LAW 138: TRANSPO SIR QUIMBO June 19 Public Utility

Business or service engaged in regularly supplying the pub w a commodity or service of pub consequence such as electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or telegraph service (Albano v Reyes) o Is the enumeration impt in this definition? o Wld the definition be the same if the enumeration is missing? o Its significant, to be a PU it has to have some relation to the enumeration Why? Bec a PU implies a pub use & service to the public Its a definition by example o Is the enumeration essential to its formulation? It seeks to limit what would otherwise be a broad defn in the 1st part of defn If we limit the defn to the 1 st part & stop at pub consequence, itll be so broad Business wo pub consequence: are definitely not PU All businesses have pub consequence Pub consequence = theres an impact Has such broad meaning Ex) food business regulated to check you arent serving poison or rotten food Ex) Vicky Belo for hygiene, govt now wants to know if its a front for prostitution o Spas: health considerations PSC: (s13b) the 1st thing in the enumeration is common carrier Is the purpose to limit the scope of the application of law on PU? Since not all businesses w pub consequence are PUs? YES

Ex) business described by the client is not one of those enumerated in the law, thus, it must be detd WON its a PU o Why is it impt to det this? o Bec of the reqs a PU wld have to comply with & these reqs are restrictive they limit those who can operate as such How do you make this determination? How do u det if 1 is a PU? o Just look at the Law the defn of a PU o Ex) Vicky belo Provides service & supplies a service Is regular bec it opens everyday Has pub consequence such as = she dsnt fall under this It limits the otherwise broad defn at the start Made a determination based on the defn in Albano v Reyes, how can you check this? o If you make a wrong determination, you expose yourself to liab for malpractice o You have to look at the defn of a PS under CA146 (s13b) Bec a PS is necessarily a PU Ex) school bus service o Is this business being offered to the pub? Since its market is only grade sch & high sch students o Thus, is he regularly engaged in supplying the pub? o Law on Common carrier: a person, corp, etc engaged in the business of carrying/transporting, passenger or goods by land, water or air, offering their services to the pub o The defn Alabano v Reyes dsnt ans if it is indeed pub so you can look at the PSA o PSA: ds it give us an idea on what is a PS or PU? Yes Compare the defn in s13b w that in Albano: Albano: defn is broader S13b: defn is more spcfc

o o

As such that in case of doubt as to WON a utility is pub? WON in case of doubt, youll resolve the doubt against the thing being a utility or resolve it as being a utility? o Rule that its not a PU o Bec if you rule otherwise, then it wld have to meet the reqs laid down in the Consti & statutes (LAW) Law defines what a PU is o If theres any ambiguity, it shld be resolved as not a PU, since a PU is imbued w pub interest Furthermore, a PU is then subj to limitations & restrictions provided for in the Consti Ex) A wants to buy 10 planes & fly the planes to 11 cities in the Phils o You say that this is a common carrier is it a PS? YES o If the business or service or commodity falls under any of the types of PU or PS enumerated in the law its a PS or PU Prob: there are some utilities wc dont fall under the enumeration o The list isnt exclusive bec of the words such as

1st diff: o o o

the law says PS not PU Are they one and the same? NO A PU isnt necessarily a PS But a PS is a PU

SUMMARY OF SIR: Its impt to det WON a business/service is a PU: o Bec the business will be governed by a diff set of rules that are restrictive they are subj to burdens/obligs (consti & statutory encumbrances) that are imposed Ex) the govt can take over the business thru purchase or take over o 3 reqs: 60-40 for Fil citz There shld be financial capacity The business must resolve in or inure to the pub convenience or benefit o These rules arent suffered by businesses that arent PU
Drilon 1

Ex) permit cant be longer than 15 yrs Ex) managers shld all be Fil citzs They are businesses wc req huge capital Wc is why many PUs have foreign equity o Ex) law firm = X a PU In case of doubt = X a PU o Bec we dont interpret burdens as being imposed as a gen rule o CC states: presumption in the law = the greatest transmission of rights & the least transmission of burdens Impt to reach the correct decision on WON 1 is a PU: (criteria) o 1st look at Albano v Reyes The 2nd part/enumeration is meant to narrow down the defn of a PU PU is a partly nationalized business endeavor Partly nationalized means - the law mandates that a portion shld be owned by Fil citz As opposed to a business endeavor that is fully nationalized o ex) practice of professions (doctors, laywers) cant stop here bec the defn is short 2nd: defn of PS in the PS Law (s13b) More helpful Also a defn by example, thus look if the business is in the example If in the defn = its a PU If the business isnt an example, need to go back to the gen rule of PU in Albano & PS in the PS Law The definitions here arent exclusive 3rd: principal determinative charac of a PU Is that the owner/operator must hold himself out to the gen pub as being engaged in that business Such that the pub may avail of the service by right & not by permission Bec when a priv indiv dedicates priv prop to PU use, then the prop ceases to be jus privadi (private use)

PU: a constitutional law concept Concept is technically to broader than PS o PS: more of a commercial law concept o Wc is why when you compare the defn of Albano & s13 = the Albano defn is broader Meaning of Pub consequence The govt has a right to regulate Its of pub consequence bec it reqs regulation Its subject to regulation o Prob w this: not all business that have pub consequence are PU o All business that are in the nature of PU are of pub consequence. TRUE Lahat ng pub consequence ay PU. FALSE

PSA s13b: limited or gen clientele isnt this contrary to the defn that it services the pub

Its not contrary to a PU bec of the 3rd criteria If the offer is made to all persons indiscriminately, then its still a PU regardless of the # of ppl who avail of such Fact of a limited clientele dsnt diminish the fact that its a PU since the offer is made to all

CPC & CPCN: Similarity: Bth are permits, licenses, authorizations given by the govt to a person to operate a PU Difference: CPC: Certificate of Convenience No more PSC = its been succeeded by diff agencies o But the PS Law is still the principal law that regulates these bodies Cert issued by the agencies Any authorization to operate a PS issued by an agency Its issued for the operation of PS for wc no franchise is reqd by law Permit given to a PU for wc a franchise isnt reqd Ex) school bus CPCN

Primitive charac of a PU is service The capacity of a mem of the pop at large, to avail of the service not by permission but by right, such that the unjustified refusal by the PU owner to comply or to provide the service exposes him to liability under law

Cert given when there is an existing operator when there are no adequate service provided Issued by an agency to a PS wo wc any pol subdivision has granted a franchise under Act667 after the PSC has approved the same under s16b Issued for the operation of PS for wc a franchise is reqd by law o Its engaged in a business for wc a franchise is reqd o Franchise isnt issued by the PSC Generally issued by congress Its like an ordinary law & is passed as an ordinary law Permit given to a PU for wc a franchise is reqd
Drilon 2

Questions: Diff of a PU & PS: Today, the use of the term PU & PS is used interchangeably o PU & PS are the same but technically they are diff Theres a distinction, but in practice they are now used interchangeably The distinction has no practical use

June 26 CPC: franchise isnt reqd CPCN: franchise is reqd PU in wc an operation of wc a franchise is reqd, need to get a franchise & a CPCN o Y do you need 2 permits? Bec theyr diff o CPCN: authorization for the operation of a PS o Franchise: its priv bill wc shld originate from the hse Difficult to obtain Why cant they operate on the basis of a franchise? Isnt this sufficient? In the application for the franchise, ds the applicant have to prove that it possesses the qualifications for operating a PU? Applicant will have to prove it has certain qualifications Congress also conducts hearings

permit that allows a person to operate a PU wo need of a franchise *if power of the regulatory agency is to issue a CPCN, this means its a PU the operation of wc reqs a permit from the Congress in the nature of a law Whle a legis franchise is a pre-req to a grant of a CPCN, the franchise alone cant constitute the auth to commence operations since there are matter relevant to sch operations wc arent detd in the franchise (rates, scheds, routes) Franchise: Is the legis authorization to engage in a business activity or enterprise of a pub nature o A legis grant, wc binds the pub CPCN: Regulatory measure wc constitutes the franchises auth to commence operations PAL: applicant shld allege that he has alrdy obtained a franchise from Congress GrandAir: had no franchise o Contended that a legis franchise is no longer necessary for a CPCN bec of the ruling in Albano v Reyes

Congress makes a det WON the applicant is qualified, and after they make this det, they make a 2 nd determination of the same issue? Not necessarily Bec a CPCN governs/states the schedule, type of transportation, rates to be charged, etc wc are determined by the regulatory boards

X a rate fixing exercise as understood in admin law, but they do have the power to fix rates Applicant needs to prove & estab the same 3 reqs of(when applying for a franchise & a CPCN): o Citiz o Financial capacity o That the grant of the franchise/CPCN will result in the pub convenience Pub convenience: the demand for service cant be met by the existing operator or theres no operator Ex) one of the things you estab during application o if operating a bus Co or airline, show that the existing operator has had its franchise since 1940, when the Phils had a pop of 20M and its now 1975 and the pop is now 40M & yet PAL is still operating only 2 routes, using only 1 aircraft when do we apply for a CPC or a CPCN? o The law states wc industries need to obtain a franchise Ex) if your business is an airplane to compete w PAL, Cebu, Air Phils o You need a franchise & will get a CPCN

CPCN:

PAL v CAB: GrandAir is applying for a CPCN bec CAB is only authorized to issue CPCNs (s10c, RA776) o Bec the power of the CAB is to issue CPCNs and not CPCs o *LBFRB: only has the power to issue CPCs o Why is this distinction, btwn what the regulatory agency can issue, impt? *if power of the regulatory agency is to issue a CPC, it can allow the applicant to operate on its own grant bec a CPC is a

San Pablo v Pantranco (1987) Patranco is engaged in the business of carrying passengers or goods by land, for wc it operates their buses from Pasay to Tacloban Went to the BOT (board of transportation) in 1981 (predecessor of LTO) o *b4 Marcos took down the PSC saying that it had too much powers (bth water and land) o *for land he made the LTO, then BOT, then LTC, then LTO & LTFRB o *the BOT used to do all the reqs of LTO & LTFRB o LTO: administrative licensing License of drivers o LTFRB: provides for the eco aspect If youre a jeep Went to the BOT bec it wants auth to buy & operate a sea gng vessel Auth was necessary bec Pantrancos existing auth was as a land transport operator Said their buses travel from Pasay to Leyte and there was a body of water in btwn the 2 instead of being able to transport the passengers all on land Body of water: San Bernardino Straight o Size, location, etc matters Route of the ferry: Matnog, Sorsogon to Allen, Samar Wo the ferry, they used to cross using the ferry services owned by San Pablo San Pablo was opposing since they aldry serviced the area o As prior operator he has a right to be protected in his investment Pantranco had their CPC amended to include the ferry SC: considering the size of the body of water, Pantranco needs to obtain a sep CPC even if it operates for its own buses & passengers Sir: So conceivably, a land operator can operate a water service They cldnt here bec of the size of the water o An operation like this wld constitute a real ferry service But if it was a mere incident to its land transport, then it cld be allowed o Ex) if the bdy of water was only 10m
Drilon 3

At certain time of the yr, the waters are turbulent bec it leads to the Pacific Ocean It wsnt a ferry service but was a coastwise or interisland shipping o Thus, if they want to own it & operate it, they have to apply for an indep CTC, you have to go to the Marina What if Pantranco did go to the Marina to apply for a CTC, who wld they have met there? o San Pablohe wldve opposed the application!

A1732: CC are persons, corps, firms or assocs engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or bth, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the pub (memorize) Importance of knowing what a CC is: o Cases are usually brought to Ct to det WON 1 is a CC bec of the degree of diligence necessary if 1 is a CC Ex) Presumption of neg dsnt attach if not a CC o Lower level of degree of diligence if not a CC

Teja v IAC Kabit sys: where one had been granted a CPC and allows anthr person who owns a vehicle, to operate under the formers franchise for a fee o Allows some1 to avoid applying for a CPC on their own o Kakabit ka sa CPC ng isa o In pari delicto Effect of this: its void as being against pub policy Ds the PU need to own the vehicle? Usually, ownership of the cab is proof of your financial capacity But the law dsnt req the applicant to own the equipment Ex) PAL dsnt own all the aircrafts, but leases them Theoretically, a pub utility operator can borrow, lease, covey by way of commodatum, etc = the equipment may be owned by a non-Fil and wont affect the 60-40 rule What is reqd to be Fil is the ownership of the utility o The utility is an entity, the operation o Who is exercising the right of ownership of the operation? Shld be a Fil PO rule: subj to the cond that he provides the pub w a service regularly & efficientl = the pub benefit is maintained o If effect, its like monopolizing the industry o But its not a monopoly bec of the heavy degree/great degree of supervision over the P{U by the govt (wrt rates, scope & extent of its auth) o PU were created from the inability of the fact that the govt cant provide the service bec it has no capital, so govt goes to some1and asks them if they want to provide a PU; the person knows that itll expose her to possible ruin bec if she cant collect, she loses her capital; so govt says invest in it & we wont give you any competition (incentive) but rate fixing, pricing, etcthe govt will monitor & have to approve, they will make sure the pub benefit to cont to be serveif not & cant supply the necessary need, theyll let anthr utility enter PU: Its in the nature of the investment wc reqs huge capital Monopoly principle/tendency is countered by heavy regulation

Elems: 1) Persons, corps, firms, assoc = means that the CC shld have the capacity to sue & be sued Recognd as a juridical entity in law o Represents the suability of the CC one who can be sued & can sue 2) Engaged in the business of carrying or transporting Q: ds it need to be engaged in this business regularly

Ds the carrier have to be engaged in the business as a principal occupation? Ds the offer have to be made regularly? Or is that fact that the business of carriage is merely incidental to anthr business that isnt carriage/ancilliary? still a CC? De Guzman: Backhauling: sometimes transports, sometimes dsnt o Cendana: X engaged in the business of transporting principally, hes a junk dealer o Has 2 trucks to transport junk from Pangasinan to Mla (transports 1 way so trucks are empty gng back to Pangasinan) o Cartons of milk were hijacked while being transported by Cedana o I: WON Cendana is a CC whys this issue matl? Bec De Guzman relied on the presumption of neg in the LC theory was Cedana was a CC & fact of loss of goods gives rise to a presumption of neg Thus, he didnt present evidence to prove negligence of Cedana Using A1735 Presumption: takes the place of proof Presumption of neg is rebuttable can be overturned by proof of EOD Cedana said he wasnt a CC If he was a CC, De Guzman had a right to rely on the presumption but if he wasnt, then De Guzman shldve proved the neg of Cedana Thus, case will rise & fall on this issue Issue needs to be addressed bec of the presumption of neg Ct: hes a CC Looked at A1732 & said it dsnt distinguish a person who is engaged in the business of carriage as a principal, regular or as merely ancilliary, causal or episodic Notw/standing the fact that he was only carrying goods as ancilliary/side line, still a CC
Drilon 4

July17 COMMON CARRIERS

o o

The defn coincides neatly w the defn of PS in the PSA wc also speaks of a person in PS notw/standing that the person is in service intermittenrly/irregularly I2: Won hes liable for the lost goods. Hijack = FM wc excuses the carrier from liability? Ct: But under the law on CC, the specific types of FM are listed for CC And hijacking isnt among listed Thus, claim cant be dismissed on accnt of the fact of the hijacking alone Need to contend w the presumption of neg in A1735 o Ct is now applying the law on CC wc is logical Hes now presumed neg under A1735 o The presumption is however rebuttable o Can be excused from liab if shows that he exerd EOD limits of EOD are reached when goods are lost bec of a robbery attended by grave or irresistible threat, violence or force = applies here o Where did the Ct get this? Ct said EOD has no definition in the law (1 degree lower is ordinary dil defnd in A1173 in the negative bec it defines neg) EOD in A1734, A1745 (4,5,6): provs that relate to the meaning of EOD gives us an idea of what it might mean A1733 possible descriptions may be seen in A1734, A1745 (4,5,6) A1745(6): this is related here! Bec of this, if there is grave or irresistible threat & therefore excused from liability!

