TRANSPORTATION LAW SYLLABUS  

Carrier defined
INTRODUCTION  
  Classifications of carriers
1. CHAPTER I  
Private or special carrier
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMON CARRIERS 10. Spouses Pereña v. Spouses Zarate, G.R. No.
  157917. Aug. 29, 2012
1. TRANSPORTATION IN GENERAL 11. National Steel Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 112287.
  Dec. 12, 1997; 347 Phil. 345
Transportation as a component of “public utilities” and  
“public service” Common or public carriers
 13(b), Commonwealth Act No. 146 or The  
Public Service Law (of 1936), as last amended by  1732, Civil Code
Republic Act No. 2677  
1. National Power Corp. v. CA, 345 Phil. 9 [1997] Elements of a common carrier
   
1. PUBLIC UTILITIES Test for determining a common carrier
   
Constitutional provisions on public utilities No legal distinction as to means of transporting; pipeline
 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution operator is a common carrier 
2. Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551. July 11, 12. First Philippine Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. No.
1989 125948. Dec. 29, 1998
 17, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution  
3. Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Common carrier may have no regular schedule or clients,
Terminals Co., Inc., G.R. No. 155001. May 5, 2003 fixed routes, terminals or tickets 
  13. Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc., v. CA, G.R.
What constitutes a public utility? No. 147246. Aug. 19, 2003
 18 and 19, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution  
4. The Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Company v. Common carriers bound to serve all and liable for refusal
Public Utility Board, G.R. No. L-19857. March 2, 1923; to so serve without sufficient reason 
44 Phil. 551  
  No distinction made by law between common carriage
Distinction between “operation” and “ownership” of a as a principal or ancillary activity
public utility 14. De Guzman v. CA, G.R. No. L-47822. Dec. 22,
5. Tatad v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 114222. April 6, 1988
1995  
  Distinctions between a common carrier and a private
Power to grant licenses or franchise to operate public carrier
utilities  
6. Pangasinan Transportation, Inc. v. The Public Laws governing domestic, inter-island and coastwise
Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065. June 26, 1940; transportation
70 Phil 221  
  Laws applicable to international, foreign or overseas
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity transportation
distinguished from Certificate of Public Convenience  
7. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Liability of a common carrier; extraordinary diligence
Board, G.R. No. 119528. March 26, 1997  1733, Civil Code
   1734, 1735 and 1745, numbers 5, 6 and 7,
1. COMMON CARRIERS AND CONTRACT OF Civil Code
CARRIAGE  
  Observance of extraordinary diligence in the carriage of
Contract of transportation or Contract of carriage goods
defined 15. Gatchalian v. Delim, G.R. No. 56487. Oct. 21,
  1991; 203 SCRA 126
Contract of carriage imbued with public interest  
 1755, Civil Code). When liability of common carrier starts in transport of
8. Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. No. L- passengers
21438. Sept. 28, 1966; 18 SCRA 155 16. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 84458.
9. Singson v. CA, G.R. No. 119995. Nov. 18, 1997 Nov. 6, 1989
   
Parties to contracts of carriage of goods and of When liability of common carrier commences in
passengers transport of goods
 
Requisites of extraordinary diligence in carriages by land 28. Vergara v. CA, G.R. No. 77679, Sept. 30, 1987
and by sea  
17. Trans‐Asia Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 118126. Fire not considered as a natural disaster or calamity
March 4, 1996 29. Africa v. Caltex [Phil.], Inc., G.R. No. L-12986.
18. Negros Navigation v. CA, G.R. No. 110398. March 31, 1966; 16 SCRA 448
Nov. 7, 1997  1734, Civil Code
   4, COGSA
Liabilities of a common carrier for breach of contract 30. Servando v. Philippine Steam Navigation Co.,
  G.R. No. L‐36481‐2, Oct. 23, 1982
Defenses in culpa contractual  
 1762, Civil Code Typhoon or storm deemed a fortuitous event; exception
  31. Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. CA, G.R. No. L-47851.
Burden of proof in cases of contributory negligence Oct. 3, 1986; 144 SCRA 596
  32. Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v.
Damages recoverable for death of a passenger IAC, G.R. No. 74387-90. Nov. 14, 1988; 167 SCRA 379
19. Briñas v. People, G.R. No. L‐30309. Nov. 25, 33. Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. No. 115024. Feb. 7,
1983 1996; 253 SCRA 303
  34. Arada v. CA, G.R. No. 98243. July 1, 1992
Causes exempting the common carrier from  
responsibility Stipulations in a contract of carriage deemed as
 1734, Civil Code unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy
   1745, Civil Code
Distinctions between an action to enforce liability of the  
employer of the negligent driver under Article 103 of the Acts of strangers that would divest a common carrier of
Revised Penal Code and an action based on quasi‐delict his/its duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
under the Civil Code over the goods carried
   1745, par. (6), Civil Code
Liability of common carrier for moral damages   
20. China Airlines, Ltd. v. IAC, G.R. No. 73835. Jan. Liability of carrier for acts of robbers
17, 1989  
  Act of God must be the sole and proximate cause of the
Common carriers generally presumed to have been at loss to exempt the carrier from liability
fault or to have acted negligently  
21. Bascos v. CA, G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993 Common carrier not liable where the proximate cause of
Arts. 1734 and 1735, Civil Code passenger’s injury is his own negligence
   1761, Civil Code
When presumption of negligence arises; how  
presumption overcame; when presumption made Liability over perishable goods
absolute  
  Duty of carrier to keep the vessel seaworthy
Presumption of fault or negligence of common carrier  
rebuttable Rules regarding a carrier’s liability for delay in delivery of
22. Pilapil v. CA, G.R. No. 52159. Dec. 22, 1989; goods 
180 SCRA 546 35. Saludo, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 95536. March 23,
  1992
Exceptions to the application of presumption of fault or  
negligence Liability for delay in the transportation of goods
23. Philippine American General Insurance Co, Inc. v.  1170, 1740, 1747 and 1748, Civil Code);
MGG Marine Services, Inc. G.R. No. 135645.  
March 8, 2002 Certificate of Public Convenience not a requisite for
Arts. 1740, 1742 and 1743, Civil Code incurring of liability as a common carrier 
24. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. L‐48757. May 30, 1988  
25. Southern Lines v. CA, G.R. No. L‐16629. Jan. Grounds for refusal by common carrier to carry certain
31, 1962, 4 SCRA 258 goods must be reasonable
26. Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front 36. C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R.
Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 119197. May 16, No. L-8095. March 31, 1915
1997; 272 SCRA 527  
  Presumption of negligence of common carriers; how
Accidents due to mechanical defects of carrier not overcome
fortuitous events  1735 and 1752, Civil Code
26. Sweet Lines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L‐46340. April 37. Compania Maritima v. CA, G.R. No. L-31379,
29, 1983 29 Aug. 1988, 164 SCRA 685
27. Juntilla v. Fontanar, G.R. No. L‐45637, May  
31, 1985 Reasons for the requirement of extraordinary diligence
   1742, Civil Code
Principles on the liability of a common carrier 50. Southern Lines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L-16629.
38. Isaac v. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., Jan. 31, 1962; 4 SCRA 258
G.R. No. L-9671. Aug. 23, 1957  
  Order or act of competent public authority
Periods when the liability of a common carrier begins  1743, Civil Code
and ceases 51. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. L-48757. May 30,
 1736 and 1738, Civil Code 1988; 161 SCRA 646
 619 of the Code of Commerce  
39. Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. v. Wallem Liability of a common carrier for the death of or injuries
Phils. Shipping, Inc. G.R. No. 165647. March 26, 2009 to passengers due to the acts of its employees, other
  passengers or strangers
To whom goods must be delivered  1762, Civil Code
 1736, Civil Code  1764, Civil Code
   
