allowed to prove that another person has become the owner so
that he may be thereby relieved of responsibility. (Lim v. CA, 2002)
2.
Will the liability and responsibility of the carrier commence with the formal execution of a
receipt of bill of lady?
No. The liability of the carrier as common carrier begins with the actual delivery of the goods for
transportation and not merely with the formal execution of a receipt or bill of lading; the issuance of a
bill of lading is not necessary to complete delivery and acceptance. Even where it is provided by
statute that liability commences with the issuance of the bill of lading actual delivery and acceptance
are sufficient to bind the carrier. (Compania Maritima v. Insurance Company of North America, 1964).
The liability and responsibility of the carrier commence on their actual delivery to, or receipt by the
carrier or an authorized agent, of the goods. (Cia. Maritima v. Insurance Co. of NA)
3.

What are the principles as to the liability of common carriers?

(1)
The liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. There is breach
if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of each case;
(2)
A carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a very cautious person,
having due regard for all the circumstances;
(3)
A carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death of, or injury
to, passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence; and
(4)
The carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel. (Isaac v. A.L. Ammen)
4.
Does delivery of the cargo to the customs authorities considered delivery to the consignee or
to the person who has a right to receive them as contemplated in Article 1736?
Delivery of the cargo to the customs authorities is not delivery to the consignee or to the person who
has a right to receive them as contemplated in Article 1736 because in such case the goods are still
in the hands of the Government and the owner cannot exercise dominion over them. However, the
parties may agree to limit the liability of the carrier considering that the goods still have to go through
the inspection of the customs authorities before they are actually turned over to the consignee. This is
a situation where we may say that the carrier losses control of the goods because of a custom
regulation and it is unfair that it bemade responsible for what may happen during the interregnum. (Lu
Do v. Binamira, 1957)
5.
Can limitation on liability be availed of by a common carrier which delayed the transportation
of the goods or changed the stipulated or usual route?
If with just cause, yes but not allowed if without just cause pursuant to Article 1747 of the Civil
Code quoted to wit:
If the common carrier, without just cause, delays the transportation of the goods or changes the
stipulated or usual route, the contract limiting the common carrier's liability cannot be availed of in
case of the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods.

1.
City Railways, Inc. (CRI) provides train service, for a fee, to commuters from Manila to
Calamba, Laguna. Commuters are required to purchase tickets and then proceed to designated
loading and unloading facilities to board to the train. Ricardo Santos purchased a ticket for Calamba
and entered the station. While waiting, he had an altercation with the security guard of CRI leading to
fistfight. Ricardo Santos fell on the railway just as a train was entering the station. Ricardo Santos was
run over by the raid and died.

In the action for damages filed by the heirs of Ricardo Santos, CRI interposed lack of cause of action,
contending that the mishap occurred before Ricardo Santos boarded the train and that it was not
guilty of negligence. Decide.
CRI is liable for death of Ricardo Santos because it failed to exercise extra ordinary diligence. The
contract of carriage began when the passenger purchased his ticket and proceeded to the designated
loading facilities to board the train. CRI is also liable for all persons in its employ.
2.
One of the passenger buses owned by Continental Transit Corporation (CTC), plying its usual
route figure in a collision with another bus owned by Universal Transport, Inc. (UTI). Among those
injured inside the CTC bus were: Samuel, a pickpocket then in the act of robbing his seatmate when
the collision occurred and Teresita, the bus drivers mistress who usually accompanied the driver on
his trips for free.
A.
Will a suit for breach of contract of carriage filed by Samuel and Teresita against CTC
prosper? Explain.
Samuel and Teresita cannot sue for breach for contract of carriage. The Elements in the definition of
passenger are: an undertaking person to travel in the conveyance provided by the carrier and an
acceptance by the carrier of the person as a passenger. Samuel did not board the bus to be
transported but to commit robbery. Teresita did not board the bus to be transported but to accompany
the driver while he was performing his work.
B.