SIR: there is a disconnect btwn A1745(6) & saying that its EOD already There was no such stip btwn Cedana & De Guzman worse decision of the Ct: by stating that the law dsnt distinguish o Ct: dsnt distinguish btwn it being regular/scheduled/occasional/ episodic/unscheduled basis = WRONG!!! law dsnt distinguish if its merely ancilliary o SIR: if the business of carriage is merely a sideline/irreg o Ex) waits w his car everyday to bring ppl to fort b4 work & back when hes done w work = ds his regularity create an expectation on the part of the pub? YES! Hes become a CC by his actions If he ds this only 3x a yr = ds he still create the expectation? NO! o Shld be engaged in the business of carrying if only do it once a yr, who can you be engaged in the business of carrying?! o Crucial test on WON the carrier is pub or priv is WON the availment of ht eservice is a matter of right & not by permission o It ceases to be used private o Such that the unjustified refusal to produce the service exposes him to liab Ex) if Cedana refused to carry the milk for De Guzman for any reason this wont expose him to any liab! Ex) stand at cor. Of buendia & paseo de roxas...youre near mandarin o While standing & waiting for a bus, a benz comes out of mandarin, you stretch your arm out expecting it to stop o Under De Guzman ruling, Mandarins benz wld have an oblig to take you bec its engaged in transport wc is ancilliary/incidental to its principal business of providing hotel accommodations Mandarin wld be a CC under this doctrine Thus all businesses, not a carrier, so long as has a vehicle used for transport = its a CC! Ex) jolibees motorcycle, hospital ambulance Fact that the goods were lost by hijacking thru grave, irresistible threatcld very well be EOD already, but not thru A1745(6) o Can just say that EOD has already been reached in such a situation The Ct didnt have to decide the Q of WON Cedana was a CC to det if he was liable cldve decided it on the basis of A1174 alone! Its really a case of FM Hijacking to be consistent w EOD, the hijacking shld be attended by grave, irresistible force, threat or violence For sir: A1732 DOES make a distinction o Thus, for him its a prob that the Ct says it dsnt make a distinction o Law says: engaged in the business This is where the distinction lies If engagedneeds to be regular o Sir wld exclude those whose transport is merely incidental (even if its for monetary compensation) De Guzman doctrine covers all kinds of transport

This was a well-thought out decision Ct had a logical approach o EOD = means you really take care of the goods *SIR: Conclusion of the Ct is wrong, but approach is nice A1745 (6) isnt auth for the proposition that when the loss of goods is due to thieves or robbers of act w grave or irresistible threat, violence or force o Bec it merely enumerates the stips that are void o It isnt a stand alone prov o Its connected to A1744 wc says a carrier has to exerc EOD but if they want a lower one, need to stip & there needs to be consideration & in writing Law recogs that there are sits where EOD cant be exerd & stip SHLDNT be contrary to law, pub morals, pub policy o Whats this pub policy? Its enumerated in A1745 Thus, you can stip to a lesser degree of dil & the stip may excuse you from liab under The meaning of EOD as mentioned to A1733 gives examples of what EOD may be A1745(6) is just such an example o This absolutely dsnt apply

3) Transporting passengers, goods or bth

Drilon 5

Relevant only in the sense that there are laws depending on whether you transport goods or passengers

4) Land, water or air No other mode of transport except this 5) For compensation What if its for free? What ds this mean?

GR: the contract of transport is perfected like any other conract o Like PU, what sets this CC apart from other services is that the emphasis of the criteria is on the service - the offer to provide service of transport Such that the acceptance of the offer, obligates the CC to transport the person, such that the offeror cant refuse if he ds its a breach of his pub duty/breach of his oblig Violation of the cond of the grant/issuance of the CPC Ex) if ride the jeep, he makes you go down bec youre the only 1 riding Ex) When stretch out your hand, you get on it, you tell him where youre gng & he says no bec not convenient to him & tells you to go down o His cert if 1 of pub convenience & not of the drivers convenience o Instead of suing, you ask for the name of the operator & act as if youre listing it down A1732: Engaged in the business of carrying or transporting If he didnt get CPC, its his prob & its a crime! US v Tan Piaco Cant put up the defense that one had no CPC The Q is WON he held himself out to the pub as engaged in the business of carrying or transporting o If he ds = CC Represents himself to the pub as engaged in the business of carriage

Ds it cease to be a CC when they fly one for free? Not meant to indicate that if not payment is collected that the transportation loses its charac as a CC It only means that the person/corps/firms/assoc has held himself out in this activity for compensation o Not for free or some charitable purposes WON he actually collects, whats impt is that he holds himself out to be dng such for money Ex) if the passenger dsnt pay & the jeepney driver jst winks & dsnt accept payment o Fact that he dsnt collect at that time, dsnt make the transport one of priv carriage, but still a CC o But if its continued for a long time, its no longer for compensation So at some pt, its possible that its no longer for compensation Ex) the jeepney driver waits for her everyday at the sme spot Contract ceases to be 1 of common carriage insofar as the 2 of you are concered o

6) Offering their services to the pub o What ds this mean? Wld this be the sme as pub offer of service or commodity in PU? o Do they refer to the same public? o PU: the principal determining charac is the service the ability or the offer to serve to the pub indiscriminately Such that anyone who wants to avail of the service can do so, if they refuse, exposes the PU to damages Is this the sme as w CC? o Public: gen prop or a segment of the pop to whom the offer is made The undetermined # of the body politic to whom the offer is made The offer being indiscriminate Hindi siya namimili Ex) bus or jeep Person shouting philcoa this is the offer When you ride/or do anything to convey that you want to go on board acceptance of the offer This ripens the relationship into 1 of contract Ex) taxi keeps gng arnd, no spcfc route, offers to anyone By dng this hes offering his service The moment a person stretches their arm to the taxi acceptance of the offer of the taxi Contract created

Discussion/Cases: Fabre v CA

Mazda minibus contracted for an excursion in La Union CC here bec law dsnt distinguish Q that confronts us is whether it was a CC in the 1 st place, since its business is to provide service to students from St Scho o Thus, is a sch bus service a CC? B4 De Guzman this was a real Q of law

But today, no moreit is bec the law dsnt distinguish under De Guzman

Was contracted for a spcl purpose & spcl passenger thus, it takes him out of the aspect of a CC

Discussion relating to Fabre: Is a sch bus service a CC? Assuming its a CC, it ceases to be a CC by reason of the fact that it has been spcly contracted o Home Insurance Co: a carrier, otherwise common, that has been spcly contracted to transport outside of the normal scope, his duty ceases to be a CC Its a spcl contract of priv carriage o Its outside the scope of his employment/service
Drilon 6

Can be done but contract is no longer 1 of common carriage Ex) taxi: you hail him & say take me to Baguio, ill give you 3M Ex) got to PAL & tell them to bring you to alaska! Ill pay you $1M = you charter it! Ex) taxi says pay me a fixed price o X a priv carriage but its a violation of the cond of the grant o Fact that he violates the law, dsnt turn the carriage into 1 of priv carriage o o o

US v Tan Piaco Defense: not a CC Ct: yes, not a CC bec not holding itself out to the pub as engaged in the business of carrying/transporting

Ruling has lost its effect bec of the De Guzman ruling (De Guzman is the law now)

Cant plead the defense of due diligence in selection & supervision of its EEs when a passenger is injured or goods are lost bec the liability of the carrier is contractual The nature & basis of liability of a carrier is contractual in nature not quasi-delictual o Therefore, this defense cant be raised/not matl bec such defense is available only if the carrier is just being sued as ER But SC said the liability of a carrier is direct & immediate and not subsidiary as an ER (bec in that case, its the EE whos negligent the tortfeasor, directly liable) QD A2176: EE is directly liable bec he caused the damage o ER is liable by reason of his being an ER by fiction under A2180 (vicarious liability/imputed liability) o If there was no A2180, ER wldnt be liable for tort o Ex) taxi o Ex) taxi o driver fell aslp & ran over a pedestrian QD/tort driver & ER is liable to the pedestrian driver, drunk, fell aslp, passenger dies Liability of the driver is on QD/criminal Bec driver isnt a party to the contract of carriage, thus not liable contractually Liability of the carrier will be on contract Lawsuit wld be against the CC as an obligor, in a contract of transport Can he raise the defense of due dil in selection & supervision of EEs? NO the diff btwn the sphere of liability of QD & culpa contractual? When the juridical tie begins Culpa contractual: when the contract is entered into Thus parties to the lawsuit alrdy know ea other prior to the incident wc gives rise to the COA Parties are bound by a rel on contract & alrdy know ea other Culpa aquiliana: when the injury occurs Dnt know ea other b4 hand Meet ea other bec of the accident Juridical tie is estabd at the precise moment that the COA arises o COA arises simultaneously In what way might these COAs be similar or share some common ground? Theres some confusion that arises in delimiting the sphere of liab in culpa contractual & acquiliana bec the same negligent act may give rise to an axn for culpa contractual or culpa acquiliana 1 act results in 2 COAs possible There is sme confusion bec sometimes the negligent act gives rise to liability wc merges into 2 spheres in concentric circles When the negligent act is done by 2 ppl itll never have a common ground/center
Drilon 7

Bascos v CA A: the duty of EOD reqs you to have a secu guard on the truck! Ct dismisses this argument, not for this sit Rem: diligence is a relative concept o CC says corresponds to the person, time & place o By the nature of the oblig: one of transport Milk: secu guard not needed Gold: secu guard needed! July 24 Nature & Basis of Liability Cangco v MRR

o o Whats o

Stepped on a sack of watermelons & lost his arm He alighted from a moving train ddnt come to a complete stop Filed a case for damages dismissed by the LC Defense of MRR: that they observed due diligence in the selection & supervision of EEs Fact that they exer due diligence in selection & supervision of EEs dsnt free them from liability since their liability is direct & immediate Bec oblig of MRR to Cangco arises from both QD & contract Contract of carriage: had the duty to carry him safely & provide safe means of entering & leaving the train What abt its obligs arising from QD what obligs ds MRR have? MRRs defense cant be raised defense of selection & supervision of its EEs SC said that the COA shld be based on culpa contractual o This is why the defense of due diligence in selection & supervision of its EEs o Bec the liability of the carrier under these circums is direct & immediate bec it is being sued as an obligor in a party in a contract of carriage & not as an ER Why is it that an axn of circums like Cancgo is against a carrier as an obligor & not as against the carrier as an ER? o Bec the liability of the carrier is direct & immediate

But liability overlaps when the negligent act gives rise to QD & contractual liability In Cango, in the EEs placing the watermelons on the platform Bec as a carrier, diligence reqd MRR to provide/ensure/maintain safely areas of ingress & egress MRR shldve forseen that by placing the watermelons there, some1 wldve gotten hurt

Injured passenger, instead of suing for culpa contractual, he chooses to sue for QD he can do this

Ct here dsnt talk abt EOD bec this case was in 1918 & the CC was introduced in 1950 So Ct just said that it was negligent conduct to place the watermelons on the platform 1st time Ct talks abt the extent/scope of the liability of the CC in ingress & egress So, if its EEs was negligent in placing the watermelons on the platform this can give rise to a QD as well o Such as if Cangco wasnt a passenger & was merely in the area o But since he was a passenger, its gives rise to culpa contractual

Case itself: cldnt deny that it was their bec jeep was named after them o Was asking for moral damages wasnt allowed by the CT o No proof of bf or fraud wc will justify moral damages Breach wasnt in bf o But asked for it still bec under A2219 (par2) moral damages may be recover in QD for phys injuries QD & culpa contractual cant be filed together bec of the essentially extra-contractual nature of quasi-delictual liability Neither can culpa contractual simultaneously embody tort bec the conds, defenses & proof are very diff from the reqd in QD

& 2nd QD is essential extra-contractual What ds the Ct mean in the diff in conds, defense & proof? o Conds: contractual just need to prove the contract & the breach & will be liable o Defense:
Culpa Contractual: EOD (excepting the exculpatory clauses)

Fores v Miranda Under the circums of this case, moral damages may not be recovered unless passenger has died or breach is committed in bf o Under law on damages: moral damages may not be recovered by a plaintiff party to a contract unless the breach is attended by bF o Moral damages cant be recover if the axn arises from culpa acquiliana o Spcl rule when the contract is 1 of carriage: Death allows the recovery of moral damages This is impt to the plaintiff, bec if cant recover moral damages why wld they still want to file suit? How much can they recover for actual damage?! So small!! Thats why moral damages is impt bec its in moral & exemplary damages that 1 can get lost o but if the axn is QD moral damages may be recovered if the plaintiff proves he suffers phys injuries Cangco has suffered phys inj, but the breach is not in BF o No bf, it was a pure accident neg is simple Can Cangco sue for damages based on breach for the contract of carriage & say that at the same time, hes suing for QD to recover moral damages? o NO, bec cant recover twice for the sme act/omission (A2177)

QD: Def has many defenses: o due dil in the selection & supervision of EEs Need to prove only the neg of the EE & the neg of the ER is presumed from the EEs negligent conduct o in violation of instructions of ER o outside the scope of the EEs fxn o Not my EE

*what abt the case Air France v Carrascoso?