Parties may agree to relieve carrier from liability while Basis of carrier’s liability
goods are in custom’s custody 52. Maranan v. Perez, G.R. No. L-22272. June 26,
40. Lu Do & Lu Ym Corp. v. Binamira, G.R. No. L- 1967
9840. April 22, 1957  
  Doctrine of respondeat superior 
Rule as to unloading, storage and stoppage in transitu  1759, Civil Code
  53. Manila Railroad Company v. Ballesteros, G.R.
Implied warranty of seaworthiness of ships as common No. L-19161. April 29, 1966; 16 SCRA 641
carriers  1763, Civil Code
41. Caltex [Philippines], Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.,  48 (b), Motor Vehicle Law or Republic Act No.
G.R. No. 131166. Sept. 30, 1999; 374 Phil. 325 4136
   
Passenger defined Degree of diligence required of common carriers for
  willful acts of strangers
Persons not deemed as passengers  1763, Civil Code
42. Lara v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-9907. June 30,  
1958 Causes of liability of common carriers
   
Defenses of a common carrier in the carriage of goods Duration of the liability of the common carrier in a
 1734, Civil Code contract of carriage of goods
43. Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. CA, G.R. No.  1736, 1737 and 1738, Civil Code
104685. March 14, 1996  
  Periods within which the common carrier in a contract of
Caso fortuito defined; characteristics; exempting carriage of passengers may be held liable
circumstances 54. Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad, G.R.
44. Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 661 No. 145804. Feb. 6, 2003
45. Republic of the Philippines v. Luzon 55. Del Prado v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-
Stevedoring Corp., G.R. No. L-21749. Sept. 29, 1967; 29462. March 7, 1929; 52 Phil. 900
128 Phil. 313, citing Art. 1179, Civil Code  
46. Metal Forming Corp.. v. Office of the Duty of common carriers to afford passengers the
President, G.R. No. 111386. Aug. 28, 1995; 317 Phil. opportunity to board safely
853 56. Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R.
 1740, Civil Code No. 95582. Oct. 7, 1991; 202 SCRA 574
 1734, Civil Code  
 4, COGSA Person attempting to board a common carrier already
47. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. L- considered a passenger
69044 and L-71478, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 463  
48. La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Co. v. De Passenger must be allowed a reasonable time to leave
Jesus, G.R. No. L-21486. May 14, 1966; 123 Phil. 875 the carrier’s premises
  57. La Mallorca v. CA, G.R. No. L‐ July 27, 1966
Defense of negligence of the shipper or owner  
 1741, Civil Code Presumption of negligence
   1735, Civil Code
Proximate cause defined  
49. Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corp., G.R. No. Rationale for the presumption  
184905. Aug. 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 526 58. Mirasol v. The Robert Dollar Co., G.R. No. L-
  29721. March 27, 1929).
Character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the
containers
59. Coastwise Lighterage Corp. v. CA, G.R. No.  1 and 2, C.A. No. 146
114167. July 12, 1995  
 1755, Civil Code Jurisdiction and powers of the Public Service Commission
   13[a], C.A. No. 146
Burden of proof falls on carrier to prove extraordinary  
diligence Public service
   13[b], C.A. No. 146
Defenses to overcome presumption of fault or  
negligence Public character and interest not number of people
 1734, 1735 and 1736, Civil Code served determinative of public utility or service
  66. Luzon Stevedoring Company, Inc. v. The
Valid stipulations in contracts of carriage of goods Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-5458. Sept. 16,
 1744, Civil Code 1953
 1748, 1749 and 1750, Civil Code  
 1744, Art. 1745, No. 4, Civil Code Public utility defined
 1758, Civil Code 67. JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
  124293. Sept. 24, 2003
Void stipulations in contracts of carriage of goods  
 1745, Civil Code Statutory definition of public utility abandoned
 1733, 1755 and 1757, Civil Code 68. JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, Id.; Tinga, J.,
  Sep. Op.
Rules on checked-in baggage  
 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, Civil Code Public use
  69. Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. v. Public Utility
Rule in case of non‐paying passengers or if the fare is Board, G.R. No. L-19857. March 2, 1923; 44 Phil. 551
reduced  
 758, Civil Code Exempted services
Concurring causes of action  13, Public Service Act or C.A. No. 146, as
 1759, Civil Code. amended
60. Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil. 768  14, C.A. No. 146, as amended by C.A. No. 454,
 2180, Civil Code R.A. Nos. 2031 and 2677
 826-939, Code of Commerce  
61. Martinez v. Barredo, G.R. No. L-49308. May Why shipyards are not deemed as public utilities;
13, 1948; 81 Phil. 1 definition
 102 and 103, Revised Penal Code  13 (b), C.A. No. 146
62. Viluan v. CA, G.R. No. L-21477-81. April 29,  15, C.A. No. 146
1966  1(d), P.D. No. 666 reads:
63. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 8896. Dec. 29, 70. Mecano v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
1913; 56 Phil. 177 103982. Dec. 11, 1992; 216 SCRA 500
   20 of B.P. Blg. 391 expressly and categorically
Stipulations limiting the liability of the carrier in a bill of repealed the whole of Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 666.
lading  O. No. 226 (law) dated July 16, 1987
64. E. Heacock Company v. Macondray &  
Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-16598. Oct. 3, 1921; 42 Phil. Other service not deemed as public utilities
205  
65. Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. v. Gabino Barretto & 1. Automobile and aircraft manufacturers
Co., Ltd., G.R. No. L-28028. Nov. 25, 1927; 51 Phil. 90  
2. Oil company
When a stipulation limiting common carrier’s liability  
may be annulled by the shipper or owner   A. No. 387, otherwise known as the
 1746 and 1747, Civil Code Petroleum Act of 1949
   Act No. 3108 and C.A. No. 146 included oil in
When the limitation of the amount of liability is valid the definition of public utility
 1750, Civil Code  A. Nos. 146 and 454, R.A. Nos. 1270 and 2677
  covered petroleum.
CHAPTER II  
3. Wharf or dock
THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW  
  71. Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551. July 11,
1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ITS 1989; 175 SCRA 264
FUNCTIONS  
 Commonwealth Act No. 146 enacted on 4. Operator of trucks 
November 7, 1936
72. United States v. Tan Piaco, G.R. No. L-15122.  
March 10, 1920; 40 Phil. 853 Unlawful acts of public service companies
Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended  18 and 19, C.A. No. 146, amended
   
