2015 Mercantile Law, Q3

A. Discuss the three-fold character of a bill of lading. (3%)
B. What is a “Jason clause” in a charter party? (2%)
C. Are common carriers liable for injuries to passengers even if they have observed ordinary diligence and care? Explain. (2%)

Quick check

What are the three distinct legal characters of a bill of lading under Philippine commercial law?

What is the primary purpose of a 'Jason clause' in a charter party agreement?

What degree of diligence is legally required of common carriers for the safety of passengers under Article 1755 of the Civil Code?

Is a common carrier liable for passenger injuries if it observed only ordinary diligence?

Which primary statute governs common carrier liabilities, passenger safety, and extraordinary diligence in the Philippines?

Learn more about these topics

1. Bill of Lading
Under Philippine maritime law and commercial jurisprudence, a bill of lading exhibits a three-fold character: it serves as a receipt for the goods shipped, a contract of carriage between the shipper and the carrier, and a document of title transferring constructive possession or ownership of the merchandise. As a contract, its terms bind the shipper and carrier upon acceptance. As a document of title, its negotiation or transfer conveys title over the goods described therein to the lawful holder.

2. Jason Clause Function
Under maritime law and charter party practice, a Jason clause is a contractual provision in a charter party or bill of lading that entitles the shipowner to claim general average contributions from cargo owners even when the general average loss or damage resulted from the master's or crew's negligence or faulty navigation. To enforce a Jason clause, the shipowner must prove that due diligence was exercised before and at the commencement of the voyage to make the vessel seaworthy in all respects.

3. Extraordinary Diligence Standard
Under Article 1755 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, a common carrier is bound to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. Consequently, a common carrier remains liable for passenger injuries even if it observed ordinary diligence and care. Observing mere ordinary care does not satisfy the statutory mandate of extraordinary diligence required of common carriers in passenger transportation.

About these questions and answers
The questions reproduced here are the official texts of the Philippine Bar Examinations, published by the Supreme Court. They are reproduced for study purposes.The suggested answers are the author’s own.

They are not official answers, have no connection with the Supreme Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, or any bar review institution, and are not endorsed by any of them. Official answer keys, where released, should be preferred over anything here.Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it creates no lawyer-client relationship. Do not rely on any suggested answer in an actual legal matter. Consult counsel on your own facts.Suggested answers reflect the law and jurisprudence the author considers applicable as of the date shown.

Where a question comes from an earlier examination, the suggested answer applies the law as it now stands, which may differ from the law in force when the question was given, and may therefore differ from what would have been the correct answer at that time. Where the difference is material, the answer notes it.The practice scoring feature measures wording overlap with the suggested answer. It is not a grade, carries no official weight, and says nothing about whether your reasoning is sound.Errors are possible. If you find one, please tell me and I will correct it.Last reviewed: October 2026