TRANSPO NOTES (based on Atty.

Padilla’s Syllabus)

1.3.5 Prohibition against Improper Deviation (Art. 359, Code of Commerce)

PART I - COMMON CARRIERS 1.3.6 Inspection of Cargo on Reasonable Grounds

1.4 Carriage by Air

1.4.1 Airworthiness (Sec. 3(z), Civil Aviation Authority Act)
1.4.2 Competence and Fitness of the Crew
CHAPTER II – CONTRACT OF COMMON CARRIAGE
1.4.3 Warranty against Improper Deviation
A. VIGILANCE OVER GOODS 1.4.4 Duty to Inspect Cargo and Baggage (Sec. 8, RA 6235)

1. Extraordinary Diligence Required of Common Carriers (Art 1733, NCC) 1.5 Carriage of Dangerous Goods (DG)
1.5.1 Safe Carriage of DG
1.1 Definition and Reason for the Policy 1.5.2 Duty to Discharge or Destroy DG (Sec. 4(6), COGSA)
1.1.1.1 Republic v Lorenzo 1.5.3 Acceptance, Shipping and Hadling of DG in accordance with the 2012 Int’l Maritime Dangerous
1.1.1.2 Doctrine of Non-delegable Duty as applied to Common Carriers Goods code (IMDG) and MARINA Memo. Circular No.1, Series of 2008
1.5.4 Duty to Secure DG from Unauthorized Access
1.2 Carriage by Sea 1.5.5 Proper Training in Handling DG
1.5.6 Survey or Inspection of Cargo to Enforce Compliance with IMDG and other Regulations
1.2.1 Seaworthiness; Meaning
1.2.1.1 Case Law (Standard Vacuum Oil Co v Luzon Stevedoring) ; (Loadstar v CA) 2. Liability of Carriers for Loss, Destruction, and Deterioration of Goods (Arts 1734-1735; 1739-1743,
1.2.1.2 Statutes in Pari Materia (Sec. 3(1)(a)(b), COGSA; Secs. 116-119, Insurance Code) NCC)

1.2.2 When Should a Ship be Seaworthy 2.1 Presumption of Negligence (Regional Container Lines of SG v Netherlands Insurance)
1.2.2.1 COGSA
1.2.2.2 Common Law; Doctrine of Stages 2.2 Common Carrier Defenses; Exclusive
1.2.2.3 Domestic Shipping Act (RA 9295)
2.2.1 Acts of God (Arts. 1734(1), 1739, and 1740)
1.2.3 Does Presumption of Fault Translate to Presumption of Unseaworthiness? 2.2.1.1 2013 Heavy Weather Guidelines (PCG Memo Circular 02-2013)
2.2.1.2 Eastern Shipping Lines v IAC
1.2.4 Presumption of Unseaworthiness in Certain Cases 2.2.1.3 Eastern Shipping Lines v CA
2.2.1.4 Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corp v Transport Venture
1.2.5 Cargoworthiness 2.2.1.5 PH American General Insurance Co v PKS Shipping Co
1.2.5.1 Case Law (Santiago Lighterage v CA) 2.2.1.6 Transimex Co v. Mafre Asian Insurance Co
1.2.5.2 Sec. 3(1)(c), COGSA
2.2.2 Acts of Public Enemy (Arts. 1734(3) and 1739)
1.2.6 Sufficient Freeboard (See 1.1.1.1 Int’l Convention on Load Lines 1966) 2.2.2.1 Existence of War; Prize Cases
1.2.6.1.1 Compulsory Marking of Int’l Load Lines (Plimsoll Line) 2.2.2.2 Piracy
1.2.6.1.2 Plimsoll Line must not be submerged 2.2.2.3 Rebels as Public Enemy

1.2.7 Warranty against Improper Deviation 2.2.3 Shipper/Owner’s Fault (Arts. 1734(3) and 1741)
2.2.3.1 Who are Considered Shipper and/or Owner
1.2.8 Survey or Inspection of Caargo on Reasonable Grounds 2.2.3.2 Sole and Proximate vs Contributory only
2.2.3.3 Compania Maritima v CA
2.2.3.4 Delsan Trans Lines v American Home Assurance
1.3 Carriage by Land 2.2.3.5 “Shipper’s Load and Count” Arrangement (Marina Port Services, Inc v American Assurnce)
1.3.1 Road Worthiness and Railworthiness
1.3.2 Motor Vehicle Must be in Good Condition 2.2.4 Inherent Vice (Arts. 1734(4) and 1742)
1.3.3 Warranty against Defective Vehicles Parts 2.2.4.1 Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping v Ph First Insurance
1.3.4 Compliance with Traffic Regulations (See Doctrine of Negligence per se) 2.2.4.2 Asian Terminals v Simon Enterprises

