1

TRANSPORTATION LAW
Case no.1
Phil home assurance corp
Vs
c.a.
facts: eastern shipping lines loaded on board ss eastern explorer in kobe, japan the following shipment in good order and
condition for carriage to manila and cebu:
1. 2 boxes internal combustion engine parts
2. 334 bags amonium chloride
3. 200 bags glue 300
4. And garments.
While the vessel was off okinawa, japan, a small flame was detected on the acetylene cylinder located in the
accomodation area near the engine room on the main deck level.
As the crew was trying to extinguish the fire, the acetylene cylinder suddenly exploded sending a flash of flame
throughout the accommodation area, thus causing death and severe injuries to the crew and instantly setting fire
to the whole vessel.
The incident forced the master and the crew to abandon ship.
Thereafter, eastern explorer was found to be constructive total loss and its voyage was declared abandoned.
Several hours later, a tug boat under the control of fukuda salvage company arrived near the vessel and
commenced to tow the vessel for the port of naha, japan.
Fire fighting operations were again condected at the port of naha, japan.
After the fire was extinguished, the cargoes which were saved were loaded to another vessel for delivery to their
original ports of destination.
Eastern shipping charged the consignees several amounts corresponding to additional freight and salvage
charges for the salvaged goods.
As a result, herein petitioner paid said additional charges under protest. And thereafter, sought refund of said
amount it paid against eastern shipping.

issue: WON herein consignees are liable for additional charges?
Held: general averages include all damages and expenses which are deliberately caused in order to save the vessel, its
cargo, or both at the same time, froma real and a known risk.
While the instant case mat technically fall within the purview of said provision, the formalities prescribed under
articles 813 and 814 of the code of commerce in order to incur the expenses and cause the damage
corresponding to gross average were not complied with.
Hence, eastern must refund the amount it received as additinal charges.

Case no.2
Magsaysay incorporation
Vs
Agan
2

Facts: the ss san antonio owned and operated by herein plaintiff, left manila on october 6, 1949, bound for basco,
batanes via aparri, cagayan, with general cargo belonging to different shippers, defendant among of them.
The vessel reached aparri on the 10th day of october and after a days stop over said port weighed anchor and
proceed to basco.
But while still in port, it ran aground at the mouth of the cagayan river and attempts to refloat it thru luzon
stevedoring company at an agreed compensation.
Once afloat, the vessel returned to manila to refuel and then proceeded to basco, batanes, the port of
destination.
There the cargoes were delivered to their respective owners who, except defendant, deposited or signed a bond
to answer for their contribution to the average.
Thereafter, plaintiff seud defendant for his contribution.

Issue: won said expenses constitute as an general average which makes defendant liable for said contribution?

Held: pieces of evidence in the case at bar show that the vessel had to be salvaged in order to enable it to proceed to
its port of destination, hence it do not constitute as general averages.
It is the safety of the property, and not of the voyage, which constitutes the true foundation of general averages.

Elements of general average:
1. Common danger
2. For the common safety part of the vessel or cargo or both is sacrificed deliberatly
3. From said expenses and damages caused follows the successful saving of the vessel and cargo
4. Expenses should have been incurred after taking legal steps.

Case no.3
International harvester co
Vs
Hamburg-american line
Facts: in the spring of 1914, herein plaintiff in russia, an american corporation, delivered to the defendant at baltimore,
maryland to be laden on its steamer the bulgaria bound from that port to hamburg, germany a large consignment of
agricultural machinery consisting of 852 boxes, crates and parcels, all of which are to be delevered to the consignee at
russia.
The freight charges were then prepaid to the ultimate destination.
The bill of lading contained that the goods should be forwarded by herein defendant from hamburg to russia at
the ships expense but at the risk of the owner of the goods.
When the ship arrived in hamburg the carrier company transferred the cargo to the suevia, a ship of its own line,
for the transportation from hamburg to russia.
While the ship carrying the said cargo was in china sea en route to russia war broke out in europe and as the
suervia was german vessel, the master considered it neccesary to take refuge in the nearest neutral port, which
happened to be manila on august 6, 1914 up to the date of trial.
3

