SAMAR MINING V  The Bill of Lading in question stipulated that Nordeutscher Lloyd only

NORDEUTSCHER undertook to transport the goods in its vessel only up to the port of
discharge from ship, which is Manila. Since nagawa not liable
GANZON V CA  To be order of comp authority under 1734 it must be shown
that the person had the power to issue the disputed order, or
that it was lawful, or that it was issued under legal process of
authority
SALUDO V CA SAME NUNG NASA TAAS NA SALUDO
MACAM V CA  The extraordinary responsibility of common carriers last until actual or
constructive delivery of the cargo to the consignee or his agent.
Pakistan was indicted as consignee and GPC was the notify party.
However, in the export invoice, GPC was clearly named as buyer or
importer. This premise brings into conclusion that the deliveries of the
cargo to GPC as buyer or importer is in conformity with Art. 1736 of the
Civil Code. Therefore, there was a valid delivery.
PAL V CA  Art. 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be
transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss,
destruction or deterioration. Since the passenger's destination in this
case was the Philippines, Philippine law governs the liability of the carrier
for the loss of the passenger's luggage. NOT WARSAW. tama lang amount
CATHAY V CA  Petitioner breached its contract of carriage with
private respondent when it failed to deliver his luggage
at the designated place and time
 WARSAW convention does not operate as an exclusive
enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier
liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an
absolute limit of the extent of that liability. It must not
be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil
Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate,
much less exempt, the carrier from liability for
damages
TRANS ASIA V CA  For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for
the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent
officers and crew. 21 The failure of a common carrier to maintain in
seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a
clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.
SWEETLINES V TEVES  INVALID YUNG NASA LIKOD NUNG TICKET Actions arising out of
the contract of carriage should be filed not only in a particular
province or city.
7. YSMAEL V BARRETTO  A common carrier cannot lawfully stipulate for exemption from liability,
unless such exemption is just and reasonable and the contract is freely and
fairly made. ETO YUNG SILK, UNREASONABLE DAW AMOUNT

7. SHEWARAM V PAL  NOT been fairly and freely agreed upon.” Tho may stipulation, NASA
LIKOD AND MASYADONG MALIIT AND DI SINASIGNAN.
7. ONG YIU V CA  Limited liability applies The stipulation is printed in reasonably and
fairly big letters and is easily readable. Moreso, petitioner had been a
frequent passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan City and back and he
being a lawyer and a businessman, must be fully aware of these
conditions.

SEA LAND V IAC  The “package limitation clause”is reasonable- the just and reasonable
character of the questioned stipulation is implicit from the fact that the
shipper or owner is given the option under Article 1749 of avoiding
accrual of liability limitation by simply declaring the nature and value of
the shipment in the bill of lading.

CITADEL V CA  a stipulation limiting the liability of the carrier to the value of the goods
appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or owner declares a
greater value, is binding.
 It is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly
and freely agreed upon.

BRITISH AIRWAYS V CA  kahit walang ticket, liable basta bayad

SAMAR MINING V  The Bill of Lading in question stipulated that Nordeutscher Lloyd only
NORDEUTSCHER undertook to transport the goods in its vessel only up to the port of
discharge from ship, which is Manila. Since nagawa not liable
GANZON V CA  To be order of comp authority under 1734 it must be shown
that the person had the power to issue the disputed order, or
that it was lawful, or that it was issued under legal process of
authority
SALUDO V CA SAME NUNG NASA TAAS NA SALUDO
MACAM V CA  The extraordinary responsibility of common carriers last until actual or
constructive delivery of the cargo to the consignee or his agent.
Pakistan was indicted as consignee and GPC was the notify party.
However, in the export invoice, GPC was clearly named as buyer or
importer. This premise brings into conclusion that the deliveries of the
cargo to GPC as buyer or importer is in conformity with Art. 1736 of the
Civil Code. Therefore, there was a valid delivery.
PAL V CA  Art. 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be
transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss,
destruction or deterioration. Since the passenger's destination in this
case was the Philippines, Philippine law governs the liability of the carrier
for the loss of the passenger's luggage. NOT WARSAW. tama lang amount
CATHAY V CA  Petitioner breached its contract of carriage with
private respondent when it failed to deliver his luggage
at the designated place and time
 WARSAW convention does not operate as an exclusive
enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier
liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an
absolute limit of the extent of that liability. It must not
 be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil
Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate,
much less exempt, the carrier from liability for
damages
TRANS ASIA V CA  For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for
the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent
officers and crew. 21 The failure of a common carrier to maintain in
seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a
clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.
SWEETLINES V TEVES  INVALID YUNG NASA LIKOD NUNG TICKET Actions arising out of
the contract of carriage should be filed not only in a particular
province or city.
7. YSMAEL V BARRETTO  A common carrier cannot lawfully stipulate for exemption from liability,
unless such exemption is just and reasonable and the contract is freely and
fairly made. ETO YUNG SILK, UNREASONABLE DAW AMOUNT

7. SHEWARAM V PAL  NOT been fairly and freely agreed upon.” Tho may stipulation, NASA
LIKOD AND MASYADONG MALIIT AND DI SINASIGNAN.
7. ONG YIU V CA  Limited liability applies The stipulation is printed in reasonably and
fairly big letters and is easily readable. Moreso, petitioner had been a
frequent passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan City and back and he
being a lawyer and a businessman, must be fully aware of these
conditions.