Can 1 allege 2 COA in their complaint arising frm the same act he wants to include both COA bec he realizes that he cant recover moral damages, there being no bf on the part of the obligor cant plead 2 COAs in the sme complaint why? o Benefit on the axn of culpa contractual: he can rely on the presumption of neg & def wld have to plead & prove EOD So easier to win here But since the award here may not be enuf, may want to get moral damages

Ex) taxi driver raped & killed the passenger o You want to file a case for culpa contractual where tort/QD is simultaneously embodied o Complaint filed for culpa contractual, suing for damages: who do you include? Just ER If it was a QD axn, include the driver bec hes the tortfeasor o Do you allege neg? need this for QD but not if for contract o What abt the ER-EE rel? what abt lack of dil in selection & supervision? o Do we allege bf? If QD, not necessarybut if for contract allege this to get moral damages o To get exemplary do we allege gross neg? (reqd for QD) or do we allege contract breach by wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive & malevolent conduct? (reqd for contract) o Suppose that we include of all the above bec we want to include bth o Answer of Yellow Cab: Affirmative allegation: ds it plead EOD (yes bec basd on contract), what abt due dil in selction & supervision (yes, bec included QD) However, these defenses are expressly prohibited by law if the axn is based on contract Thus, defenses & claims may be on collision w ea other
Drilon 8

But ROC dnt prohibit a person from pleading more than 1 COA o In trial, wc neg is he gna estab for purposes of the contract or QD? o Counsel for def: are you proving the contract or QD? Bec if 1 or the otherthere are prohibitions Ex)cant raise due dil in selection & supervision in cases based on contract o Judge will also have a difficult time determining what really is the axn So how do we reconcile all of this w Air France? Air France shldve included the person who evicted him Air France is clearly a contract case o But smwhere the Ct says its a QD o But Carrascoso dsnt pursue it as a QD, his allegations are all on contract What abt cases where the Cts say the existence of the contract dsnt prevent the QD from happening? o Existence of a contract dsnt negate the QD o SIR: Air France says its a QD, it only recognizes that the incident giving rise to the breach is quasi-delictual in essence wc is negligence or faulty BUT it dsnt mean to say that you can pursue bth COAs Ex) A promised to deliver 100k roses to B on Feb 12, 2007 (time is of the essence in this contract bec needed for Vday) o A forgot & delivered only on Feb 15 - A is negligent o Is this negligence quasi-delictual? Yes..looking at A2176 o QD & fault or neg essentially occupy the sme space & time o In the law of torts, neg = QD o Thus As neg is QDbut the axn is contract o You make have QD or neg there, but the axn is based on the law on contracts So, a quasi-delictual act A tort may exist during the time that the parties are related by contract, but the fxn of this tort is to break the contract it dsnt give you a COA for tort but an axn for contractthe tort just broke the contract/its the breach SIR: cant file bth kinds of axn at the same time o Tort can exist in contract but only as the incident wc breaks the contract & grants you the COA for breach J Vitugs test: can be if the tort that happened during the existence of the contract, is of such a substantive & indep nature that it can give rise to a QD itself

Axns based on damages arising from a crime can suspend a crim axn if prejudicial Q is involved Sme crimes hav no civ liab (read R111,ROC) Indep civ axn (s3, R111) Moral damages not recoverable in crim axns unless law specifically provides o Ex) rap, seduction, abduction, libel

Classes of CC EOD: o Passengers: safety Instances of breach: Injured or death = presumption of neg o Goods: vigilance Loss Destruction Deterioration Rationale for EOD A1733 (memorize): o Nature of business o Pub policy Diff btwn EOD for passengers & goods: same but diff o Goods: vigilance! o Passengers: safety Are the 5 instances of breach exclusive? o What abt delay, contravention of tenor, downgrading (other incidents violative of the K)? o Only in the 5 instances will the presumption of N apply Presumption of N: o Passengers: will always be liable (CC) o Goods: exculpatory circums (A1734) Degree of diligence: o Passengers: no stip allowed o Goods: stip allowed Stip of amnt of damages o Allowed A1735: goods A1766: dsnt follow the GR that spcl laws govern gen ones July 31 Tricky issue is how A1734 works in an actual sit

July 27 Phil Rabbit v IAC *COA of the heirs of Pascua against Magune Sps: contract *COA of the heirs of Pascua against the driver (Manalo): QD or culpa criminal *COA against Phil Rabbit: QD *COA against driver of Phil Rabbit: QD or culpa criminal Cant recover more than the amnt of actual damages regardless of the # of cases filed Axns based on K catn suspend crim axns

If the CC is excused from liability under A1734 in a way that he dsnt even have to contend w the presumption of neg, how ds that work in the actual case considering that in presentation of E, claimant will go 1st? Ex) A v B case o A claims loss of rice Prayer: recovery of damages o B says the rice was lost due to a storm (A1734(1)) Prays for dismissal o When A presents & will probably rely on the presumption of neg & wont present neg = understandable bec presumption of neg is there
Drilon 9

since its difficult to prove neg bec in a case, how will a P prove the CC neg if he has absolutely no idea how the rice was handled? o You delivered the rice to the carrier, get a BOL & rcve rice at its destination & from time delivered & rcvd, no idea how it was handled This how will you prove neg? impossible to do so o But if defense pleaded is A1734, if def proves loss was caused by FE, case will be dismissed Effect of A1734 is initially to do away w the presumption of neg, such that if A has proof of neg, fact that a storm was the proximate cause of the loss, wont excuse him bec neg has attended the loss of the goods Back to the example: o If A just proves the contract & breach thereof by fact of loss o Def B proves storm (proximate cause), ddnt delay, exerd due diligence o A can now present rebuttal E except that E is limited to rebutting E presented by the defense (you cant add to what you presented) Can prove proof of neg if he has such proof? Why didnt he present it as E in chief o Def can now present sur-rebuttal E In a real sit, P wld present: contract, breach/loss, & if he has proof, neg o Bec possible that hes not relying on the presumption alone o Such that if B presents storm, no delay, due dil = then the def will also have to prove lack of neg or EOD

SIR: EOD dsnt always coincide from the time the vinculum juris begins o 1st there are diff time lines under the law o Duty to exer EOD dsnt begin until shipper has delivered the goods to the CC & unconditionally places it in his possession for transportation Cant be for other purposes Ex) storage, deposit, safekeeping Contract of transportation is consensual no need for forms/written agreements Ex) perfection of contract & duty begins at the same/almst at the same time o Go to LBC, to send a book to Virgil in Cebu Ok, but it can only be delivered tom & rcvd on fri, ok! You pay the fee & give the book to LBC = contract perfected & duty arose almst at the sme time o REAL CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE It reqs delivery for perfection unconditionally placed o Carrier has taken possession of it, such that for all legal intents & purposes, its duty has begun Contract perfected b4, but no delivery of goods yet o Here, only have a CONTRACT TO CARRY here o

Its an executory contract Duty dsnt begin until you make delivery

Duration of Extraordinary Responsibility Duty BEGINS When ds the duty of the carrier to exer EOD begin & end? o Begins when the goods are unconditionally placed in possession & rcvd by the carrier FOR TRANSPORTATION In respect to the time the contract if perfected is the duty to exer EOD start when the contract begins? o Depends: if the goods are placed in possession & rcvd by the CC Therefore, possible for it to begin at the same time Can the duty arise b4 the contract is perfected? Duty to exer EOD precedes? Possible o Ex) COD ill pay for the rice, when it reaches me in Cebu o Oblig of CC to observe EOD arises from what source of oblig? Contract! Therefore, the contact cant after the duty to exer EOD This implies that there MUST be a contract of transportation

Thus, talk of contract of carriage in 2 phases: o The executory contract (contract to carry)

The real contract

Possible for contractual rel to begin AFTER the duty to exer EOD? NO, contract cant arise subsequent o If no contract No duty to exer EOD Time when the duty begins contract shld alrdy exist! o Bec the liability of the carrier is contractual in nature Possible for contract to be perfected, appreciably ahead of the duty? YES o Ex) contract entered into Aug2 for shipment of future harvest on Aug 7 o Ex) book a tckt for HK today, but leave for Oct Duty to exer EOD dsnt begin until the goods are placed unconditionally in possession & rcvd by the carrier o Duty ends when the goods are delivered, actual or constructive, to the consignee or a person who has a right to rcve them

Duty ENDS Duty ends when the goods are delivered, actual or constructive, to the consignee or person who has a right to rcve Contract ends thru payment, rescission, condonation, voluntary session, etc o Any of the modes of extinguishment recogd in law Possible for duty to exer EOD ends, while contract is still alive? Yes o Ex) if parties agree to shorten the pd for exer of the duty Can stip that the duty ends earlier Ludo v Binamira: such a stip is valid Possible for duty to end at the sme time as the contract? Yes Possible for duty to end when contract has ended? o NO, bec liab of carrier is contractual in nature no contract, no liability Ordinarily, the duty ends when the contract ends Why do we need to know the time during wc the CC shld exer EOD? o this is the time during wc the CC shld exer EOD o impt to know it bec its only during this time that the presumption will arise upon loss, destruction or deterioration = presumption of neg to invoke the presumption, need to show the loss/destruction/deterioration occurred during the time the CC shldve exerd EOD o outside of this time, presumption wont arise if theres a contract alrdy, but no duty yet, can there be a breach? Yes o ex) if carrier refuses to rcve the goods breach of contract to carry

Compania Maritima
Drilon 10

lighter = small boats o used to transport the hemp from wharf 1 to anthr place where they wld be transferred to a bigger vessel it was waiting for the ship wc wld ship it to manila yes, there was still a duty bec it was a preparatory step to its shipment

APL v Klepper CC conts to have custody over the goods 2 ITEMS LIMITING THE AGREEMENT LIMITING LIABILITY: 1) Agreement that allows the carrier & shipper to stip on a standard of dil lower than EOD o Ordinary: this is the lowest level 2) Stip that dets the amnt that can be recovered Who solicits these agreements? o The carrier, bec favorable to him What reqs shld concur so that these agreements can be valid? o As to dil reqd: In writing Signed by shipper/owner He dsnt have to sign bec hes the one who solicits the agreement Valuable consideration other than the service rendered Reasonable, just, not contrary to pub policy A1745 o As to amnt of liability Reasonable & just Fairly & freely agreed on

Diff btwn baggage & goods: o Baggage wc the passenger brings w him when he travels Items passenger brings w him, consistent w temporary sojourn somewhere By custom & law, part of the transport paid for by the passenger Ex) ride a boat w ur suitcase o Goods: transported wo the passenger Ex) road a boat w a carabao need to enter into a sep contract for it to be carried Need a BOL (contract for transport of cargo or goods) Summary of rules wc apply to passenger baggage: o If w custody of the passenger: considered necessary deposits (A1998, 2000-2003) rules on deposit apply hand carried o If not w custody: Checked-in EOD applies Rules are the sme wrt to cargo or any other type of goods A1733-1753 Liability is greater since its in the custody of the carrier Consideration is still the ticket its still considered baggage Ex) A boarded a bus in Cubao bound for Pangasinan, bringing a bayong on the bus; he asked permission from the driver to put it under the drivers seat = says yes; passenger sleeps; when the bus stopped in Tarlac, everyone disembarked to eat; bus was locked; person opens the bus w a pick lock & takes the bayong o WON carrier is liable for the loss? o Its baggage in the custody of the passenger So det of liability will be made on the rules of deposit o Rules say depositary is liable for loss if robbery is attended by FE (w grave force, threats/etc) o Here, not liable bec no force merely used a pick-lock

Shewaram v PAL: Luggage erroneously sent to illgan = suitcase missing Camera & radio were missing from his suitcase Sued bec in the ticket it was stated that unless the passenger declares a higher value, liability of PAL wldnt exceed P100/tckt I: WON the stip was valid? NO Cant be presumed that he freely & fairly agreed to the limitation considering that it was written in such small letters Ong Yiu v CA Suitcase contained case docums & were lost Suitcase was sent erroneously to Mla PAL was only willing to reimburse P100 Ong Yiu claimed he wsnt bound Ds the Ct say WON the stip is valid? o Yes, said passenger is bound by it Ct justified Shewaram saying the factual circums then warranted such a ruling = bec printed really small wc impaired the way Shewaram took notice of the stip Here, the stip wsnt printed in the sme way = kahit papaano pwedeng pwede Passenger baggage

Aug 31 Common Carriage of Passengers When the law talks abt the nature & extent of resp o A1733 & 1755: we talked abt this in De Guzman v CA A1733: the common prov o Tells us why CC need to observe EOD A1755: repeats the proposition that CC shld observe EOD o Sir: its a peculiar way in wc the duty to exer of EOD is explained o Peculiar for carriage of persons only o This isnt the way EOD shld be exerd in the carriage of goods Meaning of EOD for persons v goods o Duty is the same but also diff o duty is the same in A1733 bec the law reqs EOD to be exerd regardless of the subj or obj
Drilon 11

But diff bec EOD for goods can be the subj of stip wrt the amnt to be recover Stip on the diligence reqd But for passengers, the CC & shipper, cant stip thru notices/contractual stips, etc cant stip that the carrier wont be resp for inj or death More explains in A1745 on stips wc are deemed unreasonable & contrary to pub policy Other diff is in A1755: (memorize)

o Airline case

Home Assurance case

The formulation or an attempt to define the meaning of EOD for carriage of persons Makes ref to a duty to carry the passenger safely, as far as human care & foresight can provide using the utmost dil of very cautious persons o *If sir asks abt inj or death, A1755 is a good start in explaining why your ans is yes or no It immediately conveys to the person checking that the student knows the law & knows what it means The cases: o Show that the Ct, when the CC was new, was grappling w the concept of this type of resp o Isaac v AL Ammen Ct talks abt the resp of carriers & this new law In carriage of passengers, once its been detd that hteres a K of carriage, when a person dies or is inj, a presumption of neg automatically arises regardless of the cause of the death or inj o Ex) passenger has a heart attack Notw/standing that its external, the presumption will attached o Ex) passenger on a boat is hit by lightning But the Ct makes the carrier presumptively negligent (alrdy think hes guilty) And you wait until they rebut this presumption by proving EOD o No such thing in carriage of goods

Plane crashed & the CA said the carrier isnt resp if the cause of inj or death is bec of defect in a mechanical part, wc has been purchased frm a reputable supplier Ex) bus purchased from Benz (reputable car manufacturer) o Brand new wc is gng dwn frm Baguio o Its 3 dys old o But during the descent it loses its brakes so the bus falls dwn in the ravine o The argument that you shldve checked the brake, reg check-up = isnt applicable obviously bec the bus is brand new So what maintenance will you have to do? What check shld be done? If case is filed against you, file a 3rd party complaint against the manufacturer But the passenger can say he dsnt care abt your K w the manufacturer CA made use of US Jurisprudence US law: If the inj is caused by an accident bec of defect in a part & its detd that the CC had a right to rely on the Co bec of its reputation, & therefore, cldnt be foreseen o This will be consistent w the dil reqd of it This rule ISNT good anymore based on the law & jurisprudence today o All defenses have been rejected to dont even try o Besides, in the case of passenger carriage, you have no say in what youre gng to ride But of course you have a right to rescind...you can just not take that transportation Esp in air carriage, bec you just sit there & you surrender yourself to the carrier Same rule applies in cases of ships or buses o So the law now is strict the law imposes on the carrier the oblig to carry the passenger safely to his destination Short of that, if inj or death takes place = the presumption attaches No amnt of defenses will rebut it

