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 shipowner’s or agent’s 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 Con’s 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 bill—delivered 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 plaintiff’s 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 124050. June 19, 1997] CORPORATION 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 owner’s 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 owner’s or agent’s 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