NOTES ON TRANSPORTATION LAW | 2019 – 2020 | ATTY.
GLENN CAPANAS
CHAPTER 1
A. CONCEPT, PARTIES, PERFECTION
Perfection of Contract of Carriage – Perfected by mere
consent?
Stages of Contract
A contract undergoes three stages:
Preparatory or conception - process of formation through
bargaining or negotiation, which begins from the time the
prospective contracting parties manifest their interest in the
contract that leads to the perfection of the contract. Either
party may stop the process or withdraw an offer made.
Perfection or birth - process of arriving at a definite
agreement or meeting of the minds as to the elements of the
contract, particularly the essential ones (object and cause);
the juridical tie between the parties arises from that time.
Consumption or death - the fulfillment of the respective
obligations of the parties under the contract, resulting to its
accomplishment and extinguishment.
LRTA vs. Natividad. Deemed perfected from the moment
fare is paid and passenger entered the premises.
Perfection of Carriage of Properties
Contract of Carriage - “A contract of carriage is defined as
one whereby a certain person or association of persons
obligate themselves to transport person, things, or news from
one place to another for a fixed price.”
Contract of Carriage of Goods –
Parties of a Contract of Carriage of Goods –
Consignee as a Party – He is the party to whom the goods
are to be delivered. He may be the shipper himself or a third
person.
General Rule – If he is not the shipper, he is not
considered a party to the COC.
Exceptions:
1. There is a relationship of agency between the
consignor and the consignee;
(Relationship of agency - this is a business
relationship where a principal gives legal
authority to an agent to act on the principal's
behalf when dealing with a third party.)
2. There is an unequivocal acceptance of the bill of
lading delivered to the consignee with full
knowledge of its contents;
3. Consignee demands before the carrier the
fulfillment of the stipulation made by the
consignor in favor of consignee, specifically the
delivery of goods or the availment of a stipulation
pour autrui.
Shin Yang Case
B. COMMON CARRIERS
Domestic Shipping (RA 9295)
Refers to the transport of passengers or cargo, or both, by
ships duly registered and licensed under Philippine law to
engage in trade and commerce between Philippine ports and
within Philippine territorial or internal waters, for hire or
compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether
permanent, occasional or incidental, with or without fixed
routes, and done for contractual or commercial purposes.
Public Service (CA No. 146)
The term "public service" includes: every person that now or
hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in the
Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general or limited
clientele, whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and
done for general business purposes, any common carrier,
railroad, street railway, traction railway, sub-way motor
vehicle, either for freight or passenger, or both, with or without
fixed route and whether may be its classification, freight or
carrier service of any class, express service, steamboat or
steamship line, pontines, ferries, and water craft, engaged in
the transportation of passengers or freight or both, shipyard,
marine railways, marine repair shop, [warehouse] wharf or
dock, ice plant, ice-refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation system,
gas, electric light, heat and power water supply and power,
petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless
communications system, wire or wireless broadcasting
stations and other similar public services:
- Provided, however, That a person engaged in agriculture,
not otherwise a public service, who owns a motor vehicle and
uses it personally and/or enters into a special contract
whereby said motor vehicle is offered for hire or compensation
to a third party or third parties engaged in agriculture, not itself
or themselves a public service, for operation by the latter for
a limited time and for a specific purpose directly connected
with the cultivation of his or their farm, the transportation,
processing, and marketing of agricultural products of such
third party or third parties shall not be considered as operating
a public service for the purposes of this Act.
Common Carriers – Art. 1732 Common carriers are persons,
corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business
of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by
land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to
the public.
Characteristics:
1. Engaged in the business and holds himself out as
ready to engage in such and not as a casual
operation (Note: It does not differentiate principal
business or ancillary business)
2. Undertake to carry goods of kind to which business
is confined
3. Undertake to carry by method by which business is
conducted; and
4. Transportation for hire.
TN: A common carrier may have limited clientele, it may not
have a fixed and publicly known route, it need not maintain a
terminal or issue tickets, nor does it have to conduct its
business in a regular basis or in a scheduled manner.
Bus, as a common carrier -
Test of Common Carrier - The test to determine a common
carrier is whether the given undertaking is a part of the
business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to
the general public as his occupation. The test is NOT on the
quantity or extent of the business transacted.
