Get Homework/Assignment Done Homeworkping.comHomework Help https://www.homeworkping.com/

Research Paper helphttps://www.homeworkping.com/

Online Tutoringhttps://www.homeworkping.com/

click here for freelancing tutoring sites Eastern Shipping v IAC

- Law applicable? Law of country transported to. CC-> cogsa in cases not covered by cc

- Fire; FE; human means; carrier did not prove diligence->liable

JPN -> Manila

(P) ESL

(R)s: LANCE PIPES(DISC) GARMENT FABRICS(NISHHIN)SURVEYING INSTRUMENTS (DOWA)

Fire -> total loss

- Smoke, no regular inspection

- Could not explain cause of fire- 24 hours before it was noticed

Ynchausti v Dexter

- (loss thru causes unknown; carrier must prove that it was thru accident or some other circumstance)

- no explanation = cc liable- rcpt in good order-> arrival in bad

order – prima facie case

manadamus case for purchasing agent to sign Warrant (not payed for amount of shortage)

(P) Ynchausti(R) Dexter (auditor)Unson (purchasing agent)

Manila -> Cagayan

White rose mineral oilCock brand mineral oil

->Government BoL-shortages noted in BoL

Loss due to causes unknown

Mirasol v Dollar- admitted that goods were damages in

its possession; BoP on (D) to prove that it was caused by some fact that exempts it from liability

- perils of the sea: marine casualties, shipwreck, icebergs, something fortuitous

- damage via sea water is not itself evidence of FE

(P) Mirasol

owner of books

(D) robert dollar co.

steamship Garfield

NY –> Manila

Arrived in bad order

Sea water

BoL: agreement that not liable for FM “perils of the sea”

Failed to prove damage via seawater

Perils of the sea: would be more w/ the knowledge of the (d) officers than (P)

Tan chiong v inchausti- no delay when; since no term fixed- no liability when loss due to FE +

carrier not negligent

(P) Tan chiong, claiming that he owned the cases of general merchandise, filed a case against (D) Inchausti who failed to deliver the same (to recover the amount).

- (D) Inchausti received from Ong Bieng Sip (OBS) 205 cases of goods in manila to be transported to the port of gubat

- in the port of gubat it was to be transshipped catarman. since the lorcha pilar was not yet there it was unloaded at the (d)’s warehouses

- when the lorcha arrived, the goods along w/ the (d)’s other goods were loaded. To leave for its destination, it was towed by the Launch texas

- due to the strong winds and heavy sea, the lorcha was driven ashore and wrecked (cargo’s packages were scattered on the beach)

- worker’s of the (D) gathered and sold them at public auction since it was not possible to preserve them

- The contract between OBS and the (D) did not stipulate that the vessel be a shipper for the transportation; OBS knew as well that the lorcha needed to be towed by some vessel -> OBS made no protest

Issues:

1.Was there delay?

- in the contract, no term was fixed as to when the goods were to be delivered

- there was no delay in the transportation as the (D) did the usual and regular manner of transportation of all kinds of goods from Catarman to Manila

2.Is the (D) liable for the goods?

- the (D) is not liable as it was not negligent and the cause of the loss was entirely due to a fortuitous event

- there was no notice of the storm that was to come in the port of Gubat

- the loss and damage was due to the wreck and heavy storm

- (D) had a natural interest in preserving the lorcha for it had its own goods on it. The (D)’s agents and the patron (master of the lorcha) did the measures necessary to save the lorcha (clearing the boat of gear resisting the wind; procuring an extra anchor)

- (D)’s agent took all measures to salvage the goods w/ knowledge of the shipper

- the lorcha had no means of changing anchorage. Wherever it went it would be exposed to the waves of the hurricane.

Manrtini v macondray- seawater; carriage on deck; consent; when carrier not liable

(P) Martini

chemical products

(D) Macondray agent of EASC

- Plaintiff G. Martini, Ltd., arranged with the Defendant company, as agents of the Eastern and Australian Steamship Company, for the shipment of two hundred and nineteen cases or packages of chemical products from Manila, Philippine Islands, to Kobe, Japan

- Upon arrival at the port of destination it was found that the chemicals comprised in the shipment had suffered damage from the effects of both fresh and salt water

- that on the face of each bill of lading is clearly stamped with a rubber stencil in conspicuous letters the words “on deck at shipper’s risk.”

- the present action was instituted by the Plaintiff to recover the amount of the damage

- The Plaintiff insists that the agreement was that the cargo in question should be carried in the ordinary manner, that is, in the ship’s hold, and that the Plaintiff never gave its consent for the goods to be carried on deck

Did the (P) consent to the goods being carried on deck?

- Plaintiff consented to the shipment of the cargo on deck

(Ordinarily the shipper is supposed to produce the mate’s receipt to the agents of the ship’s company, who thereupon issue the bill of lading to the shipper. )

- When desires to procure the bill of lading before he obtains the mate’s receipt, it is customary for him to enter into a written obligation, binding himself, among other things, to abide by the terms of the mate’s receipt.

- In the present instance the mate’s receipt came after the Bills of Lading (to negortiatie them at the bank), to w/c the (P) the was required to enter into the written obligation, calling itself a “letter of guarantee”

- the Letter of Guaranty gave the ship the option of having the cargo to be shipped on or under deck.

- In view of the fact that the Plaintiff did nothing whatever looking towards the discharge of the cargo, not even so much as to notify Macondray & Company that the cargo must come off, the proof relative to the practicability of discharge is inconclusive.

- The evidence submitted in behalf of the Defendant shows that there was no space in the hold to take the cargo

Is the (D) liable for the damage?

- the (D) is not liable

- The foregoing authorities fully sustain the proposition that where the shipper consents to have his goods carried on deck he takes the risks of any damage or loss sustained as a consequence of their being so carried. In the present case it is indisputable that the goods were injured during the voyage and solely as a consequence of their being on deck, instead of in the ship’s hold. The loss must therefore fall on the owner

- that the damage here was caused by rain and sea water — the risk of which is inherently incident to carriage on deck — the Defendant cannot be held liable

- “The master is responsible for the safe and proper stowage of the cargo, and there is no doubt that by the general maritime law he is bound to secure the cargo safely under deck. . . . If the master carries goods on deck without the consent of the shipper . . . he does it at his own risk. If they are damaged or lost in consequence of their being thus exposed,

he cannot protect himself from responsibility by showing that they were damaged or lost by the dangers of the seas. . . . When the shipper consents to his goods being carried on deck, he takes the risk upon himself of these peculiar perils. . . . This is the doctrine of all the authorities, ancient and modern. “

Asia Lighterage v CA- Typhoon; human intervention;

negligence

Better western White Wheat

Insured by (R) Prudential

Arrived in Mla -> Trans to (P) Asia (deliv to Pasig)

Suspended due to typhoon –> barge developed a list

Marine protest

Towed -> refloat, some goods to other barges

Towing bits broke -> barge sank

Bidding of other goods from other barges

-

Lea mer v Malayan insurance- fortuitous event; typhoon; failed to

prove, sea worthiness, rebuttals

(typhoon not even there)

Silica

Ilian SilicaMining

(R) Malayan Insurance

(P)Lea Mer (carrier)

palawan to manila

barge – leased by (P) sank

TC – FE, typhoon trining, no adv notice

CA – reversed; vessel not seaworthy

Liability for loss- FE; Q of fact; contract of

affreightment- (P) manned and controlled barge/- bound to exercise exod; typhoon was

far from palawan- did not show that it was free from

fault; wtiness could not remember if anything was done to minimize loss

Not seaworthy- FE not sole cause; no personal

inspection; had holes

SC became a trier of facts; cert of inspection; not enough to prove that it was seaworthy at the time of voyage (seaworthiness must be at time of voyage)

Government v Ynchausti- character of goods; if proved; not

liable for exercising diligence in handling such

- terms and conditions BoL; conditions stamped on BoL binding; authority from contract

- binding; stamp was placed before goods were shipped; deemed to have assented

(brittle tiles)

Tiles

MLA to Iloilo

Gov BoL

Damage in cargoLC – (P) bound by BoL; carried at owner’s risk; must prove negli of carrier

(D) proved faulty nature (no negli)- delived w/o protective covering- loaded/discharged diligently

1734 in conflict w/ code of com 361?-

Southern Lines v CA- Liability for loss (shortage); carrier

had K of improper packing; still accept; not exempted from liability

City of Iloilo

Rice 1762 sacks

NARIC

Southern Lines (general wright)

Shortage of 41 sacks

CFI – absoleved NARIC/ SL liable

CA – AFFIRMED

SL Admitted- strings broken- bags with holes and spilled- personnel collected and distributed 26

sacks among themselves

Ganzon v CA- unconditionally placed in the control

and custody; liability; even if part of shipment not loaded

- failure to prove that one of exempted causes; presumed negligent

- order of public authority; must establish authority; if not liable; acting mayor (not competent)

Gelacio Tumambing

Scraps

Ganzon – Lighter Batman

Mariveles to manila

Captain Niza received

Myr Advincula- SHAKEDOWN/fired at GT

Acting Myr Basilio Rub + 3 police

Dump scraps

Placed unconditionally under control/custody- captain received them

Order of PA- failed to estab mayor’s autho- scrap did not belong to mariveles- order of acting mayor not comepetent

pub authority- not duty bound to obey dumping- no proof of sufficient intimidation

Dissent of Herrera- order; receipts issued by the acting

mayor; so custody w/ acting mayor

Compania Maritima v Insurance Company

- free of charge; non impairment of cont of carriage;

- control and possession; loaded on a lighter manned by carriers ees;

- BoL; not needed for a contract of carriage to exist

- FE; storm; when liable; carrier negligent

Hemp

Transshipment from davao to boston

Oral contract

Loaded on 2 barges (rcvd in behalf of ss bowknot; awaited; owned by Maritima)

Sank

Reconditioning (more expenses)

Insurance

Loaded on barge free of charge (cont of car?)- yes, oral contract confirmed by

written booking- patrons of lighters ees of carrier- free of charge not impair cont of carr- had control/possession

not actually loaded?- it was loaded; it was recvd by patron

“in behalf of bowknot”- BoL not reqrd for cont of carr; proof

of stips and obligations; no limits as to form

Storm?- carrier lack of prepa; had cracks in

bottom- no storm on night of accident- 11mph not classi as storm

Lu Do v Binamira

Delta

6 cases of film

NY to Cebu

Lu Do (agent of carrier), hired Cebu Stevedoring -> unload

Checker -> GO/BO cargo

Rcvd -> Custody of Visayan (arrasre)

Shipment in Q (not in reprt)

(R) Binamira took 6 cases; signs of pilferage; surveyors

in good order from ship, when (R) rcvd it; BO

Control/Possession

- inspection via customs; turn over to consignee; carrier loses possession

- BoL; limit liability; not liable for delay/loss; when not in possession

Carrier not responsible; (when shipment was delivered to customs)

Eastern Shipping v CA

2 drums riboflavin

japan -> manila

(P) eastern shipping, carrier/marine insurance policy

discharged to Metroport (arrastre) -> 1 drum in BO

Allied brokerage (broker) -> accepted, 1 drum w/o seal, delived to consignee

Consignee/warehouse, spillages

(P) paid under marine insurance policy

LC – Easter/Metro liable; landed -> 1 drum damaged; when drum -> consignee w/ fake contents

CA – Affirm LC decision;

Carrier; jointly severally liable w/ arrastre- did not prove exercise of exod

Consignee/arrastre- depositor/warehouseman;

safekeeping/return; cant deliv to 3rd unless express stip;

- Carrier/arrastre- Obli to deliv in Good cond to

consignee

Interest- action for damages (not loan)- should be paid at legal interest (6%)- 12% applies upon finality of jugd

Delsan Trans v American Home ins

Delsan (carrier) vessel Larusan

Diesel oil

Bataan to bacolod

To Caltex, under cont of affreight, insured by Am H Assurance under all risks

Discharging of diesel oit had to stop; port bow cut; vessel drifted; severed rubber nose; oil spilled at sea; storage valve not shut -> unloaded diesel lost as well

AHAC paid caltex

Loss caused by spillage

2 cases, spillage/backflow

TC for AHAC

CA – affirm, failed to exercise exod

Caltex contributory negli on shore tank?- delsan failed to prove caltex’ contri

neg- proxi cause was severance of port

bow mooring line; crew of vessel should have informed shore tender; red light not suffi warning (only excuse -> no banca)

Delsan’s argu; delivery to caltex- still in carrier’s possession since

discharge not finished when backflow occurred; duty to preserve goods

- did not prove exempted causes

Heacock v Macondray

(P) Heacock Co.

8 day Edmond Clocks- properly boxed- freight paid

steam ship bolton castle

NY -> Mla

Consigned

(D) Macondray – agent of vessel in port

demand

failed to deliver

BoL (2 clauses)- 1 – val not exceed 500 per freight ton

unless stated/ paid ad valorem freight paid

- 9 - short deliv/damage, not liable for more than net invoice/freight/insurance less charges saved; pro rata

freight ton val = 1480

less than 500 declared by (P), no advalorem payment

(D) tendered proportionate freight ton val

refuse

LC – clause 9226 pesos (invoice/insurance/freight)

both appeal

(P) market val of clocks 420; clauses invalid

(D), clause 1; 76 pesos, proportionate freight; clauses valid

Can a carrier limit its liability based on agreed valuations it made in a BoL?

