1.

ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION V GENERAL ACCIDENT

FIRE AND LIFE
NO, the principle of Limited Liability cannot be invoke, because of
the failure to maintain the seaworthiness of the vessel was
assign to the shipowner alone or the ship owner together with
the captain.
According to the law, the limited liability rule applies if the
captain or the crew cause the damage or the injury.
2. CHUA YEK HONG V. IAC
FACTS: Petitioner loaded 1,000 sacks of copra on board a vessel
owned by respondents, for shipment from Puerto Galera to
Manila. Along its way, the vessel capsized and sank. Petitioner
filed an action for damages for breach of contract of carriage.
ISSUE: Whether respondents can avail of the limited liability
HELD: YES. The shipowners or agents liability is merely coextensive with his interests in the vessel such that the total loss
thereof results in its extinction. The total destruction of the
vessel extinguishes maritime liens as there is no longer any res
to which it can attach. The primary law is the Civil Code and in
default thereof, the Code of Commerce and other special laws
are applied. Since the Civil Code contains no provisions
regulating liability of shipowners or agents in the event of total
loss or destruction of the vessel, it is the provisions of the Code
of Commerce that govern in this case.
3. MONARCH INSURANCE CO. VS CA
The carrier is liable for the damges to the full extent and not up
to the value of the vessel if it was established that the carrier
was guilty of negligence in allowing the captain crew to play
majong during the voyage, in failing to maintain the ship as
seaworthy and in allowing the ship to carry more passengers
than it was allowed to carry.
4. THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC. vs. CA
The sinking vessel was due to its unseaworthiness even at the
time of its departure because it was overloaded as a result of the
negligence of the ship owner and agent. Hence they cannot
escape liability through filing a notice of abandonment of the
vessel.
5. -----------------------------------------------------6. YU CON VS. IPIL (1916)
Banca nawal.an ug kwarta
FACTS: Respondent, Yu Con (Yu Con), chartered the banca
Maria owned by petitioner Narciso Lauron (Lauron) with
Gilcerio Ipil (Ipil) as its master and Juto Solamo (Solamo) as it
supercargo to transport certain merchandise and money from
the port of Cebu to Catmon. Yu Con loaded the merchandise and
delivered the money, placed in a trunk, to Ipil and Solamo.
Allegedly because there was no more room for Yu Cons trunk,
Ipil and Solamo transferred the money to their own trunk in the

stateroom. Before the ship could sail, the trunk and the money
placed therein disappeared.
ISSUES/HELD: Are the petitioners liable for the loss?
HELD: YES. Ipil and Solamo were depositaries of the sum in
question and, having failed to exercise the diligence required by
the nature of the obligation of safe-keeping assumed by them
and by the circumstances of the time and the place, it is evident
that they are liable for its loss or misplacement and must restore
it.
The obligation of the carrier provided by law is that they should
deliver the subject with extraordinary diligence.
With respect to Lauron, he is liable. According to maritime
commerce, it is presume that the owner made a most careful
investigation before appointing him.
7. INTER-ORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISE VS CA
Illegal dismissal sa capitan
FACTS: Captain tayong, 120,000 metric tons
ISSUE: WON Captain Tayong was illegally dismissed
HELD: Yes, According to the law, confidencial and managerial
employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any time, and
without cause as reasonably established in an appropriate
investigation
The captain commonly performs 3 distinct roles:
. he is a general ship agant of the owner
. he is also the commander and technical director of the vessel
. he is the representative of the country whose flag he
navigates
The captain must be accorded a reasonable measure of
discretionary authority to decide what the safety of the ship and
of its crew and cargo specifically requires
8. CALTEX (PHILS) INC VS SULPICIO LINES, INC., 315 SCRA
709
Banga Caltex ug sulpicio nay namatay sa sulpicio
FACTS: Caltex chartered MT Vector-Tanker of Vector Shipping
Corp to transport its fuel products from Limay, Bataan to
Masbate. On Dec 2, 1987 while enroute the Tanker collided with
MV Dona Paz of Sulpicio Lines Inc resulting to the sinking of the
latter vessel and the death of about 4000 passengers with only
24 survivors.
ISSUES:
1. Should CALTEX be held liable? NO
2. Is MT Vector a common carrier and therefore liable? YES
3. Should CALTEX be held liable for damages? NO
1. No, because the contract between CALTEX and VECTOR was a
contract of Affreightment, which leaves the general owner in
possession of the ship as owner for the voyage, the right and
responsibilities of ownership rest on the owner and the Charterer
is free from liability to third persons in respect to the ship
2. Yes. The contract between CALTEX and VECTOR was a contract
of Affreightment. In this case, the charter party agreement did
not convert the Common Carrier into a private charter. Thus, the