After it became apparent that the suevia would be detained indefinitely in the port of manila, plaintiff as owner of
the cargo made demand upon the agent of the defendant in manila that it should forward the cargo to russia by
other steamer if not by suevia.
However, defendant refused to do so except upon the condition that the said cargo be subject to liability for
general average to satisfy the costs and expenses of the suevias stay in the port of manila.
Plaintiff did not assent with said condition but on the contrary demanded the immediate delivery thereof.
The defendant replied with an offer to deliver the same provided the plaintiff deposit the sum equivalent to 20%
of the cargos value to be adjusted as general average.
Suit was filed by plaintiff.
Afterwards, plaintiff obtained the possession of said cargo by a writ of replevin and rendering defendant to pay
the amount in forwarding the goods to russia.
From this judgment, defendant appelaed.

Issue: won plaintiff, as owner of the cargo, should pay said general average insisted by defendant?
Held:
The cargo in question is not liable to a general average for the reason that the master of suevia decided to take
refuge in the port of manila with the exclusive view of of protecting his vessel.
There was no common danger to the ship and cargo and ,therefore, it was not a case for general average.
Said machinery was not claimed as a contraband of war and being a neutral goods, it was not liable for forfeiture
in the event of capture by the enemiesof the ships flag.


Case no.4
Sulpicio lines inc
Vs
c.a
facts: petioners vessel mv don sulpicio was a passenger vessel while private respondents vesses was a small fishing
vessel
don sulpicio at a distance of 4 miles has sighted 2 fishing boats, aquarious c and g.
The 2 fishing boats had a spped of 7.5 knots per hour while mv don sulpicio had a speed of 15.5 knots per
hour.
Which means that the spped of mv don sulpicio was 2 times faster than the 2 fishing boats.
The weather at the time of collision was clear and visibility was good.
In other words, from the distance of 4 miles at sea the men of don sulpicio could clearly see the 2 fishing
boats ahead of them and likewise, the men of the 2 fishing boats could clearly see don sulpicio following.
Herein petitioner averred in its defence that the fb aquarious was negligent and that it had no lookout as
mandated by law, and that it being ahead of it, it should have given way to mv don sulpicio in order to avoid
collision.
Evidence showed that it was only 2 minutes before the collision that the mv do sulpicio changed its direction
and reduced speed.

Issue: won herein petitioner is liable for said damages?
4

Held:
Sc held that mv don sulpicio must assume responsibility as it was in a better position to avoid the collision for
some reasons
- as it was the faster boat as compared to the 2 fishing boats.
- The weather was clear and visibility was vgood
- Don sulpicio was 4 miles away when it first sighted the 2 fishing boats
- All the time up to the collision, don sulpicio maintained its speed at 16 knots
- And it was only 2 minutes before the collision when it changed its course.
s. further held that It should have blown its horn or given signs to warn the other vessel that it was to overtake
it.

Case no.6
Eastern shipping lines inc
Vs
Margarine-verkaufs union
Facts:
Respondent corporation, west german corporation, was the consignee of 500 long tons of philippine copra in
bulk with a total value of US$108,750 shipped from cebu city on board petitioners vessel, ss eastern planet,
for discharge at hamburg, germany.
Petitioners bill of lading stated, among other things, that in case of average, same shall be adjusted
according to york-antwerp rules of 1950.
However, while the vessel was off to gibraltar, a fire broke out aboard the vessel and caused water damage
to the copra shipment in the amount of US$591.
Petitioner corporation rejected said claim on its defense that under article 848 of the code of commerce,
which states that no claim for damages shall be allowed in case below the 5% for general average and 1%
for paricular average minimum limit of the claimants interest in his cargoes.
Issue: won herein respondents claim for said damages is barred by the code of commerce?
Held:
The sc held that the cited codal article is not applicable in the case at bar for the reason that their bill of
lading contains an agreement to the contrary in its last sentence.
The said insertion if condition is expressly authorized by commonwealth act 65 which has adopted in toto the
u.s carriage of goods by sea act.
On the contrary, rule 3 of said york-antwerp rules expressly stated that damage done to a ship and cargo by
water or otherwise, including damage by a burning ship in extinguishing a fire on board shall be made good
as general average.
There is a clear and irreconcilable inconsistency between the york-antwerp rules and the codal article cited by
petitioner which would bar the same.
However, as correctly pointed out by respondent that what is involved here is a contract of adhesion which is
issued by herein petitioner for the shipment to which respondent adhered having no choice in the matter, and
therefore, under the law, any ambiguity therein must be construed against petitioner as the author.

