TRANSPORT LAW

COURSE OUTLINE
PART I COMMON CARRIERS
CHAPTER I DEFINITION AND CONCEPT OF
COMMON CARRIER
1.
Article 1732, Civil Code; Broad Concept
1.1. De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals.G.R. No. L47822. December 22, 1988
1.2.
Cruz vs. Sun Holidays Inc. G.R. No.
186312. June 29, 2010
1.3.
First Phil. Industrial Corp vs. Court of
Appeals.G.R. No. 125948. December 29, 1998
1.4.
Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co.,
Inc. G.R. No. 148496. March 19, 2002
1.5.
Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. vs.
CAG.R. No. 147246. August 19, 2003
1.6.
Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Daehan Fire and
Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. G.R. No. 171194.
February 4, 2010
1.7. Sps. Perea vs. Sps. Zarate. G.R. No. 157917.
August 29, 2012
2.
Characteristics; Test;
2.1.
Fisher vs. Yangco Steamship Co. G.R. No.
8095. November 5, 1914 & March 31, 1915
2.2.
US vs. Quinajon.G.R. No. 8686. July 30,
1915
2.3.
Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals.G.R. No. 131621. September 28, 1999
2.4.
National Steel Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals. G.R. No. 112287. December 12, 1997
2.5
Certificate of Public Convenience (De
Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, supra)
2.6.
Ownership of Vehicle Used as Carrier
2.6.1. Registered Owner Rule (See No.5 below)
2.6.2. Cebu Salvage Corporation vs. Philippine
Home Assurance Corporation. G.R. No. 150403.
January 25, 2007
2.6.3. Nonvessel Operating Common Carrier
(NVOCC)
3.
Distinguished from Private Carrier
3.1.
Planters Products Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals.G.R. No. 101503. September 15, 1993
3.2.
San Pablo vs. Pantranco.G.R. No. L-61461
& 61501. August 21, 1987
3.3.
Limited Clientele
3.3.1. Philippine American General Insurance
Company vs. PKS Shipping Company.G.R. No.
149038. April 9, 2003
3.3.2. FGU Insurance Corporation vs. G.P.
Sarmiento Trucking Corporation. G.R. No. 141910.
August 6, 2002
3.4.
Line Service vs. Tramp Service
4.
Contract of Carriage Distinguished From
Other Transactions
4.1.
Towage (Baer Senior & Co. vs. La
Compaia Maritima. G.R. No. 1963. April 30, 1906)
4.2.
Stevedoring (Mindanao Terminal and
Brokerage Service, Inc. vs. Phoenix Assurance
Company of New York/Mcgee & Co., Inc. G.R. No.
162467. May 8, 2009)
4.3.
Arrastre/
TerminalOperator
(Asian
Terminals, Inc. vs. Daehan Fire and Marine
Insurance Co., Ltd. G.R. No. 171194. February 4,

2010; Asian Terminal Inc. vs. First Lepanto-Taisho

Insurance Corporation. G.R. No. 185964. June 16,
2014)
4.4.
Freight Forwarding (Unsworth Transport
International (Phils.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. G.R.
No. 166250. July 26, 2010)
4.5.
Travel Agency (Crisostomo vs. Court of
Appeals. G.R. No. 138334. August 25, 2003)
4.6.
Transportation Network Companies (TNC)
vs. Transportation Network Vehicle Service (TNVS)
(LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2015-015;
LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2015-015)
5.
Government Regulation of Common
Carriers Business; Public Policies
5.1.
Public Interest Doctrine (KMU Labor Center
vs. Garcia. G.R. No. 115381. December 23, 1994)
5.2.
Tatad vs. Garcia, Jr. G.R. No. 124360. G.R.
No. 124360. G.R. No. 114222. April 6, 1995
5.3.
Registered Owner Rule
5.3.1. Gelisan vs. Alday.G.R. No. L-30212.
September 30, 1987
5.3.2. Benedicto
vs.
IntermediateAppellate
Court.G.R. No. 70876 July 19, 1990
5.3.3. Erezo vs. Jepte. G.R. No. L-9605.
September 30, 1957
5.4.
Kabit System
5.4.1. Santos vs. Sibug.G.R. No. L-26815. May
26, 1981
5.4.2. Lita Enterprises, Inc. vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court.G.R. No. 64693. April 27, 1984
5.4.3. Teja Marketing vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court. G.R. No. L-65510. March 9, 1987
5.4.4. Lim vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 125817.
January 16, 2002
5.5.
Boundary System
5.5.1. Magboo vs. Bernardo.G.R. No. L-16790.
April 30, 1963
5.5.2. Sps. Hernandez vs. Sps. Dolor. G.R. No.
160286. July 30, 2004
6.
Governing Law on Common Carriers
6.1.
Applicable Laws
6.2.
Conflicts Rule (Article 1753, Civil Code)
6.3
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court.G.R. No. L-69044. May 29, 1987
6.4.
National Development Co. vs. Court of
Appeals.G.R. No. L-49407. August 19, 1988
7.
Obligations of Common Carrier, in General
7.1.
Commencement
7.2.
Duty to Serve; Exceptions
7.2.1. International Maritime Dangerous Goods
(IMDG) Code
7.2.2. MARINA Circular No. 1 Series of 2008
(Carriage of Dangerous Goods in Domestic Trade)
7.3.
Duty to Deliver
7.3.1. Actual vs. Constructive Delivery
7.3.2. Code of Commerce provisions
7.3.3. Where and to Whom Delivered
7.3.3.1. Place
7.3.3.2. Consignee
7.4.
Duty to Exercise Extraordinary Diligence
8.
Perfection of Contract of Common Carriage
8.1.
Aspects of Contract of Carriage
8.1.1. British Airways Inc. vs. Court of Appeals.
G.R. No. 92288. February 9, 1993
8.2.
Carriage of Goods

8.3.

Carriage of Passengers

CHAPTER II CONTRACT OF COMMON

CARRIAGE
A. VIGILANCE OVER GOODS
1.
Extraordinary
Diligence
Required
of
Common Carriers (Article 1733, Civil Code)
1.1.
Definition and Reason for the Policy
1.1.1.1. Republic vs. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation.
G.R. No. 153563. February 7, 2005
1.1.1.2. Doctrine of Non-delegable Duty as Applied
to Common Carriers
1.2.
Carriage by Sea
1.2.1. Seaworthiness; Meaning
1.2.1.1 Case Law (Standard Vacuum Oil Company
vs. Luzon Stevedoring Company. G.R. No. L-5203.
April 18, 1956; Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Court
of Appeals, supra)
1.2.1.2. Statutes in Pari Materia (Sec.3[1][a] and [b],
COGSA; Secs. 116 and 119, Insurance Code)
1.2.2. When Should a Ship be Seaworthy?
1.2.2.1. COGSA
1.2.2.2. Common Law;Doctrine of Stages
1.2.2.2. Domestic Shipping Act (R.A. No. 9295)
1.2.3. Does Presumption of Fault Translate to
Presumption of Unseaworthiness?
1.2.4. Presumption of Unseaworthiness in Certain
Cases
1.2.5. Cargoworthiness; Meaning
1.2.5.1. Case Law (Santiago Lighterage Corporation
vs. CA. G.R. No. 139629. June 21, 2004)
1.2.5.2. Sec. 3(1)(c), COGSA
1.2.6. Sufficient
Freeboard
(See
1.1.1.1.
International Convention on Load Lines
[1966])
1.2.6.1. Compulsory Marking of International Load
Lines (Plimsoll Line)
1.2.6.2. Plimsoll Line Must Not be Submerged
1.2.7. Warranty Against Improper Deviation
1.2.8. Survey or Inspection of Cargo on
Reasonable Grounds
1.3.
Carriage by Land
1.3.1. Roadworthiness and Railworthiness
1.3.2. Motor Vehicle Must be in Good Condition
1.3.3. Warranty Against Defective Vehicle Parts
1.3.4. Compliance with Traffic Regulations (See
Doctrine of Negligence Per Se)
1.3.5. Prohibition Against Improper Deviation
(Art.359, Code of Commerce)
1.3.6. Inspection of Cargo on Reasonable
Grounds
1.4.
Carriage by Air
1.4.1. Airworthiness(Sec. 3[z], Civil Aviation
Authority Act)
1.4.2. Competence and Fitness of the Crew
1.4.3. Warranty Against Improper Deviation
1.4.4. Duty to Inspect Cargo and Baggage (Sec.
8, R.A. 6235)
1.5.
Carriage of Dangerous Goods (DG)
1.5.1. Safe Carriage of DG
1.5.2. Duty to Discharge or Destroy DG (Sec. 4[6],
COGSA)
1.5.3. Acceptance, Shipping and Handling of DG
in accordance with the 2012 International Maritime

Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG) and MARINA

Memo. Circular No.1, Series of 2008
1.5.4. Duty to Secure DG from Unauthorized
Access
1.5.5. Proper Training in Handling DG
1.5.6. Survey or Inspection of Cargo to Enforce
Compliance with IMDG and Other Regulations
2.
Liability of Carriers for Loss, Destruction
and Deterioration of Goods (Articles 1734-1735;
Articles 1739-1743, Civil Code)
2.1.
Presumption of Negligence (Regional
Container Lines of Singapore vs. Netherlands
Insurance Co., Inc.1.1.1. G.R. No. 168151.
September 4, 2009)
2.2.
Common Carrier Defenses; Exclusive?
2.2.1. Acts of God (Arts. 1734[1], 1739 and 1740)
2.2.1.1. 2013 Heavy Weather Guidelines (PCG
Memorandum Circular No. 02-2013)
2.2.1.2. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, supra
2.2.1.3. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. Court of
Appeals. G.R. No. 94151
April 30, 1991
2.2.1.4. Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation
vs. Transport Venture, Inc.G.R. No. 150255. April
22, 2005
2.2.1.5. Philippine American General Insurance
Company vs. PKS Shipping Company, supra
2.2.1.6. Central Shipping Company Inc vs.
Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No.
150751. September 20, 2004
2.2.2. Acts of Public Enemy (Arts. 1734[2] and
1739)
2.2.2.1. Existence of War; Prize Cases. 67 U.S. 635
(1863)
2.2.2.2. Piracy
2.2.2.3. Rebels as Public Enemy
2.2.3. Shipper or Owners Fault (Arts. 1734[3] and
Art. 1741)
2.2.3.1. Who are Considered Shipper and/or
Owner?
2.2.3.2. Sole and Proximate vs. Contributory Only
2.2.3.3. Compania Maritima vs. Court of Appeals.
G.R. No. L-31379. August 29, 1988
2.2.3.4. Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. vs. American
Home Assurance Corporation. G.R. No. 149019.
August 15, 2006
2.2.3.5. Shippers Load and Count Arrangement
(Marina Port Services, Inc. v. American Assurance
Corporation. G.R. No. 201822. August 12, 2015)
2.2.4. Inherent Vice (Arts. 1734[4] and 1742)
2.2.4.1. Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping
N.V. vs. Philippine First Insurance Co.,Inc. G.R. No.
143133. June 5, 2002
2.2.4.2. Asian Terminals. Inc. vs. Simon Enterprises,
Inc. G.R. No. 177116. February 27, 2013
2.2.4.3. Planters Products Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
supra
2.2.5. Defects in the Packing or in the Container
(Arts. 1734[4] and 1742)
2.2.5.1. Regional Container Lines of Singapore vs.
Netherlands Insurance Co. (Philippines), Inc.
2.2.5.2. Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation
vs. Unknown Owner of M/V "National Honor. G.R.
No. 161833. July 8, 2005

2.2.5.3. Southern Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals.

G.R. No. L-16629. January 31, 1962
2.2.5.4. Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co.,
supra
2.2.6. Acts of Public Authority (Arts. 1734[5] and
1743)
2.2.6.1. Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. L48757. May 30, 1988
2.2.6.2. Examples
2.2.7. Extraordinary Diligence
2.2.7.1. Republic vs. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation.
G.R. No. 153563, supra
2.2.7.2. De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, supra
2.2.8. Fortuitous Events
2.2.8.1. Casus
Fortuitos
Nemo
Prestat;
Impossibilum Nulla Obligatio Est
2.2.8.2. De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, supra
2.2.8.3. Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals, supra
2.2.8.4. Bascos vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No.
101089. April 7, 1993
2.2.8.5. Loadmasters Customs Servicesvs. Glodel
Brokerage Corp. G.R. No. 179446. January 10,
2011
2.2.8.6. Servando
vs.
Philippine
Steam
Navigation.G.R. Nos. L-36481-2. October 23, 1982
2.2.9. Partial
Defense:
Shipper/Consignees
Contributory Fault or Negligence
2.2.9.1. Tabacalera Insurance Co. vs.North Front
Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 119197. May 16,
1997
2.2.9.2. Compania Maritima vs. Court of Appeals,
supra
3. Commencement, Duration and Termination of
Carriers Responsibility over the Goods (Articles
1736-1738, Civil Code)
3.1.
Unconditionally Placed in the Possession of
and Received by the Carrier
3.1.1. Compaia Maritima vs. Insurance Co. of
North America. G.R. No. L-18965. October. 30,
1964
3.1.2. Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals, supra
3.2.
Bill of Lading as Evidence of Delivery to the
Carrier
3.2.1. Saludo vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No.
95536. March 23, 1992
3.3.
Temporary Unloading and Storage in
Transit
3.3.1 Effect of Stoppage in Transitu
3.4.
Actual or Constructive Delivery
3.4.1. To the Consignee
3.4.2. To the Person who has Right to Receive
Cargo
3.4.2.1. Lu Do& Lu vs. Binamira. G.R. No. L-9840.
April 22, 1957
3.4.2.2 Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam v. Glow
Laks Enterprises. G.R. No. 156330. November 19,
2014
3.4.2.3. Macam vs. Court of Appeals.G.R. No.
125524. August 25, 1999
3.5.
Custody over Cargo During Unloading
3.5.1. Regional Container Lines vs. Netherlands
Insurance Co. (Philippines), Inc., supra
3.5.2. Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. vs.
Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc. G.R. No. 165647.
March 26, 2009

3.6.
Duty to Ship vs. Duty to Transship
3.6.1. Samar Mining Co., Inc. vs. Nordeutscher
Lloyd. G.R. No. L-28673. October 23, 1984
4.
Stipulations Limiting Carriers Liability
4.1.
Articles 1744-1748, 1751-1752, Civil Code
4.2.
Minimum Degree of Diligence Required
4.3.
Void Stipulations (Art. 1745, Civil Code)
4.3.1. Sweet Lines vs. Teves.G.R. No. L-37750.
May 19, 1978
4.4.
Reasonable Time in Delivery of Goods
(Maersk Line vs. CA.G.R. No. 94761. May 17,
1993)
4.5.
Articles 1749-1750, Civil Code; Limitation
on the Amount of Liability
4.5.1. Ad Valorem B/L
4.5.2. Ysmael vs. Barretto.G.R. No. 28028.
November 25, 1927
4.5.3. Shewaram vs. Philippine Airlines.G.R. No.
L-20099. July 7, 1966
4.5.4. Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals.G.R. No. L40597. June 29, 1979
4.5.5. Sea-Land Services, Inc. vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court.G.R. No. 75118. August 31, 1987
4.5.6. Citadel Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals.G.R.
No. 88092. April 25, 1990
4.5.7. Everett Steamship Corp. vs. Court of
Appeals.G.R. No. 122494. October 8, 1998
4.5.8. British Airways vs. Court of Appeals.G.R.
No. 121824. January 29, 1998
4.5.9. H.E. Heacock Co. vs. Macondray & Co.
G.R. No. 16598. October 3, 1921
5.
Passengers Baggages (Article 1754, Civil
Code)
5.1. Checked-in vs. Hand-carried Baggages
5.2.
Quisumbing, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals.G.R.
No. 50076. September 14, 1990
5.3.
Pan American Airlines vs. Rapadas.G.R.
No. 60673. May 19, 1992
5.4.
British Airways vs. Court of Appeals, supra
5.5.
Alitalia
vs.
Intermediate
Appellate
Court.G.R. No. 71929. December 4, 1990
B. SAFETY OF PASSENGERS
1.
Utmost Diligence Required of Common
Carriers (Article 1755, Civil Code)
1.1.
Common Carrier Doctrine
1.2. Nocum vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus. Co. G.R. No.
L-23733. October 31, 1969
1.3.
Mecenas vs. Court of Appeals.G.R. No.
88052. December 14, 1989
1.4.
Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals.G.R. No. 110398. November 7, 1997
1.5.
Korean Airlines Co. Ltd. vs. Court of
Appeals.G.R. No. 114061. August 3, 1994
1.6.
Gatchalian vs. Delim.G.R. No. 56487.
October 21, 1991
1.7.
Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines. G.R. No.
168081. October 17, 2008
1.8.
Sps. Viloria vs. Continental Airlines. G.R.
No. 188288. January 16, 2012
1.9.
Emergency Rule (Isaac vs. A.L. Ammen
Trans.G.R. No. L-9671. August 23, 1957)
2. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance; Applicability
2.1.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. IAC.G.R.
Nos. 66102-04. August 30, 1990

