CASE FACTS & DOCTRINE

1. Abeto v. PAL Judge Abeto and relatives dies in a plane crash in Mindoro. PAL
wouldnt hear settlements. 1733, 1755, 1756, 1757. Prescribed
route was not follow since crash route was not in the area.
Weather was also clear.
2. Baliwag Transit v. CA Complaint for damages, for physical injuries of George. The contract
of carriage was actually between George, as the paying passenger,
and Baliwag, as the common carrier. As such carrier, Baliwag was
bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and
foresight could provide, and is liable for injuries to them through the
negligence or wilful acts of its employees (Articles 1755 and 1759,
Civil Code). Thus, George had the right to be safely brought to his
destination and Baliwag had the correlative obligation to do so.
Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto, as
against each other, in an action upon that contract, the real parties
in interest, either as plaintiff or as defendant, must be parties to
said contract.
3. Bascos v. CA CIPTrade contracted Bascos to carry 2000 m tons of soya to Jibfair
Shipping. Failed to deliver. Bascos refused to pay. Saying that it was
just a contract of lease and not one that is a contract of carriage and
hijacking was force majeure. Failure to adduce sufficient proof of
EOD will rise the presumption of negligence against carrier.
4. Batangas Transport Co. v. Caguimbal Caguimbal, a passenger died when BTC hit a Binan bus. BTCO has
not proven EOD. Even when it was Binan bus who was the
proximate cause of death.
5. BLTB v. IAC BLTB Bus (Pon) & Superlines (Dasoc) collided. 3 people dead 2
injured in BLTB Bus. BLTB Tried to overtake a ford fiera but
Superlines was ahead. Land Transportation and Traffic Code
express obligation to transport with EOD. Employer liable (1759)
6. Brinas v. People Martina Bool and Emelita. Lusacan, Lusacan! While they were at
door, the train picked up speed, fall down the tracks and hit by
another train. Took a full 3 minutes more before the next barrio of
Lusacan was reached. The premature announcement prompted
the two victims to stand and proceed to the nearest exit. (On
proximate cause)
7. Compania Maritima v. CA Concepcion w Civil Aeronautics Board for construction of airport.
Concepcion ship the pay loader from MNL to CDO. Negotiated
Compania For Shipment. In the BL, it was stated that it is 2.5 tons
but is really 7.5 tons. 1734. CA found that Comoania was using a 5
ton lifting apparatus. Despite being declared 2.5 tons, they
couldve weighed it themselves to avoid the cause of
misrepresentation. (1741)
8. Fabre v. CA Mazda minibus ordinarily used as school bus for students. World for
World Christian Fellowship arranged for transportation of 33
members for 3,000php. Usual route was under repair so Carbil took
an alternate route. He was driving swiftly in rain causing it to hit
gate of Escano and injury of the passengers.
9. Filcar v. Espinas Registered owner Rule. Filcar Atty. Flor Floresca v. Espinas
10. Japan Airlines v. CA Respondent bound to Mnl from San Fo. Stop over at Narota because
Mt. Pinatubo erupted. JAL paid for accommodation. Next day, upon
rescheduled flight, cancelled again because NAIA closed. JAL no
longer wants to pay for accommodation. JAL is not liable for the first
occurrence because eruption was unforeseeable. But is liable for
second because it let passengers to fix their schedules on their own.
11. Lara v. Valencia Lara Bureau of Forestry, Valencia lumber concession. Lara had
Malaria, asked Valencia to drive him to Davao. Rode at the back
despite Valencias offer, fell then died
Only ordinary diligence is required of Valencia. They are only
invited guests and is considered a private carrier (1755, 1756)
12. Lim v. CA The kabit system renders illusory such purpose and, worse, may still
be availed of by the grantee to escape civil liability caused by a
negligent use of a vehicle owned by another and operated under his
license. If a registered owner is allowed to escape liability by proving
who the supposed owner of the vehicle is, it would be easy for him

