TRANSPORTATION LAW

Course Syllabus

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMON CARRIERS

1. TRANSPORTATION IN GENERAL

Transportation as a component of “Public Utilities” and Public Service”

 13 (b), Commonwealth At No. 146, or The Public Service Law ( of 1936),

as last amended by Republic Act No.2677

1. National Power Corp. v. CA, 345 Phil. 9 [1997]

1. PUBLIC UTILITIES

Constitutional provision on public utilities

 Sec. 11, Art, XII, 1987 Constitution

2. Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551, July 11, 1989

 Sec. 17, Art, XII, 1987 Constitution

3. Agan, Jr.v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., Gr.R. No.150011,
May 5, 2003

What constitutes a public utility?

 Sec. 18 and 19, Art, XII, 1987 Constitution

4. The Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Company V. Public Utility Board, G.R No. L-
19857. March 2, 1923, 44 Phil.551

5. Tatad b. Garia, Jr., G.R No. 114222, April 6, 1995

Power to grant licenses or Franchise to operate public utilities

6. Pangasinan Transporation, Inc. v. The public Service Commission, G.R. No.

47065. June 26, 1940; 70 Phil 221

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY

DISTINGUISHED FROM CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE

1
 7. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, G.R No. 119528. March
26, 1997

1. COMMON CARRIERS AND CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE

Contact of transportation or Contract of carriage defined

Contract of carriage imbued with public interest

 1755, Civil Code).

8. Air France V. Carrascoso, G.R. No. Np. L021438, Sept 28, 1966; 18 SCRA
155

9. Singson v. CA, G.R No. 119995 Nov. 18,1997

Parties to contracts of carriage of goods and of passengers

Carrier defined

Classifications of carriers

Private or Special carrier

10.Sps. Pereña v. Sps. Zarate, G.R. No. 157917. Aug, 29, 2012

11.National Steel Corp.v. G.R. No. 112287. Dec. 12,1997;347 Phil. 345

Common of Public Carriers

 1732, Civil Code

Elements of a common carrier

Test for determining a common carrier

No legal distinction as to means of transporting; pipeline operator is a common

carrier

12. First Philippine Industrial Corp. V. CA, G.R. No.125948. Dec 29, 1998

Common carriers may have no regular schedule or clients, fixed routes, terminals
or tickets

12.Asia Lighterage and Shipping Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. 147246, Aug, 19, 2003

Common carrier may have no regular schedule or clients, fixed routes, terminals or
tickets

2
 13.Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc., v. CA, G.R NO. 147246, Aug. 19, 2003

Common carriers bout to serve all and liable for refusal to son serve without
sufficient reason

No distinction made by law between common carriages as a principal or ancillary

Activity

14.De Guzman v. CA, G.R NO.L-47822. Dec 22, 1988

Distinction between a common carrier and a private carrier

Laws governing domestic, inter-island and coastwise transportation

Liability of a common carrier, extraordinary diligence

 1733,,Civil Code

 1734, 1735 and 1745, Numbers 5,6 and 7, Civil Code

Observance of extraordinary diligence in the carriage of goods

15.Gatchalian v, Delim, G.R NO. 56487, Oct. 21, 1991; 203 SCRA 126

When Liability of common carrier starlets in transport of passengers

16.Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R No. 84458 Nov. 6. 1989

When liability of common carrier commences in transport of goods

Requisites of extraordinary diligence in carriages by land and by sea

17.Trans_Asia Shipping v. CA, G.R No. 118126 March 4, 1996

18.Negros Navigation v. Ca, G.R. No. 110398. Nov. 7, 1997

Liabilities of a common carrier for breach of contract

Defenses in culpa contractual

 1762, Civil, Code

Burden of proof in cases of contributory negligence

Damages recoverable for death of a passenger

19.Briñas v. People, G.R. No. L-30309. Nov. 25, 1983

Causes exempting the common carrier from responsibility

3
  1734, Civil Code

Distinction between an action to enforce liability of the employer of the negligent

driver under Article 103 of the Revised Penal code and an action based on quasi.
Delict under the civil Code

Liability of common carrier for moral damages

20.China Airlines, Ltd. V. IAC, G.R. No. 73835. Jan 17, 1989

Common carriers generally presumed to have been at fault or to have acted

negligently

21.Bascos v. CA, G.R NO. 101089, April 7 1993

Arts 1734, and 17345, Civil Code

When presumption of negligence arises; how presumption overcame; when

presumption made absolute

Presumption of fault or negligence of common carrier rebuttable

22.Pilapil v. CA,G.R. No. 52159. Dec, 22, 1989, 180 SCRA 546

Exemptions to the application of presumption of faulty or negligence

Philippine American General Insurance Co, Inc. v, MGG Marine Services, Inc G.R
No. 135645 March 8, 2002

Arts. 1740, 1742 and 1743 Civil Code

23.Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. L-48757, May 30, 1988

24.Southern Lines v. CA, G.R No. L-16629. Jan. 31, 1962, 4SCRA258

25.Tavacalera Insurrance Co. v. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No.

119197. May 16, 1997, 272 SCRA 527

Accidents due to mechanical defects of carrier not fortuitous events

26.Sweet Lines, Inc. v. CA, G.R No. L-46320 April 29, 1983

27.Juntilla v. Fontanar, G.R. No. L-45637, May 31, 1985

28.Vergara v. CA, G.R No. 77679, Sept. 30, 1987

4
Fire not considered as a natural disaster or calamity

29.Africa v. Caltex [Phil], Inc., C.R No. L-12986 March 31,1966; 16 SCRA 448

 1734, Civil Code

 4, COGSA

30.Servando v. Philippine Steam Navigation Co., G.R. No. L-36481, Oct. 23.

1982

Typhoon or storm deemed fortuitous event; exception

31.Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. Ca, G.R. No. L-47851. Oct. 3, 1986; 144 CRA 596

32.Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. IAC, G.R NO. 74387-90. Nov. 14,

1988; 167 SCRA 379

33.Valenzuela v. CA, G.R No. 115024, Feb 7, 21996; 253 CRA 303

34.Arada c. CA, G.R. No. 982543, July, 1, 1992

Stipulations in a contract of carriage deemed as unreasonable, unjust and contrary

to public policy

 1745, Civil Code

Acts of stranger that would divest a common carrier of his/its duty of extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried.

 1745, par, (6) Civil Code

Liability of carrier for acts of robbers

Duty of carrier to keep the vessel seaworthy

Rules regarding a carrier’s liability for delay in delivery of goods

35. Saludo, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992

Liability for delay in the transportation of goods

 1170, 1740, 1747 and 1748, Civil Code);

 

5
Certificate of Public Convenience not a requisite for incurring of liability as
a common carrier

Grounds for refusal by common carrier to carry certain goods must be

reasonable
 
36. C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R. No. L-8095. March 31,
1915
 
Presumption of negligence of common carriers; how overcome
 
 1735 and 1752, Civil Code

37. Compania Maritima v. CA, G.R. No. L-31379, 29 Aug. 1988, 164 SCRA
685
 
Reasons for the requirement of extraordinary diligence
 
Principles on the liability of a common carrier
 
38. Isaac v. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-9671. Aug. 23,
1957
 
Periods when the liability of a common carrier begins and ceases
 
 1736 and 1738, Civil Code

 619 of the Code of Commerce

39. Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. v. Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc. G.R.
No. 165647. March 26, 2009

To whom goods must be delivered

 
 1736, Civil Code
 
Parties may agree to relieve carrier from liability while goods are in
custom’s custody
 
