Mercantile Law Transportation Law

1y ago
5 Views
2 Downloads
5.96 MB
331 Pages
Last View : 23d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Victor Nelms
Transcription

Mercantile Law –TransportationLawCase Digest

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWUNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMASFACULTY OF CIVIL LAWLIST OF CASESTransportation LawI.Transportation LawsA. Definition of common carrier1. Carrying of persons or goods or both may be the principal or ancillary activity Pedro De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-47822, December 22, 19882. The common carrier need not be the owner ( of the vessel ) used to consummatecontract of carriage Cebu Salvage Corporation vs. Philippine Home Assurance Corporation, G.R. No.150403, January 25, 2007B. Examples of common carrier1. Pipeline operator First Philippine Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125948,December 29, 19892. Customs broker A.F. Sanchez Brokerage Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147079, December 21,2004 Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. vs. Glodel Brokerage Corporation, GR No.179446, January 10, 20113. Freight forwarder that contracts delivery of the goods Unsworth Transport International (Phils.) vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166250, July26, 20104. School bus operator despite limited clientele Spouses Perena vs. Spouses Nicolas, GR No. 157917, August 29, 2012C. Distinctions between common carrier and private carrier Philippine American General Insurance Company vs. PKS Shipping Company, G.R. No.149038, April 9, 20031

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWD. Diligence Required of Common Carriers1. Extra-ordinary diligence required/ Presumption of fault in case of loss or damageto goods or death or injury to passengers Heirs of Amparo de los Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 649 (1990) American Home Assurance Company vs. The Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94149, May5, 1992 Philippines Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 423 (1993) Macam vs. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 77 (1999) Virgines Calvo doing business under the name and style Transorient ContainerTerminal Services, Inc. vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 148496, March19, 2002 Vector Shipping Corp. and Francisco Soriano vs. Adelfo B. Macasa 559 SCRA 97(2008) R Transport Corporation vs. Pante, G.R. No. 162104, September 15, 2009 Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam and the East Asiatic Co., LTD. vs. Glow LaksEnterprises, LTD., G.R. No. 156330, November 19, 2014 Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. BPI/MS Insurance Corporation and Mitsui InsuranceCo., Ltd., G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015 Asian Terminals vs. Simon Enterprises, Inc. GR no. 177116, February 27 2013 ALFREDO MANAY, JR. v. CEBU AIR,INC, G.R. No. 210621, April 04, 2016 GREENSTAR EXPRESS, INC. v. UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, G.R. No. 205090,October 17, 2016 Cacho v. Manahan, G.R. No. 203081, [January 17, 2018] FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION v. LUWALHATI R. ANTONINO AND ELIZABETTINA RICASA ANTONINO, G.R. No. 199455, THIRD DIVISION, June 27, 2018,LEONEN, J KEIHIN-EVERETT FORWARDING CO., INC., v. TOKIO MARINE MALAYANINSURANCE CO., INC. and SUNFREIGHT FORWARDERS & CUSTOMS BROKERAGE,INC., G.R. No. 212107, SECOND DIVISION, October 28, 2019, REYES, J. JR., J. ANNIE TAN v. GREAT HARVEST ENTERPRISES, INC., G.R. No. 220400, THIRDDIVISION, March 20, 2019, LEONEN, J.E. Liabilities of Common Carriers Ma. Luisa Benedicto vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70876, July 19,1990 Cogeo Cubao Operators and Drivers Association vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 243(1992) Spouses Cesar & Suthira Zalamea vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104235 November 18,1993 Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119641, May 17, 1996 Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120262, July 17, 19972