13. Loadmasters v. Glodel
14. Mallari Sr. and Jr. v. CA
15. Mecenas v. CA
16. Nocum v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co
17. PAL v. CA
18. Phil Charter Insurance Corp v. Unknown Owner of
M/V National Honor Shipping
19. Planters Product Inc. v. CA
20. Schmitz Transportation v. Transport Venture
21. Sps. Cruz v Sun Holidays
22. Standard Vacuum v. Stevedoring
23. Asian Lighterage v. CA
to transfer the subject vehicle to another who possesses no
property with which to respond financially for the damage done.
R&B Insurance issued Maritime Policy In favour of Colombia
Shipment of 132 bundles of copper cathodes AGAINST All risks/
Columbia engages services by Glodel. Glodel with Loadmasters for
their trucks. Only 5/6 arrived. Glodel is a common carrier because
the transport of goods is an integral part of its business. THUS,
observance of EOD.
Jr was driver of the jeepney owned by Sr v. deliver van of Bulletin in
Bataan. Death of 1 pax aboard jeep. They are liable Lt & Traffic code
MT Tacloban petroleum cargo, MV Don Juan 750 passengers.
Head on collisions, Don Juan steered to the right, Tacloban stayed
left. MV Don Juan sank and people died.
Don Juan was negligent. He was off duty, but that doesnt mean
his EOD will cease.
Injured as a consequence of the explosion of firecrackers, contained
in a box, loaded in said bus. He also said that from its appearance
there was no indication at all that the contents were explosives or
firecrackers. Neither did he open the box because he just relied on
the word of the owner. In this particular case before Us, it must be
considered that while it is true the passengers of appellant's bus
should not be made to suffer for something over which they had no
control, as enunciated in the decision of this Court cited by His
Honor, fairness demands that in measuring a common carrier's duty
towards its passengers, 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. Not to
be lightly considered must be the right to privacy to which each
passenger is entitled. He cannot be subjected to any unusual search,
when he protests the innocuousness of his baggage and nothing
appears to indicate the contrary,
Zapatos (Cebu to Ozamis) Unfavourable weather conditions,
stranded in Cotabato, when there was a battle on going. Failed to
return baggage. Fortuitous event doesnt negate the contract of
carriage. PAL shouldve exercised EOD for the comfort of the
passengers.
Breakage and collapse was solely to inherent defect of materials
used in fabrication of crate. Carrier not liable.
Mitsubishi of NY. Planters Products Inc. 9329 metric tons of Urea
aboard M/V Sun Plum to La Union, PH as stated in BL. Charterers
found it fit, sealed it and closed hatches. When unloaded, Urea had
acquired rust and a few shortage.
Time charter doesnt negated the presumption of negligence.
There was EOD and risk of loss because of the character of goods.
A common carrier shall exercise extraordinary diligence to prevent
and/or minimize the loss or destruction of goods. Failure to
promptly provide a tugboat did not only increase the risk that might
have been reasonably anticipated during the shipside operation, but
was the proximate cause of the loss. A man of ordinary prudence
would not leave a heavily loaded barge floating for a considerable
number of hours, at such a precarious time, and in the open sea,
knowing that the barge does not have any power of its own and is
totally defenseless from the ravages of the sea.
Petitioner Was contracted as carrier to deliver 3000 m/t of Better
Western White Wheat to General Milling Co in Pasig, insured by
Prudential Guarantee. It did not reach destination because of
incoming typhoon. Developed a hole, so it was transferred to 3 new
barges. Original barge sank. It is a common carrier engage in the
business of shipping and lighterage. Failed to exercise due diligence.
1734, exceptions
CASE FACTS/ DOCTRINE
1. Alitalia v. IAC Dr. Pablo was invited to Italy for research. Passage by
Alitalia. Arrived in Milan on time but Baggage was delayed.
Tried to locate the baggage to herself, but to no avail. Even
went back to Manila and didnt attend the meeting.
Materials were there in Ispra, and was returned to her after
11 months. Demanded for damages and rejected Alitalias
offer of free tickets. Ruling: There was no bad faith and only
nominal damage, and a breach of contract of carriage. Not
liable under Warsaw Convention
2. Augustino Benedicto Santos III v. Northwes Orient Is a minor. Roundtrip ticket SAN FO TOKYO MANILA
Airlines and CA SAN FO. A day before departure, NOA told him na he bought
no ticket. Because of that he sued. NORTHWEST Orient
Arilines argued that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction
over the matter because international carriers can only be
constituted in domicile of carrier. RULING: under the warsaw
convention they can not rule over the matter.
3. China Airlines v. Chiok Chiok went aboard the floght from Manila Taiwan HK
MNL but got cancelled because of the typhoon. He was not
acoommodated properly as his name did not appear of the
PALs computer list. He avers hat PAL and China Airlines are
solidarily liable, since one of them is the agent of the other.
Ruling: Contract of carriage is treated in this jurisdiction a
single operation. PAL is liable.
4. Citadel Lines Inc. v. CA

5. Designer Baskets v. Air Sea Transport

6. Everett Steamship v. Hernandez Trading Co. Inc.

7. Heheacock Company v. Macondray and Company

Inc.

8. Ong Yiu v. CA
9. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. IAC Rapaldas on borad from Guam to Manila. Checked his
Samsonite Case because it was not allowed to be
handcarried. Upon arrival bag was lost, he now asks forS160
dollars. Ruling: Passsengers are expected to be vigilant with
their belongings. He failed to state the value.
10. United Airlines v. Willie J. Uy

11.