Case no.7
5

Philippine american general insurance company
Vs
Ca and transpacific towage inc.
Facts:
On september 4, 11985, davao union marketing corporation of davao city shipped on board the vessel mv
crazyhorse operated by herein private respondent cargo consisting of 9,750 sheets of union gi sheets and
86,860 bags of union cement.
The cargo was consigned to the bicol union center of pasacao, cam sur, with a certain pedro olivan as the
notify-party.
The cargo was insured by herein petitioner.
The vessel mv crazyhorse arrived at pasacao port on september 7, 1985 as scheduled.
Upon arrival the shipmaster notified the consignees notify-party that the vessel was ready for discharge.
However, the discharging could not be effected immediately and continuosly because of certain reasons:
1. The bouys were installed only on september11, 1985
2. The discharge permit was onle secured only on september 13, 1985
3. A wooden catwalk had to be made and the wharf had to be extended which was completed only on
september 26, 1985
4. Because of intermittent rains and the stevedores supplied by the consignee did not work during the town
fiesta.
On october 16, 1985, a super typhoon named saling entered the philippine area of responsibility and as a
result pasacao was placed under storm signal no. 3
Hence, the discharging of the cargo had to be suspended because of heavy rains and wind.
To prevent damage to the cargoes, all hatches of the vessels were closed and secured.
Unfortunately, the master of the vessel declared the vessel to be abandoned due to said typhoon.
The vessel broke into 2-pieces and partially sank as a result.
The shipmaster sought police assistance and coastguards but despite the presence of 3 coastgurds, the
looting of the cargo could not be prevented because almost all barrio folk came to loot the said cargo.
Herein petitioner being the insurer of said cargoes paid the said amount to the shipper, and thereafter, made
demands upon herein private respondent claimig that the loss was directly and exclusively brought by its fault
and negligence but was denied.
Issue: won herein private respondent is liable for said damages?
Held:
Sc held that while there was indeed delay in discharging the cargo from the vessel, neither of the parties
could be faulted for such delay for the delay was due not to negligence, but due to several factors as
discussed.
Furthemore, herein private respondent, as a common carrier, observed due diligence before, during and after
the occurence of of said typhoon.
Therefore, private respondent is not liable for said damages.

Case no.8
International container terminal services inc
Vs
6

Prudential guarantee & assurance co
Facts:
On april 25, 1990, mother vessel tao he loaded and received on board in san francisco, california, a shipment
of 5 lots of canned foodstuff complete and in good order and condition for transport to manila in favor of
consignee duel food enterprises.
China ocean shipping company issued the corresponding bill of lading.
Consignee insured said goods to herein respondent against all risks.
On may 30, 1990, the shipment arrived at the port of manila and discharged by the vessel ms wei he in favor
of herein petitioner for safekeeping.
On june 1, 1990, reyna customs brokerage withdrew the shipment and delivered the same to the consignee.
An inspection thereof revealed that 161 cartons were missing.
Claim for indemnification by the consignee was denied by petitioner and defendant brokerage, hence,
consignee sought payment from herein respondent as insurer.
As a result, respondent filed the instant complaint against said defendants.
In its defense, petitioner, alleged that it observed extraordinary diligence over the said shipment while under
its custody, and that consignee failed to file a formal claim against it.
issue: won herein petitioner is liable for said damages?

