CASE DOCTRINES IN TRANSPORTATION LAW

By: Kairene Diao

Case Name Doctrines Notes

Malayan Insurance vs. Ticker: While Reputable was transporting some of Wyeth’s products, it got hijacked and
Philippine First Insurance the products were lost. The issue resolved is whether Reputable is a common carrier. -
Co. PRIVATE CARRIER

Doctrine:
● Common carrier (Art. 1732) – persons, corporations, firms, or associations
(PCFA) engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or
goods, or both by land, water or air for compensation, offering their services to
the public.
● Private carrier – one wherein the carriage is generally undertaken by special
agreement and it does not hold itself out to carry goods for the general public.
● A common carrier becomes a private carrier when it undertakes to carry a
special cargo or chartered to a special person only.
● Thus, being a private carrier, the extent of Reputable’s liability is fully governed
by the stipulations of the contract of carriage, one of which is that it shall be
liable to Wyeth for the loss of the goods/products due to any and all causes
whatsoever, including theft, robbery and other force majeure while the
goods/products are in transit and until actual delivery to Wyeth s customers,
salesmen and dealers.

Philamgen vs. PKS Shipping Ticker: This case involves a contract of carriage between Davao Union Marketing and
PKS Shipping, wherein the latter would ship to Tacloban City 75,000 bags of cement.
The ship sank, bringing down the entire cargo with it.

Doctrine:
● PKS here is a common carrier and it exercised extraordinary diligence in
handling the goods. If the undertaking is an isolated transaction, not a part of
the business or occupation, and the carrier does not hold itself out to carry the
goods for the general public or to a limited clientele, although involving the
carriage of goods for a fee, it is a PRIVATE CARRIER.

● Article 1733 of the Civil Code requires common carriers to observe

extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods they carry. In case of
loss, destruction or deterioration of goods, common carriers are presumed to
have been at fault or to have acted negligently, and the burden of proving
otherwise rests on them. Nonetheless, when the exemptions in Art. 1734 are
present, the CC is not liable for the LDD.

1
Perena vs. Zarate Ticker: Train and school van collision. Requisites of quasi-delict:
1. Damage
Doctrines: 2. Negligence - causal
connection negligence
● TEST: The true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of the
and damage
business actually transacted, or the number and character of the conveyances
used in the activity, but whether the undertaking is a part of the activity 3. No contractual
engaged in by the carrier that he has held out to the general public as his relationship
business or occupation.

Common carrier Private carrier

● PCAF ● Not a vocation

● Engaged in the business of
carrying or transporting
● Carries/transports passengers
or goods, or both
● Transports by land, water, or air
● Transports for compensation
● It offers its services to the public
● Not holding itself/himself out to
the public as ready to act as
carrier for ALL those who want
to avail of its services
● By special agreement
● For a particular instance
(gratuitously or for hire)

Extraordinary/utmost diligence OGFF

Presumed to be at fault or to have acted No presumption of fault or negligence.

negligently in case of LDD of goods or DI
to passengers.

● Their defense of having observed the diligence of a good father of a

family in the selection and supervision of their driver was not legally
sufficient. According to Article 1759 of the Civil Code, their liability as a
common carrier did not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of
a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee.
○ This defense is tenable only if the relationship is quasi-delict. (Atty.)

Asia Lighterage vs. CA Ticker: Asia Lighterage was contracted by General Milling to deliver the cargo of wheat
to its warehouse in Pasig. There was a warning of an incoming typhoon thus the vessel
was tied down while weathering the storm. Some of the goods were transferred to other
barges, and the original one sank, bringing down the cargoes left in it.

2
 Doctrine: Requirements for a fortuitous event to free CC from liability:
1) It must be the proximate and only cause of loss of goods
2) The CC has exercised due diligence before, during, and after the occurrence of
the fortuitous event to prevent or minimize the loss.
The SC found that the vessel was not seaworthy in the first place.

Sulpicio Lines vs. Sesante Ticker: MV Princess of the Orient. Petitioner insisted on the seaworthiness of MV
Princess due to its having been cleared to sail from the Port of Manila by the proper
authorities; that the sinking had been due to force majeure; that it had not been
negligent; and that its officers and crew had also not been negligent.

Doctrine:
● [Automatic liability] Article 1759 of the Civil Code does not establish a
presumption of negligence because it explicitly makes the common carrier
liable in the event of death or injury to passengers due to the negligence or
fault of the common carrier's employees: (KD: If FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE is
proven, common carrier is AUTOMATICALLY LIABLE.)