2.2.
Bustamante vs. Court of Appeals.G.R. No.
89880. February 6, 1991
2.3.
Maritime Collision
3.
Accommodation Passenger
3.1.
Lara vs. Valencia.G.R. No. L-9907. June
30, 1958
3.2.
Distinguished from Gratuitous Passenger
and Discounted Passenger
4.
Caveat Viator; Carrier Not Insurer Against
All Risks of Travel; Exception
4.1.
Japan Airlines vs. Court of Appeals. G.R.
No. 118664. August 7, 1998
4.2.
Japan Airlines vs. Asuncion. G.R. No.
161730. January 28, 2005
4.3.
Necesito vs. Paras.G.R. No. L-10605. June
30, 1958
5.
Commencement, Duration and Termination
of Carriers Responsibility
5.1.
Del Prado vs. Manila Electric Co. G.R. No.
29462. March 7, 1929.
5.2.
Dangwa Transportation Co. vs. Court of
Appeals. G.R. No. 95582. October 7, 1991
5.3.
Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Navidad.
G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003
5.4.
La Mallorca vs. De Jesus. G.R. No. L20761. July 27, 1966
5.5.
Aboitiz Shipping Co. vs. Court of Appeals.
G.R. No. 84458. November 6, 1989
6.
Presumption of Negligence: Liability of
Carriers for Death or Injury to Passengers;
Exceptions (Articles 1756-1758, Civil Code)
6.1.
Calalas vs. Court of Appeals.G.R. No.
122039. May 31, 2000
7.
Negligence or Intentional Assault by
Carriers Employee
7.1.
Gillaco vs. Manila Railroad Co. G.R. No. L8034. November 18, 1955
7.2.
Maranan vs. Perez. G.R. No. L-22272. June
26, 1967
8.
Passengers Duty to Observe Diligence to
Avoid Injury; Contributory Negligence
8.1.
Isaac vs. A.L. Ammen Trans, supra
8.2.
Philippine National Railways vs. Court of
Appeals. G.R. No. L-55347. October 4, 1985
9.
Injury to Passenger Due to Acts of Copassenger or Stranger
9.1.
Pilapil vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No.
52159. December 22, 1989
9.2.
Bachelor Express, Inc vs. Court of Appeals.
G.R. No. 85691. July 31, 1990
9.3.
Fortune Express Inc. vs. Court of Appeals.
G.R. No. 119756. March 18, 1999
CHAPTER IV. ACTIONS AND DAMAGES IN CASE
OF BREACH (Article 1764, NCC)
1. Concurrent Causes of Actions
1.1. Distinctions; Importance (Del Prado vs. Manila
Electric Co., supra)
2. Solidary Liability
2.1.
Firemans Fund Insurance Co. vs. Metro
Port Service Inc. G.R. No. 83613. Feb. 21. 1990
2.2.
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. CA. G.R. No.
97412. July 12, 1994
2.3.
Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. vs.
Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc., supra

2.4
Tiu vs. Arriesgado. G.R. No. 1380601.
September 2004
2.5.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. IAC, supra
2.6.
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. BPI/MS
Insurance Corp. G.R. No. 193986. January 15,
2014
PART II SHIPPING LAW
CHAPTER I GENERAL CONCEPTS
1.
Maritime Law; Admiralty Law
1.1.
Definitions; Distinction
1.2.
History: Largely Judge-made and Evolved
From Commercial Practice
2.
Characteristics of Maritime Transactions;
Real and Hypothecary
2.1.
Limited Liability Rule; Nature and Rationale
2.2.
Statutory Provisions
2.3.
Scope; When Not Applicable
2.3.1. Nautical Fault vs. Commercial Fault
2.3.2. Personal Contract Doctrine
2.4.
Abandonment; When Required; Exception
2.5.
Computing the Limit of Liability
2.5.1. What Are Included?
2.5.2. Offending Vessel in Tug and Tow
Scenario; Flotilla Rule
2.6.
Procedure for Enforcement; Concursus
Proceeding
2.7.
Cases
2.7.1. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation vs. CA,
G.R. No. L-58897. December 3, 1987
2.7.2. Govt of the Philippine Islands vs. Insular
Maritime Co.G.R. No. 21495. March 18, 1924
2.7.3. Dela Torre v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
160088. July 13, 2011
2.7.4. Central Shipping Co. Inc. vs. Insurance
Company of North America, G.R. No. 150751.
September 20, 2004
2.7.5. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. vs. Court of Appeals.
G.R. No. 121833. October 17, 2008
2.7.6. Allied Banking Corporation vs. Cheng Yong.
G.R. No. 151040. October 5, 2005
2.7.7. Yangco vs. Laserna. G.R. Nos. 4744747449. October 29, 1941
2.7.8. Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Phil. Steamship
Co. G.R. No. 18957. January 16, 1923
2.7.9. Lopez vs. Duruelo et al. G.R. No. 29166.
October 22, 1928
2.7.10. Philippine American General Insurance
Company Inc. vs. CA. G.R. No. 116940. June 11,
1997
3.
Maritime Contracts, in General
4.
Maritime Torts, in General
5.
Admiralty Jurisdiction
5.1.
Importance
5.2.
Torts: Maritime Locus and Maritime Nexus
criteria
5.3.
Contracts: Locational Test vs. Subject
Matter Test
5.3.1. International Harvester Company of the
Philippines vs. Aragon. G.R. No. L-2372. August 26,
1949
5.3.2. Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. vs. MV Lok
Maheshwari. G.R. No. 155014. November 11, 2005

CHAPTER II MERCHANT VESSELS (Art. 573585, Code of Commerce)

1.
General Concept; Definition
1.1.
Lopez vs. Duruelo. G.R. No. 29166,
October 22, 1928
1.2.
Reasonable Observer Test (Lozman vs.
City of Riviera Beach, Florida. United States
Supreme Court. No. 11-626. January 15, 2013)
1.3.
Are Oil Rigs Considered Vessels in
Admiralty?
1.4.
Dead Ship Doctrine
1.5.
Importance of Determining Merchant
Vessel Status
1.6.
Definition of Vessel per Convention on the
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions
at Sea (COLREGS)
2.
Doctrine of Vessel Personification
2.1.
United States vs. Steamship Rubi. G.R.
No. 9235. November 17, 1915
3.
Personal Property or Real Property?
3.1. Rubiso vs. Rivera. G.R. No. L-11407. October
30, 1917
3.2. Philippine Refining Co. vs. Jarque. G.R. No.
41506. March 25, 1935
4.
Blue Water Vessel vs. Brown Water Vessel
5.
Vessel Arrest; Procedure
5.1.
Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. vs. MV Lok
Maheshwari. G.R. No. 155014. November 11, 2005
5.2.
Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Valmonte Pea &
Marcos vs. Hon. Juan. G.R. No. L-49140.
November 19, 1982
5.3.
Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of
Appeals. G.R. Nos. 111202-05. January 31, 2006
5.4.
Sister ships; Susceptibility to Arrest (See
Sec. 3, Arrest of Sea-going Ships Convention)
6.
Maritime Liens
6.1.
Distinguished from Non-Maritime Liens;
Importance
6.1.1. Conflict of Law Problem in Enforcing
Maritime Lien; Tests
6.1.1.1. Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. vs. MV Lok
Maheshwari, supra
6.2.
Executory Contracts Doctrine
6.3.
Assignment and Subrogation (PNB vs. CA,
G.R. No. 128661. August 8, 2000)
6.4.
Enforceability
During
Corporate
Rehabilitation (Negros Navigation Co. Inc vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 163156. December 10, 2008)
6.5.
Writ of Attachment Not Necessary to
Enforce Lien (Quasha vs. Hon. Juan, supra)
6.6.
Preference and Concurrence of Liens
6.6.1. Inverse Order Rule (Qui Prior Est Tempore,
Potior Est Jure:Last in Time, First in Right)
6.6.2. Special Time Rules
6.6.2.1. Order of Preference per Ship Morgage
Decree (P.D. No. 1521)
6.6.2.2. Common Law (Damage Lien Preferred,
Voyage Rule, Calendar Year Rule)
7.
Carriers Lien
7.1.
Overseas Factors, Inc. vs. South Sea
Shipping Co., Ltd, G.R. No. L-12138. February 27,
1962
7.2.
Ouano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
95900. July 23, 1992