1
 TRANSPO NOTES (based on Atty. Padilla’s Syllabus)

2.2.4.3 Planters Products v CA 3.2 Bill of Lading as Evidence of Delivery to the Carrier

2.2.5 Defects in the Packing or in the Container (Arts. 1734(4) and 1742) A bill of lading is a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the goods and an agreement to transport
2.2.5.1 Regional Container Lines of SG v Netherlands Insurance Co PH and deliver them at a specified place to a person named or on his order. Such instrument may be called a
2.2.5.2 Ph Charter Insurance Co v Unknown Owner of M/V “National Honor” shipping receipt, forwarder's receipt and receipt for transportation. The designation, however, is
2.2.5.3 Southern Lines v CA immaterial. It has been held that freight tickets for bus companies as well as receipts for cargo
2.2.5.4 Calvo v UCPB transported by all forms of transportation, whether by sea or land, fall within the definition. Under the
Tariff and Customs Code, a bill of lading includes airway bills of lading.
2.2.6 Acts of Public Authority (Arts. 1734(5) and 1743)
2.2.6.1 Ganzon v CA TWO FOLD CHARACTER OF A BILL OF LADING
2.2.6.2 Examples (1) it is a receipt as to the quantity and description of the goods shipped; and
(2) a contract to transport the goods to the consignee or other person therein designated, on the terms
2.2.7 Extraordinary Diligence specified in such instrument.
2.2.7.1 Republic v Lorenzo Shipping Corp
2.2.7.2 De Guzman v CA (Emergency Rule) (Saludo v CA)

2.2.8 Fortuitous Events 3.3 Temporary Unloading and Storage in Transit

2.2.8.1 Casus Fortuitous Nemo Prestat; Impossibilum Nulla Obligation Est
2.2.8.2 De Guzman v CA 3.3.1 Effect of Stoppage in Transitu
2.2.8.3 Ganzon v CA
-Explicit is the rule under Article 1736 of the Civil Code that the extraordinary responsibility of the
2.2.8.4 Barcos v CA
common carrier begins from the time the goods are delivered to the carrier. This responsibility remains in
2.2.8.5 Loadmasters Customs Services v Glodel Brokerage Corp
full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, unless the shipper or
2.2.8.6 Torres-Madrid Brokerage v FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co
owner exercises the right of stoppage in transitu, and terminates only after the lapse of a reasonable
2.2.8.7 Servando v Ph Steam Navigation
time for the acceptance of the goods by the consignee or such other person entitled to receive them.
And, there is delivery to the carrier when the goods are ready for and have been placed in the exclusive
2.2.9 Partial Defense: Shipper/Consignee’s Contributory Fault or Negligence
possession, custody and control of the carrier for the purpose of their immediate transportation and the
2.2.9.1 Tabacalera Insurance Co v North Front Shipping Services
carrier has accepted them. Where such a delivery has thus been accepted by the carrier, the liability of
2.2.9.2 Compania Maritima v CA
the common carrier commences eo instanti. (Saludo v CA)

3.4 Actual or Constructive Delivery

3 Commencement, Duration, and Termination of Carrier’s Responsibility over the Goods
(Arts 1736-1738, NCC)
3.1 Unconditionally Placed in the Possession of and Received by the Carrier
Art 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are
unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for the transportation until
the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who
has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738.
- if actually no goods are received there can be no contract. The liability and responsibility of the carrier
under a contract for the carriage of goods commence on their actual delivery to, or receipt by, the carrier
or an authorized agent.
-The test as to whether the relation of shipper and carrier had been established is, had the control
and possession of the goods been completely surrendered by the shipper to the carrier? Whenever
the control and possession of goods passes to the carrier and nothing remains to be done by the shipper,
then it can be said with certainty that the relation of shipper and carrier has been established.
(Compania Maritima v Insurance Co. Of North America)
(Ganzon v CA)
Carrier may be relieved from the responsibility for loss or damage to the goods upon actual or
constructive
delivery of the same by the carrier to the consignee or to the person who has the right to receive them.
(a) ACTUAL DELIVERY
-There is actual delivery in contracts for the transport of goods when possession has been turned over
to the consignee or to his duly authorized agent and a reasonable time is given him to remove the
goods.
(b) CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY
(c) When are the goods deemed delivered?
-When the goods are ready for and have been placed in the exclusive possession, custody and control
of the carrier for the purpose of their immediate transportation and the carrier has accepted them.
When such delivery has thus been accepted by the carrier, the liability of the carrier commences eo
instanti.
3.4.1 To the Consignee

