Transportation Law

(Atty. Villanueva-Castro)
REMEMBER:
 For transport of goods – extraordinary diligence (Art. 1733)
 For carrying passengers – utmost diligence of very cautious persons (Art. 1755)
Maritime commerce

Limited liability rule (Arts, 587, 590, 643, 837, Code of Commerce)
- No vessel, no liability doctrine
- Liability of shipowner is restricted only to shipowner’s interest in the vessel
- In case of total loss, liability of shipowner ends
Charter party
- Shipowner allows a charterer to use the ship for a fee

Bareboat v. Affreightment

Rules on collisions (Arts. 826-832, Code of Commerce)

- He who is at fault shall be liable
- If both vessels are at fault, each vessel is liable for the damages it sustained
- Passenger or cargo claims, vessels are joint and several

Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault

Where two vessels collided and there is no proof as to who caused the accident or who between
the two is at fault, the court should rule that neither party can maintain any action for
compensation

Last clear chance doctrine

- Both parties at fault, but one had last clear chance of preventing the impact
- One who had last clear chance is liable

Public enemy
- The act of the public enemy must be the proximate and only cause of the loss

Improper packing
 - Even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods should be caused by the
character of the goods, or the faulty nature of the packing or of the containers, the
common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss
- Carrier must had not known the fact of improper packing of goods upon ordinary
observation to be relived of liability
- If the defect is existing upon acceptance, the carrier must receive the goods under protest
and must be duly noted in the bill of lading

Fire is generally not within the ambit of natural disaster or calamity

The law only allows limitation of liability, not total exoneration from liability

Must be in writing
- While contract of carriage is not required in writing because perfection happens upon
agreement, for a carrier’s liability to be limited, however, the stipulation must be reduced
into writing and signed by the parties
- Terms must be fair and reasonable
Subcontracting as a defense
Prescriptive periods
 Civil Code
 COGSA
 Code of Commerce

PROCEDURE AND PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR CLAIMS

 Within the Philippines International carriage from foreign port to
the Philippines (COGSA)
Period to file notice Period to file case Period to file notice Period to file case
of claim with carrier with court of claim with carrier with court
(REQUIRED!) (NOT REQUIRED!)
a. Immediately a. Within 6yrs, a. Immediately Within 1yr from
if damage is if no bill of if damage is discharge
apparent; or lading has apparent; or
b. Within 24 been issued; b. Within 3 days
hours from or from delivery
delivery if b. Within 10yrs, if damage is
damage is not if a bill of not apparent
apparent lading has
been issued

NOTE: Absence of notice of claim does not bar

recovery as long as the 1yr period has not
lapsed (from delivery of goods or date of
supposed delivery) unless extended by parties

Notice requirement

If within PH, lack of notice results to dismissal of action under Art 366, CC
Period of claim against airlines:
a. Damage to passenger’s baggage – apply Warsaw Convention (2yrs)
b. Humiliation the passenger suffered from airline’s employees – apply Civil Code on torts
(4yrs)

High-contracting party – a country that is signatory to Warsaw Convention

Philippines is not one of those venues where action under the Warsaw Convention may be
instituted

Under Article 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention, the plaintiff may bring the action for damages
before
1. the court where the carrier is domiciled;
2. the court where the carrier has its principal place of business;
3. the court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contract has been made; or
4. the court of the place of destination.

In this case, it is not disputed that respondent is a British corporation domiciled in London,
United Kingdom with London as its principal place of business. Hence, under the first and
second jurisdictional rules, the petitioner may bring her case before the courts of London in the
United Kingdom. In the passenger ticket and baggage check presented by both the petitioner and
respondent, it appears that the ticket was issued in Rome, Italy. Consequently, under the third
jurisdictional rule, the petitioner has the option to bring her case before the courts of Rome in
Italy. Finally, both the petitioner and respondent aver that the place of destination is Rome, Italy,
which is properly designated given the routing presented in the said passenger ticket and baggage
check. Accordingly, petitioner may bring her action before the courts of Rome, Italy. We thus
find that the RTC of Makati correctly ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the case filed
by the petitioner.