40. Lu Do & Lu Ym Corp. v. Binamira, G.R. No. L-9840. April 22, 1957
 
Rule as to unloading, storage and stoppage in transitu
 
Implied warranty of seaworthiness of ships as common carriers
 
41. Caltex [Philippines], Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 131166. Sept.
30, 1999; 374 Phil. 325
 
Passenger defined

6
 
Persons not deemed as passengers
 
42. Lara v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-9907. June 30, 1958
 
Defenses of a common carrier in the carriage of goods
 
 1734, Civil Code

43. Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 104685. March 14, 1996
 
Caso fortuito defined; characteristics; exempting circumstances
 
44. Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 661

45. Republic of the Philippines v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., G.R. No. L-

21749. Sept. 29, 1967; 128 Phil. 313, citing Art. 1179, Civil Code

46. Metal Forming Corp.. v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 111386. Aug.
28, 1995; 317 Phil. 853

 1740, Civil Code

 1734, Civil Code

 4, COGSA

47. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69044 and L-71478, May
29, 1987, 150 SCRA 463

48. La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Co. v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-21486. May
14, 1966; 123 Phil. 875
 
Defense of negligence of the shipper or owner
 
 1741, Civil Code

 
Proximate cause defined
 
49. Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corp., G.R. No. 184905. Aug. 28, 2009, 597 SCRA
526
 
Character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers
 
 1742, Civil Code

50. Southern Lines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L-16629. Jan. 31, 1962; 4 SCRA 258
 

7
Order or act of competent public authority
 
 1743, Civil Code

51. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. L-48757. May 30, 1988; 161 SCRA 646
 
Liability of a common carrier for the death of or injuries to passengers due
to the acts of its employees, other passengers or strangers
 
 1762, Civil Code

 1764, Civil Code

 
Basis of carrier’s liability
 
52. Maranan v. Perez, G.R. No. L-22272. June 26, 1967
 
Doctrine of respondeat superior
 
 1759, Civil Code

53. Manila Railroad Company v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. L-19161. April 29,
1966; 16 SCRA 641

 1763, Civil Code

 48 (b), Motor Vehicle Law or Republic Act No. 4136

 
Degree of diligence required of common carriers for willful acts of
strangers
 
 1763, Civil Code
 
Causes of liability of common carriers
 
Duration of the liability of the common carrier in a contract of carriage of
goods
 
 1736, 1737 and 1738, Civil Code
 
Periods within which the common carrier in a contract of carriage of
passengers may be held liable
 
54. Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad, G.R. No. 145804. Feb. 6, 2003

55. Del Prado v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-29462. March 7, 1929; 52
Phil. 900
 
Duty of common carriers to afford passengers the opportunity to board
safely

8
 
56. Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 95582. Oct. 7, 1991; 202
SCRA 574
 
Person attempting to board a common carrier already considered a
passenger
 
Passenger must be allowed a reasonable time to leave the carrier’s
premises
 
57. La Mallorca v. CA, G.R. No. L‐ July 27, 1966
 
Presumption of negligence
 
 1735, Civil Code
 
Rationale for the presumption
           
58. Mirasol v. The Robert Dollar Co., G.R. No. L-29721. March 27, 1929).
59. Coastwise Lighterage Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 114167. July 12, 1995
 1755, Civil Code
 
Burden of proof falls on carrier to prove extraordinary diligence
 
Defenses to overcome presumption of fault or negligence
 
 1734, 1735 and 1736, Civil Code
 
Valid stipulations in contracts of carriage of goods
 
 1744, Civil Code

 1748, 1749 and 1750, Civil Code

 1744, Art. 1745, No. 4, Civil Code

 1758, Civil Code

 
Void stipulations in contracts of carriage of goods
 
 1745, Civil Code

 1733, 1755 and 1757, Civil Code

 
Rules on checked-in baggage
 
 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, Civil Code
 
Rule in case of non‐paying passengers or if the fare is reduced
 758, Civil Code

9
Concurring causes of action
 1759, Civil Code.

60. Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil. 768

 2180, Civil Code

 826-939, Code of Commerce

61. Martinez v. Barredo, G.R. No. L-49308. May 13, 1948; 81 Phil. 1

 102 and 103, Revised Penal Code

62. Viluan v. CA, G.R. No. L-21477-81. April 29, 1966

63. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 8896. Dec. 29, 1913; 56 Phil. 177
 
Stipulations limiting the liability of the carrier in a bill of lading

64. E. Heacock Company v. Macondray & Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-16598.
Oct. 3, 1921; 42 Phil.
205

65. Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. v. Gabino Barretto & Co., Ltd., G.R. No. L-28028.
Nov. 25, 1927; 51 Phil. 90

When a stipulation limiting common carrier’s liability may be annulled by

the shipper or owner
 
 1746 and 1747, Civil Code
 
When the limitation of the amount of liability is valid
 
 1750, Civil Code
 
CHAPTER II
THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW
 
1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ITS FUNCTIONS
 
 Commonwealth Act No. 146 enacted on November 7, 1936

 1 and 2, C.A. No. 146

 
Jurisdiction and powers of the Public Service Commission
 
 13[a], C.A. No. 146
 
Public service

10
 
 13[b], C.A. No. 146

 
PUBLIC CHARACTER AND INTEREST NOT NUMBER OF PEOPLE SERVED
DETERMINATIVE OF PUBLIC UTILITY OR SERVICE
 
66. Luzon Stevedoring Company, Inc. v. The Public Service Commission,
G.R. No. L-5458. Sept. 16, 1953
 
PUBLIC UTILITY DEFINED
 
67. JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 124293. Sept. 24, 2003
 
STATUTORY DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY ABANDONED
 
68. JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, Id.; Tinga, J., Sep. Op.
 
PUBLIC USE
 
69. Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. v. Public Utility Board, G.R. No. L-19857.
March 2, 1923; 44 Phil. 551
 
EXEMPTED SERVICES
 
 13, Public Service Act or C.A. No. 146, as amended

 14, C.A. No. 146, as amended by C.A. No. 454, R.A. Nos. 2031 and 2677
 
WHY SHIPYARDS ARE NOT DEEMED AS PUBLIC UTILITIES; DEFINITION
 
 13 (b), C.A. No. 146

 15, C.A. No. 146

 1(d), P.D. No. 666 reads:

70. Mecano v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 103982. Dec. 11, 1992; 216
SCRA 500

 20 of B.P. Blg. 391 expressly and categorically repealed the whole of Sec.
1 of P.D. No. 666.

 O. No. 226 (law) dated July 16, 1987

 
Other service not deemed as public utilities
 
1. Automobile and aircraft manufacturers
 
2. Oil company

11
 
 A. No. 387, otherwise known as the Petroleum Act of 1949

 Act No. 3108 and C.A. No. 146 included oil in the definition of public
utility

 A. Nos. 146 and 454, R.A. Nos. 1270 and 2677 covered petroleum.
 
3. Wharf or dock
 
71. Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551. July 11, 1989; 175 SCRA 264
 
4. Operator of trucks
 
72. United States v. Tan Piaco, G.R. No. L-15122. March 10, 1920; 40 Phil.
853
Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended
 
5. Owner and lessor of equipment and facilities for a rail system
 
73. Tatad v. Garcia, G.R. No. 114222. April 6, 1995; 243 SCRA 436
Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended
 
6. Ice plant
 
74. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc. v. John Bordman, G.R. No. L-
43668. March 31, 1938; 65 Phil. 401
 
7. Others included in the definition of public utilities
 
Public utility determined not by law but by courts
 
 1, R.A. No. 2677, amending Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended
75. North Negros Sugar Co. v. Hidalgo, G.R. No. L-42334. Oct. 31, 1936; 63
Phil. 664
 