● [Presumption of negligence] On the other hand, Article 1756 of the Civil

Code lays down the presumption of negligence against the common carrier in
the event of death or injury of its passenger: (KD: If there is death or injury, the
common carrier is NOT AUTOMATICALLY LIABLE; RATHER, HE IS JUST
PRESUMED TO BE AT FAULT OR NEGLIGENT.)
○ Requisites for presumption to apply:
■ Contract of carriage
■ Injury or death took place during the existence of the contract

● Act of God Doctrine: The act must be occasioned solely by the violence of
nature. Human intervention is to be excluded from creating or entering into the
cause of the mischief. When the effect is found to be in part the result of the
participation of man, whether due to his active intervention or neglect or failure
to act, the whole occurrence is then humanized and removed from the rules
applicable to the acts of God.

● Requisites of fortuitous event:

○ The the cause of occurrence is independent of human will
○ Impossible to foresee the cause, or it was foreseen but impossible to
avoid
○ Occurrence render it impossible for DR to fulfill his obligation in any
manner
○ DR must be free from any participation in the aggravation of injury
● The proximate cause of the sinking is the Captain's erroneous maneuvers of
the M/V Princess of the Orient minutes before she sank had caused the

3

Cruz vs. Sun Holidays
Torres-Madrid Brokerage vs.
Feb Mitsui
accident.
● Notification to the CC is not required for the latter to be held liable for lost
belongings in its custody.
○ Liability for baggage - due diligence
Ticker: Resort operators with ferry services. Husband and wife who were on a
honeymoon died when heavy rain came during their voyage in the ocean. The issue
resolved here is whether Sun Holiday is a common carrier. - YES
Doctrine:
● Its ferry services are so intertwined with its main business as to be properly
considered ancillary thereto. And the tour packages it offers, which include the
ferry services, may be availed of by anyone who can afford to pay the same.
● A carrier may be a common carrier, regardless if:
○ Carrying persons or goods, or both
○ Sideline business only
○ On a regular or scheduled basis
○ Occasional, episodic, or scheduled
○ Offering its services to the general public or to a narrow segment of
the general population only
● That respondent does not charge a separate fee or fare for its ferry services is
of no moment. It would be imprudent to suppose that it provides said services
at a loss. The Court is aware of the practice of beach resort operators offering
tour packages to factor the transportation fee in arriving at the tour package
price.
● Sun Holidays did not exercise utmost diligence. It did not heed the advisory of
PAG-ASA that there will be a tropical cyclone in the area.
Ticker: Customs broker who offers to transport goods. This case stemmed from an
agreement between Sony and TMBI, wherein Sony had engaged the services of TMBI
to facilitate, process, withdraw, and deliver the shipment from the port to its warehouse
in Binan, Laguna. The goods were hijacked. The issue resolved is whether TMBI, a
customs broker, is a common carrier.
Doctrine:
● The fact that the company does not own trucks and has to subcontract the
delivery of its clients' goods, is immaterial. As long as an entity holds itself to
4
 the public for the transport of goods as a business, it is considered a common
carrier regardless of whether it owns the vehicle used or has to actually hire
one.

● Although the transporting of goods is merely ancillary to TMBI being a customs

broker, the law does not distinguish between one whose principal business
activity is the carrying of goods and one who undertakes this task as only an
ancillary activity.

● A customs broker whose principal business is the preparation of the correct

customs declaration and the proper shipping documents - is still considered a
common carrier if it also undertakes to deliver the goods for its customers. The
law does not distinguish between one whose principal business activity is the
carrying of goods and one who undertakes this task only as an ancillary
activity. (AF Sanchez Brokerage vs. CA.)

First Philippine Industrial Ticker: Oil pipeline operators. BIR assessed taxes for FPIC. In its protest, FPIC alleged Atty: Meralco is a common carrier
Corp. vs. CA that it shall be exempt from taxes because it is a business engaged in the transportation per RA 9136 or the EPIRA Law.
of petroleum products through a pipeline. The issue here is whether FPIC is a common
carrier. - YES

Doctrine: The definition of "common carriers" in the Civil Code makes no distinction as to
the means of transporting, as long as it is by land, water or air. It does not provide that
the transportation of the passengers or goods should be by motor vehicle. In fact, in the
United States, oil pipeline operators are considered common carriers.