Do Samuel and Teresita have a cause of action for damages against UTI?

Samuel and Teresita may sue UTI on the basis of quasi-delict since they have no pre-existing
contractual relationship with UTI. They may allege that the collision was due to the negligence of the
driver of UTI and UTI was negligent in the selection of its driver.
3.
Baldo is a driver of Yellow Cab Company under the boundary system. While cruising along
the South Expressway, Baldos cab figured in a collision, killing his passenger, Pietro. The heirs of
Pietro sued Yellow Cab Company for damages, but the latter refused to pay the heirs, insisting that it
is not liable because Baldo is not its employee. Resolve with reasons.
Yellow Cab Company shall be liable with Baldo, on a solidary basis, for the death of passenger Pietro.
Baldo is an employee of Yellow Cab under the boundary system. As such, the death of passenger
Pietro is breach of contract of carriage, making both the common carrier Yellow Cab and its employee,
Baldo, solidarily liable.
4.
Antonio, a paying passenger, boarded a bus bound for Batangas City. He chose a seat at the
front row, near the bus driver, and told the bus driver that he had valuable items in his hand carried
bag which he then place beside the drivers seat. Not having slept for 24 hours, he requested the
driver to keep an eye on the bag should he doze off during the trip. While Antonio was asleep, another
passenger took the bag away and alighted at Calamba, Laguna. Could the common carrier be held
liable by Antoni for the loss?
Yes. Ordinarily, the common carrier is not liable for acts of other passengers. But the common carrier
cannot relieve itself from liability if the common carriers employees could have prevented the act or
omission by exercising due diligence. In this case, the passenger asked the driver to keep an eye on
the bag which was placed beside the drivers seat. If the driver exercised due diligence, he could have
prevented the loss of the bag.

1) What is a Bill of Lading?

- It is a document that is prepared by the sea carrier which is to be
concurred by the shipper of the goods. Under the bill of lading, the carrier

assumes responsibility to transport goods for compensation from port of loading to

port of destination.
2) What are the 3 characteristics of Bill of Lading?
- 1. Good evidence of contract of carriage; 2. Evidence of receipt, and; 3.
Evidence title to the goods by the shipper.
3) What is the True Test of Common Carrier?
- Is the carriage of passengers or goods, provided it has space, for all who opt to
avail themselves of its transportation service for a fee.
4) What is the duty of motor vehicles like jeepneys and buses in loading
passengers?
- They are duty bound to stop their conveyances for a reasonable length of
time in order to afford passengers an opportunity to board and enter, and
they are liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers resulting from the
sudden starting up or jerking of their conveyances while they do so. Once a
public utility bus or jeepney stops, it is making a continuous offer to bus riders.
5) In case of delay in the carriage of passengers, what is the right/s of the latter?
- Art.698 of the Code of Commerce provides that "In case a voyage already begun
should be interrupted, the passengers shall be obliged to pay the fare in proportion
to the distance covered, without right to recover for losses and damages if the
interruption is due to fortuitous event of force majeure, but with a right to indemnity if
the interruption should have been caused by the captain exclusively. If the
interruption should be caused by the disability of the vessel and a passenger should
agree to await the repairs, he may not be required to pay any increased price of
passage, but his living expenses during the stay shall be for his own account. --Note: the carrier is liable for any loss or damage, including any pecuniary loss or loss
of profit, which the passenger may have suffered by reason thereof.
(1). Facts:
A (Seller), entered into a contract to supply 2,000 Metric tons of rice with
National Rice Corporation(Purchaser). The two entered into an agreement that the shipment shall be
imported from Cambodia aboard a ship owned by Eastern Shipping (Carrier). A co-financier of Seller
entered into a surety bond agreement with an Insurance company owned by the carrier to guarantee
the payment by the charterers from Singapore of the losses that may arise, in favor of the Carrier.
Upon arrival of the goods in Manila, the Carrier refused to unload the rice unless the balance of the
freight and other charges were paid. The Carrier was paid in rupees, but it wanted to be paid in British
sterling or pesos. This resulted to a delay of 8 days, and demurrage. A complaint was filed against the
Carrier to accept the payment and to allow unloading of the cargo. The Carrier lost and appealed.
Issue: Whether or not the Carrier had a right to hold the cargo?
Suggested answer:
Yes, Carrier's lien exists if freight was not paid. The fact that the freight was
already included in the purchase price of the goods paid by the purchaser to the appellees(Seller), did
not free the cargo from the carrier's lien as as provided for in Article 665 of the Code of Commerce, if
the freight has not yet been fully paid by the Charter-Seller. Moreover, under clause No. 8 of the
charter party, provides: "Owners shall have a lien on the cargo for freight, deadfreight, demurrage,
and damages for detention. Charterers shall remain responsible for deadfreight and
demurrage(including damages for detention), incurred at the port of loading. Charterers shall also