SEA LAND V IAC  The “package limitation clause”is reasonable- the just and reasonable
character of the questioned stipulation is implicit from the fact that the
shipper or owner is given the option under Article 1749 of avoiding
accrual of liability limitation by simply declaring the nature and value of
the shipment in the bill of lading.

CITADEL V CA  a stipulation limiting the liability of the carrier to the value of the goods
appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or owner declares a
greater value, is binding.
 It is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly
and freely agreed upon.

BRITISH AIRWAYS V CA  kahit walang ticket, liable basta bayad

SAMAR MINING V  The Bill of Lading in question stipulated that Nordeutscher Lloyd only
NORDEUTSCHER undertook to transport the goods in its vessel only up to the port of
discharge from ship, which is Manila. Since nagawa not liable
GANZON V CA  To be order of comp authority under 1734 it must be shown
that the person had the power to issue the disputed order, or
that it was lawful, or that it was issued under legal process of
authority
SALUDO V CA SAME NUNG NASA TAAS NA SALUDO
MACAM V CA  The extraordinary responsibility of common carriers last until actual or
constructive delivery of the cargo to the consignee or his agent.
 Pakistan was indicted as consignee and GPC was the notify party.
However, in the export invoice, GPC was clearly named as buyer or
importer. This premise brings into conclusion that the deliveries of the
cargo to GPC as buyer or importer is in conformity with Art. 1736 of the
Civil Code. Therefore, there was a valid delivery.
PAL V CA  Art. 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be
transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss,
destruction or deterioration. Since the passenger's destination in this
case was the Philippines, Philippine law governs the liability of the carrier
for the loss of the passenger's luggage. NOT WARSAW. tama lang amount
CATHAY V CA  Petitioner breached its contract of carriage with
private respondent when it failed to deliver his luggage
at the designated place and time
 WARSAW convention does not operate as an exclusive
enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier
liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an
absolute limit of the extent of that liability. It must not
be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil
Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate,
much less exempt, the carrier from liability for
damages
TRANS ASIA V CA  For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for
the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent
officers and crew. 21 The failure of a common carrier to maintain in
seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a
clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.
SWEETLINES V TEVES  INVALID YUNG NASA LIKOD NUNG TICKET Actions arising out of
the contract of carriage should be filed not only in a particular
province or city.
7. YSMAEL V BARRETTO  A common carrier cannot lawfully stipulate for exemption from liability,
unless such exemption is just and reasonable and the contract is freely and
fairly made. ETO YUNG SILK, UNREASONABLE DAW AMOUNT

7. SHEWARAM V PAL  NOT been fairly and freely agreed upon.” Tho may stipulation, NASA
LIKOD AND MASYADONG MALIIT AND DI SINASIGNAN.
7. ONG YIU V CA  Limited liability applies The stipulation is printed in reasonably and
fairly big letters and is easily readable. Moreso, petitioner had been a
frequent passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan City and back and he
being a lawyer and a businessman, must be fully aware of these
conditions.

SEA LAND V IAC  The “package limitation clause”is reasonable- the just and reasonable
character of the questioned stipulation is implicit from the fact that the
shipper or owner is given the option under Article 1749 of avoiding
accrual of liability limitation by simply declaring the nature and value of
the shipment in the bill of lading.
CITADEL V CA  a stipulation limiting the liability of the carrier to the value of the goods
appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or owner declares a
greater value, is binding.
 It is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly
and freely agreed upon.

