Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 182 views

    2003 - Tirol - Transportation Law

    Uploaded by

    Courtney Tirol
    1) PAL acted as a ticketing agent for Far East Airlines when booking Vivian Martin's flight. While PAL incorrectly cut and worded the ticket, PAL accommodated Vivian on a later flight when the original was missed. As a ticketing agent and not a common carrier, PAL is not liable for damages as their mistakes were inadvertent and did not constitute a serious breach of contract. 2) Osawa & Co. chartered a bareboat vessel, the M/V Ilog, from Karagatan Corporation to transport cargo. As charterer of the bareboat, Osawa & Co. is considered the owner and is liable for any losses to the cargo or crew that occurred

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2003 - Tirol - Transportation Law

    Uploaded by

    Courtney Tirol
    182 views2 pages
    1) PAL acted as a ticketing agent for Far East Airlines when booking Vivian Martin's flight. While PAL incorrectly cut and worded the ticket, PAL accommodated Vivian on a later flight when the original was missed. As a ticketing agent and not a common carrier, PAL is not liable for damages as their mistakes were inadvertent and did not constitute a serious breach of contract. 2) Osawa & Co. chartered a bareboat vessel, the M/V Ilog, from Karagatan Corporation to transport cargo. As charterer of the bareboat, Osawa & Co. is considered the owner and is liable for any losses to the cargo or crew that occurred

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) PAL acted as a ticketing agent for Far East Airlines when booking Vivian Martin's flight. While PAL incorrectly cut and worded the ticket, PAL accommodated Vivian on a later flight when the original was missed. As a ticketing agent and not a common carrier, PAL is not liable for damages as their mistakes were inadvertent and did not constitute a serious breach of contract. 2) Osawa & Co. chartered a bareboat vessel, the M/V Ilog, from Karagatan Corporation to transport cargo. As charterer of the bareboat, Osawa & Co. is considered the owner and is liable for any losses to the cargo or crew that occurred

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    182 views2 pages

    2003 - Tirol - Transportation Law

    Uploaded by

    Courtney Tirol
    1) PAL acted as a ticketing agent for Far East Airlines when booking Vivian Martin's flight. While PAL incorrectly cut and worded the ticket, PAL accommodated Vivian on a later flight when the original was missed. As a ticketing agent and not a common carrier, PAL is not liable for damages as their mistakes were inadvertent and did not constitute a serious breach of contract. 2) Osawa & Co. chartered a bareboat vessel, the M/V Ilog, from Karagatan Corporation to transport cargo. As charterer of the bareboat, Osawa & Co. is considered the owner and is liable for any losses to the cargo or crew that occurred

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TIROL, Courtney Allison P.

              14-
    0707

    2003

    Topic: Common Carrier; Breach of Contract; Damages

    QUESTION: Vivian Martin was booked by PAL, which acted as a ticketing agent of Far East
    Airlines, for a round trip flight on the latter‘s aircraft, from Manila-Hongkong-Manila. The ticket
    was cut by an employee of PAL. The ticket showed that Vivian was scheduled to leave Manila
    at 5:30 p.m. on 05 January 2002 aboard Far East‘s Flight F007. Vivian arrived at the Ninoy
    Aquino International Airport an hour before the time scheduled in her ticket, but was told that
    Far East‘s Flight F007 had left at 12:10 p.m. It turned out that the ticket was inadvertently cut
    and wrongly worded. PAL employees manning the airport‘s ground services nevertheless
    scheduled her to fly two hours later aboard their plane. She agreed and arrived in Hongkong
    safely. The aircraft used by Far East Airlines developed engine trouble, and did not make it to
    Hongkong but returned to Manila. Vivian sued both airlines, PAL and Far East, for damages
    because of her having unable to take the Far East flight. Could either or both airlines be held
    liable to Vivian? Why? (6%)

    ANSWER: No. In this situation, PAL is the negligent party. Nevertheless, PAL may not be held
    liable for damages. Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, a common carrier is defined as
    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. In Crisostomo vs. CA, the Supreme Court explained that a travel agency does not act
    as a common carrier because it does not undertake to transport or carry passengers but simply
    to procure tickets and make travel arrangements. Consequently, the contract with a ticketing
    agent is an ordinary one for services, where the due diligence is that of a good father of a
    family. In this case, PAL acted as a ticketing agent for Far East Airlines. While the PAL
    employee inadvertently cut and wrongly worded, the PAL employees manning the airport‘s
    ground services accommodated Vivian’s concerns and scheduled her to fly two hours later.
    Such is not a serious breach of contract but mere inadvertence. Hence, neither may be held
    liable to Vivian.

    II.

    Topic: Charter Party

    QUESTION: For the transportation of its cargo from the Port of Manila to the Port of Kobe,
    Japan, Osawa & Co. chartered bareboat M/V Ilog of Karagatan Corporation. M/V Ilog met a sea
    accident resulting in the loss of the cargo and the death of some of the seamen manning the
    vessel. Who should bear the loss of the cargo and the death of the seamen? Why? (4%)

    ANSWER: Osawa & Co. shall bear the loss. In Planters Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the
    Supreme Court explained that a Charter Party is a contract by which an entire ship or some
    principal part thereof is let by the owner to another person for a specified time or use. In
    bareboat or demise charter, the whole vessel is let to the charterer with transfer to him of its
    entire command, possession, and control. In this case, the charter party is of a bareboat charter.
    Hence, Osawa & Co. as charterer is considered the owner of the vessel pro hac vice and bears
    the loss of the cargo and death of the seamen.

    III.

    Topic: Prior Operator Rule

    QUESTION: Bayan Bus Lines had been operating satisfactorily a bus service over the route
    Manila to Tarlac and vice versa via the McArthur Highway. With the upgrading of the new North
    Expressway, Bayan Bus Lines service became seemingly inadequate despite its efforts of
    improving the same. Pasok Transportation, Inc., now applies for the issuance to it by the Land
    Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board of a certificate of public convenience for the
    same Manila-Tarlac-Manila route. Could Bayan Bus Lines, Inc., invoke the prior operator rule
    against Pasok Transportation, Inc.? Why? (6%)

    ANSWER: No. Under the Public Service Act, the Prior Operator Rule operates to protect the
    first licensee in such a way that the Public Service Commission should not issue a certificate of
    public convenience to a second operator when a prior operator is rendering sufficient, adequate,
    and satisfactory service, and is complying with the rules and regulations of the Commission. In
    this case, Bayan Bus Lines service became seemingly inadequate despite its efforts of
    improving the same. Hence, the Prior Operator Rule does not apply and Bayan Bus Lines
    cannot invoke the same against Pasok Transportation.

    You might also like