- (type, stip limit liab to agreed valuation unless shipper declares a greater val and pays higher rate of freight)

- clauses 1 and 9 valid- yes carrier can limit its liab but it shall

be strictly construed against him

Which clause will apply?- conflict between 2 clauses- interpretation; should be strictly

construed against the party causing it (this case; carrier)

BoL; construction- given by carrier; for trans to

consignor; strictly construed against carrier

Shewaram v PAL

(P) Shewaram – passenger

aircraft

Zamboanga -> Manila

(D) PAL

Checked in 3 baggage- suitcase was mistagged

arrival in Mla- suitcase sent to Iiiligan

made a claim

from what was left from the flight, presented w/ baggage similar to his

refused; not his- he looked for his white

clothes/camera/transistor radio (not there)

- pistol (w/c he did not own)- suitcase found to belong to Del

rosario (bound for iiligan)

Muni Court – for (P) (actual, exemplary dmgs, attys fees/costs)

CFI – modified, remove exemplary damages

Tampering of suitcase- since personnel could open it, despite

being under key- there was space for the 2 items

- (P) was asked to check of things in suitcase; (D) admitted 2 items not found

- admitted mistake in tagging- suitcase was tampered (unlocked)

liable for loss (373 pesos actual cost of items)

Conditions at back of ticket stub- loss/delay, limited to its value, not

exceed 100 pesos per ticket, unless declare a higher value in advance + addtnl charge

(D) limit liab to conds of stub- (P) failed to declare a higher value/

pay freight- cannot be compelled to pay (P) more

than 100

Is (P) bound by the limitation? -> NO- limitation of liability; under just and

reasonable circumstance- printed in small letters; hard to read;- (D) admits that passengers don’t sign

the ticket; (P) did not sign his ticket; cant be bound by it (not fairly agreed on)

Liability of carrier; using 1734/1735- loss; due to negligence of ees; must

pay value of articles- carrier cannot rely on the limitation

on liability if the loss is due to its own negligence

Ong Yiu v CA

(P) Ong Yiu – passenger- Cebu -> Butuan- Had to attend a case set for hearing;

CFI;

Check in a blue maleta

Arrival at butuan; claimed luggage could not be found

React indignantly -> porter Gomez acted

PAL Butuan -> PAL Cebu; message; luggage carried to Manila; will be forwarded to Butuan in the same day in the earliest available flight; last message around 5pm not received since ees rcvd no more incoming flights (luggage to be sent following day)

10pm; (P) wired PAL cebu demanding for his luggage to be brought before noon the next day; supervisor assumed Butuan rcvd luggage

next day; went to airport; did not wait for 10 am flight; porter Gomez paged; colorum driver Dagorro volunteered to take luggage; inspect maleta; deliv to (P) w/ info that lock was open

inspection; found that documents were missing; refused it

(P) granted postponement of hearing; telegram to PAL Cebu demanding 250k for actual/moral damages

messengers of PAL; (P)’s office; deliv maleta; conduct investigation of unautho opening

letter; no way of knowing contents of baggage; no inventory

(P) filed a complaint

LC – pal in BF; granted moral/exemplary/attys fees

CA – reversed; simple negligence; pay only 100 in lieu of the baggage liability in the ticket

Was PAL in BF?- (BF = breach of a known duty

through a motive or some ill will)- PAL had a duty to look into

miscarried baggage; exercise due diligence

- Telegraphic mssge was sent 1 hour after luggage could not be found; judges reasoning was forced (message spurious since 50 trans in less than a minute)

- Failure of PAL cebu to reply; not BF; although assumed; arrived earlier than what was demanded if in telegram

(Moral dmgs; absence of wrongful act/omission/fraud -> cant be awarded)

(Exemplary dmgs; given only if acted in wanton/fraudu/malevolent/fraudulent manner -> must be proved)

Is carrier allowed to avail of the limitation on liability?

- altho pilfered in the custody of (D); (P) did not question validity of stipulation

- easily readable- being a lawyer/businessman, he must

be fully aware of such- (P) did not declare a higher vale/paid

addtnl charge

1750 not complied w/, not enter into agreement?

- did not sign ticket; but still bound by it; part of cont of carriage; regardless of consent passengers bound by it

- contract of adhesion; presents readily made contract to another; other party can accept or reject; accepting = consent

Cathay pacific v CA

Alcantara; 1st class passenger of Cathay- Mla -> HK -> Jakarta- EVP of Iiligan Cement Corp;

conference; Direc General of Trade of Indonesia

- Checked in luggage; clothes/docs for conf

Arrival on Jakarta- luggage missing; left in HK- offered 20$ inconvenience money- luggage arrived 24 hrs after; to be

picked up by alcantara/phil emba rep; not delived to hotel

Filed complaint against Cathay

TC – ordered Cathay to pay moral/temperate/exempl/attys fees (20k/5k/10k/25k)

CA – increased MTE (80K/20K/10K)

Cathay’s contention- questioned why Warsaw limitation

not apply- ees rude to Alcantara no factual basis;

one day delay not BF Is cathay liable for MTE/ in BF?

- Moral dmgs; breach; recoverable when there is death/fraud/BF;

- Grossly negligent; not aware that it had left the luggage if HK customs hadn’t informed them;

- Ees acted in BF; Deposition of Palma Commercial Attache of Phil Emba; basis for moral dmgs; (no change of clothes/answered back/”you can buy anything”/)

- cathay rep was discourteous, indifferent, impatient, rude; 20$ limitation not enough for executive mtng conference; he was a 1st class passenger; had to pick up luggage himself

Limited by Warsaw?- no!- Application of Warsaw; does not

preclude civil code/other pertinent laws; does not exempt carrier from liability for dmgs (under cont of carr); especially when willful misconduct is present

- Warsaw; art 25; cant limit liab if there is willful misconduct; cant avail of provs when caused by ees of carrier under scope

- Special species of injury; anxiety; losing opportunity for purpose of his trip; had to postpone conference due to clothes; embarassment

Damages- reduce moral (20k)- temperate deleted- exemplary maintained- attys same

Isaac v AL Ammen

AL Ammen – bus

Isaac boarded bus- Albay -> Camarines Sur- Bus collided w/ a pick up- Loss of arm- Medical treatment in diff hospitals

Filed an action for damages; breach of cont

AL Ammen’s defense – pick up negli + contributory negligence of Isaac

TC – Collision occurred due to pick up; bus did everything to avoid collision

Liability of a carrier- contractual; comes upon breach (there

is breach if failure of exod)- carry p’s w/ utmost diligence of a

very cautious person w/ due regard for all circs

- presumed negli unless- not an insurer of all risks against

travel

Did (d) exercise exod in avoiding the collision?

- yes the carrier did- did everything to avoid; moved truck

over piles of gravel

- truck at moderate speed; pick up at full speed; swereved to extreme right; could not move any further aginst pile of gravel w/o endangering passengers

- when faced w/ sudden emergency; the fact that he has to act quickly; diligence required only ordinary since must act quickly w/o deliberation

Contributory negligence of Isaac- seated on left side; rested arm on

window sill; severance; he was the only victim

- contri negli GR – reduction of dmgs; exception – protrude an arm/elbow, beyond edge of window – no recovery (will not result if it were not for such negli)

Landingin v Pangasinan

Spouses Langingin/BocasasSpouses Garcia/ Landingin

Death of daughters- Leonilla Landingin/Estrella Garcia- Passengers of Pantranco- Excursion; dagupan -> baguio and

back

Negli/fraud/BF of bus- driven by Oligan- open on one side, closed on another- pretended to have special permit- driver’s negli; stall; motor died;

mishandling -> bus slid back- suddenly swerved to the mountain

side; leonilla/estrella/others thrown out of bus thru open side; suffer injuries; L/E died

- driver charged w/ multi homicide

Findings of TC- abrupt stop due to breaking metal;

rolled back; some passengers jumped/others stepped down; maneuver on side of mountain; advices passengers not to jump; L/E not thrown out of bus; panicked and

jumped; day before – cross joint inspected

- absolve from liability/negligence- 6500/3500 payment in lieu of

sympathy and good will

Did Pantranco exercise the required care and forsight under the circs?

- NO - Cross joint broke; caused motor to

malfunction; resulted to panicking of passengers

- Carrier did not give due regard for all circs; inspection (not enough); heavily laden w/ passengers; addtnl strain;

Landicho v BTCo

Landicho boarded BTC bus

Conductor helped in placing 2 baskets of chickens

Noticed cage was falling; called conductor but the latter did not respond

Tried to attend to the cage himself w/c resulted to him falling -. Injuries

(facts show cage was not about to fall; he was probably sleepy)

Liability- cage was not about to fall; passenger

was sleepy/dizzy- common carrier’s responsibility; does

not include all risks that the passenger may encounter; or else “intentionally falling off” would be a good source of money

- acts of ees; must see to it that passenger places himself safely inside the vehicle ; must be operated carefully/mechanism enough to prevent mishaps;

- duty of passenger; must see to it that he places himself in a safe portion of the vehicle; dizziness/sleepiness cant be foreseen by carrier (passengers look out)

Necesito v Paras

Severina + 1 yr old son – passengers of Phil Rabbit Bus Lines

- Agno -> Mla- Driver bandonel- Wooden bridge; front wheels

swerved; lost control; truck on its right side fell on creek

- Severina drowned; precilliano injured

2 actions- (D) defense; due to

engine/mechanical trouble beyond control of the driver

CFI- found that bus prceeded slowly; bad

cond of road- fracture of right steering knuckle;

defective at its core; bubbled- could not be be known despite

inspections; manufactured for heavy duty; last up to 10 yrs

- FE; dismissed both actions

Proximate cause of accident- steering knuckle- if the truck was at 50 mph; other

passengers would have immediately protested

Is the carrier liable for manufacturing defect, did it exercise exod?

- only test applied; visual inspection every 30 days to look for cracks

- no test where carrier w/ manufacturer tested if it were up to standard/look for hidden flaws

- visual inspection; will not determine a steel knuckles resistance

- steel knuckle’s strength can be determined

- knuckles failure is not an FE that can exempt a carrier

- carrier’s obligations; safety of passengers; periodical tests to determine condition/strength of critical vehicle portions

Dmgs- no moral/exem dmgs- indemnity of 5k injuries of kid

death; losses of prop/burial/loss of earnings; 15k

PAL v CA & Samson

(R) Samson flew for PAL- Mla -> Legaspi- Had stops at Daet/Cam Nor/Cam Sur- Co pilot of Captain Bustamante

Landing at Daet- overshot airfield; slow reaction of

Cap B- Samson diligent efforts to avoid- Crashlanded beyond runway into a

mangrove- Jolt caused Samson to hit the wind

shield; brain concussion- PAL gave him comp physician;

limited examination on exterior injuries; not given proper med attention despite severity of injus

- Several days later –> active duty; despite request for expert medical attendance

- Suffered dizzy spells/nervousness- PAL discharged him; physical

disability;

CFI- prayed for unearned income/ moral/

Attys/ expenses- 180k/50k/20k/5k

CA – affirmed LC- modified damages; imposed legal rate

of interest on unearned income-

Was there a causal connection between the superficial injuries and the subsequent head aches/general debility?- PAL -> psychosomatic symptoms- SC agrees w/ Samson; dizzy spells

caused by crash landing; rejected 2

physicians opinions; possibly due to post traumatic stress; could not determine cause

- Samson’s specialists; cerebral concussion; blood from nose/ears; abnormality in encephalogram;

Was PAL grossly negligent in allowing Bustamante to fly?

- YES- Sick; tumor of nasopharynx- Does not pass the CAA standard- Allowed only to fly as a co pilot- Complained of pains in the face- Month prior; landed outside air strip;

almost hit Mayon- Crash report; although signed; not

relieve captn from fault; Negligence of busta; did not maintain pressure on brakes; overshot

Duty of Utmost diligence- for the safety of the passengers/crew

operating carrier- reason; lapse will result to the death

of P/C

Damages- compensatory damages; affirm; - moral damages given due to BF-

Sulpicio v CA

(P)Sulipicio transport for

Agro Lumber Comp (ALC)

Timber

Loading of timber- (P) sent tugboat/barge- raining; no loading- next day; ALC hired CBL to load

timber on the storeroom of barge- warning on heat/gas due to copra- still a stevedore entered; fell

unconscious; 2 others followed;

Pamalaran (of the 2) died of gas poisoning

TC – heirs filed against Sulpicio/CBL/ALC- solidarily liable- A/M/Attys- 40k/50k/20k

CA – affirmed

Is Sulpicio liable, although Pamalaran was not its passenger?

- YES!- loading/unloading; services permitted

on the boat; loading/service was the valuable consideration (paid for by transpo fare)

- the presence of stevedores was called for by cont of carriage; who else can load the goods other than the stevedores; sulipicio then responsible for their safety

Was the warning sufficient?- No!- Failed to prove that ees had training

on handling the safety of goods and for people loading the cargo

- Should have instructed the ees; that the hatch should not be opened by any unauthorized person

- Precautionary measures should have been met to make sure that it was safe to enter

- Failed to exercise due diligence in the supervision and selection of ees

- Compensatory damages increased to 50k

JAL v Asuncion

(R) Asuncions

Manila -> LA

Stop over Narita- they were to have an overnight stay at

H nikko

- required to get a shore pass; for foreigners staying not more than 72 hrs

- michl appeared shorter than his height (compared to passport); denied shorepass; brought to narita rest house; notice to higuchi (watched so as not to escape)

- ISC; agency handling people denied of shorepasses; charged Asuncions 400$ for accommodations

- Asuncions filed a complaint for damages; rudely detained; not apprised w/ travel requirements

TC – JAL liable for- 800$ expenses incurred- M E Attys- 200 100 100

CA affirm

Did JAL breach its contract?- NO!- Duty to inspect travel documents of

passengers; does not cover the veracity of every entry of the document; the power to admit an alien not w/ in the ambit of the cont of carriage

- Before departure they knew that shore passes were required; testimony of villavicencio; responsibility on shore pass involves passenger only (not airline)

Failed to exhaust all means; cont of carriage; overnight passes to hotel?