BRITISH AIRWAYS V CA  kahit walang ticket, liable basta bayad

SAMAR MINING V  The Bill of Lading in question stipulated that Nordeutscher Lloyd only
NORDEUTSCHER undertook to transport the goods in its vessel only up to the port of
discharge from ship, which is Manila. Since nagawa not liable
GANZON V CA  To be order of comp authority under 1734 it must be shown
that the person had the power to issue the disputed order, or
that it was lawful, or that it was issued under legal process of
authority
SALUDO V CA SAME NUNG NASA TAAS NA SALUDO
MACAM V CA  The extraordinary responsibility of common carriers last until actual or
constructive delivery of the cargo to the consignee or his agent.
Pakistan was indicted as consignee and GPC was the notify party.
However, in the export invoice, GPC was clearly named as buyer or
importer. This premise brings into conclusion that the deliveries of the
cargo to GPC as buyer or importer is in conformity with Art. 1736 of the
Civil Code. Therefore, there was a valid delivery.
PAL V CA  Art. 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be
transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss,
destruction or deterioration. Since the passenger's destination in this
case was the Philippines, Philippine law governs the liability of the carrier
for the loss of the passenger's luggage. NOT WARSAW. tama lang amount
CATHAY V CA  Petitioner breached its contract of carriage with
private respondent when it failed to deliver his luggage
at the designated place and time
 WARSAW convention does not operate as an exclusive
enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier
liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an
absolute limit of the extent of that liability. It must not
be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil
Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate,
much less exempt, the carrier from liability for
damages
TRANS ASIA V CA  For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for
the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent
officers and crew. 21 The failure of a common carrier to maintain in
seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a
clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.
SWEETLINES V TEVES  INVALID YUNG NASA LIKOD NUNG TICKET Actions arising out of
the contract of carriage should be filed not only in a particular
province or city.
7. YSMAEL V BARRETTO  A common carrier cannot lawfully stipulate for exemption from liability,
unless such exemption is just and reasonable and the contract is freely and
fairly made. ETO YUNG SILK, UNREASONABLE DAW AMOUNT

7. SHEWARAM V PAL  NOT been fairly and freely agreed upon.” Tho may stipulation, NASA
LIKOD AND MASYADONG MALIIT AND DI SINASIGNAN.
7. ONG YIU V CA  Limited liability applies The stipulation is printed in reasonably and
fairly big letters and is easily readable. Moreso, petitioner had been a
frequent passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan City and back and he
being a lawyer and a businessman, must be fully aware of these
conditions.

SEA LAND V IAC  The “package limitation clause”is reasonable- the just and reasonable
character of the questioned stipulation is implicit from the fact that the
shipper or owner is given the option under Article 1749 of avoiding
accrual of liability limitation by simply declaring the nature and value of
the shipment in the bill of lading.

CITADEL V CA  a stipulation limiting the liability of the carrier to the value of the goods
appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or owner declares a
greater value, is binding.
 It is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly
and freely agreed upon.

BRITISH AIRWAYS V CA  kahit walang ticket, liable basta bayad

SAMAR MINING V  The Bill of Lading in question stipulated that Nordeutscher Lloyd only
NORDEUTSCHER undertook to transport the goods in its vessel only up to the port of
discharge from ship, which is Manila. Since nagawa not liable
GANZON V CA  To be order of comp authority under 1734 it must be shown
that the person had the power to issue the disputed order, or
that it was lawful, or that it was issued under legal process of
authority
SALUDO V CA SAME NUNG NASA TAAS NA SALUDO
MACAM V CA  The extraordinary responsibility of common carriers last until actual or
constructive delivery of the cargo to the consignee or his agent.
Pakistan was indicted as consignee and GPC was the notify party.
However, in the export invoice, GPC was clearly named as buyer or
importer. This premise brings into conclusion that the deliveries of the
cargo to GPC as buyer or importer is in conformity with Art. 1736 of the
Civil Code. Therefore, there was a valid delivery.
PAL V CA  Art. 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be
transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss,
destruction or deterioration. Since the passenger's destination in this
case was the Philippines, Philippine law governs the liability of the carrier
for the loss of the passenger's luggage. NOT WARSAW. tama lang amount
CATHAY V CA  Petitioner breached its contract of carriage with
private respondent when it failed to deliver his luggage
at the designated place and time
 WARSAW convention does not operate as an exclusive
enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier
liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an
absolute limit of the extent of that liability. It must not
be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil
Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate,
much less exempt, the carrier from liability for
damages
TRANS ASIA V CA  For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for
the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent
officers and crew. 21 The failure of a common carrier to maintain in
seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a
clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.
SWEETLINES V TEVES  INVALID YUNG NASA LIKOD NUNG TICKET Actions arising out of
the contract of carriage should be filed not only in a particular
province or city.
7. YSMAEL V BARRETTO  A common carrier cannot lawfully stipulate for exemption from liability,
unless such exemption is just and reasonable and the contract is freely and
fairly made. ETO YUNG SILK, UNREASONABLE DAW AMOUNT

7. SHEWARAM V PAL  NOT been fairly and freely agreed upon.” Tho may stipulation, NASA
LIKOD AND MASYADONG MALIIT AND DI SINASIGNAN.
7. ONG YIU V CA  Limited liability applies The stipulation is printed in reasonably and
fairly big letters and is easily readable. Moreso, petitioner had been a
frequent passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan City and back and he
being a lawyer and a businessman, must be fully aware of these
conditions.

SEA LAND V IAC  The “package limitation clause”is reasonable- the just and reasonable
character of the questioned stipulation is implicit from the fact that the
shipper or owner is given the option under Article 1749 of avoiding
accrual of liability limitation by simply declaring the nature and value of
the shipment in the bill of lading.

CITADEL V CA  a stipulation limiting the liability of the carrier to the value of the goods
appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or owner declares a
greater value, is binding.
 It is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly
and freely agreed upon.

BRITISH AIRWAYS V CA  kahit walang ticket, liable basta bayad