PRACTICE QUESTION in Transporation Law

1. Discuss whether or not the following stipulations in a contract of carriage of a common carrier are valid: (12 points)

(a) A stipulation limiting the sum that may be recovered by the shipper or owner to 90% of the value of the goods in case of loss due to theft.

(b) Goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper.

(c) Imposing a ceiling on the monetary liability of a common carrier on account of strikes or riots. Limiting the common carrier's liability to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading.

(d) Waiver of cause of action against the common carrier for losses previously agreed upon.

(e) Common carrier exempt from_ exercising diligence in the custody of goods under certain conditions.

(f) Fixing the sum recoverable from the common carrier at a certain amount that has been accepted by both parties as reasonable.

(g) Common carrier may exercise diligence less than that of a bonos pater familias over the goods transported.

(h) Limiting the liability of the-common carrier in case of damage or injury when a passenger is carried gratuitously.

(i) Limiting the liability of the common carrier in case of damage injury when a passenger is given a substantial fare discount.

(j) Shipper agrees that carrier is not responsible for loss or deterioration of goods due to acts or omissions of the carrier's employees.

(k) Shipper agrees that carrier is not responsible for loss or deterioration of goods due to acts of thieves who do not act with grave or irresistible threat.

(l) Shipper agrees that carrier is not responsible for loss or deterioration of goods due to the defective condition of the transport vehicle owned by another person. 

2. Define:

(a) Contract of Transportation;

(b) Contract of Carriage;

(c) Contract to Carry;

(d) Distinguish between a Contract to Carry and a Contract of Carriage.

3. Bruno is the registered owner of a passenger jeepney plying the Pasig-Quiapo route. Due to unavailability of drivers, he sold the jeepney to Hugo who continued to operate the same, with the latter's brother, Pugo as its authorized driver. One day, while Pugo was driving the Jeepney from Quiapo to Pasig, the brakes failed and the jeepney crashed into a Minute Burger stand owned by Bugok. As a consequence of the incident, the burger stand was totally damaged. Also, a passenger named Bugak suffered from a fractured skull.

(a) Discuss the individual liabilities, if any, of Bruno, Hugo, and Pugo, to Bugok and Bugak.

(b) What defenses, if any, are available to Bruno, Hugo, and Pugo?

 

4. Noriel, on his way home to Makati City, boarded a bus operated and owned by Anjo Transportation Company, Inc. (Anjo Trans). While the bus was stuck in a traffic, a pedestrian hurled a rock at the bus, smashing the glass window and hitting Noriel in his left eye, Anjo Trans' personnel lost no time in bringing him to the Hospital. Noriel partially lost his left eye's vision and sustained a permanent scar. The quick action of the bus personnel saved his vision. He then filed an action for recovery of damages against Anjo. Police investigation later revealed that this was the 5^th stoning incident in that same area involving other buses; and the 3^rd stoning incident Involving Anjo Trans. Under the circumstances, what is the extent of liability of Anjo Trans, if any? Explain. 

 

5 Kasama Kaagapay Inc. (KKI) acommon carrier, it entered into an agreement with Mr. IS Bogus to transport 100 kgs of various frozen meat products from Pampanga to Batangas. Unfortunately, upon reaching a checkpoint within the Province of Batangas, all of the meat products were confiscated due to the Frozen Meat Ban in the province. This was the 5^th similar incident involving the same carrier. Mr. Bogus then sued Kasama Kaagapay Inc. for breach of contract. KKI invoked the defense of “by order of public authority”. Decide with reasons.

 

6. James, a businessman boarded Ceres Bus in Quezon City, bound for Dagupan City, where he would meet Yap, to close a business deal. The bus was also loaded with 500 kilos of mangoes purchased by Federer from Nadal (shipper), to be claimed by the Federer (consignee) at the Ceres Bus terminal in Dagupan. However, upon reaching Pampanga, Johnny, the Deputy Sheriff of Pampanga, intercepted and seized the Ceres Bus at the instance of Walker who had earlier obtained from the court a writ of attachment. As a result of the seizure by the sheriff (public authority), James failed to close the business deal in Dagupan City. Federer failed to collect his mangoes, which became rotten while inside the impounded bus.

 

(a) Feeling aggrieved by the loss of an otherwise financially rewarding transaction, James sued Ceres Bus for breach of contract. Decide with reasons.

(b) Federer, likewise sued Ceres Bus for his failure to benefit from the mangoes he purchased from Nadal. Decide with reasons.

7. A school bus owned by St. Paul Pasig, a private exclusive school for girls. In the morning, it regularly picks up 40 previously identified students from their respective homes and brings them to school. In the afternoon, the same bus brings the same students back to, their respective homes. Is the bus owned by St. Paul Pasig a common carrier? Explain.

 

8. A DLTB bus with an LTFRB approved franchise enters into an agreement with a local university to serve as the students ride during a 3-day field trip. The driver objected to the agreement on the ground that the bus was public utility vehicle and, as such, couldn't be used as a private courier, without violating the terms and conditions of its franchise. Do you agree with the driver? Explain

 

9. RINA, a former Filipino citizen who works in New York City as a lawyer, succumbed to a heart attack. Her family decided to ship her remains to the Philippines for proper burial. Her casket was scheduled to be arrive in California on 14 February 2019 via Bagong York Airlines (BYA); and from California to Manila via Palapag Airlines (PAL). On 14 February 2019, BYA issued receipt to the Pinoy relatives stating that the casket was already received by PAL and will arrive in Manila on 15 Feb 2019. However, on said date, the casket did not arrive, as it was mistakenly put in another flight bound for Mexico, due to the fault of BYA. The relatives filed an action against PAL, claiming that the receipt is a prima facie proof of receipt of the casket by PAL; and that PAL is liable to pay for damages as common carrier, having failed to observe extra-ordinary diligence in transporting the casket. What is the extent of the liability of PAL, if any? Explain.

 

10. Dr. C, boarded MV Doña Marilyn on his way to Tacloban. Unfortunately, said vessel sank and several passengers, including Dr. C, died. Consequently, Dr. C's brother and sister filed an action against Sisid Lines, the operator of MV Doña Marilyn, and prayed for moral damages. Rule on the claim for moral damages. Explain.

 

11. Kargado Trucking, a small company, operates 2 trucks for hire on a selective basis. It caters to only a few customers, and its trucks do not make regular or scheduled trips. It does not even have a certificate of public convenience. On one occasion, Rey contracted Kargado to transport, for a fee, 100 sacks of rice from Manila to Tarlac. However, Kargado failed to deliver the cargo, because its truck was hijacked when the driver stopped in Bulacan and slept with his girlfriend. May Kargado Trucking set up the hijacking as a defense to defeat Rey's claim?

 

12. (MCQ) The liability of a common carrier for the goods it transports begins from the time of:

(a) Conditional receipt.

(b) Constructive receipt.

(c) Actual receipt.

(d) Either actual or constructive receipt. Give a concise explanation.