 NOTES ON TRANSPORTATION LAW | 2019 – 2020 | ATTY. GLENN CAPANAS
Carriers need not be engaged in the business of public
transportation for the provisions of the NCC on Common
Carriers to apply.
Article 1734 establishes the general rule that common carriers
are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the
goods which they carry, "unless the same is due to any of the
following causes only:
a. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural
disaster or calamity;
b. Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
c. Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
d. The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in
the containers;
e. Order or act of competent public authority.
Continuing Offer -
Contract of Carriage – One whereby a certain person or
association of persons obligate themselves to transport
person, things, or news from one place to another for a fixed
price.
Under the NCC Art. 1723, persons, corporations, firms, or
associations engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or
air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.
Airline – Contract of Air Carriage
A contract of carriage arises when an airline issues a ticket to
a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, on a certain date
and the passenger has every right to expect that he would fly
on that flight and on that date, otherwise, the carrier opens
itself to a suit for breach of contract of carriage (Ramos v.
China Airlines).
Generates a relation attended with public duty. It is different
in kind and degree from any other contractual relation.
If a Passenger is Waitlisted – The status of a waitlisted
passenger is changed to that of a confirmed passenger when
the name is entered into the passenger manifest.
Private Carrier
The distinction lies in the character of the business, such that
if the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of a
general business or occupation, although involving the
carriage of goods for a fee, the person or corporation offering
such service is a private carrier.
Example: Charter Party – a maritime contract by which the
charterer, a party other than the ship owner, obtains the use
and service of all or some part of the ship for a period of time
or a voyage or voyages.
Effects of Charter Party
1. Contract of Affreightment
2. Charter by Demise/Bareboat Charter
Contract of Towage – In towage, one vessel is hired to bring
another vessel to another place. For example, a tugboat may
be hired by a common carrier to bring a barge to a port. The
operator of the tugboat cannot be considered a common
carrier.
In maritime law, it refers to a service rendered to a vessel by
towing for the mere purpose of expediting her voyage without
reference to any circumstances of danger (vessels with no
injury or damage).
The party in a contract of towage is required to observe the
due diligence of a good father of the family. Any negligence
from the obligor renders him liable for damages.
Arrastre – Refers to hauling of cargo, comprehends the
handling of cargo on the wharf or between the establishment
of the consignee or shipper and the ship’s tackle. The
responsibility of the arrastre operator lasts until the delivery of
the cargo to the consignee.
Stevedoring – Not a common carrier for it does not transport
goods or passengers. Mainly provides labor. Involves the
loading and unloading of coastwise vessels calling at the port.
Originated from the word “stipare”, meaning “to stuff”. The
responsibility of the stevedore ends upon the loading and
stowing of the cargo in the vessel. The diligence required is
the diligence of a good father of a family.
Travel Agency – Not a common carrier. The contract
between the travel agency is a contract of service. Requires
only diligence of a good father of a family. Services include
the arranging, facilitating the booking, ticketing, and
accommodation in a package tour.
Tramp Service (TS) – Referred to as “Contract Carrier” in RA
9515 but can be a common carrier depending on the
circumstances.
No regular and fixed routes and schedules but accepts cargo
wherever and whenever the shipper desires, is hired on a
contractual basis, or chartered by any one or more shippers
under mutually agreed terms and usually carries bulk or break
bulk cargoes (“pakyaw”)
JGC: I submit that TS is a common carrier because if you
check Gothong, it carries break-bulk cargoes and it advertises
itself to the public. Regulation by the government is also an
indicator that it is a common carrier.
Line Service – Common carrier. Fixed schedules. Ex: 2Go
Vessel from Cebu to Manila.
Customs Broker
Ferry Services
Freight/Cargo Forwarder – Common Carrier
Negado’s Questions:
If there are advance bookings for bus trips for a particular
time?
JGC: If the intention is to board the bus at some future date,
there is a perfected contract of carriage but take into
consideration the difference between contract to carry and
contract of carriage. The fact that there is an issued ticket
means there is a perfected contract of carriage.
Are they entitled to damages?
JGC: It would depend if there was a breach of contract to
carry or a breach on the actual contract of carriage.
Actual Damages
Moral Damages
Booking of Uber
When you book, you have the option to pay in cash or through
credit card. If the latter, there will be an advance credit.
 NOTES ON TRANSPORTATION LAW | 2019 – 2020 | ATTY. GLENN CAPANAS
JGC: There is a perfected contract even before you board the
vehicle. The cancellation will only bolster the fact that there is
a perfected contract of carriage.
