Polytechnic University of the Philippines

COLLEGE OF LAW
LAW ON TRANSPORATION
JDBL 321 – Wed 5:00 – 7:00 pm
FINAL EXAMINATION

Note: Explain your answers fully but concisely. As far as practicable, use the ALAC format, limiting your answers to NOT MORE
than 5 sentences. You may use the prescribed test booklet or yellow pad paper. Do not use the left hand pages unless you
have consumed all the right hand pages, in which case, start from the FIRST left hand page, and so on. If you’re
using yellow pad paper, do not write at the back. Use one side only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Define: (a) Contract of Transportation (2 pts); (b) Contract of Carriage (2 pts);

(c) Contract to Carry (2 pts); (d) Distinguish between a Contract to Carry and a
Contract of Carriage. (4 pts).

2. PNR provides a transportation service by rail, for a fee, to commuters from

Manila to Calamba City in Laguna. Calamba commuters are required to purchase
tickets before proceeding to the designated loading and unloading facilities. Ricardo
Santos purchased a ticket for Calamba and entered the PNR station near PUP.
While waiting, he had an altercation with a PNR security guard, resulting in a
fistfight. In the heat of their quarrel, Ricardo fell on the railway just as a train was
entering the station, and was run over by the train. He died on the spot. In an
action for damages filed by Ricardo’s heirs, PNR interposed the defense of lack of
cause of action on the ground that the mishap occurred before Ricardo Santos
boarded the train and before a contract of carriage could be perfected. Is the
argument of PNR correct? State your legal basis. (10 pts).

3. Dimalitaw Shipping Co. (DSC) owns the vessel M/V Luvog, which is a common
carrier engaged in coastwise trade from Oriental Mindoro to the port of Manila.
Nakilo Copra is a copra dealer in Oriental Mindoro. Nakilo loaded 1,000 sacks of
copra on M/V Luvog, to be transported from Mindoro to Manila. However, while en
route, the vessel capsized and sank somewhere in Batangas along with all its cargo.
Nakilo Copra filed a complaint for damages based on breach of contract of carriage.
However, Dimalitaw argued that its liability had been extinguished by reason of the
total loss of the vessel. Is the argument of DSC correct? State your legal basis. (10
pts).

4. Lipad Bus Co. is a common carrier servicing the Manila-Malolos route. Through
the years, it had exhibited satisfactory service to the riding public. Subsequently, a
new road was opened from Manila to Malolos and Bilis Bus Co. promptly applied for
a Certificate of Public Convenience to operate a bus line along the new road. Lipad
opposed the application invoking the prior operator rule; and that it should first be
given an opportunity to extend its service to the new road. Which party should
prevail? State your legal basis. (10 pts).

Page 1 of 3
5. The Marzan couple won a ticket from a cruise fair, the ticket also covered their
food and accommodation for the three-day cruise in the cruise ship Omega Sea
Fairer. However, on the day of the cruise, Omega Sea Fairer encountered a
mechanical problem and was constrained to transfer all of its passengers to another
cruise ship owned by Alpha Asiana Cruise. On the second morning of the cruise,
Mrs. Marzan slipped on the stairs and suffered from a dislocated hip. Thereafter,
Mrs. Marzan filed an action for damages against Alpha Asiana based on breach of
contract of carriage. Alpha Asiana resisted the claim and argued that plaintiff is just
a transferred passenger from Omega Sea Fairer, with no actual contract of carriage
with Alpha Asiana, as shown by the fact that no ticket was issued to the Marzan
couple. Will the action prosper? State your legal basis. (10 pts).

6. Vic boarded a passenger jeepney owned and operated by TVJ Transco. Since the
jeepney was already full, Vic was made to sit in a wooden stool placed at the rear.
While a passenger was alighting from the jeepney, an Isuzu truck owned by
Wowowee Transco collided with the jeepney causing physical injuries to Vic.
Subsequently, Vice filed an action for damages against TVJ Tranco based on breach
of contract of carriage. TVJ argued that the proximate cause of the incident was the
negligence of the Izuzu truck driver; and that it should be Wowowee Transco that
should be held liable, together with its negligent driver. Is TVJ’s argument correct?
State your legal basis. (10 pts).

7. What requirements must be met before a Certificate of Public Convenience may

be granted under the Public Service Act? (10 pts).

8. Cardo, a former TV star has a Nissan Urvan, which is drives every day when he
goes to GMA 7 where he works as a camera man. Along the way, he picks up
friends and other passengers at designated points. His passengers would pay him a
flat rate for the ride, usually P20 per person, one way. Cardo never bothered to
obtain a license to engage in this type of income-generating activity because he
considers himself an actor or camera man, and not a professional driver. He has
done some research on the matter and he truly believes that he is not a common
carrier within the purview of the law. Do you agree with him? State your legal
basis. (10 pts).

9. Noriel, on his way home to Makati City, boarded a bus operated and owned by
Anjo Transportation Company, Inc. (Anjo Trans). While the bus was stuck in a
traffic, a pedestrian hurled a rock at the bus, smashing the glass window and
hitting Noriel in his left eye. Anjo Trans’ personnel lost no time in bringing him to
the Hospital. Noriel partially lost his left eye’s vision and sustained a permanent
scar. The quick action of the bus personnel saved his vision. He then filed an action
for recovery of damages against Anjo. Police investigation later revealed that this
was the 5th stoning incident in that same area involving other buses; and the 3 rd
stoning incident involving Anjo Trans. Under the circumstances, is Anjo Trans
liable? State your legal basis. (10 pts).

Page 2 of 3
10. The vessel M/V Nosuerte, commanded by its Capt. Lasma, was unloading goods
at a private wharf in Sangley Point, Cavite, when the ship bumped the wharf of the
pier causing it to collapse into the sea. It turned out that Capt. Lasma failed to drop
the vessel’s bow anchors and to fasten the vessel property to the pier. As a
consequence, the vessel was pushed by the combined action of the currents in the
area and the usual southwest monsoon winds of the season. As a result, Mr.
Pantalan, the owner of the wharf, lost not only the wharf but also the goods that
had just been unloaded on the pier pending their delivery. Mr. Pantalan sued both
the owner of the M/V Nosuerte and Capt. Lasma for the loss of the cargoes and the
destruction of the wharf. The vessel’s owner, who holds office in Manila argued that
he has exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of Capt. Lasma and
is, therefore, not liable for the unfortunate incident. Can the vessel’s owner and
Capt. Lasma be held liable for the loss of the wharf and the cargoes? State your
legal basis. (10 pts).

Page 3 of 3