CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION

A. Actionable Document

1. British Airways v. CA (1993)

Summary: ROLACO paid British Airways to transport workers but it was not able to so they were made liable even if no ticket
was issued
Doctrines:
2 aspects of contract of common carriage of passengers:
contract "to carry (at some future time)
contract is consensual and is necessarily perfected by mere consent - applicable in this case
contract "of carriage" or "of common carriage" itself which should be considered as a real contract for not
until the carrier is actually used can the carrier be said to have already assumed the obligation of a carrier

2. Korean Airlines Co. LTd v. CA (1994)

Summary: Lapuz as standby passenger was changed to that of a confirmed passenger when his name was entered in the
passenger manifest of KAL for its Flight No. KE 903 and then subsequently he was not allowed to board so KAL was liable under
the contract of carriage
Doctrines:
contract to transport passengers is different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation
Passengers have the right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and
due consideration

3. CIA Maritima v. Insurance Co. of North America (1964)

Summary: Macleod and Company of the Philippines (Macleod) hired Compaia Maritima (CM), a shipping corporation for the
shipment of its hemp but the lighter barges sank
Doctrines:
actual delivery and acceptance are sufficient to bind the carrier even where it is provided by statute that liability
commences with the issuance of the bill of lading
form of the contract of carriage - provided that there is a meeting of the minds

4. Ganzon v. CA (1988)
Summary: Gelacio delivered the scrap iron to Filomeno Niza, captain of the lighter for loading but it was confiscated by the
Acting Mayor who is without authority.
Laws:
Civil Code
Art. 1734
Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any
of the following causes only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.
Art. 1736
Art. 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the
possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier
to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738.
Doctrines:
Pursuant to Art. 1736, such extraordinary responsibility would cease only upon the delivery, actual or constructive,
by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them. (in this case the captain as employee)
failed to show that the loss of the scraps was due to any of the following causes enumerated in Article 1734 of the
Civil Code, namely:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.
5. Dangwa Transportation Co. Inc. v. CA (1991)
Summary: Pedro Cudiamat fell from the platform of the Dangwa bus driven by Theodore M. Lardizabal and died
Laws:
Civil Code
Art. 1733
Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all
the circumstances of each case.
Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in Articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and
7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in Articles 1755 and 1756.
Art. 1755
Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances
Doctrines:
GR: By contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express obligation to transport the passenger to his
destination safely and observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury that might be
suffered by the passenger is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier
EX: carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Art. 1733 and 1755 of
the Civil Code
A public utility once it stops, is in effect making a continuous offer to bus riders (EVEN when moving as long as it is
still slow in motion)
Stepping and standing on the platform of the bus is already considered a passenger and is entitled all the rights
and protection pertaining to such a contractual relation
In tort, actual damages is based on net earnings

6. LRTA et al. v. Navidad et al., (2003)

Summary: Drunk Nicanor Navidad had a misunderstanding and then fist fight with the LRT guard Junelito Escartin. He fell in
the track and was killed by a moving train operated by Rodolfo Roman. The widow of Nicanor, along with her children, filed a
complaint for damages against Roman, Escartin, LRTA, Metro Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent (agency of security guards) for the
death of her husband. RTC: Against Escartin and Prudent but favored Roman and LRTA CA: reversed by holding LRTA and
Roman Liable and Prudent was exonerated SC: Affirmed with modification by absolving Roman. There was no link bet. Prudent
and the death of Nicanor for the reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOT proven. Roman can only be held liable through
his own negligence.
Laws:
Civil Code
Art. 1755
Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances
Art. 1756
Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755
Art. 1759
Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the
formers employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of
the common carriers
This liability of the common carriers does NOT cease upon proof that they
Exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees
Art. 1763
Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of
other passengers or of strangers, if the common carriers employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a
family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.
Doctrines:
Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake
the task, the common carrier is NOT relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage
GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and related provisions in conjunction with Art. 2180 of the
Civil Code. (Tort may arise even under a contract, where tort [quasi-delict liability] is that which breaches the contract)
 EX: if employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee, employer can be made liable
on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and
supervision of its employees.
EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee
NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability
Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relation bet. Nicanor and Roman
Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence
B. Contracting Parties