CHAPTER 2
Basic Obligations of the Carrier
1. To accept passengers and goods without
discrimination
2. To seasonably deliver the goods or bring the
passenger to the destination
3. To deliver the goods or bring the passenger to the
proper place or destination
4. To deliver the goods to the proper person
5. To exercise extraordinary diligence in the
performance of its duties
Rights of the Shipper or Passenger
1. Right against discrimination
2. Right to have his goods or be transported without
delay
3. Personal right to enforce all the obligations of the
carrier
8/30/19 Questions
1. Can the crew validly refuse a passenger to board the
vessel?
2. Is there discrimination when a Grab driver rejects your
booking for Lapu-lapu?
3. If the driver rejects you because he is headed to Talisay
and not to your destination which is Lapu-lapu, is there
discrimination?
4. What is the meaning of extraordinary diligence?
5. If the carrier was not able to fulfill the time of delivery and
the goods were covered by a bill of lading. There is a
stipulation that the liability is only equal to the amount
indicated therein unless the value of the goods are higher
than declared.
6. What if the cause of the loss is a typhoon? The carrier says
he is not liable. Rule on it.
Instances when the carrier may validly refuse to accept
goods:
1. The goods sought to be transported are dangerous
objects (substances, explosives)
2. The goods are unfit for transportation (Art 356,
Code of Commerce) – due to improper packaging
or defect in the containers.
Defense if accepted by carrier: Improper
packaging; but carrier must receive the goods
under protest.
3. Acceptance would result in overloading
4. The goods are considered contrabands or illegal
goods
5. Goods are injurious to health
6. Goods will be exposed to untoward danger like
flood, capture by enemies and the like
7. Goods like livestock will be exposed to diseases
8. Strike
9. Failure to tender goods on time
Mere whim or prejudice will not suffice.
DUTY TO MAKE TIMELY DELIVERY OF THE GOODS
1. Agreement as to time
2. Reasonable time
a. Expected date of arrival
b. Nature of the goods
CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY
Constructive delivery refers to an act amounting to a transfer
of title by operation of law when actual transfer is impossible.
Servando vs. Phil Steam
Clara Uy Bico and Amparo Servando loaded on board a vessel of
Philippine Steam Navigation Co. for carriage from Manila to Negros
Occidental 1,528 cavans of rice and 44 cartons of colored paper, toys
and general merchandise.
The contract of carriage of cargo was evidenced by a Bill of Lading
(B/L). There was a stipulation limiting the responsibility of the carrier
for loss or damage that may be caused to the shipment. Upon arrival
of the vessel at its destination, the cargoes were discharged in good
condition and placed inside the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs.
Unfortunately, the warehouse was razed by fire of unknown origin later
that same day destroying the remaining cargoes. Uy Bico and
Servando filed a claim for the value of the goods against the carrier.
Held: The court a quo held that the delivery of the shipment in question
to the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs is not the delivery
contemplated by Article 1736; and since the burning of the warehouse
occurred before actual or constructive delivery of the goods to the
appellees, the loss is chargeable against the appellant (the steamship).
It should be pointed out, however, that in the bills of lading issued for
the cargoes in question, the parties agreed to limit the responsibility of
the carrier. The stipulation is valid not being contrary to law, morals or
public policy.
Also, where fortuitous event is the immediate and proximate cause of
the loss, the obligor is exempt from liability for non-performance. In the
case at bar, the burning of the customs warehouse was an
extraordinary event which happened independently of the will of the
appellant. The latter could not have foreseen the event.
Aquino, concurring: From the time the goods in question were
deposited in the Bureau of Customs' warehouse in the morning of their
arrival up to two o' clock in the afternoon of the same day, when the
warehouse was burned, Amparo C. Servando and Clara Uy Bico, the
consignees, had reasonable opportunity to remove the goods. Clara
had removed more than one-half of the rice consigned to her.
Moreover, the shipping company had no more control and
responsibility over the goods after they were deposited in the customs
warehouse by the arrastre and stevedoring operator.
No amount of extraordinary diligence on the part of the carrier could
have prevented the loss of the goods by fire which was of accidental
origin.