7.3.
Who Bears CostsArising from Retention of
Cargo in the Exercise of Carriers Lien?
8.
Ownership of Merchant Vessels
8.1.
Acquisition
8.1.1. Prescription
8.1.2. Sale
8.2.
Registration(Rubiso vs. Rivera. G.R. No. L11407. October 30, 1917)
8.2.1. MARINA Rules
8.2.2. Flags of Convenience; Open Registers
8.3.
Ship Manifest
8.4.
Ship Mortgage
8.4.1. Ship Mortgage Decree
8.4.1.1. Poliand Industrial Ltd vs. National
Development Company. G.R. No. 143866. August
22, 2005
8.4.2. MARINA Rules
8.5.
Other Code of Commerce Provisions
CHAPTER III PERSONS IN MARITIME
COMMERCE (Arts. 586-651, Code of Commerce)
1.
Shipowners and Shipagents
1.1.
Part Owners (Proprietario)
1.2.
Shipagents (Naviero); Difference with
Ordinary Agent
1.2.1. Solidary Liability with Shipowner
1.2.1.1. Verzosa vs. Lim, G.R. No. 20145.
November 15, 1923
1.2.1.2. National Development Company vs. Court
of Appeals. G.R. No. L-49407. August 19, 1988
1.3.
Powers
1.4.
Limitations of Powers
1.5.
General Duties
1.5.1. Duty to Account
1.5.2. Duty to Provide Seaworthy Vessel; Doctrine
of Unseaworthiness
1.5.3. Reimbursement and Liabilities
1.5.3.1. Doctrine/Principle of Maintenance and Cure
1.6.
Discharge of Captain and Crew
1.6.1. Yu Con vs. Ipil. G.R. No. L-10195.
December 29, 1916
1.6.2. Wing Kee Compradoring Co. vs. The Bark
Monongahela.G.R. No. 19540. January 29, 1923
1.6.3. Walter Smith & Co. vs. Cadwaller Gibson
Lumber Co. G.R. No. 32640. December 29, 1930
1.6.4. Manila Steamship Company, Inc. vs. Insa
Abdulhaman. G.R. No. L-9534. September 29, 1956
1.6.5. Yu Biao Santua & Co. vs. Osorio. G.R. No.
17690. June 14, 1922
2.
Captains, Masters and Skippers
2.1.
Concept; Distinction
2.2.
Qualifications
2.3.
Powers, Functions and Duties
2.3.1. Captain Goes Down with His Ship
2.3.2. Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises. v. NLRC.
G.R. No. 115286. August 11, 1994
2.4.
Discretion of Captain or Master (Inter-Orient
Maritime Enterprises. v. NLRC)
2.4.1. Master is a man, not a mouse.(Midwest
Shipping Co. v D. I. Henry, [The Anastasia] [1971] 1
Lloyds Rep. 375)
2.5.
Code of Commerce Provisions on Captain
2.5.1. Sweet Lines v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No.
L-46430. April 28, 1983
3.
Pilot

3.1.
Master and Pilot
3.1.1. Master Pro Hac Vice; Limitation
3.2.
Shipowner and Pilot
3.3.
Pilot and Pilot Association
3.4.
Compulsory Pilotage (Far Eastern Shipping
Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. 01 October 1998)
3.5.
Liability of Pilot and Pilot Association
3.5.1. High Standard of Care
4.
Officers and Crew
4.1.
Regulation of Merchant Marine Profession
and Employment
4.2.
Minimum Safe Manning
4.3.
Crew Negligence vs. Crew Incompetence;
Importance of Distinction
4.4.
Security of Tenure; Contractual Nature of
Employment
4.5.
Fleet Seaman Doctrine
4.6.
Code of Commerce Provisions
4.7.
Officers (Deck and Engine)
4.8.
Ratings (Deck and Engine)
5.
Supercargo (sobrecargo)
6.
Purser
7.
Supernumerary (sobrasaliente)
CHAPTER IV MARITIME CONTRACTS:
CHARTERPARTIES (Arts. 652 718, Code of
Commerce)
1.
Definition and Concept
1.1.
Implied Terms
1.1.1. Seaworthiness
(Santiago
Lighterage
Corporation vs. CA. G.R. No. 139629. June 21,
2004)
1.1.2. Reasonable Dispatch
1.1.3. Against Improper Deviation
2.
Kinds
2.1.
Bareboat Charter
2.1.1. Beneficial Owner vs. Disponent Owner;
Owner Pro Hac Vice
2.1.2. Litonjua Shipping vs. National Seamen
Board. G.R. No. 51910. August 10, 1989
2.2.
Time Charter
2.3.
Voyage Charter
2.4.
Special Types: Slotor Space Charter, Cross
Charter, Trip Charter, Tonnage Contract,etc.
(PHILAM Insurance Company vs. Heung-A
Shipping Corporation. G.R. No. 187701. July 23,
2014)
3.
Effect on Carriers Character(Planter
Products Inc. vs. CA, supra)
4.
Persons Who May Make Charterparty
5.
Requisites; Form (Market Developers Inc.
vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74978. September 8, 1989)
6.
Related Concepts and Other TypicalCharter
Clauses
6.1.
Safe Port/Safe Berth Clause
6.2.
Cancellation Clause
6.3.
Jupiter Clause
6.4.
Freight and Hire
6.5.
Deadfreight
6.6.
Laytime and Notice of Readiness
6.7.
Demurrage Clause
6.8.
Dispatch Clause
6.9.
Inclusion/Exclusion
of
Sundays
and
Holidays in Computing Laytime
6.10. Cesser Clause

6.11. F.I.O.S. Clause

6.12. Arbitration Clause (National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburg vs. Stolt-Nielsen
Philippines Inc. G.R. No. 87958. April 26, 1990)
7.
Charterparty Rights and Obligations of:
7.1.
Ship Owner or Captain
7.2.
Charterer
8.
Characterof Bill of Lading in Charterparty
Arrangements
9.
Code of Commerce Provisions
9.1.
Subcharter
9.2.
OFarrel y Cia vs. Manila Electric Co. G.R.
No. 31222. October 29, 1929
9.3.
Caltex (Phils.) vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. G.R.
No. 131166. September 30, 1999
10.
Charterparty Chain
11.
Charterparty Indemnity
CHAPTER V MARITIME CONTRACTS:
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT
A.
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT
1.
Definition and Concept
1.1.
Characteristics
1.2.
Distinguished from Charterparty
1.3.
Implied Warranties
1.3.1. Seaworthiness
1.3.2. Against Improper Deviation
1.4.
Mutual Remedies of Ship and Cargo in
Contracts of Affreightment
1.5.
Entirety of Affreightment Contract
1.5.1. Exceptions
1.5.2. Effect of Freight Earned Clause (a.k.a.
Prepaid Freight Clause)
1.5.3. Pro Rata Payment at Intermediate Port
2.
Types of Cargo
2.1.
Dry Cargo
2.1.1. Dry/Solid Bulk
2.1.2. Break Bulk (General Cargo)
2.1.3. Container
2.1.4. Special
2.1.4.1. Heavy-lift
2.1.4.2. Livestock
2.1.4.3. Dangerous
2.2.
Wet Cargo
2.2.1. Liquid Bulk
2.2.2. Gas
2.3.
Cargo in Holds vs. Deck Cargo
2.4.
Importance of Identifying Type of Cargo
B.
BILL OF LADING AND OTHER SHIPPING
DOCUMENTS
1.
Concept and Nature of Bill Lading (B/L)
1.1.
Importance in Trade and Commerce
1.2.
Three-fold Character
1.3.
Kinds of B/L
1.3.1. On Board vs. Received
1.3.2. Negotiable vs. Non-negotiable (Straight)
1.3.3. Clean vs. Foul/Claused
1.3.4. Through B/L
1.3.5. Custody vs. Port
1.3.6. Spent B/L
1.4.
Other Names Used for Bill of Lading
1.5.
Distinguished From Sea Waybill
1.6.
Electronic B/L

2.
When Effective; Binding Effect
2.1.
Sea-Land Services, Inc. vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court. G.R. No. 75118. August 31, 1987
3.
Three-fold Character: Bill of Lading as
Contract
3.1.
Boilerplate Contract; Contract of Adhesion
3.2.
Actionable Document
3.2.1. Philippine American General Insurance vs.
Sweet Lines, Inc. G.R. No. 87434. August 5, 1992
3.3.
Documentary Evidence
3.3.1. Parole Evidence
3.3.2. Best Evidence Rule
3.3.3. Admissibility of Electronic B/L
3.4.
Character of B/L When There is a
Charterparty
3.4.1. National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburg vs. Stolt-Nielsen Philippines Inc. G.R. No.
87958. April 26, 1990
3.4.2. Cebu Salvage Corporation vs. Philippine
Home Assurance Corporation. G.R. No. 150403.
January 25, 2007
4.
Three-fold Character: Bill of Lading as
Receipt
4.1.
Containerization system
4.2.
Said To Contain (United States Lines vs.
Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. 73490
June 18, 1987)
4.3.
Receipt Only for the Number of Packages
Shown Above (Reyma Brokerage, Inc. vs.
Philippine Home Assurance Corporation, G.R. No.
93464. October 7, 1991)
4.4.
Shippers Weight, Load & Count (Asian
Terminals Inc. vs. Simon Enterprise Inc. G.R. No.
177116. February 27, 2013)
4.5.
Apparent Good Order and Condition;
RETLA Clause
4.6.
Claused B/L
5.
Three-fold Character: Bill of Lading as
Document of Title
5.1.
Negotiability; Civil Code Provisions
5.1.1. Effect of Marking B/L as Non-negotiable
5.2.
How Negotiated
5.2.1. Bearer B/L
5.2.2. Order B/L
5.3.
Effects of Negotiation
6.
Transportation and Delivery of Cargo
Subject of Bill of Lading
6.1.
International
Commercial
Terms
(INCOTERMS [2010])
6.1.1. FAS
6.1.2. FOB
6.1.3. CFR
6.1.4. CIF
6.2.
Period of Delivery
6.3.
Delivery Without Surrender of Original B/L;
Letter of Indemnity
6.4.
Refusal of Consignee to Accept Delivery
6.4.1. Keng Hua Paper Products Co. Inc. Vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116863. February 12,
1998
6.4.2. Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. v. Malayan
Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 185565, November
26, 2014
7.
Notice of Claim and Prescriptive Period

