COURSE OUTLINE IN

TRANSPORTATION LAW
2nd Semester, AY 2018-2019

A. Classroom Rules:
1. Attendance will be checked at the beginning of every meeting.
2. Recitation will be conducted every meeting. Students are expected, therefore, to come
to class prepared and to have read the materials scheduled to be covered during the
meeting. When a student is reciting, the rest of the class is expected to listen to him.
Students are encouraged to participate in the discussion by asking questions.
3. A student who is called to recite is expected to close his book during his recitation.
4. Electronic gadgets are not prohibited during class hours. A student is expected,
however, to turn off his mobile phone or to put it on silent mode as soon as he steps
into the classroom. If the student expects a call during the meeting, he can take the call
by discretely leaving the classroom. Laptops, tablets, and other similar electronic
devices, are not, likewise, prohibited but the students who are called to recite should
close these electronic devices for the duration of their recitation. The same rule applies
to mobile phones that serve as data storage.
5. Any student may discretely leave the classroom if and when absolutely necessary. When
a student is not in the classroom when called for recitation, he will be given a grade of
5.0 or its equivalent.

B. Grading System:
Recitation - 15
Quiz - 15
Mid-Term Exam - 30
Final Exam - 40

C. Reference/s:

Essentials of Transportation and Public Utilities Law, Timoteo B. Aquino & RamonPaul L. Hernando

OUTLINE PROPER

PART I
a. Common Carriers
A. General Considerations
a. Definition
i. Contract of Transportation
b. Parties to a contract
i. Carriage of Passengers
ii. Carriage of Goods
1. Baliwag Transit v CA, G.R. No. 80447 January 31, 1989

c. Perfection of Contract
1) Two types of contract of carriage of passengers
i) contract to carry
ii) contract of carriage or of common carrier
2) Aircraft
2. British Airways v CA G.R. No. 92288 February 9, 1993
3. Korean Airlines v CA G.R. No. 114061 August 3, 1994
1
 3) Buses, Jeepneys and others street cars
4) Trains
5) Carriage of Goods
d. Common Carrier (CC) – Definition
i. Test to determine whether a party is a CC
4. Sps. Fabre v CA, G.R. No. 111127 July 26, 1996
ii. Characteristics
5. De Guzman v CA G.R. No. L-47822 December 22, 1988
6. First Phil Industrial Corp. v CA G.R. No. 125948 December 29, 1998
7. Asia Lighterage & Shipping v CA G.R. No. 147246 August 19, 2003
8. LRT Authority v Marjorie Navidad, et.al G.R. No. 145804 February 6, 2003
9. Sps. Perena v. Sps. Nicolas, Gr No. 157917, August 29, 2012
10. Sps. Cruz v. Sun Holidays, GR No. 186312, 6/29/2010
11. National Steel v. CA, Gr No. Gr No. 112287, 12/71997

e. Charter Party
i)TWO TYPES :
1) Affreightment (time or voyage )
2) demise or bareboat charter -
f. Private Carrier
g. CC distinguished from Private Carrier
h. CC distinguished/Towage/Arrastre/Stevedoring/Travel Agency/Tramp Service and
Line Service
i. Governing Laws – ART 1766 CC expressly states that Civil Code is the governing
law of the CC. Suppletory are Code of Commerce and other special laws
- Art. 1753 – cases involving loss, destruction or
deterioration of goods- the law of the country
of destination shall apply
- Read page 39 of the book- the applicable laws
were summarized
j. ROR and Kabit System
i. Registration Laws (RA 4136)
ii. Registered Owner Rule
12. Filcar Transport v Espinas G.R. No. 174156 June 20, 2012
13. Duavit v. CA, Gr No. 82318, 5/18/1989
14. PCI Leasing v UCPB G.R. No. 162267 July 4, 2008

iii. Pari delicto rule

15. Teja Maketing v. IAC, GR No. 65510, 3/9/1987
16. Lita Enterprises v IAC G.R. No. L-64693 April 27, 1984

iv. Kabit system

16. Abelardo Lim v CA, G.R. No. 125817 January 16, 2002

i) Land transportation Rule

ii) Aircraft and vessels
v. Boundary System
17. Sps. Hernandez v Sps Dolor G.R. No. 160286 July 30, 2004

B. OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMMON CARRIER

2
 1) Basic Obligations of the Carrier

i. Duty to Accept goods for transport/passegers

ii. Grounds for non-acceptance

iii. Duties for special classes of passengers
iv. Duty to make timely delivery of goods