Federal Express vs. Ticker: Fedex of checks for payment of apartment. Fedex left the package to an
Luwalhati unknown neighbor.

Doctrine:
● A provision in a contract of carriage requiring the filing of a formal claim within a
specified period is a valid stipulation. Jurisprudence maintains that compliance
with this provision is a legitimate condition precedent to an action for damages
arising from loss of the shipment.
● Extraordinary diligence is that extreme measure of care and caution which
persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use for securing and
preserving their own property or rights. (IMPORTANT) Thus, part of the
extraordinary responsibility of common carriers is the duty to ensure that
shipments are received by none but "the person who has a right to receive
them.

5
Annie Tan vs. Great Harvest
Lea Mer vs. Malayan
Unitrans vs. Insurance
Company of North America
Ticker: This case involves Tan who was hired by Great Harvest to transport soya beans Loss of goods due to robbery;
to Selecta Feeds in QC. The shipment was rejected so GH instructed Cabugatan to duration of diligence
deliver the soybeans in its warehouse in Malabon. The shipment did not arrive there. It
appears that the truck was hijacked and the cargo were lost. In her defense, Tan said
that after the delivery was made to Selecta feeds albeit rejected, she no longer had part
in what happened afterwards because GH instructed her driver, without her consent, to
deliver the goods to GH warehouse. She also insisted that she was not liable because
the hijacking was a fortuitous event for which she is not liable. The issue here was
whether she should be held liable for the loss of the goods.
Doctrine:
● YES, she is liable for the lost goods because:
○ Her duty to observe extraordinary diligence starts from the time the
goods were unconditionally placed in her possession up to the time
that the goods were delivered to the consignee or person authorized
to receive it.
○ The hijacking was not a fortuitous event as it was done without grave
or irresistible threat, violence, or force. Instead, it was brought about
by the petitioner's failure to exercise extraordinary diligence when she
neglected vetting her driver who absconded with the cargo, or
providing security for the cargo and failing to take out insurance.
Ticker: Shipment of silica sand. The vessel leased by Lea Mer (carrier) sank.
The issue was whether the sinking was a fortuitous event. - NO, because the vessel was
not seaworthy in the first place. Lea Mer should be liable for the loss of the cargo
because while its vessel, Judy VII, was chartered by Vulcan, Lea Mer did not relinquish
entire control of the vessel. Thus, it remained under Lea Mer’s control, thus, it is liable
for the loss of the goods as a common carrier.
Doctrine:
● Requirements to be fortuitous event:
○ Proximate and only cause of the loss
○ Due diligence by the carrier BDA to minimize or prevent the loss
The vessel was not seaworthy in the first place
● Is Lea Mer the one liable? YES
○ Differentiation of bareboat/charter party and affreightment – Here, the
case is AFFREIGNMENT where the lease of a vessel is still under the
control of the OWNER, which is Lea Mer in this case.
Ticker: Carriage by SEACOL of instruments shipped by DOMINANT MUSICAL
INSTRUMENT for consignee SAN MIGUEL.
6
 Doctrine:
● Unitrans is a common carrier. As such, it is presumed to be negligent when
there is loss or damage of goods. Unitrans failed to discharge its burden.

Nocum vs. Laguna Tayabas Ticker: Fireworks exploded in the bus. A co-passenger did not declare the contents of Emphasis on the phrase in Art.
his bag which he brought inside the bus. The issue was whether the bus company 1733 and 1755 which provides
should be held liable for the injuries of Nocum. - NO, because it exercised utmost that common carriers’ duty to
diligence for the safety of its passengers. There is nothing that would arouse suspicion observe extraordinary diligence or
on the part of the bus company’s employees at the time. The baggage was sealed and utmost diligence is qualified by
tied up with abaca. “ALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF
EACH CASE”
Doctrine:Art. 1733 and 1755 which provides that common carriers’ duty to observe
extraordinary diligence or utmost diligence is qualified by “ALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF Liability for acts of co-passenger
EACH CASE”.
● allowance must be given to the reliance that should be reposed on the sense of
responsibility of all the passengers in regard to their common safety. It is to be
presumed that a passenger will not take with him anything dangerous to the
lives and limbs of his co-passengers, not to speak of his own.

