2002 Bar Examination Questions and Answers

By: Buenaventura, Marie Melanie, O.

Topic: Carriage; Prohibited and Valid Stipulations

Question: Discuss whether or not the following stipulations in a contract of carriage of a common carrier
are valid:

1. A stipulation limiting the sum that may be recovered by the shipper or owner to 90% of the value of
the goods in a case of loss due to theft.
2. A stipulation that in the event of loss, destruction or deterioration of goods on account of the
defective condition of the vehicle used in the contract of carriage, the carrier’s liability is limited to
the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading unless the shipper or owner declares a higher
value.

Answer:

1. The stipulation is considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy under article 1745
of the Civil Code.
2. The stipulation limiting the carrier’s liability to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading
unless the shipper or owner declares a higher value, is expressly recognized in Article 1749 of the
Civil Code.
Topic: Common Carrier; Defenses

Question: Why is the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of an employee not available
to a common carrier?

Answer:

The defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of an employer is not available to a common
carrier because the degree of diligence required of a common carrier is not the diligence of a good father
of a family but extraordinary diligence, i.e., diligence of the greatest skill and utmost foresight.
Topic: Common Carrier vs. Private Carrier; Defenses

Question: Name two characteristics which differentiate a common carrier from a private carrier.

Answer:

The two characteristics that differentiate a common carrier from a private carrier are:

1. A common carrier offers its service to the public; a private carrier does not.
2. A common carrier is required to observe extraordinary diligence; a private carrier is not so required.
 1978 Bar Examination Questions and Answers

By: Buenaventura, Marie Melanie, O.

Topic: Liability of a shipowner

Question: Pablo Esparadon, a duly-licensed ship captain of the M/V Don Jose was drunk while he was on
duty as such, and while M/V/ Don Jose was sailing from Manila to the Visayas. As a consequence thereof,
the M/V Don Jose rammed another vessel near Corregidor, causing both vessel to sink completely and
thus become total losses. The cargo owners of both sunken vessels sued the owner of the M/V/ Don Jose
for their losses.

Is the shipowner of M/V Don Jose liable? Explain your answer.

Answer:

No. The shipowner of M/V Don Jose is not liable. Under the law, the civil liability of the shipower of a vessel,
in maritime collision which is caused by the faulty of the captain is merely co-existent with his interest in the
vessel, such that the total loss thereof, results in the extinction of such liability. In this case, the captain in
at faulty, he was drunk while he was on duty. Therefore, the shipownwer cannot be held liable for the loss.
Topic: stipulation limiting the liability of a common carrier

Question: In a plane ticket stub of Air Manila Inc. (AMI), there appears a statement that the liability “if any
loss or damage of checked baggage or for delay in the delivery thereof” of the AMI “is limited to its value
and unless the passenger declares in advance a higher valuation and pays an additional charge therefore,
the value shall be conclusively deemed not to exceed 100 pesos for each ticket.” A passenger whose
baggage was lost in transit from Manila to Cebu sued for a higher amount, i.e. 5,000. May AMI successfully
claim that the above statement precludes the plaintiff from asking more than 100 pesos?

Decide. Give reasons for your answer.

Answer:

No. AMI may not successfully claim that the plaintiff was precluded from asking more than 100 pesos for
each ticket. Under the law, the liability of a common carrier may by contract be limited to a fixed amount,
but said agreement must be in writing signed by the shipper or owner of goods. In this case, it was not
shown that such requirement was met by the carrier, AMI. Hence, AMI may not claim that plaintiff was
precluded form asking more than 100 pesos.
Topic: Liability of common carrier for loss

Question: Because of spillage of the rice during the trip from Davao to Manila due to the bad condition of
the sacks, there was a shortage in the rice delivered by the Provident Lines Inc., to the consignee XYZ
Import and Export Corporation. The carrier accepted the shipment, knowing that some of the sacks had
holes and some had broker strings. When sued, Provident Lines Inc. alleged that the loss was caused by
the spillage of the rice on account of the defective condition of the sacks, at the time it received the
shipment, and, therefore, it cannot be held liable.

Decide. Give Reasons.

Answer:

The maritime carrier, Provident Lines Inc. is liable. Under the law, where the fact of improper
packing is known to the carrier or its servants, or apparent upon ordinary observations, but the carrier
accepts the goods notwithstanding such condition, it is not relieved of liability for loss or injury resulting
therefrom. In this case, Provident Lines Inc. knew the defective condition of the sacks at the time it received
the goods. Hence, Provident Lines Inc. must be held liable for the loss.