1. Delay
2. Place of delivery
3. To whom delivered

v. Delay to transport passengers

18. Trans Asia v CA G.R. No. 118126 March 4, 1996

vi. Air Transportation (chapter 8 of the Book)

vii. Duty to exercise extraordinary diligence

19. Delsan Transport v American Home G.R. No. 149019 August 15, 2006
20. La Mallorca v CA , G.R. No. L-20761 July 27, 1966

viii. Duty to third person

21. Kapalaran v Coronado GR No. 85331 Aug 25, 1989

ix. Effect of stipulation on EOD

1. Goods
2. Passengers
3. Gratuitous Passenger

22. Lara v Valencia G.R. No. L-9907 June 30, 1958

x. EOD in Carriage by Sea

i. Seaworthiness
ii. Cargoworthiness
iii. Proper Manning
iv. Adequate Equipment
v. No overloading
vi. Proper storage
vii. Negligence of captain and crew

xi. Duty to take Proper Route

xii. Duty to inspect in carriage by sea
xiii. EOD in Carriage by land
xiv. Duty to inspect
xv. EOD in Carriage by Train

23. Brinas v People G.R. No. L-30309 November 25, 1983

3
 - Only due diligence in traversing crossing
-Ensure the safety of other by placing safety devices and signs

24. Phil National Railways v Vizcara G.R. No. 190022 February 15, 2012

NOTE: 1)Not obliged to stop train every time he sees a person on or near the tracks;
2) Damages to properties and persons near railroad tracks (negligence caused
the destruction of neighboring properties through fire)
3) Speeding can be a proof of negligence

xvi. Passenger’s Baggage

NOTE: read LTFRB rules with respect free carriage of baggage for passengers

xvii. Hand Carried Luggage

C. OBLIGATIONS OF THE PASSENGER AND SHIPPER

a.) Duties and Obligations

25. PAL v. CA, GR no. 188961, Oct. 13, 2009

26. Philam vs. Heung-a Shipping, GR No. 187701 and 187812, July 23, 2014

D. DEFENSES OF THE COMMON CARRIER

a) Carriage of Goods (defenses)

i. Requisites of Fortuituos Events

27. Edgar Cokaliong v. UCPB, GR No 146018, June 25, 2003

28. Bascos v. CA, GR No. 101089, April 7, 1993
29. Son v. Cebu Autobus Company, 94 Phil 892
30. Juntilla v. Fontanar, GR No. L-45637, May 13, 1985
31. Fortune Express v. CA, GR No. 119756, 3/18/1999
32. Gacal v. PAL, GR No. 55300, 3/15/1990
33. Asian Terminals v. Simon, Gr No. 177116, 2/27/2013
34. Southern Lines v. CA, 45 SCRA 259
35. Ganzon v. CA, GR No. L-48757, 5/30/1988

b) Carriage of Passengers (defenses)

36. Bacarro v. Castano, GR No. 34597, November 5, 1982

37. Bachelor Express v. CA, GR No. 85691, 7/31/1990
38. Silverio v. Mendoza, GR No. 24471, 8/ 30/1968
39. Marana v. Perez, Gr No. L-22272, 6/26/1967

c) DOCTRINES (defenses)

- acts of the shipper/passenger

- contributory negligence of the shipper
- proximate cause/causation
4
 - avoidable consequences
- assumption of risk
- last clear chance

40. Japan Airlines v. CA, Gr No. 118664, 8/7/1998

41. Calalas vs. Ca, GR No. 122039, 5/31/2000
42. Rabbit vs. IAC, GR No. 66102-04, 8/30/1990
43. Tiu v. RRIESGADO, 437 SCRA 426

d) CLAIMS

i. For overland transportation and coastwise shipping

44. UCPB v. Aboitiz, GR No. 168433, 2/10/2009

45. Lorenzo v. Chubb and Sons, GR. No. 147724, 6/8/2004

ii. For international carriage of goods

46. Philam vs. Heung-a Shipping, GR No. 187701 and 187812, July 23, 2014
47. Belgian Oversease v. Philippine First, Gr No. 143133, 6/5/2002
48. Vector v. American, GR No. 159213, 7/3/2013

iii. For Air transportation (warsaw Convention)

49. Federal Express v. American Home, GR No. 150094, 8/18/2004

50. PAL v. Judge Savillo, Gr No. 149547, July 4, 2008

iv. LIMITING STIPULATIONS (defense)

E. BILL OF LADING AND OTHER FORMALITIES

I. CONCEPTS

i) What is a bill of lading?