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW Carlos Singson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119995, November 18, 1997) Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131621, September 28, 1999 Equitable Leasing Corporation vs. Lucita Suyom et al., G.R. No. 143360, September 5,2002 Light Rail Transit Authority & Rodolfo Roman vs. Marjorie Natividad, G.R. No. 145804,February 6, 2003 Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 142305, December 10, 2003 Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., vs. Spouses Daniel Vazquez And Maria Luisa MadrigalVazquez, G.R. No. 150843, March 14, 2003 William Tiu, doing business under the name and style of “D’ Rough Riders” vs. Pedro A.Arriesgado, G.R. No. 138060, September 1, 2004 Philippine Airlines Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123238, September 22, 2008 The Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 116121, July 18,2011 Heirs of Jose Marcial Ochoa vs. G&S Transport Corporation, G.R. No. 170071, March 9,2011 as affirmed in the July 16, 2012 decision Loadstar Shipping Company, Inc., and Loadstar International Shipping Co., Inc. vs.Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 185565, November 26, 2014 Spouses Jesus Fernando and Elizabeth Fernando v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., G.R. No.212038 and G.R. No. 212043, February 8, 2017 Jose Sanico and Vicente Castro v. Werherlina P. Colipano, G.R. No. 209969, September27, 2017 SULPICIO LINES, INC. v. NAPOLEON SESANTE, G.R. NO. 172682, July 27, 2016 ALFREDO S. RAMOS v. CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CO. LTD., G.R. No. 213418,September 21, 2016 CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD. V. SPOUSES ARNULFO, G. R. No. 188283, July 20,2016 Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Karaan, G.R. No. 208590, [October 3, 2018] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. (ATI) v. PADOSON STAINLESS STEEL CORPORATION, G.R. No.211876, FIRST DIVISION, June 25, 2018, TIJAM, J.F. Vigilance over Goods1. Exempting Causes Mauro Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-48757, May 30, 1988 Central Shipping Company, Inc. vs. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No.150751, September 20, 2004 Western Shipping Agency, Inc., vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 253 SCRA405 (1996) Virgines Calvo doing business under the name and style Transorient ContainerTerminal Services, Inc. vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 148496, March19, 2002 TORRES-MADRID BROKERAGE, INC. v. FEB MITSUI MARINE INSURANCE CO., INC.G.R. No. 194121, July 11, 20163

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW TRANSIMEX CO. v. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP., G.R. No. 190271, September14, 2016a. Requirement of Absence of Negligence Bachelor Express, Incorporated vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals (SixthDivision), G.R. No. 85691, July 31, 1990 Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131621, September 28,1999 Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corporation vs. Catalino Borja, G.R. No.143008, June 10, 2002b. Absence of Delay Aniceto Saludo, Jr. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95536, March 23, 1992 Philippine Air Lines vs. Florante Miano, G.R. No. 106664, March 8, 1995c. Due Diligence to Prevent or Lessen the Los Central Shipping Company, Inc. vs. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No.150751, September 20, 20042. Contributory Negligence3. Duration of Liabilitya. Delivery of Goods to Common Carrier Mauro Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-48757, May 30, 1988 Oriental Assurance Corporation v. Manuel Ong, doing business under thebusiness name of Western Pacific Transport Services and/or Asian Terminals,Inc., G.R. No. 189524, October 11, 2017b. Actual or Constructive Delivery Lu Do & Lu YM Corporation vs. I.V. Binamira, G.R. No. L-9840, April 22, 1957 Compañia Maritima vs. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No. L-18965,October 30, 1964 Westwind Shipping Corporation vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., G.R. No. 200289,November 25, 20133. Stipulation for Limitation of Liabilitya. Void Stipulations Sweet Lines, Inc. vs. Hon. Bernardo Teves, Presiding Judge, CFI of MisamisOriental, Branch VII, G.R. No. L-37750, May 19, 19784

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWb. Limitation of Liability to Fixed Amountc. Limitation of Liability in Absence of Declaration of Greater Value St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. vs. Macondray & Co, Inc., et al., G.R. No. L27796, March 25, 1976 Eastern and Australian Steamship Co., Ltd. vs. Great American Insurance Co., G.R.No. L-37604 October 23, 19815. Liability for Baggage of Passengersa. Checked-In Baggageb. Baggage in Possession of PassengersG. Safety of Passengers Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Rosalito Gammad, G.R. No. 159636, November 25, 2004 Philippine National Railways vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-55347,October 4, 19851. Duration of Liabilitya. Waiting for Carrier or Boarding of Carrier Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95582, October7, 1991b. Arrival at Destination La Mallorca vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-20761, July 27, 1966 Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Division, G.R.No. 884458, November 6, 19891. Liability for Acts of Othersa. Employees Antonia Maranan vs. Pascual Perez, et al, G.R. No. L-22272, June 26, 1967 Leopoldo Poblete vs. Donato Fabros, G.R. No. L-29803, September 14, 1979 Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82068.March 31, 1989b. Other Passengers and Strangers Jose Pilapil vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 52159, December 22, 19893. Exempting causes5

