Sanchez Brokerage vs. CA and FGU Corp GR 147079- Wyeth-Pharma shipped from Germany, Oral

Contraceptives to its consignee in Manila, Wyeth-Suaco- 86,000 Blisters Femenal Tablets, 14,000 Blisters Nordiol

Tablets, and 42,000 Trinordiol Tablets- Wyeth-Suaco insured its shipment with FGU Insurance- Wyeth engaged the services of Sanchez Brokerage as its

customs broker, who pays the custom duties and fees and delivers to Wyeth

- From the PSI Warehouse, after it was inspected by Elite Surveyors, Sanchez Brokerage then delivered the goods to Wyeth

- Wyeth Rejected some of the goods as they were in bad condition upon delivery

- Wyeth demanded Sanchez to pay 191,000 representing the value of its loss

- Sanchez refused, thus, Wyeth filed an insurance claim to FGU, who paid Wyeth

- FGU now demands the payment of the amount from Sanchez for the damage goods

- Sanchez claims that it was the result of insufficient export packaging and it is not a common carrier but only a mere broker

- W/N Sanchez Brokerage is Liable- Yes- Art. 1732. Common carriers are 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.

- Article 1732 does not distinguish between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of goods and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity.

- It was received in PSI in good order but were found to be in bad order upon delivery to wyeth

- Sanchez should not have accepted the goods from PSI if they had were already in bad condition

- Art 1733 Extraorindary Diligence- Art 1734 par 4 exempts a common carrier from liability if

the loss or damage is from the packaging

Pan American World Airways vs.Pangan- Pangan, president of Sotang Bastos Production entered

into an agreement to supply three films to California and Guam and would also provide for their promotional materials

- Pangan then obtained an economy ticket from Pan Am’s office for Manila to Guam and subsequently to California

- On the day of his departure, he checked in his 2 luggage 2 hours before and had to upgrade himself to first class as his name was not in the manifest on the full economy seating

- Upon his arrival at Guam, his luggage did not arrive, thus his film exhibitions were cancelled in Guam and California

- W/N the Warsaw Convention relating to international carriage applies

- Yes, it is not against public policy- W/N Pan Am is liable for damages for the lost of profits- No- Mendoza Ruling: liable only for damages to those foreseen

and the time the contract was entered, thus, Pan Am could not have foreseen the damages that would be suffered from Pangan for failure to deliver his films

- Pangan failed to call the attention of Pan Am informing them of the special circumstances of his luggage requiring prompt delivery

Dangwa vs. CA- Pedrito was ran over by the bus of Dangwa Corp while he

was trying board the bus when it suddenly accelerated- Dangwa bus sent all the passengers home before sending

Pedrito to the hospital- Dangwa alleges that Pedrito was negligent in boarding the

bus at it was moving when he did and that the bus exercised extraordinary diigence

- W/N Dangwa is liable- Yes- When the bus is not in motion, there is no necessity for a

person to who wants to ride to signal his intention to do so- When a bus stops, it is making a continuous offer to

passengers to board the same- Even if the bus is moving slowly, as this is common

experience of both the driver and conductor- By stepping in the platform of the bus, Pedrito is

automatically considered a passenger and is entitled to his rights of protection

- No proof of negligence of the carrier needed to make it liable, it is incumbent upon the carrier to prove otherwise

Sweet Lines vs. Teves- Tandog and Tiro bought a ticket from Sweet Line to

Tagbilaran city vie MS Sweet Hope- Later learned that MS Sweet Hope was not bound for

Bohol, requested that they be transferred to MS Sweet Town which was bound for Bohol

- The vessel was full and they agreed to stay in the cargo area where they experienced great discomfort and their tickets also dishonored

- They filed a case against Sweet line is Misamis- Sweet Lines moved to dismiss due to improper venue that

condition no. 14 of the ticket stated that any complaint shall be filed in Cebu

- W/N the condition is valid- No- It is against public policy- Contracts of adhesions are binding, but when one of the

parties is at a disadvantage, it is invalid- It is not just and fair to require passengers to file actions in

cebu- Condition no. 14 will frustrate actions of passengers if it

cannot be filed outside of Cebu city and place the petitioner at an advantage over said persons who may have legitimate claims

Aboitiz vs.CA- Viana was a passenger of Aboitiz shipping- Upon arrival in Manila, Viana disembarked the ship but

then he remembered that some of his cargoes were still loaded, thus, he went back to the vessel and then the crane hit him

- Aboitiz alleged that the crane operated an hour after all passengers disembarked

- Aboitiz had also claimed that Pioneer had compete control of the vessel as they were incharge for unloading cargo, thus exempted from liability

- W/N Aboitiz is exempted from liability- No- The relation of carrier and passenger continues until the

passenger has landed at the port and has left the vessel owners premises (La Mallorca Ruling)

- It is common knowledge that the nature of Aboitiz’s business required a longer time for the disembarkation of passengers and cargoes due to the bulk

- Aboitiz failed to show proof that it exercised extraordinary diligence

- Pioneer had taken the necessary safeguards as it is only required to exercise the diligence of a good father

La Mallorca vs. Beltran- Mariano Beltran and his family rode a bus owned by La

Mallorca to Maxico, Pampangga- Upon reaching their destination, they disembarked and

with Mariano carrying the luggage- At the shaded spot close to where they disembarked,

Mariano noticed that he had forgotten one of his luggage - He went back to the bus the claim his luggage without

knowledge that one of his child followed him- While the conductor was handing to Mariano his luggage,

the bus moved and hit and killed Mariano’s child- W/N La Mallorca is liable- Yes- It has been a recognized rule that the relation of the

carrier and passenger does not cease as at the moment the passenger reaches his destination, but continues until the passenger had left the premises of the carrier

- Their presence near the bus was not unreasonable and they are still considered therefore passengers

- The driver may be held liable for negligence as he started to run off the bus without proper signal form the conductor