ii) Kinds of Bill of Lading
iii) Parties
iv) Prohibited Stipulations in the BL
v) Functions of BL

51. MOF Company v. Shin Yang, GR No. 172822, 12/18/2009

52. Ace Navigation v. FGU Insurance, GR No. 171591, June 25, 2012
53. Provident v. CA, GR No. 118030, 1/15/2004
54. Sweet Lines v. Judge Teves, GR No. L-37750, 5/19/1978
55. Edgar Cokaliong v. UCPB, GR No. 146018, 6/25/2003
56. Shewaram v. PAL, GR No. L-20099, 7/7/1966
57. Belgian Overseas v. Phil First Insurance, GR No. 143133, 6/5/2002
58. Philam vs. Heung-a Shipping, GR No. 187701 and 187812, July 23, 2014
59. Saludo v. CA, GR No. 95536, 3/23/1992
60. National Development v. CA, GR No. L-49407 and L- 49469, 8/19/1988

F. ACTIONS AND DAMAGES IN CASE OF BREACH

i) Distinctions between Culpa contractual and Culpa aquiliana

ii) Damages
5
 a) Definition
b) Elements

iii) Kinds of Damages (Definition and elements)

(1) Actual or compensatory

(2) Moral
(3) Nominal
(4) Temperate or moderate
(5) And exemplary or corrective
(6) Attorney’s fees
(7) Interest rate

61. Fabre v. CA, GR No. 111127, 7/26/1996

62. Gregorio v. Sps. Paz, Gr No. 139875, 12/4/2000
63. Victory Liner v. Heirs of Andres, GR No. 154278, 12/27/2002
64. Spouses Ong v. CA, GR No. 117103, January 21, 1999
65. Pp v. Mataro, et. al, GR No. 130378, March 8, 2001
66. Serra v. Mumar, Gr No. 193861, March 14, 2012
67. Spouses Perena v. Spouses Nicolas, GR No. 157917, August 29, 2012
68. PAL vs. CA, GR No. 123238, 9/22/2008
69. Cathay v. Reyes, GR No. 185891, June 26, 2013
70. Expert Travel v. CA, GR No. 130030, 6/25/1999
71. Air France v. Gillego, GR. No. 165266, December 15, 2010
72. Kuwait Airways Corporation vs. PAL, GR No. 156087, May 8, 2009
73. British Airways v. CA, GR NO. 121824, January 29,1998
74. China Airlines v. Chiok, GR no. 152122, July 30, 2003
75. UNITED AIRLINES, INC v. CA, GR no. 124110, April 20, 2001
74. Northwest Airlines v. Laya, GR No. 146020, May 29, 2002
75. Cathay Pacific v. Spouses Vasquez, GR no. 150843, 3/4/2003
76. Singapore v. Fernandez, GR No. 142305, 12/10/2003
77. Northwest Airlines v. Catapang, GR No. 174374, July 30, 2009
78. American Airlines vs. CA, GR No. 116044-45, 3/9/2000

G. AIRCRAFT AND CIVIL AVIATION

i) Applicable Laws
ii) Aircraft- Definition
iii) Parties
iv) Classification of aircraft charters
v) Cabotage

80. Kuwait Airways Corporation vs. PAL, GR No. 156087, May 8, 2009

H. OBLIGATIONS OF CARRIER IN AIR TRANSPORTATION

i) Extraordinary of air transportation

ii) Instances that air carrier be made liable with respect to care of baggages
iii) Instances where the Air carrier may deny passenger from boarding

81. UNITED AIRLINES, INC v. CA, GR no. 124110, April 20, 2001
82. Northwest Airlines v. Laya, GR No. 146020, May 29, 2002
83. Air France v. Gillego, GR. No. 165266, December 15, 2010
84. Sabena v. CA, GR No. 1046855, 3/14/1996
85. Saludo v. CA, GR No. 95536, 3/23/1992
86. Trans World Airlines v. CA, GR No. 78656, 8/30/1988
87. PAL v. CA, GR No. 119641, 3/14/1996
88. Air France v. Carrascoso, Gr No. L-21438, 9/28/1966
6
89. China v. Chiok, GR no. 152122, 7/30/2003
90. PAL v. Lopez, GR No. 156654, 11/20/2008
91. Japan Airlines v. CA, GR No. 118664, 8/7/1998
92. Northwest v. Catapang, GR No. 174364, 7/30/2009
93. Northwest v. Spouses Heshan, GR No. 179117, 2/3/2010
94. PAL v CA, GR No. 123238, 12/10/2003
95. Northwest Airlines v. Laya

