COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES (FINALS) ATTY.

BUSMENTE

CASE TITLE CASE DOCTRINE

TRANSPORTATION LAW
1 First Philippines
The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is: 1. He must be engaged in the business of carrying
Industrial Corp vs CA
goods for others as a public employment, and must hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for
person generally as a business and not as a casual occupation; 2. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his
business is confined; 3. He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and over his
established roads: and 4. The transportation must be for hire.

Pipeline operators are common carriers. The SC ruled that a corporation that is engaged in the business of transporting oil and
other petroleum products through its pipes can be considered a common carrier. The law does not distinguish as to the means
of transportation, 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.

2 Caltex Phils vs Sulpicio A charter party may transform a common carrier into a private carrier. However, it must be bareboat or demise charter where
Lines the charterer mans the vessel with his own people and becomes, in effect, the owner for the voyage of the service stipulated.
3 Virgines Calvo vs UCPB The petitioner, a custom broker and warehouseman, was declared to be a common carrier in one case although she does not
indiscriminately hold her services out to the public but only offers the same to select parties with whom she may contract in the
conduct of her business. In the said case, petitioner entered into a contract with SMC to transfer paper and kraft board from the
Port Area in Manila to SMC's warehouse in Ermita, Manila. As a common carrier, she is bound to exercise extraordinary diligence
in transporting the goods and is presumed to be negligent when she failed to deliver the same.
4 Asia Lighterage vs CA The petitioner argued that it is a private carrier and Allegedly has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no terminals, and
issues no tickets. It points out that it is not obliged to carry indiscriminately for any person. It is not bound to carry goods unless
it consents. In short, it does not hold out its services to the general public. The SC held that the principal business of the
petitioner is that of lighterage and drayage and it offers its barges to the public for carrying or transporting goods by water for
compensation. Petitioner is clearly a common carrier whether its carrying of goods is done on an irregular basis rather than
scheduled manner and with a limited clientele. A common carrier need not havea fixed and publicly known route nor does it
have to maintain terminals or issue tickets.
5 Sps Cruz vs Sun The operator of a beach resort that accepts clients by virtue of a tour-package contracts that included transportation to and from
Holidays the Resort and the point of departure in Batangas is considered a common carrier. Its ferry service are so intertwined with its
main business as to properly be considered ancillary thereto. The constancy of respondent's ferry services in its resort
operations is underscored by its having its own boats. And the tour package it offers, which include the ferry services, may be
availed of by anyone who can afford the same. These services are thus available to the public.
6 Delasan Transport vs Presentation of certificate of seaworthiness is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence.
CA
The presumption of fault or negligence will not arise if the loss is due to any of the following causes:
(1) flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) an act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) an act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) the character of the goods or defects in the packing or the container; or
(5) an order or act of competent public authority.
(6) Exercise of extraordinary diligence (Art. 1735 and 1755)

1 DIATO.2013400036
COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES (FINALS) ATTY. BUSMENTE

This is a closed list. If the cause of destruction, loss or deterioration is other than the enumerated circumstances, then the
carrier is liable therefor.
7 Belgian Chartering vs Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier and their arrival in bad order at their destination (or
First Philippine failure to transport the passenger safely) constitute prima facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no adequate
Insurance Co. explanation is given as to how the deterioration, the loss, or the destruction of the goods, happened, the transporter shall be
held responsible

The presumption of fault or negligence will not arise if the loss is due to any of the following causes:
(1) flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(7) an act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(8) an act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(9) the character of the goods or defects in the packing or the container; or
(10) an order or act of competent public authority.
(11) Exercise of extraordinary diligence (Art. 1735 and 1755)
This is a closed list. If the cause of destruction, loss or deterioration is other than the enumerated circumstances, then the
carrier is liable therefor.

The SC applied COGSA and ruled that the liability should not be based on the price declared in the Letter of Credit. The court
considered each coil as a package.

Acceptance of the consignee is implied if he claims reimbursement for missing goods and files a case based on the bill of lading.
8 Fortune Express vs CA However, it was ruled in one case that seizure of passenger bus by armed men is not a fortuitous event and does not excuse the
carrier from liability where there was already a report from police agents that a certain group will attack the buses and the
carrier did not take steps to safeguard the lives and properties of its passengers.
9 Edgar Cokaliong Ensuring the seaworthiness of the vessel is the first step in exercising the required vigilance.
Shipping Lines vs
UCPB Originating from an unchecked crack in the fuel oil service tank, the fire could not have been cause by force majeure. Broadly
speaking, force majeure generally applies to natural accident, such as that cause by a lightning, an earthquake, a tempest or a
public enemy. Hence, fire is not considered a natural disaster or calamity.

A stipulation that the common carrier's liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading unless the
shipper or owner declares a greater value.

The purpose of limiting the stipulation in the Bill of Lading is to protect the common carrier. Such stipulation obliges the
shipper/consignee to notify the common carrier of the amount that the latter may be liable for in case of loss of the goods. The
common carrier can then take appropriate measures- getting insurance, if needed, to cover or protect itself. This precaution on
the part of the carrier is reasonable and prudent. Hence, a shipper/consignee that undervalues the real worth of the goods it
seeks to transport does not only violate a valid contractual stipulation, but commits a fraudulent act when it seeks to make the
common carrier liable for more than the amount declared in the bill of laing.
10 La Mallorca Corp. vs Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted
CA from the carrier's conveyance or has had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. All persons who remain on
the premises within a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable

2 DIATO.2013400036
COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES (FINALS) ATTY. BUSMENTE

time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances, and includes reasonable time to look
after his baggage and prepare for his departure. For instance, a person, who, after alighting from a train, walks along the station
platforms is considered still a passenger.
11 Equitable Leasing The rule in this jurisdiction is that the person who is the registered owner of a vehicle is liable for any damages caused by the
Corp. vs Lucita Suyon negligent operation of the vehicle although the same was already sold or conveyed to another person at the time of the
accident. The registered owner is liable to the injured party subject to his right of recourse against the transferee or the buyer.
12 Duavit vs CA The registered owner is not liable if the vehicle was taken from his garage without his knowledge and consent. To hold the
registered owner liable would be absurd as it would be holding liable the owner of a stolen vehicle for an accident caused by a
person who stole such vehicle.
13 De la Torre vs CA It is the shipowner who can invoke the limited liability rule. He is the person for whom the rule has been conceived. The
charterer cannot invoke the limited liability rule as a defense especially against the shipowner
14 Planters Products Inc A Charter by Demise or Bareboat by the terms of which the whole vessel is let to the charterer which transfers to him its entire
vs CA command and possession and consequent control over its navigation, including the master and crew who are his servants. The
charterer is treated as OWNER PRO HAC VIC of the vessel. In such case, a common carrier becomes a private carrier.
15 Metropolitan Cebu The term FRANCHISE includes not only authorizations issuing directly from Congress in the form of a statute, but also those
Water District vs Adala granted by administrative agencies to which the power to grant franchises has been delegated by Congress.

A PUBLIC UTILITY is a business or service engaged in regularly supplying the public with some commodity or service of public
consequence such as electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or telegraph service.

3 DIATO.2013400036