Transportation Law

Atty. Mary Ann L. Reyes

I.GENERAL CONCEPTS

1.Contract of Transportation p. 1

What is a contract of transportation

1.1 Parties to a Contract of Transportation

Jesus Vda de Nueca vs. The Manila Railroad Company, No. 31731-R, Jan. 30, 1968
Baliwag Transport Corp. vs CA, 169 SCRA 849, Jan. 31, 1989
Sps. Fabre vs. CA, GR 111127, July 26, 1996
Everett Steamship vs. CA, GR 122494, Oct. 8, 1998 (Carriage of Goods) p. 2

1.2 Perfection of Contract of Carriage

As to goods

Mauro Ganzon vs. CA, GR L-48757, May 30, 1988

Compania Maritima vs. Insurance Company of North America, GR L-18965, Oct. 30, 1964

As to passengers p. 3

British Airways vs CA, GR 92288, Feb.9, 1993

Compania Maritima vs Insurance Co (is written contract required)
Korean Airlines vs. CA, GR 114061, Aug. 3, 1994

As to buses, jeepneys, streetcars

Dangwa Transportation vs. CA, GR 95582, Oct. 7, 1991

As to trains p. 4

Jesusa Vda de Nueca vs. The Manila Railroad Company, CA-GR 31731, Jan. 30, 1968
LRTA vs Nativida, GR 145804, Feb. 6, 2003

2. Common Carriers

2.1 Definition, Art. 1732,Civil Code

De Guzman v. CA, GR L-47822, Dec. 22, 1988

2.2 Nature of Business

Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Garcia, 239 SCRA 386, Dec. 23, 1994 p. 5
De Guzman vs. CA, 16 SCRA 612, Dec. 22, 1988
2.3 Tests to Determine Common Carrier

First Philippine Industrial Corp. v. CA, 300 SCRA 661

National Steel Corp v. CA, 283 SCRA 45, 61, 1997
Sps. Perena vs. Sps Nicolas, GR 157917, Aug. 29, 2012

2.4 Means of Transportation p. 6

First Philippine Industrial Corp. v. CA (pipelines)

2.5 Effect of Charter Party

Caltex (Phils) v. Sulpicio Lines, 315, SCRA 709, 1999

Planters Products vs CA, GR 101503, Sept. 15, 1993

2.6 Example Common Carriers p. 7

Virgines Calvo v. UCPB General Insurance Co., GR 148496, March 19, 2002 (customs broker)
Phil. American General Insurance v. PKS Shipping, GR 149038, April 9, 2003
Asia Lighterage and Shipping v. CA, GR 147246, Aug. 19, 2003 (lighterage)
Sps Cruz v. Sun Holidays, GR 186312, June 29, 2010 (beach resort operator) p. 8
Fabre v. CA, 259 SCRA 426, 1996 (school bus operator)
Sps Perena v. Nicolas, GR 157917, Aug. 29, 2012 (school bus)

2.7 As Ancillary Business p. 9

De Guzman v. CA, 168 SCRA 612, 1988

2.8 Other Cases

Unsworth Transport v. CA, GR 166250, July 26, 2010 (freight forwarder)

Loadmasters Customs Services v Glodel Brokerage, GR 179446, Jan. 10, 2011 (customs broker)
Crisostomo v CA, GR 138334, Aug. 25, 2003, 409 SCRA 528 (travel agency) p. 10
Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, GR 186312, June 29, 2010 (resort operator)

2.9 Common Carriers vs Public Carriers

Planters Products v. CA, GR 105090, Sept. 15, 1993

Sps Perena vs. Sps Nicolas p. 11
National Steel Corp. vs CA, 283 SCRA 45, Dec. 12, 1997

3. Governing Laws p. 12

Art. 1766, Civil Code

a) Coastwise shipping (Art. 1732-1766, Civil Code; Code of Commerce)

b) Carriage from foreign ports to RP ports (Civil Code, Code of Commerce, COGSA)
c) Carriage from RP ports to foreign ports (Art. 1753, NCC)
Natl Devt Co vs CA, 164 SCRA 593
d) Overland transportation (Civil Code, Code of Commerce)
 e) Air transportation (Civil Code, Code of Commerce, Warsaw Convention)
Alitalia v. IAC, 192 SCRA 9
RA 10668