2
 TRANSPO NOTES (based on Atty. Padilla’s Syllabus)

“The responsibility of common carriers to exercise extraordinary diligence lasts from the time the (Phil First Isurance Co, Inc. v Wallen Phils Shipping, Inc)
goods are unconditionally placed in their possession until they are delivered "to the consignee, or to
the person who has a right to receive them." Thus, part of the extraordinary responsibility of 3.7 Duty to Ship vs Duty to Transship
common carriers is the duty to ensure that shipments are received by none but "the person who has
a right to receive them." Common carriers must ascertain the identity of the recipient. Failing to "transship" means:
deliver shipment to the designated recipient amounts to a failure to deliver. The shipment shall then "to transfer for further transportation from one ship or conveyance to another"
be considered lost, and liability for this loss ensues.” (Federal Express v Antonio)

(Federal Express v Antonio) (Samar Mining Co, Inc v Nordeutscher Lloyd)

3.4.2 To the Person who has Right to Receive Cargo

“Delivery is valid and it terminates the contract, as a matter of law. The contract is already
terminated.” (Macam v CA)

(Lu Do & Lu v Binamira)

(Nedlloyd Lijnen BV Rotterdam v Glow Laks Enterp)

(Macam v CA)

(see discussions on p.7, Transpo Lectures file)

3.5 Delivery to the Consignee Without Surrender of Bill of Lading

“A common carrier may release the goods to the consignee even without the surrender of the bill of
lading. The bill of lading shows no requirement requiring surrender of the bill of lading prior to
release and delivery of the goods, despite DBI’s claim. ASTI and ACCLI, therefore, have no
obligation to release the goods only upon the surrender of the bill of lading. In any case,
Art. 353 of the Code of Commerce provides that in case the consignee cannot return the bill
of lading, he must give a receipt producing the same effects as the return of a bill of lading.

Generally, upon receipt of the goods, the consignee surrenders the bill of lading to the
carrier and their respective obligations are canceled. The law provides for two exceptions:
when the bill of lading gets lost or for other case, the consignee must issue a receipt.
Clearly, non-surrender of the original bill of lading does not violate the carrier’s duty of
extraordinary diligence over the goods.” (Designer Baskets, Inc. v Air Sea Transport, Inc.)

“Release of the goods without surrendering the bill of lading was upheld
despite the bill of lading providing for the surrender of one of the bills of lading due to the
(1) telex instructions to the carrier to deliver the goods without need of presenting said bill
of lading; and (2) such was noted usual practice of the shipper to request shipping lines
immediately to release perishable cargoes through telephone calls.” (Macam v CA)

(Designer Baskets, Inc. v Air Sea Transport, Inc.)

3.6 Custody over Cargo During Unloading

It is settled in maritime law jurisprudence that cargoes while being unloaded generally remain
under the custody of the carrier (Regional Container Lines v. Netherlands)

(Regional Container Lines v Netherlands Insurance Co.)

3
 TRANSPO NOTES (based on Atty. Padilla’s Syllabus)

4 Stipulations Limiting Carrier’s Liability

4.1 Articles 1744-1748; 1751-1752

4.2 Minimum Degree of Diligence Required

Due diligence? DOAGFOAF?

4.3 Void Stipulations (Art 1745 NCC)

(Sweet Lines v Teves) p.119

4.4. Reasonable Time in Delivery of Goods

While it is true that common carriers are not obligated by law to carry and to deliver
merchandise, and persons are not vested with the right to prompt delivery, unless such
common carriers previously assume the obligation to deliver at a given date or time, delivery
of shipment or cargo should at least be made within a reasonable time.

(Maersk Lines v CA) p.121

4.5 Articles 1749-1750, Civil Code; Limitation on the Amount of Liability

4.5.1 Ad Valorem B/L

-payment in proportion to the estimated value of the goods in the B/L to be transported.

(Ysmael v. Barreto) p.122

(Shewaram v PAL) p.124
(Ong Yiu v CA) p.126
(Sea-Land Services v IAC) p.128
(Citadel v CA) p.131
(Everett v Steamship v CA) p.132
(British Airways v CA) p.134
(H.E. Heacock Co. v Macondray) p.136

5 Passenger’s Baggages (Article 1754)

5.1 Checked-in v. Hand-carried Baggages

- memaid, p.122

(Quisimbing Sr. v CA) p.138

(Pan American Airlines v Rapadas) p.139
(British Airways v CA) p.134
(Alitalia v IAC) p.141