5. Owner and lessor of equipment and facilities Prior operator rule or Old operator rule
for a rail system  80. Halili v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-21061. June 27, 1968;
73. Tatad v. Garcia, G.R. No. 114222. April 6, 23 SCRA 1174
1995; 243 SCRA 436  
Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended Exceptions to the prior operator rule
   
6. Ice plant Prior applicant rule
74. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc. v. Third operator rule
John Bordman, G.R. No. L-43668. March 31, 1938; 65 81. Yangco v. Esteban, G.R. No. 38586. Aug. 18,
Phil. 401 1933
   
7. Others included in the definition of public Protection of investment rule
utilities 82. Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes, G.R.
  No. L-28865. Dec. 19, 1928; 52 Phil., 455
Public utility determined not by law but by courts 83. Tiongson v. Public Service Commission, G.R.
 1, R.A. No. 2677, amending Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. L-24701. Dec. 16, 1970
No. 146, as amended  
75. North Negros Sugar Co. v. Hidalgo, G.R. No. L- CHAPTER III
42334. Oct. 31, 1936; 63 Phil. 664
  COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS FOR TRANSPORTATION
1. FRANCHISE FOR PUBLIC SERVICES  
  1. CODE OF COMMERCE PROVISIONS AND
Franchise defined CONCEPTS
   
Franchise as a legislative grant Relevant Code of Commerce provisions and scope of
  their application
Congress has no exclusive authority to issue franchises  349 to 379, Code of Commerce
   
 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution Contract of transportation; when deemed commercial 
   349, Code of Commerce
Public Service Commission abolished and replaced   
  Bill of lading defined
Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) or Certificate of 84. Bus Company v. The Collector of Internal
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) defined Revenue, G.R. No. L-14078. Feb. 24, 1961
   
76. Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. Public Lading defined
Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065. June 26, 1940;  
70 Phil. 221 Two-fold character of a bill of lading
77. Luque v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-22545. Nov. 28,  
1969; 30 SCRA 408 Functions of the bill of lading
 14 of the Public Service Act (C.A. No. 146)  
 15, par. 1, C.A. No. 146 Kinds of bills of lading
  85. Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corp. v.
CPC included in the term “property” CA, G.R. No. 95529. Aug. 22, 1991
78. Raymundo v. Luneta Motor Co., G.R. No. L-  
39902, L-39903. Nov. 29, 1933; 58 Phil. 889 Bill of lading not indispensable to contract of carriage
  86. Compañia Maritima v. Insurance Company of
Conditions for the issuance of CPC or CPCN North America, G.R. No. L-18965. Oct. 30, 1964
 1, Sec. 15, C.A. No. 146, as amended  
 15, par. 2, C.A. No. 146, as amended When liability of the carrier commences
   
Requisites for the grant of CPC or CPCN Determination of indemnity if not stipulated
79. Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr.,  370, Code of Commerce
G.R. No. 115381. Dec. 23, 1994  
  Bill of lading as a contract of adhesion
Other applications of the CPC or CPCN 87. Philippine Commercial International Bank v.
 15, par. 4, C.A. No. 146, as amended CA, G.R. No. 97785. March 29, 1996; 325 Phil. 588
   
Law not the title in certificate that determines the Effect of acceptance of a bill of lading sans objection
requirements for the issuance of such certificate  
Contract ambiguities how construed Rules on claim do not apply to undelivered goods
 1377, Civil Code 96. Roldan v. Lim Ponzo & Co., G.R. No. L-11325.
88. Power Commercial and Industrial Corp. v. CA, Dec. 7, 1917
G.R. No. 119745. June 20, 1997; 274 SCRA 597  
  Shorter period may validly be stipulated by the parties 
Instances when consignee is bound by the bill of lading  
89. Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 75118. Application of prescriptive periods under the Civil Code
Aug. 31, 1987; 237 Phil. 531  
 1311[2], Civil Code Doctrine of combined or connecting services
90. Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., G.R. No.  373, Code of Commerce
L-3678. Feb. 29, 1952; 90 Phil 836  
  Special right of carrier over the goods transported and
Duties of the carrier prescription of action to enforce such right
   375, Code of Commerce
Carrier’s obligation to accept the goods  
91. C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R. CHAPTER IV
No. L-8095. March 31, 1915 LAND TRANSPORTATION
   
When a common carrier may lawfully decline to accept 1. GOVERNING LAWS
the goods  
   Republic Act No. 4136 or the Land
Carrier not absolutely obliged to accept a cargo Transportation and Traffic Code – June 20, 1964
92. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.  Republic Act No. 6374;
119706. March 14, 1996  Presidential Decree No. 98;
   Presidential Decree No.109;
Carrier’s duty to deliver the goods   Presidential Decree No. 843;
   Presidential Decree No. 896;
Period of delivery of goods  Presidential Decree No.1057;
 358, Code of Commerce  Presidential Decree No.1958;
 370, Code of Commerce  Batas Pambansa Blg. 43;
   Batas Pambansa Blg. 74;
Effects of delay in the delivery of the goods  Batas Pambansa Blg. 398;
 1740, Civil Code  Republic Act No. 8750;
 1747, Civil Code  Republic Act No. 10586 or the “Anti-Drunk
  and Drugged Driving Act of 2013;” and
Instances when the consignee may refuse to receive the  Other laws which expressly or impliedly
goods modified some of its provisions.
 363, 365 and 371, Code of Commerce  
  1. IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES AND BODIES
Claim for damage, when and how made  
 366, Code of Commerce 1. The Land Transportation Office (LTO)
93. New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Choa Joy,  Book IV, Title XV, Chapter 1, Sec. 2,
G.R. No. L-7311. Sept. 30, 1955 Administrative Code of 1987).
   4 (d) [1], Art. III, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
When claim for damage may no longer be admitted  27, Land Transportation and Traffic Code or
 366, Code of Commerce, pars. 1 and 2 R.A. No. 4136, as amended
   