1. Baliwag Transit Corp. v. CA (1989)

Summary: George, who was a paying passenger on a Baliwag bus (Baliwag) he was thrown off by the bus driven in a
careless and negligent manner by Leonardo Cruz, authorized bus driver. His parents,Spouses Sotero Cailipan, Jr. and Zenaida
Lopez, shouldered his confinement at the hospital. So, they filed against Baliwag who filed a third-party complaint against
Fortune Insurance Co. RTC: Contract is bet. Baliwag and George who is already of legal age despite being a student and
dependent on his parents for support. The "Release of Claims" George signed during the pendency of the case is valid. SC:
Affirms RTC. CA reversed
Laws:
Civil Code
ART. 1749
ART. 1749. A stipulation that the common carriers liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading,
unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value, is binding.
ART. 1750
ART. 1750. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of
the goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been freely and fairly agreed upon.
Doctrines:
Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto, as against each other, in an action upon that contract,
the real parties in interest, either as plaintiff or as defendant, must be parties to said contract:
real party-in-interest -plaintiff - who has a legal right
real party-in-interest-defendant - who has a correlative legal obligation whose act or omission violates the
legal right of the former
GR: every action must be brought in the name of the party whose legal right has been invaded or infringed
"any and all claims or causes of action" is broad enough to include all damages that may accrue to the injured party
arising from the unfortunate accident
The Release of Claims had the effect of a compromise agreement since it was entered into for the purpose of
making a full and final compromise adjustment and settlement of the cause of action involved.
compromise - contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to
one already commenced (Article 2028, Civil Code)

2. Everett Streamship Corp. v. CA (1998)

Summary: Hernandez Trading Co., Inc. imported 3 crates of bus spare parts from Maruman Trading Company, Ltd., a
foreign corporation on board a vessel owned by Everett Orient Lines but upon arrival one crate was missing but everette wanted
to pay only

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Sulpicio v. CA (1995)
2. PAL v. CA (1981)
Ancillary Contracts
1. Delgado Brothers, Inc. v. Home Insurance, Inc. (1961)
2. Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. v. CA (1997)

II. Common Carrier

A. Trend of Opinions
1. U.S. v. Tan Piaco (1920)
2. De Guzman v. CA (1988)
3. Asia Ltherage and Shipping, Inc. v. CA (2003)
4. First Phil. Industrial Corp. v. CA (1998)

B. Applicable laws
Article 1732 - 1766, Civil Code
SECTION 4. - Common Carriers (n)

SUBSECTION 1. - General Provisions

Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.
Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances
of each case.
Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in Articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7,
while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in Articles 1755 and 1756.

SUBSECTION 2. - Vigilance Over Goods

Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the
following causes only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.
Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or
deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.
Art. 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the
possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the
consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738.
Art. 1737. The common carrier's duty to observe extraordinary diligence over the goods remains in full force and effect even when they
are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, unless the shipper or owner has made use of the right of stoppage in transitu.
Art. 1738. The extraordinary liability of the common carrier continues to be operative even during the time the goods are stored in a
warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination, until the consignee has been advised of the arrival of the goods and has had
reasonable opportunity thereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of them.
Art. 1739. In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility, the natural disaster must have been the proximate
and only cause of the loss. However, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before, during and
after the occurrence of flood, storm or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be exempted from liability for the
loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The same duty is incumbent upon the common carrier in case of an act of the public
enemy referred to in Article 1734, No. 2.
Art. 1740. If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the goods, a natural disaster shall not free such carrier from
responsibility.
Art. 1741. If the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the proximate cause thereof
being the negligence of the common carrier, the latter shall be liable in damages, which however, shall be equitably reduced.
Art. 1742. Even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods should be caused by the character of the goods, or the faulty
nature of the packing or of the containers, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.
Art. 1743. If through the order of public authority the goods are seized or destroyed, the common carrier is not responsible, provided
said public authority had power to issue the order.
Art. 1744. A stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the former for the loss, destruction,
or deterioration of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence shall be valid, provided it be:
(1) In writing, signed by the shipper or owner;
(2) Supported by a valuable consideration other than the service rendered by the common carrier; and
(3) Reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy.
Art. 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:
(1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;
(2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods;
(3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods;
(4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a family, or of a man of ordinary
prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported;
(5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees;
(6) That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat,
violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished;
(7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition
of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage.
Art. 1746. An agreement limiting the common carrier's liability may be annulled by the shipper or owner if the common carrier refused
to carry the goods unless the former agreed to such stipulation.
Art. 1747. If the common carrier, without just cause, delays the transportation of the goods or changes the stipulated or usual route, the
contract limiting the common carrier's liability cannot be availed of in case of the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods.
Art. 1748. An agreement limiting the common carrier's liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid.
Art. 1749. A stipulation that the common carrier's liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless the
shipper or owner declares a greater value, is binding.
Art. 1750. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered. by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the
goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed upon.
Art. 1751. The fact that the common carrier has no competitor along the line or route, or a part thereof, to which the contract refers shall
be taken into consideration on the question of whether or not a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability is reasonable, just and
in consonance with public policy.
Art. 1752. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common
carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration.
Art. 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss,
destruction or deterioration.
Art. 1754. The provisions of Articles 1733 to 1753 shall apply to the passenger's baggage which is not in his personal custody or in that
of his employee. As to other baggage, the rules in Articles 1998 and 2000 to 2003 concerning the responsibility of hotel-keepers shall
be applicable.