1. FRANCHISE FOR PUBLIC SERVICES
 
Franchise defined
 
Franchise as a legislative grant
 
Congress has no exclusive authority to issue franchises
 
 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
 
Public Service Commission abolished and replaced
 
Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) or Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) defined

12
 
76. Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. Public Service Commission, G.R.
No. 47065. June 26, 1940; 70 Phil. 221

77. Luque v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-22545. Nov. 28, 1969; 30 SCRA 408

 14 of the Public Service Act (C.A. No. 146)

 15, par. 1, C.A. No. 146

 
CPC INCLUDED IN THE TERM “PROPERTY”
 
78. Raymundo v. Luneta Motor Co., G.R. No. L-39902, L-39903. Nov. 29,
1933; 58 Phil. 889
 
CONDITIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CPC OR CPCN
 
 1, Sec. 15, C.A. No. 146, as amended
 15, par. 2, C.A. No. 146, as amended
 
REQUISITES FOR THE GRANT OF CPC OR CPCN
 
79. Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 115381. Dec.
23, 1994
 
OTHER APPLICATIONS OF THE CPC OR CPCN
 
 15, par. 4, C.A. No. 146, as amended
 
LAW NOT THE TITLE IN CERTIFICATE THAT DETERMINES THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH CERTIFICATE
 
UNLAWFUL ACTS OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANIES
 
 18 and 19, C.A. No. 146, amended
 
PRIOR OPERATOR RULE OR OLD OPERATOR RULE
 
80. Halili v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-21061. June 27, 1968; 23 SCRA 1174
 
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRIOR OPERATOR RULE
 
PRIOR APPLICANT RULE

THIRD OPERATOR RULE

 
81. Yangco v. Esteban, G.R. No. 38586. Aug. 18, 1933

13
 
PROTECTION OF INVESTMENT RULE
 
82. Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes, G.R. No. L-28865. Dec. 19,
1928; 52 Phil., 455

83. Tiongson v. Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-24701. Dec. 16, 1970
 
CHAPTER III
COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS FOR TRANSPORTATION
 
1. CODE OF COMMERCE PROVISIONS AND CONCEPTS
 
RELEVANT CODE OF COMMERCE PROVISIONS AND SCOPE OF THEIR
APPLICATION
 
 349 to 379, Code of Commerce
 
CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION; WHEN DEEMED COMMERCIAL
 
 349, Code of Commerce
 
BILL OF LADING DEFINED

84. Bus Company v. The Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-14078.
Feb. 24, 1961
 
LADING DEFINED
 
TWO-FOLD CHARACTER OF A BILL OF LADING
 
FUNCTIONS OF THE BILL OF LADING
 
KINDS OF BILLS OF LADING
 
85. Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 95529. Aug.
22, 1991
 
BILL OF LADING NOT INDISPENSABLE TO CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE

86. Compañia Maritima v. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No. L-

18965. Oct. 30, 1964
 
WHEN LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER COMMENCES
 
DETERMINATION OF INDEMNITY IF NOT STIPULATED
 
 370, Code of Commerce
 
BILL OF LADING AS A CONTRACT OF ADHESION

14
 
87. Philippine Commercial International Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 97785. March
29, 1996; 325 Phil. 588
 
EFFECT OF ACCEPTANCE OF A BILL OF LADING SANS OBJECTION
 
CONTRACT AMBIGUITIES HOW CONSTRUED
 
 1377, Civil Code
88. Power Commercial and Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 119745. June 20,
1997; 274 SCRA 597
 
INSTANCES WHEN CONSIGNEE IS BOUND BY THE BILL OF LADING
 
89. Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 75118. Aug. 31, 1987; 237 Phil.
531
 1311[2], Civil Code
90. Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., G.R. No. L-3678. Feb. 29, 1952; 90
Phil 836
 
DUTIES OF THE CARRIER
 
CARRIER’S OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT THE GOODS
 
91. C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R. No. L-8095. March 31,
1915
 
WHEN A COMMON CARRIER MAY LAWFULLY DECLINE TO ACCEPT THE
GOODS
 
CARRIER NOT ABSOLUTELY OBLIGED TO ACCEPT A CARGO
 
92. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 119706. March 14, 1996
 
CARRIER’S DUTY TO DELIVER THE GOODS
 
PERIOD OF DELIVERY OF GOODS
 
 358, Code of Commerce

 370, Code of Commerce

 
EFFECTS OF DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF THE GOODS
 
 1740, Civil Code

 1747, Civil Code

 
INSTANCES WHEN THE CONSIGNEE MAY REFUSE TO RECEIVE THE
GOODS

15
 
 363, 365 and 371, Code of Commerce
 
CLAIM FOR DAMAGE, WHEN AND HOW MADE
 
 366, Code of Commerce

93. New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Choa Joy, G.R. No. L-7311. Sept. 30,
1955
 
WHEN CLAIM FOR DAMAGE MAY NO LONGER BE ADMITTED
 
 366, Code of Commerce, pars. 1 and 2
 
EFFECTS OF PAYING THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES
 
 366, Code of Commerce
 
RATIONALE FOR THE REQUISITE PERIOD OF GIVING NOTICE OF CLAIM
 
94. Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 87434. Aug. 5, 1992; 212 SCRA 194
 
24-HOUR CLAIM A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO AN ACTION AGAINST
CARRIER
 
95. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. v. Chemoil Lighterage Corp., G.R.
No. 136888. June 29, 2005
 
PATENT DAMAGE VIS-À-VIS LATENT DAMAGE
 
RULES ON CLAIM DO NOT APPLY TO UNDELIVERED GOODS
 
96. Roldan v. Lim Ponzo & Co., G.R. No. L-11325. Dec. 7, 1917
 
SHORTER PERIOD MAY VALIDLY BE STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES
 
APPLICATION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
 
DOCTRINE OF COMBINED OR CONNECTING SERVICES
 
 373, Code of Commerce
 
Special right of carrier over the goods transported and prescription of
action to enforce such right
 
 375, Code of Commerce
 
CHAPTER IV
LAND TRANSPORTATION

16
 
1. GOVERNING LAWS
 
 Republic Act No. 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code –
June 20, 1964

 Republic Act No. 6374;

 Presidential Decree No. 98;

 Presidential Decree No.109;

 Presidential Decree No. 843;

 Presidential Decree No. 896;

 Presidential Decree No.1057;

 Presidential Decree No.1958;

 Batas Pambansa Blg. 43;

 Batas Pambansa Blg. 74;

 Batas Pambansa Blg. 398;

 Republic Act No. 8750;

 Republic Act No. 10586 or the “Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of
2013;” and

 Other laws which expressly or impliedly modified some of its provisions.

 
1. IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES AND BODIES
 
1. THE LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (LTO)
 
 Book IV, Title XV, Chapter 1, Sec. 2, Administrative Code of 1987).

