Torres Madrid Brokerage Inc. vs Feb Mitsui and BMT Facts: Sony engaged the services of Torres Madrid Brokerage (TMBI) to facilitate, rocess, !ithdra!, and deliver the shi"ent of various electronic goods fro" Thailand at the ort to its !arehouse in Bi#an, $aguna. TMBI subcontracted the services of Ben%a"in Manalastas& co"any, BMT Trucking services (BMT) to transort the shi"ent as they do not o!n any delivery trucks. TMBI no'ed Sony and had no ob%ec'ons of the arrange"ent. BMT trucks icked u the shi"ent fro" the ort on *ct. +, --- but due to the truck ban they could not undertake delivery i""ediately and bec the . /ay !as Sunday. BMT scheduled delivery on *ct. 0 ---. *ctober 0 early "orning ho!ever, ho!ever, only 1 trucks arrived at th Sony&s Sony&s Bi#an !arehouse. The truck !as seen abandoned along /iversion 2oad in Filinvest, Filinvest, 3labang, Mun'nlua 4ity at 5noon !herein both the driver 2ufo $aesura and the shi"ents !ere "issing. 6ictor Torres, TMBI&s general "anager, led !ith 7BI against $aesura for&hi%acking& TMBI no'ed Sony of the loss and sent BMT a le8er de"anding ay"ent for the lost shi"ent. BMT refused so insis'ng the goods !ere 9hi%acked,&. S*7 led an insurance clai" !ith the Mitsui, the insurer of goods. Mitsui aid Sony ;+,01,1<=.1. 3>er being subrogated subrogated to Sony&s rights, Mitsui sent TMBI a de"and le8er for ay"ent of the lost goods. TMBI refused to ay. Mitsui then led a co"laint against TMBI. TMBI i"leaded BMT as a 1 rd arty defendant, alleging BMT&s driver resonsible and clai"ed BMT&s BMT&s negligence as the ro?i"ate ro?i"ate cause. TMBI rayed that in te event it is held liable to Mitsui, it should be rei"bursed by BMT. 2T4 found BMT and TMBI %ointly and solidarily liable. That they have been doing business since early <-&s and the sa"e incident haened on Sony&s cargo cargo in 500+ but neither sony nor its insurer led a co"laint. BMT 37/ TMBI aealed. TMBI denied that it !as a co""on carrier re@uired to e?ercise e?traordinary e?traordinary diligence and that 9hi%ack& is a fortuitous event. BMT clai"ed that it e?ercised e?ercised e?traordinary e?traordinary diligence and ye loss result fro" a forfuitous event. Issue: 5. A*7 TMBI TMBI is a co""on co""on carrier carrier engaged engaged in the business business of transo transor'ng r'ng goods goods for the general ublic for a fee . A*7 TMBI TMBI and and BMT are solidarily solidarily liabl liable e to MITS MITSII 1. A*7 BMT is direct directly ly liable liable to to Sony Sony or Mitsui Mitsui . A*7 BMT BMT is liable liable to TMBI TMBI for for breach breach of their their contra contract ct of carriag carriage e 2uling: 5.3 brokerage brokerage "ay be considered a co""on carrier if it also undertakes undertakes to deliver the goods for its custo"ers. 4o""on carriers are ersons, corora'ons, r"s or associa'ons engaged in the business of transor'ng assengers or goods or both, by land, !ater, or air, for co"ensa'on, oering their services to the ublic. They are bound to observe e?traordinary
diligence for reasons of ublic olicy in the vigilance over the goods and in rhe safety of their assengers. The la! does not disringuish bet!een one !hose rincial business ac'vity is the carrying of goods and one !ho undertakes this task only as an ancillary ac'vity.TMBI&s delivery of the goods is an integral, albeit ancillary, art of its brokerage services. 3s long as an en'ty holds itself to the ublic for the transort of goods as a business, it os considered a co""on carrier regardless of !hether it o!ns a vehicle or has actually to hire one. 4onse@uently, as in the case of the> or robbery of goods,, a co""on carrier is resu"ed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it can rove that it observed e?traordinary diligence. 3nd that a robbery a8ended by grave or irresistble threat, violence or force is a fortuitous event that absolves the co""on carrier fro" liability. In the resent case, desite the subcontract, TMBI re"ained resonsible for the cargo. nder 3r'cle 5+=1, a co""on carrier&s e?traordinary resonsibility lasts fro" the '"e these goods are uncondi'onally laced in the ossession of, and received by the carrier for transorta'on, un'l they are delivered, actually or construc'vely, by the carrier to the consignee.TMBI si"ly argued that it !as not a co""on carrier bound to observe e?traordinary diligence. Its failure to successfully establish this re"ise carries !ith it the resu"'on of fault thus rendering it liably to Sony or Mitsui for breach of contract .7*. TMBI&s liability to Mitsui does not ste" fro" a @uasi delict but fro" its breach of contract. Th e 'e that binds TMBI !ith Mitsui is contractual, albeit one that oassed on to Mitsui as a result of TMBI&s contract of carriage !ith Sony to !hich Mitsui had been subrogated as an insurer. The legal reality that results fro" this contractual 'e recludes the alica'on of @uasiC delict 1.7o. There is no direct contractual rela'onshi e?isted bet!een SonyDMitsui. Mitsui did not even sue BMT, "uch less rove any negligence on its art. There is no basis to directly hold BMT $iable to Mitsui for @uasiCdelict .ES. By subcontrac'ng the delivery, TMBI entered into its o!nc contract of carriage !ith a fello! co""on carrier. The cargo !as lost a>er is transfer to BMT&s custody based on its contract !ith TMBI. Follo!ing 3r'cle 5+1, BMT Is resu"ed to be at fault.Since BMT failed to rovethat it observed e?traordinary diligence, it is liable to TMBI for breach of their contract of carriage TMBI is liable to SonyDMitsui for breaching the contract of carriage. In turn, TMBI is en'tled to rei"burse"ent fro" BMT due to the la8er&s !on breach of its contract of carriage !ith TMBI