4. Obligations of Common Carriers p. 13

4.1 Basic Obligations

4.2 Duty to Accept Goods for Transport

Sec. 16 of RA 9295 (2004)

Sec. 6 of Economic Regulation no. 4, CAB

When carriers may validly refuse to accept goods p. 14

(a) FC Fisher vs. Yangco Steamship, GR 8095, Nov. 5, 1914 (dangerous objects)
MARINA MC 101(1995)

(b) Goods unfit for transportation

MARINA MC 101(1995)
Art. 356, 357, Code of Commerce
Art. 1742, Civil Code

(c) Livestock will be exposed to disease

RA 8485 or The Animal Welfare Act

4.3 Duty to Special Classes of Passengers p. 15

RA 7277, Magna Carta for Disabled Persons

RA 7432, Expanded Senior Citizens Act

4.4 Duty to Make Timely Delivery of Goods

Art. 358, Code of Commerce

Saludo vs. CA, GR 95536, March 23, 1992
Maersk Line vs CA, 222 SCRA 108, May 17, 1993

4.5 Consequences of Delay p. 16

Art. 1740, 1747, Civil Code

Art. 370, 371, Code of Commerce

4.6 Delay to Transport Passengers

Trans-Asia Shipping Lines vs CA, GR 118126, March 4, 1996 p. 17

Bill of Rights of Passengers under DOTC-DTI Joint AO (2012)
CAB Economic Regulation no. 9
Marina MC no. 112
4.7 Duty to Exercise Extraordinary Diligence

Art. 1733, Civil Code

4.7.1 Meaning of Extraordinary Diligence p. 18

Aboitiz Shipping vs Insurance Company of North America,

GR 168402, Aug. 6, 2008
Compania Maritima vs CA, GR K-31379, Aug. 29, 1958
Juntilla vs. Fontanay, 136 SCRA 624, May 31, 1985
PAL vs. CA, 106 SCRA 391, July 31, 1981
Kapalaran Bus Lines vs. Coronado, 176 SCRA 792, Aug. 25, 1989 p. 19

Statutory Duties to Passengers

Art. 1759, 1763, New Civil Code

Traffic Rules

Marikina Auto Line Transport vs. People, GR 152040, March 31, 2006
Art. 1756, NCC

4.7.2 Non-Delegable Duty

Westwind Shipping vs UCPB General Insurance, p. 20

GR 200289 and 200314, Nov. 25, 2013

4.7.3 Presumption of Negligence

Regional Container Lines vs The Netherlands Insurance,

GR 168151, Sept. 4, 2009
Air France vs. Gillego, GR 165266, Dec. 15, 2010
Art. 1733, 1734, 1735, 1755, 1756, NCC
Belgian Overseas Chartering v. Phil. First Ins., GR 143133, June 5, 2002 p. 21
Canlas v. CA, GR 122039, May 31, 2000
Air France vs. Gillego, GR 165266, Dec. 15, 2010
Heirs of Ochoa vs. GS Transport, GR 170071 and 170125, March 9, 2011

5. Defenses of Common Carriers

5.1 Exercise of extraordinary diligence and exempting causes

Art. 1734, 1735, 1755, NCC

Trans-Asia Shipping v. CA, 254 SCRA 260, 1996
Cokaliong Shipping v. WCPB, GR 146018, June 25, 2003
Delsan Transport v. CA, GR 127897, Nov. 15, 2001

5.2 Exempting Circumstances p. 22

Art. 1734, 1742, 1743, 1755, NCC

Exclusivity of Defenses

Phil Charter Insurance Corp. vs. Unknown Owner of Vessel M/V Honor,
GR 161833, July 8, 200
De Guzman v. CA p. 23
Pilapil v. CA
Fortune Express v. CA, GR 119756, March 18, 1999

Defenses in Carriage of Passengers

Fortuitous Event

Art. 1174, 1739, NCC

Asia Lighterage vs CA, GR 147246, Aug. 19, 2003

Requisites of fortuitous event p. 24

Eastern Shipping vs IAC, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 469

Necesito vs Paras, GR L-10605, June 30, 1958
Juntilla vs Fontanar, 136 SCRA 624, May 31, 1985

Other invalid defenses

Phil. American General Insurance v. PKS Shipping, GR 149038, April 9, 2003

Asia Lighterage v. CA, GR 147246, Aug. 19, 2003 p. 25
Edgar Cokaliong Shipping v. UCPB General, GR 146018, June 25, 2003