 4 (d) [1], Art. III, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

 27, Land Transportation and Traffic Code or R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
DRIVER’S LICENSE ISSUED BY THE LTO
 
SPECIFIC POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE LTO
 
 4 (d) [1], Art. III, R.A. No. 4136, as amended,
 

17
2. THE LAND TRANSPORTATION, FRANCHISING AND
REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB)

 O. No. 202, dated 19 June 1987

97. Land Transportation Office v. Butuan, G.R. No. 131512. Jan. 20, 2000
 
“TO REGULATE” AND “TO REGISTER” CONSTRUED
 
KEY POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE LTFRB
 
 O. No. 202, s. 1987
 
3. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (LGUS)
 
POWER TO REGULATE THE OPERATION AND GRANT FRANCHISES TO
TRICYCLES DEVOLVED TO LGUS
 
 458. R.A. No. 7160
 
RATIONALE FOR THE DEVOLUTION
 
LTO POWERS ON VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND DRIVERS’ LICENSING
NOT DEVOLVED TO LGUS
 
4. THE METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(MMDA)
 
MMDA’S POWER TO ENFORCE TRAFFIC LAWS IN METRO MANILA
 
 5(f), Republic Act No. 7924
 
1. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ROAD USERS
 
98. Caminos, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 147437. May 8, 2009
 
DUTY OF DRIVERS TO HAVE LICENSE
 
 19, R.A. No. 4136, as amended by B.P. Blg. 398
 
RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUED
 
RIGHT OF WAY RULE IN INTERSECTIONS
 
 42, R.A. No. 4136
 
DUTY TO YIELD
 
RULE DETERMINED BY IMMINENCE OF COLLISION
 

18
CROSSING A THRU-STOP STREET
 
99. Adzuara v. CA, G.R. No. 125134. Jan. 22, 1999; 301 SCRA 657
 
DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF HIGHWAY
 
 37, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
OVERTAKING A VEHICLE
 
 39, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
DRIVER TO GIVE WAY TO OVERTAKING VEHICLE
 
 40, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
TURNING RIGHT OR LEFT AT INTERSECTIONS
 
 45[a] and [b], R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
PARKING PROHIBITED IN SPECIFIED PLACES
 
 46, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
HITCHING TO A VEHICLE PROHIBITED
 
 51, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
OBSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC
 
 54, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
PROHIBITED ACTS SPECIFICALLY PENALIZED UNDER R.A. NO. 4136
 
RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS
 
 19 of R.A. No. 10586 expressly modified Sec. 56(f) of R.A. No. 4136

 22, RPC, in relation to Sec. 3(e), RA 10586

 
1. RECKLESS DRIVING AND ROAD ACCIDENTS
 
RECKLESS DRIVING AND RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
 
 48, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
IMPRUDENCE DEFINED
 
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO PROPERTY;
ELEMENTS

19
 
PRESUMPTION OF IMPRUDENT DRIVING; BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE
ACCUSED
 
WHEN MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR AT FAULT MAY BE HELD
CRIMINALLY LIABLE
 
 56[n], R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
NEGLIGENCE OF OTHER PARTY NOT A DEFENSE IN RECKLESS DRIVING
CASE
 
INSTANCE WHEN PRESUMPTION OF DRIVER’S NEGLIGENCE ARISES
 
 2185, Civil Code
 
RATE OF SPEED A BASIC FACTOR IN DETERMINING RECKLESS DRIVING
 
RESTRICTION AS TO SPEED
 
 35[a], R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
REASONABLE RATE OF SPEED
 
100. Gabriel v. CA, G.R. No. 128474. Oct. 6, 2004; 440 SCRA 136
 35, R.A. No. 4136

 
SWERVING PER SE NOT VIOLATIVE OF TRAFFIC LAW
 
 48, R.A. No. 4136
101. Sydeco v. People, G.R. No. 202692. Nov. 12, 2014
 
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL
 
 5, R.A. No. 10586
 3(g), IRR of R.A. No. 10586
 
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AND OTHER
SIMILAR SUBSTANCE
 
 3[f], R.A. No. 10586

 
CONDUCT OF FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS
 
 6, R.A. No. 10586

 3[g], R.A. No. 10586

20
 
USE OF BREATH ANALYZER
 
 3[b], R.A. No. 10586
 
CHEMICAL AND CONFIRMATORY TESTS
 
 3[c], R.A. No. 10586
 
MANDATORY ALCOHOL AND CHEMICAL TESTING OF DRIVERS
INVOLVED IN MOTOR VEHICULAR ACCIDENTS
 
 7, R.A. No. 10586
 
REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO MANDATORY TESTS
 
 6, 7, 8 and 15, R.A. No. 10586
 
CHILDREN PROHIBITED FROM SITTING IN FRONT SEAT
 
 5, R.A. No. 8750
 
DUTY OF DRIVER IN CASE OF ACCIDENT
 
 55, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
1. ARRESTS AND SEARCHES
 
WHEN REFUSAL TO GET OFF OF THE VEHICLE FOR A BODY AND
VEHICLE SEARCH NOT DEEMED AS SERIOUS DISOBEDIENCE TO A
LAWFUL ORDER
 
102. Abenes v. CA, G.R. No. 156320. Feb. 14, 2007; 515 SCRA 690

 151, Revised Penal Code

 
REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME THAT WOULD JUSTIFY STOP-AND-
FRISK ACTION
 
103. People v. Sy Chua, G.R. No. 136066-67. Feb. 4, 2003; 444 Phil. 757
 
GENERAL RULE IS CONFISCATION OF DRIVER’S LICENSE NOT ARREST
 
 29. R.A. 4136

 
NO WARRANT OF ARREST TO BE ISSUED FOR OFFENSE PENALIZED
ONLY BY FINE; EFFECT OF ISSUANCE OF TRAFFIC CITATION TICKET
 
104. Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788. Feb. 29, 2012

21
 
REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID ARREST
 
105. Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-61016. April 26, 1983; 206 Phil. 466
 
INVALID ARREST DOES NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCH
 
106. People v. Bolasa, G.R. No. 125754. Dec. 22, 1999; 378 Phil. 1073
 
EVIDENCE SEIZED NOT IN PLAIN VIEW
 
107. People v. Macalaba, G.R. No. 146284-86. Jan. 20, 2003; 443 Phil. 565
 
CONSENTED WARRANTLESS SEARCH
 
108. Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 136292. Jan. 15, 2002; 424 Phil. 263
 
INADMISSIBILITY OF ARTICLES SEIZED DURING ILLEGAL ARREST
 
109. People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366. Dec. 13, 2010
 
1. MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND FRANCHISING
 
MOTOR VEHICLE DEFINED
 
COMPULSORY REGISTRATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
 
 5(a) and (e), R.A. No. 4136, as amended
 
UNREGISTERED SALE OR LEASE OF MOTOR VEHICLE NOT BINDING ON
THIRD PERSONS INJURED IN VEHICULAR ACCIDENTS
 
110. First Malayan Leasing and Finance Corp. v. CA, R. No. 91378. June 9,
1992; 209 SCRA 660

111. Roxas v. CA,R. No. 92245. June 26, 1991; 198 SCRA 541

112. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R.
No. 162267. July 4, 2008
 
NATURE OF MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES: TAXES OR
REGULATORY FEES
 
113. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Edu, G.R. No. L- 41383. Aug. 15, 1988
 
MANDATORY EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
 
 46, R.A. No. 8749 or the Clean Air Act of 1999

22
SEAT BELT DEVICE DEFINED
 
 3, R.A. No. 8750
 
MANDATORY USE AND PROVISION OF SEAT BELTS IN CERTAIN MOTOR
VEHICLES
 
 4, R.A. No. 8750
 
PENALTIES AND FINES FOR VIOLATION OF THE SEAT BELTS USE ACT
 
 12, R.A. No. 8750
 
PERMANENT NUMBER PLATES
 
 17, R.A. No. 4136, as amended by B.P. Blg. 43
 
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE ISSUED BY LTFRB
 
FRANCHISE DEFINED
 
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY CONSTRUED
 
PUBLIC HEARING AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT IN ISSUANCE OF
CPC
 
114. Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes, G.R. No. L-28865. Dec. 19,
1928; 52 Phil., 455
115. Manila Electric Company v. Pasay Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-
37655. Feb. 9, 1933; 57 Phil. 825
 
