Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
IMPORTANT!!!
DE GUZMAN VS CA
FACTS:Upon gathering sufficient quantities of
such scrap material, respondent would bring such
material to Manila for resale. He utilized two (2)
six-wheeler trucks which he owned for hauling
the material to Manila. On the return trip to
Pangasinan, respondent would load his vehicles
with cargo which various merchants wanted to be
delivered
to
differing
establishments
in
Pangasinan. For that service, respondent charged
freight rates which were commonly lower than
regular commercial rates.
HELD:
A "charter-party" is defined as a contract by
which an entire ship, or some principal part
thereof, is let by the owner to another
person for a specified time or use; a contract
of affreightment by which the owner of a ship or
other vessel lets the whole or a part of her to a
merchant or other person for the conveyance of
goods, on a particular voyage, in consideration of
the payment of freight. Charter parties are of two
types: (a) contract of affreightment which
involves the use of shipping space on vessels
leased by the owner in part or as a whole, to
carry goods for others; and, (b) charter by
demise or bareboat charter, by the terms of
which the whole vessel is let to the charterer with
a transfer to him of its entire command and
possession and consequent control over its
navigation, including the master and the crew,
who are his servants. Contract of affreightment
may either be time charter, wherein the vessel
is leased to the charterer for a fixed period of
time, or voyage charter, wherein the ship is
leased for a single voyage. In both cases, the
charter-party provides for the hire of vessel only,
either for a determinate period of time or for a
single or consecutive voyage, the shipowner to
supply the ship's stores, pay for the wages of the
master and the crew, and defray the expenses for
the maintenance of the ship.
PLANTERS VS CA
FACTS:Petitioner
ordered
from
Mitsubishi
International urea fertilizer. The latter in turn
shipped the same through a vessel owned by
TRANSPORTATION LAW-CADC
transaction, not a part of the general
business or occupation, although involving
the carriage of goods for a fee, the person
or corporation offering such service is a
private carrier.
FABRE VS CA
FACTS:Petitioners were the owners of a minibus
which they used as school service for students,
mostly those who studied in St. Scholastica
Manila. They employed a driver who drove the
minibus in its school services. On a relevant date,
WWCF hired the services of the petitioners for
transportation from and back to Manila, going to
La Union. The bus left late and since one of the
roads to be passed through was under repair, a
different route was taken by petitioner driver. And
since he was unfamiliar with the route he was
taking, and the road being slippery due to the
rains, he wasnt able to notice a sharp curve till it
was too late. This resulted to numerous injuries to
his passengers and likewise, to the vehicle.
MEDINA VS CRESENCIA
TRANSPORTATION LAW-CADC
breach of the carriers contractual obligation to
carry his passengers safely to their destination
(culpa contractual). And it is also for this reason
that there is no need of first proving the
insolvency of the driver Brigido Avorque before
damages can be recovered from the carrier, for in
culpa contractual, the liability of the carrier is not
merely subsidiary or secondary, but direct and
immediate (Articles 1755, 1756, and 1759, New
Civil Code).
FORES VS MIRANDA
FACTS:Miranda was a passenger in a jeep owned
by Fores. Since the jeep was driving at excessive
speed and it lost control while crossing a bridge,
it collided with the bridge wall causing the
passengers, one of whom was Miranda, serious
physical injuries.
HELD:
AND
PRESUMPTION
OF
5. LAWS APPLICABLE
Art. 1766. In all matters not regulated by this
Code, the rights and obligations of common
carriers shall be governed by the Code of
TRANSPORTATION LAW-CADC
FACTS:Petitioner filed for mandamus against the
government for payment of its shipping fees for
the shipment of mineral oil. The government
withheld payment on the ground that there was
loss of one or two of its caskets.
MIRASOL v DOLLAR
ELEMENTS
FOR
THE
EXEMPTION
NATURAL DISASTER TO APPLY
OF
TRANSPORTATION LAW-CADC
was any delay in loading the goods and
transporting them to their destination. From the
28th of November, when the steamer Sorsogon
arrived at Gubat and landed the said goods
belonging to Ong Bieng Sip to await the lorcha
Pilar which was to convey them to Catarman, as
agreed upon, no vessel carrying merchandise
made the voyage from Gubat to the said pueblo
of the Island of Samar, and with Ong Bieng Sip's
merchandise there were also to be shipped goods
belonging to the defendant company, which
goods were actually taken on board the said
lorcha and suffered the same damage as those
belonging to the Chinaman. So that there was no
negligence, abandonment, or delay in the
shipment of Ong Bieng Sip's merchandise, and all
that was done by the carrier, Inchausti & Co., was
what it regularly and usually did in the
transportation by sea from Manila to Catarman of
all classes of merchandise. No attempt has been
made to prove that any course other than the
foregoing was pursued by that firm on this
occasion; therefore the defendant party is not
liable for the damage occasioned as a result of
the wreck or stranding of the lorcha Pilar because
of the hurricane that overtook this craft while it
was anchored in the port of Gubat, on December
5, 1908, ready to be conveyed to that of
Catarman.
MARTINI V MACONDRAY
FACTS:Martini engaged the services of defendant
for the shipment of several cases of chemical
products from Manila to Japan. Under the bill of
lading, the goods shall be carried on deck entirely
at the shippers risk. When the shipment arrived
in Japan, it was damaged. Plaintiff sought
recovery of damages from defendant.
1
0
FACTS:The
government
shipped
through
Ynchaustis vessel, roofing tiles, to Manila. Upon
delivery of the tiles to the consignee of the
government, the tiles were found to be damaged.
The tiles in this case were admittedly of fragile
nature and were shipped in bundles, without any
protective
covering.
The
question
arises
regarding the alleged negligence of the carrier in
shipping the tiles.
HELD:Under the provisions of article 361 the
defendant, in order to free itself from liability,
was only obliged to prove that the damages
suffered by the goods were "by virtue of the
nature or defect of the articles." Under the
provisions of article 362 the plaintiff, in order to
hold the defendant liable, was obliged to prove
that the damages to the goods by virtue of their
nature, occurred on account of its negligence or
because the defendant did not take the
precaution usually adopted by careful persons.
SOUTHERN LINES V CA
FACTS:The City of Iloilo requisitioned rice from
NARIC, based on Manila. Upon order of the same,
NARIC shipped through Southern Lines the sacks
of rice. Upon receipt of the same, the city
government paid for it and noted down in the bill
of lading that the rice received was lesser than
what was ordered. This gave rise to a complaint
against the shipper and NARIC.
GOVERNMENT V YNCHAUSTI
10
TRANSPORTATION LAW-CADC
the nature or defect of the articles." Under the
provisions of Article 362, the plaintiff, in order to
hold the defendant liable, was obliged to prove
that the damages to the goods by virtue of their
nature, occurred on account of its negligence or
because the defendant did not take the
precaution adopted by careful persons.
11