- JAL had no authority to interfere w/ immigration

- Most reps could do was to endorse; higuchi could not assist; forbidden to interfere w/ immigration;

- Notice to sign; cannot interfere; decision of immigration

- Higuchi did all she could; immediately made reservations for nrta rest house

- Nowhere in testi did JAL/ees treat them rudely

Damages- moral; willfully causes injury- exemplary; imposed by way of

example when WFOM- attys fees; when exem awarded; when

compelled to incur expenses to protect his interest

- NO BREACH; no basis for award

800- payments did not bene JAL- it was for payment of accomos to ISC

Counterclaim of JAL (litig expenses)- CA dismissed- Asuncions honeslty believed that JAL

breached its cont

Del Prado v Meralco

Meralco operated street cars- teodorico motorman; in charge of one

of the cars; e -> w hidalgo street- stopped; where passengers got on/off;

proceeded at mod speed at direction of motorman

- after a short distance; (P) del Prado; ran across to catch the car

Testimony; Guevara- raised hands; indication of his desire

to board car- motorman slowed down slightly; but

did not stop- (P) was a able to get a hand at the

handle- but before (P) secured his position;

motorman applied the power; jerked forward

- (P) fell on the ground; right foot crushed; amputated

Motorman Teodorico; testi- did not see (P); did not accelerate; did

not know anything until after (P) hurt and someone called him to stop;

- SC not convinced; the position of the handpost held on to by the (P); front portion; immediately left side of motorman

No obligation to stop; other than designated stops

- it was his duty not to increase the (P) peril in boarding

- premature acceleration was a breach of his duty

Breach of an obligation- breach of positive duty- Meralco’s defense of sufficient

training of motorman; ordinary diligence; irrelevant

Contri negli- boarding of (P) not proxi cause- Meralco’s negli proxi cause- Contri negli is a mitigating circ

La Mallorca v CA

Beltran Family – w/ daughters; Milagros/Fe/Raquel (latter 4 and 2 yrs); Passengers of Pambusco Bus; 4 baggage

Pampanga -> anao

(D) La Mallorca; owner of Pambusco- conductor; half brother of Beltran- 3 tickets; parents/eldest child; no fare

for Fe/Raq

Arrival at anao- stoped for passengers to step off;

beltran family alight; father led to a shaded spot

- left bayong; went back for it; Raquel followed; unnoticed;

- waiting for the conductor to hand him the bayong; motor not shut off started

moving; conductor not give the signal to start moving; traveled 10 meters before stopping

- since bus was moving; mariano jumped off to the shaded spot; w/o getting bayong

- people gathered around the body of a child; crushed skull; Raquel

Filed a complaint seeking moral/actual/attys fees

TC – breach of cont; death/compensatory&burial expenses3000/400

CA – sustained theory of La Mallroca; child not passenger anymore; liable for quasidelict; damages 6k

Was there still a cont of carriage?- father; yes; when he went back for the

bayong; relationship subsisted- child; yes; although 5 meters away

from bus- relationship; passenger/carrier; does

not cease upon alighting; continues until passenger has had a reasonable opportunity to leave

- reasonable time; circumstances of the case

Did the carrier’s agent exercise UD of VPs?- based on circumstances NO- 1st did not put off engine; 2ndly

started to run the bus w/o the conductors signal (still unloading baggage)

- presence of passengers near bus; not unreasonable;

Allegation for quasidelict- alternative COA; sufficiently pleaded

negligence- before giving the signal to go; while

persons on running board; bus started;- La Mallorca failed to prove; ordinary

diligence; selec/supervi of…- La mallorca liable for the death

Bataclan v Medina

After midnight

Cavite -> Pasay

Driver saylon; Medina Trans; owned by Mariano Medina

18 persons in the bus- One of them; Juan Bataclan; seated

beside driver to the right- In Imus; one of the tires burst; zigzag;

fell into canal (rightside); overturned- Some passengers were able to escape- passengers near the driver;

Juan/Visaya/Lara/Natalia; could not get out

- shouts for help; no evidence that driver/conductor helped trapped passengers escape

- 1 hour later; 10 men; help; fire started; gas spread; lighted by torch

- brought by one of the men (10 men)

Heirs of Bataclan filed a suit against medina for moral/compensatory/exemplary/attys fees

CFI – awarded 1k/600/100

CA – endorsed appeal to SC; due to amount involved

Breach of contract of carr- medina trans negli; thru driver; at

time of blow out; speeding- could have stopped; but due to its

velocity; carried 150 meters; before it fell to canal

To what degree is carrier liable?- Medina’s ardument; liable for physical injuries; not death (still alive before fire)

What is the proximate cause of death? (overturning or FIRE?)

- proximate cause; overturning of bus; since overturned; gas leaked;

- man w/ torch; response to help; made prolly by passengers/conductor; it was dark (2am); no flashlights

- burning of the bus can be attributed to the negli of the driver; walking back and forth the area; must have known; gas all over the area; must have smelt; did not take steps to warn rescuers

Damages- 6000; considered earning capacity;

compensatory/moral/other dmgs- 800; attys fees

testi of hospitalized passenger- overheard medina/driver; change of

tires; driver not follow- crim case against driver; dismissed;

non appearance of witness- prosecution must be pursued; interest

of justice

Aboitiz v CA

Sinking of M/V P. Aboitiz

121883- Malayan insurance; 5 actions against

Aboitiz; for cargo paid; consolidated- Malayan sought recovery of 639k- RTC -> aboitiz liable on money

claims; disregarded argument on Force Majeur

- CA affirmed RTC; negligence of ees- Liability; based on GAFLAC case;

based on declared value of shipment and COGSA

- SC; denied -> reinstated decision; comment

130752- Asia Traders/Allied ; subrogation;

recover value of cargo- TC -> 646k- Aboitiz argued; Force Majeur/finding

of marine Board; hypothecary nature limitation on liab

- CA affirm RTC; hypothecary nature in GAFLAC case cant be applied; aboitiz negligent

137801- Equitable insurance; subro; recover

value of cargo- RTC; aboitiz contri negli; liable for

loss- CA -> affirmed RTC; failure of exod;

unseaworthy

In all 3 cases; can aboitiz avail of the limited libilty; hypothecary nature of maritime law?

- GAFLAC ruling; limited to the value of insurance proceeds of lost vessel pending freightage; (not full insurable value)

- Defense of (R)’s in the 1st 2 cases; should not be limited -> aboitiz negligent

- 3rd case; failed exod; no limitation

GAFLAC case (General accident fire…)- one of the many insurers; offshoot of

an earlier 1990 GAFLAC case; final and executory;

- TC – granted GAFLAC’s prayer for execution

- 1993 GAFLAC case; Aboitiz argued that hypothecary doctrine warranted immediate stay of execution; prevent impairment of other creditors shares

- limited liability; limited to extent of the value of the vessel; exec must be stayed pending other claims; collation; pro rate each share

- Aboitiz not negligent; no finding of negligence; abpitiz then can claim the limited liab rule

- No vessel no liability; shipowner’s liability is co extensive w/ his interest in the vessel

Limited liability (code of commerce: 587/590/837)

- GR limitation on libilty; to value of the vessel/appurtenances/freightage earned during voyage; owner abandon vessel

- Exception: liability even if there is abandonment; loss due to fault of the shipowner/captain; shipowner can be

liable for injuries to passengers if it was due to his fault

Finding of negligence (why GAFLAC does not apply)

- captain negligent in preventing the vessel from sailing into the typhoon

- failed exod in steering/sailing into typhoon

- failed to ensure seaworthiness- cant avail of the limitation on

liability; (limited to insurance proceeds); instead liable for thevalue of the lost cargo

Supervening cases- Monarch insurance; sinking due to

unseaworthiness; negli of crew; application of GAFLAC; cred in an insolvent corp w/ not enough assets to cover claims against it; circumstances warranted procedural rules to be set aside; institute limitation (peculiar circs made doctrine applicable)

- New India; damage due to ship owner/concurrent negli of shipowner and captain; limited liab cant be applied; failed to prove exod

Real and hypothecary nature of maritime law- GR; shipowner’s liability is co

extensive w/ his interest in the vessel- Exception: when the fault is

attributable to the ship owner- Shipowner then can be liable for

damages if the sinking of the vessel is attributable to his fault/negli/failure to ensure seaworthiness

PAL v CA & Zapatos

Pedro Zapatos- one of 21 passengers; flight 477

(cebu-ozamis-cotabato); he was bound for cebu-> ozamiz

- on the 2nd; before landing in ozamis; radio message; airport closed; heavy rains; proceed to cotabato

Arrival at cotabato- station agent informed them of their

options; 1 flight 560 to cebu but on the 4th to ozamis; 2 next flight to cebu on following day; 3 next avalbl flight to ozamis on the 5th

- flight 560; cotabato -> mla; stop over at cebu; only 6 seats avlbl; priority; check in sequence at cebu

- Zapatos chose to return to cebu; not accommodated; tried to stop f560; belongings on plane/camera

- PAL issued free ticket; for iiligan; accepted under protest

- Could not hitch a ride w/ fiera for ees- Purchased a ticket for iiligan the

following day; not use free ticket/file case

At iiligan- hired a car from airport -> ozamis- he never recovered his thing + camera

TC – for Zapatos- awarded

Actual/moral/exemplary/attys fees/ costs

- A(200 trans expnss;48 cota->iiligan; 500 iiligan-> ozamiz; 5000 lost bness ops)/50k hurt feelings unkind trtmnt/10k prov comfort to stranded pssngrs/3k atys

CA – affirmed TC

Did Zapatos fail to impute PAL’s negligence in the pleadings?

- NO!- amended complaint; alleged PAL’s

indifference; refusal to accommodate; allowing other passngrs instead of him; forced to be stranded in cotabato; exposed to danger of muslim rebels; suffered mental anguish…

- PAL’s apathy; testi; last person on airport among ees; war near airport; transpo to cota city; rode a jeep; questioned; could not hitch w/ ees on fiera

- Evidence; no objection; did not contest evi focusing on its negli; becomes prop of case; PAL tried to rebut (failed its counter allegation; asked for offer of transpo “not our fault”; hotel accomo; not offered already riding pick up jeep)

- Lack of care for passengers; issues not raised in pleadings; tried via E/I consent; treated as if raised in pleadings

Were the dmgs unfounded? (Not responsible for comfort of passengers due to diversion/FE)?

- cont of air carriage; invites people of the comforts and advantages it offers

- diversion due to FE; did not terminate cont of carr; PAL deemed equipped to deal w/ such situations; responsibility continues until passenger reaches port of desti/leaves premises; exod in safeguarding comfort of stranded passengers

- PAL FAILED in exercising exod in safeguarding the convenience/safety of its stranded passenger; stranger to the place; war between gov/muslims; 7 others not accomo;

- FE not sole cause; diversion could have been prevented; (PAL did not contest that ozamiz had no all weather airport)

Did PAL fail to inform him of his non accomo/inattentive to his queiries?- no basis to say that PAL failed;

Zapatos boisterous at counter; station agent; Z insisted diverted should be prioritized; policies; accepted ticket; the rest left w/ tickets readied for the following day

- PAL gave info in options of passengers; station agent report prima

facie evi of facts; apart from Z others stranded too

- Insistence on being given priotity; unreasonable due to FE/sequence in booking; stayed long; arguing w/ PAL ees

- No evidence tha PAL ees disrespectful; attended by ees and Manager

Amount of dmgs- lost earnings; speculative; shark liver

oil; actual dmgs cant be presumed; scheduled on morning aug 3

- A 5K / M 1OK/ E 5K

Quisumbing v CA

Fokker “Friendship” plane- mactan -> manila

Passengers- quisumbing/gunther- sr nbi agent villarin- zaldy; suspect in killing of judge

Valdez; at the front near cockpit- thru stewardess; villarin found out

that zaldy “cardente” (alias known to villarin) had 3 companions

- villarin sent a note to the captain; request for around 6 nbi agents to meet the plane due to the suspect

- cap’n; approached V; not send msg; would be recvd by all aircraft stations; villarin warned of the notorious zaldy

Hijacking- one of Z’s companions walked behind

cap and V; after cap -> cockpit; comp returned to seat; ugly looks to V; V went to his orig seat

- gunshots between V and Z + companions

- Z announced hold up; pilot not send SOS; got belongings of passengers

- Quisumbing; divested of jelwelries/cash; 18k worth; recov 4k

- Gunther; divested of watch/cash; 1,700

- Upon landing; Z and co escaped- Q/G made demands on PAL for the

loss

Brought suit against PAL- value of loss; M/E/attys/expenses- not FM; no use of irresistible force in

gaining entrance

PAL’s answer- Force majeure; not notified of jewelry

and amount of cash

CFI – dismissed complaint- not notified of valuables/cash- armed robbery that occurred = FM;

could not be avoided; not authorized to search passengers for fire arms

CA – affirm cfi- rejected (P)’s argument; FM only if

irresistible force used to gain entry- it was FM; hijackers do not board the

plane displaying their firearms; display Irresistible force when it is most effective

