WESTERN LEYTE COLLEGE

SCHOOL OF LAW
TRANSPORTATION LAWS
PRELIM EXAMINATIONS
I Multiple Choice Questions (4 points each)
1. A taxi driver tried to hold-up his passenger, who resisted and was killed. His heirs sued based
against the taxi company, which denied liability. Is the taxi company liable?
a. No, because the taxi driver acted beyond the scope of his authority.
b. No, because the taxi company was able to prove that it exercise due diligence in the selection
and supervision of its employees.
c. Yes, because it failed to prove that it exercised ordinary diligence.
d. Yes, because common carrier is still liable for negligence of the employees even if such acts are
beyond the scope of his authority.
2. What is the degree of diligence required by the law of a private carrier?
a. Extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods ad fro the safety of passengers transported
to them.
b. Utmost diligence of very cautious persons.
c. Ordinary diligence.
d. A diligence of a father of good family.
3. When does a contract of carriage start and end with respect to the carrying of passengers?
a. From the time the passenger touches the common carrier and ends at the time the bus stops at
the bus terminal.
b. From the time the passenger buys a ticket and ends at the time bus stops at the bus station.
c. From the time when the common carrier agrees to accept the passenger even without a ticket
until the latter is safely carried to his destination.
d. From the time the person steps on the platform of the bus and sells cigarettes to the passengers
inside the bus.
4. Juan bought a bus ticket for his trip from Ormoc to Surigao City. In the ticket, it was stipulated that
the degree of diligence is lessened. Said agreement was in writing. Juan paid a consideration aside
from the fare he paid. Said bus bumped a private vehicle which resulted to the amputation of the
legs of Juan. Is the owner of the Bus liable?
a. Yes, because the common carrier failed to exercise the due diligence in the supervision and
selection of his employees.
b. No, because the common carrier was able to prove that it exercised ordinary diligence as
stipulated in said ticket.
c. No, because the stipulation limiting the liability of the common carrier is valid.
d. Yes, because the stipulation limiting the liability of the common carrier is void ab initio.
5. What laws that govern common carrier that is engaged coastwise shipping?
a. The New Civil Code only.
b. The Code of Commerce only.
c. The Code of Commerce primarily and the New Civil Code suppletorily.
d. The New Civil Code primarily and the Code of Commerce suppletorily.
6. Bales ordered from and fully paid the purchase price of one hundred (100) sacks of rice to Ampaso
which receipt of full payment was duly acknowledged by the latter. Bales had the same shipped
through Felipe, a common carrier. While in transit, Ampaso called Felipe and exercised the so-called
right of stoppage in transitu, but Felipe continued its trip from Bohol to Ormoc, the place of
destination. However, when Felipe was about to dock at the pier of Ormoc, it collided with another
cargo ship which resulted to the total loss of all its cargo. Is Felipe liable to Bales?
a. No, because the diligence required to be observed by Felipe was already converted to ordinary
diligence due to the exercise of Ampaso of her right of stoppage in transitu.
b. No, because the cause of the loss was a furtuitous event.
c. Yes, because the right of stoppage in transitu does not apply.
d. Yes, because the furtuitous event was not the proximate and only cause.
7. Yu, a crew of M/V Castro, a passenger vessel, without provocation, delivered a liver punch to
Ybaez, a passenger, which resulted to his paralysis. Is M/V Castro liable to Ybaez?
a. No, because the action of Yu was his personal liability.
b. Yes, because M/V Castro did not exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its
employees.
c. No, because Yu failed to establish that M/V Castro failed to exercise extraordinary diligence.
d. Yes, because the duty to exercise extraordinary diligence extends to M/V Castros crews.