remain responsible for freight and demurrage(including damages for detention) incurred at port of
discharge, but to such extent as the Owners have been unable to obtain payment thereof by
exercising the lien on the cargo.
(2 ). Facts:
Alpha and Amparo Charlie loaded on board a vessel of Philippine Steam
Navigation Co. for carriage from Manila to Negros Occidental 2,000 cavans of rice and 50 cartons of
colored paper, toys and general merchandise.
The contract of carriage of cargo was evidenced by a Bill of Lading (B/L). There was a stipulation
limiting the responsibility of the carrier for loss or damage that may be caused to the shipment
a. carrier shall not be responsible for loss or damage to shipments billed owners risk unless
such loss or damage is due to the negligence of the carrier. Nor shall the carrier be responsible for
loss or damage caused by force majeure, dangers or accidents of the sea, war, public enemies, fire.
Upon arrival of the vessel at its destination, the cargoes were discharged in good condition and
placed inside the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs.
Alpha was able to take delivery of 907 cavans of rice. Unfortunately, the warehouse was razed by fire
of unknown origin later that same day destroying the remaining cargoes. Alpha and Charlie filed a
claim for the value of the goods against the carrier. The lower court ruled in their favor. It held that the
delivery of the shipment to the warehouse is not the delivery contemplated by Art. 1736 of the CC.
And since the burning of the warehouse occurred prior to the actual or constructive delivery of the
goods, the loss is chargeable against the vessel.
Issue: Whether or not the carrier is liable for the loss of the goods.
Suggested Answer:
No. Article 1736 of the CC imposes upon common carriers the duty to
observe extraordinary diligence from the moment the goods are unconditionally placed in their
possession "until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee or
to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738. The
court a quo held that the delivery of the shipment in question to the warehouse of the Bureau of
Customs is not the delivery contemplated by Article 1736; and since the burning of the warehouse
occurred before actual or constructive delivery of the goods to the appellees, the loss is chargeable
against the appellant. It should be pointed out, however, that in the bills of lading issued for the
cargoes in question, the parties agreed to limit the responsibility of the carrier. The stipulation is valid
not being contrary to law, morals or public policy.
The petitioners however, contend that the stipulation does not bind them since it was printed at the
back of the B/L and that they did not sign the same. However, as the Court held in OngYiu vs. CA,
while it may be true that a passenger had not signed the plane ticket, he is nevertheless bound by the
provisions thereof. Such provisions have been held to be a part of the contract of carriage, and valid
and binding upon the passenger regardless of the latter's lack of knowledge or assent to the
regulation. Also, where fortuitous event is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss, the obligor
is exempt from liability for non-performance.In the case at bar, the burning of the customs warehouse
was an extraordinary event which happened independently of the will of the appellant. The latter could
not have foreseen the event. There is nothing in the record to show that the carrier incurred in delay
in the performance of its obligation. It appears that it had not only notified Alpha and Charlie of the
arrival of their shipment, but had demanded that the same be withdrawn. In fact, pursuant to such
demand, Alpha had taken delivery of 900 cavans of rice before the burning of the warehouse. Nor can
the carrier or its employees be charged with negligence. The storage of the goods in the Customs
warehouse pending withdrawal thereof by Alpha and Charlie was undoubtedly made with their
knowledge and consent. Since the warehouse belonged to and was maintained by the government, it
would be unfair to impute negligence to the carrier, the latter having no control whatsoever over the
same
(3.) FACTS:
The government is the beneficiary of 93 cases of dry skimmed milk from the UNICEF
for distribution to children. Defendant Bravo Brokerage has been contracted by the government to
handle the warehousing and transshipment of the milk to feeding agencies in different parts of the
Philippines. Bravo Brokerage shipped through the shipping broker of defendant Hijos de Echo Golf
(Echo Golf) the 93 cases of milk on board a vessel owned and operated by Echo Golf for Southern
Leyte. The shipment was consigned to the Bontoc Rural Health Unit in Southern Leyte in the care of
Mrs. Delta. Bontoc is a municipality in Southern Leyte which is about 24 kilometers from Malitbog.
The shipment arrived in Malitbog on Jan 19. Mrs. Delta received copies of the bill of lading on Jan 24
from Bravo Brokerage, with a letter telling her to take delivery of the shipment. By failure of Mrs. Delta
to claim the shipment upon arrival, it was deposited in a warehouse of Echo Golf. On Jan. 28, the
branch manager of Echo Golf met Mrs. Delta in front of the municipal building and the former
reiterated to the latter to take delivery of the shipment. But before claim for the delivery of the cargo