Under those circumstances, it would not be legal and just to hold the
carrier liable to the consignees for the loss of the goods. The
consignees should bear the loss which was due to a fortuitous event
Nor can the carrier or its employees be charged with negligence. The
storage of the goods in the Customs warehouse pending withdrawal
thereof by Uy Bico and Servando was undoubtedly made with their
knowledge and consent. Since the warehouse belonged to and was
maintained by the government, it would be unfair to impute negligence
to the carrier, the latter having no control whatsoever over the same.
CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY
Excusable delays
- Suspend but do not generally terminate the contract
of carriage. During detention the vessel continues
to be liable as a common carrier
Legally Inexcusable delays
- The carrier is still liable even if natural disaster
caused the damage
- The stipulation limiting the liability of the carrier is
inoperative
 NOTES ON TRANSPORTATION LAW | 2019 – 2020 | ATTY. GLENN CAPANAS
- The carrier is liable for the damages caused by the
delay
- The consignee may exercise his right to abandon
under Art. 371 of the CoC.
- Under NCC Art 1740 and 1747
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
ART. 1755 – A Common carrier is bound to carry the
passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons,
with a due regard for all circumstances.
With respect to carriage of goods, ED is the extreme measure
of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and
circumspection use for securing and preserving their own
property rights. To grant favor to the shipper who is at the
mercy of the common carrier.
This high standard of care is imperatively demanded by the
preciousness of human life and by the consideration that
every person must in every way be safeguarded against all
injury.
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
In case of loss of effects or cargo or passengers or death or
injuries to passengers, the common carrier is presumed to be
at fault or have acted negligently unless he had observed
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance thereof. The court
need not even make an express finding of fault or negligence.
The law imposes liability upon common carriers as long as it
is shown that:
1. There exists a contract between the passenger and
the common carrier
2. That the loss, death, deterioration, or injury took
place during the existence of the contract.
HOW TO OVERCOME PRESUMTION
The common carrier must prove that it exercised
extraordinary negligence.
STIPULATION LIMITING LIABILITY
A stipulation limiting liability of the common carrier for loss or
damage or cargoes is valid as long as it is not contrary to law,
morals or public policy. Where fortuitous event or force
majeure is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss, the
obligor is exempt from liability for nonperformance.
FORCE MAJEURE
An event that takes place by accident and could not have
been foreseen. Examples of this are destruction of houses,
unexpected fire, shipwreck, violence of robbers.
Characteristics:
(1) the cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or of the failure
of the debtor to comply with his
obligation, must be independent of the
human will;
(2) It must be impossible to foresee the
event which constitutes the ‘caso
fortuito’, or if it can be foreseen, it must
be impossible to avoid;
(3) the occurrence must be such as to render
it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner; and
(4) the obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of the
injury resulting to the creditor.”
To exempt a common carrier from liability for death or physical
injuries to passengers upon the ground of force majeure, the
carrier must clearly show not only that the efficient cause of
the casualty was entirely independent of the human will, but
also that it was impossible to avoid. Any participation by the
common carrier in the occurrence of the injury will defeat the
defense of force majeure.
THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OF BAD FAITH
Bad faith should be established by clear and convincing
evidence. Good faith is presumed. However, a finding of bad
faith is necessary for the court to award moral and exemplary
damages in breach of contract of carriage cases.
EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL
A ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing
on said independent civil action based on an entirely different
cause of action (i.e. culpa contractual). An acquittal will have
no effect on the presumption of negligence in the breach of
contract cases.
DURATION OF DUTY IN CARRIAGE OF GOODS
Due diligence should be exercised the moment the goods are
delivered to the carrier and up to the time the goods are
actually or constructively delivered by the carrier to the
consignee or the person who has the right to receive them.
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
transportation until the same are delivered, actually or
constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or the person
who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the
provision of Art. 1738.
When the goods are 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.
Temporary Unloading or Storage
Duty to observe ED remains in full force even when the goods
are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit.
Stoppage in Transitu
The duty ends if the seller has made use of his right of
stoppage in transit because in legal effect, the contract of
carriage terminates when the right is exercised. The carrier
becomes an ordinary bailee.
Delivery to Customs Authorities
The goods remain to be the responsibility of the carrier if they
are still in the hands of customs officials. There is no delivery
of the cargo to the consignee because the owner cannot
exercise dominion over them.
Solution: Agree to limit the liability of the carrier considering
the goods have still to go through the inspection of the
customs authorities. It would be unfair to make the carrier
responsible for what may happen during the interregnum.