Landingin v Pantranco 2 girls board the bus of Pantranco to go to Baguio 1 of the many cases wc reach the SC w the same issue: o WON the CC can be held liable for the death or inj, caused by a mechanical defect Ex) broken cross joint; tire blowout This is usually FE All of these defenses have been rejected Ct said: CC shldve had the foresight to subj the means of conveyance for reg check-up etc o Bec of A1755 Theres a suggestion that this was priv carriage & not pub bec the bus was contracted for this particular trip Carrier commonly acting as a CC, it cant be subj to the rules on common carriage, when a spcl K has been entered into by the carrier & the passenger o No K of common carriage here

Landicho v BTCo Law is strict on the carriage of the passengers it disallows all defenses except for EOD Principle intro here: is that the carrier isnt an insurer against risks of travel Chickens brought on a bus Carrier isnt an insurer if the passenger falls asleep & falls & dies Necessito v Paras Mechanical defect defense = not allowed PAL v CA
Drilon 12

Shows that the oblig of the carrier to observe EOD is to be exerd in favor of the passenger ONLY o Bec its w him that the carrier has a K w So wrt Samson (co-pilot) who was injured bec of the aircraft accident, the carriers duty to him DSNT ARISE OUT OF THE K OF CARRIAGE o The carrier has a duty to him, but based on his K of employment o ER has the oblig to take care of its EEs But this dsnt mean that the law on carriage is stricter than the labor law bec even in labor law, the law is also construed strictly against the ER The liab of PAL isnt as carrier but as ER wc is spelled out in the K of employment & in the law (labor law) So the Ct has no business making reference to the duty of the carrier to exer EOD o Bec this is for passengers only Samson isnt a passenger but an EE So ds PAL have the oblig to observer EOD for tis other EEs? NO o The liab of the carrier is contractual in nature o Its also contractual but its the K of employment o So dnt use A1755 Theres no presumption of neg bec its a K of employment, not a K of carriage *Passenger: 1 who has purchased/entered into the K & at the time of inj or death is subj/entitled to the duty to exer EOD But here, the duty of EOD was extended by the Ct in favor of a non-passenger o The wearing of 2 hats is easy to explain as a matter of theory but in a real life sit can the carrier say magtiyaga nlng kayo kasi crew lang naman kayo My only oblig to you is to take care of you as EEs I dont care if youre hot! But the others are passengers so its diff o So its all the same but the treatment is diff o Therefore, its easy to justify why the Ct extended the standard

o Theres no presumption of neg So were introduced to diff types of persons who transact w vessels other than passengers wc leads to diff leg Qs o Ex) stevedores: arent passengers, theyre licensees (ppl permitted to board the vessel) = no A1755 o Ex) parents who just bring their kids on the boat = mere licensees No A1755 o Ex) guests: if a cruise ship docks in mla & invites mayor Lim for dinner on the boat & he goes If a fire takes place & Lim is injured the liab will arise from tort & not from K Not entitled to invoke A1755 Ex) Stow-aways o Carrier (boat) ddnt know some1 rode & hid in the lifeboat o Theres obviously no K of carriage o Ship leaves Mla for Cebu 2 hrs into the trip, he gets caught o What ds the ship do? It cant go to Mla to let him disembark Cant be thrown overboard o By practice, they cant do anything They can sue him for the amnt he shldve paid o Q is: whether this person, during the duration, after hes discovered what if something happens? Is he a passenger? Theres no K! o Only the stow-away has offered, but no payment = so no mtg of minds o If the boat sinks, can the heirs sue the carrier for damages? o Theoretically, they can bec the carrier isnt entitled to carry him o But ds the carrier have to follow A1755? o No law wc governs this rel o Is this a quasi-contract? Parties to it ddnt agree Theres no freedom to contract, no autonomy of will Napilitan lang o Might the liab arise from tort/QD? In wc case the duty is only ordinary

Ex) captain was drunk so the vessel hit an iceberg Passengers who are injured can rely on the presumption of neg In the same set of facts you have 2 standards of beh that you have to contend with o Passengers: will invoke - you have an oblig to observe EOD o Crew: you are reqd to observe ordinary dil So in prosecuting the case, the Ct cant put these 2 claims/2 sets of plaintiffs, using the same legal analysis Sulpico v CA The ruling here is not as easy to justify as PAL v CA Stevedores go on the ship to unload it They go on it & theyre exposed to toxic fumes wc results in the death of 1 person Ct made Sulpico liab The problematic part: they made him liab & made ref to EOD o But these stevedores arent entitled/cant invoke A1733, 1735, 1756

JAL v Asuncion

Ds the duty of the carrier to observe EOD (A1755), extend to checking the veracity of the passengers docums? o Rem: the law says carry the passenger as safely as far as human care & foresight can provide What abt immigration? Do you have foresight here? NO The liab of the carrier is to transport you frm origin to destination safely after that, carrier is no longer liable Asuncions were travelling frm Mla to LA o Had to stop-over in Japan o But they werent allowed to transit into Narita were denied a shore pass Reason for the denial of the shore pass is absolutely immatl
Drilon 13

Bec the immigration auth (of any country) have absolute auth to det admission o No COA whatsoever if they deny you entrance Was asking why in the US the discrepancy was accepted but in Japan it wsnt?! o Ans of JAL: I dont know! My duty dsnt extend to guaranty your entry to Japan Later said that JAL ddnt even assist them! o This cldve been argued that if JAL ddnt assist them, they really wldve landed in jail o But JAL showed that they dd extend assistance but the immigration auths really denied their entrance The power to admit or not an alien into the country is a sovereign act which cannot be interfered with even by JAL. This is not within the ambit of the contract of carriage entered into by JAL and herein respondents. As such, JAL should not be faulted for the denial of respondents shore pass applications. *there are other cases wc were just like this o Those in the CA were dismissed bec of this ruling o Since this case was decided, no lawsuits for detention The carrier ddnt have the oblig to pay for the Narita Airport Rest hse, bec they ddnt own it; whereas JAL owned the Hotel Nikko o When they checked-in they had 2 guards w them & then were charged the next day

Del

You trip in the parking lot Heres an inj that takes place subsequent to the K Is it w/in the duty? NO Bec the duty to exer EOD connotes/implies that the carrier has the ability to exer And here, the carrier cant say be careful! You might fall! o But if you were hanging on alrdy, then the jeep accelerates = then the duty has begun (Del Prado) So when ds it begin? o o o Prado v Meralco Ct said it had begun He was holding alrdy the street car slowed down but later on accelerated Ct says it alrdy begins bec, while the passenger has exposed himself to peril, the carrier has the duty not to exacerbate/expose him to more peril Carrier has the duty not to exacerbate the sit wherein the passenger exposes himself to danger Ingress (getting on) So if youre in a cab & youre stabbed, the duty has still begun (Maranan v Perez) Ex) if it was an airplane, when ds it begin? You check-in, show your tckt, passport, dnt see the plane, etc o Pre-departure terminal catches fire o Is this w/in the duty? Is the carrier liable? Ex) You checked in alrdy, you walk out of the bldg & cross the street & you walk towards the stairs gng into the plane then a car runs you over o What if theres a bus taking you to the plane? If youre on the bus, yes, bec youre alrdy under their custody o What if on the stairs gng into the plane, you slipped on a banana peel? o No Q, if youre inside the aircraftor if youre on the top step & 1 foot is in the door = it has begun Ex) boat: you get in a cab to go to North Harbor, get down & go to pier 4 o You get to pier 4, theres a gate, bldg & you see the boat o If smethng happens while youre outside the gate included? o What if youre inside the gate? o When you enter the gate, youre still far from the boat While wlkn towards the boat, w/in the gated area, you get hit by an EEs truck included? o You get on the platform/gang plank to get on the boat If youre on it alrdy, wlkn upif you fall from here Maybe this is alrdy included o But what if youre not on the platform yet, youre just falling in line? Theres a case of presentment o Its not just the existence of the K there must b proper presentment of the person itself Only cases wc give us an idea of the duration are: Del Prado & Cangco

DURATION OF RESPONSIBILITY: when the duty begins & ends for passengers Impt! Bec if inj or death takes place, during the time the CC is suppose to exer EOD, this is the only time the presumption arises o In goods: if the loss, destruction happens outside the duty, no presumption But theres no prov on this yet o Unlike goods, wc has a prov regarding duration o Theres a rule wc dets & defines the duration But theres none wrt passengers But impt to know this! Cases show that if the person is no longer a passenger, then the duty to exer EOD dsnt exist So in theses cases, the CC says they were no longer passengers o Ex) Aboitiz Shipping Corp v CA: He was no longer in our custody, so we no longer had a duty Passenger: no! theres a duty still So here, theres a det of whether a person is passenger or not When ds it begin? Ex) if buy tckt 2day, but carriage is on Xmas day still no K yet Ex) board a jeep in Asian Center & when you get out frm class, your still in the parking lot you see the jeep & you run towards it o The driver has seen you o So you have the K o But youre still far from the jeep = 10-15m o But there are also other students coming out frm the other bldgs, so you ran so youd get a seat

Cangco
Drilon 14

The oblig of the carrier, extends to the duty to keep ingress & egress safe Cangco stepped on a sack of watermelons = egress If this was a boat o The carrier has the duty to keep the ingress & egress safe (safe = meaning prevent injury to the passenger) Ex) MRT: the train is on the 65th floor use the stairs o You buy a tckt, you insert it in the machine & get it o Ds the machine sep you from the start of the duty o What abt ingress & egress? o Sidewalk is alrdy part of the ingress is this included? o Guards search you b4 you get your tckt isnt this alrdy part of the duty? Bec theyre exer auth over you alrdy? Sir: no, bec theyre not inspecting you for the purpose of ingress or egressbut rather, theyre inspecting you for bombs Ex) bus terminals o (ex. if youre boarding along EDSA) If you fall in a manhole, the carrier has no duty to keep you safe from that! o But its diff it youre in a terminal bec they operate it

Sept4 Bataclan: doctrine of the proximate cause o Is it the neg of the dirver? Is it the spilling of the gasoline? Is it bec ppl approached to help w torches? Even if they smelled the gasoline? Is it the fact that the torches came into contact w the gasoline? o Wc is the proximate cause? o SC gives us the doctrine/defn of the proximate cause as the natl & continuous seq uninterrupted by intervening cause w/c produces the event Carriage of goods: duty arise at the time the goods are rcvd by the carrier from the shipper What abt w passengers? When ds the duty end? o Aboitiz & La Malloraca: gives an idea of when it ends o The duty conts until after the lapse of a reasonable time, for the passenger to retrieve his belongings, notw/standing that he has arrived at his destination La Mallorca Family travelling by bus & asked the bus to allow them to disembark somewhere along the highway The family disembarked dad brings the fam across the street Dad returns to get his bayong wc they left

The CC strictly speaking wld only be free from liab by reason frm the K of carriage, coz can still be held liable on tort o Difference: in 1 theres a presumption there shld be rebutted & standard of diff is EOD while in tort, no presumption & standard of dil is lower In this case, difficult for the Cts to just dismiss the complaint bec our Cts are plaintiff frndly o Cts will actually try to formulate a rule to justify an award, kasi kawawa naman the family! Ct: CC is liable, Raquel was still a passenger/retained the status of such, notw/standing that she arrived at her pt of destination, she has disembarked & still left the premises o She was outside of the premises, pub as it may be o The dad even deposited them at a safe place from a highway o These things are impt bec it signifies the end of the K Ct says, yes, they might have arrived & disembarked but the K of carriage hasnt terminated jst bec the passenger has arrived It lasts after the lapse after a reasonable time given to the passenger to retrieve his belongings = this is the reasonableness o Reasonableness to be in the premises of the carrier There is a test of reasonableness that must be addressed: o Reasonableness as to why hes still there (Aboitiz & La Mallorca) Prob w this case: it wsnt Raquel who went to retrieve the belongings o It was the dad! If the dad was the 1 hurt, then the rule can apply o In fact, Raquel just followed her dad unknown to the dad o But the Ct mustve looked at the sit as the belongings belonging to all of them *note: La Malloca, Aboitiz (even if the guy had let alrdy for an hour & then returned) These are premises NOT under the control of the CC, so you have to think of the custody of the person o So you can argue wrt the vicinity (esp w buses) o So its no excuse that the fact that the passenger has embarked at a pub place, not under the control of the CC, if the CC has allowed the passenger to embark at a dangerous place this is contrary to its duty to exer EOD o No Q if its the CCs premises o US case: passenger allowed to disembark at a sidewalk wc was covered w ice & the passenger slipped = CC held liable Note: but its not the duty of the CC to shovel the snow or check if theres no ice PAL v CA Zapatos frm Cebu gng to Cotabato Route of the plane: cebu ozamis cotabato cebu Wsnt able to land in ozamis coz rains flooded the runway The obligor is ready to comply w his prestation/oblig = to transport the oblige to Ozamis but FE intervenes wc prevents him from fulfilling his oblig o Classic illustration how FE affects or impacts on the perf of obligs o A1174: fxn/effect of FE = frees the obligor from responsibility
Drilon 15

Ct: fact that they disembarked isnt the end of the K of carriage duty lasts until the passenger is given reasonable time to retrieve their belongings Bus starts moving, then stops it had run over his daughter Raquel I: WON the CC is liable Defense: not liable bec at the time of the death, she was no longer a passenger so complaint shld be dismissed

