SPOUSES CRUZ versus

SUN HOLIDAYS, INC.,

FACTS: The stay of the newlywed Ruelito and his wife at the Resort was by virtue
of a tour package contract with respondent that included transportation to and
from the Resort and the point of departure in Batangas. On September 11, 2000,
as it was still windy, Matute and 25 other Resort guests including petitioners son
and his wife trekked to the other side of the Coco Beach mountain that was
sheltered from the wind where they boarded M/B Coco Beach III, which was to
ferry them to Batangas.
Shortly after the boat sailed, there was rain and winds and the boat was
hit by two big waves which came one after the other, M/B Coco Beach III capsized
putting all passengers underwater.
Help came after about 45 minutes. Eight passengers, including petitioners
son and his wife, died during the incident.Now claiming for damages and
indemnification, respondent
denied any responsibility for the incident which it considered to be a fortuitous
event. It nevertheless offered the amount of P10,000 to petitioners upon their
signing of a waiver, which the petitioners declined. They also deny being a
common carrier.
ISSUE: WON the boat was a CC.
HELD: YES, respondent is a common carrier. Its ferry services are so intertwined
with its main business as to be properly considered ancillary thereto. The
constancy of respondents ferry services in its resort operations is underscored by
its having its own Coco Beach boats. And the tour packages it offers, which
include the ferry services, may be availed of by anyone who can afford to pay the
same. These services are thus available to the public.
That respondent does not charge a separate fee or fare for its ferry services is of
no moment. It would be imprudent to suppose that it provides said services at a
loss. The Court is aware of the practice of beach resort operators offering tour
packages to factor the transportation fee in arriving at the tour package price.
That guests who opt not to avail of respondents ferry services pay the same
amount is likewise inconsequential. These guests may only be deemed to have
overpaid.
When a passenger dies or is injured in the discharge of a contract of carriage, it is
presumed that the common carrier is at fault or negligent. In fact, there is even no
need for the court to make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of
the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be overcome by
evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence.

in connection with its franchise for bus operation in the highway from Pasay City
to Tacloban City for the purpose of continuing the highway, which is interrupted by
a small body of water, the said proposed ferry operation is merely a necessary
and incidental service to its main service. Such being the case ... there is no
need ... to obtain a separate certificate for public convenience. Without awaiting
action on its request PANTRANCO started to operate said ferry service.
Epitacio San Pablo (now represented by his heirs) and Cardinal Shipping
Corporation who are franchise holders of the ferry service in this area interposed
their opposition. They claim they adequately service the PANTRANCO by ferrying
its buses, trucks and passengers.
ISSUE: WON the BOT decision on allowing pantranco to set sail.
HELD: NO. Considering the environmental circumstances of the case, the
conveyance of passengers, trucks and cargo from Matnog to Allen is certainly not
a ferry boat service but a coastwise or interisland shipping service. Under no
circumstance can the sea between Matnog and Allen be considered a continuation
of the highway. While a ferry boat service has been considered as a continuation
of the highway when crossing rivers or even lakes, which are small body of waters
separating the land, however, when as in this case the two terminals, Matnog and
Allen are separated by an open sea it cannot be considered as a continuation of
the highway. Respondent PANTRANCO should secure a separate CPC for the
operation of an interisland or coastwise shipping service in accordance with the
provisions of law. Its CPC as a bus transportation cannot be merely amended to
include this water service under the guise that it is a mere private ferry service.
The contention of private respondent PANTRANCO that its ferry service operation
is as a private carrier, not as a common carrier for its exclusive use in the ferrying
of its passenger buses and cargo trucks is absurd.
PANTRANCO does not deny that it charges its passengers separately from the
charges for the bus trips and issues separate tickets whenever they board the MV
"Black Double" that crosses Matnog to Allen, 20 PANTRANCO cannot pretend that
in issuing tickets to its passengers it did so as a private carrier and not as a
common carrier.Thus the Court holds that the water transport service between
Matnog and Allen is not a ferry boat service but a coastwise or interisland shipping
service. Before private respondent may be issued a franchise or CPC for the
operation of the said service as a common carrier, it must comply with the usual
requirements of filing an application, payment of the fees, publication, adducing
evidence at a hearing and affording the oppositors the opportunity to be heard,
among others, as provided by law.
US vs Quinahon

EPITACIO SAN PABLO, (Substituted by Heirs of E. San Pablo), petitioners,

vs. PANTRANCO SOUTH EXPRESS, INC
PANTRANCO through its counsel wrote to MARINA requesting authority to
lease/purchase a vessel named M/V "Black Double" "to be used for its project to
operate a ferryboat service. They were not allowed being new operators.
PANTRANCO nevertheless acquired the vessel invoking the case of Javellana vs.
Public Service Commission. PANTRANCO claims that it can operate a ferry service

FACTS: Pascual Quinajon and Eugenio Quitoriano have been engaged in the
transportation of passengers and merchandise.That they regularly charged 6
cents for for the unloading and loading of each package of merchandise of cargo
without reference to the size and weight and that on the months of June, July, and
September, 1912, the said accused did unload 5,986 sacks of rice for Ilocos but
demanded and collected from the provincial treasurer for the unloading of each
one of the said sacks of rice 10 centavos,

virtually the same circumstances and conditions. Ilocos being thereby damaged in
the sum of 359.16, inasmuch as it should have paid only 239.44, in accordance
with the said rate of 6 centavos for each package.
ISSUE. WON the acts committed were in violation of the said Act No. 98 of the Civil
Commission.
HELD:
Act. 98 in jist provides that no special rates shall be given by a common carrier. It
is to compel common carriers to render to all persons exactly the same or
analogous service for exactly the same price, to the end that there may be no
unjust advantage or unreasonable discrimination. It applies to persons or
corporation engaged as common carriers of passengers or property. It is
favoritism and discrimination which the law prohibits. The difference in charge

must not be made to favor one merchant, or shipper, or locality, to the

disadvantage of another merchant, or shipper, or locality. If the services are alike
and contemporaneous, discrimination in the price charged is prohibited. For the
purposes of the law, it is not sufficient always to say that merchandise is alike,
simply because it is of a like kind or
quantity. The quantity, kind, and quality may be exactly the same, and yet not be
alike, so far as the cost oftransportation is concerned.
In the present case there is no pretense that it actually cost more to handle the
rice for the province than it did for the merchants with whom the special contracts
were made. From the evidence it would seem that there was a clear discrimination
made against the province. Discrimination is the thing which is specifically
prohibited and
punished under the law.