Effects of paying the transportation charges Driver’s license issued by the LTO
 366, Code of Commerce  
  Specific powers and functions of the LTO
Rationale for the requisite period of giving notice of  4 (d) [1], Art. III, R.A. No. 4136, as amended,
claim  
94. Philippine American General Insurance Co., 2. The Land Transportation, Franchising and
Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 87434. Aug. 5, 1992; Regulatory Board (LTFRB)
212 SCRA 194  O. No. 202, dated 19 June 1987
  97. Land Transportation Office v. Butuan, G.R.
24-hour claim a condition precedent to an action against No. 131512. Jan. 20, 2000
carrier  
95. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. v. Chemoil “To regulate” and “to register” construed
Lighterage Corp., G.R. No. 136888. June 29, 2005  
  Key powers and functions of the LTFRB
Patent damage vis-à-vis latent damage  O. No. 202, s. 1987
   
3. The Local Government Units (LGUs)  19 of R.A. No. 10586 expressly modified Sec.
  56(f) of R.A. No. 4136
Power to regulate the operation and grant franchises to  22, RPC, in relation to Sec. 3(e), RA 10586
tricycles devolved to LGU  
 458. R.A. No. 7160 1. RECKLESS DRIVING AND ROAD ACCIDENTS
   
Rationale for the devolution Reckless driving and reckless imprudence
   48, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
LTO powers on vehicle registration and drivers’ licensing  
not devolved to LGUs Imprudence defined
   
4. The Metropolitan Manila Development Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property;
Authority (MMDA) elements
   
MMDA’s power to enforce traffic laws in Metro Manila Presumption of imprudent driving; burden of proof on
 5(f), Republic Act No. 7924 the accused
   
1. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ROAD USERS When motor vehicle operator at fault may be held
98. Caminos, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 147437. May criminally liable
8, 2009  56[n], R.A. No. 4136, as amended
   
Duty of drivers to have license Negligence of other party not a defense in reckless
 19, R.A. No. 4136, as amended by B.P. Blg. driving case
398  
  Instance when presumption of driver’s negligence arises
Right of way construed  2185, Civil Code
   
Right of way rule in intersections Rate of speed a basic factor in determining reckless
 42, R.A. No. 4136 driving
   
Duty to yield Restriction as to speed
   35[a], R.A. No. 4136, as amended
Rule determined by imminence of collision  
  Reasonable rate of speed
Crossing a thru-stop street  100. Gabriel v. CA, G.R. No. 128474. Oct. 6, 2004;
99. Adzuara v. CA, G.R. No. 125134. Jan. 22, 440 SCRA 136
1999; 301 SCRA 657  35, R.A. No. 4136
   
Driving on right side of highway Swerving per se not violative of traffic law
 37, R.A. No. 4136, as amended  48, R.A. No. 4136
  101. Sydeco v. People, G.R. No. 202692. Nov. 12,
Overtaking a vehicle 2014
 39, R.A. No. 4136, as amended  
  Driving under the influence of alcohol
Driver to give way to overtaking vehicle  5, R.A. No. 10586
 40, R.A. No. 4136, as amended  3(g), IRR of R.A. No. 10586
   
Turning right or left at intersections Driving under the influence of dangerous drugs and
 45[a] and [b], R.A. No. 4136, as amended other similar substance
   3[f], R.A. No. 10586
Parking prohibited in specified places  
 46, R.A. No. 4136, as amended Conduct of field sobriety tests
   6, R.A. No. 10586
Hitching to a vehicle prohibited  3[g], R.A. No. 10586
 51, R.A. No. 4136, as amended  
  Use of breath analyzer
Obstruction of traffic  3[b], R.A. No. 10586
 54, R.A. No. 4136, as amended  
  Chemical and confirmatory tests
Prohibited acts specifically penalized under R.A. No.  3[c], R.A. No. 10586
4136  
  Mandatory alcohol and chemical testing of drivers
Retroactive effect of penal laws involved in motor vehicular accidents
 7, R.A. No. 10586 110. First Malayan Leasing and Finance Corp. v.
  CA,R. No. 91378. June 9, 1992; 209 SCRA 660
Refusal to submit to mandatory tests 111. Roxas v. CA,R. No. 92245. June 26, 1991; 198
 6, 7, 8 and 15, R.A. No. 10586 SCRA 541
  112. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. UCPB General
Children prohibited from sitting in front seat Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 162267. July 4, 2008
 5, R.A. No. 8750  
  Nature of motor vehicle registration fees: taxes or
Duty of driver in case of accident regulatory fees
 55, R.A. No. 4136, as amended  
  113. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Edu, G.R. No. L-
1. ARRESTS AND SEARCHES 41383. Aug. 15, 1988
   
When refusal to get off of the vehicle for a body and Mandatory emission standards for motor vehicles
vehicle search not deemed as serious disobedience to a  46, R.A. No. 8749 or the Clean Air Act of 1999
lawful order  
102. Abenes v. CA, G.R. No. 156320. Feb. 14, 2007; Seat belt device defined
515 SCRA 690  3, R.A. No. 8750
 151, Revised Penal Code  
  Mandatory use and provision of seat belts in certain
Reasonable suspicion of a crime that would justify stop- motor vehicles
and-frisk action  4, R.A. No. 8750
103. People v. Sy Chua, G.R. No. 136066-67. Feb.  
4, 2003; 444 Phil. 757 Penalties and fines for violation of the Seat Belts Use Act
   12, R.A. No. 8750
General rule is confiscation of driver’s license not arrest  
 29. R.A. 4136 Permanent number plates
   17, R.A. No. 4136, as amended by B.P. Blg. 43
No warrant of arrest to be issued for offense penalized  
only by fine; effect of issuance of traffic citation ticket Certificate of Public Convenience issued by LTFRB
104. Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788. Feb. 29, 2012  
  Franchise defined
Requirements for a valid arrest  
105. Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-61016. April Public convenience or necessity construed
26, 1983; 206 Phil. 466  
  Public hearing an indispensable requirement in issuance
Invalid arrest does not authorize warrantless search of CPC
106. People v. Bolasa, G.R. No. 125754. Dec. 22, 114. Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes, G.R.
1999; 378 Phil. 1073 No. L-28865. Dec. 19, 1928; 52 Phil., 455
  115. Manila Electric Company v. Pasay
Evidence seized not in plain view Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-37655. Feb. 9,
107. People v. Macalaba, G.R. No. 146284-86. Jan. 1933; 57 Phil. 825
20, 2003; 443 Phil. 565  
  Requisites for the grant of CPC
Consented warrantless search  16(a), C.A. No. 146, as amended
108. Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 136292. Jan. 15,  
2002; 424 Phil. 263 LTFRB cannot redelegate its delegated power to a
  common carrier
Inadmissibility of articles seized during illegal arrest 116. United States v. Barrias, G.R. No. 4349. Sept.
109. People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366. Dec. 13, 24, 1908; 11 Phil. 327
2010  
  Kabit system
1. MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND 117. Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 57493.
FRANCHISING Jan. 7, 1987; 147 SCRA 82
   1409, Civil Code
Motor vehicle defined 118. Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 125817. Jan. 16, 2002
   