Held: no. 8
The legal relationship between and arrastre operator and a consignee is akin to that between a
warehouseman and depositor.
As both the nature of the functions and the place of their performance, an arrastre operators services are
clearly not maritime in character.
The consigned goods were shipped under shippers loand and account which means that the shipper was
solely responsible for the loading of the container, while the carrier was oblivious(unaware) to the contents of
the shipment.
In other words, the arrastre operator was , like any ordinary depositary, duty-bound to take good care of the
goods received from the vessel and to turn over the same to the party entitled to their possession, subject to
such qualifications as may have been validly imposed in the contract between the parties.
In the case at bar, the arrastre operator was not required to verify the contents of the container received and
to compare them with those declared by the shipper because thr cargo was at shippers loan and account.
It means that the arrastre operator was expected to deliver to the consignee only the container received from
the carrier.

Case no. 9
Eastern shipping lines
Vs
Iac & development insurance & surety corporation
Facts:
Sometime in or prior to june, 1977, the ms asiatica a vessel operated by herein petitioner loaded at kobe,
japan:
1. 5,000 pieces of calorized lance pipes in 28 packages
7

2. 7 cases of spare parts
3. 128 cartons of garment fabrics and accessories in 2 containers
4. And 2 cases of surveying instruments.

The cargoes were insured to different insurers.
Enroute for kobe, japan to manila, the vessel caught fire and sank, resulting in the total loss of the ship and
the cargoes.
The respective insurers paid the insurance amount to the consignees and were subrogated unto their rights.
In its(petitioner) defense, it alleged that fire which caused the sinking of the vessel is an exempting
circumstances under the cogsa and that its liability, af any, should not exceed $500 per package.
Issue no.9: won herein petitioner is liable for said damages?
Held:
Sc held that while fire is an exemting circumstance under the cogsa, still, petitioner is liable due to the fact
that said fire is caused by the actual fault of the carrier thru the following findings of fact:
1. When the smoke was noticed the fire was already big
2. That the fire must have started 24 hours before it was noticed
3. And that after the cargoes were stored in the hatches, no regular inspection was made as to their
condition during the voyage.
As to the limited liabilty, sc held that what is considered packages is not the containers supplied by the carrier itself but
the package used by the shippers by reason of international uniformity.

Case no. 10
Aetna insurance company
Vs
Barber steamship lines et al.
Facts:
On feb 22, 1965, petitioner as insurer filed a complaint against herein respondents for the recovery from the
latter damages caused to a cargo of truck parts shipped on the ss turandi as the insurer paid the damages to
the consignee manila trading & supply company.
Barber steamship lines without submitting to the cpurts jurisdiction alleged among others that it did not own
the said vessel but the owner was, according to their bill of lading, wilhelmsem group, however, the same bill
of lading states that barber was the vessels agent.
On april 5, 1965, barber steamship without again submitting to the courts jurisdiction filed its motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action and that it was not the real party in interest.
On april 7, 1965, petitioner aetna filed a manifestation stating that the name of defendant barber steamship
lines was incorrect and that the correct name was barber line far east service.
In its, barber lines far east, defense it alleged that the action had prescribed according to the cogsa.
Deliver of the subject cargo was on feb 25, 1964 to the consignee.
Issue: won the cause of action has already prescribe under the cogsa?
Held:
8

Sc held that the 1-year prescriptive period had already prescribed when plaintiff filed its action on april 7,
1965 for the 1-year prescriptive period commence on feb 25, 1964, when the damaged cargo was delivered
to the consignee.
Furthermore, when a cause of action is imperdectly stated and later amended to correct it, the plea of
prescription will relate to the the filing of the original complaint does not apply to a party who has been
impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint.

Case no. 11
Union carbide philippines inc
Vs
Manila railroad company et al.
Facts:
On dec 18, 1961, the vessel daishin maru arrived in manila with a cargo of 1k bags of synthetic resin
consigned to general base metals which later sold the cargo to union carbide philippines incorporation.
On dec 19, 1961, the cargo was delivered to the manila port service in good order and condition except the
25 bags which were in bad order.
Thereafter, the same were delivered by the customs broker to the consignee with 102 bags missing and alal
in alal 50 bags were damaged.
Consequently, the consignee thru the customs broker filed with the manilaport service as arrastre operator
the american steamship agencies a provisional claim advising them that the shipment in question was landed
in bad order.
As the claims were not paid, union filed a complaint against said defendants on dec 21, 1962.
However, the trial court dismiised said action on the ground of prescription as the complaint was filed only on
dec 21,1962 counted from dec 19, 1961, when the cargo was delivered to the arrastre operator ,or 2-days
late.
Issue: won said action has already prescribed?