7.1.
Overland Transportation of Goods and
Coastwise Shipping
7.1.1. When to File a Claim with Carrier (Art.366,
Code of Commerce)
7.1.2. Extinctive Prescriptive Period
7.1.2.1. Roldan vs. Lim Ponzo & Co. G.R. No. L11325. December 7, 1917
7.1.2.2. Phil American General Insurance. vs. Sweet
Lines, Inc. G.R. No. 87434. August 5, 1992
7.1.2.3. Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. Insurance
Company of North America. G.R. No. 168402.
August 6, 2008
7.1.2.4. UCPB General Co. vs. Aboitiz Shipping
Corporation.G.R. No. 168433. February 10, 2009
7.2.
International Carriage of Goods by Sea
7.2.1. DOLE Philippines, Inc. vs. Maritime Co.
G.R. No. L-61352. February 27, 1987
7.2.2. Maritime Agencies & Services, Inc. vs. CA.
G.R. No. 77638 / 77674. July 12, 1990
7.3.
Compare with Air Transportation (Air
Waybill)
7.3.1. Domestic Carriage
7.3.2. International
Carriage
per
Warsaw
Convention
C.
CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT
(COGSA)
1.
History
2.
Governing Law (Commonwealth Act No. 65)
2.1.
Extent of Application
2.2.
COGSA Carrier (Blue Water vs. Brown
Water)
2.3.
Tackle to Tackle Rule
2.4.
Ang vs. American Steamship. G.R. Nos. L25047 and L-25050. March 18, 1967
2.5.
American
Insurance
Company
vs.
Compania Maritima. G.R. No.L-24515. November
18, 1967
3.
Notice of Claim and Prescriptive Period to
File Actions per COGSA
3.1.
Distinguished from Overland Transport and
Coastwise Shipping
3.2.
Insurance Company of North America v.
Asian Terminals, Inc., G.R. No. 180784. Feb. 15,
2012
3.3.
Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Philam Insurance
Co., Inc., G.R. No. 181163. July 24, 2013
4.
Limitation of Liability; Package Limitation
Rule
4.1.
Meaning of Package
4.2.
Package vs. Container
4.3.
Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation
vs. Neptune Orient Lines/Overseas Agency
Services, Inc., G.R. No. 145044. June 12, 2008
4.4.
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. BPI/MS
Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 182864. January 12,
2015
4.5.
Fair Opportunity Doctrine
5.
COGSA Immunities and Defenses
6.
Common Commercial Clauses in Bills of
Lading
6.1.
Benefits of Insurance Clause
6.2.
Liberty and Deviation Clause
6.3.
Clause Paramount
6.4.
Himalaya Clause

6.5.

RETLA Clause

CHAPTER VI - MARITIME CONTRACTS: LOAN

ON BOTTOMRY AND RESPONDENTIA (Arts. 719
736, Code of Commerce)
1.
Definitions and Concepts
1.1.
Bottomry vs. Respondentia
1.2.
Distinguished from Simple Loan
1.3.
Parties
1.4.
Form; Bottomry Bond
1.5.
Consequences of Loss
CHAPTER VII OTHER MARITIME CONTRACTS
1.
Definition of Maritime Contract
1.1.
Distinguished from Non-maritime Contract
1.1.1. Importance of Distinction
1.1.1.1. Jurisdiction;
Exception

Executory
Contracts
1.1.1.2. Maritime Lien; Exception Ship Mortgage
1.1.2. Examples of Non-maritime Contracts
1.1.2.1. Shipbuilding Contract (People's Ferry Co. v.
Beers, 61 U.S. 20 How. 393 [1857])
1.1.2.2. Ship Mortgage
1.1.2.3. Sale of Vessel (Vessel Purchase and Sale
Agreement)
1.1.2.4. Ship Agency
1.1.2.5. Ship Management Agreement
1.1.2.6. Executory or Preliminary Contracts
1.2.
Mixed Contracts; How Treated
1.2.1. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. James N.
Kirby, Pty Ltd.543 U.S. 14. November 9, 2004
2.
Marine Insurance (Governed by Secs. 101168, Insurance Code)
2.1. Types
2.1.1. Hull and Machinery (H&M)
2.1.2. Protection & Indemnity (P&I)
2.1.3. Cargo
3.
Repair Contract (See BIMCO REPAIRCON)
3.1.
Charterers Liability for Repairs
3.2.
Exception to Limited Liability Rule
3.3.
Ship Repairers Right to Sub-contract
Repair Works
3.4.
Repairs as Extraordinary Expense Giving
Rise to General Average Claim
Owners Access to Workshop
3.5.
Ship Repairers Lien
3.6.
Insurance
3.7.
Ownership of Scrap Materials Removed
from Vessel
4.
BunkerSupply (See BIMCO Standard
Bunker Contract)
4.1.
Buyers Responsibility to Nominate Specific
Fuel Grade Fit for Use by the Vessel
4.2.
Quantity of Fuel Delivered; How Measured
4.3.
Transfer of Risk and Title to Fuel (Retention
of Title Clause)
4.4.
Charterers Liability for Bunkers
4.5.
Buyer and Sellers Responsibility for
Spillage (Safety and the Environment Clause)
4.5.
Inclusion of Bunkersin Appraisal of Ships
Value for Purposes of Limiting Liability
4.6.
Exclusion of Bunkers in Sale of Ship(Art.
576, Code of Commerce)
5.
Ship Chandling and Provision of other
Necessaries

5.1.
Supplies and Other Necessaries(Crescent
Petroleum, Ltd. vs. MV Lok Maheshwari, supra)
5.2.
Materialman/Suppliers Lien
5.3.
Furnishing of Necessaries; Must be
Directly Furnished to a Specific Vessel
5.4.
Charterers Liability for Supplies
5.5.
Exception to Limited Liability Rule
6.
Towage(See BIMCO TOWCON 2008)
6.1.
Definition
6.2.
Distinguished
from
Contract
of
Affreightment and Salvage
6.2.1. Towing vs. Navigating a Vessel
6.2.2. Tug and Tow as Composite Unit
6.2.3. Ordinary Towage vs. Emergency Towage
6.2.4. Towage Converted to Salvage
6.3.
Parties; Tow and Tug; Nature of
Relationship
6.4.
Place of Connection and Place of
Disconnection
6.5.
Tug Owners Lien
6.6.
Duties of Tug
6.6.1. Seaworthy Tug
6.6.1.1. Cargolift Shipping, Inc. vs. L. Acuario
Marketing Corp.G.R. No. 146426. June 27, 2006
6.6.2. Readiness to Commence Towage on
Agreed Date; Cancellation Clause
6.6.2. Compliance with the Rules of the Road
6.6.3. Duty to Save Tow from Sinking
6.7.
Duties of Tow
6.7.1. Tow-worthiness
6.7.2. Proper Manning and Proper Loading
6.8.
Liability to Third Parties
6.8.1. If Damage was Caused by the Tow:
Dominant Mind Test
6.8.2. If Damage was caused by the Tug
6.8.3. Standard Offshore Practice: Knock-forknock Terms
6.9.
Validity of Exculpatory Clauses Relieving
Tug from Liability
6.10. Substitution of Tug
7.
Wharfage
7.1.
Definition
7.2.
When Considered a Maritime Contract
7.3.
Distinguished from Lease of Wharf
8.
Pilotage
8.1. Compulsory vs. Voluntary Pilotage
8.1.1. Extent of Liability of Ship Owner for
Damages Caused by Pilot
8.1.2. Validity of Exculpatory Pilotage Clauses
9.
Stevedoring
9.1. Definition
9.2.
Existence of Stevedores Lien; American
Rule
9.3.
Extension
of
COGSA
Benefits
to
Stevedores; Himalaya Clause
9.4.
Shipowners Duties
9.4.1. Turnover Duties
9.4.2. Duty to Warn of Hazards Known to
Shipowner
9.4.3. Duty to Intervene in Stevedoring Operations
10.
Employment of Seafarer
10.1. Nature of Employment (Millares vs. NLRC,
G.R. No. 110524. July 29, 2002)
10.2. Philippine Policy to Standardize Seafarers
Employment Contract