Whats the effect of FE on the oblig, in respect of its integrity = meaning to deliver it completely? The prestation cant be fulfilled o In a K of transport, PAL by no fault of its own, cant comply w its duty o So whats the effect of FE? Bec Zapatos paid for the tckt? Is the K rescinded? If the oblig to do cant be perfd bec of FE, whats its effect on the K? is it rescinded? Look at the effect of FE on obligs to do! Can rescind, if they agree to do so o But! the duty of the carrier is to transport him to ozamis, at the time of the FE exist o PAL had partially complied bec they were really gng to bring him but FE happened The oblig to do is merely suspended by reason of the FE bec once the FE ceases, you hve an oblig to transport again So they land in Cotabato Ex) sirs experience was gng to Tacloban, cldnt land so they went to Cebu o Sir wanted to disembark can he do that? Theres no law saying you cant If they say you cant, thats illegal detention o In such a sit, how ds the law treat the rights & obligs of the parties in such a case? Ex) sirs other experience gng to Cebu o Plane abt to leave being towed to the runway o Woman at the back of the plane starts shouting sandal lang! para! Para! hindi ako papuntang Cebu! Papunta akong davao! o Ds the CC have the oblig to stop & let her disembark? Or keep gng? Airlines make money by flying these planes gta keep flying to make money So if the flight is delayed o Ds the CC have a choice? The obligee wants to rescind! o They sold the seat! But shes gng to Davao & the plane is gng to Cebu o Flight attendant looks at her boarding pass & tckt = all of them show Cebu Plus if she wsnt suppose to be there, there wldve been a prob w the seating o Plane stops, flight attendant talked to the pilot, etc o Plane allowed her to get off so delayed by 30 mins (bec she disembarks & has to let her stuff off) o Had to unload bec creates a secu prob if they check-in bags & the passenger isnt onboard o In a sit like this, its the pilot who decides o When leaving agn starting to take off then some1 shouts! Binaba nyo nab a hand carry niya?!? o What oblig ds the airline have to the passenger when she wanted to disembark? What abt after she disembarks? o Can she rescind the K in the tckt ofc & say that she really wanted to go to davao dont know coz no laws on this Zapatos: understood that you cant transport me to ozamis, can you jst bring me to Cebu? o

PAL: no, bec the flight is full there are ppl waiting that plane to go to Cebu So hes stranded in Cotabato I: WON the CC had the oblig to provide him w accommodations, at the time he was stranded o CC is unable to comply bec of FE, so ds the CC have the oblig to provide you w accommodations Ct: yes! Basis averts to the fact that the CC has the duty to exer EOD o And says simplistically that as long as the passenger hasnt arrived at his destination, CC has the duty to still exer EOD SIR: WRONG!!! Why? o Tho the GR is that CCs duty dsnt cease until passenger arrives & retrieves its belongings, it assumes that the CC has the ability to exer EOD & capable of fulfilling its oblig Duty to exer EOD means that the passenger is under some kind of control over the authorities of the CC o It assumes an ability on the part of the CC to restrict the passengers ability to move to a significant degree o Ex) fasten your seatbelts, all passengers are asked to return to their seats, service on board this flight will be suspended This is how the CC is able to exer some degree of control over the passenger o Rem: Ludo case CC & shipper agreed that the duty to exer EOD wld be shortened, such that once delivered to the custom auths, no more duty = Ct said stip was valid bec not unreasonable for CC to stip on the duty to exer EOD, esp when it has no longer control over the goods o When the CC no logner has control over the goods/passengers, it can no longer exer the duty o Duty to exer EOD, implies an elem/degree of custody & cant be used to judge the CCs liab if the CC is under no circum able to comply PAL cldnt have exerd any control over Zapatos once they got to Cotabato Ex) if Zapatos gets a girl to massage him & she stabs him. Heirs sues PAL o IF WE FOLLOW THE RULING OF THE CT in PAL v CA, they can bec its a breach of PALs duty to exer EOD bec the moment theres death or inj, the CC is presumed to be in fault/neg o SIR: of course not! PAL cant be blamed for its inability to bring him to his destination bec FE intervened

If the defense of the CC is NEVER FE, the defense is EOD!!! But here, the defense is FE bec this isnt an inj or death case it was a case to explain the reason why it cldnt comply w its oblig To make PAL liable in this case, is actually to punish PAL from complying w its duty to exer EOD o Bec PAL cldve landed in Ozamis, but the duty to exer EOD prevented it from landing bec it wld expose its passengers to danger

JAL v CA Agana: accdg to PAL v CA the duty of the CC dsnt terminate until the passenger arrives at his destination and they were still in Narita when he was gng to Mla o Therefore, JAL shld pay for my accommodations
Drilon 16

Ct: said that PAL v CA is inaccurate o Then explained bec of FE A1763 in case of strangers

*exams: propose an equivalent to A1736 to define in law the duration how do you make a A1736a to allow a prov for passengers PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE FE as a defense = this is NVR a defense A1756: presumption can only be rebutted by proving EOD Good example bachelor Bachelor Express v CA In a case like this, the presumption of neg will automatically attach bec there are no exceptions Will only be rebutted by proving EOD Cc: the running amuck of a passenger is FE o Sorta right coz no1 can foresee that a passenger will run amuck

FE: not in itself a complete defense, still need to prove EOD to prevent or minimize the loss A1763 in case of a co-passenger

Ct: yes, its FE but your defense is FE but EOD NOTE: But many times the fact of FE is E of EOD (ordinarily FE can be constitutive of EOD) o Rem: EOD is a conclusion of law o In case of goods: ask if you exerd due dil b4, during & after the storm Tan Chiong v Ynchausti: illustrates what facts needs to be proved to show the CC exerd EOD HERE, FE cant be used as E of EOD CC fell short of its duty bec: o Wsnt equipped the reqd # of doors o Running at a fast pace If not, the CC cldve stopped right away & allowed passengers to disembark & prevent death These indicated a breach of its duty Duty to exer EOD in a case of inj or death caused by a co-passenger

Pilapil v CA: Inj or death caused by a stranger o Some1 outside, a 3rd party, to the K of the CC A rock was thrown at ht ebus Contrast Bachelor & Pilapil bth are FE cldnt be forseen o Bachelor: CC is liable o Pilapil: CC isnt liable o Ct used the SAME LAW IN BTH CASES What is the real standard? So what ds A1763 really tell us? Ds it prevent ordinary dil? Pilapil v Ca Ordinary diligence Injury A. 1763 Bachelor Express v CA EOD Death A. 1755, 1756

Responsibilty for acts of Ees: CC is ALWAYS LIABLE o Regardless of the reason wc caused the inj/death o if intentional = CC liable o if neg = CC liable CC is liable EVEN IF: EE acted beyond their scope of their auth or in violation of its orders/outside the scope of his duties o Why? Bec the specifically prevents the CC from raising these defenses o Theyre liable for these injuries & CC cant raise the defense of due dil in selection & supervision of the EE Why ds the law prevent the CC from invoking these defenses? o To highlight the fact that the liab of the CC is contractual in nature o And these defenses, are defenses available to the CC under QD (A2180) Can a CC be held liable for an EEs act when hes no longer on duty? o Duty means that the EE has something to do or has an effect on its performance o Can the CC just say hes not on duty!?! o NO! bec theres a diff btwn a tort (ER/EE) and contractual (ER/EE) o In a K of transportation, its the EE who moves/ds the K performs the K for the ER o How can the EE cause the inj if he wsnt on duty?!? Silly! Sir blves this cant be a defense o Except maybe if the EE is a passenger, then maybe the CC can use the defense that hes not on duty o If the EE wsnt on duty & had nothing to do w the perf of the K, then the CC can put up the defense of A1763 (resp for acts of strangers or co-passengers) How do you reconcile De Gillaco & Maranan? o Consider the fact the law changed over time Effect of Contributory Negligence o Nothing! It merely mitigates under A1762 D. DAMAGES RECOVERABLE FROM COMMON CARRIERS Law on Damages: scheme on presentation on proof of fact reqd for recovery on particular types of damages, depending on the COA alleged
Proof of facts reqd to be shown, in order to claim particular damages/ the law says diff things depending on the COA you allege & prove in order to get damages COA Contract QD QuasiDelict/Crimes Law contract DAMAGES Actual Moral Need to prove phys inj Need to prove concubinage, abduction, seduction, rape, acts of lasciviousness = specific crimes (A2219) Drilon 17

Nominal Temperate Liquidated Exemplary

Prove of fact of gross neg Need to prove 1 or more aggravating circums

For transpoonly look at contract!!! Were talking abt damages arising from breach of CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE (not all contracts) Axn will always be on breach of the K of carriage Theoretically, all these damages may be recovered when theres a breach o Only need to prove that facts necessary to entitle you to such damages COA Contract DAMAGES Actual Moral Nominal Temperate Liquidated Exemplary Actual or Compensatory Damages For pecuniary loss (damnum emergens) and lost profits (lucrum cessans) Actual pecuniary loss in the concept of damnum emergens: o Youre talking abt money in your pocket that you were forced to disgorged/money youve been keeping but forced to disburse you bec the obligor ddnt comply w his oblig = so you end up spending o Ex) painter whos suppose to paint your hse for 100k disappeared so you had to get anthr painter who costs 120k so forced to cash out 120k = lugi ng 20k o Ex) breach of K In cases of inj: expenses for betadine, plaster, gauze, antibiotics = medical expenses Lost profits (lucrum cessans): o The opposite o Its money not in your pocket, but it wldve been in your pocket if it wsnt for the breach of the obligor Ex) Pangans claim in Pan-Am v IAC Pan-Am breached the K by delaying the delivery of the film but by that time, the festival was over so ddnt show the movie Lost money from sales of tickets Interest: recoverable in law as actual damages Attys fees: recoverable in law as actual damages o BUT to recover this, need to allege & prove 1 of the grounds enumerated in law to get attys fees (it ds to the client) Carriaga v LTBC Lost income bec of the neg of the CC accident where he suffered head injs

as good as dead bec of the breach of the K of carriage I: WON income cld be recovered. o income is recoverable by law prob w this case is he had no income at this time bec he was a med student Ct: justified giving income by saying were it not for the breach, he wldve become a doctor & then earned income o If follow this: can argue that his income cldve been unimaginable!?! There was some nexus that deems to be estabd btwn your earning income & where you are at the time of the accident o So can we apply this rule to you? o Wellwell check your grades! = this is what the Ct is saying This was a Q of fact in the case: wld he hve become a doctor? o You have to prove this! it cant be speculative! o The premise & the conclusion is so far apart And yet the Ct said its allowed bec there was a reasonable probability that he wldve become a doctor Ct used A2201: o Most breaches are in GF o The breach of a K is presumed always to be in GF, so that the breach is in BF duty on the P to prove that it was in BF o GF & BF of the obligor changes the pic/the dynamics in the claim for damages GF: always rewarded BF: always punished

Carriaga & Villa Rey: Speaking of carriage of passengers & det of WON they can recover lost income is based on A2201 Damages is the burden of the plaintiff 2 things: o The damages msut be the natl & probable consequence of the breach o Wc the parties wldve foreseen If ddnt seen it thru their own 2 eyes, can stll recover so long as it cldve reasonably foreseen at the time of the K These 2 things also applied in Pan-Am (A2201) Carriaga: was it a natl & probable consequence of the breach & cldve been forseen? o Cld the bus have foreseen that if they gt in an accident, hed be liable for lost profits of Carriage who cldve been a doctor? He ddnt say im gng to be a doctor! etc Or if he was hanging a stethoscope on his neck Maybe in this case = you probably cldve said he cldve foreseen o If you were wearing a shirt saying UP Law maybe you can say the bus cldve foreseen it o No Q if youre a doctor or lawyer alrdy o Law says that if you have no income at the time of inj = no lost income, cant recover o Carriage is somewhere in btwn the homeless man & a lawyer
Drilon 18

Pan-Am: Ct said cldnt recover income he wldve earned if the CC ddnt breach o If the CC timely delivered the film o But since the CC breached, by not delivering it on time There was no natl & probable consequence in this delay o Ct: you cldve recovered it if you called the attn of the CC to the spcl circums, requiring the delivery at a certain date Here, the damages wldve been a natl & probable consequence of delay in delivery o Ct is very strict w the standard! Ex) foresaw/cldve been foreseen o 1M roses order from Baguio on Feb 12 & it was delivered on Feb 15 o Cld the carrier in baguio foreseen that delay wldve been a natl & probable consequence of a breach? Of course! o Surely it was a commercial transaxn & time was of the essence in this K = naghahabol ng valentines day So how do you reconcile Carriaga & Pan-Am? o Carriaga: law is liberal when it comes to passengers Passenger carriage: liberally apply the rule in A2201 in favor of the presumption that normal human beings are gng to earn a living or earning a living o Pan-Am: law is strict when it comes to goods Carriage of goods: rule in A2201 is construed strictly No Q if you have a job! o Net income x life expectancy (Am expectancy table of mortality) o Computation is found in PAL v CA & Villa-Rey v CA

Damnum emergensactual receipts of actual expenses Can only recover the amt actually lost o Lucrum cessans Show by scientific methodology To take it out of the R that says that damages to be recovered are SPECULATIVE If Ct will estimate, Ct will become temperate/moderate o Lost income/profitshow some scientific formula Lucrum cessans Provide the Ct some guidance in its detn Usu the P asks for moral rather than actual damages Usu the amt to be asked (primarily) is limited by 1s abil to pay filing fee

MORAL DAMAGES Non-monetary factors:

1) Soc standing of the Pmust be alleged in the complaint and proved in trial o higher soc standing = higher recovery o POLICY: Concept of moral damages is NOT to indemnify (only to actual damages) but to provide the P w/ reserves to allow him to soothe, assuage, cure, mollify the moral damage besmirched rep, fright, anxiety, mental anguish

to FORGET the incidentso that anguish will go away

Violn of priv rtsaxns ex contractu Crimescan recover moral damages o Ct very stingy in awarding moral damages in crimes o In 1 case, recovery of moral damages, stand: P30k o But if vics minor, moral damages raised to 50k o Moral inj in rape v. breach of CCincomparable 2) Must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted (Rodriguez v. RCPI)

PAL v CA Argued that: life expectancy shld be based on the life expectancy of the deceased or beneficiary, wcever is shorter Has basis in law The rule PAL cites is mentioned in Villa-Rey But Ct said no, its based on the life expectancy of the deceased not the life of the beneficiary Sept 10 Moral Damages

Cases: Paid for a 1st Class Breach(Air Franc,e Lopez, Fores cases) o MORAL DAMAGES arent recoverable but in these cases, the breach is attended w/ BF

Fores v. Miranda: GR: not recoverable in breach of C o Except: 1) If passenger died 2) Breach is attended w/ BF/fraud Breach of contract of carr of PASSENGERS o if passenger died by reason of breach: no need to consider WON the braech is attended w/ fraud/BF if passenger didnt die: o no award unless breach is committed w/ fraud/BF If carr of GOODS: o no recovery unless w/ BF/fraud

BF in Lopez Case: Pan Am still gave the tix even though they knew they didnt have the tx for the Lopezs Ortigas Case: 1st class tix case againBF of Lufthansa airline = continuous misrepn Air France Case: Disc of BF vis--vis QD and Breach of contract WON P entitled to recover on acct of BF breach o But the complaint didnt allege BFhence P couldnt prove BF

How much can u recover?