SUBSECTION 3. - Safety of Passengers

Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
Art. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755.
Art. 1757. The responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers as required in Articles 1733 and 1755 cannot be
dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise.
Art. 1758. When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability for negligence is valid, but not for
wilful acts or gross negligence.
The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier's liability.
Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former's
employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common
carriers.
This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of their employees.
Art. 1760. The common carrier's responsibility prescribed in the preceding article cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by the
posting of notices, by statements on the tickets or otherwise.
Art. 1761. The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself.
Art. 1762. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries, if the proximate
cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced.
Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other
passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could
have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

SUBSECTION 4. - Common Provisions

Art. 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning
Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier.
Art. 1765. The Public Service Commission may, on its own motion or on petition of any interested party, after due hearing, cancel the
certificate of public convenience granted to any common carrier that repeatedly fails to comply with his or its duty to observe
extraordinary diligence as prescribed in this Section.Art. 1766. In all matters not regulated by this Code, the rights and obligations of
common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws.
Code of Commerce
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. The Nissin Fire and marine Insurance Co. et al (1987)
National Dev't Co. v. CA (1988)

C. Legal Effect
1. Isaac v. A.L. Ammen Trans. Co. (1957)
2. Calvo v. UCPB Gen Insurance Co. (2002)
3. Cangco v. MRR (1918)
 4. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. IAC (1990)
QUALIFIED BY:
1. Fabre Jr. v. CA (1996)

D. Charter Party
1. Phil Am Gen Insurance Co., et. al. v. PKS Shipping Co. (2003)
2. Caltex v. Sulpicio Lines (1999)
3. Planters Products, Inc. v CA (1993)
QUALIFIED BY:
1. National Steel Corp. v. CA (1997)
2. Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply v. CA (1997)