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWa. Force majeure Alberta Yobido vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113003, October 17, 1997b. When force majeure does not apply Fortune Express, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119756, March 18, 19994. Extent of Liability for Damages Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 54470, May 8, 1990 Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.68988, June 21, 1990 China Airlines Limited vs. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 897 (1992) Sulpicio Lines, Inc., vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113578, July 14,1995 Collin A. Morris vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 2001 Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corp. vs. Borja, 383 SCRA 341 (2002) Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Rosalito Gammad, G.R. No. 159636, November 25, 2004H. Bill of Lading1. Definition Unsworth Transport International Phils., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166250,July 26, 20101. Three-Fold Character Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 257 (1998)2. Parties Everett Steamship Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 496 (1998)3. Kinds of bill of lading Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.95529, August 22, 19914. Stipulations in a bill of lading Provident Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118030, January 15,20042. Delivery of Goods1. Period of Delivery6

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW Maersk Line vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 108 (1993)2. Delivery Without Surrender of Bill of Lading National Trucking and Forwarding Corporation vs. Lorenzo ShippingCorporation, G.R. No. 153563, February 07, 2005 DESIGNER BASKETS, INC., v. AIR SEA TRANSPORT, INC. AND ASIA CARGOCONTAINER LINES, INC., G.R. No. 184513, March 09, 20163. Requirements/Conditions precedent for Filing Claims ( Coastwise or interisland commerce )1. Notice requirement Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. and Tagum Plastics, Inc. vs.Sweet Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 87434 August 5, 1992 Lorenzo Shipping Corp. vs. Chubb and Sons, Inc., G.R. No. 147724, June 8, 2004 Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. Insurance Company of North America, G.R.No. 168402, August 6, 2008 UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., vs. Aboitiz Shipping Corporation, et. al., G.R.No. 168433, February 10, 20092. Period to file Actions Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 315 SCRA 339 (1999) Federal Express Corporation vs. American Home Assurance Company, G.R. No.150094, August 18, 2004I. Maritime Commerce1. Charter Parties Lintonjua Shipping Company, Inc. vs. National Seamen Board, 176 SCRA 189 (1989) National Food Authority vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96453, August 4, 1999 Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 131166, September 30,19992. Bareboat/Demise Charter Shipping Company, Inc., vs. National Seamen Board, 176 SCRA 189 (1989)3. Time Charter Oceaneering Contractrors (Phils), Inc. vs. Nestor Barreto, doing business as NNBLighterage , G.R. No. 184215, February 9, 20117

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW4. Voyage/Trip Charter Cebu Salvage Corporation vs. Philippine Home Assurance Corporation, G.R. No.150403, January 25, 20075. Liability of Ship Owners and Shipping Agents Chua Yek Hong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74811, September 30,1988 Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. Provident Insurance Corp., 445 SCRA 644 (2004) Centennial Transmarine, Inc. et al. vs. Ruben G. Dela Cruz, 563 SCRA 210 (2008) PHIL-NIPPON KYOEI, CORP. v. ROSALIA T. GUDELOSAO, G.R. No. 181375, July 13,2016 Tsuneishi Heavy Industries (Cebu), Inc. v. Mis Maritime Corp., G.R. No. 193572,[April 4, 2018]6. Limited liability rule/hyphotecary nature of maritime law Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. General Accident Fire and Life AssuranceCorporation Ltd., 217 SCRA 359 (1993) Chua Yek Hong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74811, September 30,19887. Exceptions to Limited Liability The Philippine American General Insurance Company, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, etal., G.R. No. 116940, June 11, 1997 Luzon Stevedoring Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-58897, December 3,1987 Chua Yek Hong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74811, September 30,1988 Philippine American General Insurance Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 262(1997) Dela Torre vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160088, July 13, 20118. Accidents and Damages in Maritime Commerce R.V. Marvan Freight, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 424 SCRA 596 (2004)9. Collisions Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130068, October 1,1998J. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act1. Application8

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW National Development Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49469, August 19,1988 Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75118, August 31,1987 Philippine First Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc., G.R. No. 165647,March 26, 2009 Insurance Company of North America vs. Asian Terminals, Inc., G.R. No. 180784,February 15, 20122. Concept of loss or damage Domingo Ang vs. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. L-22491, January 27,1967 Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119571, March 11, 19983. Conditions for filing of claim in case of loss or damagea. Notice of Loss or Damage Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N.V. vs. Philippine First Insurance Co.,Inc., G.R. No. 143133, June 5, 2002 Wallem Philippines Shipping vs. SR Farms, GR No. 161849, July 9, 2010 Asian Terminals Inc. vs. Philam Insurance Co. G.R. No. 181262 , July 24, 2013b. Period of Prescription Union Carbide Philippines, Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-27798, June 15,1977 Ang vs. Compañia Maritima, 133 SCRA 600 (1984) Dole Philippines, Inc. vs. Maritime Company of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-61352,February 27, 1987 Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131621 September 28,1999 Mayer Steel Pipe Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124050 June 19, 1997 Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd., represented by Magsaysay Agencies, Inc. vs. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 119571, March 11, 1998 New World International Development Corporation vs. NYK-FilJapan ShippingCorporation, GR No. 171468, August 24, 2011 PIONEER INSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION v. APL CO., PTE. LTD., G.R. No.226345, August 2, 20174. Limitation of Liability Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-69044, May29, 19879

