Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Transpo - Week 6 - Definition & nature of a transport franchise -…

- - - - D. Scope of a Franchise
        
        E. Prior-Operator Rule
        
        F. Kabit System
        
        G. Private Nature; Rights and Obligations of Parties Inter Se Arising from Transactions Relating to Transportation
        
        • Lara v. Valencia, 104, Phil 65
        • PCI Leasing v. UCPB General Insurance, 557 SCRA 141 (G.R. No. 162267)
        • MMTC v Cuevas, G.R. No. 167797, 15 June 2015
        • Caravan Travel and Tours v Abejar, G.R. No 170631, 10 February 2016
        
        Liability of a Registered Owner - such owner of a vehicle involved in a vehicular accident could be held liable for the consequences. There need not be a finding of an employer-employee relationship. It is sufficient that the identity of the registered owner of the motor vehicle causing damage be established.
        
        Absent a Transportation Contract - If not a common carrier, only expected reasonable or ordinary care. If under a transport contract and considered a common carrier, then extraordinary diligence.
        
        • Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. Second Civil Cases Division, 129 SCRA 79
        • Teja v. IAC, 148 SCRA 347
        • Santos vs. Sibug, 104 SCRA 520
        • Baliwag Transit, Inc. v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-57493, January 7, 1987
        • Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 125817, January 16, 2002
        
        Definition - An arrangement whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of public convenience allows other persons who own motor vehicles to operate them under his license, sometimes for a fee or percentage of the earnings.
        
        Status (Lim v. CA) - Although the parties to such an agreement are not outrightly penalized by law, the kabit system is invariably recognized as being contrary to public policy and therefore VOID AND INEXISTENT under NCC 1409
        
        • Batangas Transportation v. Orlanes, 52 Phil 445
        
        Definition - So long as an operator under a prior license complies with the terms and conditions of his license and reasonable rules and regulation for its operation and meets the reasonable demands of the public, it is the duty of the Commission to protect rather than to destroy his investment by the granting of a subsequent license to another for the same thing over the same route of travel. The granting of such a license does not serve its convenience or promote the interests of the public.
        
        • San Pablo v. PANTRANCO, 153 SCRA 199
        
        Incidental Services - If a land transportation company operates motorboat service in connection with its transportation services as a private ferry service, then it may be authorized to operate a ferry service along its authorized route as an incident to its franchise without the need of filing a separate application for the same.
        
        Non-Incidental Services - However, if a land transportation company operates motorboat service in connection with its transpo services as a coastwise or inter-island service, then it should secure a separate CPC for the operation of an interisland or coastwise shipping service in accordance with the provisions of law. Its CPC as a bus transportation cannot be merely amended to include this water service under the guise that it is a mere private ferry service.
        
        Ferry vs Interisland Shipping (San Pablo v. PANTRANCO)
        
        Ferry Services - a continuation of the highway from one side of the water over which passes to the other side for transportation of passengers or of travellers with their teams vehicles and such other property as, they may carry or have with them. The term necessarily implies transportation for a short distance, almost invariably between two points, which is unrelated to other transportation. It may either be a public or private ferry service.
        
        Coastwise/Inter-Island Service - a steamboat or motorboat service between the different islands, involving more or less great distance and over more or less turbulent and dangerous waters of the open sea.
      - • Raymundo v. Luneta Motor, 58 Phil 889
        • Cogeo-Cubao Operator & Driver Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100727, March 18, 1992
        • 1-Utak v. COMELEC, supra
      - Private Property - Being a private right/property, this can be subject to the relevant regulations for public good.
        
        Freedom of Expression - However, freedom of expression through the posting of election campaign materials does not affect considerations pertinent to the operations of the PUV.
        
        Sir says arguable constitutional exception/limitation to freedom of expression for election cases. But, 1-utak case says comelec power to regulate subservient to freedom of expression. 1-UTAK qualified that COMELEC power extends to franchises, and not the properties owned by the franchise owners (Tatad v. Garcia)
  - - - Nature of a CPC - Considered as private property that can be subject to execution or sale, subject to approval of the relevant agencies.
- - - - A2. Land
        
        A3. Water - Maritime Law is “that system of law which particularly relates to marine commerce and navigation, to business transacted at sea or relating to navigation, to ships and shipping, to seamen, to the transportation of persons and property by sea and to marine affairs generally”
        
        Regulatory Bodies
        
        Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) - Aids in the promotion and development of the maritime industry, and the growth and regulation of shipping enterprises. It issues CPCs for the operation of domestic and overseas water carriers. It can also register vessels and issue licenses therefor. It issues licenses to qualified seafarers, harbor, bay, and river pilots.
        
        Maritime Laws - Primarily governed by the NCC provisions on common carriers. However, the following apply suppletorily.
        
        Book III of the Code of Commerce (Maritime Commerce)
        
        Act No. 2616 (Salvage Law)
        
        Commonwealth Act No. 65 (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act)
        
        Presidential Decree No. 1521 (Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978)
        
        Other special laws relating to Maritime Commerce
        
        Pursuant to the policy of deregulation of the domestic shipping industry, RA 9295 provides that domestic ship operators have the right to fix their passenger and cargo rates.
        