Defenses in Carriage of Passengers

1)acts of employees (Art. 1759, NCC)

2) theft of employees (At. 618.2, Code of Commerce) p. 26
3) acts of other passengers, third persons (Art. 1763, NCC)
4) acts of shipper, passenger (Art. 1734, NCC)
5) contributory negligence (Art. 1741, 1761-62, NCC)
6) doctrine of avoidable consequences (Art. 2203, CC)
7) causation p. 27
8) assumption of risk

Japan Airlines vs CA, 294 SCRA 19, Aug. 7, 1998

Calalas vs CA, 332 SCRA 356, May 31, 2000
Art. 1757, NCC

9) doctrine of last clear chance

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs IAC, GR 66102-04, Aug. 30, 1990

Bustamante vs CA, 193 SCRA 603, Feb. 6, 1991
Tiu vs. Arriesgado, 437 SCRA 426, Sept. 1, 2004 p. 28
Southern Lines Inc. vs. CA, 4 SCRA 258
 Diligence in Selection, Supervision of Employees

Art. 2176, 2180, NCC

Art. 1759, NCC
RA 10586, Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013, Sec. 13

Duty to Inspect p. 29

Nocum vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company

Carriage by Train

LRTA vs Natividad
Cangco vs Manila Railroad Company
Ma-Ao Sugar Central vs CA, GR 83491, Aug. 27, 1990
Rosario vs The Manila Railroad Company p. 30
EM Wright vs Manila Electric, GR L-7760, Oct. 1, 1914
Brinas vs People, GR L-30309, Nov. 25, 1983
Del Prado vs Meralco, GR L-29462, March 7, 1929
De Guia vs The Manila Electric Railroad
US vs Bonifacio, GR L-10563, March 2, 1916 p. 31
PNR vs Vizcara, GR 190022, Feb. 15, 2012

6. Duration of Liability

6.1 As to Goods (Art. 1736-1738, NCC)

Saludo vs CA, GR 95536, March 23, 1992

6.2 As to Passengers

Start p. 32

Jesus Vda de Nueca v. The Manila Railroad Co., CA no. 31731, Jan. 30, 1968
Dangwa Transportation v CA, 202 SCRA 575,580 (1991)
LRTA v. Marjorie Natividad, GR 145804, Feb. 6, 2003

Termination

La Mallorca v CA, 17 SCRA 739, 1966 p. 33

Aboitiz Shipping vs CA, GR 84458, Nov. 6, 1989

7. Liability for acts of employees and passengers

Arts. 1759, 1763, NCC

7.1 Liability due to negligence, wilful acts

Art. 1759, NCC

7.2 Personal violence of employees, agents p. 34

Basis of the carrier’s liability for assaults on passengers committed by its drivers

7.3 Employee not on duty

7.4 Acts of other passengers, strangers

Art. 1763, NCC

8. Stipulations reducing diligence, limiting liability

p. 35

8.1 Reduction of diligence

As to Goods

Art. 1748.1, 1744, 1750, NCC

As to Passengers

Art. 1757, NCC

8.2 Valid Stipulations relative to liability of common carriers p. 36

Art. 1748, NCC

Edgard Cokaliong Shipping v. UCPB Gen
Art. 1749, 1750, 1758, NCC

8.3 Invalid stipulations with common carriers

Art. 1745, NCC

8.4 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) p. 37

Sec. 4.5, COGSA

Eastern Shipping v. IAC, 150 SCRA 464, 1987
Belgian Overseas Chartering v. Phil. First Ins. Co., June 5, 2002

8.5 Purpose of stipulation limiting liability

Edgar Cokaliong vs UCPB

8.6. Extraordinary Diligence in Carriage by Sea

Aboitiz Shipping vs. Insurance Company of North America, p. 38

GR 168402, Aug. 6, 2008
Trans-Asia Shipping vs CA, 254 SCRA 260, 1996
 Caltex Phils. vs. Sulpicio Lines, 315 SCRA 709, Sept. 30, 1999
Sec. 116, 118, Insurance Code (seaworthiness)
Domestic Shipping Act of 2004 (Sec. 9, RA 9295)

Overloading

Negros Navigation vs CA, 281 SCRA 534, Nov. 7, 1997

Proper Storage

Philippine Home Assurance vs. CA, No. 106999, June 20, 1996 p. 39

Duty to Take Proper Route

Improper Deviation (Art. 359 Code of Commerce, overland transportation)