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N.V. vs. Philippine First Insurance Co.,Inc., G.R. No. 143133, June 5, 2002 Philam Insurance Company vs. Heung Ah Shipping Corporation and WallemShipping Inc., G.R. No. 1877l and G.R. No. 187812, July 23, 2014K. Air Transportation1. The nature of an airline’s contract of carriage British Airways vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121824, January 29, 1998 Collin A. Morris vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 20012. Cases of liability of air carrier Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Ramos, 207 SCRA 461 (1992) Sarreal, Sr. vs. Japan Airlines Co. Ltd., 207 SCRA 359 (1992) Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68988,June 21, 1990 British Airways vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 450 (1996)L. The Warsaw Convention1. Applicability Philippine Airlines Inc. vs. Hon. Adriano Savillo, et. al., G.R. No. 149547, July 4, 20082. Non-applicability KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 65 SCRA 237 (1975) Alitalia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71929, December 4, 19903. Limitation of Liability4. Jurisdictional rules Lhuillier vs. British Airways, G.R. No. 171092, March 15, 2010a. Liability to Passengers Lufthansa German Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83612, November 24,1994b. Liability for Checked Baggage Philippine Airlines Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119706, March 14, 199610

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW5. Willful Misconduct Sabena World Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104685, March 14, 1996M. Miscellaneous Topics1. Motor Vehicles Tiu vs. Arriesgado, 437 SCRA 426 (2004) Villanueva vs. Domingo, 438 SCRA 485 (2004) PCI Leasing & Finance Inc. vs. UCPB General Insurance Co. Inc., 557 SCRA 141(2008) Mercado AG. Cadiente vs. Bithuel Macas 571 SCRA 105 (2008) Mariano C. Mendoza and Elvira Lim vs. Spouses Leonora J. Gomez and Gabriel V.Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 20142. Arrastre Services International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee &Assurance Co., Inc., 320 SCRA 244 (1999) Westwind Shipping Corporation vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., G.R. No. 200289,November 25, 2013 Asian Terminals Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation, G.R. No.185964, June 16, 20143. Public Utilities Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs. Garcia, 239 SCRA 386 (1994)11

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWI.Transportation LawsN. Definition of common carrier1. Carrying of persons or goods or both may be the principal or ancillary activity Pedro De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-47822, December 22, 1988PEDRO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, -versus- COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO CENDANA,RespondentsG.R. No. L-47822, THIRD DIVISION, December 22, 1988, FELICIANO, J.The law makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of personsor goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local Idiom as "asideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterpriseoffering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on anoccasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrieroffering its services to the "general public," i.e., the general community or population, and one whooffers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population.Here, Ernesto Cendana is deemed a common carrier. He is a junk dealer who was engaged in buying upused bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan. Upon gathering sufficient quantities of such scrapmaterial, respondent would bring such material to Manila for resale. He utilized two (2) six-wheelertrucks which he owned for hauling the material to Manila. On the return trip to Pangasinan,respondent would load his vehicles with cargo which various merchants wanted delivered to differingestablishments in Pangasinan. For that service, respondent charged freight rates which werecommonly lower than regular commercial rates.FACTSRespondent Ernesto Cendana, a junk dealer, was engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metalin Pangasinan. Upon gathering sufficient quantities of such scrap material, respondent would bringsuch material to Manila for resale. He utilized two (2) six-wheeler trucks which he owned forhauling the material to Manila. On the return trip to Pangasinan, respondent would load his vehicleswith cargo which various merchants wanted delivered to differing establishments in Pangasinan.For that service, respondent charged freight rates which were commonly lower than regularcommercial rates.Sometime in November 1970, petitioner Pedro de Guzman a merchant and authorized dealer ofGeneral Milk Company (Philippines), Inc. in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, contracted with respondent forthe hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse of General Milk in Makati, Rizal,to petitioner's establishment in Urdaneta on or before 4 December 1970. Accordingly, on 1December 1970, respondent loaded in Makati the merchandise on to his trucks: 150 cartons wereloaded on a truck driven by respondent himself, while 600 cartons were placed on board the othertruck which was driven by Manuel Estrada, respondent's driver and employee.Only 150 boxes of Liberty filled milk were delivered to petitioner. The other 600 boxes neverreached petitioner, since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked somewhere along the12