ACTUALlaw requires proof of pecuniary loss

SC: but the TOTALITY of averments indicate BFwrongful expulsion of Mr. Carrascoso fr his seat
Drilon 19

PAL v. Miano: BF in carr of goods Cathay Pacific v. Vasquez: Business to 1st class tixsued for breach of contract TC: millions of damages CA: Damages reduced Cathay Pacific v. CA: under limitation of liabamt of liab

pg 12when limitations unavailable SC: Reversed: There is breach cause they picked bus class and refusal to give such o but theres NO INJ (damnum absque injuria) breach alone doesnt result/give rise to a COA o in upgrading, theres no inj FOR SIR: Breach + inj = COA

SC: Theres breach cause should be treated w/ respect o Ex of EOD o Breach isnt in carr of goods (coffin) but contract of passenger o Rude treatment to the heirs SC: At the time they were insulted, they were no longer passengers o They werent retrieving baggage but PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE GOODS = consignee Was that breach? SIR: Absolutely not

Insult to consignee isnt breach, tort pwede pa! Dont rely on EOD consignee not entitled to EOD SC inquired into Qs of fact Our J: P-friendly

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES Cant be recovered unless breach is attended by wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive/malevolent manner (breach of contracts) o WFROM How do u know its attended w/ wanton, fraudulent, etc? 1) Wanton? Sobra na, no longer neg 2) Q: If theres moral/fraud in moral, is it nec that exemplary is also recoverable cause its fraudulent? 3) Reckless? Mas grabe na neg 4) Oppressive? Mapang-api

Agana Case: JALstranded cause of Mt Pinaubo Case JAL has no oblig to do that SC awarded nominal damages cause passengers were treated rudely Savellano v. Northwest Airlines: not the fault of Northwest cause loss of luggage wasnt proved but SC thru Panganiban, modified and awarded nominal damages (P150k) SIR: Its not nominal na cuase malaki nay un!

USNaritaMnlaSeoul (not stipulated on)US

5) Malevolent? Summa cum laude of all thesemay evil

Exemplary not easy to recover or as a judge u cant easily grant to create example meant to be a lesson for the pub good Mecenas v. CA: Capt of vesselvessel is on the risk of collision, Capts playing mahjong SC: Exemplary damages recoverable NOMINAL DAMAGES damages in name only Alitalia; JAL, etc: SC doesnt want to award actual damage cause theres none

Alitalia case: But exemplary damage is recoverable cause of the delay in deliv of baggae w/c resulted in failing to deliv a lecture in Italy o SC no actual damage cause goods werent lostneed to vindicate rt Hence, nominal damages recoverable

Saludo Case: Consul will manually, hermetially seal the coffin

Sept 11 OVERLAND TRANSPORT Code of commerce used to be the repository of all laws of a commercial nature o Code of commerce applies if: If they pertain to the transport of goods of a commercial or merchantable nature or quantity (its for sale or for profit & regardless of the nature of the goods being transported); or If the transport was undertaken by a CC If the cc is habitually engaged in carriage or transporting So in Common Carriage, there are 2 laws governing o Code of commerce & o CC provs of CC By virtue of provs of A1766: the CC provs on cc will apply over the Cde of Commerce if bth govern CC: In matters not governed by this code, the code of commerce & spcl laws applies o So code of commerce applies on in default o So if its provs were relevant to a given sit, & CC provs are also relevant apply CC 1st then CodCom 2nd o In case of conflict (bt theres really none) the provs of CC will prevail Code of Commerce provs refers to 2 things: Overland transport Oversea transport/law on maritime transport or admiralty Overland transport
Drilon 20

Coffin loaded earlierSC: not breach cause itll make sure that itll be loaded to PAL o But shipment was w/drawn and shipped to Mexico City NOMINAL DAMAGES recoverable cause TWA rudely treated Crispinas heirs

Applies to all transport on all transpo over land or over bodies of water that arent very large This defn shows that the CodCom is concerned w size San Pablo v Pantranco: o Ct was concerned w size o Q was WON the san bernardino straight cld be considered as part of the highway/if it cld be considered as overland o On whether Cardinal Shipping cld object to the purchase of Pantranco of the Black Double to Ferry its buses & passengers o Ct: objectionable if it wasnt a ferry crossing (meaning its coastwise), but not if it was over small bodies of water Ex) San Janico Straight = ferry crossing San Bernardino straight = wsnt ferry crossing but was coastwise It includes transpo over bodies of water nt very big (seas, oceans, etc) o If the body of water was big, then it wld alrdy be maritime alrdy Transport over certain bodies of water arent maritime but are overlands o Ex) canals, rivers, smaller lakes (ex. sampaloc lake in san Pablo, taal lake), streams, bays, Transport of goods over land will show principles almost identical w those w alrdy talked abt

24hrs is a reasonable pd given to the carrier so that hell have an opp to det how the goods were lost or damaged, who might have participated in the handling of the goods & take remedial measures for the recover of the goods lost or damaged Ex) federal express: 1 of the worlds largest air carrier of goods (fedex) If you rcvd goods from them & you take delivery of such & you open them to find that the shipment is missing a part

Certain provs in the Code of Commerce:

Ex) obligs of the cc wrt the goods; CodCom dsnt speak of EOD (this is only in the CC), but it rather, dsnt mention any type of dil but a standard of care the carrier shld exer over the goods o No presumption of negligence Duty of the carrier to transport the goods & deliver to the consignee & what liabs the carrier will face if they dnt deliver or short-deliver (air transport: short landing) Rights & obligs of the shipper/consignee: o ex) oblig to pay freight o right to sue for damages in the case of short landing/short delivery of goods o A366: corresponding oblig of consignee to file a claim w the carrier/give notice of the claim to the carrier w/in 24 hrs w/in rcpt of goods if defect isnt apparent from the goods from the time of delivery if apparent at the time of delivery, shld make a claim right then & there o effect of failure of shipper/consignee to give notice = is to defeat a COA the req of notice is a cond to the accrual to a COA on damages a claim for damages filed w the Ct for short landing may be the subj/obj of a MTD under R16, on the ground of failure to comply w a cond precedent cases: Ct has explained why this is a strict cond o the 24 hr req isnt an empty formalism it has a reason

ex) bought a laptop from Toshiba who sent it to you, but when opened, the screen is broken axn may be against Toshiba or fedex say fedex here you wait 10dys to let F know abt the damage = itll be impossible for F to det who caused the damage! How will it det wc of its personnel had contact w the goods when, where cant expect F to keep records of wc EEs had contact w the goods None of these Cos like F, dnt keep extensive records such as this They sys of Cos like this, will most certainly crash if they keep such data in their sys bec of the They will purge the data on the delivery 48hrs after the delivery and when purged, cant be retrieved So cant go to them 10dys later & expect them to det who/when/where mightve been resp Reasons for loss vary o But the the highest percentage of cause of loss, of goods shipped is pilferage! By EEs or agents of the Cos So if you dnt give notice w/in 24hrs, difficult for the carrier to det whos resp The 24hr pd dsnt matter to the volume of the goods rcvd this req goes way back! *When we talk of the Warsaw Convention: o Law wc applies to Ks of intl transport by air/air transport for hire o Theres also a pd w/in wc notice shld be made if youre goods have been lost or damaged Pd is longer than 24hrs o Ex) the fedex example o Effect of failure to give notice is identical w that provided in the CodCom = results in the none accrual of the axn *other spcl law: Carriage of Goods by Sea Act o Theres also a pd o When this law applies (applies in commercial intl transport of goods by sea), BUT the effect is diff o It dsnt result in a loss of a COA Why? Dnt know CC: theres no notice prov

Bill of Lading

Name given to a K of carriage of cargo Whether perfmd by land, sea or air Savellano case:
Drilon 21

Ct tackled the resp of TWA under the BOL/air way bill, the loss relating to BOL are the 1s applied by the SC Bec a K of carriage of goods & a consignee is identified in the law as a BOL By usage, if the carrier is an airline, it has come to be known as an air way bill BOL: shows the parties to the K of carriage o May not say BOL o But a trad BOL says BOL on top o Shows/contains: o 1st identifies the parties to the K Shipper: person who sends the goods Consignee: person who rcves the goods Consignee & shipper can be the same person Ex) sir boards the super ferry from Mla to Cebu, brngs a laptop & balikbayan box & luggage o But if he brings a cow, cant put in the boat as baggage or handcarry o Its cargo, so the boat will issue him a BOL o He has to enter into a K for it to be shipped hes the shipper & consignee o Description of whats being shipped o Valuation of the goods Normally, they ask how much the goods cost bec the freightage of the goods depends on the valuation of the goods If no valuation, sometimes the freightage depends on the weight but this isnt considered the valuation V is impt bec the carriers liab is limited on the amnt appearing on the BOL Can be indicated on the BOL Shipper may agree not to be bound by the valuation Carrier may accept the valuation youve given, bt he can impose addtl freightage W the addtl freightage they collect from you, they buy insurance Such that if the goods are lost, they can turn over the liab on the insurer & they can pay you the higher amnt o Back contains the stips agreed on In carriage by sea: o Will indicate the vessel on wc the cargo was put Usually in triplicate o Its produced in several copies o Original: given to the consignee Bec it what he needs to claim the cargo Today, carriers dnt really rely on this rule o Theyll usually req an i.d. from the person Esp if its C.O.D. o Laws on BOL: delivery wont be made to the person, if the copy of the BOL isnt w the person who shld be in possession of such copy Ex) person in japan shipping 100cars in the Phils o Consignee is Mr Matsonubu

So sir will send the BOL to Mr M So that when the vessel arrives, Mr M will show his copy of the BOL wc shows his auth to rcve the cars & is an order of the carrier to deliver the cars to Mr M o *so it works like a NI Ex) check payable to cash, can transfer it from 1 person to anthr, & whoever presents it to the bank will rcve the money bec its payable to bearer BOL wrks the same way o Mr M whos in possession of the BOL, wo waiting for the goods to arrive, Mr M can in fact alrdy sell the goods the buyer can buy the car based on the BOL & present such to the shipping authorities The BOL is your auth to rcve it & is an order on the shipping authorities to deliver it to you PROVIDED, its a negotiable BOL BOL can be to bearer or to the order or to the order of ____ This is why the CodCom makes the carrier liab for any delivery to a person not in possession of the BOL o This happens nowadays, bec theres no strict compliance w these rules anymore o No1 ds this anymore, bec carriers take this risk bec if they dnt take this risk, youll go to anthr Co to do have your goods shipped Rem: carriers are there to make money & not to propagate the safety of the goods to the consignees o They even have studies on how many of their shipments are lost thru misdelivery, since not too much, dnt follow the rule anymore o In the US: they even leave it on your doorstep o Phils: dnt deliver to your doorstep A Negotiable BOL = ISNT a NI bec dsnt contain a sum certain in money o Wc is why its not NI o Under Sales its called a Negotiable Docum of Sale o o BOL of b4 o Said BOL o Then on the blanks it was written both in Eng & Spanish

ADMIRALTY & MARITIME COMMERCE B. Vessels: Lopez v Duruelo Wrt to vessels, the law is again concerned w size Vessels of minor nature are governed by the CC If larger, governed by the CodCom Vessels has a peculiar status: o A case may be filed against the vessel itself in cases where theres an attempt to attach the vessel known in maritime law as arrest of the vessel o Ex) vessel is docked in the Phils & it has a claim it shld pay; so you file w the Ct to restrain the vessel from leaving = you put the vessel under arrest o Its akin to giving the vessel leg personality to sue & be sued
Drilon 22

Phils is a very good position for the devt of maritime law bec we have many shores Maritime law is dated 1889 Strategic position of the Phils on the map, despite this fact, our law remains the sme wc came from Spain

C. Persons Participating in Maritime Commerce 1) Shipowners & shipagents Shipagents: agents in the way that we understand agents under the law of agency o But the principal source of obligs of these agents are those enumerated in the CodCom Shipowners: natl or juridical persons o Nowdays: mostly juridical persons Peculiarity of the rule in shipagents: o Until today there are ppl in the business of shipagency o Ex) while law says goods shldnt be delivered to the person in possession of the consignees copy This revolutionary concept of disregarding the risk of misdelivery is caused by the realities of commercial transaxns o Shipagents have come into being bec of the realities of commercial transaxns in the 1900s o Perfms a dual role: Represents the shipowner where the vessel is docked Has the duty of provisioning the vessel on where its docked Provisioning: to provide then vessel of its consumable reqs (water, food) Have 1 vessel travelling from Mla-Cebu & thats it proly dnt need a shipagent coz shipowner can probably take care of it But usually, the GR is that a shipowner has abt 10-20 shipagents o Just like taxis, airplanes, etc

Whose agent is the travel agent? Who ds he represent? Not the agent of the Co or the passenger Travel agent IS NOT AN AGENT!! Hes an INDEP CONTRACTOR o Bec an agent dsnt rep conflicting interest, & a travel agency reps conflicting interests = hes an agent only to himself! Only cares abt himself! Shipgagent: represents the shipowner o o o

Sept 21 A587: Doctrine of Limited Liability Not a new concept bec the law on cc, the law talks abt allowing parties to a K for the carriage of goods to limit the liab of the carrier to an amnt wc appears on the BOL or can agree on a spcfc amtn to be recoverd o Shewaram case, etc In maritime law, doctrine of limited liab is smthn wc the law itself provides o Its not by stip of the parties

Aka the illustration of the real & hypothecary nature of maritime law o the Q of what you understand abt real & hypothecary nature of maritime law = asked several times in the bar principle of limited liab makes ref to the liab of a shipowner, who by exercising a right to abandon, in case of collision or other specified average (average specified in the law), and by this abandonment, limits the extent of his liab to the res or the extent of his interest in the transaxn o such that if the average/collision/shipwreck results in a loss of the vessel entirely, then the liab of the shipowner is also completely extinguished principle is peculiar to maritime commerce here, the shipowner may upon being made aware of an accident, during the voyage, is given the option to abandon the vessel o means hell invite all those who have an interest/claim to settle whatever they have to the extent of the shipowners interest o such that his liab wont exceed whatever hisinterest in the transaxn is o so cant go after his hse, stocks, car, etc if his interest in the voyage is the vessel itself (wc is the usual course of business), it dsnt extend to the cargo (bec owner by customers), if the vessel completely sinks, then the liab of the shipowner might be zero liab of the shipowner is limited to the res why do we have this doctrine? o Esp when the shipowner is usually rich o Why are they allowed to abandon the vessel & by the abandonment, limit the extent to their exposure to liab o Reason: in Abueg v San Diego Principle traces its origins to the beginning of maritime commerce It was a response to the need for increase in maritime investment It was given b4 capitalists so that they put their money in shipping o Today, many Cos run from the perspective of incentives
Drilon 23

Ex) domestic shipowner w several vessels wc travel (all from Cebu), go to Mla, Mindoro, Iloilo, Cagayan de Oro, Davao, etc o Depending on the frequency & volume of the business in these ports, the shipowner may chose to rep himself & put up an ofc there or choose to be rep by a shipagent o If operates in a small port, frequency of business there is twice a month = it dsnt make commercial sense for him to put up an ofc there (to pay for EEs, lease, etc) bec only ds business twice a month! So better for him to just put up a shipagent wholl sell tckts for him, issue BOLs to ppl who wanna put cargo on a vessel And the shipagent will only be busy only during these 2 days of the month Bec in reality, usually a shipagent has other businesses On the days when the ship comes, thats when he shows up This way, the shipowner saves cost by paying just this 1 person who works for 2 days Ex) worldwide operations of shipping Cos o Will see that shipagency is a worldwide phenomenon What abt a travel agent is this like a shipagent?