Loadstar Shipping vs. Pioneer Asia Insurance, GR 157481, Jan. 24, 2006

9. Registered Owner Rule and Kabit System

9.1 Registration Rules

RA 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code

Erezo vs. Jepte

9.2 Registered Owner Rule p. 40

Erezo vs. Jepte, GR L-9605, Sept. 30, 1957

Equitable Leasing vs Lucita Suyon, GR 143360, Sept. 5, 2002

Quasi-delict

Art. 2176, 2177, New Civil Code

BA Finance Corp. vs. CA, 215 SCRA 715, 1992
PCI Leasing vs. UCPB General, GR 162267, July 4, 2008 p. 41
RA 5980 as amended by RA 8556, The Financing Company Act (registered
owner rule application to financial lease)

Stolen Vehicle

Duavit vs. CA, 173 SCRA 490, 496, 1989

Villanueva vs. Domingo, GR 144274, Sept. 20, 2004, 438 SCRA 485
Perez vs. Gutierrez, 63 SCRA 149 p. 42

9.3 Kabit System

Aberlardo Lim vs. CA, GR 125817, Jan. 16, 2002

Baliwag Transit vs CA, 147 SCRA 82, 1987
Art. 1409, NCC
 Pari Delicto Rule

Lita Enterprises vs. IAC, 129 SCRA 79, April 27, 1984 p. 43
LTFRB MC 2011-004

Aircrafts

Sec. 44 of RA 9497 or the Civil Aviation Authority Act

Boundary System

Hernandez vs. Dolor, GR 160286, July 30, 2004

10. Concurrent Causes of Action

10.1 Driver and Third Persons

Basis of Cause of Action by Passenger vs. Common Carrier, Driver

Concurrence of third persons p. 44

10.2 Joint and Several Liability

MMTC v CA, 223 SCRA 521, 1993

10.3 Arrastre Operator

Relationship between consignee and arrastre operator

Liability of common carrier, arrastre operator

Fireman’s Fund Insurance v. Metro Post Service, 182 SCRA 455

Eastern Shipping vs CA, 234 SCRA 78

11. Passenger’ s Baggages

Art. 1754, NCC p. 45

Baggage in the custody of carrier

Art. 1733-1753, NCC

12. Successive Carriers

12.1 Successive carriers by agreement for combined services

Art. 373, Code of Commerce

12.2 Liability of successive air carriers

 KLM Dutch Airlines vs CA

13. Common Carrier vs other Contracts

13.1 Distinguished from Towage

Standard Vacuum Oil vs. Luzon Stevedoring, GR L-5203, April 19, 1956 p. 46

13.2 Distinguished from Arrastre

Delgado Brothers vs. Home Insurance, 1 SCEA 854, March 27, 1961
Summa Insurance vs CA, 323 Phil 214, 1996

13.3 Distinguished from Stevedoring

Cebu Arrastre Service vs. CIR, GR L-7444, May 30, 1956

Mindanao Terminal vs Phoenix Assurance, GR 162467, May 8, 2009

14. Notice of Claim p. 47

Art. 1170, NCC

MCC Industrial Sales vs. Ssyangyong Corp., 536 SCRA 408, 2007 (reqts in
action for damages due to breach of contract)

14.1 Claim in Overland Transportation and Coastwise Shipping

Art. 366, Code of Commerce

UCPB General Insurance vs Aboitiz Shipping, GR 168433, Feb. 10, 2009

Art. 366 not applicable to misdelivery

Effect of Stipulation

Waiver of Notice Requirement

Southern Lines vs CA, GR L-16629, Jan. 31, 1962

14.2 Notice of Claim in Intl Carriage of Goods by Sea p. 48

Period to File

Sec. 3, par 6, COGSA

Period not Mandatory

Philam Insurance vs Heung-A Shipping Corp., July 23, 2014

14.3 Prescription in Overland Transportation and Coastwise Shipping

 Art. 1144-45, NCC

14.4 Prescription in Intl Carriage of Goods

14.5 Notice of Claim and Prescription in Air Transportation

15. Bill of Lading and Other Formalities p. 49

15.1 What is a bill of lading

Ace Navigation vs FGU Insurance, June 15, 2012

15.2 Kinds of Bills of Lading

(1)negotiable or non-negotiable
(2)clean bill of lading or foul bill of lading
(3)on board bill or received for shipment bill
(4)spent bill of lading
(5)through bill of lading p. 50
(6)custody bill of lading
(7)port bill of lading

