 Day of their flight back: checked in luggage, claimed stubs, paid terminal
1. Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, G.R. No. 186312; June 29, 2010.
 Sps Cruz filed a complaint for damages for the death of their son Ruelito
who died with his on board a ferry, M/B Coco BeachII owned by Sun
Holidays, as part of their tour package to Batangas from Puerto Galera; boat
capsized due to strong winds
 Sun Holidays: ferry services cannot be considered as a contract of carriage
(no addtl fee therefor) plus accident was fortuitous event
 Common carrier def; Principal v Ancillary Activity
 Fortuitous event requisites unavailing: negligent because of PAGASA
strorm warning signals; plus not free from human interevention: enginge
trouble before sinking
2. Sanico vs. Colipano, G.R. No. 209969 September 27, 2017
 Christmas: Colipano on board a jeep operated by Sanico and driven by
Castro
 Sat on an empty beer case with her child on her lap
 Uphill jeep slid backwards; pushed her leg on a step board; wet; slipped out
 leg caught between coconut tree and jeep; amputated
 Sanico: ur fault cause u tried to get out; enginge failure; affidavit of
desistance
 RTC and CA: Sanico and Castro solidarily liable
 Colipano’s leg injured while on board a jeep; presumption of negligence
applies so Sanico liable
 Only Sanico liable: contract of carriage is between them, not the driver;
diligence of good father of a family not sufficient
 Waiver not valid: requisites
3. Japan Airlines vs. Asuncion GR 161730 January 28, 2005.
 Michael and Jeanette Asuncion boarded JAL for a flight from MNL to LA;
The itinerary included a stop-over in Narita and an overnight stay at Hotel
Nikko Narita.
 Jap immigration officials refused to issue offshore board passes: Michael
appeared shorter than his height as indicated in his passport
 so they had to stay in Narita Airport Rest House and were charged $400
 Asuncion: damages JAL! We weren’t apprised of travel reqs
 JAL not liable: the power to admit or not an alien into the country is a
sovereign act which cannot be interfered with even by JAL.
 While bound to inspect completeness of travel requirements, not bound to
guarantee/check veracity of every entry therein
4. Ramos vs. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 213418,
 Ramos brought 5 roundtrip tickets from CSA through Active Travel: from
Manila to China and back
fees
 But prevented from taking flight: chance passengers only; paid addtl fees if
u want to board
 Ramoses refused; rented a car to train station to HK; PAL flight to MNL
 SC: airline issues a ticker to passenger confirmed flight doctrine
 Airline companies practice: no predeparture routine unless confirmed
passengers. Hence they were bumped off the flight
5. Sulpicio Lines vs. Sesante
 Sesante a lawyer and am member of the PNPl survived the sinking of MV
princess of the orient near Fortune Islands in Batangas
 Sulpicio lines: MV seaworthy, fortuitous event
 Sulpicio lines as carrier liable for gross negligence of captain in
maneuvering the vessel; hence fortuitous event requisites missing. Still
liable.
 Complaint for breach of contract of carriage survives even after death of
plaintiff - substitute heirs [recovery of damages for injury to
person/property]
6. Phil- Nippon Kyoei Corp vs. Gudelosao and Tancontian
 PhilNippon purchased MV Mahlia (Roro) in Japan.
 To bring it here, PhilNippon and TMCL (foreign principal) hired Gudelosao
and Tancontian as crew members
 Mahlia sank due to extreme bad weather condition, G&T died; heirs filed
complaints with NLRC for death benefeits against PhilNippon, TMCL,
insurer, and manning agency
 PhilNippon insisting on limited liability rule
 SC: rule does not apply. Similar to species of workmen’s compensation
claims; liability created by a contract between the seafarers and their
employers
 Hence solidary liability. However, PhilNippon benefitted by quitclaim
executed by heirs without prejudice to reimbursement by those who paid
(manning agency and TMCL)
7. Ace Navigation vs. FGU, G.R. No. 171591
 Shipment of Grey Portland Cement from China to Manila:
 Shipper: Cardia; agent: Ace Navigation
 Consignee Heindrich Trading
 Insurer: FGU Insurance and Pioneer Insurance (respondents)
 Shipped on board the M/V Pakarti Tiga
 Owned by Pakarti but chartered by Shinwa who in turn chartered it
with Sky, agent of Kee Yeh, which further chartered it Regency
 It was Regency that directly dealt with Heindrict
 Some bags were in bad condition
 FGU and Pioneer, as insurers, now suing AceNav as ship agent, and Cardia
for defects in Packadging AMONG OTHERS
 ACENAV: not a party to the BOL; Cardia not impleaded
 Held: NOT ship agent; mere agent of Cardia.