Page 1 of 3

8. Sios-e, a shipper, agreed to the stipulation limiting the liability of the common carrier, Caspe. Said
stipulation was in writing, consideration other than the frieghtage is paid and the same is not
unreasonable. The date came for the transportation of the goods of Sios-e, however, Caspe refused
to carry the goods of Sios-e. May such stipulation of limiting the liability be annuled by Sios-e?
a. Yes, because that is tantamount to breach of contract.
b. No, because Sios-e agreed to such stipulation.
c. No, because such stipulation is not against public policy.
d. Yes, because being a common carrier it is bound to carry the goods without discrimination.
9. An agreement limiting the liability of the carrier for the carriage of goods was freely entered into by
and between Villamor, a common carrier and Dela Cruz, the shipper. Upon arrival, the goods were
found to have been damaged. Is the common carrier liable without presenting evidence that it
exercised ordinary diligence?
a. No, because since the liability is limited by agreement, it is now incumbent upon the shipper to
prove that the common carrier failed to exercise the diligence required.
b. No, because the legal presumption of negligence and/or fault is abrogated by such agreement.
c. Yes, because the common carrier failed to exercise extraordinary diligence.
d. Yes, because the common carrier is still presumed to have been negligent in case of damage to
goods.
10. Hobert was gratuitously carried by Viscampe, a common carrier. During the transit, said common
carrier met an accident due to fault of the driver. Hobert was one of the passengers who were
declared dead on the spot. Is the common carrier liable to Hobert?
a. No, because Hobert was an accommodation passenger, thus extraordinary diligence is not
applicable as far as his death is concerned.
b. No, because being carried gratuitously the responsibility of the common carrier is automatically
converted to ordinary diligence.
c. Yes, because absence of stipulation, the common carrier is bound to observe extraordinary
diligence.
d. Yes, because there was no contributory negligence on the part of Hobert.
11. X is a public utility company. Y is the bus driver of said company. And Z is the injured passenger. Z
filed a case against the X. What negligence is his cause of action based on?
a. Culpa aguiliana.
b. Culpa Criminal.
c. Culpa Contractual.
d. Culpa Contractual and aquiliana.
12. A Batangas Trans. bus going north stopped on the highway because a passenger wanted to alight.
Another bus was going fast and recklessly, trying to pass a carretela. In trying to overtake the
carretela, the driver made a miscalculation and hit the bus of Batangas Trans. The passenger who
was then alighting from the bus was thrown out and killed. The heirs of the victim sought recovery
from Batangas Trans. Is the Batangas Trans. liable?
a. No, because of fortuitous event.
b. No, because it exercised extraordinary diligence.
c. Yes, because where fortuitous event concurs with negligence, liability is not extinguished.
d. Yes, because there is no stipulation limiting the liability of the Batangas Trans.
13. An agreement was duly entered into by and between A, common carrier and B, passenger
stipulating therein that the liability of the former shall cease upon proof that it exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. A turned
turtle on its way to Tacloban, which resulted to injuries on the part of B. Is A liable?
a. No, because A was able to prove that it exercised all the diligence of the good father of a family
in the selection and supervision of its employees.
b. No, because due to such stipulation, As liability is already limited to ordinary diligence.
c. Yes, because such stipulation provided for by said agreement is not valid.
d. Yes, because no fortuitous events intervened in said incident.
14. A private carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the goods due to natural disaster.
However, private carrier was able to prove that it has exercised all the diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees. Is the private carrier liable?
a. Yes, because it failed to exercise extraordinary diligence.
b. Yes, because the natural disaster was concurrent with the negligence of private carriers
employees.
c. No, because being a private carrier, extraordinary diligence is not applicable.
d. No, because said private carrier has proved that it exercised all the diligence in the selection
and supervision of its employees.
15. When is a common carrier liable despite of stipulation limiting its liability as far as a gratuitously
carried-passenger is concerned?

Page 2 of 3

a. When the common carrier failed to exercise extraordinary diligence.

b. When the common carrier failed to exercise the due diligence in the selection and supervision of
its employees.
c. For willful acts or gross negligence.
d. For acts attributable to its employees.
II Essay Lawyering Skills Exam (40 points)
1. Differentiate Common Carrier from Private Carrier? (10 points)
2. X took the Benguet Bus from Baguio going to Manila. He deposited his maleta in the baggage
compartment of the bus common to all passengers. He did not declare his baggage nor pay its
charges contrary to the regulations of the bus company. When X got off, he could not find his
baggage which obviously was taken by another passenger. Determine the liability of the bus
company. (10 pts)
3. Ronald John is engaged in buying charcoal and firewood and in reselling them. He uses two (2)
big trucks for the purpose. However, he has no certificate of public convenience or franchise to
do business as a common carrier. In some of his trips, he loads his trucks with various
merchandise of other merchants. He charges them freight rates much lower than the regular
rates. In one of the trips, one (1) cargo truck was loaded with several boxes of sardines, valued
at PhP 100,000.00, belonging to Rico John. While passing through a zigzag road, the truck was
hijacked by three (3) armed men who took all the boxes of sardines and kidnapped the driver
and his helper, releasing them only two (2) days later. Rico John sought to recover from Ronald
John the value of the sardines. However, Ronald John contends that he is not liable because he
is not a common carrier under the Civil Code and, even granting for the sake of argument that
he is, he is not liable for the loss as it was due to a cause beyond his control. Is Ronald John a
common carrier and liable for the loss? Explain briefly. (10 pts)
4. EF and his wife wee owners of a minibus that was being used principally in connection with a
bus service for school children which they operated in Manila. On November 2, 2002, WW Corp.,
a non-stock non profit corporation, arranged with EF for the transportation of 33 members from
Manila to La Union and back for a consideration. Are the spouses operating a common carrier?
(10 pts)

Page 3 of 3