E. Registered Owner
1. Fores v. Miranda (1959)
2. Lim et al. v. CA (2002)
3. Lita Enterprises v. IAC (1984)

III. Breach of Contract

A. Acceptance
1. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Co. et. al. (1915)
2. Southern Lines, Inc. v. CA (1962)
3. Martini Ltd. v. Macondray & Co. (1919)
B. Delivery
1. Saludo, Jr. v. CA (1962)
2. Maersk Line v. CA (1993)
3. Tan Chiong San v. Inchausti (1912)
4. Magellan Mfg. Marketing Corp. v. CA (1991)
5. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA (1996)
6. Eastern Shipping v. CA (1994)
Qualified by:
7. Lu Do v. Binamira (1957)
C. Presumption of Negligence
1. Ynchausti Steamship, Co. v. Dexter (1920)
2. Mirasol v. The Robert Dollar Co. (1929)
3. Bataclan v. Medina (1957)
4. Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA (supra)
5. La Mallorca v. CA (1966)
6. LRTA, et al. v. Navidad et. al (supra)
IV. Available Defenses
A. Exercise of Extraordinary Diligence
1. Juntilla v. Fontanar (1985)
2. Kapalaran Bus Line v. Coronado (1989)
3. Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co. (supra)
4. Japan Airlines v. Asuncion (2005)
B. Seaworthiness in Carriage by Sea Act
B.1 Sec. 3 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
B.2 Art. 1755 Civil Code
B.3 Art. 359, 609 of Code of Commerce
5. Delsan Transport Lines v. CA (2001)
6. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. v. Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. (1956)
7. Coastwise Lighterage Corp. v. CA (1995)
8. Philippine Home Assurance Corp. v. CA (1996)
9. Phil Am Gen Insurance Co Inc v. CA (1997)
10. Yu Con v. Ipil (1916)
11. Mecenas et. al. v. CA (1989)
12. Negros Navigation Co., Inc v. CA (1997)
C. Limitation of Liability of Negligence
13. Loadstar Shipping Co. Inc. v. CA (1999)
V. Bill of Lading
1. Magellan Mfg. Marketing Corp. v. CA supra (1991)
2. Samar Mining Co., Inc. v. Nordeutcher Lloyd, et. al.(1984)
A. Contract
i. Contract of Adhesion
3. Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Teves (1978)
4. Servando v. Philippine Steam Navigation Co. (1982)
ii. Stipulations

Civil Code
Article 1745
Art. 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:
(1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;
(2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods;
(3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence in the custody of the goods;
(4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less than that of a good father of a family, or of a man of
ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported;
(5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees;
(6) That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat,
violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished;
(7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods on account of the defective
condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage.
Art. 1746
Art. 1746. An agreement limiting the common carrier's liability may be annulled by the shipper or owner if the common carrier
refused to carry the goods unless the former agreed to such stipulation.
Art. 1747
Art. 1747. If the common carrier, without just cause, delays the transportation of the goods or changes the stipulated or usual
route, the contract limiting the common carrier's liability cannot be availed of in case of the loss, destruction, or deterioration of
the goods
Art. 1748
Art. 1748. An agreement limiting the common carrier's liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid.
Art. 1749
Art. 1749. A stipulation that the common carrier's liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless
the shipper or owner declares a greater value, is binding.
Art. 1750
Art. 1750. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered. by the owner or shipper for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of
the goods is valid, if it is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed upon.
Art. 1751
The fact that the common carrier has no competitor along the line or route, or a part thereof, to which the contract refers shall be
taken into consideration on the question of whether or not a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability is reasonable, just
and in consonance with public policy.
Art. 1752
Art. 1752. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the
common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration.
Art. 1757
Art. 1757. The responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers as required in Articles 1733 and 1755 cannot be
dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise.
Code of Commerce
Article 350
ARTICLE 350. The shipper as well as the carrier of merchandise or goods may mutually demand that a bill of lading be made,
stating:
1. The name, surname and residence of the shipper.
2. The name, surname and residence of the carrier.
3. The name, surname and residence of the person to whom or to whose order the goods are to be sent or whether they are to
be delivered to the bearer of said bill.
4. The description of the goods, with a statement of their kind, of their weight, and of the external marks or signs of the
packages in which they are contained.
5. The cost of transportation.
6. The date on which shipment is made.
7. The place of delivery to the carrier.
8. The place and the time at which delivery to the consignee shall be made.
9. The indemnity to be paid by the carrier in case of delay, if there should be any agreement on this matter.
Article 351
ARTICLE 351. In transportation made by railroads or other enterprises subject to regulation rate and time schedules, it shall be
sufficient for the bills of lading or the declaration of shipment furnished by the shipper to refer, with respect to the cost, time and
special conditions of the carriage, to the schedules and regulations the application of which he requests; and if the shipper does
not determine the schedule, the carrier must apply the rate of those which appear to be the lowest, with the conditions inherent
thereto, always including a statement or reference to in the bill of lading which he delivers to the shipper.
Article 352
ARTICLE 352. The bills of lading, or tickets in cases of transportation of passengers, may be diverse, some for persons and
others for baggage; but all of them shall bear the name of the carrier, the date of shipment, the points of departure and arrival,
the cost, and, with respect to the baggage, the number and weight of the packages, with such other manifestations which may be
considered necessary for their easy identification.