15.3 Parties in a Bill of Lading

15.4 Nature of Bills of Lading

15.5 Contract of adhesion

15.6 Shipment Terms p. 51

FOB, FAS, CIF

Art. 1523, 1503, NCC

15.7 Prohibited and Limiting Stipulations

a) Kinds of limiting stipulations in bill of lading

b) Other invalid stipulations in carriage of goods (Art. 1745, NCC) p. 52
c) Other provisions on limiting stipulations (Art. 1746-1750, NCC)
d) Purpose of limiting stipulations p. 53
e) Presumption of negligence (Art. 1752)
f) Stipulation reducing diligence (Art. 1744, NCC)
g) Reduction not allowed for passenger (Art. 1757, 1733, 1755)
p. 54
h) Stipulations Fixing Limit of Recovery (Art. 1750-51, NCC)
i) Riots and Strikes (Art. 1748, NCC)
j) COGSA
p. 55
k) When Limiting Stipulation Cannot be Invoked (Art. 1746-1747)

15.6 Bill of Lading as Document of Title

 a) Negotiability (Art. 1507, NCC)
b) Effect of Stamp or Notation of Non-Negotiability (Art. 1510)
c) How Negotiated (Art. 708, Code of Commerce; Art. 1508, 1511, 1509, 1511, NCC) p. 56

16. Actions and Damages in Case of Breach

Art. 2176, 2177, 2180, 2184, NCC

16.1 Concurrent causes of action p. 57

16.2 Concurrence with third persons p. 58

Francisco Viluan vs CA, GR 21477-81, April 29, 1966

16.3 Solidary Liability

Fabre vs CA, GR 111127, July 26, 1996

16.4 Alternative Compensation Scheme

Sec. 14, 15, Domestic Shipping Development Act of 2004

Sec. 374-389 Insurance Code (compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance)

16.5 Elements of Cause of Action Against Carrier p. 59

a) Art 1735, 1756, NCC, presumption of negligence

16.6 Recoverable Damages

a)What are damages

b) Extent of Recovery – Art. 2201, NCC
c) Carriers right of recourse against employee (Sarkies Tours vs IAC, Sept 2, 1983) p. 60

16.7 Kinds of Damages

a) Art. 2197, 2216, NCC

b) Amount of Liability in Carriage by Sea – Art. 372, Code of Commerce
Sec. 4, par 5, COGSA
c) Damages in personal injury cases
d) Damages in case of death (Art. 2206, NCC, fixed damage, loss of earning capacity, p. 61
attorney’s fees, Art. 2208, NCC)
e) Moral Damages p. 62

Expert Travel & Tours vs CA, GR 130030, June 25, 1999 (requisites)
Air France vs Gillego, GR 165266, Dec. 15, 2010 p. 63
Lopez vs Pan American World Airways, 16 SCRA 431, 1966
Ortigas vs Lufthansa, 64 SCRA 610, June 30, 1975
 Maritime Law

1.General Concepts

1.1 Definition

1.3 Vessel

Sec. 3f, RA 9295 and Sec 3b, PD 474

Sec. 10, RA 9295, Sec. 14, EO 125 and 125A
Sec 3d PD 474
Sec. 810, Tariff and Customs Code

2. Limited Liability Rules

2.1 Doctrine of Limited Liability

Monarch Ins. Co. v. CA, GR 92735, June 8, 2000 p 64

Art. 587, 590, 837 of the Code of Commerce
Aboitiz Shipping v. Gen. Accident Fire, 217 SCRA 359, 1993

When applicable

Art. 587, 837, 643, Code of Commerce

Exceptions

Abandonment

Art. 587, CC

Who can Invoke p. 65

Dela Torre v CA, 653 SCRA 714, 201

How are claims satisfied

Aboitiz Shipping v General Accident

3. Protest

What is maritime protest

When protest required under CC

4. Collision

4.1 Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault p. 66

 Art. 826-828, CC
4.2 Rules on collision of vessels

Arts.826-282, 830-832, CC

4.3 Doctrine of Error in Extremis p. 67

Zones in collision
Urritia vs Baco River Plantation, March 25, 1913
Contributory negligence and last clear chance (Art. 827, CC)
One vessel at fault (Art. 826, CC)
Party at fault cannot be determined (Art. 828, CC)
Cause is fortuitous event (Art. 832, CC)
Third person at fault (Art. 831, CC) p. 68
Sinking on the way to port (Art. 833, CC)
Protest (Art. 835, 836, CC)
Limited Liability Rule (Art. 837, CC)