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWMacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac, by armed men who took with them the truck, its driver, hishelper and the cargo.On 6 January 1971, petitioner commenced action against private respondent in the Court of FirstInstance of Pangasinan, demanding payment of P 22,150.00, the claimed value of the lostmerchandise, plus damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner argued that private respondent, being acommon carrier, and having failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of him by thelaw, should be held liable for the value of the undelivered goods.In his Answer, private respondent denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he couldnot be held responsible for the value of the lost goods, such loss having been due to force majeure.ISSUESI. Whether respondent is a common carrier (YES)II. Whether respondent is liable (NO)RULINGI.The law makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying ofpersons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in localIdiom as "a sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a personor enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering suchservice on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguishbetween a carrier offering its services to the "general public," i.e., the general community orpopulation, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of thegeneral population.So understood, the concept of "common carrier" under Article 1732 may be seen to coincide neatlywith the notion of "public service," under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, asamended) which at least partially supplements the law on common carriers set forth in the CivilCode. Under Section 13, paragraph (b) of the Public Service Act, "public service" includes:. every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in thePhilippines, for hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether permanent,occasional or accidental, and done for general business purposes, any commoncarrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway, subway motor vehicle, either for freight orpassenger, or both, with or without fixed route and whatever may be its classification,freight or carrier service of any class, express service, steamboat, or steamship line,pontines, ferries and water craft, engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight ant,ice-refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and power, watersupply and power petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless communications systems,wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other similar public services.It appears to the Court that private respondent is properly characterized as a common carrier eventhough he merely "back-hauled" goods for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan, although13

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWsuch back-hauling was done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner,and even though private respondent's principal occupation was not the carriage of goods for others.There is no dispute that private respondent charged his customers a fee for hauling their goods;that fee frequently fell below commercial freight rates is not relevant here.The Court of Appeals referred to the fact that private respondent held no certificate of publicconvenience, and concluded he was not a common carrier. This is palpable error. A certificate ofpublic convenience is not a requisite for the incurring of liability under the Civil Code provisionsgoverning common carriers. That liability arises the moment a person or firm acts as a commoncarrier, without regard to whether or not such carrier has also complied with the requirements ofthe applicable regulatory statute and implementing regulations and has been granted a certificateof public convenience or other franchise. To exempt private respondent from the liabilities of acommon carrier because he has not secured the necessary certificate of public convenience, wouldbe offensive to sound public policy; that would be to reward private respondent precisely for failingto comply with applicable statutory requirements. The business of a common carrier impingesdirectly and intimately upon the safety and well being and property of those members of thegeneral community who happen to deal with such carrier. The law imposes duties and liabilitiesupon common carriers for the safety and protection of those who utilize their services and the lawcannot allow a common carrier to render such duties and liabilities merely facultative by simplyfailing to obtain the necessary permits and authorizations.II.The precise issue that we address here relates to the specific requirements of the duty ofextraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried in the specific context of hijacking orarmed robbery.Under Article 1745 (6) above, a common carrier is held responsible — and will not be allowed todivest or to diminish such responsibility — even for acts of strangers like thieves orrobbers, except where such thieves or robbers in fact acted "with grave or irresistible threat,violence or force." We believe and so hold that the limits of the duty of extraordinary diligence inthe vigilance over the goods carried are reached where the goods are lost as a result of a robberywhich is attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence or force."In the instant case, armed men held up the second truck owned by private respondent whichcarried petitioner's cargo. The record shows that an information for robbery in band was filed inthe Court of First Instance of Tarlac, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 198 entitled "People of thePhilippines v. Felipe Boncorno, Napoleon Presno, Armando Mesina, Oscar Oria and one John Doe."There, the accused were charged with willfully and unlawfully taking and carrying away with themthe second truck, driven by Manuel Estrada and loaded with the 600 cartons of Liberty filled milkdestined for delivery at petitioner's store in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. The decision of the trial courtshows that the accused acted with grave, if not irresistible, threat, violence or force. Three (3) of thefive (5) hold-uppers were armed with firearms. The robbers not only took away the truck and itscargo but also kidnapped the driver and his helper, detaining them for several days and laterreleasing them in another province (in Zambales). The hijacked truck was subsequently found bythe police in Quezon City. The Court of First Instance convicted all the accused of robbery, thoughnot of robbery in band.14