could be made, the entire cargo were burned on Jan 31 as a result of a fire which broke out in a
house near the said bodega.
As a result, RP instituted an action against Bravo Brokerage, the shipping broker, and Echo Golf for
the recovery of the value of the milk which was burned. Lower court held that since the consignee has
been advised of the arrival and has had reasonable time to remove them (from Jan 28 Jan 31),
defendant is relieved from extraordinary diligence and the loss of the shipment was due to force
majeure.
ISSUES A.
W/N the lower court erred in holding that Mrs. Delta was negligent in failing to take
delivery of the cargo within reasonable time from arrival thereof at the port of consignment NO
ISSUES B.
W/N the lower court erred in holding that the loss and destruction of the shipment was
due to force majeure by reason of which exempts it from liability. NO
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A: According to Art. 1736 of the Civil Code, the extraordinary responsibility
of the carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and
received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the
carrier to the consignee or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to Art.
1738. This article provides that the extraordinary liability of the common carrier continues to be
operative even during the time the goods are stored in a warehouse of the carrier at the place of
destination, until the consignee has been advised of the arrival of the goods and has had reasonable
opportunity thereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of them.
In the instant case, Mrs. Delta admitted having received notice of such arrival when she received
copies of the bill of lading on Jan. 24 with advice to take delivery of the goods. On Jan. 28, she was
personally told by the manager of the carrier companyto take delivery of the goods. It was incumbent
upon Mrs. Delta to take delivery of the shipment within a reasonable time from Jan. 24. Notice by the
carrier that the cargo had already arrived, thereby placing the same at the disposal of the shipper or
consignee, amounts to a constructive delivery of the cargo which automatically released the carrier of
the extraordinary responsibility. Thus, when the goods were destroyed by fire, the duty to exercise
extraordinary diligence on the part of the carrier for vigilance of the goods had already ceased.
RP contends that there was no negligence on not being able to take delivery on Jan. 24 because on
that day, Mrs. Delta had to attend to a difficult case of delivery of a patient which required her present
elsewhere up to Jan. 26, and then Jan. 27 was a Sunday. However, the Court ruled that the shipper
cannot defer taking the goods away in order to attend to another matters of its own, no matter how
important they may be. Otherwise, the continuance of the extraordinary liability of the carrier would
be dependent upon causes of which it has no intervention and not of its own making.
SUGGESTED ANSWER B.
The rule is that the carrier may be absolved of liability for the
destruction of the cargo if it can show that the goods were lost, destroyed, or deteriorated by reason
of any of the causes in art. 1734. Here, the cargo was destroyed by a fortuitous event in the form of a
fire which broke out not in the warehouse but in a nearby house which spread to the bodega because
it was windy and the municipality did not have fire-fighting equipment and despite efforts exerted to
put the fire out by the men of Echo Golf. Thus, the carrier is not liable.
We find no merit in the argument that fire is not among the causes enumerated in Art. 1734. Said
article makes mention of other natural disaster or calamity and this has reference to extraordinary
fortuitous events which according to para. 2 of Art. 1680 includes fire, the cause of which, is not
imputable to the fault of the carrier, as in the instant case.
(4.) Facts: Sept 22, 1961: Golf Prince purchased from Victory and Sons at Negro Occidental lumber
worth P21,258.14. The lumber wer insured with Fieldman's Insurance for P29000- 14000 in the name
of Golf Prince under a Marine Cargo Policy and 15000 under Golf Alpha under another policy. One of
the policies was secured in Alpha's name, because those were the lumber that Alpha purchased from
Golf Prince. But it as Golf Prince who paid the premium. And at the time of loss, Alpha has not paid
the purchase price.
Sept 23 1961: the lumber were loaded on the barge despite the presence of tropical depression in the
loading area. When the ship and its tugboat reached the mouth of the river, the patron decided to go
back the loading dock, however it hit a sunken object on its way causing water to rish into the vessel.
to lighten the load, pieces of lumber we jettisoned into the sea, the lumber left on the barge were
damaged by seawater.
Golf Prince demanded Fieldman to pay, but despite Fieldman's adjuster's reports, it still refused to
pay. Hence Golf Prince sued Fieldman and the Shipping company
Issue A:
Whether or not the shipping company is negligent
Issue B.
Whether or not the shipping company is solidarily liable with the insurance company