Ex) Foreign Investments Law: if youre a Jap investor who wants to locate his business in the Phils in an eco zone (EPZA) bec theres no land in Jap Philosophy of Foreign investments is based on incentives

Govt welcomes them to the Phils & the govt will provide them w incentives i.e. get an income tax holiday for the 1st 5 yrs; duty-free importation of capital equipment; can pay your workers in a level below min wage, etc Doctrine of LL was also used as an incentive o If you put your money in shipping, well limit your liab to the amnt of your investment o Ex) in PU: the prior operator rule was also provided as an incentive to capitalists who ddnt want to enter into PU bec it was too expensive So to lure him into this business, the state tells the investor that so that you earn, we wont allow competition Whys there a need to provide incentives? o Foreign investments: needed bec were competing w other countries for foreign investment locators o PU: its a business wc reqs huge capital o Maritime commerce: incentive is needed to counter the risk of the business Whats the risk? In Magellans time: disease, piracy, mutiny, that they wldnt find their way to their destination (coz no maps then) It was the risk arising from the fact that much of the venture was unknown Magellans trip was a commercial venture they were gng to bring spices back to Europe But from the 5 that left spain, only 1 returned = so its a 1 out of 5 investment But the capitalists, who were now expected to provide funds for the subsequent ventures, ddnt want to put up the money for investment So the doctrine of LL came into being bec the capitalists were now protected from liabs/claims due to loss from the venture And if the vessel is lost entirely, then he has no liab If vessel isnt lost entirely, claimants can recover from whatever thats left = so liab of capitalist is limited o And his other props were exempt from execution from claims of a particular venture Today, these risks no longer exist Risk from typhoon, storms = no more, bec we can predict the weather o Vessels can be advised not to sail o Now, can go online & check what the weather will be for a week

No risk from piracy or privateering (adventurers of a diff sort, who wld take over vessels) o Bec now criminalized No moby dicks o Bec hes just a paper tiger

No risk from unknown waters, etc None of the risks supposed to be addressed by the doctrine of LL exist So the shipowners now, do they need incentives so that theyll go into the business? NO Yet, the law remains in our statute books Doctrine has become anachronistic that the SC, in cases, has slowly, thru jurisprudence, chipped away at the effectiveness of this defense o So Cts have created 1 exception after anthr o Started w Mla Steamship v Abdulhaman Loss of cargo & life bec ship sank bec of a storm Shipowner abandons the vessel Abandonment: this literal = shipowner says its yours! So he invited all claimants to satisfy their claims frm whatever remained of his interest SC: doctrine cant be applied, relying on the literal meaning of A587, bec it can be invoked only in cases where the loss or damage results from the neg of the captain Thus, if the shipowner is himself neg, then the defense cant be invoked o Abueg v San Diego: Claim by heirs of those who died in the venture Shipowner: defense of abandonment so liab is limited to the value/extent of his interest SC: no, doctrine cant be invoked in calims against ERs in EE liab loss/under ER liab loss If the claim is filed pursuant from a breach under the contract of employment/under labor law, then you cant invoke the doctrine Reasons: o The cause of paying for expenses to cover damages from inj or death or EEs, is an item of production that a capitalist/investor/ER has alrdy factored into his business & therefore, is ready to pay when a claim is invoked under proper circums Is the doctrine good law? Yes, still remains in the code of commerce o So until its repealed What do you understand abt the doctrine of the limited liab? o Ans: always start w the real & hypothecary nature of maritime law The shipowner is allowed to limit his liab to his interest or the res, such that if the res is entirely lost, then the liab is extinguished Real = the res/thing Hypothecary = to convey
o o
Drilon 24

o
o

Soto convey the thing to the creditor/to hypothecate Analogy: pledge If pledgor/debtor cant pay, the pledgee/pawnshop, must satisfy himself by the thing taken/hypothecated to him by way of pledge The proceeds from the pub auction, is the amnt frm wc the pledgee can satisfy his own credit What abt deficiency? If the proceeds of the sale isnt equal to the amnt borrowed? Or ds it operate like the doctrine of LL, such that if theres a deficiency, the pledgee shld take the loss?

o o o

Captains & Masters Powers & Duties: (outline this accdg to 3 things) o What are the duties of the captain prior to the voyage? Have the 3 bks o What are the duties of the captain during the voyage? Note the duties of the captain, at the time when he sees anthr vessel & becomes aware of the possibility of a collision o What are the duties of the captain after the voyage/when it terminates? Ex) if hes not familiar w a particular port/harbor, he has a duty to retain a harbor pilot at the time of/prior to arrival (who will help the captain park the vessel) person will approach the vessel in a smaller boat & the harbor pilot will get on the boat, and the bridge will be taken over by the harbor pilot *this enumeration is impt! o Bec in the case of an accident, liab of the captain will be detd accdg to what he has dne prior, during & after the time of the accident, in accordance w the duties provided by law

Capt awaited completion of repairs and left South Africa Upon arrival there, hes repatriated = ordered to return home: contract terminated for insubordination Ers upset cause delay means loss in money Make money by continuous use of equip = parks for long time: lugi Labor dispute SC says the terminations illegal cause the reason why the Capt disobeyed was consistent w/ his duties under the law bet the shipowner not on the vessel and who may be far away fr the vessel and the Capt whos on the vessel and his fxns are analogous of CEO of mod bus corps Just Feliciano) = his judgment should prevail over judgment of er

Prohibited acts & transaxns: o A613: Talks abt the fiduciary charac/rel btwn the capt & the vessel o Maritime law talks abt a special rel btwn the capt & vessel, in terms of dng business involving the vessel o Theres a lot of fiduciary aspects wc expose the capt to liab o Ex) 1 of the duties of the capt, when theres an accident, is to remain on the vessel, until all hope to save it is lost Supercargoes: o Not cargo! o Its a person onboard the vessel & fxns as the agent of the owner of cargo o Hes under the employ of the owner of cargo, whos under a duty to take care of the cargo, sell it at the destination or commercially transact at the point of destination (in a transaxn wc will involve the sale,etc) and return the proceeds to his principal o Leg significance of the supercargo:

Inter Orient v NLRC: Ct talks abt the 3fold duty of the captain o You can just cite this if youre a mere mortal & dnt want to top the bar o Ship captain was ordered to depart frm Singapore to South Africa he said he had to wait for the repairs to be finished in order to finish the trip o SC: termination is illegal since the reason why the capt disobeyed, was consistent w his duties under the law o Btwn the shipowner who isnt on the vessel & the capt, who is on the vessel capts judgment shld prevail over the judgment of his ER o 3 gen duties: Commander & technical director of the vessel Representative of the of the country whose flag is flown by the vessel Ship capt ordered to depart fr Singapore still there

Under the law, this is the 1st time we hear of a sit where a the cargo has a yaya/tagabantay The cc must exer EOD in the vigilance over the goods transported by him so that the goods arent lost, destroyed or deteriorated If this happens, the carrier is presumed to have acted negligently, unless prove they exerd EOD Hows this liab of the carrier affected/modified by the fact that the shipper/consignee of the goods, appointed a supercargo? Can the carrier say, go ask the person you appointed! ?

Agent of the shipowner

Said waiting for repairs to be completed = repairs in his judgment necessary if vessels to maintain seaworthiness on long trip to South Africa

Sept 25 AVERAGES: An item of expense or damage o Expense: you have to spend money for something Disbursed btwn time of departure till arrival) o Damage: ex) jettison Ex) Jettison: when you throw cargo overboard

Drilon 25

This is an average bec its a damage wc is suffered by merchandise btwn the pt when its loaded til its unloaded (from time of departure till arrival) Is there a similarity btwn average here & GWA? Averages: either gross or general OR simple or particular o When the law separates or distinguishes/1st defines & then enumerates gen & particular averages what 1 item/fact strikes us as that wc separates 1 ave from the other? o Why is the distinction impt? Distinction is impt bec of the right of contribution = right of reimbursement Right of contribution: more accurate term o RIGHT OF CONTRIBUTION: o Contribution is made of in favor for the person who incurred the damage/expense o Right to contribute, to make whole the person who has suffered from the average o This DSNT EXIST in all averages Only exists in the case of gen ave Can compel other parties to the venture to contribute

The expense/damage was deliberately incurred To save the vessel or cargo o For common safety common to the owner of the vessel & the owner of the goods Rem: Their interests are conflicting o Success: successful saving of the vessel & cargo If jettison the car, but vessel is lost anyway = X gen ave, its a shipwreck o Real & known risk: provides a common threat/dangers to the vessel & cargo Law also enumerates other instances of gen ave (A811) o Anything outside the defn & enumeration is a simple/particular ave if its an ave in the 1st place Defn here similar to the defn of PU: its a defn by example o It provides you w a gen defn & then provides examples of what it might includes o So its an enumeration wc isnt exclusive/exhaustive In det WON the ave is gen or particular: o Falls w/in the enumeration of gen ave = gen ave! Everything outside of this is particular Ex) if it was a CC, no need to look at the gen defn of a PU = no need to look at the Q of WON its a PU bec for sure youre a PU bec youre under the enumeration If not w/in the enumeration of the particular ave = can still be a particular ave IF NOT a gen ave

In particular ave: theres no right to contribution, so the person who incurred the damage/expense suffers his own loss = ea to his own loss No right to contribution What you need to know:

1st: det what the ave is expense or damage incurred by the vessel or cargo during the voyage btwn loading & unloading o Shld be incurred during the voyage o Incurred by the owner of cargo or owner of the vessel o When expense/damages takes place, there are persons who arent happy bec they dont want expenses, just want profits o Ex) vessel is delayed bec of an arrival under stress expense! Bec needs to feed the crew, etc 2nd: det if its gen or particular ave: o There is NO TOTAL RECOVERY, regardless of whether it gen or particular ave Bec a percentage of the expense/damage will be charged also to the person who suffered the same Its a contribution to himself (bec every1 contributes) o More impt ave: the gen/gross ave Bec of the right of contribution So businessmen are more concerned w determining if its gen/gross ave o How will you det if its gen or particular? (look at the reqs)

Magsaysay v Agan: SS Antonio ran aground & it was refloated o Ran aground bec there was a sudden shifiting of the sandbar wc the Capt ddnt anticipate, so he made a mistake & it ran aground Ave here: cost of the refloating o Particular ave bec it ddnt comply w the reqs of a gen ave

There was NO DANGER o Water was very shallow, fine weather Wsnt dne for the common safety of the vessel or cargo Successful refloating but sacrifice was only for the vessels benefit so it cld proceed to its destination & not for the purpose of saving the cargo Cant fall under #6, A811: bec the stranding wsnt intentional o REASON why not a gen ave: The expense wsnt deliberately incurred o No conscious undertaking of the expense or damage Ex) ship is abt to sink capt & crew det that the best way to save is to throw some cargo overboard; so throws a car overboard The expenses from refloating ddnt arise from a deliberate act o The Capt ddnt intentionally run aground the vessel to save it

Gen/Gross ave: Reqs:

York-Antwerp Rules Intl sys of rules for the liquidation & payment for the liquidation & payment of ave to avoid the prob of characterization
Drilon 26

Ex) vessel is Phils, consignee is Jap, jettison in the Atlantic Ocean, shipper is American = there will be a problem in determining wc law will apply (characterization) o And the parties involved in the right of contribution, shipowner, owner of cargoes, etc all will have to contribute o If the owners are of diff nationality, they can say that under their law, they dont have to contribute; while anthr can say under their law they have to contribute 95% Bec the businessman dsnt want to spend but rather earn money! o This is a prob under priv intl law/conflict of law (study of wc law to apply in case of contending case in respect of governing law there are contending claims, bec naturally a person will invoke the law wc is favorable to him) Ex) A16/17 CC: laws relating to fam rights & duties are binding on citzs of Phils even if abroad Nationality law = wc will follow you wherever you go But law on situs of the prop = will follow where the prop is found So if Fil dies in Cali, leaving a Jap wife in Germany, and kids all over Europe = theyll divide the estate & ea will invoke the law wc is in favor of himself o Characterization: you have to characterize the prob/issue YA rules is a sys of law wc is meant to avoid the prob of contending foreign laws, by saying that in IL of averages, we wont refer to the law of the parties = instead, well adopt these rules wc will govern IL averages o Its an attempt to create a unified/uniform sys of rules o This is the theory behind the Warsaw Convention Convention for the codification of Intl rules in air transport Diff of this from the YA Rules: Warsaw convention is law, YA is not law (its just a sys of rules adopted by wide usage by maritime commerce & will appear in a BOL) Parties in the BOL will be governed by the YA Rules bec this is the sys of rules that the parties adopted Attempt to create a uniform sys for ave sits, so you avoid the conflict of national laws, etc o Creates a uniform sys for proof & liquidation & payment of ave

Leg arrival under stress if it wasnt caused by neg (no water) Well-grounded fear of seizure, pirates, privateers Accident ex. lost power 4 engines and running on 3: port at intermediate city where its safe to await repairs loss of power mustnt arise fr neg

Jason Clause Arrival under Stress Arrival of a vessel at the nearest & most convenient port, if during the voyage it cant continue the trip to the port of destination Why is this punished? Its not punished o Its an exception/its a legal excuse for improper deviations Leg excuse Dont arrive = shipwreck: vessel lost/disappeared Excuse for deviation take most straight and quickest possible route Under what circs can pass by another place? In case of arrival under stress? o Capt decided to pass by Puerto Galera to get water lack of provs