Compulsory registration of motor vehicles Purpose behind the proscription against the kabit system
 5(a) and (e), R.A. No. 4136, as amended  
  Kabit system not a criminal offense but void under civil
Unregistered sale or lease of motor vehicle not binding law
on third persons injured in vehicular accidents  1412, Civil Code
119. Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 64693. Powers and functions of a ship agent
April 27, 1984  
  Civil liabilities of the shipowner and ship agent
Boundary system  Art. 587, Code of Commerce
120. Paguio Transport Corp. v. National Labor  
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119500. Aug. 28, Authority of the ship agent to discharge the captain and
1998 members of the crew
   603 and 605, Code of Commerce
Relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the  
driver under a “boundary system” 2. The ship captain and master of the vessel
  128. Yu Con v. Ipil, G.R. No. L-10195. Dec. 29, 1916
121. Jardin v. National Labor Relations  
Commission, G.R. No. 119268. Feb. 23, 2000 Nature of the position of captain and master
122. National Labor Union v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-  
14183. Nov. 4, 1993 Qualifications of a captain or master
   609, Code of Commerce
Effect of transfer or lease of franchise  
123. Montoya v. Ignacio, G.R. No. L-5868. Dec. 29, Inherent powers of a captain or master
1953; 94 Phil. 182  610, Code of Commerce
   
Registered owner liable despite transfer of ownership of Hull
vehicle  
124. Perez v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. L-30115. Sept. 28, Rigging
1973; 53 SCRA 149  
125. Benedicto v. IAC, G.R. No. 70876. July 19, Fund sources
1990  611, Code of Commerce
   
Approval of sale, encumbrance or lease of property  Duties of a captain or master
 DOTC Order No. 2010‐34  612, Code of Commerce
   
Sale or lease of franchise requires prior approval by  “Log book” and its contents
LTFRB  
  “Accounting book” and its contents
Prior approval of the sale, lease or encumbrance of  
property not a condition precedent to validity of “Freight book” and its contents
contract  
126. Fores v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-12163. March 4, Solidary liability of the captain and ship agent
1959  618, Code of Commerce
   
Solidary liability of a registered owner/operator of a Instances when the captain incurs no liability
public service vehicle  620, Code of Commerce
127. Gelisan v. Alday, G.R. No. L-30212. Sept. 30,  
1987 Ship’s captain discretionary authority
  129. Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises Inc. v.
CHAPTER V National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
115286. Aug. 11, 1994
MARINE TRANSPORTATION  
  Captain cannot be substituted without ship agent’s
1. MARINE TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME consent
LAWS  615, Code of Commerce
   
Marine transportation defined Cases when the captain and crew members may rescind
  their contracts of employment
Governing law  647, Code of Commerce
   
Admiralty or maritime law  The officers and crew of the vessel
   
Admiralty law differentiated from the Law of the Sea Cases when the officers and crew are exempted from all
  obligations
1. THE KEY ACTORS IN MARITIME COMMERCE  647, Code of Commerce
1. The shipowner and ship agent  
 Art. 586, Code of Commerce and 1, R.A. No. Sailing mate or First mate
9515  627, Code of Commerce
 
   17 and 21 of P.D. No. 1521
Duties of a Sailing mate or First mate  
 628 to 631, Code of Commerce 4. Doctrine of limited liability or the Limited
  liability rule
“Binnacle book” and its contents  587, Code of Commerce
 629 to 631, Code of Commerce 132. Yangco v. Laserna, G.R. No. L-47447-47449.
  Oct. 29, 1941; 73 Phil. 330
Second mate  
  Rationale for the doctrine
Duties of a Second mate  
 632, Code of Commerce Doctrine of limited liability; specific applications
   587, 590, 643 and 837, Code of Commerce
Marine engineers  
  Limited liability rule under the provisions of the Code of
Duties of the Chief engineer Commerce
   587, 590 and 837, Book III, Code of
“Engine book” and its contents Commerce
   
The crew and its composition Exceptions to the limited liability rule
 634, Code of Commerce 133. Chua Yek Hong v. IAC, G.R. No. 74811. Sept.
  30, 1988
Just causes for the discharge of a seaman  827, Code of Commerce
 637, Code of Commerce  
  Abandonment defined
Rules if a seaman should die or be captured during the  140, Insurance Code, as amended
voyage  
 645, Code of Commerce General limitation on abandonment
   142, Insurance Code, as amended
Complement of a vessel  
 648, Code of Commerce Abandonment of the vessel; when needed
   837, Code of Commerce
4. Supercargoes 134. Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. L-
 649, Code of Commerce 58897. Dec. 3, 1987; 156 SCRA 169
   
5. The pilot Abandonment; how done
130. Far Eastern Shipping Company v. CA, G.R. No.  145 and 146, Insurance Code, as amended
130068. Oct. 1, 1998  
  Acceptance of abandonment 
Harbor pilot  152 to 155, Insurance Code, as amended
   
Pilotage defined Effect of refusal to accept a valid abandonment
   156, Insurance Code, as amended
Compulsory pilotage  
  Abandonment no longer required when vessel is totally
Liability of a pilot lost
   
 11, Art. III, PPA Admin Order 03-85  587, 590 and 837, Code of Commerce
  135. Vasquez v. CA, G.R. No. L-42926. Sept. 13,
1. IMPORTANT CONCEPTS IN MARITIME 1985; 138 SCRA 553
COMMERCE  
  When abandonment becomes ineffectual
Essential terms used in maritime commerce  144, Insurance Code, as amended
              
1. Merchant vessel defined Causes justifying resort to abandonment
 D. No. 1521  141, Insurance Code, as amended
   
2. Maritime lien  Subsidiary liability of the shipowner and agent
131. Philippine National Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 136. The Philippine Shipping Company v. Vergara,
128661. Aug. 8, 2000; 337 SCRA 381 G.R. No. L-1600. June 1, 1906; Phil. 281
 17 and 21 of P.D. No. 1521 or “The Ship  837, Code of Commerce
Mortgage Decree of 1978” 137. Manila Steamship Co., Inc. v. Abdulhaman,
  G.R. No. L-9534. Sept. 29, 1956; 100 Phil. 32
3. Preferred maritime lien  
Limitations on the right of abandonment 1. Participants in maritime commerce
138. Philippine American General Insurance  
Company, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 116940. June 11, 1997; 1. Charter party
339 Phil. 455 146. Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front
139. Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 119197. May 16,
110398. Nov. 7, 1997; 346 Phil. 551 1997; 272 SCRA 527
   
 Effect of abandonment of vessel and earned freight Charter party as a special contract in maritime
 587, Code of Commerce commerce
140. Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. v.  
Ramirez, G.R. No. L-48264. Feb. 21, 1980; 96 SCRA Parties to a charter party
297  
  Kinds of charter party
Right of abandonment 147. Puromines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 91228. March
  22, 1993
Extent of liability of the shipowner and ship agent  
141. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 121833, Charter of demise or bareboat
130752, 137801. Oct. 17, 2008; 569 SCRA 294).  
  Owner pro hac vice
Ship agent defined  
 587, Code of Commerce Contract of affreightment
   