Held no. 11:
The sc held that american steamship could not be anymore held liable for said action against it had already
prescribed since the delivery of the cargo was on dec 19, 1961.
However, as regards the arrastre operator, the sc held that it(arrastre) could be held liable within 1 year
either from dec 19, 1961 or from dec 19, 1962. This 2nd date is regarded as the expiration within which the
arrastre operator should have acted on the claim.
In other words, the claimant has a 2-year prescriptive period from the date of discharge of the goods within
which to file an action in the event the arrastre operator has not rejected nor admitted liability.
Hence, as regards the arrastre operator, since the action against it was filed on dec 21, 1962 which is within
the 2-year period until dec 19, 1963, it is held liable for said damages the claimant having been complied with
the condition precedent.
Furthermore, delivery under the cogsa means delivery by the carrier to the arrastre operator as the law does
not allow the carrier to directly deliver said cargo to the consignee for reason of payment of customs fees.

Case no. 12
9

Filipro inc
Vs
Manila railroad company & manila port service
Facts:
Filipro,as consignee, originally filed an action to recover the value of imported goods discharged at the port
of manila into the manila port service custody as arrastre operators which were not deliverd or delivered in
bad order and condition
On different dates, 7 shipment of goods consigned to herein plaintiff were discharged at manila port into the
custody of manila port service.
The last packages of each of the 7 shipments were discharged on different dates in mid-1962
Plaintiff filipro files its provisional claim within the 15-day reglementary period.
Since no action was taken by defendants on the provisional claim, plaintiff made formal claims on september
4, 1963 for said recovery.
Defendants in its defense, alleged that said claims as regards the 1st to 5th packages had already prescribed
as they were brought 1 year after from the date of last discharge of the goods in as much the said claim has
not expressly rejected or denied by them.
Issue: won said claims has already prscribed?
Held no. 12:
The contention of said defendants said this court is without merit for it overlooks the fact plaintiff has, under
the mgt contract, 2 periods within which to file its action
1. 1 year from the date of discharge of the goods; and
2. 1 year from the rejection or denial of its claim for the value thereof.
Obviously, defendants cannot, by not acting on plaintiffs claims, one way or another, deprive the plaintiff of
these alternatives.
Such would be the result, if we were to accept defendants contention.
Considereing however, that no action, express or implied, was taken by the defendant on plaintiffs claims;
this court repeatedly held, latest in union carbide philippines, that in cases of inaction of the arrastre
operator, he shall be deemed to have rejected or denied the importrs claim upon the expiration of 1 year
from the date when the last package was discharged and that the period within which to file suit shall then
begin to run.
Hence, since the defendants did not act on said claims upon the expiration of 1 year from the date of last
discharge on 1963, the period within which to file suit shall then begin on said date, 1963.
As regards, the absence of the value of the goods loss or damaged, this court held that such contention is
untenable for it assumes that the claim must state the said value which par 15 does not require and a
provisional claim may be sufficient, even if the value of goods were not stated, provided it describes said
goods sufficiently to permit its identification by the operator and the determination of the latter of the
relevant facts thereto such as the carrying vesse, date of arriva, and the bill of lading or other shipping
documents while the facts are still fresh on the minds of persons who took part in the transaction and the
pertinent documents are still available.

