QUIZ # 1: TRANSPORTATION LAW

ESSAY QUESTIONS—Answer legibly, clearly and concisely using your yellow

papers. Do not repeat the question. You will be given credit for your knowledge of
legal doctrine and for the quality of your legal reasoning. Without any legal basis
and jurisprudence, you will not be given any credit. A mere “Yes” or “No” answer
without any corresponding discussion will not be given any credit.

I.
Star Shipping Lines accepted 100 cartons of sardines from Master to be
delivered to 555 Company in Manila. Only 88 cartons were delivered, however,
these were in bad condition. 555 Company claimed from Star Shipping Lines the
value of the missing goods, as well as the damaged goods. Star Shipping Lines
refused because the former failed to present a bill of lading. Resolve with reasons
the claim of 555 Company. (5%)

II.
JRT Inc entered into a contract with C Co of Japan to export anahaw fans
valued at $23,000. As payment thereof, a letter of credit was issued to JRT by the
buyer. The letter of credit required the issuance of an on-board bill of lading and
prohibited the transshipment. The President of JRT then contracted a shipping
agent to ship the anahaw fans through O Containers Lines, specifying the
requirements of the letter of credit. However, the bill of lading issued by the
shipping lines bore the notation “received for shipment” and contained an entry
indicating transshipment in Hongkong. The President of JRT personally received
and signed the bill of lading and despite the entries, he delivered the
corresponding check in payment of the freight. The shipment was delivered at the
port of discharge but the buyer refused to accept the anahaw fans because there
was no on-board bill of lading, and there was transshipment since the goods were
transferred in Hongkong from MV Pacific, the feeder vessel, to MV Oriental, a
mother vessel. JRT argued that the same cannot be considered transshipment
because both vessels belong to the same shipping company.
a. Was there transshipment? Explain. (5%)
b. What is a bill of lading? What are its three (3) purposes? (5%)
c. JRT further argued that assuming that there was transshipment, it cannot
be deemed to have agreed thereto even if it signed the bill of lading containing
such entry because it was made known to the shipping lines from the start that

1
transshipment was prohibited under the letter of credit and that, therefore, it had
no intention to allow transshipment of the subject cargo. Is the argument
tenable? Reason. (10%)

III.
A shipped thirteen pieces of luggage through LG Airlines from Teheran to
Manila as evidenced by LG Air Waybill which disclosed that the actual gross
weight of the luggage was 180 kg. Z did not declare an inventory of the contents
or the value of the 13 pieces of luggage. After the said pieces of luggage arrived in
Manila, the consignee was able to claim from the cargo broker only 12 pieces,
with a total weight of 174 kg. X advised the airline of the loss of one of the 13
pieces of luggage and of the contents thereof. Efforts of the airline to trace the
missing luggage were fruitless. Since the airline failed to comply with the demand
of X to produce the missing luggage, X filed an action for breach of contract with
damages against LG Airlines. In its answer, LG Airlines alleged that the Warsaw
Convention which limits the liability of the carrier, if any, with respect to cargo to
a sum of $20 per kilo or $9.07 per pound, unless a higher value is declared in
advance and additional charges are paid by the passenger and the conditions of
the contract as set forth in the air waybill, expressly subject the contract of the
carriage of cargo to the Warsaw Convention. May the allegation of LG Airlines be
sustained? Explain. (10%)

IV.
Vivian Martin was booked by PAL, which acted as a ticketing agent of Far
East Airlines, for a round trip flight on the latter’s aircraft, from Manila-Hongkong-
Manila. The ticket was cut by an employee of PAL. The ticket showed that Vivian
was scheduled to leave Manila at 5:30 p.m. on 05 January 2002 aboard Far East’s
Flight F007. Vivian arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport an hour
before the time scheduled in her ticket, but was told that Far East’s Flight F007
had left at 12:10 p.m. It turned out that the ticket was inadvertently cut and
wrongly worded. PAL employees manning the airport’s ground services
nevertheless scheduled her to fly two hours later aboard their plane. She agreed
and arrived in Hongkong safely. The aircraft used by Far East Airlines developed
engine trouble, and did not make it to Hongkong but returned to Manila. Vivian
sued both airlines, PAL and Far East, for damages because of her having unable to
take the Far East flight. Could either or both airlines be held liable to Vivian?
Why? (10%)

