CASE

1. First Philippine Industrial Corp. vs. CA 2. Vlasons Shipping, Inc. vs. CA 3. Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. vs. CA 4. Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. vs. CA

ISSUE/RULING
Test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods; (Art. 1732) Test of a Common Carrier; (Art. 1732) Same For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with sufficient number of competent officers and crew; (Art. 1733) Common carrier presumed at fault or acted negligently in cases other than those mentioned in Art. 1734. Fire not considered a natural disaster or calamity; (Art. 1734) Fault or negligence; proximate cause, defined; (Art. 1734) Art. 1734; Art. 1734; Art. 1735; Mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier and the subsequent arrival of the same goods at the place of destination in bad order makes of a prima facie case against the carrier; (Art. 1735) The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts until actual or constructive delivery of the cargoes to the consignee or to the person who has right to receive them; (Art. 1736) Bill of lading both as receipt and contract; (Art. 1736) No extraordinary diligence by the carrier could have prevented the loss of the goods after they had been deposited in the Warehouse of the Bureau of Customs; (Art. 1738) (Art. 1739; Art. 1740) (Art. 1741; Art. 1742) Intervention of municipal officials, not of a character that would render impossible the fulfillment by the carrier of its obligations; (Art. 1743) A stipulation that that cargo was being shipped at owners risk is null and void and contrary to public policy; (Art. 1744) Under Art. 1745, a common carrier is responsible even for the acts of strangers like thieves or robbers except where such thieves or robbers acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force. Grave and irresistible force must be proved in cases of hijacking;

5. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Nisshin Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et.al. 6. Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. CA 7. Tabacalera Insurance Co., et.al. vs. North Shipping Services, Inc. and CA; 8. The Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. CA 9. Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs CA 10. Coastwise Lighterage Corporation vs. CA

11. Benito Macam vs. CA, et.al.

12. Samar Mining Company, Inc. vs Nordeutscher Lloyd, et.al. 13. Amparo Servando, Clara Uy Bico vs. Philippine Steam Navigation Co.

14. Maersk Line vs. CA 15. 16. Mauro Ganzon vs. CA

17. Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. vs. CA

18. Pedro de Guzman vs. CA

19. Estrellita M. Bascos vs. CA

20. Everett Steamship Hernandez, et.al.

Corp.

vs.

21. Summa Insurance Corp. vs. CA 22. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. IAC, et.al. 23. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. vs. CA, et.al.

24. Prescillano Necesito, Natividad Paras

et.al.,

vs.

25. Rosito Z. Bacarro, et.al., vs. CA 26. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. vs CA

27. Carlos Singson vs. CA, et.al. 28. Japan Airlines vs. CA, et.al. 29. Alberta and Cresencio Yobido vs. CA

30. Baliwag Transit, Inc. vs CA, et.al.

31. Bachelor Express Inc. and Cresencio Rivera vs. CA

32. Franklin Gacal and Corazon M. Gacal vs. Philippine Airlines 33. Jose Pilapil vs. Ca, et.al.

34. Fortune Express, Inc. vs. CA

A stipulation in the Bill of Lading limiting the common carriers liability for loss or destruction of a cargo to a certain sum, unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value, is sanctioned by law; (Arts. 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749 and 1750) Law of the place of destination governs liability in case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods transported; (Arts. 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754) Carrier-passenger relationship continues until the passenger has been land at the port and has left the vessel-owners premises; (Art. 1755) A carrier is liable to its passengers for damages caused by mechanical defects of the conveyance; Common carriers required to exercise extraordinary diligence in contract of carriage of passengers; Reasons; The failure of the common carrier to maintain seaworthy its vessel involved in the contract of carriage is clear breach of its duty described in Art. 1755; Round trip plane ticket was itself a complete written contract between the carrier and the passenger; Force majeure common carriers are not insurer of all risks; A common carrier may not be absolved from liability in case of force majeure or fortuitous event alone the common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent I causing the death or injury resulting from an accident; In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent when a passenger dies or is injured; To be absolved from liability in case of force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was caused by force majeure; common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the injuries resulting from such accident; Duty of common carrier to overcome the presumption of negligence; A tort committed by a stranger which causes injury to a passenger does not accord the passenger a cause of action against the carrier; A common carrier can be held liable for failing to prevent a hijacking by frisking passengers and inspecting their baggages;

35. Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. CA, et.al.

36. Fortune Express, Inc. vs. CA 37. Dangwa Transporation Co., Inc.

38. Philippine Airlines vs. CA

39. Philtranco Service Enterprise, et.al., vs. CA, et.al. 40. Baliwag Transit, Inc. vs. CA

Inc.,

Damages; Computation of Indemnity; Life expectancy of victim as basis in fixing amount recoverable; and earning capacity; Compensaiton for loss of earning capacity; The amount recoverable by the heirs of a victim of a tort is not the loss of the entire earnings, but the loss of that portion of the earnings which the beneficiary would have received; The contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a public duty, and neglect or malfeasance of carriers employees naturally could give ground for an action for damages; To prove actual damages, the best evidence available to the injured party must be present; Moral and exemplary damages is not due in a case where a passenger is guilty of contributory negligence; Subsidiary liability of an employer under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code, enforceable in the same criminal case where award was made; Release of claims executed by the injured party discharging the insurance and transportation companies from any and all liability is valid;

41. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines vs. CA 42. Carlos Singson vs. CA 43. Philippine National Railways vs. CA, et.al. 44. Gregoria Vda. De Paman, et.al., vs. Alberto Seneris, et.al. 45. Baliwag Transit, Inc. vs CA, et.al.