Was PAL negligent?- NO!- Although amateurish cap’n; open

cockpit door; still FM; even if precautions were taken; hijacking would still occur; screening procedures although minimize hijackers (it wont stop determined hijackers); negligence did not mingle w/ FM here

- Hijackers showed willingness to kill; one passenger killed; another shot;

See Bataclan

De Gillaco v MRR

MRR; early morning train; Calamba -> Mla- Gillaco; passenger- Devesa; guard of MRR; Sanf

Fernando -> Mla; on his way to

tutuban station; had grudge against Gillaco; since Japanese time

- Shot Gillaco w/ carbine provided by MRR; gillaco died

- Gillaco convicted w/ homicide

MRR’s argument- no liability for deveza’s acts; acts

done not in ordinary course of his duties;

LC – MRR responsible; cont of trans; implied protection from violence by its ees

Extent of protection from its ees- limited to what the carrier can

foresee/avoid thru diligence required

Was the shooting a FE?- YES!- Shooting due to grudge;

unforeseeable; no means to ascertain; - Complex activites of modern day

trans; guarding against all misunderstandings between passengers; beyond what human care/foresight can give

Devza; no duties at the time- duties to start 2 hours after the crime;

9am; - assigned to guard SF -> Mla trains; at

paco-

Maranan v Perez

Taxicab; owned by Perez; driver Valenzuela- Rogelio; passenger- Valenzuela; stabbed and killed

Rogelio- Valenzuela guilty of homicide;

imprisonment/indemnity to heirs; he appealed

- Pending appeal; Antonia maranan; rogelio’s mother; filed action for dmgs against perez/valen

CFI – for maranan; 3k damages- claim angst V dismissed- Maranan/Perez appealed

CA – affirmed CFI

Maranan wanted more dmgs

Perez; non liab

Perez’ argument- Gillaco case; passenger killed outside

scope of duty of ee

Was it in the line of duty? Facts diff from gillaco

- killing done by driver; one responsible for cont of carr

- driver definitely w/ in the scope of his duties

- gillaco decided under old civ code; did not impose absolute liability for wilfull/negli acts of ees

- new civil code; 1759; makes carrier liab for intentional acts of ees

basis of carrier’s liab for assaults made by drivers

- minority view; liab only if w/ in the scope

- majority view; sufficient that done w/ in course of ees duty (implied; safely trans passenger); absolute liab for ees assaults; “in excess of A” not a defense

Reasons for majority view- special undertaking; full measure of

protection pursuant to high measure of care given by law; specially from own ees

- liability for ees; delegation of duty to ees to safely trans passenger

- carriers bear the risk of wrongful acts of ees; power to select/remove

Carrier liable- correctly claim against driver;

covered by crim case w/c included civ liab

see dmgs

LRTA v Navidad

Edsa LRT station- 7:30pm; Navidad entered station;

bought token; entered platform to wait for train

- Escartin; guard on station- Allegedly had an altercation between

2; fist fight- Navidad fell on tracks; Roman

(operator); train came in; ran over Navidad -> died

- Heirs of navidad filed suit against guard/operator/metro trans/lrta/prudent

TC – held prudent/escartin liable- dismissed case as to Roman/LRTA

CA – exonerated prudent- held roman/lrta liable- there was a cont of carr; perfection of

cont- prudent; Navidad failed to prove fist

blows;

LRTA’s arguments- guards acts; that of a stranger’s; could

not be prevented- roman not ee of lrta; roman testi that

he of Metro trans

Basis of Liability- cont of carr; breach of cont- in discharge of its commitments;

carrier may hire ees OR outsiders/indep firms

- not relieved of responsibilities under cont of carr

Should prudent be liable?- insufficient evi linking secu agency to

death of navidad

Romanno showing as well that roman was guilty

Pilapil v CA

Bus; owned by ALATCO trans; Iriga -> Naga; 6pm

- on reaching Baao; by stander on national high way; threw stone at left side of bus

- Pilapil hit; above left eye- Ees of Alatco brought him to hospi- Left eye impaired; went to a diff dr;

left eye partially impaired; perma scar- Brought suit against alatco

CFI – held alatco liable

CA – reversed

Is Alatco liable?- NO!- Common carrier not an insurer of

absolute safety- Presumption of negli; disputable; if

exercise exod/due FE; if injury wholly created by strangers; carrier had not control; carrier not liable;

- Intervening acts of strangers; standard of care; ordinary diligence

- Ordinary prudence; (suggestion of putting grills) carrier not charged w/ duty of taking unreasonable precautions to prevent all injuries to passengers;

- General use; approved type; used by most in same occupation;

- (suggestion of holding carrier liable for stone throwing); up to congress not judiciary

Acts strangers; extent of diligence (ordinary diligence); if injury wholly by stranger; carrier no cont; not liable; not an insurer of absolute safety

Bachelor Express v CA

Bus owned by Bachelor Express- davao -> cagayan de oro

- passed thru butuan; a passenger came on board; later the passenger stabbed a PC soldier

- caused panic; when bus stopped; Ornominio Beter (died;head injuries)/Narcisa Rautraut(died later; sever injuries)

- heirs of B/R; parents; filed complaint

TC – dismissed complaint

CA – reversed- bach ex solidarily liab - B; 75k; loss of earnings; support;

moral; death;attys- R; 45k; moral;death;attys;costs

Proxi cause; bach ex’s arguments- bach ex’s arguments; proxi cause

passenger who stabbed another; B/R self preservation; jumped off while bus still running; not negli since; no control over 3rd person; drive carefully before/during incident;

Fortuitous Event- cause unforeseen/indep of human will- impossible to foresee/inevitable- impossible to render obli in a normal

manner- obligor free from participation from

causing injury to credi

1756; presumption of negligence; to overcome; must prove exod in 1733/1755

To be absolved of Liab; not enough that it was FM; carrier must prove that it was not negli

Did Bach ex exercise exod in the safeguarding the lives of the passengers?

- NO!- conflicting findings TC/CA- TC – carriers not insurers of

passengers; not show negli; can accept passengers if not drunk; if such

p’s harm other p’s w/o k of carrier; carrier should not be faulted; door locked; nobody could get out

- CA; facts overlooked by TC; carrier negligent; testi (cullano; sole uninterested witness > defeated conductor’s testi); door opened when people panicked forced by onrushing passengers; other testi (son fell out when door opened); conductor panicked and opened door

- Speed; 30-40mph; not slow considering coming from a full stop;

- Carrier negligent; belated stop/reckless opening of doors (passengers fell); blew whistle after passengers had fallen; not equipped w/ proper doors vis a vis loading capacity (not in accordance w/ regulations)

1764/2206; factors; damages- loss of earning capacity/ life

expectancy- pecuniary loss/support/service- moral/mental suffering

Loss of earning capacity- number of years; basis for dmgs to be

computed; circumstances (eg life of a carpenter)

- rate of losses sustained by heirs; net earnings considered (gross less necessary living expenses of dcsd)

see discussion on loss of earnings/life expectancy

Proximate cause; running amock of co passenger; stabbing; context of FM; to be freed from liab; carrier must prove that it was not negligent

Cangco v MRR(p) Cangco – clerk of MRR; ee of MRR

San mateo station; passengers alight- Emilio stepped off; another ee

- Cangco stepped off; stepped on a bag of watermelons; fell violently on platform; rolled from platform under the car; right arm crushed; after he alighted train moved for 6 meters; dimly lit; single light;

- Objects on platform hard to see; 7-8 pm

Why melons where there- customary season for harvesting

melons; numerous sacks piled on platform; edge

- cangco failed to see melons

Brought to hospi- arm amputated; brought to another

hospi; further amputated- incurred expenses/curation

CFI – recovery of dmgs; due to negli of ees; melons

- ruled in favor of MRR; cangco was deemed precluded from recovering; failed to use due caution in alighting

Liability of MRR- cont of carriage; direct; failed to

exercise due care; - breach of cont vs quasidelict;

presence of negli

Defense of MRR; main cause was cangco’s contri neg

- admitting that ees negligent; cangco should have waited for the train to stop before alighting

But, only ordinary diligence is required of cangco

- was there anything in the circs that would make the passenger do otherwise given the same circs?

- Cangco was did not know of the obstruction; dark;

Was there contri negli?- still young; no risk in alighting from a

moving train (slowly); place was

familiar to cangco; there was no contri negli

Contributory negligence; determination; did person act recklessly; physical conditions considered; if not characterize imprudence (no contri neg)

Isaac v AL Ammen

AL Ammen – bus

Isaac boarded bus- Albay -> Camarines Sur- Bus collided w/ a pick up- Loss of arm- Medical treatment in diff hospitals

Filed an action for damages; breach of cont

AL Ammen’s defense – pick up negli + contributory negligence of Isaac

TC – Collision occurred due to pick up; bus did everything to avoid collision

Liability of a carrier- contractual; comes upon breach (there

is breach if failure of exod)- carry p’s w/ utmost diligence of a

very cautious person w/ due regard for all circs

- presumed negli unless- not an insurer of all risks against

travel

Did (d) exercise exod in avoiding the collision?

- yes the carrier did- did everything to avoid; moved truck

over piles of gravel- truck at moderate speed; pick up at

full speed; swereved to extreme right; could not move any further aginst pile of gravel w/o endangering passengers

- when faced w/ sudden emergency; the fact that he has to act quickly;

diligence required only ordinary since must act quickly w/o deliberation

Contributory negligence of Isaac- seated on left side; rested arm on

window sill; severance; he was the only victim

contri negli GR – reduction of dmgs; exception – protrude an arm/elbow, beyond edge of window – no recovery (will not result if it were not for such negli)

Contri negli; not relieve carrier of liability; reduction of amount of damages;

Cariaga v LTB

LTB Bus; Mla -> Laguna; june 18 1952- Cariaga; passenger UST med- Reached poblacion bay laguna;

portion crossed railroad- Train was passing by; derailed;

engine of train bumped front part of bus; bus driver died

- Many passengers injured; one of them Cariaga; confined to san Pablo H (june 18); trans to delos santos clinic (june 20-oct 14); trans to UST hospi (oct 14 to nov 15) ; taken back to delos (nov 15 – jan 15 1953) unconscious 1st 35 days; removed fractured n=bones on frontal lobe; also covered hole on right frontal part of head

- LTB paid 16k for med expenses (june 18-april); give subsistence allowance of 10 pesos

Criaga filed suit- against LTB/MRR- 312K a/c/m/e/- 18k parents (same)

LTB - negli of MRR; not provide cross bar at crossing point

MRR – negli of bus driver;

LC – bus driver negli; ltb liab; 10k actual- MRR exonerated

Who was at fault; bus/train?- both at fault; train and bus driver; vio

law; 300meters sounded; 100 meters long whistle; bus did not slow down; other LTB bus stopped (heeded warning); bus in case ignored whistle;

- bus driver negligent

Cariagas Q the 10k compensatoryl damages; inadequate considering his injuries

- deposition; neurosurgeon; right forehead fractured; removal of frontal lobe

- testi; psychiatrist; due to injuries; mentality rduced; cant finish studies

- result; virtually an invalid

Are the compensatory damages just limited to the med expenses?

Actual/compensatory dmgs- breach of contract;

probable/foreseeable consequences for breach

- med/hostpi/other expenses - 17k- income that could have been earned;

circs; could have been foreseen; could have passed boards; 1st rate univ; 300 pesos monthly income

- 25k

Moral damages- claim of cariaga does not fall in any

of the circs in 2219- claim is not a quasi delct; cont of carr;

did not act in BF- obligor in good faith; diligence in

selec/supervision

Attys fees- not entitled; not under grounds in

2208

Cliam of sps w/o merit; claim based on breach of cont; sps not a party; cant use quasi delict etier since they themselves not injured

Actual/compensatory damages; natural consequences of breach; circumstances/deemed what could be reasonably foreseen to be included in damages;

PAN AM v IAC

Pangan (president of Archer Prods/Sotang Bastos) agreement w/ Quesada

- supply 3 films Mabait, Pangit, at Masungit/Big Happening w/ Chikiting and Iking/Kambal Dragon

- exhibition in the US

Pangan visited Guam; agreed w/ Slutchnik; 2 fils exhibition in

Prepared promo materials handbills/still pics/clutchbags/ 12,900; barong tagalong/capiz lamps 4,400

Obtained economy ticket from pan am for guam; checked in his luggage; no space in economy; paid 112 for 1st class

Arrival at guam; luggage not arrive; agreements w/ Slutchnik/Quesada cancelled; claim for luggage

Contact lawyer; Pan am assured to investigate; failed to communicate on protests; filed action

CFI – Pan Am liable; 83k actual damages/10k attys fees/8k addtl actual dmgs

IAC – affirmed CFI

Conditions of contract- Warsaw applies unless not

international carriage- Limited to 20$ per kilo

Pan Am argues- limited to 600$ (20 x 30 kilos)

- Pangan did not declare a higher val/pay addtnl charges

- Ong yiu: bound by ticket; did not declare higher val; not entitled to excess of limitation

- Shewaram: not apply; not even alleged/proved

Does the Warsaw conv apply?- Court did not intend to rule on

validity of Warsaw (argument that Warsaw; limit on liab; cant be used)

-

Damages/lost profits?- should not be granted- 1107; liable for damages that cpould

be foreseen when cont of trans entered into; preparations of Pangan not announced to Pan Am (there should have been notice of special circs to show dmgs)

- contracts cancelled; proximate cause was pangan’s failure to deliv on dates agreed; did not declare value of luggage checked in; pan am not privy to contract/not called to condition requiring promo mats to be delivered at a certain date

600

Actual damages; to recover extraordinary damages; must declare/notify carrier of the special circumstances

Villa Rey v CA

Isuzu First Class; Villa rey; Driver Casim - Lingayen -> Mla- Policronio Quintos; 1st seat 2nd row- Nearing; national highway pampanga;

bus hit rear of bullcart full of hay; end of bamboo pole penetrated wind shield;

- landed on his left eye; bone left side fractured; cerebral concussion;

- patrol man placed quintos/3 injured on la mallorca bus to hospi

- quintos died due to traumatic shock from cereb concussion

heirs; sisters of dcsd; brch; damages 63k

TC – in favor of heirs

CA – affirm

Is the TC’s computation on the number of years correct?

