COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES (FINALS) ATTY.

BUSMENTE

CASE TITLE CASE DOCTRINE

1 PCI Leasing v.
Giraffe-X Creative
Imaging, Inc.
2 PAL v. spouses
Kurongking
3 Rubberworld
{Phils}, Inc. v. NLRC
4 Sps. Sobrejuanite v.
ASB Dev. Corp
5 Metrobank v. ASB
Holdings, Inc. et. al
6 RCBC v. IAC, 213
7 Jose Cordova v.
Reyes , Daway, et.al
TRANSPORTATION LAW
1 First Philippines
The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is: 1. He must be engaged in the business
Industrial Corp vs
of carrying goods for others as a public employment, and must hold himself out as ready to engage in the
CA
transportation of goods for person generally as a business and not as a casual occupation; 2. He must undertake
to carry goods of the kind to which his business is confined; 3. He must undertake to carry by the method by
which his business is conducted and over his established roads: and 4. The transportation must be for hire.

Pipeline operators are common carriers. The SC ruled that a corporation that is engaged in the business of
transporting oil and other petroleum products through its pipes can be considered a common carrier. The law does
not distinguish as to the means of transportation, as long as it is by land, water or air. It does not provide that the
transportation of the passengers or goods should be by motor vehicle.

2 Caltex Phils vs
Sulpicio Lines
3 Virgines Calvo vs
UCPB
A charter party may transform a common carrier into a private carrier. However, it must be bareboat or demise
charter where the charterer mans the vessel with his own people and becomes, in effect, the owner for the voyage
of the service stipulated.
The petitioner, a custom broker and warehouseman, was declared to be a common carrier in one case although
she does not indiscriminately hold her services out to the public but only offers the same to select parties with
whom she may contract in the conduct of her business. In the said case, petitioner entered into a contract with SMC
to transfer paper and kraft board from the Port Area in Manila to SMC's warehouse in Ermita, Manila. As a common
carrier, she is bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods and is presumed to be negligent

1 DIATO.2013400036
COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES (FINALS) ATTY. BUSMENTE

when she failed to deliver the same.

4 Asia Lighterage vs The petitioner argued that it is a private carrier and Allegedly has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no
CA terminals, and issues no tickets. It points out that it is not obliged to carry indiscriminately for any person. It is not
bound to carry goods unless it consents. In short, it does not hold out its services to the general public. The SC held
that the principal business of the petitioner is that of lighterage and drayage and it offers its barges to the public
for carrying or transporting goods by water for compensation. Petitioner is clearly a common carrier whether its
carrying of goods is done on an irregular basis rather than scheduled manner and with a limited clientele. A
common carrier need not havea fixed and publicly known route nor does it have to maintain terminals or issue
tickets.
5 Sps Cruz vs Sun The operator of a beach resort that accepts clients by virtue of a tour-package contracts that included
Holidays transportation to and from the Resort and the point of departure in Batangas is considered a common carrier. Its
ferry service are so intertwined with its main business as to properly be considered ancillary thereto. The
constancy of respondent's ferry services in its resort operations is underscored by its having its own boats. And the
tour package it offers, which include the ferry services, may be availed of by anyone who can afford the same.
These services are thus available to the public.
6 Delasan Transport Presentation of certificate of seaworthiness is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence.
vs CA
The presumption of fault or negligence will not arise if the loss is due to any of the following causes:
(1) flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) an act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) an act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) the character of the goods or defects in the packing or the container; or
(5) an order or act of competent public authority.
(6) Exercise of extraordinary diligence (Art. 1735 and 1755)

This is a closed list. If the cause of destruction, loss or deterioration is other than the enumerated circumstances,
then the carrier is liable therefor.
7 Belgian Chartering Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier and their arrival in bad order at their
vs First Philippine destination (or failure to transport the passenger safely) constitute prima facie case of fault or negligence against
Insurance Co. 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

The presumption of fault or negligence will not arise if the loss is due to any of the following causes:
(1) flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(7) an act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(8) an act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(9) the character of the goods or defects in the packing or the container; or
(10) an order or act of competent public authority.
(11) Exercise of extraordinary diligence (Art. 1735 and 1755)

2 DIATO.2013400036
COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES (FINALS) ATTY. BUSMENTE

This is a closed list. If the cause of destruction, loss or deterioration is other than the enumerated circumstances,
then the carrier is liable therefor.

The SC applied COGSA and ruled that the liability should not be based on the price declared in the Letter of Credit.
The court considered each coil as a package.

Acceptance of the consignee is implied if he claims reimbursement for missing goods and files a case based on the
bill of lading.
8 Fortune Express vs However, it was ruled in one case that seizure of passenger bus by armed men is not a fortuitous event and does
CA not excuse the carrier from liability where there was already a report from police agents that a certain group will
attack the buses and the carrier did not take steps to safeguard the lives and properties of its passengers.
9 Edgar Cokaliong Ensuring the seaworthiness of the vessel is the first step in exercising the required vigilance.
Shipping Lines vs
UCPB Originating from an unchecked crack in the fuel oil service tank, the fire could not have been cause by force
majeure. Broadly speaking, force majeure generally applies to natural accident, such as that cause by a lightning,
an earthquake, a tempest or a public enemy. Hence, fire is not considered a natural disaster or calamity.

A stipulation that the common carrier's liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading
unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value.