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAWIn these circumstances, we hold that the occurrence of the loss must reasonably be regarded asquite beyond the control of the common carrier and properly regarded as a fortuitous event. It isnecessary to recall that even common carriers are not made absolute insurers against all risks oftravel and of transport of goods, and are not held liable for acts or events which cannot be foreseenor are inevitable, provided that they shall have complied with the rigorous standard ofextraordinary diligence.We, therefore, agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeals that private respondentCendana is not liable for the value of the undelivered merchandise which was lost because of anevent entirely beyond private respondent's control.2. The common carrier need not be the owner ( of the vessel ) used to consummatecontract of carriage Cebu Salvage Corporation vs. Philippine Home Assurance Corporation, G.R. No.150403, January 25, 2007CEBU SALVAGE CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- PHILIPPINE HOME ASSURANCECORPORATION, RespondentG.R. No. 150403, FIRST DIVISION, January 25, 2007, CORONA, J.The idea proposed by petitioner is not only preposterous, it is also dangerous. It says that a carrierthat enters into a contract of carriage is not liable to the charterer or shipper if it does not own thevessel it chooses to use. MCCII never dealt with ALS and yet petitioner insists that MCCII should sue ALSfor reimbursement for its loss. Certainly, to permit a common carrier to escape its responsibility for thegoods it agreed to transport (by the expedient of alleging non-ownership of the vessel it employed)would radically derogate from the carrier's duty of extraordinary diligence. It would also open thedoor to collusion between the carrier and the supposed owner and to the possible shifting of liabilityfrom the carrier to one

Everett Steamship Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 496 (1998) 3. Kinds of bill of lading Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95529, August 22, 1991 4. Stipulations in a bill of lading Provident Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118030, January 15, 2004 2. Delivery of Goods

Related Documents:

Mercantile Bank Pricing Guide May 2021 Page 1 MERCANTILE BANK PRICING GUIDE 2021 All prices include VAT and are effective as of the 13 May 2021. Mercantile Bank a division of Capitec Bank Limited Reg. No: 1980/003695/06. An authorised financial services provider (FSP46669) and registered credit provider (NCRCP13).

Group F (Sub Division F1 and F3) Mercantile Buildings, NBC 2016 Details of Fire prevention, Fire fighting & Evacuation measures to be furnished for issuing of NOC & CC etc., for the construction of High Rise Mercantile Buildings (Group F) Sub Division F1 to F3 Mercantile Buildings, NBC 2016 Part-A: General Building requirements. Sl. no.

CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE Paul B. O'Kelly Senior Vice President and General Counsel 312/930-8510 April 1, 1997 Federal Election Commission . of General Counsel 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 Dear Sir: The Commodity Futures Political Fund ("CFPF") of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME") hereby requests an advisory opinion from .

Element of mercantile law –Kapoor.N.D Sultan chand publications Reference Book: Business Law – R.S.N.Pillai & Bhagavathi ,S.Chand Publications Mercantile law –S.N.Maheswari UNIT –I Introduction to law –sources of law –nature of business law-In

Page 1 Bar Exams Questions and Answers in Mercantile Law Review II I. Insurance Code 1. A group of Malaysians

Transportation Engineering The transportation engineering faculty offer graduate course in transportation planning, design, operations and safety with an emphasis on surface transportation. The faculty are engaged in research in transportation planning and safety, intelligent transportation systems, transportation systems analysis, traffic flow .

Document from a Web Site with No Author Use the title of the work for the parenthetical citation. If the title is long, use a shortened version. Reference List: "Mercantile Navy List and Maritime Directory." Maritime History Archive. Memorial University, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. In-text Citation: (Mercantile Navy List) Audiovisual Media

Bangladesh, Mercantile Bank as well as in individual capacities. He has notable contributions in the socio-economic development of the country and founded many organizations relating to Education, Culture, Sports, etc. Mr. Jalil was the Commerce Minister in the previous