TRANSPO CASE DIGESTS

1) F.C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Co.

G.R. No. L-8095 March 31, 1915
Carson, J.
FACTS:
Fisher is a stockholder in the Yangco Steamship Company. The directors of the company adopted a
resolution which was thereafter ratified and affirmed by the shareholders of thecompany, expressly
declaring and providing that the classes of merchandise to be carried by the company in its
business as a common carrier do not include dynamite, powder or other explosives, and expressly
prohibiting the officers, agents and servants of the company from offering to carry, accepting for
carriage said dynamite, powder or other explosives.
Then Acting Collector of Customs demanded and required of the company the acceptance and
carriage of such explosives. He has refused and suspended the issuance of the necessary clearance
documents of the vessels of the company unless and until the company consents to accept such
explosives for carriage. Fisher was advised that should the company decline to accept such
explosives for carriage, the respondent Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands and the
respondent prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila intend to institute proceedings under the
penal provisions of sections 4, 5,and 6 of Act No. 98 of the Philippine Commission against the
company, its managers, agents and servants.
Notwithstanding the demands of Fisher, the manager, agents and servants of the companydecline
and refuse the carriage of such explosives.
ISSUE:
WON the acts complained of had the effect of making or giving an unreasonable or unnecessary
preference or advantage to any person, locality or particular kind of traffic, or of subjecting any
person, locality, or particular kind
of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination.
HELD: No.
There may be some vessels engaged in business as common carriers of merchandise, which for lack
of suitable deck space or storage rooms might be justified in declining to carry kerosene oil,
gasoline, and similar products, even when offered for carriage securely packed in cases; and few
vessels are equipped to transport those products in bulk. But in any case of a refusal to carry such
products which would subject any person, locality or the traffic in such products would be necessary
to hear evidence before making an affirmative finding that such prejudice or discrimination was or
was not unnecessary, undue or unreasonable. The making of such a finding would involve a
consideration of the suitability of the vessel for the transportation of such products; the reasonable
possibility of danger or disaster resulting from their transportation in the form and under the
conditions in which they are offered for carriage; the general nature of the business done by the
carrier and, in a word, all the attendant circumstances which might affect the question of the
reasonable necessity for the refusal by the carrier to undertake the transportation of this class of
merchandise.

2) Equitable Leasing Corporation vs. Lucita Suyom, Marissa Enano, MyrnaTamayo and
Felix Oledan
[G.R. No. 143360, 5 September 2002, 388 SCRA 445]
Facts:
A tractor driven by Raul Tutor rammed into a house-cum-store in Tondo, Manila. Part of the house
was destroyed. Two people died andfour were injured. Tutor was convicted of reckless
imprudenceresulting in multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries.Verification with the Land
Transportation Office revealed that the registeredowner of the tractor was Equitable Leasing
Corporation who leased itto Edwin Lim. The relatives of the victims filed a civil case for damages.

The Regional Trial Court ruled against Equitable and ordered it to paydamages to the victims
relatives.Upon Equitables appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained the RTC. Equitablefiled a petition
for review with the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether Equitable Leasing is liable for damages
Held/Ratio:
-Yes, Equitable Leasing is liable. The petition is denied and the CAdecision is affirmed.As the
registered owner of the tractor, Equitable Leasing is liable for the actsof Raul Tutor even if he was
actually the employee of Equitablesformer lessee, Ecatine Corporation, who became the actual
owner of the tractor by virtue of a deed of sale not registered with the LTO.Regardless of sales made
of a motor vehicle, the registered owner is thelawful operator insofar as the public and third persons
are concerned;consequently, it is directly and primarily responsible for theconsequences of its
operation. In the eyes of the law, theowner/operator of record is the employer of the driver, the
actualowner/operator being considered as merely the agent of the registeredowner/operator. The
principle applies even if the registered owner of any vehicle does not use it for public service. The
main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or
any damage or injury is caused by thevehicle, responsibility can be fixed on a definite individual,
theregistered owner.Failure to register the deed of sale should not prejudice victims, who havethe
right to rely on the principle that the registered owner is liable fordamages caused by the
negligence of the driver.Equitable Leasing cant hide behind the allegation that Tutor was
EcatineCorps employee, because it will prevent victims from recovering their loss on the basis of
Equitables inaction in failing to register the sale. The non-registration is Equitables fault, which
should face the legal consequences thereof.
3) Duavit vs. CA, Sarmiento & Catuar
G.R. No. 82318 May 18, 1989
Facts:
Private respondents were on board a jeep when they met an accident with another jeep driven by
Sabiniano. This accident caused injuries to private respondents, thus they filed a case for damages
against driver Salbiniano and owner of the jeep Duavit. Duavit admits ownership of the jeep but
contends that he should not be held liable since Salbiniano is not his employee and that the jeep
was taken by Salbiniano without his (Duavit) consent.
Issue: Whether or not the owner of a private vehicle which figured in an accident can be held liable
as an employer when the said vehicle was neither driven by an employee of the owner nor taken
with his consent.
Held: No, an owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the said vehicle if the
same was driven without his consent or knowledge and by a person not employed by him.
To hold the petitioner liable for the accident caused by the negligence of Sabiniano who was neither
his driver nor employee would be absurd as it would be like holding liable the owner of a stolen
vehicle for an accident caused by the person who stole such vehicle.