 Ship agent = entrusted with the provisioning of the vessel or represents
her in the port in which she may be found.
 Under CC, agent not liable for acts of principal
 Also, Cardia not impleaded
8. Manay v Cebu Air
 Jose purchased 20 CebuPac round trip tickets from Manila – Palawan
 Specified to Alou: preferred time of flight back: 415pm; tickets – 3 pages,
only first page recapped to him
 Flight back: 9 could not board since their tickets were for the 10am flight
earlier that day; rebook credit crds and dollars were not accepted
 Only 5 were able to board and the 4 were left behind
 CebuPac: possessed tickets 37 days before flight; sufficient time to check;
tickets’ comment section: full recap given; PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
 SC: CEBUPAC NOT LIABLE
 Parol evidence rule
 Petitioners negligent: once the ticket is paid for and printed, the
purchaser is presumed to have agreed to all its terms and conditions.
 Air Passenger Bill of Rights: the duty of an airline to disclose all the
necessary information in the contract of carriage does not remove the
correlative   obligation of the passenger to exercise ordinary diligence
in the conduct of his or her affairs. The passenger is still expected to
read through the flight information in the contract of carriage before
making his or her purchase.
9. Sps Fernando v Northwest Airlines
 Fernandos frequent flyers of NA; holder of Elite Platinum card; owners of
JB Music and JB Sports; chain of hotels and apartelles
 Incidents: Jesus’ arrival at LA and departure from LA to join family
 Arrival – immigration asked for verification of ticket cause date reflected
was August 2001;
 approached Linda Puntawongchayda – merely glanced; ticket used!
 Gave card; Linda refused to check computer;
 brought to Immigration Room questioned for 2 hours accused as alien;
given only a 12-day stay intead of the usual 6 months
 Departure – to Japan with complementary hotel accommodations. Given
boarding passes; checked in luggage.
 In the line where they were supposed to present their boarding passes,
Linda Tang pulled them outand demanded paper tickets when they only
had electronic ones
 If u want to board, purchase new ones. Rushed to ticket counter,
assisted; printed tickets. Went back to the boarding gate, plane already
left
 RTC awarded 200k moral, 2,000dollars actual and attys fees; Fernandos
appealed; social standing just a token
 Northwest: moral damages exorbitant; tried their best to help Jesus and
Linda Tang followed protocls only
 SC: breach of contract of carriage with bad faith
 "in failing to provide the spouses with the proper assistance to avoid any
inconvenience" and that the actuations of Northwest in both subject
incidents "fall short of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person
expected of it.”
 award of moral damages in the amount of ₱3,000,000.00; exemplary
damages in the amount of ₱2,000,000.00.
10. Crisostomo v. CA – travel agency
 Estel Crisostomo – services Caravan Travel Tours; “Jewels of Europe” tour;
facilitated by her niece, Meriam
 On the supposed day of her flight, went to NAIA only to discover that her
flight was scheduled the previous day; took another tour: British Pageant
 Petitioner contends that respondent did not observe the standard of care
required of a common carrier when it informed her wrongly of the flight
schedule.
 SC: Caravan Travel tours not a common carrier; not liable
11. Federal Express v. Antonino
 Antonino - Condo in NY; owner of condo sent checks for condo dues and
taxes from PH to NY thru FedEx
 Consignee didn’t receive checks because FedEx delivered it to the
consignee’s neighbor instead; Condo owner sues FedEx for damages
 FedEx Defense:
 no cause of action for failure to comply with condition precedent, ie:
filing a written notice of claim within the 45 calendar days from the
acceptance of the shipment, as stated in the Airway Bill
 Prohibited items shipped
 SC:
1) Condition substantially complied with: antonino given the run around
by FedEX
2) Shipment considered lost for non-delivery to consignee/person
designated to receive them
12. Tan v Great Harvest
 Great Harvest hired Tan to transport 430 bags of soya beans from Port
Areea Manila to QC
 Driver Cabugatan delivered it to Selectra Feeds but the same was refused
 Great Harvest instructed Cabugatan to deliver and unload the soya beans at
its warehouse in Malabon. Yet, the truck and its shipment never reached
Great Harvest's warehouse.
 Tan’s Defenses: No contract of carriage; accommodation only;Deviation;
No contract of carriage; accommodation only
 a common carrier is held responsible — and will not be allowed to divest or
to diminish such responsibility — even for acts of strangers like thieves or
robbers, except where such thieves or robbers in fact acted "with grave or
irresistible threat, violence or force."