parties entered into a voyage charter, which retains the character

of the vessel as a common carrier.
3.No, the Charterer of a vessel has no obligation before
transporting its cargo to ensure that the vessel it chartered
complied with all legal requirements. The duty rest upon the
Common Carrier for simply being engaged in public service
9. MACONDRAY & CO., INC. VS. PROVIDENT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
FACTS: CANPOTEX SHIPPING SERVICES LIMITED INC., shipped
on board the vessel M/V Trade carrier certain goods in favor of
ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION. Subject shipments were
insured with Provident Insurance Corp. against all risks. When
the shipment arrived, consignee discovered that the shipment
sustained losses. Provident paid for said losses. Formal claims
were then filed with Trade & Transport but MACONDRAY refused
and failed to settle the same. MACONDRAY denies liability over
the losses, it, having no absolute relation
ISSUE: Whether or not MACONDRAY & CO. INC., as an agent, is
responsible for any loss sustained by any party from the vessel
owned by Trade & Transport.
HELD: Although petitioner is not an agent of Trade & Transport, it
can still be the ship agent of the vessel M/V Trade Carrier. A ship
agent is the person entrusted with provisioning or representing
the vessel in the port in which it may be found. Hence, whether
acting as agent of the owner of the vessel or as agent of the
charterer, petitioner will be considered as the ship agent and may
be held liable as such, as long as the latter is the one that
provisions or represents the vessel.
10. KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CANTER VS GARCIA
Fare increase
FACTS: KMU authorized to decrease or increase the fair as
authorized by LTFRB
ISSUE: WON the absence of notice and hearing and the
delegation of powers..... illegal?
HELD: YES, the authority given by the LTFRB to KMU is illegal
and not valid, According to the law, what has been delegated
cannot be delegated as it would result to undue delegation of
legislative authority. And also, there should be a proper notice
and hearing regarding the issue for it to be fair for the public
utility and the publilc.
11. ANG VS. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES (19 SCRA
631)
Endorsed billdelivered to another person
FACTS: Yau Yue Commercial
140 packages of galvanized
Teves for $32,458.26. Said
following terms: the purchase
draft which should be paid by

Bank of Hongkong agreed to sell

steel durzinc sheets to Herminio
agreement was subject to the
price should be covered by a bank
Teves in exchange for the delivery

to him of the bill of lading to be deposited with honking and

Shanghai Bank of Manila.....
ISSUE: WON the COGSA sec 3 par. 4 applies in this case?
HELD:No. According to the law loss refers to a situation where
no delivery at all was made by the shipper of the goods because
the same had perished, gone out of commerce, or disappeared
that their existence is unknown or they cannot be recovered. It
does not include a situation where there was indeed delivery, but
delivery to the wrong person as what the case has given.
The law provides as for the prescription of ten years for breach
of contract or four years for quasi-delict. In the case, the
plaintiffs cause of action has not yet prescribed.
12.
TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING VS. CA (254 SCRA 260)
FACTS: barko ni naug kay guba..
ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of a common carrier to maintain
in seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage a
breach of its duty?
HELD: yes, because the vessel was unseaworthy prior to the voyage.
According to the law, For the vessel to be seaworthy, it must be
adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with the sufficient
number of competent officers and crew. The Failure of the common
carrier to maintain the seaworthiness of the vessel results to the
breach of contract.
13. MOF COMPANY, INC. VS. SHIN YANG BROKERAGE
14. EDGAR COKALIONG SHIPPING LINES, INC. VS. UCPB
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC
15. BELGIAN OVERSEAS CASE
Upat ka coil ang daot.. 500 ang amount if wala na stipulate.
ISSUE: WON the petitioner has overcome the presumption of
negligence
WON the claim is barred by prescription
WON the petitioners liability is limited to stipulation in the bill
of lading or LC
Held:
1. NO. Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a
common carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their
destination constitutes a prima facie case of fault or negligence
against the carrier. If no adequate explanation is given as to
how the deterioration, the loss or the destruction of the goods
happened, the transporter shall be held responsible.
2. a failure to file a notice of claim within three dayswill not bar
recovery if it is nonetheless filed within one year.
3. A notation in the Bill of Lading which indicated the amount
of the Letter of Credit obtained by the shipper for the
importation of steel sheets did not effect a declaration of the
value of the goods as required by the bill. In the light of the
foregoing, petitioners' liability should be computed based on
US$500 per package and not on the per metric ton price
declared in the Letter of Credit.