Fortune Express vs. CA Ticker: This case stemmed from an incident wherein there were several Maranaos who Liability for acts of strangers.
wanted to take revenge on petitioner Fortune express, stopped one of its buses wherein
deceased Atty. Caorong was a passenger, by BURNING SOME OF FORTUNE’S Diligence required of EEs: DGFF
BUSES. Here, it appears that before the bus departed, there were reports of the plan of only. This DGFF should only be
the Maranaos to take revenge which the bus company did not heed. related to instances where the
injury or death is caused by a
Doctrine: Art. 1763 of the Civil Code provides that a common carrier is responsible for stranger or a co-passenger, such
injuries suffered by a passenger on account of wilful acts of other passengers, if the that if the EEs exercised DGFF,
employees of the common carrier could have prevented the act through the exercise of the CC shall not be liable for the
the diligence of a good father of a family. injury or death.

● The event was not an unforeseen/unforeseeable event because there were

reports.

GV Florida vs. Heirs of Ticker: Battung was shot to death by a co-passenger. Liability for acts of co-passengers
Battung
Doctrine: While the law requires common carriers to exercise utmost diligence in the Compare with Fortune case
transport of passengers, common carriers are not an absolute insurer of its passengers,
because the CC’s liability is adjudged with due regard for all the circumstances of each
case.

How to check whether the EEs and/or the CC, should be absolved from liability for acts of
strangers or co-passengers? → Where the injury sustained by the passenger was in no way due

7
 (1) to any defect in the means of transport or in the method of transporting[FOR THE
COMMON CARRIER ITSELF], or (2) to the negligent or willful acts of the common
carrier's employees with respect to the foregoing [EMPLOYEE ASPECT].

Tatad vs. Garcia Ticker: Constitutional limitation on the operation of public utility.

Doctrine: What private respondent EDSA LRT Consortium owns are the rail tracks,
rolling stocks like the coaches, rail stations, terminals and the power plant, not a public
utility. While a franchise is needed to operate these facilities to serve the public, they do
not by themselves constitute a public utility. What constitureytes a public utility is not
their ownership but their use to serve the public (Iloilo Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Public
Service Board). The Constitution, in no uncertain terms, requires a franchise for the
operation of a public utility. However, it does not require a franchise before one can own
the facilities needed to operate a public utility so long as it does not operate them to
serve the public.

LTFRB and DOTr vs. Ticker: Angkas - is it a common carrier? YES, because it offers public service – it offers
Valenzuela its services to the general public, albeit its operations are not regular but merely
occasional or on an unscheduled basis.

Doctrine: Public Service is essentially that which is offered to the general public for hire
or compensation, whether permanent, occasional, or accidental, or whether for a limited
clientele.

Bachelor express vs. CA Ticker: This case stemmed from an incident wherein during the subject bus’ trip to CDO, When a death or injury is caused
a passenger of the bus suddenly stabbed a co-passenger. This caused a stampede by a fortuitous event, in order for
inside the bus which resulted in the death of two other passengers. the common carrier to be absolved
from liability, the carrier must show
Doctrine: While the death of the passengers were caused by a fortuitous event, the that it exercised extraordinary
common carrier did not, however, exercise utmost diligence in the transport of its diligence in the carriage of its
passengers. It appears here that while the stampede was on-going, the bus kept going passengers.
at full speed, and then it suddenly opened the one door to its bus, where the deceased
fell off.

Dangwa Transportation vs. Ticker: Pedrito was run off by the bus while he was onboarding it. Based on testimony of The slow movement of the bus is a
CA a witness, Pedrito signaled the bus conductor that he would board. The bus accelerated manifestation of the carrier’s
when he was already on the platform. continuous offer to the public to
board a bus.
Doctrine: When the bus is not in motion, there is no necessity for a person who wants to
ride the same to signal his intention to board. A public utility bus, once it stops, is in The moment there is intent to
effect making a continuous offer to bus riders. Hence, it becomes the duty of the driver board, the person is a passenger.
and conductor, every time the bus stops, to do no act that would have the effect of
increasing the peril to a passenger while he was attempting to board the same. Here,