“No vessel, no liability” rule Kinds of contract of affreightment
142. The Government of the Philippine Islands v.  
The Insular Maritime Co., G.R. No. L-21495. March 18, Time charter
1924; 45 Phil. 805). 148. Litonjua Shipping Company Inc. v. National
  Seamen Board, G.R. No. L-51910. Aug. 10, 1989
Origin of the rule and the rationale for its adoption in  
maritime law Voyage charter
143. Abueg v. San Diego, G.R. No. L-773. Dec. 17,  
1946; 77 Phil. 730 Distinctions between a civil law lease and a charter party
   
Real and hypothecary nature of maritime law Distinctions between a charter party and a bill of lading
144. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. General Accident  
Fire and Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., G.R. No. 100446. Distinctions between a demise or bareboat charter party
Jan. 21, 1993; 217 SCRA 359 and a contract of affreightment
   
“Real” and “hypothecary” construed Persons who can make a charter
145. Rubiso v. Rivera, G.R. No. L-11407. Oct. 30,  598, Code of Commerce
1917; 37 Phil. 72  609, Id.
   679, Id.
Primary governing law on liability of ship owners or  
agents for total loss or destruction of the vessel Requirements of a valid charter party
 1732-1766, Civil Code  
 587, Code of Commerce Instances when a charter party may be rescinded
   
1. Package liability limitation Freight defined
   
1. Causes of revocation of voyage Freightage
 640, Code of Commerce  104, P.D. No. 612 or the Insurance Code, as
Interdiction of commerce amended by R.A. No. 10607
   
Blockade  Requisites and contents of charter party
   652, Code of Commerce
Embargo  
  Charter party clauses 
Order of preference in case of sale of vessel  
  Jason clause
Effect of sale of vessel  
 17, P.D. No. 1521 Paramount clause
 587, Code of Commerce  Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (46 U.S.C.A. §
 687, Id. 1300)
 138, Insurance Code  
  Rights and obligations of the shipowner or ship agent  
 669-678, Code of Commerce  101, Insurance Code
   735, Code of Commerce
Lay days defined  
  1. Accidents in maritime commerce
Extra lay days   
   Averages
Demurrage  806, Code of Commerce
              
Obligations of charterers Ordinary expenses
 679-687, Code of Commerce  807, Code of Commerce
Primage  
  Kinds of averages
Rescission of a charter party at the charterer’s request   
 688, Code of Commerce  808, Code of Commerce
   
Rescission of a charter party at the shipowner’s request  Simple or particular averages
 689, Code of Commerce  809 and 810, Code of Commerce
   
Rescission of a charter party due to fortuitous causes  General or gross averages
 690, Code of Commerce  811, Code of Commerce
   
Transshipment defined Requisites for general average
 Sec 2[m], R.A. No. 10668  816-818, Code of Commerce
149. Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corp. v.  
CA, G.R. No. 95529. Aug. 22, 1991 Procedure for recovery expenses for gross average
   813 and 814, Code of Commerce
1. Loans on bottomry and respondentia  
 719, Code of Commerce Contribution to the general average
   812, Code of Commerce
Aleatory contract  859, Id.
   732, Id.
Distinctions between a loan on bottomry and a loan on 153. Magsaysay, Inc. v. Agan, G.R. No. L-6393. Jan.
respondentia 31, 1955
   812, Code of Commerce
Requisites of loan on bottomry or respondentia  
  Jettison defined
When loan on bottomry or respondentia treated as a  
simple loan Order of goods or cargo to be jettisoned or cast
 726 and 727, Code of Commerce overboard
   815, Code of Commerce
Interest rate on the loan; Usury law and CB Circular 905-  
92 Cargo not covered by general average
 Central Bank Circular No. 905-82  855, Code of Commerce
150. Dio v. Japor, G.R. No. 154129. July 8, 2005;  Rule IX, York-Antwerp Rule
463 SCRA 170  
151. Almeda v. CA, G.R. No. 113412. April 17, Rationale for the rule on deck cargo
1996; 256 SCRA 292  1, Art. 815, Code of Commerce,
  154. Standard Oil Company of New York v. Castelo,
Distinctions between a loan on bottomry or G.R. No. L-13695. Oct. 18, 1921).
respondentia and marine insurance  
  Rule different in coastwise and inland waters navigation
Hypothecary nature of bottomry and respondentia  
 731, Code of Commerce Requisites for inclusion of jettisoned goods in the
  general average
Hypothecary  816, Code of Commerce
   
Barratry defined  Arrival under stress
   819, Code of Commerce
Barratry clause  
152. Roque v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66935. Nov. 11, 1985 Steps to be followed in arrival under stress
   819, Code of Commerce
Marine insurance and loan on bottomry and  
respondentia
Protest in arrival under stress only a disclaimer on 158. Verzosa v. Lim, G.R. No. 20145. Nov. 15, 1923
owner’s liability  
  Effect of absence of protest on persons not on board
When arrival deemed unlawful  836, Code of Commerce
 820, Code of Commerce  
  Limitation on the shipowners’ civil liability
Who bears the expenses of arrival  837, Code of Commerce
 821, Code of Commerce  
  Indemnity for death or injury of persons
Duty of the captain to continue the voyage  838, Code of Commerce
 825, Code of Commerce  
  Summary investigation of the accident
 Collision and allision  839, Code of Commerce
   
Vessel at fault liable for indemnity Presumptions to determine negligence 
 826, Code of Commerce  
  Rules to prevent collision 
Liability if both vessels at fault or if it cannot be  
determined which vessel caused the collision Port and starboard
 827 and 828, Code of Commerce  
  Windward and leeward
Doctrine of last clear chance and Rule on contributory  
negligence Rules governing sailing vessels and steamships
 827, Code of Commerce  
  Maritime protest defined; by whom and when made; to
Doctrine of inscrutable fault whom filed
   835, Code of Commerce
Divisions of time or zones in collisions of vessels  
155. Urrutia & Co. v. Baco River Plantation Co., Persons not required to file protest
G.R. No. L-7675. March 25, 1913).  836, Code of Commerce
   
Error in extremis defined Cases where protest requirement applies
   835, Code of Commerce
Liability in collision through fortuitous event or force  612[8], Id.
majeure  612[15] and 843, Id.
 830, Code of Commerce  624, Id.
   
