Transportation Law Cases Mentioned in the book Asked in recit 5.
Sesante
1. Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, G.R. No. 186312; June 29, 2010.
 Resort operator: ferry services
 Sps Cruz filed a complaint for damages for the death of their son Ruelito
who died on board a ferry owned by Sun Holidays, as part of their tour
package from Batangas to 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
2. Sanico vs. Colipano, G.R. No. 209969 September 27, 2017
 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; leg caught between coconut tree and jeep;
amputated
 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.
1. 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 a resort and were charged $400
 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.
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
 Day of their flight back: checked in luggage, claimed stubs, paid terminal
fees
 But prevented from taking flight: chance passengers only; paid addtl fees if
u want to board
 Ramoses refused; rented a car to HK took a PAL flight from 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
Sulpicio Lines vs.
 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
 Upon learning of the rejection, 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."