Orlando Datangel

Transportation Law
Final Exam

1.
1. A contract of transportation is a contract whereby a person, natural or
juridical, obligates himself to transport persons or goods, or both,
from one place to another, by land, air or water, for compensation.
2. A contract of carriage is a person, firm, association or corporation
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting goods or
passengers, by land, air or water, for compensation, offering their
services to the public.
3. A contract to carry is an agreement between the parties to carry or
transport goods or passengers or both for compensation or
gratuitously.
4. A contract to carry is distinguished from a contract of carriage in the
same sense that the latter is perfected by mere agreement, hence a
consensual contract, while a contract of carriage is perfected by the
delivery of the object, hence, a real contract.

2.
No, PNR is not correct.

Under the law, the common carrier’s extraordinary liabilities extends to

passengers who, by reason of contract are required and ought to be within
the premises of the common carrier. They are required to exercise due
 diligence to ensure the comfort and safety of the passenger until the latter
reach his destination.

In this case, Ricardo is considered as a passenger since he already purchased

the PNR ticket. Hence, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to
secure the comfort and safety of Ricardo.

Hence, PNR argument is not correct.

3.
Yes.

Under the law, the liability of the ship owner and ship agent is limited to the
amount of interest in the said vessel such that where the vessel is entirely
lost, the obligation is extinguished.

In this case, since the whole vessel sank, the liability of the ship owner and
ship agent is also extinguished. Furthermore, the facts of the case does not
mention any of the accepted exceptions to the rule to hold the ship owners
and agents liable.

Hence, Dimalitaw Shipping Co. argument is correct.

4.
Lipad Bus Co. must prevail.

Under the law, Prior Operation Rule provides that before permitting a new
operator to operate in the territory of another operator already established
with a certificate of public convenience, the prior operator must first be
given the opportunity to extend its services in order to meet the public needs.

In this case, since Lipad Bus Co. is the prior common carrier servicing in
that route, he should be first given the opportunity to extend its services.

Hence, Lipad Bus Co. must prevail.

5.
Yes, the action will prosper.

The law provides that a common carrier is liable for injuries sustained by the
passenger. The law also requires the common carrier to exercise
extraordinary diligence to secure the safety and comfort of its passengers.

In this case, the fact that the couple is just a transferred passenger from
Omega Seafarer to the defendant Alpha Aseana is of no moment. The
latter’s extraordinary obligation is not extinguished and required to exercise
extraordinary diligence to secure the safety and comfort of its passengers.

Hence, the action will prosper.

6.
No, NJ Transco is not correct.

The law provides that a common carrier is bound to transport its passengers
safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. And the common
carrier is presumed liable for the injury or death sustained by its passengers.

In this case, the common carrier should be held liable for the injury
sustained by Vic.

Hence, TVJ Transco is not correct.

7.
The following are the requirements:
1. Applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines;
2. Applicant must prove public necessity;
3. Applicant must prove the operation of proposed public service will
promote public interest; and
4. Applicant must have sufficient financial capabilities.

8.
No, Cardo is a common carrier.
 Under the law, the true test of a common carrier is the carriage of goods or
passenger or both for compensation and offering their service to the public.

In this case, it is of no moment whether the transportation is for a limited

class of person or passenger and he possessed no certificate of public
convenience. As long as that he is engaged in transporting goods or
passenger or both for compensation and the service is offered to the public,
he is considered a common carrier.

9.
Yes, Anjo Trans is liable.

Under the law, the common carrier is liable for injuries sustain by the
passenger caused by other passenger or strangers if the employee of the
former through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented the same.

In this case, it is the 3rd stoning incident involving the defendant, hence, it
could have prevented the injury by informing its passengers of the possible
stoning incident.

Hence, Anjo Trans is liable.

10.
Yes.

Under the law, in maritime contract, the ship owner and ship agents are
jointly and solidary liable for damages.
In this case, by express provision of law, the vessel owner and the vessel’s
captain should be held liable jointly and solidary.