10.2.1. 2010 POEA Standard Employment Contract

for Seafarers
10.2.1.1.Commencement/Duration of Employment
Contract (Sec. 2)
10.2.1.2.
Transfer Clause (Sec.15)
10.3. 2013 Maritime Labor Convention (MLC)
CHAPTER VIII MARITIME RISKS: AVERAGES
(Arts. 806 818, Code of Commerce)
1.
Average in General
2.
Simple Average
2.1.
Definition
2.2.
By Whom Born
2.3.
Examples of Simple Average
3.
General Average
3.1.
Definition and Requisites
3.2.
Examples of General Average
3.2.1. Jettison
3.2.2. Voluntary Stranding
3.2.3. Scuttling
3.3.
By Whom Borne
3.3.1. Shippers, Consignee and Owner of Goods
3.3.2. Insurers
3.3.3. Lenders on Bottomry and Respondentia
3.4.
Who is Entitled to Indemnity?
3.4.1. Magsaysay Inc. vs. Agan. G.R. No. L-6393.
January 31, 1955.
3.4.2. Where Carrier at Fault or Negligent
3.4.2.1. National Development Company vs. Court
of Appeals. G.R. No. L-49407. August 19, 1988
3.4.2.2. (New) Jason Clause
3.5.
Proof and Liquidation of Average
3.5.1. Standard Oil vs. Castelo. G.R. No. 13695.
October 18, 1921
3.6.
Enforcement of Contribution
3.6.1. Carriers Lien
4.
2004York-Antwerp Rules on Average
(Basic)
4.1.
Rule Paramount
4.2.
Jettison of Cargo
4.3.
Extinguishing Fire on Shipboard
4.4.
Cutting Away Wreck
4.5.
Damage to Machinery
4.6.
Lightening Expenses
4.7.
Loss of Freight
4.8.
Port of Refuge Expenses
4.9.
Cargo, Ships Materials and Stores Used for
Fuel
4.10. Time Bar for GA Contribution
CHAPTER IX MARITIME RISKS: COLLISIONS
(Arts. 826 839, Code of Commerce)
1.
Definition and Concept
1.1.
Distinguished from Allision
1.2.
Distinguished from Wake Damages
2.
Zones in Collision
2.1.
Error in Extremis
2.1.2. A Urrutia & Co v Baco River Plantation Co.,
G.R. No. 7675. March 25, 1913
3.
Applicable Law
4.
Rules on Liability
4.1.
One Vessel at Fault
4.2.
Both Vessel at Fault (Both to Blame;
Divided Damages Rule)

4.3.
Party at Fault Cannot be Determined
(Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault)
4.4.
Difference with Both to Blame and
Inscrutable Fault
4.5.
Fortuitous Event
4.6.
Third Person at Fault
4.7.
Doctrine
of
Negligence
per
se;
Pennsylvania Rule
4.8.
Standby Rule (See Article 98 [1[ [c[, UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea)
5.
Collision Avoidance Rules
5.1.
Origin; Bases
5.2.
Obligatory Nature of Nautical Rules
5.3.
Traditional Rules
5.3.1. Rule of Turn to the Right
5.3.2. Prudent Mariner Doctrine
5.3.3. Smaller Ships Give Way to Larger Ships
5.3.4. Power Gives Way to Sail
6.
Collision Regulations (Rules of the Road)
6.1.
1972
International
Regulations
for
Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS)
6.2.
Application (Rule 1 [a] and [b])
6.3.
Responsibility (Rule 2)
6.3.1. General Precaution Rule (a)
6.3.1. General Prudential Rule (a.k.a. Special
Circumstance Rule/Rule of Sauve Qui Peut)(b)
6.4.
Definitions (Rule 3)
6.4.1. Vessel
6.4.1. Vessel Not Under Command (NUC)
6.4.2. Vessel Restricted in her Ability to Maneuver
(RAM)
6.4.3. Vessel Constrained by her Draft (CBD)
6.4.4. Vessel Engaged in Fishing
6.4.5. Sailing Vessel
6.4.6. Power-Driven Vessel
6.4.7. Seaplane
6.5.
Lookout (Rule 5); Safe Speed Rule (Rule 6)
6.5.1. Smith Bell and Company vs. Court of
Appeals. G.R. No. 56294. May 20, 1991
6.6.
Risk of Collision (Rule 7); Close-quarter
Situation
6.7.
Action to Avoid Collision (Rule 8)
6.7.1. Stop and Back Rule (e)
6.8.
Narrow Channels (Rule 9)
6.8.1. Narrow Channel Rule (a)
6.8.2. Sharp Bends and Obstructions on the
Narrow Channel (f)
6.8.3. Anchoring in Channels (g)
6.8.3.1 When
Vessel
Lawfully
Anchored;
Presumption vs. Moving Vessel (Res Ipsa Loquitur)
6.8.4. Descending Vessel Has Right of Way
6.8.4.1. Manila vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific
Company. G.R. No. 4510. December 10, 1908
6.8.4.2. Verzosa vs. Lim, supra
6.9.
Traffic Separation Scheme (Rule 10[b], [c],
[e], [g], [h], [i] and[j])
6.10. Overtaking (Rule 13)
6.11. Head-on Situation (Rule 14)
6.11.1. Port-helm Rule/Right Rudder Rule (a); Gov.
of the Phil. Islands vs. Phil. Steamship Co., supra
6.12. Crossing Rule (Rule 15)
6.13. Give-way Vessel (a.k.a. Burdened Vessel)
(Rule 16)
6.14. Stand-on Vessel (a.k.a. Privileged Vessel)
(Rule 17)

6.15. Responsibility between Vessels (Rule 18)

6.15.1. Pecking Order of Privilege
7.
Marine Protest
7.1.
Form
7.2.
Importance
7.3.
Instances When Required; When Excused
6.3.1. United States vs. Smith Bell & Company.
G.R. No. 1876. September 30, 1905
6.3.2. Lopez vs. Duruelo, supra
CHAPTER X MARITIME RISKS: DEVIATION
1.
Geographic Deviation; Concept
2.
Legal (Code of Commerce); Reasonable
(COGSA); Proper (Insurance Code)
3.
Consequences of Illegal, Unreasonable or
Improper Deviation
3.1.
Arrival Under Stress (Aribada)
3.1.1. Code of Commerce Provisions (Arts. 819
825)
3.1.2. Grounds; When Illegal
3.1.3. Procedure
3.1.4. Effects: Expenses; Custody of Cargo;
Liability of Captain
3.2.
Stipulation Limiting Liability (Art. 1747, Civil
Code)
3.3.
Voyage Insured (Secs.123-128, Insurance
Code)
3.4.
Liability for Cargo Loss or Damage (Sec.
4(4), COGSA)
4.
Liberty and Deviation Clause; Validity
CHAPTER X SHIPWRECK AND STRANDING
1.
Definitions;Shipwreck vs. Stranding
1.1.
Kinds of Losses (Secs. 129-134, Insurance
Code)
2.
Code of Commerce Provisions (Arts. 840
845)
2.1.
Burden of Loss
2.2.
Liability of Captain for Barratry, Negligence
or Lack of Skill
2.3.
Salvors Lien
2.4.
Duty of Ships in Convoy
3.
Liability of Ship Owner for Wreck Removal
3.1.
See MARINA Circular No. 01-09 (04
February 2009)
4.
Liability of Ship Owner for Damages
Caused by Wreck
4.1.
If Wreck is Derelict
4.2.
Owners Spes Recuperandi
4.3.
If Owner Transfers Interest in the Wreck
5.
Safekeeping of Salvaged Wreck as
Necessary Deposit (Art.1996 and 2168, Civil Code)
CHAPTER XI OTHER MARITIME RISKS; OIL
POLLUTION
1.
R.A. No. 9483 (Oil Pollution Act of 2007)
1.1.
Polluter Pays Principle
1.2.
Oil Pollution Damage; Definition
1.3.
Ships Covered
1.4.
Incorporation of the 1992 Civil Liability
Convention and 1992 Fund Convention (See No. 2)
1.5.
Scope of Application
1.6.
Principle of Strict Liability
1.7.
Exempting Circumstances