Article 718

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act

Section 3
Sec. 3. (1) The carrier shall be bound before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to
(a) Make the ship seaworthy;
(b) Properly man,equip, and supply the ship;
(c) Make the holds, refrigerating and cooling chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for
their reception, carriage, and preservation.
(2) The carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for,and discharge the goods carried.
(3) After receiving the goods into his carrier, or the master or agent of the carrier, shall, on demand of the shipper, issue to the
shipper a bill of lading showing among other things
(a) The loading marks necessary for identification of the goods as the same are furnished in writing by the shipper before the
loading of such goods starts, provided such marksare stamped or otherwise shown clearly upon the goods if uncovered,in such a
manner as should ordinarily remain legible until the end of the voyage.
(b) Either the number of packages or pieces, or the quantity or weight, as the casemay be, as furnished in writing by the shipper.
(c) The apparent order and conditions of the goods: Provided, that no carrier, master, or agent of the carrier, shall be bound to
state or show in the bill of lading any marks, number, quantity, or weight which he has reasonable ground for suspecting not
accurately to represent the good actually received or which he has had no reasonable means of checking.
(4) Such a bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described in
accordance with paragraphs (3) (a), (b), and (c), of this section: (The rest of the provision is not applicable to the Philippines).
(5) The shipper shall be deemed to have guaranteed to the carrier the accuracy at the time of shipment of the marks, number,
quantity, and weight, as furnished by him; and the shipper shall indemnify the carrier against all loss, damages, and expenses
arising or resulting from inaccuracies in such particulars. The right of the carrier to such indemnity shall in no way limit his
responsibility and liability under the contract of carriage to any person other than the shipper.
(6) Unless notice or loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage by given in writing to the carrier or his agent
at the port of discharge or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under
the contract of carriage, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the
bill of lading. If the loss or damage is not apparent, the notice must be given within three days of the delivery.
Said notice of loss or damage may be endorsed upon the receipt for the goods given by the person taking delivery thereof.
The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the time of their receipt been the subject of joint survey or
inspection.
In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within
one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered: Provided, that, if a notice of loss or
damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice the right
of the shipper to bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been
delivered.
In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage, the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each
other for inspecting and tallying the goods.
(7) After the goods are loaded the bill of lading to be issued by the carrier, master, or agent of the carrier to the shipper shall if
the shipper so demands, be a "shipped" bill of lading: Provided, that if the shipper shall have previously taken up any document
of title to such goods, he shall surrender the same as against the issue of the "shipped" bill of lading, but at the option of the
carrier such document of title may be noted at the port of shipment by the carrier, master, or agent with the name or names of the
ship or ships upon which the goods have been shipped and the date or dates of shipment, and when so noted the same shall for
the purpose of this section be deemed to constitute a "shipped" bill of lading.
(8) Any clause, covenant, or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier of the ship from liability for loss or damage
to or in connection with the goods, arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the duties and obligations provide in this section or
lessening such liability otherwise than as provided in this Act, shall be null and void and of no effect. A benefit of insurance in
favor of the carrier, or similar clause, shall be deemed to be a clause relieving the carrier from liability.
Section 4
Sec. 4. (1) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be liable for loss or damage arising or resulting from unseaworthiness unless
caused by want of due diligence on the part of the carrier to make the ship seaworthy and to secure that the ship is properly
manned, equipped, and supplied, and to make the holds, refrigerating and cooling chambers, and all other parts of the ship in
which goods are carried fit and safe for their reception, carriage, and preservation, in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph (1) of Section (3). Whenever loss or damage has resulted from unseaworthiness, the burden of proving the exercise
of due diligence shall be on the carrier or other person claiming exemption under this section.
(2) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from
(a) Act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of
the ship;
(b) Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier;
(c) Perils, dangers, and accidents of the sea or other navigable water;
(d) Act of God;
(e) Act of war;
(f) Act of public enemies;
(g) Arrest or restraint of princes, rulers, or people, or seizure under legal process;
(h) Quarantine restrictions;
(i) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative;
(j) Strikes or lockouts or stoppage or restraint of labor from whatever cause, whether partial or general: Provided, that nothing
herein contained shall be construed to relieve a carrier from responsibility for the carrier's own acts;