8

Aboitiz Shipping Corporation
vs. CA
LRT vs. Navidad
La Mallorca vs. CA
the premature acceleration of the bus was a breach of such duty.
● The victim herein, by stepping and standing on the platform of the bus, is
already considered a passenger and is entitled all the rights and protection
pertaining to such a contractual relation.
Ticker: Passengers of the vessel already disembarked. After an hour, Anacleto came Reasonable time/opportunity to
back for his baggage. When he came back, a stevedore was already unloading the claim baggage - at this time, still a
cargo using a crane. Anacleto was hit by a crane being operated by the stevedore. passenger
Aboitiz denied responsibility contending that at the time of the accident, the vessel was
completely under the control of respondent Pioneer. Reasonableness of time: kind of
common carrier, the nature of its
Doctrine: The rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the business, the customs of the
passenger has been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel owner's place.
dock or premises. Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the
passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carrier's
conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises.
● All persons who remain on the premises a reasonable time after leaving the
conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable time or a
reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances,
and includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his
departure.
Ticker: Navidad, drunk, entered the LRT premises. He bought the ticket already. He was
standing at the platform when the guard approached him. They got into a fist fight during
the course of which Navidad fell on the tracks. At that exact moment, a train passed. He
was killed instantly. LRT should be held liable for his death because at the time he was
within LRT’s premises, he was already a passenger.
Doctrine:
● The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances. Such
duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not
only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its
premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.
Ticker: 4 y/o child followed his father who went back to the bus to get his baggage. The
child was run over by the bus.
Doctrine: The relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the
passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point
of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a
reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises.
9
Mariano vs. Callejas and Ticker: A passenger of a bus died because of the collision of the bus with a truck. Injury or death caused by a
Borja Here, the bus was on its rightful lane while the truck was not. stranger

Doctrine: Requisites for the doctrine of not-insurer-of-all-risks of CC to apply:

1) Injury/death was due to the negligence of a third person
2) CC was not negligent
3) CC proved that he exercised extraordinary diligence.

Sanico vs. Colipano Ticker: Passenger made to sit on an empty beer case

Doctrine: Since the cause of action is based on a breach of a contract of carriage, the
liability of Sanico is direct as the contract is between him and Colipano. Castro, being
merely the driver of Sanico's jeepney, cannot be made liable as he is not a party to the
contract of carriage.

Defenses of CCs in breach of COC:

● Sanico’s defense that he exercised extraordinary diligence when he hired
Castro does not hold water because the liability of common carriers does not
cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a GFF in the selection
and supervision of their EEs. (Art. 1759)
○ The only defenses available common carriers are:
■ Proof that they observed extraordinary diligence
■ Proof that the injury or death was brought about by a
fortuitous event

Rebultan vs. Sps. Daganta Ticker: ROW | Vehicular accident

Doctrines:
● KD: BASTA WHOEVER IS GOING TO TURN TO THE OPPOSITE SIDE
MUST YIELD TO THE VEHICLE ON THE SIDE WHERE HE INTENDS TO
TURN.
○ Right vehicle that intends to turn to the left must yield to the ROW of
the left vehicle.
○ Left vehicle that intends to turn to the right must yield to the ROW of
the right vehicle.
● EX: Unlawful speed – ROW waived by one entitled
● The contributory negligence of drivers does not bar the passengers or their
heirs from recovering damages from those who were at fault.

Raynera vs. Orpilla Ticker: Negligence | Motorcycle bumped the rear portion of a truck

Doctrines:
● The direct cause of the accident was the negligence of the victim. Traveling

10

Travels and Tours Advisers,
Inc. vs. Munoz
Mendoza et al. v. Sps. Gomez
METRO MANILA TRANSIT vs.
CUEVAS and CUEVAS
behind the truck, he had the responsibility of avoiding bumping the vehicle in
front of him. He was in control of the situation.
● Drivers of vehicles "who bump the rear of another vehicle" are presumed to be
"the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence". The
rationale behind the presumption is that the driver of the rear vehicle has full
control of the situation as he is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of
him.
Ticker: The bus bumped the rear portion of the jeepney causing it to ram into an acacia
tree which resulted in the death of one passenger and injury to another. For their
defense, petitioners TTA claimed that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of its employee Calaycay
Doctrines:
Ticker: An Isuzu truck owned by Leonora, driven by Perez, was hit by a Mayamy bus
registered under the name of Lim, driven by Mendoza. As a result, several helpers of the
truck were injured and the truck itself sustained damages. The respondents argued that
although the registered owner was Lim, the actual owner of the bus was SPO1
Enriquez, who had the bus attached with Mayamy Transport under the so-called "kabit
system."
Doctrine:
● The registered owner is deemed the employer of the negligent driver, and is
thus vicariously liable under Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180, of the Civil
Code. (Filcar Transport vs. Espinas)
● In so far as third persons are concerned, the registered owner of the motor
vehicle is the employer of the negligent driver, and the actual employer is
considered merely as an agent of such owner. Thus, whether there is an
employer-employee relationship between the registered owner and the driver is
irrelevant in determining the liability of the registered owner who the law holds
primarily and directly responsible for any accident, injury or death caused by
the operation of the vehicle in the streets and highways. (Equitable Leasing
Corporation v. Suyom)
Ticker: Vicarious Liability; Registered Owner Rule |
MMTC (Seller) and Mina’s Transit (Buyer) entered into an agreement for Mina’s transit
to BUY several bus units from MMTC.
They agreed that MMTC would retain the ownership of the buses until certain conditions
were met, but in the meantime Mina's Transit could operate the buses within Metro
Manila. One of the buses hit and damaged a Honda Motorcycle owned by Reynaldo and
driven by Junnel. They sued MMTC and Mina’s Transit
11
 Doctrines:
● It is well settled that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered owner of
the motor vehicle is considered as the employer of the tortfeasor-driver, and is
made primarily liable for the tort committed by the latter under Article 2176, in
relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code.