Presumption of fault against a moving vessel striking a  Shipwreck defined
stationary object; doctrine of res ipsa loquitur  
156. Far Eastern Shipping Company v. CA, G.R. No. Owners bear the losses due to shipwreck
130068. Oct. 1, 1998  840, Code of Commerce
157. Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., G.R. No.  
L-21749. Sept. 29, 1967; 21 SCRA 279 Indemnity from the captain due to his fault
   841, Code of Commerce
Civil tort vis-à-vis maritime tort  
  When the captain may be held liable for shipwreck
Liability of third vessel causing the collision  841, Code of Commerce
 831, Code of Commerce  
  1. SPECIAL CONCEPTS IN MARITIME
Liability of properly anchored and moored vessel COMMERCE
colliding with nearby vessels due to storm or force  
majeure  Arrastre defined
 832, Code of Commerce  
  Arrastre services
When vessel presumed as lost by reason of collision  1213, R.A. No. 1937
 833, Code of Commerce  
  Nature of arrastre function; BOC’s immunity from suit
Role of protest for the recovery of losses and damages 159. Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs
due to collision; when and how made Arrastre Service, G.R. No. L-23139. Dec. 17, 1966
 835, Code of Commerce  
  Arrastre operators
Who can file maritime protest in case of collision  
 835-836, Code of Commerce Functions of an arrastre operator
160. Hijos de F. Escao, Inc. v. National Labor  2142, Civil Code
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 59229. Aug. 22, 1991; 174. Barrios v. Carlos A. Go thong & Company,
261 SCRA 63 G.R. No. L-17192. March 30, 1963
161. Summa Insurance Corp., v. CA, G.R. No.  
84680. Feb. 5, 1996; 323 Phil. 214 Persons having no right to reward for salvage
162. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., v. Metro Port  3, Act No. 2616
Service, Inc., G.R. No. 83613. Feb. 21, 1990; 182 SCRA  
455 Derelict defined
   
Arrastre operator and carrier solidarily liable Basic rules on salvage reward
163. Lua Kian v. Manila Railroad Company, G.R.  9, 11, 12 and 13, Act No. 2616
No. L-23033. Jan. 5, 1967; 19 SCRA 5 175. The Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Company of
164. Northern Motors, Inc. v. Prince Line, G.R. No. Manila v. Uchida Kisen Kaisha, G.R. No. L-15871. Nov.
L-13884. Feb. 29, 1960; 107 Phil. 253). 7, 1921
   
What arrastre operator must prove to avoid liability 1. CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (COGSA)
165. Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Daehan Fire and OR COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 65
Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 171194. Feb. 4,  
2010; 611 SCRA 555 U.S. COGSA adopted by the Philippine Congress via C.A.
  No. 65
Arrastre operator deemed a public utility  Public Act No. 521 of the 74th US Congress
166. New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd. v.  1, C.A. No. 65
Navarro, G.R. No. L-48686. Oct. 4, 1989  
  Application of COGSA in relation to provisions of other
 Stevedoring service defined laws
167. Cebu Arrastre Service v. Collector of Internal  1753, Civil Code
Revenue, G.R. No. L-7444. May 30, 1966  1766, Civil Code
168. The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the  COGSA
Philippines v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.  
L-21835. Aug. 19, 1967 Significant provisions of COGSA
169. Anglo-Fil Trading Corp. v. Lazaro, G.R. No. L-  
54958. Sept. 2, 1983 Rationale for limiting common carrier’s liability
  176. Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. v. UCPB
 Containerization General Insurance Co., G.R. No. 146018. June 25,
  2003
170. United States Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner of  
Customs, G.R. No. L-73490. June 18, 1987 Carriage of goods; period covered
   1(e), Title I of C.A. No. 65 (COGSA)
When carrier of the containerized cargo may be held 177. Insurance Company of North America v. Asian
liable Terminals, Inc., G.R. No. 180784. Feb. 15, 2012
171. Reyma Brokerage, Inc. v. Philippine Home  
Assurance Corp., G.R. No. 93464. Oct. 7, 1991 Notice of loss or damage 
172. Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp. v.  3[6], COGSA
CA, G.R. No. 80256. Oct. 2, 1992  
  Action to recover not barred by lack of notice
1. SALVAGE LAW OR ACT NO. 2616  
  178. E. Elser, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L‐6517. Nov. 29,
Salvage defined 1954)
173. Erlanger & Galinger v. The Swedish East  
Asiatic Co., [Ltd.], G.R. No. L-10051. March 9, 1916 Prescriptive period for filing an action under COGSA
   (6), Sec. 3, COGSA
Elements needed to a valid salvage claim  
  179. Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping,
Rules for determining the reward for salvage N.V. v. Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No.
 9, Act No. 2616 143133. June 5, 2002; 383 SCRA 23)
   
Proper subjects of salvage Other persons covered by the one-year prescriptive
 Salvage Law (Act No. 2616) period
  180. Kuy v. Everrett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L‐
Flotsam, jetsam, lagan defined 5554. May 27, 1953
   
Towage defined Insurer covered by the one-year prescriptive period 
 
Salvage distinguished from towage
181. Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. v. 193. Eastern Shipping v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69044.
Alejandro, G.R. No. L‐54140. Oct. 14, 1986 May 29, 1987; 150 SCRA 463).
 3(6), COGSA  
182. Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. Parties may stipulate higher amount up to actual
124050. June 19, 1997 damage sustained
   
Arrastre operator not covered by prescriptive period Stipulation limiting carrier’s liability for loss of goods
  permitted
Rationale for the prescriptive period under COGSA  1749 and 1750, Civil Code
183. Ang v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc.,  4, par. (5), COGSA
G.R. No. L-22491. Jan. 27, 1967; 19 SCRA 129  
  Stipulation limiting the carrier’s liability; when valid
Not loss or damage but misdelivery  1744, Civil Code
 3(6), COGSA  
  Rule on packages shipped in a container
Applicable rule on prescription in case of misdelivery of  
goods “Container” construed
  194. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 89757.
 1144(1) and 1146, Civil Code Aug. 6, 1990
184. Tan Liao v. American President Lines, Ltd.,  
G.R. No. L-7280. Jan. 20, 1956; 98 Phil. 203 Deterioration of goods due to delay in transit constitutes
  loss or damage
Instances when prescription is suspended  3(6), COGSA
185. Universal Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No.  
74125. July 31, 1990; 188 SCRA 170 Instances when carrier or ship not liable
186. H. Stevens & Co. Inc. v. Norddeuscher Lloyd,  
G.R. No. L-17730. Sept. 29, 1962; 6 SCRA 180 CHAPTER VI
 
