-Barge is a common carrier(Asia Lighterage Case).

Traditionally, barges are

chartered. But if they enter into a specific agreements, they are private carrier.
-If open to general public >>> CC. Even if its a charter (it depends). If bill of
lading, then conclude automatically as CC, just like a ticket.
-If all requisites in Art. 1732 is present, then CC.
-Customs Broker. (Cases: may be engaged in Common Carriage) it is in the
function and specific business undertaken. Even if brokerage is the principal
business, if they transport goods on the side, still the obligations of a CC attach.
-FGU case: Operator of trucks = Not CC. There is specific client, it is a special
arrangement, not offered to everyone.
-Travel Agency: not the agency that is engaged in carriage, but the airline or the
operator that issues ticket through the travel agency.
-School Bus: could be just lease. May or may not be CC, depending on
circumstances.
-Even if private carrier, it does not mean that they need not have a license.
They are still required to have franchises from the LTFRB. Presence of
franchise does not mean CC already, it could still be private carrier, for
regulatory purposes only.
-School Buses are CC. (Fabre Case) They even need to secure a franchise
from LTFRB to operate.
-Taxi: no fixed route, yet still CC.
-Charter: Cebu Salvage Case. Owner of goods sued Cebu Salvage when ship sank.
Cebu Salvage alleges that it is not the owner, only lease. But SC said Cebu Salvage
and Owner of goods is under voyage charter, still CC. Against third persons who
ships good, the nature of the charter party does not matter. If he is in possession
and offers it to the public, then he is liable. Even if operator is not the owner, it is
not the issue in determining if CC or not.
-RA 9515: Line Service. Still CC.
-Line service vs Tramp Service: tramp available for charter. (National
Steel Corp. Case). Entire vessel is used to transport goods. Tramp
Service not CC, but a contract carrier only, subject to charter parties.
-Towage: it is not CC.
-Stevedoring: nagbuhuhat lang, just diligence of good father of family. (Mindanao
Case)
-Arrastre Operator: higher degree of diligence is required. But contract itself is not
CC. Contract is depositary, fiduciary relationship. Transfer of possession from port to
warehouse there is control. There is no presumption of negligence for arrastre, still
need to prove negligence and prove that it did not exercise diligence.
-Foreign country to the Philippines. NCC: Philippine Law applies -> NCC (primary);
COC & COGSA if not provided for by NCC. But in case of conflict, NCC prevails.
-Treaties and Convention: E.g. UNCLOS. ->with respect to the flag or
nationality of the vessel.
-Warsaw Convention
-Philippines to a foreign court, law of the country of destination. Subject to
processual presumption, if not proven, then same law as of the Philippines.
-overland: NCC primarily then COC suppletorily. Also apply to
coastwise shipping.
PARTY:
-Carrier & Passenger
-Shipper & Carrier
-Consignee whom the goods will be delivered. May or may not be the
shipper, could be somebody else. Can be not a party. Can enforce
goods in bill of lading. He may be bound by the terms and conditions.
-Only a party to the Contract can enforce obligation of a carrier.
-Registered Owner Rule: whoever is the registered owner is the one
liable in case of damage or loss. Presumed that registered owner is the
real owner. (PCI Leasing vs UCPB case: even if vehicle is already
transferred, the seller if still registered owner is still liable.) Even if
leased out, registered owner still liable.
-RA 8556: Financing company not liable by damages caused by
vehicles leased to third persons, except if financing company itself
operates the motor vehicle. But this did not modify Land transportation
and traffic code. There should still be annotation as who is the one
operating or using the vehicle.
-Rules on Vessels & aircraft are the same: there is still registered
owner rule. Marina is the governing law for vessels. Sec. 44 of RA
9497: the registration is a conclusive (not merely prima facie) evidence
of ownership to third persons, whoever appears in the registration is
the owner.
-Kabit System: only in protection of third persons.
-Perfection of the contract of carriage: Contract to carry vs Contract of Carriage
-To carry: consensual, mere meeting of the minds.
 -Carriage: real contract, not perfected until the goods are delivered or
the passenger has already presented himself to the carrier for
transportation.
-Continuous Offer Rule: (dangwa case) : buses in the streets has
continuing offer to the public, when the person raises his hand, it has
duty to stop without any discrimination. When it has accepted, and
passenger already embarked, the duty to exercise extraordinary
diligence is already in force.
-Trains: while in the platform, extraordinary diligence must already be
in force because passenger has already presented himself. (LRTA case)
He already placed himself in the carrier. Due diligence includes acts of
third persons.
-Stowaway: has no right. There is no consent, carrier is not aware that
he was there.
-No need to prove negligence is the proximate cause of injury, because there is
already presumption of negligence for CC.
-Vessel that is used by the carrier must be seaworthy. Seaworthiness is not limited
to the capability or the nature of the vessel itself or just withstand the perils of
navigation, it must also be cargo-worthy, it must be fit to transport the goods that is
the object of the contract.
-Transhipment: as distinguished from successive carriers. It has duty to transport
goods through its vessel, such obligation cannot be passed. Original carrier or
original contracting party is still liable.
-Inspection: (Nocum vs tayabas Case) In overland transportation, the common
carrier is not bound nor empowered to make an examination on the contents of
packages or bags, particularly those handcarried by passengers. But diligence
should depend on circumstances on each particular case. For example, there is
suspicious baggages.
-In aircraft, it is an obligation to inspect baggages.
-Duration of duty to exercise extraordinary diligence: Control and Foreseeability. Any
portion of your body is in the vehicle, then diligence should be in place. (La Mallorca
Case > duty to exercise diligence remains, give reasonable opportunity for
passenger to leave)
-Defenses: Caso fortuito-when there is participation of carrier and its employees,
then it is humanized.
-Fire not fortuitous event. Because there is human intervention.
-Hijacking: depends if foreseeable or not. But if facts state that care
must be exercised.
 -Mechanical defects including tire blowouts and breaks: not fortuitous,
can be prevented, there is human error here. Even if factory defect,
must still inspect.
-Public Enemy: there must be war, and the one caused injury is a citizen of
the state of whom Philippines is at war. Rebels and bandits not included (may
be fortuitous depending on circumstances, if there is irresistible force)
-Contributory negligence: if contribution is part on carrier, carries is liable,
even if negligence concurred with others or not the sole cause. If negligence
is part of passengers or owners, then it is mitigating or reduce damages, but
it does not bar recovery.
-Character of goods/Defects in packaging: If carrier did not refuse, carrier
should still be diligent to minimize damage or loss.
-Order of competent authority: (Ganzon case) mayor cannot stop, should be
marina or coastguard. Authority should be competent. (could still be liable if
there is irresistible force)
-Acts of passengers and third persons
-Employees: carrier is responsible for acts and omission of employees.
-Hand Carried baggages: apply rule on necessary deposit should notify
carrier the nature of the baggages, otherwise no liability can be incurred.
-