- TC; AETM; life expectancy 33 and ½; he was 30; formula: 2/3 (80-30) = life expectancy

- Villarey; invoking 4 year rule; - In alcantara; none of parties

questioned 4 year basis; it was not the rule w/ regard to time; no uniform rule; depends on circumstance

Rate of damages?- here not of full amount of earning;

support (intestate heirs)- earning – necessary expenses = net

earnings

PAL v CA & Padilla

PAL; flight26; iloilo->Mla- crashed in Mindoro; plane made in

1942;acquired in 1948; airworthy CAA

- 33 passengers; one of them; Nicanor Padilla; 29 single; only heir mother

Mother filed suit- 600k actual/compensatory/exemplary- 60k attys fees

Pre trial order; stipulation of facts; Nicanor Padilla

- HS reserve AFP; Lit/Bachelor of Laws ADMU

- Admitted to practice; firm Padilla and Padilla

- Pres/gen mgr of Padilla shipping; VP/Treas of Allied Overseas trading co

- BoD Junior Chamber of Commerce

Flight 26- purchased from commercial air; 1956- non fatal accident in cagayan- request; change in identification

mark; reg change- 18k flight hours- obtained cert of airworthiness

Filipino Experience Mortality Table- Salvosa; U of Michigan- For an aged 29; life expectancy 42.60- For 60; 17.90- Used by several Insurance companies

Prinicipal Mortality Tables- Nelson and warren- Also used by insurance comps in the

phils

“Applicability of the Tables left to the judgment of the court”

TC – 477k expected income- 10k moral- 10k attys- costs

CA – affirm

Was the computation of indemnity correct; based life expectancy of the deceased

- PAL’s argument; principle of law in the US; life expectancy of the deceased or the beneficiary; w/c ever is shorter

- Foreign juris only Persuasive; will apply only if no avlbl law/juris

- Applicable laws: 1764/2206; damages for death based on life expectancy of deceased (not beneficiary)

- Liability for loss of earning capacity; paid to heirs; assessed and awarded by court; UNLESS had no earning capacity (physical disability not caused by def)

- Davilla case; 30 years of age at death; life expect 33 1/3; formula - 2/3 (80-

30); income from 3 diff sources; due to circs life expec lowered to 25 (had ailments and back aches)

- Proving actual dmgs; witnesses Mate/reyes; had knowledge of salaries; objections to their testis waived;

Life expec 30 years; single

Fores v Miranda

Jeepney; driven by Luga- coming from sta mesa bridge

morning; excessive speed; lost control; hit bridge wall

- 5 passengers injured; including (R) Miranda; fracture upper right humerus; hospi/operations; not recover use of right arm

- driver; charged w/ phys inju via reckless impru

Fores’ arguments- evidence not suffi id vehicle- one day before sold to Sckerman

Is the approval of the pub serv com necessary to sell a pub service vehicle (w/ autho to operate)?

- until approved; owner in records of PSC considered; protection of public

Moral damages- must be discarded- breach of cont; for moral to be given;

must prove BF; analogous cases 2219; 2220; quasidelicts does not include previous contractual relations

- death of a passenger; allows recov of moral dmgs

- if passenger does not die; no moral recov; unless BF proven

- negligently (is not a breach of confidence); hence not automatically BF;

Air France v Carrascoso

Carrascoso; passenger; civ engineer- Mla -> Lourdes; Airfrance issued him

a 1st class roundtrip ticket Mla-> Rome

- At Bangkok; forced him to vacate 1st class; whiteman had better right; commotion; reluctantly gave

CFI granted M/E/attys/costs- 25k/10k/393 (diff)/3k

CA – 393 to 383 (affirmed all other)

Was he entitled to 1st class?- Airfrance argues; ticket not true

intent; allegedly knew that not reserved 1st class; issuance of 1st class not guarantee; depend on availability

- TC; (D) witness “marke OK; first class”; CA; why would it give out a ticket it did not mean to honor;

- Adherence to the ticket issued; is desirable; oral cannot prevail over written evi; showed that he rcved and paid 1st class

Should Moral damages be granted?- yes!- From 1st class to tourist class;

compelled to leave after being seated; due to embarrassment took pan am instead Madrid -> Mla

- Failure to furnish 1st class; suffered mental anguish/embarrassment

- 1st class Bangkok to teran; breach of cont when failed to giv 1st class, BF -> compelled to tourist class after seated;

- ousted by manager to give white man his seat; captain refused to intervene; did not present mgr to deny statement on captain; no evidence if whiteman had reservation; did not prove if white man did have a better right -> def silent

- manager; did not just prevent carrascoso from enjoying his right;

imposed his arbitrary will; threatened to throw him out of the plane

Lopez v Pan Am

Pan Am Flight 2; Tokyo -> san Francisco- reservations for 1st class; senator

lopez/ wife/son in law/daughter- 1st class tickets then issued/paid

Lopez- flew northwest from manila to JPN- arrival at JPN; Minister -> contact

Pan Am for 1st class; 1st class all booked up; gave to minister but reiterate that pan am could not accomo unless tourist

- took the tourist class; had to go to a conf/wife med check up; under protest

Filed suit for damages

CFI for Lopez- m/e/attys costs- 100k/20k/25k

lopez mfr; increase Moral

CFI -> 150k/25k/25k

Both parties appealed- Pan am questioning BF- Lopez wanting dmgs increased to

650k

Was there BF?- YES!- Lopez argument; prejudice against

pinoys; 2 other passengers- Pan Am’s argument; honest mistake;

reservations made via joint reservation card; w rufinos (8 in all plus lopezes); 2 other rufinos under sep reservations; new reservation card made; agency cancelled rufinos; but herranz (reservation ee) mistakenly

cancelled even lopezes; contacted san fran ofc for reinstatement; wait listed; still a month away; herranz confident and forgot about it; vila; co worker of herranz; confirmed reservation; telez to san fran; but still unable to

- Pan AM in effect; admitted that it cancelled reservations; intentionally withheld fact of cancellation; letting them believe their 1 st class reservations valid; such conduct amounts to BF; malice

- Reservations super visor; non notification; “prompted him to withhold info”; his duty to inform them + 2 tickets of record “marked OK for 1st class”

- Herranz was even promoted; higher salary; not investigated; self enrichment

-

Moral Damages- BF + humiliation, damaged feelings

etc- International carriers should know the

prestige of the senate pres pro tempore office; former VP

- Although private business engagement; second engagement by pinoys in honor of his being pro tempore

- Wife shared prestige and humiliation; 13hr trip; discomfort; prior to flight had flu and lost 10pounds

- Daughter and son inlaw; prestige and humiliation; paid for but did not get 1st class

100k senator; 50 wife; 25 daughter; 25 son in law

Ortigas v Lufthansa

Agents of Lufthansa; Sharp Travel Service; issued 1st class tickets to Ortigas

- Mla -> US -> Europe -> Asia -> FE -> Mla

Arrival at NY; - left some cities in itinerary to be in

HK; went to TWA; Europe -> Far East -> Manila

Arrival at Rome- contacted ofc of Alitalia to book 1st

class; but no flight on Monday; but Lufthansa DID; Lufthansa: only economy available

- Ortigas; not willing to take economy; Lufthansa called back: 1st class available; ortigas immedialtely asked for the seat; asked for his travel docus; alitalia attached validation sticker on flight coupon (TWA rome-> hk); called again to make sure;

Terminal; Counter of Lufthansa- no space for him; apologized ticket in

order - handed ticket to ee at counter; name

was called; ee asked for his passport; “Filipino nationality”; could not board; seat to be given to a Belgian; only replied sorry he could not leave

- Fearing recurrence of heart ailment; took nitroglycerin pill; asked Belgian over to see if he had a better right; turned down request; offered economy/refund

- Argument happened in front of amando castro; ortigas was humiliated since ee was shouting at him; ortigas asked for flights to hk; turned down offered economy and will be in 1st class from cairo to hk;

Arrival at cairo (Egypt; asia)- asked if will be transfrd to 1st

- promised to be trans to 1st at Drham; ortigas requested to find out if other airlines had 1st class

Arrival at Darham- asked to be trans; not rcv commu for

change- Arrived at Calcutta; still did not allow

1st

- At Bangkok; only then offered 1st

Arrival at HK- protested; file in MLA

TC for ortigas- distinguished priv

citizen/lawyer/outstanding achievements

- heart ailment; represented Board -> reqd him to trav 1st class

- disrimi against- M/E/Attys- 100k/30k/20k

CA - affirmed

Ticket was validated/confirmed by alitalia

Is Lufthansa bound by such agreement?- yes- A&L members of IATA

(International Air Trans Assoc)- Alitalia can issue tickets for other

mems like L and Pan am- A&L are pool partners in in

EU/FE/AUS- Adhere to IATA regs; direct sales

offices; cooperation; confirm tickets of one another

Ozayta’s testi; gen manager Luf; Phils- reservation via phone; valid;

according to regulations- OK in stat box = confirmed 1st class

Placing of a sticker- revalidation; alteration; IATA

resolution; prior indorsment not nece to revalidate

Confirmed 2 days before flight- there was ample time to telex rome; to

reserve 1st class- could not fly in other airlines since his

baggage was at Luf

Ws there BF?- YES- saw pinoy passport; seat given to

Belgian w/o expla; request turned down

- asked if other have 1st to HK; offered 1st instead at cairo; false representation; at cairo said same thing as to darham

- BF; while assuring him 1 st class at cairo; ee wrote on ticket traveled economy Rome –> HK; w/c disallowed him from demanding 1st class; only deliberately make him believe he was from Cairo -> HK

- lack of care; failure to accommodate in class contracted = BF allowing moral

- much worse here; preference of Belgian passenger; done willfully and in disregard of ortigas’ rights

- made to believe to be given 1st class at cairo; even had to take pills since embarrassed; only offered 1st class at Bangkok to hk;/ w/c ortigas refused

- as to jovial mood; passenger avails for it for a higher price; doctor’s advice to take 1st class due to heart condition

Lufthansa’s defense- ee made mistake; informed only

waitlisted; - no racism; would be against their

image; whiter than his witness- ortigas in a good mood; not much diff

in 1st class / econ

Moral- must be increased from 100 to 150k

- cuenca; 20k not apply; here offense repeated 4 times rome Calcutta cairo darham w/ indifference

- luf argu that lopez 100k excessive; not pub official (BUT cant disregard ortigas in an inferior position

- aggravated by falsely noteing ticket 4 times

- zulueta case; wife/daughter on board; late H; shouted at/left; award of 150k to 200k

Exemplary- awarded as correction for the public

good- imposed on amount necessary to deter

such breach- 100k

PAL v Miano

On Board PAL; bound for Frankfurt- Miano passenger; mabuhay class- Checked in brown suitcase; did not

declare a higher value- Contain money/nikkon/clothes

connecting flight to Vienna; via Lufthansa

Arrival at Vienna; - baggage missing; reported to

Lufthansa; waited 3hrs; then left and went to piestany

- 11 days after; suitcase delivd to him in his hotel in piestany; he claimed due to delay he borrowed money to buy clothes/ 200 for trans of baggage/loss of camera

- sent a letter demanding cost of cam/trans cost of baggage/dmgs

- 10k/200$/100k- filed suit since letter unheeded

PAL- no report of mishandled baggage;

limitation; Warsaw- 3rd party complaint against Lufthansa;

failed to prosecute -> dismissed

TC for Miano- transpo cost/M/E/A- 200$/40k/20k/15k

Breach of contr of carr; moral- awarded only if carrier in BF- bf; breach of duty through

motive/illwill

Moral damages- no BF;- testi showed; no receipt of a tracer

telex (report from station that passenger not rcv baggage); w/o it presumed that handling was normal; at airport discovered that airline tag was accidentally taken off; tagless baggage on hold until ID

- effort to find baggage; investigation; - BF cant be presumed; must be

established and proved by clear and convincing evi

Exem- not granted; not act in wanton of

fraudulent manner

Attys fees- no legal basis; plus PAL is willing to

pay for 200$ transpo fee due to dely/according to limitation in warsaw

Cathay v Vasquez

Vasquezes- Daniel/Luisa Vasquez; w/ maid and 2

friends- Frequent fliers; gold card mems of

marco polo club- To HK for business/pleasure

Return flight to Mla; from HK- checked in luggage at airport; given

their boarding passes; business class for Vasquezes and 2 friends; economy for maid;