(k) Riotsand civil commotions;
(l) Saving or attempting to save life or property at sea;
(m) Wastage in bulk or weight or any other loss or damage arising from inherent defect, quality, or vice of the goods;
(n) Insufficiency or packing;
(o) Insufficiency or inadequacy of marks;
(p) Latent defects not discoverable by due diligence; and
(q) Any other cause arising without the actual fault and privity of the carrier and without the fault or neglect of the agents or
servants of the carrier, but the burden of proof shall be on the person claiming the benefit of this exception to show that neither
the actual fault or privity of the carrier nor the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier contributed to the loss or
damage.
(3) The shipper shall not be responsible for loss or damage sustained by the carrier or the ship arising or resulting from any
cause without the act, or neglect of the shipper, his agents, or his servants.
(4) Any deviation in saving or attempting to save life or property at sea, or any reasonable deviation shall not be deemed to be
an infringement or breach or this Act or of the contract of carriage, and carrier shall not be liable for any loss or damage resulting
therefrom: Provided, however, that if the deviation is for the purpose of loading or unloading cargo or passengers it shall, prima
facie, be regarded as unreasonable.
(5) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the
transportation of goods in an amount exceeding $500 per package of lawful money of the United States, or in case of goods not
shipped in packages, per customary freight unit, or the equivalent of that sum in other currency, unless the nature and value of
such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading. This declaration, if embodied in
the bill of lading, shall be prima facie evidence, but shall not be conclusive on the carrier.
By agreement between the carrier, master or agent of the carrier, and the shipper another maximum amount than that mentioned
in this paragraph may be fixed: Provided, that such maximum shall not be less than the figure above named. In no event shall
the carrier be liable for more than the amount of damage actually sustained.
Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible in any event for loss damage to or in connection with the transportation of the
goods if the nature or value thereof has been knowingly and fraudulently misstated by the shipper in the bill of lading.
(6) Goods of an inflammable, explosive, or dangerous nature to the shipment whereof, the carrier, master or agent of the carrier,
has not consented with knowledge of their nature and character, may at any time before discharge be landed at any place or
destroyed or rendered innocuous by the carrier without compensation, and the shipper of such goods shall be liable for all
damages and expenses directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from such shipment. If any such goods shipped with such
knowledge and consent shall become a danger to the ship or cargo, they may in like manner be landed at any place, or
destroyed or rendered innocuous by the carrier without liability on the part of the carrier except to general average if any.
Chapter 2 Warsaw Convention on Air Transport
Article 17
Article 17. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily
injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the
course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.
Article 18
Article 18.
1. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of, or of damage to, any registered luggage or
any goods, if the occurrence which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air.
2. The carriage by air within the meaning of the preceding paragraph comprises the period during which the luggage or goods
are in charge of the carrier, whether in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of a landing outside an aerodrome, in
any place whatsoever.
3. The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by river performed outside an aerodrome.
If, however, such a carriage takes place in the performance of a contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery or
transshipment, any damage is presumed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have been the result of an event which took place
during the carriage by air.
Article 19
The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, luggage or goods.
Article 22
Article 22.
1. In the carriage of passengers the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of 125,000 francs. Where, in
accordance with the law of the Court seised of the case, damages may be awarded in the form of periodical payments, the
equivalent capital value of the said payments shall not exceed 125,000 francs. Nevertheless, by special contract, the carrier and
the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.
2. In the carriage of registered luggage and of goods, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogram,
unless the consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of the value
at delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not
exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that that sum is greater than the actual value to the consignor at delivery.
3. As regards objects of which the passenger takes charge himself the liability of the carrier is limited to 5,000 francs per
passenger.
4. The sums mentioned above shall be deemed to refer to the French franc consisting of 65 milligrams gold of millesimal
fineness 900. These sums may be converted into any national currency in round figures.
Article 24
Article 24.
1. In the cases covered by Articles 18 and 19 any action for damages, however founded, can only be brought subject to the
conditions and limits set out in this Convention.
2. In the cases covered by Article 17 the provisions of the preceding paragraph also apply, without prejudice to the questions as
to who are the persons who have the right to bring suit and what are their respective rights.