REQUISITES FOR THE GRANT OF CPC
 
 16(a), C.A. No. 146, as amended
 
LTFRB CANNOT REDELEGATE ITS DELEGATED POWER TO A COMMON
CARRIER
 
116. United States v. Barrias, G.R. No. 4349. Sept. 24, 1908; 11 Phil. 327
 
KABIT SYSTEM
 
117. Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 57493. Jan. 7, 1987; 147 SCRA 82
 1409, Civil Code
118. Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 125817. Jan. 16, 2002
 
PURPOSE BEHIND THE PROSCRIPTION AGAINST THE KABIT SYSTEM
 
KABIT SYSTEM NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BUT VOID UNDER CIVIL law
 

23
 1412, Civil Code

119. Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 64693. April 27, 1984

 
BOUNDARY SYSTEM
 
120. Paguio Transport Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 119500. Aug. 28, 1998
 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE AND THE
DRIVER UNDER A “BOUNDARY SYSTEM”
 
121. Jardin v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119268. Feb.
23, 2000

122. National Labor Union v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-14183. Nov. 4, 1993
 
EFFECT OF TRANSFER OR LEASE OF FRANCHISE
 
123. Montoya v. Ignacio, G.R. No. L-5868. Dec. 29, 1953; 94 Phil. 182
 
REGISTERED OWNER LIABLE DESPITE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF
VEHICLE
 
124. Perez v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. L-30115. Sept. 28, 1973; 53 SCRA 149
125. Benedicto v. IAC, G.R. No. 70876. July 19, 1990
 
APPROVAL OF SALE, ENCUMBRANCE OR LEASE OF PROPERTY
 
 DOTC Order No. 2010‐34
 
SALE OR LEASE OF FRANCHISE REQUIRES PRIOR APPROVAL BY LTFRB
 
PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE SALE, LEASE OR ENCUMBRANCE OF
PROPERTY NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO VALIDITY OF CONTRACT
 
126. Fores v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-12163. March 4, 1959
 
SOLIDARY LIABILITY OF A REGISTERED OWNER/OPERATOR OF A
PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLE
 
127. Gelisan v. Alday, G.R. No. L-30212. Sept. 30, 1987
 
CHAPTER V

MARINE TRANSPORTATION
 
1. MARINE TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME LAWS

24
 
MARINE TRANSPORTATION DEFINED
 
GOVERNING LAW
 
ADMIRALTY OR MARITIME LAW
 
ADMIRALTY LAW DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE LAW OF THE SEA
 
1. THE KEY ACTORS IN MARITIME COMMERCE
1. THE SHIP OWNER AND SHIP AGENT
 
 Art. 586, Code of Commerce and 1, R.A. No. 9515
 
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF A SHIP AGENT
 
CIVIL LIABILITIES OF THE SHIP OWNER AND SHIP AGENT
 
 Art. 587, Code of Commerce
 
AUTHORITY OF THE SHIP AGENT TO DISCHARGE THE CAPTAIN AND
MEMBERS OF THE CREW
 
 603 and 605, Code of Commerce
 
2. THE SHIP CAPTAIN AND MASTER OF THE VESSEL
 
128. Yu Con v. Ipil, G.R. No. L-10195. Dec. 29, 1916
 
NATURE OF THE POSITION OF CAPTAIN AND MASTER
 
QUALIFICATIONS OF A CAPTAIN OR MASTER
 
 609, Code of Commerce
 
INHERENT POWERS OF A CAPTAIN OR MASTER
 
 610, Code of Commerce
 
HULL
 
RIGGING
 
FUND SOURCES
 
 611, Code of Commerce
 
DUTIES OF A CAPTAIN OR MASTER
 
 612, Code of Commerce

25
 
 “LOG BOOK” AND ITS CONTENTS
 
“ACCOUNTING BOOK” AND ITS CONTENTS
 
“FREIGHT BOOK” AND ITS CONTENTS
 
SOLIDARY LIABILITY OF THE CAPTAIN AND SHIP AGENT
 
 618, Code of Commerce
 
INSTANCES WHEN THE CAPTAIN INCURS NO LIABILITY
 
 620, Code of Commerce
 
SHIP’S CAPTAIN DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY
 
129. Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 115286. Aug. 11, 1994
 
CAPTAIN CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED WITHOUT SHIP AGENT’S CONSENT
 
 615, Code of Commerce
 
CASES WHEN THE CAPTAIN AND CREW MEMBERS MAY RESCIND THEIR
CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
 
 647, Code of Commerce
 
 THE OFFICERS AND CREW OF THE VESSEL
 
CASES WHEN THE OFFICERS AND CREW ARE EXEMPTED FROM ALL
OBLIGATIONS
 
 647, Code of Commerce
 
SAILING MATE OR FIRST MATE
 
 627, Code of Commerce
 
DUTIES OF A SAILING MATE OR FIRST MATE
 
 628 to 631, Code of Commerce
 
“BINNACLE BOOK” AND ITS CONTENTS
 
 629 to 631, Code of Commerce
 
SECOND MATE
 

26
DUTIES OF A SECOND MATE
 
 632, Code of Commerce
 
MARINE ENGINEERS
 
DUTIES OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER
 
“ENGINE BOOK” AND ITS CONTENTS
 
THE CREW AND ITS COMPOSITION
 
 634, Code of Commerce
 
JUST CAUSES FOR THE DISCHARGE OF A SEAMAN
 
 637, Code of Commerce
 
Rules if a seaman should die or be captured during the voyage
 
 645, Code of Commerce
 
Complement of a vessel
 
 648, Code of Commerce
 
4. Supercargoes
 
 649, Code of Commerce
 
5. The pilot
 
130. Far Eastern Shipping Company v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. Oct. 1, 1998
 
Harbor pilot
 
Pilotage defined
 
Compulsory pilotage
 
Liability of a pilot
 
 11, Art. III, PPA Admin Order 03-85
 
1. IMPORTANT CONCEPTS IN MARITIME COMMERCE
 
Essential terms used in maritime commerce
           
1. Merchant vessel defined
 

27
 D. No. 1521
 
2. Maritime lien
 
131. Philippine National Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 128661. Aug. 8, 2000; 337
SCRA 381
 17 and 21 of P.D. No. 1521 or “The Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978”
 
3. Preferred maritime lien
 
 17 and 21 of P.D. No. 1521
 
4. Doctrine of limited liability or the Limited liability rule
 
 587, Code of Commerce
132. Yangco v. Laserna, G.R. No. L-47447-47449. Oct. 29, 1941; 73 Phil. 330
 
Rationale for the doctrine
 
Doctrine of limited liability; specific applications
 
 587, 590, 643 and 837, Code of Commerce
 
Limited liability rule under the provisions of the Code of Commerce
 
 587, 590 and 837, Book III, Code of Commerce
 
Exceptions to the limited liability rule
 
133. Chua Yek Hong v. IAC, G.R. No. 74811. Sept. 30, 1988
 827, Code of Commerce
 
Abandonment defined
 
 140, Insurance Code, as amended
 
General limitation on abandonment
 
 142, Insurance Code, as amended
 
Abandonment of the vessel; when needed
 
 837, Code of Commerce
134. Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. L-58897. Dec. 3, 1987; 156
SCRA 169
 
Abandonment; how done
 
 145 and 146, Insurance Code, as amended
 

28
Acceptance of abandonment
 
 152 to 155, Insurance Code, as amended
 
Effect of refusal to accept a valid abandonment
 
 156, Insurance Code, as amended
 
Abandonment no longer required when vessel is totally lost
 
 587, 590 and 837, Code of Commerce
135. Vasquez v. CA, G.R. No. L-42926. Sept. 13, 1985; 138 SCRA 553
 
