1.

When does a registered owner of a vessel which was capsized at the time of the voyage including its goods can invoke the limited liability rule?

a. In cases resulting from the negligence or fault of the captain only. b. In cases resulting from the negligence or fault of the shipowner or ship agent only. c. In cases resulting from the negligence or fault of both the shipowner and the ship agent. d. In cases resulting from the liabilities incurred by the shipowner for the vessel before its loss.

Answer: A, because the application of limited liability doctrine of the maritime is premised on the condition that the death of or injury of the passenger occurred by reason of the fault or negligent of the captain only. In cases where the owner is likewise blamed, the limited liability rule does not apply.

2. Aqua Marina Shipping Lines leased its vessel M/V Rafiya Aliana to Mr. Wing Pa who appoints its own captain. At the course of the voyage, the goods were lost and the passengers were injured. It was found out that the captain was the one negligent. Who will bear the loss and the damages?

a. Mr. Wing Pa, the lessee of the vessel, because he was the one who appointed the negligent captain. b. The captain will pay directly to third person because he was the one negligent. c. Aqua Marina and Mr. Wing Pa shall be held solidarily liable for the loss because they have both interest in the vessel. d. Aqua Marina, the owner, even if the vessel was leased and it was not who appoint the negligent captain.

Answer: D. The owner continues to be responsible for the acts of the captain even if the latter is not appointed by him, because he is the only one who appears as having control of the vessel in the certificate of registration to which third parties look.

3. Vessels A and B collided at the middle of the sea. As a result, vessel A sank and all the goods and cargoes it carries. Owner of vessel A filed an action against the owner of vessel B for damages caused to the formers vessel by reason of the said collision. C who is a passenger of vessel A filed its Motion to Intervene. Will Cs motion prosper?

a. Yes, because his baggage was lost as a result of the collision that is why he is entitled for damages. b. No, because he has no legal interest in the matter of litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both. c. Yes, applying the provision on contract of carriage between the vessel. d. No, because the baggage has been lost already and cannot be recovered under the limited liability rule.

Answer. B, because in an action brought by a steamship owner against the owner of a sailing vessel for damages caused to the steamship by a collision, a passenger who suffered a loss of baggage and freight by reason of the collision cannot intervene in an action for the adjudication of his rights. (Urrutia and Company v. Baco River Plantation Co., 26 Phil 632).

4. In the Code of Maritime Commerce, protest shall be made within twentyfour (24) hours before a competent authority. Which is not included?

a. When the vessel makes an arrival under stress.

b. Where the vessel is shipwrecked. c. When the collision involves a motor boat or small boat manned by fishermen. d. Where there is a maritime collision. Answer: C, because the provisions on collision does not apply in cases of small boats engaged in river or bay traffic. Consequently, the protest required is not necessary to preserve the right of a person aboard a motor engaged in conveying passengers between ship and shore who is injured in a collision between the motor boat and the larger vessel.

5.

M/V Brit Kheira having its right of way changes its course during the third zone of collision to avoid an imminent danger due to the fault of another vessel M/V Allyza. Who is liable for all damages resulting from the collision. ?

a. Only M/V Brit Kheira is liable because it should have not changed its course. b. Both vessels are liable because they are both at fault. c. Only M/V Allyza is liable for having a greater fault in allowing such dangerous proximity to be brought about. d. Both vessels shall suffer for their own loss and solidary for damages to third persons.

Answer: C, because the act of M/V Brit Kheira, in changing its course, having been done in extremis, even if wrong, is not responsible for the result. M/V Allyza is not absolved from liability which suffered herself and the other vessel to get into such dangerous proximity. M/V Brit Kheira is justified under the doctrine in extremis.

6. In order to make an arrival under stress, there are formalities to follow. Which of the following is not an essential requisite?

a. Assembly of the officers, at which shall be summoned the persons interested in the cargo who may attend but may not vote. b. Presentation of the bill of lading and inventory of the cargo in the custody of the vessel before the competent authority. c. Drafting and entering in the log book the proper minutes which shall be signed by all. d. Entry in the log book of the objections and protests of the persons interested in the cargo.

Answer: B, inventory of the cargo under the custody of the vessel during the arrival under stress is not a requisite provided for under the law.

7. A vessel bound to Romblon made an arrival under stress at the port of Batangas. The goods this vessel carries were in danger of being damaged if not sold. All the formalities for the filing of the protest required by law have been complied with. The owner of the vessel also authorized its captain to sell the cargoes. Is there a valid sale of cargo?

a. Yes, because the formalities are complied. b. No, because the owners did not consent the selling. c. Yes, because if goods were damaged, the shipwoner will be answerable. d. No, because there is absence of authorization for the sale by the competent court or consul.

Answer: D, because in order to have a valid sale of cargo, in cases of arrival under stress, the following requisites shall be present: (i) the entire cargo or part thereof should appear to be damaged, or there should be an imminent danger of its being damaged; (ii) there must be an authorization for the sale by a competent court or

consul; and (iii) the formalities required in Art. 624 are complied with.