Case no. 13
Filipino merchants insurance company inc
Vs
10

Alejandro, frota oceanica, benipayo and australia-west pacific line
Facts:
On aug 3, 1977, plaintiff choa filed a complaint against herein petitioner for recovery under an insurance
policy alleging that the goods insured by it had sustained loss or damage.
The vessel ss frotario was owned and operated by herein private respondent frota oceanica discharged the
cargo at the port of manila on dec 13, 1976.
The said goods were delivered to the arrastre operator on dec 17, 1976 and received by the consignee on the
same date.
On dec 19, 1977, petitioner filed its answer denying liablity.
On january 9, 1978, petitioner filed a 3rd party complaint against carrier and arrastre operator.
On aug 10, 1977, joseph chua filed a similiar complaint for recover against herein petitioner alleging that the
goods sustained loss or damage.
The goods were deliverd to joseph chua on or about jan 25-28, 1977.
On may 31, 1978, petitioner filed its answer.
On september 28, 1978, it filed its 3rd party complaint.
All of the defendants alleged that the said laim against had already prescribed.
Petitioner in its defense alleged that the 1 year prescriptive period under the cogsa provision is not applicable
to an insurer when such has not yet settled the claim of the insured.
Issue: won said prescriptive period applies to an insurer?
Held:
This contention is without merit. Clearly the coverage of the act includes the insurer of the goods.
Otherwise, what the act intends to prohibit after the lapse of 1 year prescriptive period can de done indirectly
by the shipper or owner of the goods by simply filing a claim against the insurer even after the lapse of the 1
year prescriptive period.
This would be the result if we follow petitioners contention that the insurer can, at any time, proceed against
the carrier and the ship since it is not bound by the time-bar provision.
The 1 year limitation will be practically useless.
This could not have been the intention of the law which has also for its purpose the protection of the carrier
and the ship from fraudulent claims by having matters affecting transportation of goods by sea to be decided
in a short time as possible and which would delays in the settlement of of questions affecting transportation.

Case no. 14
Dole philippines inc
Vs
Maritime company of the philippines.
Facts:
Herein plaintiff sought to recover damages sustained to his shipment of machine parts against herein
defendant as the carrier.
The subject cargo was discharged in dadiangas unto the custody of the consignee on dec 18, 1971.
Plaintiff filed its corresponding claim for said damages on may 4, 1972.
On june 11, 1973, plaintiff filed its complaint in court against said defendant.
Maritime in its defense alleged that the said action already prescribed under the cogsa.
11

Plaintiff in its answer alleged that its extrajudicial written demand for said damages should toll the period of
prescription which was on may 4, 1972 when it filed its corresponding claim.
Plaintiff further alleged that the civil code is suppletory to the code of commerce and special laws, like cogsa,
incase of deficiencies as the cogsa is silent as to extrajudicial demand if it tolls the prescriptive period hence,
according to plaintiff, the civil code provisions which state that extrajudicial written demand tolls or interrupts
the prescriptive period.
Issue: won said action by herein plaintiff had already prescribed?
Held no. 14:
This court held that these contentions would have merited wieghtier were it not for the fact that the question
has already received a definitive answer, contrary to doles position, in the case of yek tong lin fire & marine
insurance company where this court rejected the contention that an extrajudicial demand tolled the
prescriptive period provided for in the cogsa.
Thsic court has already decided that in a case governed by the cogsa, civil code provisions should not be
applied as such application would have the effect of extending the 1 year period of prescription fixed in the
law and permit delays in the settlement of questions affecting transportation which is contrary to the clear
intent and purpose of the law that matters affecting transportation of goods by sea be decided in a short time
as possible.
Furthermore, even if this court is to accept said contention, still the claim of plaintiff had prescribed due to
the fact that it instituted said civil case only on june 11, 1973 more than 1 month after the period of 1 year
expired on may 4, 1972 the time of its filing its extrajudicial written demand.

DOCTRINE OF INSCRUTABLE FAULT
CANNOT SCRUTINIZE WHO WBETWEEN THE 2 VESSELS IS AT FAULT.
ALLISSION
REFERS TO THE STRIKING OF A MOVING VESSEL AGAINST ONE THAT IS STATIONARY AND PERHAPS
OTHER SPECIES OF ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN VESSELS, OR A VESSEL AND OTHER FLOATING, THOUGH
NON-NAVIGABLE OBJECTS.

COLLISION
- THE IMPACT OF 2 VESSELS BOTH OF WHICH ARE MOVING.
MARITIME PROTEST
- SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT
- CONDITION
- WITHIN 24 HOURS
- COMPETENT AUTHORITY
CASES WHERE M.P. IS REQUIRED
- ARRIVAL UNDER STRESS
- SHIPWRECK
- COLLISION
- HURRICANE