CASES IN TRANSPORTATION LAWS

I. CONCEPT AND DEFINITION OF COMMON CENTER

 De Guzman v. Court of Appeals [168 SCRA 612, 22 December 1988]
 Planters Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals [226 SCRA 476, 15 September 1993]

II. CHARACTERISTICS
 Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Co. [31 PHIL 1, 5 November 1914]
 U.S. v. Quinajon and Quitoriano [31 PHIL 189, 30 July 1915]
 Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 131621, 28 September
1991]
 First Philippine Industrial Co. v. Court of Appeals [101 SCAD 1098, 29 December
1998]

III. DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATE CARRIER AND CONTRACT OF TOWAGE

 Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc. [23 SCRA 24, 4 April 1968]
 San Pablo v. Pantranco South Express, Inc. [153 SCRA 199, 21 August 1987]
 Natinal Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals [283 SCRA 45. 15 December 1997]

IV. GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF COMMON CARRIERS

 Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr. [239 SCRA 386, 23 December 1994]
 Tatad v. Garcia, Jr. [243 SCRA 436, 6 April 1995]

V. GOVERNING LAW
 Samar Mining Co. v. Nordeutscher Lloyd [132 SCRA 529, 23 October 1984]
 Eastern Shipping Lines v. Intermediate Appellate Court [150 SCRA 464, 29 May 1987]
 National Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals [164 SCRA 593, 19 August
1988]

VI. EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE REQUIRED OF COMMON CARRIERS

 De Guzman v. Court of Appeals [186 SCRA 612, 22 December 1988]

VII. REGISTERED OWNER RULE

 Gelisan v. Alday [154 SCRA 388, 30 September 1987]
 Benedicto v. Intermediate Appellate Court [187 SCRA 550, 19 July 1990]
 Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals [273 SCRA 562, 17 June 1997]

VIII. KABIT SYSTEM

 Santos v. Sibug [104 SCRA 520, 23 May 1981]
 Lita Enterprises, nc. V. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-64693, 27 April 1984]
 Teja Marketing v. Intermediate Appellate Court [148 SCRA 347, 9 March 1987]

IX. BOUNDARY SYSTEM

 Magboo v. Bernando [7 SCRA 952, 30 April 1963]

X. LIABILITY OF CARRIERS
  Eastern Shipping Lines v. Intermediate Appellate Court [150 SCRA 464, 29 May 1987]
 Ganzon v. Court of Appeals [161 SCRA 6646, 30 May 1988]
 De Guzman v. Court of Appeals [207 SCRA 498, 23 March 1992]
 Macam v. Court of Appeals [313 SCRA 77, 25 August 1999]

XI. COMMENCEMENT, DURATION AND TERMINATION OF CARRIER’S RESPONSIBILITY

 Samar Mining Company Company v. Neurdeutsher Lloyd [132 SCRA 529, 23 October
1984]
 Ganzon v. Court of Appeals [161 SCRA 646. 30 May 1988]
 Saludo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals [207 SCRA 498, 23 March 1992]
 Macam v. Court of Appeals [313 SCRA 77, 25 August 1999]

XII. STIPULATIONS LIMITING THE CARRIER’S RENSPONSIBILITY

 Juan Ysmael v. Gabino Barreto & Co. [51 PHIL 90, 25 June 1927]
 Shewaram v. Phillipine Airlines, Inc. [17 SCRA 606, 7 July 1966]
 Ong Yu v. Court of Appeals [91 SCRA 223, 29 June 1979]
 SeaLand Services, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court [153 SCRA 552, 31 August
1987]
 Citadel Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals [184 SCRA 544, 25 April 1990]
 Everette Steamship Corp. v. Court of Appeals [285 SCRA 450, 29 January 1998]
 Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 131621, 28 September
1991]

XIII. VOID STIPULATIONS

 Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Teves [83 SCRA 361, 19 May 1978]

XIV. PASSENGERS’ BAGGAGE

 Quisumbing, Sr. v. Court of Appeals [189 SCRA 605, 14 September 1990]
 Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Rapadas [209 SCRA 67, 19 May 1992]
 British Airways v. Court of Appeals [285 SCRA 450, 29 January 1998]

XV. UTMOST DILIGENCE REQUIRED SAFETY OF PASSENGERS

 Nocum v. Laguna Tayabs Bus Co. [30 SCRA 69, 31 October 1969]
 Mecenas v. Court of Appeals [180 SCRA 83, 14 December 1989]
 Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals [281 SCRA 534, 7 November 1997]
 Korean Airlines Co. Ltd. v. Court of Appeals [234 SCRA 717, 3 August 1994]
 Fortune Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals [305 SCRA 15, 18 March 1999]

XVI. LAST CLEAR CHANCE DOCTRINE

 Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. Intermediate Appellate Court [189 SCRA 158, 30 August
1990]
 Bustamante v. Court of Appeals [ 193 SCRA 603, 6 February 1991]

XVII. ACCOMMODATION PASSENGER

 Lara v. Valencia [104 PHIL 65, 30 June 1958]
XVIII. NOT AN INSURER AGAINST ALL RISKS
 Necessito v. Paras [104 PHIL 75, 30 June 1958]
 Japan Airlines v. Court of Appeals [294 SCRA 19, 7 August 1998]
 Yobido v. Court of Appeals [281 SCRA 1, 17 October 1997]

XIX. COMMENCEMENT, DURATION AND TERMINATION OF CARRIER’S RESPONSIBILITY

 La Mallorca v. Court of Appeals [17 SCRA 739, 27 July 1966]
 Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. Court of Appeals [179 SCRA 95,6 November 1989]
 Mallari, Sr. v. Court of Appeals [324 SCRA 147, 31 January 2000]

XX. PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE

 Bayasen v. Court of Appeals [103 SCRA 197, 26 February 1981]
 Cervantes v. Court of Appeals [304 SCRA 25, 2 March 1999]
 Calalas v. Court of Appeals [332 SCRA 870, 31 May 2000]
 Pestano v. Sumayang [346 SCRA 870, 4 December 2000]

XXI. NEGLIGENCE OR INTENTIONAL ASSAULT BY CARRIER’S EMPLOYEE

 Gilaco v. Manila Railroad Company [97 PHIL 884, 14 November 1955]
 Maranan v. Perez [20 SCRA 412, 26 June 1967]

XXII. PASSENGER’S DUTY TO OBSERVE DILIGENCE IN AVOIDING INJURY;CONTRIBUTORY

NEGLIGENCE
 Phillipine National Railways v. Court of Appeals [139 SCRA 87, 4 October 1985]
 Isaac v. A.L. Ammen Transport Co., Inc. [101 PHIL 1046, 23 August 1957]

XXIII. INJURY TO PASSENGERS CAUSED BY THE ACTS OF A CO-PASSENGER/STRANGER

 Bachelor Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals [188 SCRA 216, 31 July 1990]
 Fortune Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals