Documents

Transpo Case Digest Chapter 6

Description
Transpo Law
Categories
Published
of 6
28
Categories
Published
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Similar Documents
Share
Transcript
  TRANSPORTATION LAWCASE DIGESTS – CHAPTER 6ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORP. v. CAFACTS: Anacleto Viana boarded the vessel M/V Antonia, owned by Aboitiz Shipping Corporation, at the port at San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, bound for Manila After said vessel had landed, the !ioneer Stevedoring Corporation too over the e#clusivecontrol of the cargoes loaded on said vessel pursuant to the Me$orandu$ of Agree$ent between !ioneer and petitioner Aboitiz %he crane owned by !ioneer was placed alongside the vessel and one &'( hour after the passengers of said vessel had dise$bar ed, it started operation by unloading the cargoes fro$ said vessel )hile the crane was being operated, Anacleto Viana who had already dise$bar ed fro$ said vessel obviously re$e$bering that so$e of his cargoes were still loaded in the vessel, went bac to the vessel, and it was while he was pointing to the crew of the said vessel to the place where his cargoes were loaded that the crane hit hi$, pinning hi$ between the side of the vessel and the crane *e was thereafter brought to the hospital where he later e#pired three &+( days thereafter!rivate respondents Vianas led a co$plaint for da$ages against petitioner for breach of contract of carriage Aboitiz denied responsibility contending that at the ti$e of the accident, the vessel was co$pletely under the control of respondent !ioneer Stevedoring Corporation as the e#clusive stevedoring contractor of Aboitiz, which handled the unloading of cargoes fro$ the vessel of Aboitiz ISSUE: )hether or not Aboitiz is negligent and is thus liable for the death HELD:  -es %he victi$ Anacleto Viana guilty of contributory negligence, but it was the negligence of Aboitiz in pre$aturely turning over the vessel to the arrastre operator for the unloading of cargoes which was the direct, i$$ediate and pro#i$ate cause of the victi$.s death %he rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel owner.s doc or pre$ises '' Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily ter$inate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted fro$ the carrier.s conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier.s pre$ises All persons who re$ain on the pre$ises a reasonable ti$e after leaving the conveyance are to be dee$ed passengers, and what is a reasonable ti$e or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be deter$ined fro$ all the circu$stances, and includes a reasonable ti$e to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure ' %he carrier0passenger relationship is not ter$inated $erely by the  fact that the person transported has been carried to his destination if, for e#a$ple, such person re$ains in the carrier.s pre$ises to clai$ his baggage1t is apparent fro$ the foregoing that what pro$pted the Court to rule as it did in said case is the fact of the passenger.s reasonable presence within the carrier.s pre$ises %hat reasonableness of ti$e should be $ade to depend on the attending circu$stances of the case, such as the ind of co$$on carrier, the nature of its business, the custo$s of the place, and so forth, and therefore precludes a consideration of the ti$e ele$ent per se without ta ing into account such other factors 1t is thus of no $o$ent whether in the cited case of 2a Mallorca there was no appreciable interregnu$ for the passenger therein to leave the carrier.s pre$ises whereas in the case at bar, an interval of one &'( hour had elapsed before the victi$ $et the accident %he pri$ary factor to be considered is the e#istence of a reasonable cause as will 3ustify the presence of the victi$ on or near the petitioner.s vessel )e believe there e#ists such 3ustiable cause1t is of co$$on nowledge that, by the very nature of petitioner.s business as a shipper, the passengers of vessels are allotted a longer period of ti$e to dise$bar fro$ the ship than other co$$on carriers such as a passenger bus )ith respect to the bul of cargoes and the nu$ber of passengers it can load, such vessels are capable of acco$$odating a bigger volu$e of both as co$pared to the capacity of a regular co$$uter bus Conse4uently, a ship passenger will need at least an hour as is the usual practice, to dise$bar fro$ the vessel and clai$ his baggage whereas a bus passenger can easily