When Boarding was announced- departure gate presented boarindng

passes; Ground Attendant Chiu saw that there was a seat change from Business to 1st class for vasquezes

- Vasquez refused 1 st class accomo , not look nice as hosts to friends; discuss bsness; Chiu -> b class fully booked; since polo club mems upgraded to 1st class; if not avail; can take flight

- Vasquezes gave in- Demand letter; 1 mill for humiliation;

written apology; - Yuen; promised investi- No feedback; filed suit

Complaint- Chiu was loud discourteous; not

helped by stewardess in putting his carry on on the compartment; aggravated carpal tunnel

Cathay’s answer- it is its practice to upgrade passengers

to better accommo when opportunity arises

- could not book to orig seats since fully booked;

TC for vasquezes- N/M/E/Attys costs- 100k/2mill/5mill/1mill- passengers are allowed to choose; obli

to trans in class chosen- overbooking; maximize revenues;

deceit gross negli -> BF

CA - breach of cont; novated; pushed thru

w/ upgrading w/o consent- chiu not discoteous; broken eng;

Chinese; hard to understand; cult diffs; not in BF

Ws there a breach of cont?- yes there was

- normally one would appreciate upgrading; BUT vasquezes had every right to decline; as it was designated in their boarding passes; clearly waived when asked if others could avail of it;

- by insisting upgrade; cathay breached

Ws there BF?- no- Fraud; insidious machinations;

deceitful plot; conceal to induce consent

- BF; dishonest purpose; wilfull doing of something wrong;

- Chiu honest in telling them that their seats given to others; although exercised poor judgment

- Not for some devious purpose; definitely better for passenger

- Did not go against CAA Regulation; overbooking beyond 10percent; no evi beyond 10 percent

- No BF

Moral damages- NO- granted only when; carrier guilty of

fraud/BF/death- if not in BF; limited to natural

consequences of such breach- CA’s award of moral no legal basis;

no BF;

Deletion of exem- no bf; so M/E not included when BF is absent

Nominal- nominal granted when a right is

violated;- breach was intended to give them

more benefiy; reduce to 5k

Excessive awards of dmgs by TC- vasquezes asked for 1mill/500k/250k

(MEA)- tc granted 4mill/10mill/2mill/ + 200k

nominal

- corruption on part of TC; although depends on discretion of court; it should not be scandalously excessive;

Northwest Airlines v Heshan

Northwest airlines; Mla -> Missouri; round trip

- 3 tickets; Edward/wife/ daughter- ice skating compe of dara- skating compe ended

Connecting flight; on the way to LA; st lous to memphis

- went to airport; checked in luggage; since early went to coffee shop

- check in counter open; ed took the line; presentation of tickets; 2nd in queue; step aside and wait to be called

- after all departing passengers given boarding passes; heshans told to board plane w/o boarding passes; occupy open seats; only one vacant -> daughter; folding seats at rear -> parents

- complained to crew ; if not want to occupy seats can disembark; departed w/o heshans

Flying via TWA; to LA- arrived in LA same day, but had to

wait for luggage; 3 hours, stayed 5 days before going to MLA

- sent demand letter for brch of cont- NWA replied; verbally abuse crew;

prohibit from boarding- Heshan’s filed

depositions of 3 ees- Carns; no reservations; other

passengers had pre selected seats; computer did not reflect request to be seated; board 10 mins before on open seats

- Seipel; upset since not seated together; try to request exchange seats from other passengers but never had chance; find over head comp for bags;

heshans cursed her; seek assis of brown

- Brown; went to back portion to help out; brushed out by nelia; as family went out of plane

- Airline denied offer to occupy folding seats; not allowed by regs

- Not having boarding passes; allowed by regs; get plane out in time

TC in favor of Heshan- M/E/Attys- 3mill/500k/20%- NWA did not dispute that they

confirmed reservations from St louis -> Memphis; heshans entitled then

- Went to airport early; found circs highly irregular; only 1 seat for 3 of them

CA sustained tc but reduced M/A- 2MILL/300K- showed up in time; made to go in last- reason for no boarding passes; flight

full

Was there breach? - NWA defenses; eventually reach LA

(so no injury); if offer folding seats crew no seats; heshans disembarked willingly did not want to wait to be seated together; damages excessive

- Heshans argument; issuance of ticket; passenger has every right to be trans on that date/flight; breach of cont

- Heshans evi more credible; NWA did not even present flight mani/seatingcap/layout

- Failed to explain lack of boarding passes

- Disembarked (besides request to be seated together); boarded 10 mins before departure; willingness to just board; but there were not enough seats

- YES there was breach;

Moral damages

- must be reduced- 2mill -> 500k- although court dicretion; should not

be scandalously excessive- moral; neither to punish wrongdoer

nor to enrich (p)

Mecenas v CA

Tacloban city; oil tanker; 6am- owned by PNOC; operated by PNOC

shipping- unloaded cargo of petroleum- left negros occi -> bataan

Don juan; inter island vessel; 1pm- operated/owned by Negros

Navigation; - manila -> bacolod- 750 passengers

10:30pm; collision between 2; talbas strait; mindoro

- sea was calm; visibility good- don juan sank; hundreds of

passengers drowned

Heirs of Mecenas- filed complaint- against Negros Navi + captian (w/o

pnoc/pnoc shipping)- 7 surviving children- prayed for 100k M/E

Ciocon; death of husband- filed suit- impleaded Negros/pnoc/pnoc

shipping

2 cases consolidated

TC for mecenas/ciocon- mecenas; Negros/Cap solidarily; 400k

death; 15k attys- ciocon; negors/pnoc/pnoc shipping

solidarily liab; 100k death 15k attys

Negros/cap/pnoc/pnoc shipping appealed- PNOC/shipping withdrew appeals;

compro w/ negros- Cocion; not to be bound by

compromise

CA affirmed but modified- negros/cap solidarily liable; 100k

actual; 15k attys

Was CA correct in reducing damages?- breach of cont; liab for death;

negligence; allows for moral- CA WAS WRONG

Exemplary damages- Commandant of phil coast guard;

Tacloban negligent; minister of national defense affirmed then reversed; both vessels at fault

- Cap of don juan; playing mahjong vefore collision; off duty; no such thing as off duty for master of vessel; not the first time entertainng himself; groslly negli for not correcting him

- Failed measures to prevent sinking; officer on watch failed to inform cap of imminent danger

- Carried more than it should; passengers allowed 810; coast gurad rep 878 allowed not included 126 crew /chil below 2; 140 more than allowed; 750 in manifest; 128 not in manifest; did not have enough life rafts

- Grossly negligent- More than twice as fast than tacloban;

full comliment of crew; had radar; offcer on watch sighted tacloban (4 nautical miles away); could have avoided collision w/ ordi dili

- Tacloban city; turning hard to port signaled; 2 short blasts with horn; don juan did not reply

Amount for death- lump sum of 400k CA- did not specify amount of M/E- asked for 1.4 mill (not 12mill)- should be disaggregated

Actual (death)/M/E- 126k/ 107 k/ 107k

total 400k

Circs; 7 children- searching; more pain- + 200k- 307k moral

Exemplary; award- rationale; reshape behavior that is

socially deleterious; deterrents for such behavior

- bulk of the population is too poor to avail of domestic air trans; many maritime disasters;

- instrument of the law to secure the ends of public policy; exemplary damages

- phils archipelagic; - + 200k

a/c/m/e/attys126k/60k/307k/307k/15k

Alitalia v IAC

Dr Pablo- assoc prof in UP; grantee of PAEA- invited in a meeting in Italy- 2nd speaker in the meeting- booked passage via Alitalia- arrived at Milan- luggage (papers/clothes) was delayed;

in one of the rome to Milan flights; - also went to rome in desperation;

could not find; did not attend conf; went to mla

Filed suit in Mla

- Alitalia offered free tickets; she refused

- Wasn’t there to accept baggage; 11 months after til she got it

CFI for Pablo- n/attys- 20k/5k

IAC increased nominal- nominal 40k - for the frustration/disappointment;

embarrassment in acad community;

Should Warsaw apply?- inapplicable;

JAL v CA

Passengers of JAL- Miranda; SF -> Mla- Aganas/Francisco;

Section 13 (PSA)

(a)

PSC jurisdiction; supervision/cont; necessary powers

- public services/franchises/equipment- (PUs owned by government/GOCCs);

not required CPC/CPCN- NO authority to require

steamboats/steamships/motorships CPC/prescribed routes

(b)

Public service includes- any person who may

operate/cont/manage in the Phils- for hire/compensation- for general or limited clientele- permanent or occasional - for business

- any common carrier/ railroad/ street/ railway/ traction railway/ sub way motor vehicle (whether for freight/passenger)

- w/ or w/o fixed route- carrier service/ express service/

steamboat/ steamship line/ pontines/ ferries/ water crafts

- shipyard / marine repairshop/ warehouse/ wharf/ dock

- ice plant/ ice refrigeration plant/ canal irrigation system

- gas / electric/ light/ heat/ power/ petroleum/ sewerage system/

- wire/wireless communication system/ broadcasting stations

- Persons in agriculture; motor vehicle; special contract; for hire/ 3rd parties in agriculture; limited time/specific prupose; operated by latter; for cultivation of his farm; transpo of of agri prods of such 3rd party; not considered as operating Public service

(c)

Person- every individual; co partnership; joint

stock or corpo- domestic/foreign- lessees/trustees/receiver- municipality/province/city/gooc/

ageny of gov/ persons operate public utilities

Art XII

Sec 11

Franchise; certificates; authorization for operation of a Public Utility; grantees

- citizens of the Phils- Corporations; orgd under the Phils;

60% of capital Phil owned; authorization for 50years only

- Franchise; under condition that it is subject to amendment/alte/repeal by the congress

- State; encourage equity participation; public utilities

- Foreign investors; governing body in any PU; limited to proportionate share of their capital; all managing/exec offcrs must be Filipinos

Sec 17

National emergency; when public interest requires; state may:

- temporarily take over/direct operation- any privately owned PU or business

affected w/ pub interest

national emergency- catastrophe of nation wide

proportions- epidemic; typhoon; flood- economic crisis- rebellion

Sec 18

For National Welfare/defense; state may- establish/operate vital industries- upon payment of just compensation- Pub ownerhip Utilites/ Private

enterprises to be operated by government

Just compensation; fair equivalent of prop- usually fair market value; price fixed

by buyer and seller- what counts as JC; judicial

prerogative- must include consequential damages;

deduct consequential benefits- must be paid in money; w/ in

reasonable time from taking

Sec 19

Regulate/prohibit monopolies; public interest- combinations in restraint of trade- unfair competition

KMU v Garcia

June 1990

DOTC Sec; Orbos- Issue Memo Circ to LTFRB Chrman- Provincial bus operators; charge rates

15% above or below LTFRB rates for 1 year

- Liberalization of regulations; in line w/ MTDP; reliance on free market forces

- Bus comps are charging above and below official rates

July 1990

Fernando; found it “not feasible”; memo to Orbos; to consider ff:

- PSA sec 16; rates to be proposed by ops; should have pub/notice in territory; pub hearing for fixing of rates

- July 16 earth quake; charging 15% above LTFRB rates socially unwarranted; criticism; WB/ADB inspired

- Inducing a reduction of 15% will trigger an upward adjustment at a time of devastation; Central/Northern Luzon

- Can consider; via agencies; uplifiting measures/reforms; specially for people affected by earthquake

December 1990

PBOAP; proposal; across the board increase (0.065 centavos per kilometer)

- opposed by PCF Inc/Bautista; unreasonable; contained no rate of return of proposed increase

LTFRB; decision; granted the increase

March 1992

DOTC Sec Prado; department order; policy framework

- DOTC; regulating/imple agency on trans

“Entry and exit”- against monopoly; minimum of 2 per

route- requirements for cert; proof of fil cit;

financial cpab; public need; insurance- prior operator; prioty filing

discontinued- right to leave; notice; phase out period

“Rate/fare setting”- freed gradually from gov controls;

passenger fares deregulated; except lowest class

- 15% above or below reference rate- lack of comp on certain specific

routes/commodities; maximum mandatory freight rates/passenger fares temporarily set to increase competition

- unserved/single op routes; contract services to gov/pub; public bids

“Special Incentives and financing”- shall not engage in special financing;

incentive programs; direct subsidies for fleet expansion

- will only be considered; when market situation warrants government intervention

- existing progs; phased out gradually

Oct 1992

DOTC Sec Garcia; memo to LTFRB Chairman

- suggested adoption and implementation of department order; deregulation/lib policies

- prerequisite; economic integration loan WB

Feb 1993

LTFRB; memo; guidelines on implementing department order

Challenged portions:

“Issuance of CPC”- issuance determined by public need- presumption of Pub need; in favor of

appli; - burden of proving “no need”;

oppositor

“Rate and fare setting”- control in pricing liberalized; subject

to prior notice/hearing- general structure of rates; + or – 15%

provincial buses/jeeps; +20% -25% in 1994; authorized fare to be replaced by reference rate for expanded fare range

- fare systems; aircon buses; liberalized to cover 1st class/premier

March 1994

PBOAP; availed of +20% –25%- did not file a petition- no public hearing- made effective march 16

KMU; petition; oppose upward adjustment of bus fares

LTFRB; decision; dismiss

Petition for certiorari + TRO

June 1994

Issued TRO; prevent imple of rates/orders- moratorium on franchises on taxis/

jeeps/ ops of buses

KMU’s claim- authority given to provincial bus

operators to set fare range +20 –25 above reference; w/o petition; unconstitutional;