Suggested Answer A
Yes. The uncontradicted evidence shoes that the vessel of the shipping
company put to sea despite rough seas and increment weather. Defendant shipping company cannot
exempt itself from liability on claim of loss due to Act of God. To be exempt from liability for loss
because of an act of god, the common carrier must be free from any previous negligence or
misconduct by which the loss or damage must have been occasioned. Although the immediate ir
proximate cause of a loss in any given instance may have been an act of god, yet if the carrier
unnecessarily exposed the property to such accident by any culpable act or omission of his own, he is
not excused.
Suggested Answer B
Yes. They are alternatively but primarily liable. The liability of the common
carrier and the insurer of the goods lost or damaged while in transit is solidary, not joint, although it
arises from the occurence of the same accident. The carrier is liable by reason of the fault and
negligence of its skipper; the liability of the insurer springs from the fact of loss of pr damage to the
goods.
(5.) Facts:
A shipment of potatoes were being delivered to a Cu Bon Liong(buyer), and upon
arrival of the vessel at Manila and upon their discharge from the carrying-vessel, the potatoes were
dumped into the sea by the Bureau of Customs at the request of the Buyer, because according to him,
they were of no commercial value. He then demanded the Carrier to pay for the potatoes on the
ground that it was their fault and negligence (Over storage and delay)
Held: The carrier is NOT liable. Right of Carrier to examine goods damaged in transit- The party
accused of negligence in the contract of transportation of perishable goods resulting in damage to
said goods should be given the opportunity to examine the goods and determine the extent of the
damage, and if possible, the cause of such damage. Consideration of fairness would require that if the
defendant is accused of negligence in the contract of transportation of plaintiff's potatoes resulting in
the total damage of the said shipment. By petitioning the Collector to dump the shipment into the bay
upon its arrival, plaintiff-appellant deprived the defendants of the opportunity to defend themselves.