5. Arrival Under Stress p. 69

Protest (Art. 612, CC)

When arrival under stress improper (Art. 820, CC)
Expenses (Art. 821, CC)
Shipwrecks (Art. 840, 841, 643, 661, 734, 735, CC) p. 70

6. Persons Involved in Marine Commerce

6.1 Ship Agents p. 71

NDC vs. CA, 164 SCRA 593, 1988

6.2 Captains and Masters of the Vessel

Triple roles of captain (Inter-Orient Maritime vs. NLRC, 235 SCRA 268, 1994)
Wildvalley Shipping v CA, GR 119602, Oct. 6, 2000
Grounds for discharge of captain

6.3 Officers and Crew of the Vessel p. 72

6.4 Supercargoes

6.5 Desertion

Singa Ship vs. NLRC, 276 SCRA 201, 199

7. General vs Particular Average

7.1 General Average

 Phil Home Assurance vs. CA, 257 SCRA 468, 1996
Requisites
What general averages include (Art. 811, CC) p. 73
Formalities (Art. 813-814, CC) p. 74

7.2 Particular Average (Sec. 809, CC)

8. Charter Party p. 75

Types of Charter Party

Planters Products vs CA, 226 SCRA 476

9. Bill of Lading

Compania Maritima v. Ins Co of North America, 12 SCRA 213

Keng Hua vs CA, 286 SCRA 257, 1998
Republic vs Lorenzo Shipping, 450 SCRA 551, 2005; Art 353 CC p. 76

9.1 Functions of Bill of Lading

9.2 Types

Magellan Manufacturing v CA, 201 SCRA 102, 1991

10. Loans on Bottomry and Respondentia

Distinguished from ordinary loan

10. 1 Consequences of loss of effects on the loan p. 77

11. Procedure and prescriptive period for claims

11.1 Coastwise or within RP (Art. 366, CC)

11.2 International carriage from foreign port to Philippines (COGSA)

11.3 Prescriptive period p. 78

Maritime Company vs CA, 164 SCRA 59

Dole Philippines vs. Maritime Co., 148 SCRA 118, 1987
Fil Merchants vs Alejandro, 145 SCRA 42, 1986
Mayer Steel Pipe vs CA, 274 SCRA 342, 1997

12. The Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 (PD 1521) p. 79

12.1 Who may constitute (Sec. 2, SMD)

12.2 Formal requirements (Sec. 3,4)

12.3 Arrest and foreclosure (Sec. 10, 11, 18) p. 80

12.4 Concurrence and Preference of Credits (Sec. 17)

12.5 Maritime Lien (Sec. 21) p. 81

13. Salvage Law (Act 2616)

13.1 Definition (Sec. 1)

Kinds

13.2 Requirements for Compensation p. 82

Persons not entitled to compensation

13.3 Amount of Reward or Compensation p. 83

13.4 Who is Entitled to Reward (Sec. 12, 13)

Limit of Salvage Fee

14. Carriage of Goods by Sea p. 84

CIVIL AVIATION

1.Warsaw Convention

Mapa vs. CA, 275 SCRA. 1997

1.1 International transportation by air

Sec. 18b, 8c, WC

1.2 Damage or injury for which carrier is liable

Sec. 17-19, WC

1.3 Limit of liability of carrier p. 85

British Airways vs CA, GR 121824, January 29, 1998

1.4 Defenses against limit of liability p. 86

Three essential elements for a claim of willful misconduct to be successful

Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs CA, GR 104685, March 14, 1996
Absence of ticket (Art. 3.2, WC)
Absence of baggage check (PAL vs CA, GR L-44936, Sept. 25, 1992)
Waiver (British Airways vs CA, GR 121824, Jan. 29, 1998)
Tort Liability (PAL vs Hon Savillo, GR 149547, July 4, 2008) p. 87
1.5 Venue/Jurisdiction