1.8.
Persons Against Whom Claim Cannot Be
Made; Owners Recourse
1.9.
Solidary Liability Where Damage Not
Reasonably Separable
1.10. Strict but Limited: Limitation of Liability
1.10.1. Not Exceeding 5,000 Units of Tonnage up
to SDR4,510,000
1.10.2. Above 5,000 Units of Tonnage up to
SDR89,770,000
1.11. Exception
1.12. Limitation Fund
1.12.1. How Constituted; Who May Constitute?
1.12.2. How Distributed
1.12.3. Distinguished from IOPC Fund
1.13. Jurisdiction
1.13.1. Constitution of Limitation Fund
1.13.2. Action for Pollution Compensation
1.12. Compulsory Insurance or Other Financial
Security; How Enforced
1.13. Action for Pollution Compensation
1.13.1. Defendants
1.13.2. Prescriptive Period
1.14. Settlement of Claims; Two Tiers of
Compensation
2.
1992 International Convention on Civil
Liability for Oil Pollution Damage
2.1. Suppletory to Oil Pollution Act of 2007
2.2.
Right of Subrogation
2.3.
General Average Vis--vis Other Claims
Against Limitation Fund
2.4.
Effects of Constitution of Fund
2.5.
Difference Where Insurer is Defendant in
Action for Compensation
3.
Marine Pollution Decree
3.1. Secs. 4 and 6, P.D. No.979 (1976)
3.2.
Sec. 7, P.D. No. 600 (1974)
4.
Mandatory Insurance to Cover Liability for
Pollution
4.1.
MARINA Circular No.01-09 [2009] in
relation to Secs.14 and 15 of R.A. No.
9295(Domestic Shipping Development Act of 2004)
5.
Contractual Provisions Governing Liability
for Oil Pollution
5.1.
Oil
Pollution
Indemnity
Clause
in
Charterparty
5.2.
Safety and Environment Clause in Bunker
Contract
5.3.
Liability for Abatement of Pollutionin
Towage Contract
CHAPTER XI OTHER MARITIME RISKS;
PIRACY
1.
Piracy as a Crime Against Law of Nations
1.1.
Hostes Humanis Generis (People vs. Lol-lo
and Saraw. G.R. No. L-17958. February 27, 1922)
1.2.
Specific Scienter Requirement: Animo
Furandi
1.3.
Acts of Piracy Distinguished from Acts of
War
2.
Piracy as Defense from Liability
2.1.
Carriers Liability
2.2.
Insurers Liability
3.
Code of Commerce Provisions
3.1.
Effect on Liability for Freight When Cargo is
Seized by Pirates (Art. 661)

3.2.
Ground for Rescission of Charterparty (Art.
668)
3.3.
General Average; Piracy Risk (Art. 811.)
3.4.
Aribada (Art. 819)
4.
International Laws Relating to Piracy
4.1.
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
Rules on Piracy (Articles 100-107 and 110)
4.2.
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
Guidance to Ship owners and Ship Operators,
Shipmasters and Crews on Preventing and
Suppressing Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery
Against Ships (MSC.1/Circ.1334. 23 June 2009)
4.2.1. Carriage of Firearms Onboard Merchant
Vessel (Clause 59)
4.2.2. Non-arming of Seafarers (Clause 60 and
61)
4.2.3. Use of Unarmed Security Personnel
(Clause 62)
4.2.4. Use of Privately Contracted Armed Security
Personnel (Clause 63)
4.2.5. Use of Duly-authorized Military Team or
Law Enforcement Officers (Clause 64)
4.3.
IMORecommendations to Governments for
Preventing and Suppressing Piracy and Armed
Robbery Against Ships (MSC.1/Circ.1333. 26 June
2009)
4.3.1. Self-Protection (Clause 3)
5.
Contractual Arrangements in Response to
Piracy Risks
5.1.
Piracy Clause in Charterparties and Bills of
Lading (2013 BIMCO Revised Piracy Clause)
5.2.
Employment of Private Maritime Security
Contractor (PMSC) (see BIMCO GUARDCON)
CHAPTER XII - SALVAGE
1.
Governing Laws and Regulations
1.1.
Act No. 2616
1.2.
Presidential Decree No. 890
1.3.
Letter of Instruction No. 263
2.
Concept
2.1.
Definition
2.2.
No Cure No Pay Principle
2.3. Distinguished from Towage (Barrios vs. Go
Thong & Co., G.R. No. L-17192. March 30, 1963)
2.3.1. Disparity Principle
3.
Kinds
3.2.
Pure Salvage
3.3.
Contract Salvage (See Lloyds Open Form
2011)
3.4.
Life Salvage
3.5.
Environmental Salvage
4.
Salvors Lien; Nature of Lien(See also Art.
2241 [7], Civil Code)
5.
Elements of Valid Salvage Claim
5.4.
Valid Object of Salvage
5.4.1. Marine Property
5.5.
Object Exposed to Marine Peril
5.5.1. At Risk or In Distress
5.6.
Service Voluntarily Rendered by One under
No Obligation to the Vessel to Render it
5.6.1. Crew (But see Mason vs. The Ship
Blaireau. 6 U.S. 240 (1804)
5.6.2. Pilot
5.6.3. Tug
5.6.4. Passengers

5.6.5. Government Authorities

5.7.
Service is Successful
6.
Abandonment
6.1.
Derelict vs. Quasi-derelict
6.2.
Law of Salvage vs. Law of Finds (Civil Code
Rules)
7.
Basis for Award
7.1.
Pure
7.1.1. Elements of Salvage Award: Salvage
Expenses and Reward
7.1.2. Factors in Fixing the Reward
7.2.
Contract
7.3.
Life
7.4.
Against Whom Award is Charged Against
8.
Cases
8.1.
G. Urrutia & Co. vs. The Pasign Steamer &
Lighter Co. G.R. No. 7294. March 22, 1912
8.2.
CS Robinson et al vs. The Ship ALTA.
G.R. No. L-3488. August 10, 1907
8.3.
Manila Railroad Co. vs. Macondray & Co.
G.R. No. L-12475. March 21, 1918
8.4.
Wallace vs. Pujalte & Co. G.R. No. L10019. March 29, 1916
8.5.
Fernandez vs. Thompson & Co. G.R. No.
12475. March 21, 1918
8.6.
AG & P Co. vs. Uchida Kisen Kaisha G.R.
No. L-15871. November 7, 1921
8.7.
Erlanger & Galinger v. Swedish East Asiatic
Co. G.R. No. 10051. March 9, 1916
PART III CIVIL AVIATION LAW
CHAPTER I AIR TRANSPORTATION
5.
Civil Aviation, in General
6.
Governing Laws
1.1.
Civil Code
1.2.
Civil Aviation Authority Act (R.A. No. 9497,
2008)
1.3.
Civil Aeronautics Act (R.A. No. 776, 1952)
1.4.
Warsaw Convention and Other Treaties
Governing Civil Aviation
7.
Regulatory Perspectives (Kuwait Airways
Corporation vs. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No.
156087, May 8, 2009)
3.1. CAB Authority to Order Termination of
Commercial Agreements
8.
Philippine Aircraft
9.
Registration of Philippine Aircraft
10.
Persons Involved in Air Transportation
10.1. Air Carrier or Operator
10.1.1. Philippine
10.1.2. Foreign
10.2. Airman
10.3. General Sales Agent
10.4. Cargo Sales Agent
10.5. Air Freight Forwarder
10.6. Off-Line Carrier
10.7. Air Taxi Operator
11.
Charter Flight (CAB Economic Regulation
No.2); Kinds
11.1. On-route
11.2. Off-route
11.3. Pro-rata
11.4. Single Entity
11.5. Mixed

CHAPTER II DUTIES OF AIR CARRIERS

1.
Extraordinary Diligence
1.1.
Yrasuegui vs. PAL, supra
1.2.
PAL vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L46558, July 31, 1981
1.3.
Vda. De Abeto vs. PAL, G.R. No. L-28692.
July 30, 1982
2.
Airworthiness (Sec. 3[z], Civil Aviation
Authority Act)
3.
Vigilance Over Goods and Baggage
3.1.
Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of
Appeals, 207 SCRA 100 (1992)
3.2.
Saludo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
95536, March 23, 1992
4.
Special Duties to Passengers
4.1.
PAL vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 156654,
November 20, 2008
4.2.
Cathay Pacific Airways vs. Sps. Vasquez,
G.R. No. 150843, March 14, 2003
4.3.
United Airlines Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 124110, April 20, 2001
4.4.
Cathay Pacific Airways vs. Reyes. G.R. No.
185891. June 26, 2013
5.
Duty to Inspect Cargo and Baggage(R.A.
6235)
CHAPTER III CONVENTIONS RELATING TO
CIVIL AVIATION
1.
Warsaw Convention as Amended
1.1.
Authoritative Language
1.2.
Applicability
1.2.1. Transportation by Air
1.2.2. International Carriage
1.2.3. Gratuitous Carriage Performed By Air
Transport Undertaking
1.2.4. Successive Air Carriers; Single Operation
Clause
1.2.5. Combined Carriage
1.3.
Documents of Carriage
1.3.1. Passenger Ticket
1.3.2. Baggage Check
1.3.3. Air Waybill
1.4.
Liability of Air Carrier for Damages (Ex
Contractu and Ex Delictu)
1.5.
Limits of Liability
1.5.1. Cargo
1.5.2. Passenger
1.5.3. Checked-in Baggage
1.5.4. Hand-carried Baggage
1.6.
Consequence of Willful Misconduct on the
Limits of Liability
1.7.
Action for Damages; Notice of Complaint;
Prescriptive Period
1.7.1. Rules on Successive Carriers
1.7.2. Venue of Suit
1.8.
Jurisprudence on Liabilities of Airline
Carriers
1.8.1. PAL vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 82619.
15 September 1993
1.8.2. Zalamea vs. CA. G.R. No. 18 November
1993
1.8.3. Singson vs. CA. G.R. No. 119995. 18
November 1997
1.8.4. Lufthansa German Airlines vs. CA. G.R. No.
836122. 04 November 1994

1.8.5. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. CA. G.R. No.