The purpose of limiting the stipulation in the Bill of Lading is to protect the common carrier. Such stipulation obliges
the shipper/consignee to notify the common carrier of the amount that the latter may be liable for in case of loss of
the goods. The common carrier can then take appropriate measures- getting insurance, if needed, to cover or
protect itself. This precaution on the part of the carrier is reasonable and prudent. Hence, a shipper/consignee that
undervalues the real worth of the goods it seeks to transport does not only violate a valid contractual stipulation,
but commits a fraudulent act when it seeks to make the common carrier liable for more than the amount declared
in the bill of laing.
10 La Mallorca Corp. vs Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination,
CA safely alighted from the carrier's conveyance or has had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises.
All persons who remain on the premises within a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed
passengers, and what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the
circumstances, and includes reasonable time to look after his baggage and prepare for his departure. For instance,
a person, who, after alighting from a train, walks along the station platforms is considered still a passenger.
11 Equitable Leasing The rule in this jurisdiction is that the person who is the registered owner of a vehicle is liable for any damages
Corp. vs Lucita caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle although the same was already sold or conveyed to another
Suyon person at the time of the accident. The registered owner is liable to the injured party subject to his right of recourse
against the transferee or the buyer.
12 Duavit vs CA The registered owner is not liable if the vehicle was taken from his garage without his knowledge and consent. To

3 DIATO.2013400036
COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES (FINALS) ATTY. BUSMENTE

hold the registered owner liable would be absurd as it would be holding liable the owner of a stolen vehicle for an
accident caused by a person who stole such vehicle.
13 De la Torre vs CA It is the shipowner who can invoke the limited liability rule. He is the person for whom the rule has been conceived.
The charterer cannot invoke the limited liability rule as a defense especially against the shipowner
14 Planters Products A Charter by Demise or Bareboat by the terms of which the whole vessel is let to the charterer which transfers to
Inc vs CA him its entire command and possession and consequent control over its navigation, including the master and crew
who are his servants. The charterer is treated as OWNER PRO HAC VIC of the vessel. In such case, a common carrier
becomes a private carrier.
15 Metropolitan Cebu The term FRANCHISE includes not only authorizations issuing directly from Congress in the form of a statute, but
Water District vs also those granted by administrative agencies to which the power to grant franchises has been delegated by
Adala Congress.

A PUBLIC UTILITY is a business or service engaged in regularly supplying the public with some commodity or
service of public consequence such as electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or telegraph service.
INSURANCE LAW
1 Gulf Resorts Inc vs
Phil Charter
Insurance Corp
2 Philippine Health
Care Providers Inc
vs CIR
3 Great Pacific Life
Assurance Corp vs
CA
4 Lalican vs The
Insular Life
Assurance Co. Ltd.
5 Insurance Life
Assurance Co. vs
Ebrado
6 Filipino Merchants
Insurance Co., Inc. v
CA
7 Amando Geogonia v.
Court of Appeals

4 DIATO.2013400036
COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES (FINALS) ATTY. BUSMENTE

8 Great pacific Life

Assurance corp. v
Court of Appeals
9 Cha v. CA,
10 UCPB General
Insurance Co., Inc. v.
Masagana Telemart,
Inc.
11 Phil. Pryce
Assurance Corp. v.
CA
12 Philamcare health
systems, Inc. v.
Court of appeals
and Julita trios
13 Sunlife Assurance
Company of Canada
v. CA and Rolando
and Bernarda bacani
14 General Insurance
and Surety
Corporation v. Ng
15 Choa Tiek Seng vs
CA
16 Caltex Inc vs
Sulpicio Lines
17 Malayan Insurance
Company Inc vs PAP
Co. Ltd
18 First Integrated
Bondng and Ins Co.
vs Hermando
19 Pan Malayan
Insurance Corp. vs
CA

5 DIATO.2013400036
COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES (FINALS) ATTY. BUSMENTE

20 First Question City

Co. Inc vs CA
21 Villacorta vs IC
BANKING AND RELATED LAWS
1 Simex International
{Manila}
Incorporated v. CA,
2 Guingona v. City
Fiscal of Manila
3 Vitug v. CA,
4 Ejercito v.
Sandiganbayan
5 BSB Group, Inc. v.
sally Go
6 Salvacion v. Central
Bank of the
Philippines
7 Philippines Deposit
Insurance Corp. v.
CA
8 RCBC v. Hi-Tri Dev.
Corp
9 Manalo v. CA,
10 Republic v. Eugenio
11 PDIC v. Phil.
Countryside Rural
bank, Inc
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE
Kho v. CA, G .R. No.
115758, March 11,
2002
Pearl & Dean {Phil.}
v. Shoemart, Inc. et.

6 DIATO.2013400036
COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES (FINALS) ATTY. BUSMENTE

al., G.R. No. 148222,

Aug. 15, 2003
ABC-CBN v. PMMSI,
Jan. 19, 2009
Mc Donalds Corp.
vs. L. C. Big Mak
Burger, Inc. 437
SCRA 10, 37 (2004)
Mighty corp. v. Ej
Gallo, supra; Great
White Shark Ent. V.
Cavalde, Jr., G.R. No.
192294, Nov. 21,
2012
Dermaline, Inc. v.
Myra
Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. G.R. No.
190065, Aug. 16,
2010
Societe Des Produits
Nestle, S.A. Martin
Dy, Jr. G.R. No.
172276, Aug. 8,
2010).
Dermaline, Inc. v.
Myra
pharmaceuticals,
Inc. G.R. No.
190065, Aug. 16,
2010
Canon Kabushiki
Kaisha v. CA and
NSR Rubber
Corporation, 336
SCRA 266 {2000}
Coffee Partners, Inc.,

7 DIATO.2013400036
COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEW DOCTRINES (FINALS) ATTY. BUSMENTE

vs. San Francisco

Coffee and
Roastery, Inc., G.R.
No. 169504, March
3, 2010
Superior
Commercial
Enterprises, Inc. v.
Kunan Enterprises
Ltd., G.R. No.
169974, April 20,
2010

8 DIATO.2013400036