I. THE WARSAW CONVENTION

i) Warsaw Convention
ii) Liabilites under Warsaw Convention
iii) Venue
iv) Rules on Notice of claim

96. Lhuillier v. British Airways, GR No. 171092, 3/15/2010

97. Federal Express v. American Home, GR No. 150094, 8/18/2004
98. PAL v. CA and Mejia, GR NO. 119706, 3/14/1996
99. United Airlines v. Uy, Gr No. 127768, 11/19/1999
100. American Airlins v. CA, GR No. 116044-45, 3/9/2000
101. Lufthansa German v. CA, GR No. 83612, 11/24/1994

PART III MARITIME LAW

J. GENERAL CONCEPTS

a) Maritime Law (definition)

b) Limited Liability Rule
i) To 3rd person
ii) Ship co-owned
iii) Exceptions

102. LOADSTAR SHIPPING V. CA, GR No. 131621, September 28, 1999

NOTE: Abandonment of the vessel is the number 1 requirement to avail of the right of LLR, but if
the vessel was entirely lost then this requirement can be dispensed with.

NOTE: For enforcement of all claims against the shipowner, no preference is given either
you filed your cases ahead of the other, if your case is completed, it shall remain pending until all
other cases against the shipowner is done before execution can be done.

103. Aboitiz Shipping v. CA, GR No. GR No. 121833, 10/17/2008

104. Aboitiz v. General Accident, GR No. 100446, 1/21/1993
105. De la Torre v. CA, GR no. 160088 and GR No. 160565, 7/13/2011
106. Abueg v. San Diego, L-773, 12/17/1946
107. Ohta Development v. Steamship Pompey, GR No. 100446, January 21, 1993

c) Protest

i) Definition
ii) When required

d) Jurisdiction

108. Crescent Petroleum v. M/V Lok Maheshwari, GR No. 155014, 11/11/2005

e) MARINE POLLUTION DECREE

7
 i) Prohibited Acts
ii) Exceptions
iii) Pollution insurance

f) MARINA Insurance (amount of coverage)

K. VESSELS

a) Vessel

i) Definiion

ii ) Importance

109. LOPEZ V. DURUELO, GR NO. 29166, October 22, 1928

iii) Kinds
iv) Acquisition and Registration

L. SHIP MORTGAGE AND MARITIME LIENS

NOTE: Mortgage and encumbrances over vessels are governed by the provisions of PD 1521,
otherwise known as the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978. The provision of PD 1521 with respect to
mortgage prevail over the Code of Commerce and Civil Code provisions.

a) What is Preferred Mortgage?

b) Requirements for ship mortgage to be considered preferred mortgage
c) Preferred claims provided in Section 17 of the Ship Mortgage Decree
d) Prescription
e) Who may constitute

i) Requirements

110. POLIAND Industrial v. NDC, 467 SCRA 500, August 22, 2005

M. PERSONS WHO TAKE PART IN MARITIME COMMERCE

NOTE: The shipowner is the person who is primarily liable for damages sustained in the
operation of vessel.

1) PARTIES
a. Ship Agent
i) Extent of Liability
ii) Powers and Functions
b. Part Owners
c. Captain and Masters of Vessel
i) Qualifications
ii) Powers and Functions
iii) Liability
d. Pilotage

NOTE: powers inherent in the position of captain and liability of captains and ship agents to third
persons with respect to contracts

e. Pilotage

8
NOTE: He is, generally, personally liable for damage caused by his own negligence or default to the
owners of the vessel and third persons in a collision. But in one case, the court held that the owner
should be responsible to the injured acts and it is the owner who should run after the pilot. All the
more if the pilot is employed by the shipowner.

111. Inter- Orient Maritime v. NLRC, GR NO. 115286, August 11, 1994

N. CHARTER PARTIES

a) Charter Party

i) Definition
ii) Kinds

112. PLANTER PRODUCTS V. CA, GR NO. 101503, September 15, 1993

113. LITONJUA SHIPPING V. NATIONAL SEMAN, GR No. 51910, August 10, 1989
114. CALTEX v. SULPICIO LINES, GR No. 131166, September 30, 1999
115. REPUBLIC v. FORBES, GR No. 152313, October 19, 2011

iii) Parties
iv) Requisites

116. De La torre vs. CA, GR NO. 160088 160565, July 31, 2011

O. LOANS ON BOTTOMRY AND RESPONDENTIA

a) Bottomry
b) Respondentia
c) Distinctions of bottomry/respondentia from simple loan
d) Authorized to constitute loans on bottomry/respondentia
e) Forms
f) Effects

