RICARDO, FRANZESS ANN AUDCHRIS P.

JD-III
TRANSPORTATION LAW

METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION, vs. REYNALDO CUEVAS and

JUNNEL CUEVAS, represented by REYNALDO CUEVAS

G.R. No. 167797 June 15, 2015

Registration is required not to make said registration the operative act by which
ownership in vehicles is transferred, as in land registration cases, because the administrative
proceeding of registration does not bear any essential relation to the contract of sale between
the parties but to permit the use and operation of the vehicle upon any public highway.

LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD

(LTFRB), vs.
G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC

G.R. No. 213088 June 28, 2017

The right to enter the public employment as a common carrier and to offer one's services
to the public for hire does not carry with it the right to conduct that business as one pleases,
without regard to the interests of the public and free from such reasonable and just regulations
as may be prescribed for the protection of the public from the reckless or careless indifference
of the carrier as to the public welfare and for the prevention of unjust and unreasonable
discrimination of any kind whatsoever in the performance of the carrier's duties as a servant of
the public.

G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC. v. HEIRS OF ROMEO L. BATTUNG, JR.,

REPRESENTED BY ROMEO BATTUNG, SR.

G.R. No. 208802, October 14, 2015

The law exacts from common carriers (i.e., those persons, corporations, firms, or
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by
land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public) the highest degree of
diligence (i.e., extraordinary diligence) in ensuring the safety of its passengers.
 SULPICIO LINES, INC.,
vs.
NAPOLEON SESANTE, NOW SUBSTITUTED BY MARIBEL ATILANO, KRISTEN
MARIE, CHRISTIAN IONE, KENNETH KERRN AND KARISNA KATE, ALL
SURNAMED SESANTE,

July 27, 2016 G.R. No. 172682

Common carriers are liable for the death or injuries to passengers through the negligence
or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the
scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common earners. This liability of the
common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father
of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.

TRANSIMEX CO. v. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP.

G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016

The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability
of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration. A common carrier is not liable
for loss only when (1) the fortuitous event was the only and proximate cause of the loss and (2)
it exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss.

SPOUSES DIONISIO ESTRADA and JOVITA R. ESTRADA, Petitioner

vs.
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. and EDUARDO R. SA YLAN, Respondents

July 19, 2017 G.R. No. 203902

As an exception, such damages are recoverable [in an action for breach of contract:] (1)
in cases in which the mishap results in the death of a passenger and (2) in cases in which the
carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith.

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
BPI/MS INSURANCE CORP., & MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO.,
LTD., Respondents.

G.R. No. 182864 January 12, 2015

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and on public policy considerations,
are bound to observe extra ordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by
them. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods.
The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are
unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until
the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person
who has a right to receive them.

In maritime transportation, a bill of lading is issued by a common carrier as a contract,

receipt and symbol of the goods covered by it.1âwphi1 If it has no notation of any defect or
damage in the goods, it is considered as a "clean bill of lading." A clean bill of lading constitutes
prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described.

DESIGNER BASKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. AIR SEA TRANSPORT, INC. AND ASIA
CARGO CONTAINER LINES, INC., Respondents.

G.R. No. 184513, March 09, 2016

In case the consignee, upon receiving the goods, cannot return the bill of lading
subscribed by the carrier, because of its loss or any other cause, he must give the latter a receipt
for the goods delivered, this receipt producing the same effects as the return of the bill of lading.

TORRES-MADRID BROKERAGE, INC., Petitioner

vs.
FEB MITSUI MARINE INSURANCE CO., INC. and BENJAMIN P. MANALAST AS,
doing business under the name of BMT TRUCKING SERVICES, Respondents

July 11, 2016 G.R. No. 194121

A common carrier may absolve itself of liability for a resulting loss: (1) if it proves that
it exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting and safekeeping the goods; or (2) if it
stipulated with the shipper/owner of the goods to limit its liability for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence.

PIONEER INSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.
APL CO. PTE. LTD.,, Respondent.

August 2, 2017 G.R. No. 226345

The Bill of Lading, it was categorically stated that the carrier shall in any event be
discharged from all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods, unless suit is brought in the
proper forum within nine (9) months after delivery of the goods or the date when they should
have been delivered. The same, however, is qualified in that when the said nine-month period
is contrary to any law compulsory applicable, the period prescribed by the said law shall apply.
 LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD
(LTFRB), Petitioner
vs.
G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC., Respondent

June 28, 2017 G.R. No. 213088

The power "[t]o suspend or revoke any certificate issued under the provisions of [the Public
Service Act] whenever the holder thereof has violated or willfully and contumaciously refused
to comply with any order rule or regulation of the Commission or any provision of this Act.