Provisions of Civil Code on prescription not applicable to AIR TRANSPORTATION
COGSA  
 1155, Civil Code 1. AIR TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY BODIES
 3, par. 6, COGSA  Republic Act No. 776, as amended by
187. Chua Kuy v. Everett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. Presidential Decree 1462
L-5554. May 27, 1953  Republic Act No. 9497
 1155, Civil Code  
188. The Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 1. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)
Ltd. v. American President Lines, Inc., G.R. No. No. L-  
11081. April 30, 1958; 103 Phil. 1125 CAB’s authority to issue certain documents, permits
189. Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Maritime Company of  
the Philippines, G.R. No. L‐61352. Feb. 27, 1987 Specific powers and duties of the CAB
   10[C], R.A. No. 776, as amended
When prescription begins to run   
190. Continental Insurance Company v. Manila Considerations in CAB’s rate-fixing
Port Service, G.R. No. L-22208. March 30, 1966, 16  10[C][2], R.A. No. 776, as amended
SCRA 425  
191. Union Carbide Philippnes, Inc. v. Manila 2. The Civil Aviation Authority of the
Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-27798. June 15, 1977 Philippines (CAAP)
   
Prescriptive period applies to insurer of goods Powers of the CAAP
   
When cases for loss or damage of goods must be filed 1. TRANSPORTATION STATUTES AND GLOBAL
  ACCORDS
Manner of determining the amount of liability of  Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines or
common carrier for loss or damage to the goods Republic Act No. 776, as amended (1952);
transported  Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 or
 372, Code of Commerce Republic Act No. 9497; and
   Warsaw Convention of 1929 or the
When shipper fails to declare value of goods Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules
 4, par. 5, COGSA Relating to International Carriage by Air, as amended
192. Philam Insurance Company, Inc. v. Heung-A by subsequent international agreements.
Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 187701. July 23, 2014  
  1. The Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines
Amount of carrier’s liability or Republic Act No. 776, as amended (1952);
 4(5), COGSA
 Republic Act No. 776, otherwise known as the CAAP’s aviation safety powers and functions
Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines, as amended  55, R.A. No. 9497
by Presidential Decree No. 1462 and Executive Order  
No. 217 The Chicago Convention
   
CAB empowered to issue CPCNs and permits to air 2. The Warsaw Convention of 1929 
carriers  
   Convention for the Unification of Certain
CAB requirements to be satisfied by a foreign air carrier Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air,
intending to operate in the country commonly known as the Warsaw Convention (WC)
  195. Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines, G.R.
Regulation of airfares No. 101538. June 23, 1992
 5.01, IRR of E.O. No. 219, s. 1995 and E.O. No.  
32, s. 2001 Warsaw Convention; its application vis-à-vis Philippine
  laws
Aviation-specific passenger protection rules and 196. Mapa v. CA, G.R. No. 122308. July 8, 1997;
regulations 341 Phil. 281
  197. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., v. CA, G.R. No.
 CAB’s Economic Regulation No. 9, December 60501. March 5, 1993; 219 SCRA 520
18, 2012  
  Principal goal of the treaty
Serious aviation crimes under the Anti-hijacking Law of  
1971 Twin purposes of the treaty
 1, R.A. No. 6235  
  Scope of application of the treaty
Shipping, loading or carrying of any substance regulated  
by CAB International transportation
 2 and 3, R.A. No. 6235  1[2], Warsaw Convention
   
Air Passenger Bill of Rights High contracting party
 DOTC-DTI Joint Administrative Order No. 1  
(2012) Transportation by several successive air carriers deemed
  as one undivided transportation
The Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 or Republic Act  1[3], Warsaw Convention
No. 9497  
 Republic Act No. 9497, otherwise known as Carrier’s liability for damage in case of passenger’s death
the Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 or injury
   17, Warsaw Convention
CAAP’s authority to prevent flight  
 39, R.A. No. 9497 Liability for damage for destroyed, lost or damaged
  articles
System and procedures for investigation of air accidents  18, Warsaw Convention
   
Aircraft accident investigation and Inquiry board Period of transportation by air
 42, R.A. No. 9497  
  Liability of carrier for delay
Establishment of registry of aircrafts  19, Warsaw Convention
 43, R.A. No. 9497  
  Provision limiting carrier’s liability for damage caused by
Eligibility for registration of aircraft its willful misconduct removed by Hague Protocol
 43, R.A. No. 9497, citing R.A. No. 776, P.D. 198. Alitalia v. IAC, G.R. No. 71929. Dec. 4, 1990
No. 1278, E.O. No. 546, and B.P. Blg. 504  
  Limit of carrier’s liability
Nationality of aircraft  
 47, R.A. No. 9497  22, Warsaw Convention
  Exceptions to the limitations
Conveyance of aircraft required to be recorded in CAAP Willful misconduct
to be valid against third parties 199. Luna v. CA, G.R. No. 100374-75. Nov. 27, 1992
 49, R.A. No. 9497 200. Northwest Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 120334.
  Jan. 20, 1998
Form of conveyance 201. Lhuiller v. British Airways, G.R. No. 171092.
 50, R.A. No. 9497 March 15, 2010
 
Airway bill defined
  “Destination” and “agreed stopping place”
Warsaw Convention does not preclude the operation of  
the Civil Code and other laws Article 28(1) refers to jurisdiction not venue
   28(1), Warsaw Convention
Stipulation relieving the carrier from or limiting its  32, Id.
liability  
 23, Warsaw Convention Special rules on the liabilities of airline carriers
202. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. 209. Philippine Airlines, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. L-
No. 70462, 164 SCRA 268 82619. Sept. 15, 1993);
203. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca, G.R. No. L- 210. Zalamea v. CA, G.R. No. 104235. Nov. 18,
22425. Aug. 31, 1965; 14 SCRA 1063); or 1993
204. Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines, G.R. 211. Lufthansa German Airlines v. CA, G.R. No.
No. L-28773. June 30, 1975; 64 SCRA 610 83612. Nov. 24, 1994
205. Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. CA, G.R. No. 212. KLM Dutch Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. No. L-
114061. Aug. 3, 1994; 154 SCRA 211 31150. July 22, 1975; 65 SCRA 237
206. Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.,  
G.R. No. L-28589. Jan. 8, 1973; 43 SCRA 397 Rule in case of various successive carriers
   
Validity of stipulation relieving the carrier from or Remedies of parties in carriage of passengers and goods
limiting its liability   30, Warsaw Convention
 23[1], Warsaw Convention  
Notices of claim in case of damage or delay Contract of carriage performed by different carriers
 26, Warsaw Convention 213. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British
  Overseas Airways Corp., G.R. No. L-65773-74. April
When right to damages is extinguished by prescription 30, 1987,
 29, Warsaw Convention  VI, Res. 850 of the IATA
207. United Airlines v. Uy, G.R. No. 127768. Nov. 214. American Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 116044-45.
19, 1999 March 9, 2000; 384 Phil.
  215. 227Distinction between damage to baggage
Recovery of claim covered by the Convention after 2 and injury to passenger due to the misconduct of
years airline employees
 19, Warsaw Convention  
 24, Id. Limitations to the liability of air carriers under the
208. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Savillo, 209. G.R. Convention
No. 149547. July 4, 2008; 557 SCRA 66  
 22, Warsaw Convention
Jurisdiction  25, Id