the prescription of actions is interrupted by the making of an extrajudicial written demand by the creditor applicable also to actions brought under the COGSA?
A: No, written claims does not toll the running of
the one‐year prescriptive period under the COGSA. (Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Maritime
Company of the Philippines, G.R. No. L‐61352, Feb. 27, 1987) Q: Who are the persons who can give notice to, and bring suit against the carrier? A: 1. The shipper 2. The consignee; or 3. Any legal holder of the bill of lading like the indorsee, subrogee, or the insurer of the goods. (Kuy v. Everett Steamship
Corporation, G.R. No. L‐5554, May 27, 1953)
Q: Does the one‐year prescriptive period within which to file a case against the carrier also apply to a claim filed by an insurer who stands as a subrogee to the insured?
A: Yes, it includes the insurer of goods. Also,
whether the insurer files a third party complaint or maintains an independent action is of no moment (Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc. v.
Alejandro, G.R. No. L‐54140, Oct. 14, 1986).
Note: The ruling in the above‐cited case should apply only to suits against the carrier filed either by the shipper, the consignee or the insurer, not to suits by the insured against the insurer. The basis of the insurer’s liability is the insurance contract and such claim prescribes in 10 years, in accordance with Art. 1144 of the Civil Code. (Mayer Steel Pipe Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 124050, June 19, 1997)
Q: What is the prescriptive period in case of misdelivery and conversion of goods?
A: In case of misdelivery or conversion, the
proper periods are: 1. If there is a written contract – 10 years (Art. 1144, Civil Code) 2. Oral contract – 6 years (Art. 1145) 3. For quasi‐delict – 4 years (Art. 1146)
Q: What is the amount of the carrier’s liability under the COGSA?
A:
1. The liability limit is set at $500 per package or customary freight unless the nature and value of such goods is declared by the shipper.
2. Shipper and carrier may agree on another maximum amount, but not more than amount of damage actually sustained.
Note: When the packages are shipped in a container supplied by carrier and the number of such units is stated in the bill of lading, each unit and not the container constitute the “package”.
Q: What are the instances where there is no liability under COGSA?
A:
1. if the nature or value of goods knowingly and fraudulently misstated by shipper
2. if damage resulted from dangerous nature of shipment loaded without consent of carrier
3. if unseaworthiness not due to negligence 4. if deviation was to save life or property at sea. VI. PUBLIC SERVICE ACT A. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY Q: What is a public utility?
A: A business or service engaged in regularly
supplying the public with some commodity or service of public consequence sush as electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or telegraph service. Q: What is a public service? A: Every person that may own, operate, manage, control in the Philippines, for hire/compensation, with general/limited clientele whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business purposes, any common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway, subway motor vehicle, steamboat, or steamship line, ferries and watercraft, shipyard, ice‐plant, electric light, heat and power or any other public utility.
B. NECESSITY FOR CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
Q: What is a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC)?
A: An authorization issued for the operation of
public services for which no franchise, either municipal or legislative, is required by law, such as a common carrier.
Under the Public Service Law, a certificate of public convenience can be sold by the holder thereof because it has considerable material value and is considered a valuable asset
(Raymundo v. Luneta Motor Co., G.R. No. 39902, Nov. 29, 1933).
Q: What is a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN)?
A: A certificate issued by the appropriate
government agency for the operation of a public service for which prior franchise is required by law.
Note: There is no more distinction between a CPC and a CPCN. Unless otherwise exempt, no public service shall operate without having been issued a CPC or a CPCN.
Q: Chris was granted a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) in 1986 to operate a ferry between Mindoro and Batangas using the motor vessel “MV Gela.” He stopped operations in 1988 due to unserviceability of the vessel. In 1989, Nicole was granted a CPC for the same route. After a few months, she discovered that Elisa was operating on her route under Chris’ CPC. Because Nicole filed a complaint for illegal operations with the Maritime Industry Authority, Chris and Elisa jointly filed an application for sale and transfer of Chris’ CPC and substitution of the vessel “MV Gela” with another owned by Elisa. Should Chris’ and Elisa’s joint application be approved?
A: No. The joint application of Chris and Elisa for
the sale and transfer of Chris’ CPC and substitution of the vessel MV Gela with another vessel owned by the transferee should not be approved. The certificate of public convenience and MV Gela are inseparable. The unserviceability of the vessel covered by the certificate had likewise rendered ineffective the certificate itself, and the holder thereof may not legally transfer the same to another. (Cohon v. CA, G.R. No.
82558, Aug 20, 1990) (1992 Bar Question)
Q: Does the CPC confer upon the holder any proprietary right or interest in the route covered thereby?
A: No. (Luque v. Villegas, G.R. No. L‐22545, Nov.
28, 1969). However, with respect to other
persons and other public utilities, a certificate of public convenience as property, which represents the right and authority to operate its facilities for public service, cannot be taken or interfered with without due process of law. Appropriate actions may be maintained in courts by the holder of the certificate against those who have not been authorized to operate in competition with the former and those who invade the rights which the former has pursuant to the authority granted by the Public Service Commission (A.L. Animen
Transportation Co. v. Golingco, G.R. No. 17151, Apr. 6, 1922)
Q: What are the requirements for the grant of certificate of public convenience?
A:
1. Applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines. If the applicant is a Corporation, 60% of its capital must be owned by Filipinos
2. Applicant must prove public necessity 3. Applicant must prove the operation of
proposed public service will promote public interest in a proper and suitable manner; and
4. Applicant must have sufficient financial capability to undertake proposed services and meeting responsibilities incidental to its operation. (Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Garcia G.R. No. 108584, Dec. 22, 1994)
Q: Cite instances where a certificate of public convenience is not necessary?
A:
1. Warehouses
2. Animal‐drawn vehicles or banca
powered by oar or by sail; tug boats and lighters
3. Airships except as to fixing rates 4. Radio companies, except as to fixing of
rates 5. Ice plants 6. Public market
7. Public utilities operated by the national government or political subdivision except as to rates.