 NOTES ON TRANSPORTATION LAW | 2019 – 2020 | ATTY. GLENN CAPANAS
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN CARRIAGE BY SEA
Seaworthiness – strength, durability, and enginerring skill
made a part of a ship’s construction and continued
maintenance, together with a competent and sufficient crew,
which would withstand the vicissitudes and dangers of the
elements which might reasonably be expected or
encountered during her voyage without loss or damage to her
particular cargo.
Carriers are deemed to warrant impliedly the seaworthiness
of the ship. It must be adequately equipped for the voyage and
manned with a sufficient number of competent officers. Why?
Because a passenger or shipper is under no obligation to
conduct an inspection of the ship and its crew. Failure to
maintain seaworthiness is a breach of its duty under 1755.
Applicable Law:
1. Insurance Code
2. COGSA or Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
Cargoworthiness – Even if the vessel was properly
maintained and is free from defect, the carrier must not accept
goods that cannot be properly transported in the ship. The
ship must be fit to carry the contemplated cargo as a carrying
receptacle.
PASSENGER’S BAGGAGES
Baggage – whatever articles a passenger usually takes with
him for his own personal use, comfort, and convenience
according to the habits or wants of the particular class to
which he belongs, wither with reference to his immediate
necessities or the ultimate purpose of his journey.
Checked-in Baggage – Governed by rules regarding
carriage of goods. Articles 1733, 1734, and 1736 applies to
hold the carrier liable in case of loss or damage.
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4 - DEFENSES OF A COMMON CARRIER
OBLIGATIONS OF SHIPPER AND PASSENGER
DEFENSES OF COMMON CARRIER
1. PROXIMATE CAUSE
2. FIRE AS A CAUSE
3. SHORE PASS REQUIREMENT
4. EXERCISE OF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
5. INHERENT CHARACTER OF GOODS AND
INADEQUACY OF PACKAGING
6. DOCTRINE OF LAST CHANCE
7. FORTUITOUS EVENT
8. STORM OR PERIL OF THE SEA
9. NOTICE OF CLAIM
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
BURDEN ON COMMON CARRIER
EFFECT OF AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE AND RELEASE
OF CLAIM
VIOLATION OF TERMS OF AIR WAYBILL
DEFENSES IN CARRIAGE OF PASSENGER
1. NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL ACTS OF
EMPLOYEES
2. ACTS OF STRANGERS AND OTHER
PASSENGERS
3. ABSENCE OR PRESENCE OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE
THEFT OR ROBBERY
If the thief/robber is an employee
Presumption that the robber is the employee
LIABILITIES OF THE COMMON CARRIER
Loss or injury is an act of other passengers and third
persons – The availability of this defense is subject to the
carrier’s exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent or stop the act or omission (A. 1763).
The carrier would still be liable even if the contractual breach
concurs with the negligent act or omission of another person.
Loss or injury is an act of an employee
Article 1759 expressly makes the common carrier liable for
intentional assaults committed by its employees upon its
passengers.
In a book example (p. 224), the railroad company was not held
liable when the guard shot a passenger because of a personal
grudge nurtured against the latter since it was entirely
unforeseeable and the company had no means to ascertain
or anticipate that the two would not meet. The shooting was a
fortuitous event. Also, the killing was not done in line of duty
since the killing happened two hours before his shift started.
The position of the guard was that of another passenger.
Note: For it to be considered fortuitous, the carrier must
overcome the presumption of fault and negligence.
HIJACKING
AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE
PRESCRIPTIVE PERODS
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
 Passengers must take such risks incident to the mode of
travel.
 There is no assumption of risk in case the passenger
voluntarily boarded a carrier that was filled to capacity.
 There is no assumption of risk by the mere fact that the
carrier posted notices against such liability.
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
 When both parties involved in the accident were both
negligent, the negligence of the party will not be considered
the proximate cause if the other party has the last clear
chance of avoiding the injury. (Efficient intervening cause)
 The doctrine cannot be applied to a passenger for it would
be inequitable to exempt the negligent
NOTICE OF CLAIM
 Those who, in the performance of their obligation, are guilty
of fraud, negligence, or delay and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor of the obligation are liable for
damages. Mandatory formal requirements must be
 NOTES ON TRANSPORTATION LAW | 2019 – 2020 | ATTY. GLENN CAPANAS

followed. When the law requires a notice of claim, the same
must be complied with and any action that may be filed
thereafter must be filed within the prescriptive period
provided by law.
