BAR QUESTIONSINTRANSPORTATION LAW1992-1977llb4301sy 2015-20161992Mi!"ll" R#b#$#l1992 BAR EXAM QUESTIONMERCANTILE LAW 2Question No. 4: Marino was a passenger on a train. Another passenger , Juancho, hadtakenagallonof gasolineplacedinaplasticbagintothesamecoahwhereMarino was riding. The gasoline ignited and exploded causing injury to Marinowhofiledacivil suit for damagesagainst therailwaycompanyclaimingthatJuancho should have been subjected to inspection by its conductor. Therailway company disclaimedliability resultingfromtheexplosioncontending that it was unaware of the contents of the plastic bag and invokingthe right of Juancho to privacy.a !hould the railway company be held liable for damages"Answe:#o. The railway company is not liable for damages. $n overlandtransportation, thecommoncarrier isnot boundnor empoweredtomakeanexamination on the contents of packages or bags, particulary those handcarriedby passengers.b if it wereanairlinecompanyinvolved, wouldyour answer bethesame" %xplain your answer briefly.Answe:$f it were an airline company, the common carrier should be made liable.$nthecaseof air carriers, it is not lawful tocarry flammablematerials inpassenger aircrafts, and airline companies may open and investigate suspiciouspackages and cargoes & 'epubluc Act #o. ()*+ 1992 BAR EXAM QUESTIONMERCANTILE LAW 3Question No. !:,or acargoof machineryshippedfromabroadtoasugar central in-umaguete, #egros.riental, the/ill of 0ading&/10 stipulated2To!hipper3s.rder,2 with notice of arrival to be addessed to the 4entral. The cargo arrived atthe destination and was released to the 4entral without surrender of the /10 onthe basis of the latter3s undertaking to hold the carrier free and hamrless from anyliability.!ubse5uently,a/anktowhomthecentral wasindebted, claimedthecargo and presented the original of the /10 stating that the 4entral had failed tosettle its obligations with the /ank.6as there misdelivery by the carrier to the sugar central considering thenon7surrender of the /10" 6hy"Answe8There was no misdelivery to the carrier since the cargo was consigned tothesugarcentral per the2!hipper3s.rder2&%astern!hipping0ines, $nc. vs.4ourt of Appeals, 9:; !4'A +9)Co""ent8$t is possible that an examinee would have construed to be negotiable the/ill of 0adinghavingbeenmadeout tothe2!hipper3s.rder.2 Thegeneralprinciples on negotiable warehouse receipts, negotiable documents of title, etc.,would, as a matter of prudence, re5uire the surrender of the /ill of 0ading beforedelivery is made. $t is thus respectfully recommended that credit be given to suchanswers.1992 BAR EXAM QUESTION MERCANTILE LAW 4Question No. #: Antonio was granted a 4ertificate of Manila, a tanker, and M1> -on 4laro, an iter7isalnad vessel, M1> -on 4laro sank and many of its passengers drowned anddied. All its cargoes were lost. The collission occurred at nighttime but the seawas calm, the weather fair and visibility is good. -on 4laro already sighted M1T Manila on its radarscreen. M1TManilahadnoradare5uipment. 4larowastwiceasfast asM1TManila.Atthe time ofthe collission,M1T Manila failed to follow 'ule9: ofthe$nternational 'ules of the 'oad which re5uires two &) vessels meeting head onto change their course by each vessel steering to starboard &right so that eachvessel may pass on the port side &left of the other. M1T Manila signaled that itwould turn to port side and steered accordingly, thus resulting in the collision. M1T-on 4laroGs captain was off7duty and was having a drink at the shipGs bar at thetime of the collission.a. 6ho would you hold liable for the collision"Answe:$ can hold the two &) vessels liable. $n the problem given, whether on thebasis of the factual settings or under the doctrine of inscrutable fruit, both vesselscan be said to have been guilty of negligence. The liability of the two carriers forthe death or injury ofpassengers and for the loss of ordamage to the goodsarising from the collission is solidary. #either carrier may invoke the doctrine oflast clear chance, whichcanonlyberelevant, if at all, betweenthetwo&)vessels but not on the claims made by passengers or shippers &0itonjua !hippingv. #ational !eamen /oard, @.'. +9:9;, 9; August 9:=:.b. $f M1> -on 4laro was at fault, may the heirs of the passengers whodied and the owners of the cargoes recover damages from the ownerof said vessel"Answe:Ees, but subject to the doctrine of limited liability. The doctrine is to theeffect that theliabilityof theshipownerswouldonlybetotheextent of anyremaining value of the vessel, proceeds of insurance, if any, and earnedfreightage. @iventhefactual settings, theshipowner himself wasnot guiltyofnegligence and, therefore, the doctrine can well apply &Amparo de los !antos v.4A, 9=( !4'A (:.1991 BAR EXAM QUESTIONMERCANTILE LAW9Question No. 1!A. The!aad-eveloping4orp.entersinto avoyage charterwith the DEF!hipping4orp. over thelatterGsvessel, theM1>0ady0ove. /eforethe!aad-evelopment 4orp. couldloadit, DEF!hipping4orp. soldM1>0ady0oveti.slob Maritime 4orp., which decided to load it for its own account.a. MayDEF!hipping4orp. validlyaskfor therescissionof thecharterparty"$f so, can!aad-evelopment 4orp. recoverdamages" Towhatextent"Answe:DEF !hipping 4orporation may ask for the rescission of the charter partyif, as in this case, it sold the vessel before the charterer has begun to load thevessel andthepurchaserloadsitfor his ownaccount,!aad4orporationmayrecover damages to the extent of its losses &Art. (=:, 4ode of 4ommerce.b. $f the .slob Maritime 4orp. did not load for its own account, is it bound bythe charter party"Answe:$f .slobMaritime4orporationdidnot loadM1>0ady0ovefor itsownaccount, it would be bound by the charter party, but DEF !hipping would have toindemnify .slob maritime if it was not informed of the 4harter anGscertificateof publicconvenience. >anagreed and, accordingly, Johnny registered his jeepney under >anGs name..nJune9;, 9::;, oneof thepassenger jeepneysoperatedby>anbumpedTomas. Tomaswasinjuredadinduetime, hefiledacomplaint fordamages against >anandhis driver for theinjuries hesuffered. Thecourtrendered judgment in favor of Tomas and ordered >an and his driver, jointly andseverally, to pay Tomas actual and moral damages, attorneyGs fees, and costs.The !heriff levied on the jeepney belonging to Johnny but registered inthenameof >an. Johnnyfiledathirdpartyclaimwiththe!heriff allegingownership of the jeepney levied upon and stating that the jeepney was registeredin the name of >an merely to enable Johnny to make use of >anGs certificate ofpublic convenience.Maythe!heriff proceedwiththepublicauctionof JohnnyGsjeepney"-iscuss with reasons.Su''este( Answe:Ees, the !heriff may proceed with the auction sale of JohnnyGs jeepney. $ncontemplationthelawasregardsthepublicandthirdpersons, thevehicleisconsidered the property of the registered operator. &!antos v. !ibug 9;C !4'A+);141989 Nadine de Leon 19)9 BAR EXAM QUESTIONMERCANTILE LAW15Question no. 11&9 DshippedthruM1>Lalayaan, sparepartsworth