16. FABRE VS. CA (259 SCRA 426 G.R. NO. 111127, JULY 26,
1996)
Mag asawa nagpa abang ug mini bus
Held: Spouses Fabre are common carriers. 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.
It 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 or 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 distinguish between a carrier offering its
services to the "general public and one who offers services or
solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general
population.
17. MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
VS. SSANGYONG CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
18. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE case G.R. No.168433, Feb 10,
2009
19. PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION VS.
CHEMOIL LIGHTERAGE HITE GOLD CORPORATION G.R. No.
136888. June 29, 2005
Priscription sa pag file ug complataint to claim insurance
Held : Within twenty-four hours following the receipt of the
merchandise a claim may be made against the carrier on account of
damage or average found upon opening the packages, provided that
the indications of the damage or average giving rise to the claim
cannot be ascertained from the exterior of said packages, in which
case said claim shall only be admitted at the time of the receipt of
the packages.

20. MAYER STEEL PIPE CORPORATION

124050. June 19, 1997]

case,

[G.R.

No.

the limited liability does not apply to insurances. Prescription japun

held: the liability of the carrier is extinguished if no suit is brought
within one year. However, the liability of the insurer is not
extinguished because COGSA goeverns the relationship between
carrier and the shipper, and consignee and insurer
21. SPOUSES ONG V CA
22.AUGUSTO LOPEZ v. JUAN DURUELO, G.R. No. 29166.
October 22, 1928.
Jison motorboat na naguba nden nasmad xa
Held: in cases of collision, it does not include all ships, crafts, or
floating structures of any kinds without limitation. The law does not

apply to minor craft engaged in a river and bay traffic. Therefore a

boat like jison is not required to make protest as a condition
precedent to his attempt to his right of action.
23. LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION VS. COURT OF
APPEALS (156 SCRA 169)
maritime collision occurred between the tanker CAVITE owned by
LSCO and MV Fernando Escano (a passenger ship) owned by Escano,
as a result the passenger ship sunk
held: Yes, abandonment is necessary to claim the limited liability
wherein it shall be limited to the value of the vessel with all the
appurtenances and freightage earned in the voyage. However, if the
injury was due to the ship owners fault, the ship owner may not
avail of his right to avail of limited liability by abandoning the vessel.
24. YANGCO VS. LASERNA (73 PHIL 330
NI SANK ANG SS NEGROS.IS LIMITED LIABILITY APPLICABLE
NA NAA MAT NAMATAY PERO GI ABANDON.
HELD: the ship agent shall also be civilly liable for indemnities in
favor of third persons which arise from the conduct of the captain in
the vigilance over the goods which the vessels carried; BUT he may
exempt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all her
equipment and the freight he may have earned during the voyage.
NO VESSEL, NO LIABILITY.
25. VASQUEZ VS. CA (138 SCRA 553)
26. LITONJUA SHIPPING VS. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD (176
SCRA 189)
GI HIRE SA CAPITAN DEN GIPAHAWA..
demise or bare boat charter, the charterer is treated as owner pro
hac vice of the vessel, the charterer assuming in large measure the
customary rights and liabilities of the shipowner in relation to third
persons who have dealt with him or with the vessel. In such case,
the Master of the vessel is the agent of the charterer and not of the
shipowner. The charterer or owner pro hac vice, and not the general
owner of the vessel, is held liable for the expenses of the voyage
including the wages.