 Purpose of Notice of Claim
 Substantial Compliance Allowed
SHORE PASS REQUIREMENT
 A shore pass is required of a foreigner aboard a vessel or
aircraft who desires to stay in the neighborhood of the port
of call for not more than 72 hours.
 Japan Airlines (JAL) vs Asuncion:
Concept: Sovereign act
JAL did not breach its contract of carriage with respondents. It may
be true that JAL has the duty to inspect whether its passengers have
the necessary travel documents, however, such duty does not
extend to checking the veracity of every entry in these documents.
JAL could not vouch for the authenticity of a passport and the
correctness of the entries therein. The power to admit or not an alien
into the country is a sovereign act which cannot be interfered with
even by JAL. The most that could be expected of JAL is to endorse
respondents’ applications, which Mrs. Higuchi did immediately upon
their arrival in Narita. This is not within the ambit of the contract of
carriage entered into by JAL and herein respondents. As such, JAL
should not be faulted for the denial of respondents’ shore pass
applications.
LECTURE – 9/6/2019
I. Obligations of Shipper/Passenger
a. Manay Jr – About an air carriage where a ticket
was obtained from a branch. What are the
obligations of a passenger who purchased an
airline ticket?
b. Heung-a – Container holds; the shipper’s load
and count basis is one of the limitations or one
of the defenses of the common carrier. The
Shipper’s Load and Count must specify the
Quantity, Description, and Condition. If there is
a discrepancy, the carrier is not responsible.
What if the shipper intentionally placed
damaged goods? Can the consignee file a
complaint? NO, because of the Shipper’s Load
and Count.
II. Defenses of CC
a. 1734
De Guzman vs. CA – The defenses are in a
closed list.
Hijacking – Not included in the exclusive list. To
be safe, go back to the OMR where you include
all your relevant defenses.
Torres-Madrid Case – Argued that they were not
a common carrier but they failed to allege
extraordinary diligence.
Exam Tips:
“Assuming for the sake of argument that the
cause is not a storm, then the carrier is still liable
because of ___________.”
TN: Do not merge all in one paragraph. Discuss
separately.
c. Requisites of 1734 – Proximate Cause
d. Fortuitous (1174)
The requisites are more strict. Connect to
Hijacking and to the case of De Guzman vs. CA.
Hijacking can be a defense under 1735.
e. 1759
Absolute Responsibility
Cannot raised ED as defense if there is
admission of employment.
Boundary Basis/ Contract of Lease – No EE
relationship.
Notice that “Management is not responsible for
loss of valuable” will not prosper.
f. 1763
Pilapil and Battung Cases – the absence of
defects on method/means/negligence/acts of
employees. The injury of the passenger has
nothing to do with the abovementioned.
Know the distinction between Battung and
Fortune Express on the matter of precaution
where no measures were adopted despite prior
notice.
g. Negligence/Contributory Negligence
If it is the shipper/passenger’s sole negligence,
then the carrier is absolved. If there is
contributory negligence, then the carrier’s
liability is absolved.
Contributory Negligence cannot be invoked by
the “victim”, there is no cause of action.
h. Notice of Claim
Phil. Charter Insurance – The court did not
believe the telephone call made by the
employee. It is a matter of proof.

b. Omnibus Motion Rule i. Prescription

Transimex v. Mafre – If it was alleged that the 10 years – written contract
cause was fortuitous event, even if there was no 6 - Without written contract
storm, then you can still establish the requisites 4 - Tort
of other causes. 2 - Air transpo/Warsaw
1 – COGSA
 NOTES ON TRANSPORTATION LAW | 2019 – 2020 | ATTY. GLENN CAPANAS

j. Limitation of Liability
1749 – Stipulation is valid unless the Shipper
declares a higher value. Talks about a fixed
amount.
1750 – Requisites of the Stipulation in 1749.

Ex: Attorney declared the true value of the

watch and he was made to pay extra so if
something happens, he can recover the amount
of the watch.

k. Desistance
There was no pronouncement in Sanico that all
affidavits of desistance are invalid. It depends
on the circumstances.

l. Violation
Federal Express Case.

Ex: One of the terms of conditions is for the

passenger to be there hours ahead of time
otherwise the seat will be given to another. It can
be a defense of the carrier.