Collision 2 moving vessels collide allision 1 not moving 1) fortuitous collision neithers at fault o caused by FM o in addn to knowing what these are, other impt R to knows whats the liab of the shipowner in the case of these particular types of collisions WRT the owners of cargo? o Whos gonna pay u? o Ave? o 2 vessels collided, fault not attributable to any of them, who bears loss? o Consistent w/ GR on FM in 1174 2) collision by inscrutable fault incapable of being detd o Board of Marine Inquiry conducted investigation (bar) where Law will deem both vessels at fault Also solidary 3) culpable fault, neg/lack of skill of Capt, crew mems o suppose both at faultapply law on culpable collisions as long as theres fault: either 1/both o 1 at fault = governed by law on culpable collision o ex. own Lexus damaged = owner of the vessel at fault o both at fault = solidarily liable: proceed v. either/both of them to be compensated for loss in the law on QD, 1179, concept of contributory neg = an analysis of apportionment = Ct asked to det where tortfeasor and P, whos more at fault? o Q of both parties neg = whos more neg o Vic more neg than tortfeasor = no recovery o Both neg = mitigationless o Faults 50-50 o Ex. pedestrian didnt wanna use overpass so used street and he was hit by a car = didnt foresee: rt to believe no pedestrian crossing street cause overpass Det w/c of thems at fault Both of them at fault = need to apportion Ex. pedestrian lost leg and value P100k Det WON def driver has to pay the full amt Both neg whos more neg? Pedestrian neg to 60%, hes more neg than the driver = cant recover cause proximate cause of inj was neg of P = 2179 o Suppose theyre 50-50: zero recovery o 80 driver-20 pedestrian cause while at fault, driver who though ppl would use the overpass also knew ppl in this area dont use the
Drilon 27

overpass = elem of foreseeability: can recover P80k (P20k ur danos ur fault) both vessels at fault but 1 isnt guilty of the same deg 80-20: vessel A whose neg is only 20% of the equation, tell owner of the cargo, pay only 20% cause Board of Marine Inquiry detd I was neg but much smaller than vessel B o no cause o v. ea other? Can vessel A recover damages v. B cause his neg is merely contributory? 20% o law on contributory neg and apportionment finds no application in maritime law regardless of fact fault/neg of vessel As only 10%, he cant recover fr vessel B: harsh R o in the case of cargo = law specifically says solidarily liable = cant divide simple laws on liab bad cause doesnt recognized the ramifications of contributory sits

Standard K still used today Origin of the term: o Originates from the practice of making to identical copies of the Ks, 1 for the owner & 1 for the charter, where the paper on wc the paper the K is written (the parchment/paper) wld be torn in 2 1 for ea party o Cartas = letter/document & Partitas = partitioned = charter party Repository of the terms & conds of the agreement is in the CP Not a common K that 1 will see in practice, unless you specialize in maritime practice

Shipwreck loss of the vessel Salvage: Is always money, but is understood as either: o Compensation: to those who participate int eh salvage operation o Service itself Salvage v towage: Barrios v Go Thong o Salvage: theres a possessory lien A person who renders valid salvage services may take possession of the vessel & the goods & can refuse to release it until hes paid Quasi-contract Bec under the reqs of salvage: o Theres a marine peril o Vessel is a derelict Abt to be torn to pcs, abt to crash or capsize & salvor comes So you arent under a sit where the parties can negotiate on the terms of the K Elem of voluntariness in entering into the rel is less or absent as opposed to Ks

Loans on Bottomry & Respondentia Are still in use What characterizes this loan from other loans: o The unusually high rate of interest o The loss of the security, extinguishes the K This isnt the case in ordinary loan docums This characterization is probably bec in the past, these loans involved/were subj to the same risk that shipowners were subj to during the time when we cldnt predict the weather, no accurate maps of sea routes, etc The only way 1 cld take a loan frm a capitalist is to assure him of a high return Borrower in a loan on bottomry: o Also subj to the risk that brought abt the concept of limited liab o So he gets the concession that if the vessel was lost, then the oblig is extinguished Bottomry: secu is the vessel or the bottom of the vessel If cargo is the secu: then its the loan on respondentia (from the word res)

Bills of Lading Nature, concept, parties, liab arising frm breach will basically be identical w thse that appear in overland transport Passengers on Sea Voyage

Person manning the derelict isnt in a position to negotiate w the salvor he wont say No to the salvor, hell say yes

Towage: no lien No right to take possession

Contract: theres voluntariness to enter into the rel Salvage law: Cts can regulate the amnt wc is given to the salvor o Can have the reward reduced bec its unconscionable Barrios v Go Thong: not salvage bec there was no danger

Sept 28 CHARTER PARTIES

Note: this is the 1st time the Code of Com talks abt the carriage of passengers o Mostly, the law talks principally abt merchandise damage, deterioration, etc (all topics b4 this topic) Its as if the only subj/obj of maritime commerce is cargo o This shows that at the time the Code of Com was written, the bulk of maritime commerce wsnt passenger transport but cargo transport o Thats why theres very lil on passenger transport Provs here have very interesting laws regarding liab of shipowners for the transport of persons o Ex) prov on WON the shipowner is under an oblig to provide a passenger w meals & for how long What abt if the vessel is delayed or stranded? Sweet Lines v CA: o Similar to the Zapatos case PAL v CA (where the guy was stranded in Cotabato by PAL & he was suppose to go to Osamis) But this is on maritime transport
Drilon 28

MV Sweet Grace left Cebu bound for Catbalogan in Samar The passengers bound for Catbalogan were surprised to see that the vessel arrived in Tacloban o Passengers were told/instructed to disembark in Tacloban bec the ship wld now go to Mla They had no choice but to disembark & board a ferryboat to Catbalogan They disembarked wo the carrier wo making any arrangements for where they want to go o COA: breach of K of carriage/breach of the K to carry o Vessel ddnt just breach the K, it also violated the rule that it shldnt deviated from the course of the voyage by arriving/stopping in Tacloban wc wsnt an arrival under stress o Case is for damages for the breach o Passengers complained they had to fend for themselves Complaining abt the difficult conds they had to suffer/endure by reason of the fact that there was no regular transport btwn Catbalogan to Tacloban Weather, transport wsnt comfortable, etc o Carrier is liab for breach o Why were the passengers forced to disembark? Ships def: they were alrdy late on their weekly run & wanted to arrive in Mla on schedule, so that the next week they can run on their regular sched o Ct: liab for damages for violating the rights of passengers in the Code of Com Other prov: approximation on the duration on EOD o CC: dsnt define EOD for passengers we had to formulate a rule based on jurisprudence (when it begins & ends) o Code of Com has a prov wc gives us an idea of what the duration might be o This confirms the theory that the duty to exer EOD assumes that the carrier has the ability to perf the oblig & may be co-extensive only w the time that the passenger is under some kind of custody (of the vessel) o o

Ang v Am Steamship (asked in the bar): Q here was the applicability of the 1 yr prescriptive pd o In prescription where the axn is based on the BOL, follow the gen rules/prescription of the CC o BOL under CC/Code of Com so long as in writing = 10yrs Applies for other written Ks of transport (ex. board a bus & tckt issued to you by the conductor; when riding a ship/airline, etc) BOL issued pursuant to the COGSA = 1 yr only 1 yr from when the COA accrues this generally pertains to the fact that the goods have been lost or damaged BOL was an oral K =

Warsaw Convention

COGSA A spcl law that applies to Ks for the carriage of goods by sea perfmd by vessels in foreign trade to & from Phil ports In relation to the CC provs on cc: the COGSA is inferior

If the carrier is a cc, a cc thats engage in the carriage of goods by sea to & from phil ports = CC provs on cc apply 1st, COGSA 2nd, Code of Com 3rd In case of COGS that partakes of a priv carriage: o COGSA 1st, Code of Com 2nd, CC 3rd BUT not the CC provs on cc, but rather, the gen provs of the CC on lease of services, gen rules on obligs & Ks COGSA contains very specialized provs on the rights & liabs of shippers & owners or consignees of goods as well as the rights & liabs of the shipowner Only asked in the bar in a gen sense (ex. to what Ks ds the COGSA apply?)

*Warsaw Convention: axns arising from the breach of K for air transpo prescriptive pd is 2 yrs (A29) o This is counted from the time of accrual of the COA Cargo: when lost or damaged Passenger: when injured, died or if lost (coz plane is missing) o If filed past the prescriptive pd, dismissed outright under R16 History of the WC: how it was brought abt? o An attempt to create a uniform sys of rules to prevent disputes arising from Conflict of Laws Entered into 1930s adhered to by the Phils in 1950 Convention for the unification of certain rules for intl transport by air To what Ks ds it apply? o To ALL Ks of intl air transportation, perfmd by aircraft for hire o Intl air transportation: defnd in A1 If the K is btwn parties to the convention, then the passenger, owner/consignor of cargo who wishes to sue the carrier cant avoid the application of the WC (Santos v Northwest Airlines) Santos v Northwest: from San Francisco Mla San Francisco o Breach of K to carry bec when arrived in the SF airport, said he cant be accommodated o Even tho he ws alrdy confirmed, etc o Reason: wsnt stated (probably bec the flight was overbooked) o Santos came back to the Phils & filed a lawsuit for damages attempting to get damages from the failure of NW to accommodate him when he tried to check in the SF airport o NW: filed a MTD Ct ddnt have subj matter J

Cited A28, par1 WC: the J over the subj matter of the axn is determined/lodged only in 4 places Domicile of the carrier (here it was Minneapolis, State of Minnesota) Principal place of business of the carrier (Minnesota) Place of business where the K was made (California, this is where he bought the tckt) Destination of the passenger = the ultimate destination (in a journey of several segments, its
Drilon 29

o o o o These

the place where the passneger is headed to as stated in the tckt) o Here, it was SF bec roundtrip tckt Thus, Phil Ct ddnt have subj matter J bec ddnt fall under thes 4 TC: dismissed the case Santos contends that the WC was applied unconstitutionally or is unconsti (wc is why it was decided en banc) SC: upheld the constitutionality of the WC Affirmed the dismissal bec the phils wsnt 1 of the 4 mentioned under the WC are the 4 jurisdictions in the WC

It hs nthn to do w what COA is alleged What if its a tort? Theres no K o WC applies bec the crucial factor in determining this Q is only WON the axn arises from intl air trasporation Law specifically says that the axn, however founded, must be made pursuant to the convention (A26)

Limitations on Liab (A22) 1. Damage, loss or delay to cargo

Today: theres a 5th J o Residence of the plaintiff Such that if this 5th J theory was adopted by the Phils during the time of the Santos case, his case wldve proceeded o This 5th J appears in the Montreal Convention wc has been entered into by the countries of the world in an attempt to modernize & ultimately supplant the WC Thus, theres a new sys of law in place = Montreal Convention o But Phils hsnt ratified this wc is why were still applying the WC Why ds the MC adopt the 5th J? o Result of the lobby of the European continent (bec there are many small countriesif the nearest airport is on boarder of anthr country, hed rather drive there, rather than gng to the airport w/in his country wc is farther) Difficult for them bec wld have to prosecute a claim in anthr country, under anthr law, etc

WC provides for an amnt in Franks (official denomination if French franks) The amnt is roughly $20 US/kilo Ex) if engaged w any aircraft 2day & theres damage to baggage, etc o Youll be offered the amnt of $20/kilo wo gng to Ct o If lose 1 suitcase, max amnt theyll give you is $620/640 (this is based on the max wght allowed for a suitcase) o But most ppl dnt accept this & go to Ct coz they think their stuff is worth more o Pan-Am v IAC (the film stuff) & Cathay Pacific (went to Jakarta & suitcase ws missing) Unless bags are stolen, will be delivered to the passenger w/in 1-2dys max bec just stuck somewhere else Pan-Am v IAC: Ct upheld the limitation Cathay Pacific: Ct awarded Alcantara an amnt in excess of the limitation o Allowed under the WC (also allowed under our laws, if theres breach in bf) o CP was guilty of willful misconduct Ct pointed to the rude beh of the CP personnel towards Alcantara WC: carrier isnt allowed to invoke this limitation if its guilty of willful misconduct o Why? Bec if the carrier is guilty of willful misconduct bt is still allowed to invoke the limitation, then many airline personnel wld be opening shops of luggage theyll steal o Thus, if the carrier has breach the K in a way wc is equal/equivalent to willful misconduct (like robbery), not allowed to invoke the limitation

Thus, they lobbied for this 5th J So 5 J allows the passenger to sue in his country of residence
th

Liabilities under the convention (A17-19) Alitalia v IAC: liabs under the conventions isnt an exclusive enumeration of the liabs of a carrier = correct rule o Bec possible the carrier may be liable for an event not under 17, 18, 19 (wc jst speaks of death or inj of passengers & deterioration, damage or loss of goods, delay) Ex) Lopez takes a trip SF-Mla-SF o 1 leg of the flight, he was forced to vacate his seat in favor of a white man = downgrading o Ds Lopez have to file his case in Cali? Coz if file in phils dismissed (based on Santos v NW) o Can Lopez say the WC dsnt apply, therefore he can sue in the phils under the ROC by reason of the fact that the COA hes alleging isnt aong the liabs enumerated amng the convention? NO! cant sue in the phils o WC still applies bec under Santos v NW, the determinative factor/the crucial consideration is WON the subj matter of the K arises from 1 of intl air transportation = immediately, the WC applies

2. WC has limitations for inj or death of passengers A price is fixed for the loss of human life In an actual litigation, can you argue that this limitation is invalid? Bec under cc you cant stip on the value of human life in cases of death Can you argue that the amnt dsnt bind the passenger bec of the CC provs on cc? (rem the airlines under the WC are all cc) o Thus, insofar of the hierarchy of rules are concerned apply CC, WC the Code of Com o So can you argue that the limitation is void bec of an express prov in the CC? o Hsnt been answered by the SC No more Franks or dollars in denominating the value estabd for liab under the MC
Drilon 30

MC: a sys of compensation called SDR has been adopted o SDR: Special Drawing Rights o Wont be given dollars, franks, etc youll be given SDR o SDR as the unit of compensation adopted by the MC applies to a value of money thats the consolidated value of a basket of currencies (dollars, yen, franks, etc)

Conditions on the Imposition of Liability

Luna v CA (92): under the WC the times are varying also o A336 Code of Com: complaint shld be filed w/in 24 hrs Under WC theres also a pd but these pds vary o Baggage arrived late o Airline: MTD coz ddnt file a claim w/in the pds under the WC or under its K w northwest o TC & CA: dismissed o SC: reversed o Reason: the TC shldnt have dismissed it o while its true that Luna ddnt file a claim w/in the pds mandated under the WC, there might be other pds in some other law that provides for a diff time for the filing of claims o Pg113: shldnt be a ground for dismissal since the airline may stil be held liab for breach of other relevant laws wc may provide for a diff procedure or pd for filing a claim What the other laws are Ct dsnt state! (and its the right & duty of the Cts to state what the law isyet they ddnt state the law here) Sir dsnt agree w the case: o In the Code of Com theres a 24 hr pd = shorter than the WC o COGSA also a pd bt dsnt apply to airlines Sir: theres NO OTHER LAW wc provides for other pds o The Ct cldve stated a law wc may have provided a pd, but they ddnt bec theres no other pd!

Drilon 31