Fireman's v Metro Digest

II. DEGREE OF DILIGENCE REQUIRED FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO vs METRO PORT SERVICES FACTS:

Vulca ulcan n Indu Indust stri rial al and and Mini Mining ng Corp Corpor orat atio ion n impo import rted ed from from the the Unit United ed Stat States es seve severa rall machineries machineries and equipment which were loaded on board the SIS Albert Maersk at the port of  Philadelphia U!S!A! and transhipped for Manila through the vessel S"S Maersk #empo!  #he shipment arrived at the port of Manila on $une % &'(' and was turned over complete and in good order condition to the arrastre operator )! *a+on Inc! ,now Metro Port Service Inc! and referred to as the A**AS#*)-! A tractor operator named .anilo /ibrando and emplo0ed b0 the A**AS#*) was ordered to transfer the shipment to the )quipment 1ard 1ard at Pier %! 2hile /ibrando was maneuvering the tractor ,owned and provided b0 Maersk /ine- to the left the cargo fell from the chassis and hit one of the container vans of American President President /ines! It was discovered discovered that there were no twist lock at the rear end of the chassis where the cargo was loaded! An Insurance was claimed b0 Vulcan Industrial in turn the petitioner insurance compan0 demanded recover0 from Maerks /ine! #he trial court ruled that Maerks and Metro Port be held solidaril0 liable! 3n appeal b0 Metro Port the Court of Appeals reversed reversed ruling that it is onl0 Maerks that is liable! ISSUE:

234 Maerks and Metro Port e5ercised the proper degree of diligence! 234 Maerks and Metro Port be held liable solidarit0! RULING:

Maerks and Metro port did not exercise the proper diligence. In general the nature of the work of an arrastre operator covers the handling of cargoes at piers and wharves! #he A**AS#*) is required to provide cargo handling equipment which includes among others trailers chassis for containers! In some cases however the shipping line has its own cargo handling equipment! In this case Maerks provide for the chassis and tractors and merel0 requested the arrastre ,Metr ,Metroo- to dis dispat patch ch a tracto tractorr opera operator tor!! A**AS# A**AS#*) *) which which had had the sole sole dis discr creti etion on and and prerogative to hire and assign /ibrando to operate the tractor! It was also the A**AS#*)6s sole decision to detail and deplo0 /ibrando for the particular task from among its pool of  tractor operators or drivers! Since the A**AS#*) o7ered its drivers for the operation of  tractors in the handling of cargo and equipment then the A**AS#*) should see to it that the drivers under its emplo0 must e5ercise due diligence in the performance of their work!  #he testimonies are appreciated and the court held that Maerks is at fault in not no t providing twist locks on the chassis and Metro is also at fault for /ibrando8s negligence negligence in not checking that the cargo is securel0 loaded on the chassis! Both the arrastre and the carrier are charged with and obligated to deliver the goods in good condition to the consignee.  #he legal relationship between the consignee and the arrastre arrastre operator is akin to that of a depositor and warehouseman ,/ua 9ian v! Manila *ailroad Co! &' SC*A : ;&'<(=-! #he relat relation ionshi ship p betwe between en the consigne consignee e and the common common carr carrier ier is simila similarr to that that of the consignee and the arrastre operator ,4orthern Motors Inc! v! Prince /ine et al! &>( Phil! ?:% ;&'<>=-! Since it is the dut0 of the A**AS#*) to take good care of the goods that are in its custod0 and to deliver them in good condition to the consignee such responsibilit0 also

devolves upon the CA**I)*! @oth the A**AS#*) and the CA**I)* are therefore charged with and obligated to deliver the goods in good condition to the consignee!