5. H.E. Heacock Co. vv. Macondray & Co. Inc (1921)

6. Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. v, UCPB Gen Insurance Co.
7. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. The Nisshin Fire and marince Insurance Co., et. al
8. Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping, N.V. v. Phil First InsuranceCo.
9. Shewaram v. PAL (1966)
10. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca (1965)
11. China Airlines v. Chiok (2003)
12. Santos, III v. CA (1992)
13. United Airlines v. Uy (1999)
B. Evidence

Code of Commerce
ARTICLE 353
ARTICLE 353. The legal evidence of the contract between the shipper and the carrier shall be the bills of lading, by the
contents of which the disputes which may arise regarding their execution and performance shall be decided, no exceptions being
admissible other than those of falsity and material error in the drafting.
After the contract has been complied with, the bill of lading which the carrier has issued shall be returned to him, and by virtue of
the exchange of this title with the thing transported, the respective obligations and actions shall be considered cancelled, unless
in the same act the claim which the parties may wish to reserve be reduced to writing, with the exception of that provided for in
Article 366.
In case the consignee, upon receiving the goods, cannot return the bill of lading subscribed by the carrier, because of its loss or
of any other cause, he must give the latter a receipt for the goods delivered, this receipt producing the same effects as the return
of the bill of lading.
ARTICLE 709

ARTICLE 710
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
Section 3
Sec. 3. (1) The carrier shall be bound before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to
(a) Make the ship seaworthy;
(b) Properly man,equip, and supply the ship;
(c) Make the holds, refrigerating and cooling chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for
their reception, carriage, and preservation.
(2) The carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for,and discharge the goods carried.
(3) After receiving the goods into his carrier, or the master or agent of the carrier, shall, on demand of the shipper, issue to the
shipper a bill of lading showing among other things
(a) The loading marks necessary for identification of the goods as the same are furnished in writing by the shipper before the
loading of such goods starts, provided such marksare stamped or otherwise shown clearly upon the goods if uncovered,in such a
manner as should ordinarily remain legible until the end of the voyage.
(b) Either the number of packages or pieces, or the quantity or weight, as the casemay be, as furnished in writing by the shipper.
(c) The apparent order and conditions of the goods: Provided, that no carrier, master, or agent of the carrier, shall be bound to
state or show in the bill of lading any marks, number, quantity, or weight which he has reasonable ground for suspecting not
accurately to represent the good actually received or which he has had no reasonable means of checking.
(4) Such a bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described in
accordance with paragraphs (3) (a), (b), and (c), of this section: (The rest of the provision is not applicable to the Philippines).
(5) The shipper shall be deemed to have guaranteed to the carrier the accuracy at the time of shipment of the marks, number,
quantity, and weight, as furnished by him; and the shipper shall indemnify the carrier against all loss, damages, and expenses
arising or resulting from inaccuracies in such particulars. The right of the carrier to such indemnity shall in no way limit his
responsibility and liability under the contract of carriage to any person other than the shipper.
(6) Unless notice or loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage by given in writing to the carrier or his agent
at the port of discharge or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under
the contract of carriage, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the
bill of lading. If the loss or damage is not apparent, the notice must be given within three days of the delivery.
Said notice of loss or damage may be endorsed upon the receipt for the goods given by the person taking delivery thereof.
The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the time of their receipt been the subject of joint survey or
inspection.
In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within
one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered: Provided, that, if a notice of loss or
damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice the right
of the shipper to bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been
delivered.
In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage, the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each
other for inspecting and tallying the goods.
(7) After the goods are loaded the bill of lading to be issued by the carrier, master, or agent of the carrier to the shipper shall if
the shipper so demands, be a "shipped" bill of lading: Provided, that if the shipper shall have previously taken up any document
of title to such goods, he shall surrender the same as against the issue of the "shipped" bill of lading, but at the option of the
carrier such document of title may be noted at the port of shipment by the carrier, master, or agent with the name or names of the
ship or ships upon which the goods have been shipped and the date or dates of shipment, and when so noted the same shall for
the purpose of this section be deemed to constitute a "shipped" bill of lading.
(8) Any clause, covenant, or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier of the ship from liability for loss or damage
to or in connection with the goods, arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the duties and obligations provide in this section or
lessening such liability otherwise than as provided in this Act, shall be null and void and of no effect. A benefit of insurance in
favor of the carrier, or similar clause, shall be deemed to be a clause relieving the carrier from liability.