● Atty: Re defense of MMTC that Mina’s driver was not its EE – the existence of
EE-ER relationship as understood in labor relations is not required.
● Atty: Re remedy of the registered owner –
○ Cross-claim - if Mina is impleaded in the case as well
○ Third party claim - if the actual ER is not impleaded in the case (CISA)
- damay - contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or any other relief

CARAVAN TRAVEL AND Ticker: An incident involving Reyes who was hit by the van because the latter was trying RPI - party who stands to be
TOURS v. ABEJAR to avoid an oncoming vehicle. benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party
Doctrines: entitled to the avails of the suit.
● Is Abejar a real-party-in-interest? YES, because she exercised substitute
parental authority and she suffered loss.
○ Note: If the complainant has no authority here, she will not be a real-party-
interest, hence, there would be no cause of action. → raise this in your
Answer as an affirmative defense of failure to state a cause of action. Why?
Because there is an absence of a requisite of COA. (a) right of the plaintiff x
x x (Atty. Anciano)
● Where both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply [where the alleged
ER the RO of motor vehicle], the plaintiff must first establish that the employer
is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Once the plaintiff successfully
proves ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that the requirements
of Article 2180 have been proven. As a consequence, the burden of proof shifts
to the defendant to show that no liability under Article 2180 has arisen.

Filcar vs. Espinas Ticker: Espinas was driving his car, and when he reached the intersection, he stopped Motor vehicle registration law
his car. When the signal light turned green, he proceeded to cross the intersection. He
was already in the middle of the intersection when another car bumped his car.

Doctrines: Filcar, as registered owner of the vehicle that caused the collision, CANNOT
use the defenses available under Article 2180 of the Civil Code because the motor
vehicle registration law, to a certain extent, modified Article 2180 of the Civil Code by
making these defenses unavailable to the registered owner of the motor vehicle.
1) ER observing DGFF to prevent damage
2) EE acted beyond the tasks assigned to him

12
Equitable Leasing v. Suyom Ticker: ROR | A tractor driven by Tutor rammed into the house cum store of Tamayo. A
portion of the house was destroyed. Pinned to death under the engine of the tractor
were the latter’s son and resplendent Oledan’s daughter. Upon verification with the LTO,
the respondents were notified that Equitable Leasing was the registered owner of the
tractor, and it was leased to one Edwin Lim.

Doctrines:

● Unless registered with the Land Transportation Office, the sale — while valid
and binding between the parties — does not affect third parties, especially the
victims of accidents involving the said transport equipment.
● To sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites must be
proven: (a) damage suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the
defendant, and (c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.

UCPB Leasing v. Heirs of Ticker: ULFC is the registered owner of a trailer truck. It entered into a lease agreement
Leporgo with SBMI over the trailer truck and other equipment. The trailer truck driven by the
lessee got into an accident. ULFC denied liability, alleging that the vehicle was leased to
SBMI.

Doctrines:
● As to the issue of jurisdiction, ULFC voluntarily submitted itself to the RTC’s
jurisdiction when it filed its Answer Ad Cautelam.
● Registration – Mortgages, attachments, and other encumbrances of motor
vehicles, in order to be valid against third parties must be recorded in the LTO.
● While the lease agreement provides that ULFC shall be held free and harmless
from any and all liability for loss, damage, etc resulting from the actual or
alleged use of the leased property, the provision on compulsory registration still
prevails because such stipulation is contrary to the minimum standards
provided by law and thus cannot be given effect.