- presumption for applicant; w/o proving public need; violates PSA /RoC

PBOAP/LTFRB; comment- no legal standing- w/ in autho to establish fare rate/

presumption of pub need

Does KMU have locus standi?- YES!- Locus standi; party litigant; directly

affected; interest is substantial; must show personal stake/injury in case to be redressed by a favorable decision

- KMUs members; continue to suffer from the implementation of the memoranda/circulars; use buses/trains/jeeps; burdensome cost

- Transcendental importance; even if no personality to sue; liberal policy; ordinary tax payers; assoc of planters; question validity of laws; of far reaching implications

Fare range scheme- legis delegated to PSC; fixing of rates- LTFRB; via EO; existing regulatory

body; determine fares- delegation; legis -> admin agency;

permitted due to complexity of modern life; subordinate legislation; delicate matters; route fixing

- In this case; undue delegation; what had been delegated cannot be delegated; what has been delegated is the duty of the delegate thru his own judgment; further delegation negation of duty; would leave riding public at the mercy of the operators

- Legis delegated to the PSC/LTFRB; but it did not authorize the PSC to delegate to a common carrier; pub service may propose new rates subject to the approval of the commission

Consequence of dereg; compounded fares (compounded rate; also earn interest)

0.037 per km

(15%) 0.43 per km

(+ 5 centavo increase base reference) 0.47 per km

(20%) 0.56 per km

subjected to double/compounded fare

Rate making- sensitive; gov function; needs sound

discretion to arrive at a reasonable rate

- factors considered; operator should not op at a loss; should generate revenues to cover operational costs and to get reasonable returns; must be fair and affordable

- gov should not relinquish this important function; notice and hearing should not be removed; purpose of hearing; determine just and reasonable rate

Requirements for a CPC (authorization by LTFRB)

- appli must be a cit of the Phils; corpo/copartnership/assoc/joint stock/ under laws of phils; 60% stock or paid up cap Phil owned;

- financially capable; - must prove operation of pub service

will promote pub interest in a suitable manner

- proper notice/hearing

Public convenience- something suited to public need

Was the presumption of public need authorized?

- policy guidline incpompatible w/ PSA; applicant must prove via notce/hearing that service will promo pub service in a suitable manner

- existence of public necessity is a question of fact; must be estabd by evi in a hearing;

- issuing CPC; based on hearing/investigation

- Basic convenience primary consid; applicant must at all times prove his capability to furnish service (existing operators must have a chance to oppose)

- Deregulation; not ideal; present circumstance; abdication of gov on its right to reg pub utilities

-

Tatad v Garcia

1989

DOTC; planning on making an LRT line along EDSA

- would pass Pasay –> QC –> Makati –> Mandaluyong

- edsa LRT III

March 1990

Eli Levin Enterprises; letter of intent to DOTC Sec

- construct EDSA LRT III- BOT basis- Sec invited Levin/technical team;

discuss project

July 1990

RA 6957 BOT Law; signed by Pres Aquino- took effect Oct- schemes for fincancing; Built Tranns;

Build Op Trans

Jan March 1991

DOTC; Dept Orders; accordance w/ BOT Law

- created Prequalification Bids and Awards Com (PBAC)

- PBAC; issued guidelines; prequalif

Deadline for submission; Pre qualify documents

- march 21; extended to april 1- 5 groups responded: ABB Triazone/

Hopewell Holdings/ Mansteel Int/ Mitsui and Co/ EDSA LRT consortium

- DOTC; resolution; declared 5 applicants met requirements

- Only Edsa consortium passed w/ 82 points

- Criteria; legal/mngmnt/financial/tech

April 1991

IRRs

Sec Orbos appointed Exec Sec- new DOST Dec Prado- Prado; 2 letters; recommending award

to EDSA LRT consortium; request for authority to negotiate

-

July 1991

On orders of Pres- Orbos; directive; DOTC proceed w/

nego- Edsa consortium submitted bid

proposal- DOTC & Edsa lrt corp; entered into

an agreement; Built/lease/operate/trans LRT

March 1992

Sec Prado; requested pres approval- Exec Sec Drilon (replacing orbos)

Could not grant approval since:- no actual public bidding- prequalif proceedings not public

bidding contemplated under the law- item 14 of IRRs illegal- list of priority projs; no congressional

approval yet when contract awarded

April 1992

DOTC and Edsa Corp; revised agreement to B/L/T lrt

- certain events supervened; need for revision; entered into a Supplemental Agreement

- Garcia (new Sec DOTC)- Garcia to Ramos; 2 agreements;

Approved

“Agreements”- vehicles from Czech/Slovak republics- 450k passengers a day; 54 vehicles

simultaneous- street level at mid section of EDSA- own power facility- 16 passenger station/depot

Financing of the project- Edsa Corp finance whole proj;

completion in 3 yrs- Deliver use and possession to DOTC;

completed portion- DOTC; payment of monthly rentals;

irrevocable letter of credit; EDSA corps capital recovered from these rentals; w/c will come from earnings of the edsa lrt

- Rentals; determined indep inspection firm

- After 25 years; DOTC completion of payments; ownership trans for consid of 1 $

May 1994

RA 7718; amending BOT Law- allowed direct nego of BLT conts

Locus Standi issue- capacity as senators/tax payers- tax payers; contracts entered national

gov allegedly in contra of the law- Kilosbaya v guingona ruling

(P) arguments; both agreements unconstitutional

- LRT; pub utility; ownership; limited to Fils/domestic corps

- BLT not BOT under law- Manner of awarding not the public

bidding under law- Disadv to gov

Can the EDSA corp; foreign corp; own a Pub Utility?

- What Edsa Corp owns; rail tracks/rolling stocks/rail stations/ terminals/ power plant -> not public utility

- Public Utility; constituted by its use to serve the public; not ownership

- Operation of Pus requires a franchise; BUT ownership of the facilities does not require a franchise

Operation vs Ownership- Ownership; relation in law;

completely subjected to his will in everything not prohibited

- Rights of ownership; limited by law; cant be operated as a PU unless granted a franchise

- Right to operate can exist independently from ownership; can be owned while not operating (or can operate w/o owning)

- Example; franchise; airlines/shipping; can lease vessels instead of owning them themselves

EDSA Lrt Corp; admits it cant own PU- after 25 years; deliv possession- DOTC will operate as common

carrier- EDS corp; provide tech

maintenance/repair- EDSA corp responsible for training of

DOTC personnel; operation/use/maintenance; actual driving simulated conditions; emergencies; collections

- ONLY under direct control/supervision of Edsa corp during training; on normal revenue operation; DOTC will operate it by itself; can train personnel by itself

Liability as a common carrier; DOTC- edsa corp harmless from any liability;

since DOTC shall operate it- Liabilty; edsa corp; loss/inju/death via

DEFECTS; - Edsa corp will not be dealing w/ the

pub

Moment for determining requisite nationality- application for franchise

Is the BLT scheme recognized under the BOT law?

- BOT scheme; contractor; construction/financing; operates and maintains; operates for a fixed period to recover expenses/investment; then transfer ownership after expi of term

- BT scheme; construction/financing; AFTER completion; ownership/operation trans to gov; gov pay total investment + reasonable rate of return

- No citizenship requirement on BT scheme; (nationality req on BOT scheme)

- No mention in BOT Law barring other schemes of payment by gov;

- BLT scheme a variation of BT scheme;

- Burden on government is lighter; since payment come from earnings of LRT

Lease contract- enjoyment of use for a period not

longer than 99 yrs- no trans of ownership at end of lease

Payment in US currency- high priority project; outside of

universal currency act

Contract for Construction awarded BEFORE congressional approval; validity

- only one applicant passed prequalif test; it is pointless to conduct a public bidding

- sec 5 BOT law/PD 1594; allows for negotiated awards of gov infra proj; by negotiated cont in exceptional cses (lack of qualified bidders)

- if it was w/ foul play; competing firms never intervened

RA 7718- recognizes BLT scheme- direct nego; when only one

complying bidder left- when an applicant is prequalified; can

enter into any of the schemes- curative statute;

Is it grossly disadv?- only 25 years of exclusive rights- inability to collect revenues; deduct

from monthly rent- terms of agreement came from a long

study- presumption of regularity

Sec 15 (PSA)

Operation of Pub Service; Phils; must have a valid/subsisting CPC/CPCN from PSC

- effect; authorization to do business; promote public interests; suitable manner

PSC; can as a condition for issuance; can be acquired by the RP/instrumentality; upon;

- payment of; cost price of useful equipment less reasonable depreciation

- certificate valid for a definite period- violation; immediate cancellation of

certificate

estimation of depreciation- effect of use of eqpmt- actual cond- age of model- other circs affecting its value in the

market

Applicability; extension/amendment of certs in force

- permit to modify itineraries/time scheds;

- authorizations; renew and increase equip&props

RP v Manila Elec Co

Dec 1993

Meralco; application; revision of rate scheds- 21 centavos per kwh + provisional

approval of increase

ERB; order; granted provisional increase- 0.184 kwh- subject to the condition that; if

entitled to lesser increase; excess amounts collected; refunded/credited

- COA examination of the records

COA; audit report- recommended; income taxes not to be

included as part of operating expenses; for rate determination;

- use net average investment method; test year determination of rate base

ERB; decision; adopt recoms- provisional relief of 0.184 kwh

superseded; - excess amount of 0.167 kwh

refunded/credited to customers- rate adj in amount of 0.017- income tax; not operating expense;

should be borne by stockholders recipients of profits and not consumers;

CA for Meralco- set aside ERBs decision

Regulation of Rates; PUs- priv prop; pub purpose; pub int;

subject to regulation

- relation of charges; protects public from excessive charges; but not deprive PU of reasonable returns

ERB; fixing of rates; PUs- rate must be reasonable and just; q of

fact; exercise of discretion- should not be confiscatory; reqs;

reasonableness of opportunities of ultility

Factual findings; admin bodies- technical mattersw/ in expertise;

finality- conclusions of ERB on rate; should be

respected; - non interference of courts; no

arbitrary exercise of power

Determining reasonableness of rates- rate of return; not prescribed by

leg/admin; court ->12% - rate base; eval of prop

devoted/invested cap; - return itself;

Income tax as operating expenses; cant be allowed for rate determination

- fair return; must be sufficient to cover op expenses; only in amounts that are reasonable for efficient op;

- income tax not included in op expenses; “op expenses” reasonably incurred to yield revnue; contri to prod n of revenue

- income tax; imposed on individual; gov source of revenue; should be borne by individual alone for the benefits rcvd by taxpayer;

- charging consumers; expenses not related to service dervived by customers from PU; unjust

Reasonable return- determined by its envi milieu

(Meralco used American juris)

- in America; Pus taxed differently; power to tax resides in our legis

Net average method; reasonable- NAI method; props/equip used in op

of PU; entitled to return; only on actual number of months in service

- Ave investment (proportionate value = value of prop at beginning and end of year divided by 2)

- Determination of rate base; must be based props actually used;

- More accurate- Meralco has not shown that the

prescribed rates are confiscatory; - No PU has any vested right to any

method of valuation

Radio Com v NTC

Radio Com; has leg franchise; 1957- radio telegraph service;

Sorsogon/Mindoro/Samar

1980

Kayumanggi Radio; autho by NTC- radio com sys in Samar/Mindoro

Kayumanggi; filed suit against RCP- operating w/o CPCN- RCP; claims; covered by franchise;

been operating since before Kayumanggi

NTC; decision- RCP; cease and desist- EO 546; CPCN necessary for

operation of radio coms- Mfr denied

RCPI; filed petition- RPCI argument; NTC replacinc PSC

did not affect 14/15 of PSA; exemption Radio comps

- PSC functions trans to regulatory boards; Fnxns of NTC; supervise/inspectradio stations

- Exemption no longer exists

Franchise- privilege from sov power; subj to reg

Need for grant of franchise- ra 2036; franchise cant be exercised

w/o approval of - here no grant of autho when it

installed facilities back in 71’-

franchise- not exclu in manner- commission had every right t grant

Res franchise

-

Cogeo Cubao v CA

CPC issued in favor of Lungsod Silangan- cogeo cubao route; no other existing

ops- CCOD; regd w/ the SEC;

representation in agreements regarding ownership of units; members of assoc

- Board Reso 9; bandera system;

Gelisan v Alday

Gelisan; freight truck owner- contract -> Espiritu; haul

rice/flour/sugar/fertilizer/- 18 pesos per trip; 200 sacks limit; w/

in Mla- stipulation; espiritu bear loss/damage

Alday; trucking operator; 15 trucks- cont -> AtlasFertilizer Corp- haul ferts; - Pier 4; Espiritu offer;

truck/driver/helper; Alday accept- Informed checker Henson; Espiritu

Haul fert; 200 bags per trip- Fert delivered to driver/helper of

Espiritu; w/ waybill receipts

- Did not deliv to warehouse of Atlas AT Mandaluyong

- Waybill receipts of Alday; not aigs of Atlas’ ees

- Could not find Espiritu- Alday reported loss to Manila P Dep

Subsequently; Alday found truck; Sto Cristo- impunded by police- Gelisan; w/o reg papers; no release of

truck- Gelisan had to pay 300pesos;

premium

Alday compelledto pay 400 bags; fert- 5k to Atlas- filed complaint against

Gelisan/Espiritu

Espiritu -> in default

Gelisan’s answer- no cont w/ Alday; for hauling of fert- non delivery of Espiritu; out of his

control- only found out when his truck

impounded- Cont w/ espiritu; espi liab for losses

in his carrying of goods

CFI for Alday- held Espiritu Liab; 6k- dismissed as to Gelisan- for gelisan; 350 pesos