P. AVERAGES

a) Averages

i) Definition
ii) Classification
1)simple(definition)
2) general average
i) Definition
ii) Requisites
iii) Legal Steps
iv) Jettison

NOTE: if there is a loan but the goods are lost, then it’s the lender who shall bear the loss. Example
of simple averages are found in art. 809 of COC

117. National Development v. CA, GR No. L-49407, August 19, 1988

NOTE: examples of General average read Art. 811 of the COC

v) Goods not entitled to claim general average

118. American Home Assurance v. CA, GR No. 94149, May 5, 1992

119. Standard Oil v. Castelo, GR no. 13695, October 18, 1921
9
NOTE: YORK-ANTWERP RULES- parties may by stipulation in the charter party agree that this
rule shall be applied

Q. COLLISIONS

A) Collision/Allision

a) Definition
b) Zones in collision

120. Urrutia & Co. v. Baco River, GR NO. 7675, March 25, 1913

c) Governing law

NOTE: SPECIFIC RULES UNDER THE Code Of Commerce IN CASE OF COLLISION

ARTICLES--- 826, 827, 828, 832, 831

121. SMITH BELL v. CA, GR No. 56294, May 20, 1991

B) Protest

122. US v. Smith Bell, Gr no. 1875, September 30, 1905

123. Luzon Stevedoring v. CA, GR No. L-58897, December 3, 1987
124. Litonjua Shipping v. National Seamen, GR NO. 51910, August 10, 1989

R. ARRIVAL UNDER STRESS AND SHIPWRECKS

A) Arrival under Stress

a) Definition
b) Steps under taken for a valid arrival under stress
c) when not lawful

b) Shipwreck

NOTE: read the provisions with respect to shipwrecks

S. SALVAGE – governing law is Act No. 2616

A) Salvage

a) Definition
b) Kinds
c) Elements of a valid Salvage
d) Persons not entitled to salvage
e) Derelict

125. BARRIOS v. Go Thong, GR No. L-17192, March 30, 1963

f) Jetsam/Flotsam/Ligan
g) Salvage Fee
i)Limit
ii)Circumstances to consider
f) Rights and Obligations of Salvors and Owners
g) Maritime Lien

10
126. G. Urrutia v. Pasig Steamer, GR No. 7294, March 22, 1912
127. Wallace v. Pujalter & Co., GR No. L-10019, March 29, 1916
128. Fernandez v. Thompson, GR No. 12475, March 21, 1918

T. COGSA (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act)

A) Applicability
B) Parties
c) CLAIMS (Cogsa Act)

PART IV PUBLIC UTILITIES

U. PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATION

a) Public Utility/Public Service

i) Elements
ii) Purpose
iii) Constitutional Provisions/Limitations
iv) Ownership
v) Term/Exclusivity
vi) Amendment
vii) Monopolies and Unfair Competition
viii) Regulation of rates

129. Metropolitan Ceby v. Adala, GR No. 168194, 7/4/2007

130. People v. Quasha, GR No. L-6055, 6/12/1953
131. Gamboa v. Tevez, Gr no. 176579, 10/9/2012
132. Tatad v. Garcia, 243 SCRA 436 (1995)
133. Kilosbayan v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 (1994)
134. ABS-CBN v. Philippine Multi-Media, GrNo. 175769-70, 1/19/2009
135. Panay Autobus v. Philippine railway, GR No. L-37869, 1/17/1933
136. Kilusang Mayo v. Garcia, Gr no. 115381, 12/23/1994

b) Franchise and Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC)

137. Radio Communication v. NTC, 150 SCRA 450 (1987)

138. Francisco v. Toll Regulatory Board, Gr No. 166910, 10/19/2010
139. Associated Communications v. NTC, GR No. 144104, 2/17/2003

c) Certificate of Public Convenience ad Necessity (CPCN)

i) baisc requirements
ii) rules and policies
iii) Free competition
iv) Instances when CPC is not required
v) transfer of certificate/other transactions
vi) revocatoin of CPC
vii) When NTC has no power to cancel legislative franchise

140. San Pablo v. Pantranco, Gr No. L-61461, 8/21/1987

141. Lagman v. City of Manila, GrNo. L-23305, 6/30/1966
142. Halili v. Herras, 10 SCRA 769 (1993)
143. Manzanal v. Ausejo, GR No. 31056, 8/4/1988

11
12