When abandonment becomes ineffectual
 
 144, Insurance Code, as amended
 
Causes justifying resort to abandonment
 
 141, Insurance Code, as amended
 
 Subsidiary liability of the shipowner and agent
 
136. The Philippine Shipping Company v. Vergara, G.R. No. L-1600. June 1,
1906; Phil. 281
 837, Code of Commerce
137. Manila Steamship Co., Inc. v. Abdulhaman, G.R. No. L-9534. Sept. 29,
1956; 100 Phil. 32
 
Limitations on the right of abandonment
 
138. Philippine American General Insurance Company, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
116940. June 11, 1997; 339 Phil. 455
139. Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 110398. Nov. 7, 1997; 346
Phil. 551
 
 Effect of abandonment of vessel and earned freight
 
 587, Code of Commerce
140. Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Ramirez, G.R. No. L-48264.
Feb. 21, 1980; 96 SCRA 297
 
Right of abandonment
 
Extent of liability of the shipowner and ship agent
 
141. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 121833, 130752, 137801. Oct. 17,
2008; 569 SCRA 294).
 
Ship agent defined

29
 
 587, Code of Commerce
 
“No vessel, no liability” rule
 
142. The Government of the Philippine Islands v. The Insular Maritime Co.,
G.R. No. L-21495. March 18, 1924; 45 Phil. 805).
 
Origin of the rule and the rationale for its adoption in maritime law
 
143. Abueg v. San Diego, G.R. No. L-773. Dec. 17, 1946; 77 Phil. 730
 
Real and hypothecary nature of maritime law
 
144. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance
Corp., Ltd., G.R. No. 100446. Jan. 21, 1993; 217 SCRA 359
 
“Real” and “hypothecary” construed
 
145. Rubiso v. Rivera, G.R. No. L-11407. Oct. 30, 1917; 37 Phil. 72
 
Primary governing law on liability of ship owners or agents for total loss or
destruction of the vessel
 
 1732-1766, Civil Code
 587, Code of Commerce
 
1. Package liability limitation
 
1. Causes of revocation of voyage
 
 640, Code of Commerce
Interdiction of commerce
 
Blockade
 
Embargo
 
Order of preference in case of sale of vessel
 
Effect of sale of vessel
 
 17, P.D. No. 1521
 587, Code of Commerce
 687, Id.
 138, Insurance Code
 
1. Participants in maritime commerce
 
1. Charter party

30
 
146. Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., G.R.
No. 119197. May 16, 1997; 272 SCRA 527
 
Charter party as a special contract in maritime commerce
 
Parties to a charter party
 
Kinds of charter party
 
147. Puromines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 91228. March 22, 1993
 
Charter of demise or bareboat
 
Owner pro hac vice
 
Contract of affreightment
 
Kinds of contract of affreightment
 
Time charter
 
148. Litonjua Shipping Company Inc. v. National Seamen Board, G.R. No. L-
51910. Aug. 10, 1989
 
Voyage charter
 
Distinctions between a civil law lease and a charter party
 
Distinctions between a charter party and a bill of lading
 
Distinctions between a demise or bareboat charter party and a contract of
affreightment
 
Persons who can make a charter
 
 598, Code of Commerce
 609, Id.
 679, Id.
 
Requirements of a valid charter party
 
Instances when a charter party may be rescinded
 
Freight defined
 
Freightage
 
 104, P.D. No. 612 or the Insurance Code, as amended by R.A. No. 10607
 

31
Requisites and contents of charter party
 
 652, Code of Commerce
 
Charter party clauses
 
Jason clause
 
Paramount clause
 
 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (46 U.S.C.A. § 1300)
 
Rights and obligations of the shipowner or ship agent
           
 669-678, Code of Commerce
 
Lay days defined
 
Extra lay days
 
Demurrage
           
Obligations of charterers
 
 679-687, Code of Commerce
Primage
 
Rescission of a charter party at the charterer’s request
 
 688, Code of Commerce
 
Rescission of a charter party at the shipowner’s request
 
 689, Code of Commerce
 
Rescission of a charter party due to fortuitous causes
 
 690, Code of Commerce
 
Transshipment defined
 
 Sec 2[m], R.A. No. 10668
149. Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 95529. Aug.
22, 1991
 
1. Loans on bottomry and respondentia
 
 719, Code of Commerce
 
Aleatory contract

32
 
Distinctions between a loan on bottomry and a loan on respondentia
 
Requisites of loan on bottomry or respondentia
 
When loan on bottomry or respondentia treated as a simple loan
 
 726 and 727, Code of Commerce
 
Interest rate on the loan; Usury law and CB Circular 905-92
 
 Central Bank Circular No. 905-82
150. Dio v. Japor, G.R. No. 154129. July 8, 2005; 463 SCRA 170
151. Almeda v. CA, G.R. No. 113412. April 17, 1996; 256 SCRA 292
 
Distinctions between a loan on bottomry or respondentia and marine
insurance
 
Hypothecary nature of bottomry and respondentia
 
 731, Code of Commerce
 
Hypothecary
 
Barratry defined
 
Barratry clause
 
152. Roque v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66935. Nov. 11, 1985
 
Marine insurance and loan on bottomry and respondentia
 
 101, Insurance Code
 735, Code of Commerce
 
1. Accidents in maritime commerce
 
 Averages
 
 806, Code of Commerce
 
Ordinary expenses
 
 807, Code of Commerce
 
Kinds of averages
 
 808, Code of Commerce
 
Simple or particular averages

33
 
 809 and 810, Code of Commerce
 
General or gross averages
 
 811, Code of Commerce
 
Requisites for general average
 
 816-818, Code of Commerce
 
Procedure for recovery expenses for gross average
 
 813 and 814, Code of Commerce
 
Contribution to the general average
 812, Code of Commerce
 859, Id.
 732, Id.
153. Magsaysay, Inc. v. Agan, G.R. No. L-6393. Jan. 31, 1955
 812, Code of Commerce
 
Jettison defined
 
Order of goods or cargo to be jettisoned or cast overboard
 
 815, Code of Commerce
 
Cargo not covered by general average
 
 855, Code of Commerce
 Rule IX, York-Antwerp Rule
 
Rationale for the rule on deck cargo
 
 1, Art. 815, Code of Commerce,
154. Standard Oil Company of New York v. Castelo, G.R. No. L-13695. Oct.
18, 1921).
 
Rule different in coastwise and inland waters navigation
 
Requisites for inclusion of jettisoned goods in the general average
 
 816, Code of Commerce
 
 Arrival under stress
 
 819, Code of Commerce
 
Steps to be followed in arrival under stress

34
 
 819, Code of Commerce
 
Protest in arrival under stress only a disclaimer on owner’s liability
 
When arrival deemed unlawful
 
 820, Code of Commerce
 
Who bears the expenses of arrival
 
 821, Code of Commerce
 
Duty of the captain to continue the voyage
 
 825, Code of Commerce
 
 Collision and allision
 
Vessel at fault liable for indemnity
 
 826, Code of Commerce
 
Liability if both vessels at fault or if it cannot be determined which vessel
caused the collision
 
 827 and 828, Code of Commerce
 
Doctrine of last clear chance and Rule on contributory negligence
 
 827, Code of Commerce
 
Doctrine of inscrutable fault
 
Divisions of time or zones in collisions of vessels
 
155. Urrutia & Co. v. Baco River Plantation Co., G.R. No. L-7675. March 25,
1913).
 
Error in extremis defined
 
Liability in collision through fortuitous event or force majeure
 
 830, Code of Commerce
 
Presumption of fault against a moving vessel striking a stationary object;
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
 