L-31150. 22 July 1975
1.8.6. Federal Express Corporation vs. American
Home Assurance Company. G.R. No. 150094.
August 18, 2004
1.8.7. Lhuillier vs. British Airways. G.R. No.
171092, March 15, 2010
1.8.8. Philippine Airlines, Inc vs. Savillo. G.R. No.
149547, July 4, 2008
1.8.9. Air France vs. Gillego, G.R. No. 165266,
December 15, 2010
1.8.10. Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Cuenca. G.R.
No. L-22425. August 31, 1965
1.8.11. Alitalia vs. IAC. G.R. No. 71929. December
4, 1990
1.8.12. Pan American vs. IAC. G.R. No. L-70462.
August 11, 1998
1.8.13. China Airlines vs. Chiok. G.R. No. 152122.
July 30, 2003
1.8.14. Santos III vs. Northwest Airlines. G.R. No.
101538. June 23, 1992
1.8.15. United Airlines vs. Uy. G.R. No. 127768.
November 19, 1999
2.
Chicago Convention
2.1.
Sovereignty over the Airspace
2.2.
Bilateral/Multilateral
Air
Services
Agreements
2.3.
Freedoms of the Air
PART IV PUBLIC UTILITIES
CHAPTER I PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATIONS
1.
Public Interest Doctrine
1.1.
Munn vs. Illinois. 94 U.S. 113 (1877)
1.2.
Luzon Stevedoring Co. vs. PSC. G.R. No.
L-5458. September 16, 1953
2.
Public Utilities vs. Public Service
3.
Who Determines Whether Enterprise is
Public Utility?
3.1.
JG Summit Holdings Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 124293. September 24, 2003
4.
Constitutional Provisions(Article XII)
5.
Ownership vs. Operation of Public Utilities
(Tatad vs. Garcia, supra)
6.
Basis of Regulation: Police Power (Republic
vs. MERALCO, G.R. No. 141314, Nov. 15, 2002)
7.
Policies of Liberalization and Deregulation
7.4.
Deregulation of Domestic Shipping Industry
(Section 8 and 11, R.A. No. 9295, Domestic
Shipping Development Act of 2004)
7.5.
Liberalization of Domestic and International
Civil Aviation (Executive Order No. 219, January 3,
1995)
8.
Regulation of Rates
8.1.
Non-delegation (KMU vs. Garcia, G.R. No.
115381, December 23, 1984)
8.2.
Non-discrimination
8.3.
Standard in Fixing Rates
8.4.
Methods in Fixing Rates
9.
Authority to Operate Public Utility
9.1.
Franchise,
Certificate
of
Public
Convenience (CPC) and Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) (PAL vs. Civil
Aeronautics Board, G.R. No. 119528. March 26,
1997)
9.2.
CPC; Issuance; Issuing Agency

9.2.1. Nature of CPC

9.2.2. When CPC is not Required
9.2.3. Transfer of CPC
9.2.4. Revocation of CPC
10.
Observance of Due Process
10.1. Vda. de Lat vs. PSC. G.R. No. L-34978.
February 26, 1988
10.2. Cogeo-Cubao Operators & Drivers Ass. vs.
CA. G.R. No. 100727. March 18, 1992
10.3. San Pablo vs. Pantranco South Express,
Inc. G.R. No. L-61461. August 21, 1987
10.4. Manzanal vs. Ausejo. 164 SCRA 36.
CHAPTER II ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
INVOLVED IN TRANSPORT SECTOR
1.
Department
of
Transportation
and
Communication (DOTC)
1.1.
Powers and Functions
1.2.
Authority to Issue CPC for Public Rail
Transport
2.
Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board (LTFRB)
2.1. Powers and Duties
2.2.
Carriers Covered
3.
Land Transportation Office (LTO)
3.1. Powers and Duties
3.2. Distinguished from LTFRB
4.
Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)
4.1.
Policies
4.2.
Powers and Duties
5.
Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines
5.1.
Distinguished from CAB
6.
Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA)
6.1. Powers and Duties
7.
Philippine Coast Guard (PCG)
7.6.
Objectives and Powers
7.7.
Delineation of Functions (vs. Marina, PPA
and Philippine Navy)
8.
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA)
8.1.
Scope of Authority
8.2.
Powers and Duties
-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

Transportation Law (Common Carrier/Liability)

G.R. No. L-47822
December 22, 1988
PEDRO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS
and
ERNESTO
CENDANA,
respondents.
Facts:
Respondent Ernesto Cendana was a junk
dealer. He buys scrap materials and brings those
that he gathered to Manila for resale using 2 sixwheeler trucks. On the return trip to Pangasinan,
Cendana would load his vehicle with cargo from
Manila, charging fee lower than the commercial
rates.
Sometime in November 1970, petitioner
Pedro de Guzman contracted with Cendana for the
delivery of 750 cartons of Liberty Milk.
On December 1, 1970, Cendana loaded the
cargo but only 150 boxes were delivered to
petitioner because the truck carrying the boxes was
hijacked along the way.
De Guzman commenced an action claiming
the value of the lost merchandise and argues that
Cendana, being a common carrier, and having
failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence
required of him by the law, should be held liable for
the value of the undelivered goods.
Cendana denied that he was a common
carrier and argued that he could not be held
responsible for the value of the lost goods, such
loss having been due to force majeure.
The trial court ruled against the Cendana,
finding him to be a common carrier and holding him
liable for the value of the undelivered goods.
The Court of Appeals reversed the
judgment of the trial court and held that respondent
had been engaged in transporting return loads of
freight "as a casual occupation a sideline to his
scrap iron business" and not as a common carrier.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not Cendana is a common
carrier?
(2) Whether or not hijacking of Cendana's truck
was force majeure; hence he is liable for
the loss of the goods?
Held:
(1) Cendana is a common carrier.
Article 1732 makes no distinction between
one whose principal business activity is the carrying

of persons or goods or both, and one who does

such carrying only as an ancillary activity. Article
1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction
between a person or enterprise offering
transportation service on a regular or scheduled
basis and one offering such service on an
occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis.
Neither does Article 1732 distinguish
between a carrier offering its services to the
"general public," i.e., the general community or
population, and one who offers services or solicits
business only from a narrow segment of the general
population. It appears to the Court that Cendana is
properly characterized as a common carrier even
though he merely "back-hauled" goods for other
merchants from Manila to Pangasinan, although
such backhauling was done on a periodic or
occasional rather than regular or scheduled
manner, and even though Cendana 's principal
occupation was not the carriage of goods for others.
There is no dispute that Cendana charged
his customers a fee for hauling their goods; that fee
frequently fell below commercial freight rates is not
relevant here.
A certificate of public convenience is not a
requisite for the incurring of liability under the Civil
Code provisions governing common carriers.
(2) Cendana is not liable for the value of the
undelivered merchandise which was lost because of
an event entirely beyond private respondent's
control.
Article 1734 establishes the general rule
that common carriers are responsible for the loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods which they
carry, "unless the same is due to any of the
following causes only:
a. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other
natural disaster or calamity;
b. Act of the public enemy in war, whether
international or civil;
c. Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the
goods;
d. The character of the goods or defects in the
packing or in the containers; and
e. Order or act of competent public authority."
The hijacking of the carrier's truck - does
not fall within any of the five (5) categories of
exempting causes listed in Article 1734. Private
respondent as common carrier is presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently. This
presumption, however, may be overthrown by proof
of extraordinary diligence on the part of Cendana.
Under Article 1745 (6), a common carrier is
held responsible and will not be allowed to divest
or to diminish such responsibility even for acts of
strangers like thieves or robbers, except where
such thieves or robbers in fact acted "with grave or
irresistible threat, violence or force." We believe and
so hold that the limits of the duty of extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried are
reached where the goods are lost as a result of a
robbery which is attended by "grave or irresistible
threat, violence or force."
In the instant case, armed men held up the
second truck owned by Cendana which carried de

Guzman's cargo. The record shows that an

information for robbery in band was also filed.
In these circumstances, the occurrence of
the loss must reasonably be regarded as quite
beyond the control of the common carrier and
properly regarded as a fortuitous event. It is
necessary to recall that even common carriers are

not made absolute insurers against all risks of

travel and of transport of goods, and are not held
liable for acts or events which cannot be foreseen
or are inevitable, provided that they shall have
complied with the rigorous standard of extraordinary
diligence.