Art. 28(1), WC
Lhullier vs. British Airways, GR 171092, March 15, 2010 p. 88

1.6 Notice of claim and prescriptive period

Art. 26, 29, WC

United Airlines vs. Uy, Nov. 19, 1999; PAL vs. Judge Savillo, July 4, 2008

1.7 Overbooking and denied boarding

CAB ER no. 7 and 9

1.8 Successive Carriers

Art. 1(3), WC
Lufthansa vs CA, 238 SCRA 290, 1994

2. Civil Aviation

RA 9497, RA 776 (economic regulation)

2.1 Definitions p. 89

2.2 Inspection of Aircraft (RA 6235) p. 90

2.3 Nationality and ownership of aircraft p. 91

Sec. 3, 43, 44, 49, 50, 53, CAAA

2.4 Persons Involved in Air Transportation

2.5 Charter of Aircraft p. 92

Classifications of aircraft charter p. 93

2.6 Sovereignty and Air Freedoms p. 94

Chicago Convention
Freedoms of the Air
International Air Transport Agreement (IATA) signed in Chicago on Dec. 7, 1944 p. 95
Kuwait Airways vs PAL, GR 156087, May 8, 2009
Cabotage (types)

2.7 Obligations of Carrier in Air Transportation p. 96

Extraordinary Diligence
 Abeto vs PAL, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 489
PAL vs CA, GR L-46558, July 31, 1981, 106 SCRA 391
Tariff System
Care of Baggage
Physical Injuries to Passengers p. 97
Downgrading, upgrading of passengers
Delay and diversion of flights (Japan Airlines vs CA, GR 118664, August 7, 1998)
Rude treatment (Air France vs De Camilis, GR 1889651, Oct. 13, 2009)
Overbooking (Northwest Airlines vs Sps Heshan, GR 179117, Feb. 3, 2010)
Savellano vs Northwest Airlines, GR 60673, May 19, 1992
Denied boarding passengers p. 98
Air Passenger Bill of Rights under Economic Regulation no. 9, 2012
Inspection of aircraft and cargo

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

1. Public Service Act

1.1 Government agencies that replaced Public Service Commission

1.2 Conditions that must concur in grant of CPC or CPCN p. 99

1.3 Is CPC property in the hands of the holder thereof

1.4 CPC and CPCN

1.5 Prior or old operator rule

1.6 Grounds for revocation of certificate p. 100

1.7 Notice and hearing

1.8 Franchise

Metropolitan Cebu Water District vs Adala, GR 168194, July 4, 2007

Distinguished from CPC p. 101

Is a legislative franchise necessary before a public utility can be allowed to secure a CPC
Associated Communications vs. NTC
Albano vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 264, 1989
PAL vs. CAB, 270 SCRA 538, 1997

Subject to modification or amendment

Delegation to LGUs
RA 7160, Sec. 447.3
1.9 Public Utility

Metropolitan Cebu Water District vs. Adala, GR 168194, July 4, 2007

Basis for regulation of utilities p. 102

RP vs Meralco, GR 141314, No. 15, 2002

1.10 Regulation of Rates

Standard used when administrative body fixes rates of public utilities

RP vs. Meralco

Factors to be considered in determining just and reasonable rates

Should operating expenses be considered in determining just and reasonable rate? p. 103
RP vs Meralco

Can admin body regulating public utility grant provisional rate increase
without prior evidentiary hearing
Ceferino Padua vs Ranada, GR 141949, Oct. 14, 2002
Nasecore vs. ERC, GR 163935, Feb. 2, 2006

Requirements for valid approval of application to increase the charge

1.11 Foreign Equity in Public Utilities p. 104

Art. XII, Sec. 11, 1987 Constitution

Tatad vs. Garcia, 243 SCRA 463, 1995
Voting Control test and Beneficial Ownership Test Should be Applied
Gamboa vs. Teves, GR 176579, June 28, 2011 and Oct. 9, 2012
Roy vs. Herbosa

1.12 Non-exclusivity

Sec. 11, Art. 12, 1987 Constitution

Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative vs. La Trinidad Water District, GR 166471, p. 105
March 22, 2011

1.13 Acts Requiring Approval by Successor Agencies of the PSC

1.14 Takeover of Public Utilities

David vs Macapagal-Arroyo, GR 171396, May 3, 2006

1.15 Monopolies and Unfair Competition p.106