Sps. Fernando v. Northwest Ticker: Breach of contract of carriage - airlines – Tickets were allegedly invalid
Airlines
Doctrines:
● When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed for a particular flight
on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The passenger then has every
right to expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date. If he does not,
then the carrier. opens itself to a suit for breach of contract of carriage. (Alitalia
Airways vs. CA)
● In an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party
does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent.
All tRamos et. al. v. China Southern Airlines That he has to prove is the

13

Ramos et. al. v. China
Southern Airlines
Designer Basket v. Air Sea
Transport
Transimex Co. v. Mafre Asian
existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier.
● In contracts of common carriage, inattention and lack of care on the part of the
carrier resulting in the failure of the passenger to be accommodated in the
class contracted for amounts to bad faith or fraud which entitles the passengers
to the award of moral damages in accordance with Article 2220 of the Civil
Code. (Ortigas vs. Lufthansa German Airlines)
Ticker: Breach of contract of carriage - airlines - bumped off from flight
Doctrines:
● China Southern Airlines allowed petitioners to check in their luggage and
issued the necessary claim stubs showing that they were part of the flight. It
was only after petitioners went through all the required check-in procedures
that they were informed by the airlines that they were merely chance
passengers.
○ Airlines do not, as a practice, accept pieces of luggage from
passengers without confirmed reservations. Quite tellingly, all the
foregoing circumstances lead us to the inevitable conclusion that
petitioners indeed were bumped off from the flight.
Ticker: Carriage of goods by sea -
Doctrines: Whether the CC may release the goods even without the surrender of the
BOL. (YES)
● A carrier is allowed by law to release the goods to the consignee even without
the latter's surrender of the bill of lading.
○ Basis: (Art. 353 Code of Commerce) After the contract has been
complied with, the bill of lading which the carrier has issued shall be
returned to him, and by virtue of the exchange of this title with the
thing transported, the respective obligations and actions shall be
considered canceled x x x In case the consignee, upon receiving the
goods, cannot return the bill of lading subscribed by the carrier,
because of its loss or any other cause, he must give the latter a
receipt for the goods delivered, this receipt producing the same effects
as the return of the bill of lading.
● As the carrier of the goods transported by plaintiff, its obligation is simply to
ensure that such goods are delivered on time and in good condition. The
moment the carrier has delivered the subject goods, its responsibility ceases to
exist and it is thereby freed from all the liabilities arising from the transaction.
Any question regarding the payment of the buyer to the seller is no longer the
concern of the carrier.
Ticker: Applicable law - Art. 1753 - Law of the country to which the goods are to be
14
Insurance Corp
Insurance Co. of North
America vs. Asian Terminals,
Inc.
Westwind Shipping
Corporation vs. UCPB
transported | This case stemmed from a contract of carriage of urea fertilizer (21, 857
MT) from Ukraine to be delivered by Fertiphil (CLIENT) to two ports in the Philippines.
Doctrines: Since the cargo in this case was transported from Odessa, Ukraine, to
Tabaco, Albay, the liability of petitioner for the alleged shortage must be determined in
accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers.
Ticker:
Doctrines:
● "Carriage of goods" covers the period from the time when the goods are loaded
to the time when they are discharged from the ship; thus, it can be inferred that
the period of time when the goods have been discharged from the ship and
given to the custody of the arrastre operator is not covered by the COGSA.
● In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in
respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery
of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. The
COGSA does not mention that an arrastre operator may invoke the prescriptive
period of one year; hence, it does not cover the arrastre operator.
Ticker: This case involves the shipping of 197 metal containers of tin-free steel for SMC.
The shipment was discharged in the custody of ATI. During the unloading, 6 containers
sustained dents and punctures
Doctrines: The legal relationship between the consignee and the arrastre operator is
akin to that of a depositor and warehouseman. The relationship between the consignee
and the common carrier is similar to that of the consignee and the arrastre operator.
Since it is the duty of the ARRASTRE to take good care of the goods that are in its
custody and to deliver them in good condition to the consignee, such responsibility also
devolves upon the CARRIER. Both the ARRASTRE and the CARRIER are therefore
charged with and obligated to deliver the goods in good condition to the consignee.
—-END—-
15