156. Far Eastern Shipping Company v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. Oct. 1, 1998

35
157. Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., G.R. No. L-21749. Sept. 29, 1967;
21 SCRA 279
 
Civil tort vis-à-vis maritime tort
 
Liability of third vessel causing the collision
 
 831, Code of Commerce
 
Liability of properly anchored and moored vessel colliding with nearby
vessels due to storm or force majeure
 
 832, Code of Commerce
 
When vessel presumed as lost by reason of collision
 
 833, Code of Commerce
 
Role of protest for the recovery of losses and damages due to collision;
when and how made
 
 835, Code of Commerce
 
Who can file maritime protest in case of collision
 
 835-836, Code of Commerce
158. Verzosa v. Lim, G.R. No. 20145. Nov. 15, 1923
 
Effect of absence of protest on persons not on board
 
 836, Code of Commerce
 
Limitation on the shipowners’ civil liability
 
 837, Code of Commerce
 
Indemnity for death or injury of persons
 
 838, Code of Commerce
 
Summary investigation of the accident
 
 839, Code of Commerce
 
Presumptions to determine negligence
 
Rules to prevent collision
 
Port and starboard
 

36
Windward and leeward
 
Rules governing sailing vessels and steamships
 
Maritime protest defined; by whom and when made; to whom filed
 
 835, Code of Commerce
 
Persons not required to file protest
 
 836, Code of Commerce
 
Cases where protest requirement applies
 
 835, Code of Commerce
 612[8], Id.
 612[15] and 843, Id.
 624, Id.
 
 Shipwreck defined
 
Owners bear the losses due to shipwreck
 
 840, Code of Commerce
 
Indemnity from the captain due to his fault
 
 841, Code of Commerce
 
When the captain may be held liable for shipwreck
 
 841, Code of Commerce
 
1. SPECIAL CONCEPTS IN MARITIME COMMERCE
 
 Arrastre defined
 
Arrastre services
 
 1213, R.A. No. 1937
 
Nature of arrastre function; BOC’s immunity from suit
 
159. Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service, G.R. No.
L-23139. Dec. 17, 1966
 
Arrastre operators
 
Functions of an arrastre operator
 

37
160. Hijos de F. Escao, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
59229. Aug. 22, 1991; 261 SCRA 63
161. Summa Insurance Corp., v. CA, G.R. No. 84680. Feb. 5, 1996; 323 Phil.
214
162. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., v. Metro Port Service, Inc., G.R. No.
83613. Feb. 21, 1990; 182 SCRA 455
 
Arrastre operator and carrier solidarily liable
 
163. Lua Kian v. Manila Railroad Company, G.R. No. L-23033. Jan. 5, 1967; 19
SCRA 5
164. Northern Motors, Inc. v. Prince Line, G.R. No. L-13884. Feb. 29, 1960;
107 Phil. 253).
 
What arrastre operator must prove to avoid liability
 
165. Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Daehan Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.,
G.R. No. 171194. Feb. 4, 2010; 611 SCRA 555
 
Arrastre operator deemed a public utility
 
166. New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Navarro, G.R. No. L-48686.
Oct. 4, 1989
 
 Stevedoring service defined
 
167. Cebu Arrastre Service v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-7444.
May 30, 1966
168. The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines v. Collector of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-21835. Aug. 19, 1967
169. Anglo-Fil Trading Corp. v. Lazaro, G.R. No. L-54958. Sept. 2, 1983
 
 Containerization
 
170. United States Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-73490.
June 18, 1987
 
When carrier of the containerized cargo may be held liable
 
171. Reyma Brokerage, Inc. v. Philippine Home Assurance Corp., G.R. No.
93464. Oct. 7, 1991
172. Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 80256. Oct. 2,
1992
 
1. SALVAGE LAW OR ACT NO. 2616
 
Salvage defined
 
173. Erlanger & Galinger v. The Swedish East Asiatic Co., [Ltd.], G.R. No. L-
10051. March 9, 1916

38
 
Elements needed to a valid salvage claim
 
Rules for determining the reward for salvage
 
 9, Act No. 2616
 
Proper subjects of salvage
 
 Salvage Law (Act No. 2616)
 
Flotsam, jetsam, lagan defined
 
Towage defined
 
Salvage distinguished from towage
 
 2142, Civil Code
174. Barrios v. Carlos A. Go thong & Company, G.R. No. L-17192. March 30,
1963
 
Persons having no right to reward for salvage
 
 3, Act No. 2616
 
Derelict defined
 
Basic rules on salvage reward
 
 9, 11, 12 and 13, Act No. 2616

175. The Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Company of Manila v. Uchida Kisen Kaisha,
G.R. No. L-15871. Nov. 7, 1921
 
1. CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (COGSA) OR
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 65
 
U.S. COGSA adopted by the Philippine Congress via C.A. No. 65
 
 Public Act No. 521 of the 74th US Congress
 1, C.A. No. 65
 
Application of COGSA in relation to provisions of other laws
 
 1753, Civil Code
 1766, Civil Code
 COGSA
 
Significant provisions of COGSA
 

39
Rationale for limiting common carrier’s liability
 
176. Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co.,
G.R. No. 146018. June 25, 2003
 
Carriage of goods; period covered
 
 1(e), Title I of C.A. No. 65 (COGSA)
177. Insurance Company of North America v. Asian Terminals, Inc., G.R. No.
180784. Feb. 15, 2012
 
Notice of loss or damage
 
 3[6], COGSA
 
Action to recover not barred by lack of notice
 
178. E. Elser, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L‐6517. Nov. 29, 1954)
 
Prescriptive period for filing an action under COGSA
 
 (6), Sec. 3, COGSA
 
179. Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping, N.V. v. Philippine First
Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 143133. June 5, 2002; 383 SCRA 23)
 
Other persons covered by the one-year prescriptive period
 
180. Kuy v. Everrett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L‐5554. May 27, 1953
 
Insurer covered by the one-year prescriptive period
 
181. Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. v. Alejandro, G.R. No. L‐
54140. Oct. 14, 1986

 3(6), COGSA

182. Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 124050. June 19, 1997
 
Arrastre operator not covered by prescriptive period
 
Rationale for the prescriptive period under COGSA
 
183. Ang v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. L-22491. Jan. 27,
1967; 19 SCRA 129
 
Not loss or damage but misdelivery
 
 3(6), COGSA
 

40
Applicable rule on prescription in case of misdelivery of goods
 
 1144(1) and 1146, Civil Code
184. Tan Liao v. American President Lines, Ltd., G.R. No. L-7280. Jan. 20,
1956; 98 Phil. 203
 
Instances when prescription is suspended
 
185. Universal Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 74125. July 31, 1990; 188
SCRA 170

186. H. Stevens & Co. Inc. v. Norddeuscher Lloyd, G.R. No. L-17730. Sept. 29,
1962; 6 SCRA 180
 
Provisions of Civil Code on prescription not applicable to COGSA
 
 1155, Civil Code
 3, par. 6, COGSA

187. Chua Kuy v. Everett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L-5554. May 27, 1953
 1155, Civil Code

188. The Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. American
President Lines, Inc., G.R. No. No. L-11081. April 30, 1958; 103 Phil. 1125

189. Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Maritime Company of the Philippines, G.R. No.
L‐61352. Feb. 27, 1987
 
When prescription begins to run
 
190. Continental Insurance Company v. Manila Port Service, G.R. No. L-
22208. March 30, 1966, 16 SCRA 425
191. Union Carbide Philippnes, Inc. v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-27798.
June 15, 1977
 
Prescriptive period applies to insurer of goods
 
When cases for loss or damage of goods must be filed
 
Manner of determining the amount of liability of common carrier for loss
or damage to the goods transported
 
 372, Code of Commerce
 
When shipper fails to declare value of goods
 
 4, par. 5, COGSA
192. Philam Insurance Company, Inc. v. Heung-A Shipping Corp., G.R. No.
187701. July 23, 2014
 

41
Amount of carrier’s liability
 
 4(5), COGSA
193. Eastern Shipping v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69044. May 29, 1987; 150 SCRA
463).
 