CA found Gelisan liable- liab; registered owner of truck- cont of Gelisan/Espiritu; not binding

on Alday; not approved by PSC- Gelisan/Espi; solidarily liab; 5k +

costs- Espiritu refund Gelisan

Registered owner; pub service vehicle; responsibility for damages; consequences incident to its operation

- lease cont; Gelisan – Espi; not approved by PSC;

- property covered by franchise; leased to another; must be approved; (if not; not binding on pub/3rd ps)

- approval of PSC; rationale; franchise personal in nature; notify PSC -> safeguard interests of pub

- approval; pub hearing; notice; determine if there are reasonable grounds for transfer

- if leased to another; no approval; grantee responsible; consequences incidental to its operations

Gelisan; -> Espiritu; remedy- right to be indemnified; for damages

paid to Alday- although lease cont not valid against

pub; valid as between parties

Registered owner of a vehicle; liability - solidary

Benedicto v IAC

Greenhills; lumber business; sawmill- sell and deliver -> Bluestar; 100,000

board feet- Grnhills Manager Cruz; cont w/

Licuden; trans lumber Bulacan (Bluestar); truck reg’d to Benedicto; Macoven Trucking (hauling freight)

Loaded 7k board feet sawn lumber; value of 16k

- Cruz issued 2 invoices; value 11k 5k; bfl 5k 5k;

- Licuden to give original 2 copies of invoices to consignee; Bulacan; then retain duplicate copies -> for recovery of freightage from Greenhills

Manager; Bluestar; -> Greenhills President; sawn lumber did not arrive

- due to delay; had to look for other suppliers

Greenhills; estafa case against Luciden- filed against Benedicto; value of lost sawn lumber/damages

(estafa; abuse of confi/false pretenses/ fraudulent means)

Benedicto’s defense- stranger to cont; sold truck to

Benjamin Tee; deed of sale- still reg’d in her name; 50k only out

of 68k- Tee been operating; Luciden tee;s ee

TC found Benedicto Liable- basis; benedicto still regd owner;

luciden her ee- pay cost of lumber 16k -> greenhills;

attys fees 2k

IAC affirmed TC

Is Benedicto liable for the lost lumber; as regd owner?

- YES!- Benedicto’s defense; not liab; reg’d

owner liab only; death/inju -> passengers; proper deliv (deliv to a person falsey repping himself -> shoud not make her liab as regd owner);

- Letter; B Tee that Licuden his driver; no evi value;

Reg’d owner- pub right to assume that regd owner -

> actual owner- enforcement of rights (proving actual

owner)- regd owner cant deny liab by proving

ID of transferee

- victims need not go beyond cert of reg

Greenhills; no reason to doubt Licuden’s autho to enter cont of carr

- earlier; 1st week of May; contracted Licuden; deliv same truck

Benedicto retained ownership of truck- for her benefit/convenience; should

have chattel mort

Equity; makes Benedicto liable

Should reg owner rule apply only to carriage of passengers and not of goods?

- Applies to both- Prior sale; as a defense; would

diminish exod of carrier; collusion carrier -> vendee; liab to one w/o capab to pay for the dmgs;

- Owner need not go beyond cert of reg

Was there a cont of carr; even if Bene/Tee did not consent to; or that there was no proof of licuden’s aut?

- yes!- Licuden; cont/poss of truck; had

implied autho- In law; Licuden Benedicto’s ee;

Benedicto has a right of recourse against Tee

Philtranco v CA

Version of Heirs

6:00; Ramon acuesta; bicycle; Gomez St- Philtranco; driver Dolira; pushed to

start on Magsaysay Blvd- Magsaysay perpendicular to Gomez;

when the bus started (abruptly); Acuesta was in front of the bus

- Acuesta ran over- Bus did not stop- Yabao; to meet Acuesta; saw bus

being pushed; signaled Dolira to stop (but didnt)

- Bus driver eventually stopped near nijira park; Yabao -> police station; relatives might go after driver

Philtrancos defense- ord dili in selec/supervision of ees- dolira; good record; trained; very

cautious- victim; negligent;

Version of Philtranco; version- warmed up engine; few rounds;

cruied along Gomez- suddenly Acuesta overtook 2 tricycles

then swerved left to center of road- even braked/horn due to abrupt

swerve; Acuesta bumped from behind- not willfull to proceed; rear view;

crowd- police boarded- Phil failed to present evi; failed to

appear

TC for heirs- a/death/m/e/attys/costs- 55k/200k/1mill/500k/50k

CA affimed TC- Phil not denied DP; given opportunity

to present defense; notified of assign of case

- But counsel did not appear; did not eve file motion for postponement; waived right to present

- Driver liab; jump start; common knowledge; initial movement abrupt;

- Should not jump start bus in a busy section of the city; jump started where bus had to take a left turn; pedestrians from Gomez would be unaware of the jumpstarted bus

- Sustained m/e/attys- Gross negli

Last clear chance does not apply; victim bumped from behin; did not know of the jump started bus

Did Philtranco waive its right to present evi?

- counsel busy; campaigning; councilor tacloban; slight fever; waited for formal offer inwriting

- bur orally delivered exhibits; -> admitted

- notified but did not appear

QUASIDELICT

2176- act/omission; damage; negli; no cont

rel -> quasi delict

2180- obli in 2176; one’s acts + persons for

whom one is responsible2194-resp of 2 or moreliab for quasidel; solidary

2181- whoever paysdamage of ees; can recover from ee what he has paid

Was it correct to apply 2194 instead of 2180?- liab of oweners; resp for dmgs;

caused by ees on occasion of their funxns

- Ers liab; dmgs caused by ees/household helpers; w/ in scope even if not engaged in any business

- Diligence required; ordinary dil- Liab of owner; regd pub service v;

solidary w/ ee; damages arising from tortuous acts

Death indemnity- TC wrong in fixing it at 200k- Gross annual x Life expectancy –

living expenses- No basis; did not prove earning

cap/life expectancy

Death via quasi delict- 2206 (1); liab for loss of earning capacity

Default amount; death; 50k

Moral dmgs- no basis (1mill); just based on testi of

one of heirs- others did not take witness stand; no

basis as to them- moral ds; not to enrich at expense of

def; alleviate suffering; must be proportionate to suffering;

- 50k

Exemplary- quasidel; e if there is gross negli- there was gross negli- 50k

Attys fees- must be reduced- GR no premium on attys; winning

does not mean granting attys- It must be reasonable; unlikely that he

demanded 100k from his sisters/rels- Did not present written contract- Grant attys, in line w/ exemplary; - 25k

Santos v Sibug

Vidad; jeepney operator; current owner- before accident date (April 26 1963);

Santos was the owner of the jeep- Santos trans jeep in name of Vidad;

operated under latters CPC- Santos -> kabit operator- Vidad; trans doc; protection of santos;

to be regd if Sanots’ jeep to be w/ drawn

Accident- Sibug was bumped by Vidad’s jeep;

Driver Gragas- Sibug filed suit against Gragas/Vidad,

Branch 17

CFI; branch 17; for Sibug- Vidad/gragas; soli liab- A/m/attys/costs- 506/3k/500/

Sheriff levied on motor vehicle of Vidad; pub auc

- Santos -> 3rd party claim; reg in name of Vidad; so could use of V’s CPC; he actual owner

- Sibug; filed sheriffs bond; protect sheriff if Sanots 3rs p c prevails

Santos -> filed against Sibug/Vidad/Sheriff; damages/injunction

- Fake deed of sale; operate under vidad’s franchise; no consideration (was not paid)

- Santos not a party to the case (accident)

- Irreparable damage; 30 pesos daily income; possession not restored;

- Pub auction; not push thru; restraining order; wrong issuance; axn of sheriff cant be restrained by another branch of the same court; sheriff has choice to go on or cease

- Attaching cred must file bond; if not sheriff must go on w/ sale

CFI branch 10; for Santos; affirmed his ownership of the jeep

- injunction on sale- Sibug/Bonding comp solidar liab 15p

Subug appealed Branch 10 decision; - order; immediate exec- Sibug -> CA; enjoined exec; branch

10 interfered w/ Branch 12; - CA -> santos; not allowed to prove

ownership- Vehicle regd under Vidad; any person

had right to rely on reg

CA- Judg against Sibug inequitable;

admitted participation in illegal trans business

- Kabit system; sec 20 PSA; operator w/o approval

- Resale to santos; not reg’d; - Vidad as regd owner; directly liab; for

damages to sibug

- Santos as Kabit; should not be able to defeat the levy on his vehicle; commsion of fraud against traveling public; curbing

Santos -> SC; review

Can a CFI issue injuction on another CFI; 3rd party claim; ?

- GR; coordinate/concurrent juris; equal power to grant inj; cant interfere; if w/o 3rd party claimant

- Exception: judgment for 3rd party claimant; claims prop under exec; not interference when; prop of stranger involved

- In this case; property belonging to a stranger not subject to execution; prop must be one where def has proprietary interest

- BUT; CA in enjoining branch 10 must be sustained; it was not stranger’s property; regd in the name of Vidad; effects on riding public involved;

Lita Enterprises v Second Civil Cases Div

Ocampo/Garcia; bought 5 Toyota Coronas from Delta; to be used as taxis

- had no franchise; contracted w/ Lita Enterprises; to use CPC

- offered 1k initial; 200 monthly per taxi

- So Lita enter; regd in name of Lita E; possession remain w/ G/O

One of G/O taxis; driver Martin- collided w/ Motorcycle of Galvez;

died- crim case against Martin- civ case by heir of Galvez against Lita

enterprises

CFI for Galvez- lita enter; liab; damages/attys- 25k/7k

vehicles; levied; Pub aiuction

- 12k to Cortez; highest bidder; - the other 8k; to Lopez

Ocampo; decided to reg cabs in his name- Lita Enter refused- Sps Ocampo filed against

Lita/Galvez/Insurance Co/ Sheriff

CFI dismissed as to galvez/insurance/sheriff- Order Lita E; trans reg cert of 3 cars

via deed of conveyance- Ocampo pay rentals in arrears to Lita

IAC modified- condidtion; if no longer serviceable;

Lita pay market val

Kabit system- one person granted cpc; allows

another to operate under such franchise w/ a fee

- one of the causes of graft and corruption

- contra to pub policy; court not aid parties of an illegal contract; leave them both where it finds them

- 1412; not crim offense; fault both contracting parties; neither may demand/enforce; in pari delicto

- Ocampo v Lita; set aside

Teja v IAC

Nale bought from Teja- motr cycle/sidecar/ace; 8k invoice- downpayment 1700; extended

payment for a year; then stopped paying altogether

- Teja made demands; failed to comply

Chattel mortgage; made for security of the payment

- practice of financing firms; reg paper not given to buyer; when balance not paid

- motorcycle first mortgaged to Teja by Jaucian; Nale had no franchise; avail of Teja’s MCH line

- agreement; teja; yearly reg of the vehicle; gave fees for mortgage/reg; failed to reg on that year since Nale failed to pay insurance premiums

Nale; did not dispute the sale/outstanding balance

- decided to buy; since Teja would reg it yearly

- failure of Teja of obli; reging; he suffered dmgs; since he failed to claim insurance premiums on motorcycle accidents; loss of daily income since LTC impound motorcycle

- purchased for transpo business; Teja owner in reg;

Teja filed suit against Nale- sum of money w. damages

City Court for Teja- ordered Nale to pay outstanding

balance; 1,700- 546 attys- 200 expenses of litig

CFI affirmed

IAC set aside- kabit system; illegal

Was the CA correct in applying In pari delicto?

- obviously operated under the Kabit system

- contra to pub policy; void; 1412; if act is not a criminal offense; fault of both; neither party may demand enforcement

- defect in the existence of the contract is permanent and cannot be cured by prescription/ratification;

Magboo v Bernardo

Bernardo; owner of jeepney- Cesar Magboo; passenger; killed in a

vehicular accident

Bernardo had a cont w/ Roque- Roque pay Bernardo 8 pesos for

driving jeep- Whatever earnings roque made in

Mla; his

Accident- death of C Magboo; - roque prosecuted for homi via

reckless imprudence; pleaded guilty; indemnify heirs 3k

- Roque served sentence; insolvent; could not pay

CFI held Bernardo Liable- 3k and costs

CA certified to SC; qs of law

Bernardo’s defense; lessor lessee; under boundary system; ee –er releationship

- Boundary sys; although driver no fxd wage; only excess of the receipt of fares;

- Applies in negligence cases; 3rd part recov for injuries/damages; lease w/o PSC approval; owner conitunued to be operator in legal contemplation

- To hold otherwise; public at the mercy of reckless drivers; no position to pay damages

Subsidiary liability- bernardo’s defense; subsidiary liab- Roque pleaded guilty; he did not have

a chance to prove roque innocent; too late

Phil Rab Bus Lines v IAC

Catalino/caridad Pascua; ant others; - boarded jeep; owned by

Manguna/Carreon; driver Manalo- Pampanga -> Pangasinan

- Stop over at Tarlac; proceeded toward Carmen (Pangasinan)

-