27. VALENZUELA HARDWOOD VS. CA (30 JUNE

1997,274 SCRA 643)
Naghimu sila ug ilahang contrata na dili liable ang isa
The contract between petitioner and Seven Brothers
is one of Private Carriage hence the provisions on
common carriage do not apply. In a contract of
private carriage parties are free to stipulate that the
responsibility for the cargo rests solely in the
charterer, such stipulations are valid because they are
freely entered into by the parties and the same is not
contrary to law, morals, good custom, public order or
public policy.

28. MERCHANTS INSURANCE

ALEJANDRO (145 SCRA 42)

COMPANY

VS.

the petitioner's action has prescribed under the

provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
Hence, whether it files a third-party complaint
or chooses to maintain an independent action against
herein respondents is of no moment.

29. GREGORIO PESTAO AND METRO CEBU

AUTOBUS CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS.
SPOUSES TEOTIMO SUMAYANG AND PAZ C.
SUMAYANG, RESPONDENTS.

30. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFFAPPELLEE, VS. ARNEL MATARO Y ELIZAGA AND
NICK PERUCHO Y SINGSON, ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS.

31. FRANCISCO ORTIGAS, JR. VS. LUFTHANSA

GERMAN AIRLINES (G.R. NO. L-28773 JUNE 30,
1975)
when it comes to contracts of common carriage,
inattention and lack of care on the part of the carrier
resulting in the failure of the passenger to be

accommodated in class contracted for amounts to bad

faith and fraud which entitles the passenger to the
award of moral damages

32. AIR FRANCE VS CARRASCOSO (18 SCRA

155)
The responsibility of an employer for the
tortious act of its employees need not be essayed. It
is well settled in law. For the willful malevolent act of
petitioner's manager, petitioner, his employer, must
answer.

33. DR. HERMAN ARMOVIT VS CA, G.R. NO.

88561, APRIL 20, 1990

35. NEGROS NAVIGATION CO., INC., VS. THE

COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON MIRANDA, SPS.
RICARDO AND VIRGINIA DE LA VICTORIA

36. R TRANSPORT VS EDUARDO PANTE, GR

162104, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

Common carrier are persons,, corporations, firms

or associations engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both by land or
by water or air for compensation offering their service
to the public.

Doctrine of limited liability The ship owners or

agents liability is merely co-extensive with his
interests in the vessel such that the total loss thereof
results in its extinction. The total destruction of the
vessel extinguishes maritime liens as there is no
longer any res to which it can attach. No vessel, no
liability.

Coverage of llimited liability- . liability to third

person... acts of the captain.. collision.

Exceptions to limited liability ..where the injury

or death to a passenger is due either to the fault of
the ship owner or to the concurring negligence of the
ship owner and the captain.. where the vessel is
insured.. in worksmens compensation claims

Protest is written statement by the master of the

vessel or any authorized officer, attested by proper
officer or a notary, to the effect that damges has
been suffered by the ship: 1. When the vessel makes
an arrival under stress 2. Where the vessel is
shipwrecked 3.when the vessel has gone through a
hurricane or the captain believes that the cargo has
suffred damages 4. Maritime collision

Maritime law is the system of laws which

particularly relates to the affairs and business
conveyance of persons and property .

Vessel any barge, lighter, bulk, carrier, passenger

ship freighter, tanker, container ship, fishing boats or
other artificial contrivance utilizing any source of
motive power, designed, used or capable of being
used as a means of transportation operating either as
a common carrier including fishing vessels under PD
no. 43

Except: those owned or operated by the AFP

Bancas, sailboats and other waterborne
contrivance of less than three gross tons capacity and
not motorized

Other vessels:
Passenger ship, cargo ship, tanker, fishing
vessel, nuclear ship, new ship, old ship.

Maritime lien is a privilege claim in a vessel for

some service rendered to it to facilitate its use in
navigation.
Maritime tort civil wrongs commited on navigate
waters