get o5 the bus and retrieve his luggage in a very short period of ti$e Verily, petitioner cannot categorically clai$, through the bare e#pedient of co$paring the period of ti$e entailed in getting the passenger.s cargoes, that the ruling in 2a Mallorca is inapplicable to the case at bar On the contrary, if we are to apply the doctrine enunciated therein to the instant petition, we cannot in reason doubt that the victi$ Anacleto Viana was still a passenger at the ti$e of the incident )hen the accident occurred, the victi$ was in the act of unloading his cargoes, which he had every right to do, fro$ petitioner.s vessel As earlier stated, a carrier is duty bound not only to bring its passengers safely to their destination but also to a5ord the$ a reasonable ti$e to clai$ their baggage  POLIAND INDUSTRIAL LTD. v. NDCFACTS: !oliand is an assignee of the of the rights of Asian *ardwood over the outstanding obligation of 6ational 7evelop$ent Corporation &67C(, the latter being the owner of 8alleon which previously secured credit acco$$odations fro$ Asian *ardwood for its e#penses on provisions, oil, repair, a$ong others8alleon also obtained loans fro$ Japanese lenders to nance ac4uisition of vessels which was guaranteed by 79! in consideration of a pro$ise by 8alleon to secure a rst $ortgage on the vessels 79! later transferred ownership of the vessel to 67CA collection suit was led after repeated de$ands of !oliand for the satisfaction of the obligation fro$ 8alleon, 67C and 79! went unheeded ISSUE: )hether or not 67C or 79! or both are liable to !oliand on the loan acco$$odations and credit advances incurred by 8alleon HELD: 1n the $erger of two or $ore e#isting corporations, one of the co$bining corporations survives and continues the co$bined business, while the rest are dissolved, and all their rights, properties and liabilities are ac4uired by the survivingcorporation %he $erger, however, does not beco$e e5ective upon the $ere agree$ent of the constituent corporations %he $erger shall only be e5ective upon the issuance of a certicate of $erger by the Securities and :#change Co$$ission, sub3ect to its prior deter$ination that the $erger is not inconsistent with the code or e#isting laws ;pon the e5ectivity of the $erger, the absorbed corporation ceases to e#ist but its rights and properties and liabilities shall transferred to and vested in the surviving corporation %he records do not show S:C approval of the $erger !oliand cannot assert that no conditions were re4uired prior to the assu$ption by 67C of ownership of 8alleon and its subsisting loans   YANGCO v. LASERNAFACTS: At about one o.cloc in the afternoon of May <, '=>, the stea$er SS 6egros, belonging to petitioner here, %eodoro ? -angco, left the port of ?o$blon on its return trip to Manila %yphoon signal 6o  was then up, of which fact the captain was duly advised and his attention thereto called by the passengers the$selves before the vessel set sail %he boat was overloaded as indicated by the load line which was < to > inches below the surface of the water %he passengers, nu$bering about '@, were overcrowded, the vessel.s capacity being li$ited to only '+ passengers As the sea beca$e increasingly violent, the captain ordered the vessel to turn left, evidently to return to port, but in the $aneuver, the vessel was caught sidewise by a big wave which caused it to capsize and sin  Many of the passengers died in the $ishap Separate civil actions were led against petitioner to recover da$ages for the death of the passengers ISSUE: )hether or not the ship0owner or agent, notwithstanding the total loss of the vessel as a result of the negligence of its captain, $ay be properly held liable in da$ages for the conse4uent death of its passengers HELD: 6o %his 4uestion is controlled by the provisions of article B@> of the Code of Co$$erce Said article reads  %he agent shall also be civilly liable for the inde$nities in favor of third persons which arise fro$ the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which the vessel carriedD but he $ay e#e$pt hi$self therefro$ by abandoning the vessel withall her e4uip$ent and the freight he $ay have earned during the voyage  %he provisions accords a ship0owner or agent the right of abandon$entD and by necessary i$plication, his liability is conned to that which he is entitled as of right to abandon E Fthe vessel with all her e4uip$ent and the freight it $ay have earnedduring the voyageF
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x