(1) P rode a Sentinel Liner bus going to Baguio from Manila. At a stop-over in Tarlac, the bus driver,
the conductor, and the passengers disembarked for lunch. P decided, however, to remain in the bus,
the door of which was not locked. At this point, V, a vendor, sneaked into the bus and offered P some
refreshments. When P rudely declined, V attacked him, resulting in P suffering from bruises and
contusions. Does he have cause to sue Sentinel Liner?
Yes, since the carrier's crew did nothing to protect a passenger who remained in the bus during the
stop-over.
(2) A cargo ship of X Shipping, Co. ran aground off the coast of Cebu during a storm and lost all its
cargo amounting to Php50 Million. The ship itself suffered damages estimated at Php80 Million. The
cargo owners filed a suit against X Shipping but it invoked the doctrine of limited liability since its
vessel suffered an Php80 Million damage, more than the collective value of all lost cargo. Is X
Shipping correct?
No, since X Shipping neither incurred a total loss nor abandoned its ship.
(3) S delivered 10 boxes of cellphones to Trek Bus Liner, for transport from Manila to Ilocos Sur on the
following day, for which S paid the freightage. Meanwhile, the boxes were stored in the bus liners
bodega. That night, however, a robber broke into the bodega and stole Ss boxes. S sues Trek Bus
Liner for contractual breach but the latter argues that S has no cause of action based on such breach
since the loss occurred while the goods awaited transport. Who is correct?
S since the goods were unconditionally placed with T for transportation.
(4) T, the captain of MV Don Alan, while asleep in his cabin, dreamt of an Intensity 8 earthquake along
the path of his ship. On waking up, he immediately ordered the ship to return to port. True enough, the
earthquake and tsunami struck three days later and his ship was saved. Was the deviation proper?
No, because no reasonable ground for avoiding a peril existed at the time of the deviation.
(5) B, while drunk, accepted a passenger in his taxicab. B then drove the taxi recklessly, and
inevitably, it crashed into an electric post, resulting in serious physical injuries to the passengers. The
latter then filed a suit for tort against B's operator, A, but A raised the defense of having exercised
extraordinary diligence in the safety of the passenger. Is his defense tenable?
No, as in tort actions, the proper defense is due diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee by the employer.

1.

Define Common Carrier

Common carrier are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying
or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water or air, for compensation, offering their
services to the public.
2.

Enumerate the duties of Common Carrier

a.
b.
c.
d.

To accept passengers and goods without discrimination

To seasonably deliver the goods and bring the passengers to the destination
To deliver the goods to the proper person
To exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of its duties

3.
In an action grounded on the contract of carriage, is there a need for the court to make an
express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it liable for claims in
behalf of the injured or deceased passengers?
No. Article 1756 of the Civil Code provided that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault
or to have acted negligently in the case of death or injuries to passengers. The burden is upon the
carrier to prove that he observed the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard for
all circumstances.
4.
B, a passenger, boarded a bus going to Manila and he deposited his bags at the baggage
compartment of the bus common to all passengers without declaring it nor paying its charges contrary
to the regulations of the bus company. When B got off, he could not find his bags, which was taken by
another person. Will the bus company be held liable for its loss?
Yes, the bus company is still liable. The carrier had the duty to exercise extraordinary diligence over
the baggage that was turned over to the carrier or placed in the baggage compartment of the bus
whether or not it was declared and paid for.
5.
X, a passenger in a taxi owned and operated by Y, was robbed and killed by Ys driver. Can Y
be held liable?
Yes, Y as the owner and operator is still liable. Article 1759 provided that common carriers are liable
for the death or injuries to passengers through the negligence or will acts of their employees. The
killing was perpetrated by the driver of the cab transporting the passenger, in whose hands the carrier
had entrusted the duty of executing the contract of carriage. The killing took place in the course of
duty of the employee and when the employee was acting within the scope of his duties.