        D. Water Transport
        
        Maritime Industry Authority, EO 125, Sec. 14, as amended by EO 125-A, Sec. 4; R.A. 9295, Secs. 9, 10 and 11; R.A. 10653, Sec. 4.
        
        Pipeline - A pipeline is a common carrier.
        Q. Congress passess laws - Transport network companies/uber grab classifying them as common carriers, sufficient to categorize them as common carriers?
        
        A. Sir's says no constitutional definition of public utility, congress free to write this. But, conflict with jurisprudence wherein w/n a service is a public utility.
        
        Travel Agency (Crisostomo v. CA) - Not a common carrier. Mere agent of an airline,w here the airline is the common carrier.
        
        Customs Broker (Schmitz) - that as the transportation of goods is an integral part of a customs broker, the customs broker is also a common carrier. Because broker has responsibility to transport from shipside
        
        1 more item...
        
        Definitions, Essential Elements
        a. U.S. v. Tan Piaco, 40 Phil 853
        b. Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship, G.R. No. L-25599, 4 April 1968
        c. De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47822, 22 December 1988
        d. Bascos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101089, 7 April 1993
        e. Planters Products Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101503, 15 September 1993
        f. Fabre v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111127, 26 July 1996
        g. LTFRB v. Hon. Valenzuela, G.R. No. 242860, 11 March 2019
        
        “Uncommon” Carriers
        a. First Philippine Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 125948, Dec 29, 1998
        b. Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138334, Aug. 25, 2003
        c. MINTERBRO v. Phoenix Assurance, G.R. No. 162467, 8 May 2009
        d. Cruz v. Sun Holidays, G.R. No. 186312, June 29, 2010
        e. Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v Transport Venture, Inc., G.R. No. 150255, 22 April 2005
        f. Heirs of Mendoza v. ES Trucking, G.R. No. 243237, 17 February 2020
        g. Teodoro v Nicolas, G.R. No. 157917, 29 August 2012
        h. Asia Lighterage and Shipping v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147246, 19 August 2003
        i. Commissioner of Customs v. Gold Mark, G.R. No. 208318, 30 June 2021
        j. Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 072821 NYSDC, 20-cv-8446 (LJL), 28 July 2021
        
        Planters - Reversed the home insurance ruling.
        
        GR - Rule in the US no longer applicable re: charter parties. Chartered parties still considered as common carriers, despite the existence of a charter party.
        
        XCPN - If charter includes both vessel and the crew or bareboat charter. If so, bareboat charters are not common carriers.
        
        Gold Mark - Sir noted maybe incosistent with Planters wherein chartered vessel not considered as common carrier under the Tariff and Customs Code. Forfeiture if Common Carrier AND not chartered or leased.
        
        Reconciliation - Introduction of another element particular to forfeiture and customs cases. Not rewriting of existing rules under the Civil Code.
        
        Regulatory Bodies
        
        Land Transportation Office (LTO) - Line office of the DOTr. Issues driver's licenses and handles motor vehicle registration.
        
        Land transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) - promulgates, administers, implements, and enforces rules and regulations on land transport public utilities. Has the authority to set fares for public transport, issue CPCs or permits to authorize the operation of public land transportation services.
        
        Delegation of Power to Set Fares (KMU Labor v. Garcia) - The freedom given by the LTFRB to the bus operators to use their own scheme is an undue delegation of legislative authority. In the first place, it was the Congress who delegated the power to LTFRB such regulatory powers. Thus, the doctrine of Potestas delefata non delegari potest shall apply here.
        
        C. Land Transport
        
        LTO, EO 125-A, Secs. 9, 11, 13(a); Administrative Code of 1987, Title XV, Sec. 9(1)
        
        LTFRB, EO 202, Secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7;
        
        Administrative Code of 1987, Title XV, Secs. 15-22
        
        KMU Labor Center v. Garcia, supra
      - Regulatory Bodies
        
        CAAP - Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines; an independent and regulatory body with corporate attributes attached to the DOTr for purpose of policy coordination. Promulgates rules and regulations as may be necessary in the interest of safety in air commerce and has the power to issue airman's certificates and licenses for aircrafts.
        
        CAB (PAL v. CAB) - Civil Aeronautics Board, regulates the economic aspect of air transportation and has the authority to issue CPCNs and Tremporary Operating Permits.
        
        Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) – is a permit issued by the Board authorizing a domestic person or entity (60/40 equity) to engage in international and/or domestic, scheduled and/or non-scheduled air transportation services. A grantee of a CPCN may operate even without a legislative franchise. This is because RA 776 delegates the authority of Congress to the CAB.
      - B. Air Transport
        
        Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, R.A. 9497 (2008) Secs. 4, 21,24, 24, 35
        
        Civil Aeronautics Board, R.A. 776, as amended, Secs. 5, 10 (A), (C); Secs. 11, 12
        
        Kuwait Airways v. PAL, supra
    - - Sir mentioned dissent in this case
      - A. The Department of Transportation (DOTr, formerly DOTC)
        
        EO 125, Sec. 4 and 5 (as amended by EO 125-A and Rep. Act. 10844, Sec. 15);
        
        EO 292 Book IV, Title XV
        
        Mirasol v. DPWH, G.R. No. 158793, June 8, 2006
        
        MMDA v Viron Transport, Inc., G.R. No. 170656, August 15, 2007