Del Mundo Rodel T.

1. What degree of diligence is required of common carriers?

a) Common carriers are bound to observe ordinary diligence.
b) Common carriers are not bound to observe extraordinary diligence.
c) Common carriers are not bound to observe ordinary diligence.
d) Common carriers are bound to observe any diligence.
2. Which of the following exempts a common carrier fro responsibility for loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods?
a) Order or act of the ship captain to its crew.
b) Act or omission of the ship owner or ship agent.
c) Tsunami.
d) Shipper did not observe proper packing of the goods.
3. Are the good s transported by the common carrier should be actually or constructively
delivered to the consignee only who is entitled to receive the said goods?
a) No, the goods could be delivered to a warehouse at the command of the common carrier.
b) No, the goods could be delivered to any personnel of the port as evidence by a receipt of
goods.
c) Yes, the goods should only be actually or constructively delivered to the consignee in all
cases.
d) Yes, the goods should only be actually or constructively delivered to the consignee
unless another person is entitled to receive the said goods.
4. The unpaid seller when he has parted with the goods and the buyer becomes insolvent stops
the goos in transit is known as the exercise of:
a) The right of possession
b) The right of ownership
c) The right of stoppage in transit
d) The right of control by the shipper
5. Which of the following instances requires the continuance of the common carriers duty to
observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods?
a) The goods are actually or constructively delivered to the consignee or to the person
entitled to receive the said goods.
b) The good are packed on the residence of the shipper or the owner.
c) The goods are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit.
d) The goods are jettisoned to save the ship.

6. Common carriers are presumed to be at fault ort to have acted negligently if the good s are
lost, destroyed, or deteriorated, unless:

a) Common carriers acted in good faith in the safe transportation of the goods.
b) Common carriers had clear records as reliable and safe carriers in the business.
c) Common carriers had exercised ordinary diligence required by law.
d) Common carriers had observed extraordinary diligence in the vigilance of goods.

7. What law should govern the liability of common carrier for lost, destruction, or deterioration
to which the good are to be transported?
a) Civil code
b) COGSA
c) Law of the country
d) Salvage law
8. Under the contract of carriage, the common carrier is liable to the passengers baggage, which
is in his personal custody?


a) Yes, because common carrier is presumed negligent.
b) Yes, because it is their obligation under the law.
c) No, because the common carrier is only liable when the passengers baggage is not
in his custody?
d) No, because it is against public policy.

9. What degree of diligence is required to be observed by a common carrier for the baggage of a
passenger in his custody?

a) Ordinary diligence.
b) Diligence of a prudent man
c) Extraordinary diligence
d) No diligence at all.

10. An agreement limiting the common carriers liability for delay is valid, provided it is as
account of?

a) The goods are transported at the risk of the owner.
b) Common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of goods.
c) Strike or riots.
d) Common carrier shall exercise diligence less than that of a good father.

11. A Stipulation that the common carriers liability is limited to value of goods appearing in the
bill of lading is valid provided:
a) It is not contrary to public policy.
b) It is not against good custom.
c) It is allowed by COGSA.
d) The shipper did not declare a greater value.

12. Libunao delivered 50 boxes of ipads to Delibo Bus Liner for transport from Manila to
Zambales on the following day, for which Libunao paid the freightage. Meanwhile, the boxes
were stored in the bus liners warehouse. That night, however, a robber broke into the warehouse
and stole Libunaos boxes. Libunao sues Delibo Bus Liner for contractual breach but the latter
argues that Libunao Has no cause of action based on such breach since the lost occurred while
the goods awaited transport. Who is correct?

a) The bus liner, since the goods were not lost while being transported.
b) Libunao, since the freightage for the goods had been paid.
c) Libunao, since the goods were unconditionally placed with Delibo for
transportation.
d) The bus liner, since the loss was due to a fortuitous event.

13. Dizon rode a Soriano Liner bus going to Vigan from Manila. At a stop-over in La union, the
bus driver, the conducto, and the passengers disembarked for dinner. Dizon decided, however, to
remain in the bus, the door of which was not locked. At this point, Santos, a vendor, sneaked into
the bus andoffered Dizon some refreshments. When Dizon rudely declined, Santos attacked her,
resulting in Dizon suffering from bruises and contusions. Does she have cause of action to sue
Soriano Liner?

a) No, since the carriers crew could not have seen the attack.
b) No, since the attack on Dizon took place when the bus was at a stop over.
c) Yes, since the bus is liable for anything goes wrong in the course of a trip.
d) Yes, since the carriers crew did nothing to protect a passenger who remained in the
bus during stop-over.

14. The liability of a common carrier for the goods it transports begins from the time of:

a) Conditional receipt.
b) Actual receipt.
c) Constructive receipt.
d) Either actual or constructive delivery.

15. In a contract of carriage, the common carrier is liable for the injury or death of a passenger
resulting from employees fault although the latter acted beyong the scope of his authority is
based on the:
a) Rule in culpa aquiliana.
b) Rule of Respodeat Superior
c) Rule that the carrier has an implied duty to transport the passenger safely.
d) Rule that the carrier has an express duty to transport the passenger safely.
16. Pasiola, an employee in a Candy shop at the Quezon Ave., station of the Metro rail transit
(MRT) bought two tickets , one for her ride to work and another for her ride home. She got to her
Candy shop where she usually worked from 8:00am to 5:00 pm. At about 3:00 pm., while
Pasiola was attending to her duties at the candy shop, causing injuries to Pasiola in the process.
Can Pasiola sue MRT for contractual breach as she was within the MRT premises where she
wouild shortly take her ride home?
a) Yes, since she already had a ticket for her ride home and was in the MRTs premises at
the time of the incident.
b) Yes, since she bought a round trip ticket and MRT had a duty while she was at its station
to keep her safe for her return trip.
c) No, since the incident took, place not in an MRT train coach, but at the MRT station.
d) No, since Pasiola had no intention to board an MRT train coach when the incident
occurred.

17. What is the liability of the common carrier when the goods have been stored in a warehouse
of the carrier at the place of destination?

a) Its extraordinary liability is extinguished from the moment the goods are safely secured
in the warehouse of the carrier.
b) Its ordinary liability operates even when the goods have been stored in the carriers
warehouse until they are removed or disposed of by consignee.
c) Its extraordinary liability continues from the time the goods are stored in the
warehouse until the consignee has been advised on the arrival of the goods and has
had reasonable opportunity to remove them.
d) None of the above.

18. What is the presumption in case of loss of baggage or effects of a passenger?
a) The carrier is not presumed to be at fault.
b) The carrier is absolve from liability.
c) The carrier is presumed to be at fault.
d) The carrier is not guil;ty.

19. When may not the carrier avail itself of the stipulations limiting his liability assuming it to be
valid?

a) When the common carrier is on time in transporting the goods.
b) When the common carrier does not change the stipulated or usual route.
c) When there is stipulation.
d) When the common carrier delays the transportation of the goods.

20. It is a written statement by the master of vessel, attested by a proper judicial officer or a
notary, to the effect that damage suffered by the ship or her voyage was caused by storms or
other perils of the sea, without any negligenceor misconduct on his part.
a) Masters Certificate
b) Bill of Lading
c) Affidavit of Desistance
d) Maritime protest
.