Parties may stipulate higher amount up to actual damage sustained
 
Stipulation limiting carrier’s liability for loss of goods permitted
 
 1749 and 1750, Civil Code
 4, par. (5), COGSA
 
Stipulation limiting the carrier’s liability; when valid
 
 1744, Civil Code
 
Rule on packages shipped in a container
 
“Container” construed
 
194. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 89757. Aug. 6, 1990
 
Deterioration of goods due to delay in transit constitutes loss or damage
 
 3(6), COGSA
 
Instances when carrier or ship not liable
 
CHAPTER VI
AIR TRANSPORTATION
 
1. AIR TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY BODIES
 
 Republic Act No. 776, as amended by Presidential Decree 1462
 Republic Act No. 9497
 
1. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)
 
CAB’s authority to issue certain documents, permits
 
Specific powers and duties of the CAB
 
 10[C], R.A. No. 776, as amended
 
Considerations in CAB’s rate-fixing
 
 10[C][2], R.A. No. 776, as amended
 
2. The Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP)

42
 
Powers of the CAAP
 
1. TRANSPORTATION STATUTES AND GLOBAL ACCORDS
 
 Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines or Republic Act No. 776, as
amended (1952);
 Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 or Republic Act No. 9497; and
 Warsaw Convention of 1929 or the Convention for the Unification of
Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, as amended by
subsequent international agreements.
 
1. The Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines or Republic Act No.
776, as amended (1952);
 
 Republic Act No. 776, otherwise known as the Civil Aeronautics Act of
the Philippines, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1462 and Executive
Order No. 217
 
CAB empowered to issue CPCNs and permits to air carriers
 
CAB requirements to be satisfied by a foreign air carrier intending to
operate in the country
 
Regulation of airfares
 
 5.01, IRR of E.O. No. 219, s. 1995 and E.O. No. 32, s. 2001
 
Aviation-specific passenger protection rules and regulations
 
 CAB’s Economic Regulation No. 9, December 18, 2012
 
Serious aviation crimes under the Anti-hijacking Law of 1971
 
 1, R.A. No. 6235
 
Shipping, loading or carrying of any substance regulated by CAB
 
 2 and 3, R.A. No. 6235
 
Air Passenger Bill of Rights
 
 DOTC-DTI Joint Administrative Order No. 1 (2012)
 
The Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 or Republic Act No. 9497
 
 Republic Act No. 9497, otherwise known as the Civil Aviation Authority
Act of 2008
 
CAAP’s authority to prevent flight

43
 
 39, R.A. No. 9497
 
System and procedures for investigation of air accidents
 
Aircraft accident investigation and Inquiry board
 
 42, R.A. No. 9497
 
Establishment of registry of aircrafts
 
 43, R.A. No. 9497
 
Eligibility for registration of aircraft
 
 43, R.A. No. 9497, citing R.A. No. 776, P.D. No. 1278, E.O. No. 546, and
B.P. Blg. 504
 
Nationality of aircraft
 
 47, R.A. No. 9497
 
Conveyance of aircraft required to be recorded in CAAP to be valid against
third parties
 
 49, R.A. No. 9497
 
Form of conveyance
 
 50, R.A. No. 9497
 
CAAP’s aviation safety powers and functions
 
 55, R.A. No. 9497
 
The Chicago Convention
 
2. The Warsaw Convention of 1929
 
 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International
Carriage by Air, commonly known as the Warsaw Convention (WC)

195. Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines, G.R. No. 101538. June 23, 1992
 
Warsaw Convention; its application vis-à-vis Philippine laws

196. Mapa v. CA, G.R. No. 122308. July 8, 1997; 341 Phil. 281

197. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., v. CA, G.R. No. 60501. March 5, 1993; 219
SCRA 520

44
 
Principal goal of the treaty
 
Twin purposes of the treaty
 
Scope of application of the treaty
 
International transportation
 
 1[2], Warsaw Convention
 
High contracting party
 
Transportation by several successive air carriers deemed as one undivided
transportation
 
 1[3], Warsaw Convention
 
Carrier’s liability for damage in case of passenger’s death or injury
 
 17, Warsaw Convention
 
Liability for damage for destroyed, lost or damaged articles
 
 18, Warsaw Convention
 
Period of transportation by air
 
Liability of carrier for delay
 
 19, Warsaw Convention
 
Provision limiting carrier’s liability for damage caused by its willful
misconduct removed by Hague Protocol
 
198. Alitalia v. IAC, G.R. No. 71929. Dec. 4, 1990
 

Limit of carrier’s liability

 
 22, Warsaw Convention

Exceptions to the limitations

Willful misconduct
 
199. Luna v. CA, G.R. No. 100374-75. Nov. 27, 1992

200. Northwest Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 120334. Jan. 20, 1998

45
201. Lhuiller v. British Airways, G.R. No. 171092. March 15, 2010

Airway bill defined

 
Warsaw Convention does not preclude the operation of the Civil Code and
other laws
 
Stipulation relieving the carrier from or limiting its liability
 
 23, Warsaw Convention

202. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 70462, 164 SCRA 268

203. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca, G.R. No. L-22425. Aug. 31, 1965; 14
SCRA 1063);
204. Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines, G.R. No. L-28773. June 30,
1975; 64 SCRA 610

205. Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. CA, G.R. No. 114061. Aug. 3, 1994; 154
SCRA 211

206. Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., G.R. No. L-28589. Jan. 8,
1973; 43 SCRA 397
 
Validity of stipulation relieving the carrier from or limiting its liability 

 23[1], Warsaw Convention

Notices of claim in case of damage or delay

 
 26, Warsaw Convention
 
When right to damages is extinguished by prescription
 
 29, Warsaw Convention

207. United Airlines v. Uy, G.R. No. 127768. Nov. 19, 1999
 

Recovery of claim covered by the Convention after 2 years

 
 19, Warsaw Convention

 24, Id.

208. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Savillo, G.R. No. 149547. July 4, 2008; 557
SCRA 66

46
Jurisdiction
 
“Destination” and “agreed stopping place”
 
Article 28(1) refers to jurisdiction not venue
 
 28(1), Warsaw Convention
 32, Id.

 Special rules on the liabilities of airline carriers

 
209. Philippine Airlines, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. L-82619. Sept. 15, 1993);

210. Zalamea v. CA, G.R. No. 104235. Nov. 18, 1993

211. Lufthansa German Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 83612. Nov. 24, 1994

212. KLM Dutch Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. No. L-31150. July 22, 1975; 65 SCRA
237

Rule in case of various successive carriers

 
Remedies of parties in carriage of passengers and goods
 
 30, Warsaw Convention
 
Contract of carriage performed by different carriers
 
213. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corp.,
G.R. No. L-65773-74. April 30, 1987,

 VI, Res. 850 of the IATA

214. American Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 116044-45. March 9, 2000; 384 Phil.
227
 
Distinction between damage to baggage and injury to passenger due to the
misconduct of airline employees
 
Limitations to the liability of air carriers under the Convention
 
 22, Warsaw Convention
 25, Id.

ATTY. AMADO AQUINO III

47