2
 V.
Fil-Asia Air Flight 9 I 6 was on a scheduled passenger flight from Manila
when it crashed as it landed at the Cagayan de Oro airport; the pilot miscalculated
the plane's approach and undershot the runway. Of the 150 people on board, ten
(10) passengers died at the crash scene.
Of the ten who died, one was a passenger who managed to leave the plane
but was run over by an ambulance coming to the rescue. Another was an airline
employee who hitched a free ride to Cagayan de Oro and who was not in the
passenger manifest.
It appears from the Civil Aeronautics Authority investigation that the co-
pilot who had control of the plane's landing had less than the required flying and
landing time experience, and should not have been in control of the plane at the
time. He was allowed to fly as a co-pilot because of the scarcity of pilots -
Philippine pilots have been recruited by foreign airlines under vastly improved
flying terms and wages so that newer and less trained pilots are being locally
deployed. The main pilot, on the other hand, had a very high level of blood
alcohol at the time of the crash.
You are part of the team that the victims hired to handle the case for them
as a group. In your case conference, the following questions came up:
a. Explain the causes of action legally possible under the given facts against
the airline and the pilots; whom will you specifically implead in these
causes of action? (5%)
b. How will you handle the cases of the passenger run over by the ambulance
and the airline employee allowed to hitch a free ride to Cagayan de Oro?
(5%)

VI.
X took a plane from Manila bound for Davao via Cebu where there was a
change of planes. X arrived in Davao safely but to his dismay, his two suitcases
were left behind in Cebu. The airline company assured X that the suitcases would
come in the next flight but they never did.
X claimed P2,000 for the loss of both suitcases, but the airline was willing to
pay only P500 because the airline ticket stipulated that unless a higher value was
declared, any claim for loss cannot exceed P250 for each piece of luggage. X
reasoned out that he did not sign the stipulation and in fact had not even read it.

3
 X did not declare a greater value despite the fact that the clerk had called
his attention to the stipulation in the ticket. Decide the case. (10%)

VII.
Suppose A was riding on an airplane of a common carrier when the
accident happened and A suffered serious injuries. In an action by A against the
common carrier, the latter claimed that:
(1) there was a stipulation in the ticket issued to A absolutely exempting the
carrier from liability from the passenger’s death or injuries ad notices were
posted by the common carrier dispensing with the extraordinary diligence of the
carrier, and
(2) A was given a discount on his plane fare thereby reducing the liability of
the common carrier with respect to A in particular.
a. Are those valid defenses? (5%)
b. What are the defenses available to any common carrier to limit or exempt
it from liability? (5%)

VIII.
One of the passenger buses owned by Continental Transit Corporation
(CTC), plying its usual route, figured in a collision with another bus owned by
Universal Transport, Inc. (UTI). Among those injured inside the CTC bus were:
Romeo, a stow away; Samuel, a pickpocket then in the act of robbing his
seatmate when the collision occurred; Teresita, the bus driver’s mistress who
usually accompanied the driver on his trips for free; and Uriel, holder of a free
riding pass he won in a raffle held by CTC.
a. Will a suit for breach of contract of carriage filed by Romeo, Samuel,
Teresita, and Uriel against CTC prosper? Explain. (5%)
b. Do Romeo, Samuel, Teresita, and Uriel have a cause of action for damages
against UTI? Explain. (5%)
c. What, if any, are the valid defenses that CTC and UTI can raise in the
respective actions against them? Explain. (5%)
d. Are common carriers liable for injuries to passengers even if they have
observed ordinary diligence and care? Explain. (5%)

IX.

4
 What is the Warsaw Convention? In not less than ten (10) sentences,
discuss fully its applicability, liability for willful misconduct and limitations of
liability. (5%)

UT IN OMNIBUS GLORIFICETUR DEUS!