13. #1: Bachelor Express vs. Court of Appeals, July 31, 1990
 Bus on the way to Davao from CDO, passed Butuan City
 Pickup a passenger, 15 mins later, passenger stabbed a PC solider; stampede
 Bus stopped: Ornominio & Narcisa were found lying down the road, dead
 Heirs sued for damages
 Bachelor Express: fortuitous event; passenger running amuck proximate
cause of the incident; passengers jumped from the window due to panic
 SC: fortuitous event requisites lacking: Bachelor Express negligent
 Bus door was opened by conductor out of panic, passengers didn’t
jump out the window
 Bus running fast: 30-40 miles (2nd or 3rd gear) considering it had just
picked up a passenger
 bus was not properly equipped with doors in accordance with law
14. #9: Dole Phils. vs. Maritime Company of the Phils. Feb. 27, 1987
 Shipment of machine parts;
 consignee: Dole Phils; carrier: Maritime
 December 18, 1971: Dole received the machine parts in Dadiangas
(Gen Santos) on on December 18, 1971;
 May 4, 1972: Filed a claim/demand for damages with the defendant
vessel on
 June 11, 1973: filed a complaint against Maritime
 Maritime: prescribed; beyond one year period under COGSA
 Dole: May 4 demand interrupted prescriptive period pursuant to Art 1155
 SC: Civil Code not applicable. desirable that matters affecting
transportation of goods by sea be decided in as short a time as possible
further no different result would obtain even if the Court were to accept the
proposition
15. #13: LRT vs. Navidad, Feb. 6, 2003
 7:30 pm: drunk NAVIDAD got into a fist fight with a Security GUARD
Escartin of a EDSA LRT Station. It resulted in him falling on the tracks and
getting killed by the train.
 The wife sues the train DRIVER roman, the GUARD escartin, the LRTA,
and PRUDENT (security agency).
 TC: Prudent and Roman liable; CA: only LRTA and Roman
 LRTA defense: Escartins assault upon Navidad was an act of a stranger that
could not have been foreseen or prevented.
 SC: LRTA – LIABLE; BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE
 carrier may choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the
services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task.
Still, the common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under the
contract of carriage.
 PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY – not liable since negligence of
escartin (guard) not established. had escartin been found negligent,
prudent’s liability would have been for quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana
under art 2176 in relation to art 2180.
 Roman (LRT driver) and ESCARTIN (guard): NOT LIABLE; IF
EVER, BASIS OF LIABILITY COULD HAVE BEEN QUASI-
DELICT
16. Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. General Accident Fire and Life
Assurance Corporation, 217 SCRA 359
 Aboitiz Shipping – owner of M/V P. ABOITIZ; sank on a voyage from
Hongkong to the Philippines which resulted to over 110 cases being filed against
Aboitiz
 GAFLAC - foreign insurance company; subrogee of several cargo consignees
whose respective cargo sank with the said vessel
 Previous case: GAFLAC proved sinking NOT due to force majeure and won.
Now wants to execute decision.
 Aboitiz defense: limited Liability Rule warrants immediate stay of execution of
judgment to prevent impairment of other creditors' shares
 GAFLAC contention: limited liability issue already decided in previous case;
law of the case
 RTC granted exec, Aboitiz appealed; CA dismissed appeal based on SC
ruling in previous case: all claims for the losses should first be determined
before GAFLAC's judgment may be satisfied," such ruling "in effect
necessarily negated the application of the limited liability principle
 SC: limited liability rule applies. Only xpn thereto is if shipowner negligent
which has not been shown.
 Execution must be stayed pending reso and finality of ALL cases filed since
LLR dictates that shipowner’s liab, similar to insolvent corp, limited to
residual assets; in case of carriage that’s the insurance and freightage
 Since it cannot be determined WON all claimants will fully recover, finality
on all other cases must be had and collated so that in case freightage and
insurance insufficient, claims must be prorated
 Meantime, aboitiz directed to deposit in trust freightage and insurance
17. #28: Mitsui vs. Court of Appeals 287 SCRA 366
 Shipment of goods from Manila to Paris, supposedly to be within 28 days from
loading
 Shipper: Lavine Loungewear Manufacturing Corporation
  Carrier: Mitsui (foreign corp represented by Magsaysay Agencies)
 Meister international freight forwarder
 Taiwan: goods not transshipped immediately; delay
 Consignee only paid for half; did not arrive until off season so Lavine had
to bear the other half, now suing Mitsui, Magsaysay as agent and Mitsui
 Mitsui: barred by prescription under COGSA
 Lavine: COGSA applies to lost/damage goods; not delay
 SC: Lavine correct. Civil Code applies. Ratio for limitation of prescriptive
period under COGSA