2E TRANSPORTATION LAW LAW
CASE DIGESTS PROFESSOR: Atty. Randolph Pascasio TOPIC: D!inition " P#s$%ption o! N&li&nc 'O(EWOR) FOR: *$ly +,- 2,/- F#iday
TA0LE TA0LE OF CONTENTS
Page | 1
I. CONCEPT OF CO((ON CARRIER ,. D!inition
1. De Guzman v. CA,
2. Cha#act#istics
2. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Co., .................................................................................. 4 3. US v. uinahon, ........................................................................................................... ! 4. "oa#star Shipping Co., $nc. v. CA, ................................................................................ % !. First &hi'. $n#ustria' v. CA %. (irgines Ca'vo v. UC&) Genera' $nsurance Co., *. &hi'ippine American Genera' $nsurance Co. v. &+S Shipping Co., . Asia "ighterage an# Shipping, $nc. v. Court o- Appea's, et a'., . Spouses Cruz v. Sun /o'i#a0s, $nc
+. Distin&$ishd !#o% P#i1at Ca##i#
1. /ome $nsurance Co. v. American American Steamship ................... ............................. .................... .................... .................... .............. .... 11. San &a'o v. &antranco .................................................................................................... 12. ationa' Stee' Corp. v. CA, 13. &'anters &ro#ucts $nc. v. CA, ..................................................................................... 1
. Go1#n%nt R&$lation o! Co%%on Ca##i#3s 0$sinss
14. +U "aor Center v. Garcia, 5r., ................................................................................ 12 1!. 6ata# v. Garcia, 5r., ................................................................................................... 14
/. Go1#nin& La4
1%. Samar ining Co., $nc. v. or#eutscher "'o0#, .................... ............................. .................... .................... ................... ............ 1!
1*, 7astern Shipping "ines v. $AC..................................................................................... 1% 1. ationa' Deve'opment Co. v. Court o- Appea's, ................................................................ 1%
Page | 2
I. CONCEPT OF CO((ON CARRIER ,. D!inition
1. De Guzman v. CA,
2. Cha#act#istics
2. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Co., .................................................................................. 4 3. US v. uinahon, ........................................................................................................... ! 4. "oa#star Shipping Co., $nc. v. CA, ................................................................................ % !. First &hi'. $n#ustria' v. CA %. (irgines Ca'vo v. UC&) Genera' $nsurance Co., *. &hi'ippine American Genera' $nsurance Co. v. &+S Shipping Co., . Asia "ighterage an# Shipping, $nc. v. Court o- Appea's, et a'., . Spouses Cruz v. Sun /o'i#a0s, $nc
+. Distin&$ishd !#o% P#i1at Ca##i#
1. /ome $nsurance Co. v. American American Steamship ................... ............................. .................... .................... .................... .............. .... 11. San &a'o v. &antranco .................................................................................................... 12. ationa' Stee' Corp. v. CA, 13. &'anters &ro#ucts $nc. v. CA, ..................................................................................... 1
. Go1#n%nt R&$lation o! Co%%on Ca##i#3s 0$sinss
14. +U "aor Center v. Garcia, 5r., ................................................................................ 12 1!. 6ata# v. Garcia, 5r., ................................................................................................... 14
/. Go1#nin& La4
1%. Samar ining Co., $nc. v. or#eutscher "'o0#, .................... ............................. .................... .................... ................... ............ 1!
1*, 7astern Shipping "ines v. $AC..................................................................................... 1% 1. ationa' Deve'opment Co. v. Court o- Appea's, ................................................................ 1%
Page | 2
a. 5R&ist#d O4n# R$l6
1. Ge'isan v. A'#a0, ........................................................................................................ 1 2. )ene#icto v. $AC, ....................................................................................................... 1 21. &hi'tranco Service 7nterprises, $nc. v. CA .................................................................... 2 22. 78uita'e "easing Corporation v. "ucita Su0on, et a'., .................................................. 22 7. )a7it Syst%
23. Santos vs. Siug................................................................................................................. 23 24. "ita 7nterprises, $nc. vs. CA......................................................................................... 2! 2!. 6e9a ar:eting vs. $AC........................................................................................................ 2%
c. 0o$nda#y Syst%
2%. agoo vs. )ernar#o.......................................................................................................... 2* .
II. TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS
,. E8t# E8t#ao ao#d #din ina# a#y y Dili Dili& &nc nc
2*. 7astern Shipping v. Court o- Appea's ................................................................................ 2 2. De'san 6ransport 6ransport v. v. Court o- Appea's....................... Appea's....... ............................... ............................. .............................. ............................ ............ 2 2. &hi'ippine Charter $nsurance Corp. v. Un:no;n <;ner o- (esse' =( >ationa' /onor?, ationa' Shipping Corp. an# $nternationa' Container Services, $nc., ....................................... 3 3. Sa'u#o v. Court o- Appea's,................................................................................................ 32 31. "orenzo Shipping v. )5 arthe',. ....................................................................................... 33 32. Sea'oa#er Shipping v. Gran# Cement anu-acturing......................................................... 3! 2. P#s$% P#s$%pt ptio ion n o! N&li& N&li&nc nc
33. De'san 6ransport v. American /ome ..................................................................................3* 34. De'san 6ransport "ines v. CA @..........................................................................................3 3!. aers: "ines v. Court o- Appea's. ...................................................................................... 3 3%. FGU $nsurance v. Court o- Appea's, 3*. DSBSenator v. Fe#era' ...................................................................................................... 4 3. &hi'amgen v. Court o- Appea's............................................................................. @@@@. 41 3. )e'gian
Page | 3
I. CONCEPT OF CO((ON CARRIER ,. D!inition
1. De Guzman v. CA, G.. o. "B4*22, 22 Decemer 1 2. Cha#act#istics
2. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Co., G.. o. "B! 31 arch 11! CASE 2 F.C. Fish# 1. 9an&co Sta%ship Co. FACTS:
6he #irectors o- Yangco Steamship Steamship Compan0 a#opte# a reso'ution that #ec'ares an# provi#es that goo#s that are to e carrie# 0 their vesse's sha'' not inc'u#e #0namite, po;#er or other ep'osives. 5.S Stan'e0, Stan'e0, acting co''ector co''ector genera' o- the &hi'ippine &hi'ippine $s'an#s $s'an#s ho;ever ho;ever #eman#e# #eman#e# an# re8uire# re8uire# the compan0 to accept an# carr0 such ep'osives -or carriage. 6hat #espite the #eman#s o- FC Fisher, other managers an# agents o- the compan0 #ec'ine# an# re-use to cease the carriage o- ep'osives on the groun# that 0 reason o- the severit0 o- the pena'ties ;ith ;hich the0 are threatene# upon -ai'ure to carr0 such ep'osives. FC Fisher conten#s -urther that the Acting Co''ector o- Customs erroneous'0 construe# the provisions o- Act in ho'#ing that the0 re8uire the compan0 to accept an# carr0 such ep'osives #espite the reso'ution. Act o. Sec. 2 provi#es p rovi#es that it sha'' e un'a;-u' -or common carrier engage# in the transportation o- passenger o- propert0 to ma:e or give unnecessar0 or unreasona'e pre-erence or a#vantage to an0 particu'ar person, compan0, -irm, corporation or 'oca'it0, or an0 particu'ar tra--ic in an0 respect ;hatsoever, or to su9ect an0 person to an0 un#ue an# unreasona'e pre9u#ice or #iscrimination. Fisher pra0s that a ;rit o- prohiition restraining Yangco Steamship Compan0 -rom carr0ing #0namite, po;#er or other ep'osive sustance in accor#ance ;ith the reso'ution o- the oar# o- #irectors an# o- shareho'#ers o- sai# compan0 an# that another ;rit o- prohiition e issue# to en9oin Stan'e0 -rom o'igating Yangco Yangco to carr0 such prohiite# sustances. ISSE:
a0 Yangco Steamship Compan0 e prohiite# -rom carr0ing #0namite, po;#er or other ep'osives pursuant to the reso'ution a#opte# 0 the #irectors o- the compan0. An# i- such prohiition sha'' cause unnecessar0 or unreasona'e a#vantage or pre-erence. RLING:
6he sai# provision ;hich provi#es that no common carrier sha'' un#er the pretense ;hatsoever, -ai' or re-use to receive -or carriage an0 person or propert0 is not to e construe# in its 'itera' sense an# ;ithout regar# to the contet, so as to impose an imperative #ut0 to a'' common carriers to accept an# carr0 a'' an# an0 :in# o- -reight ;hich ma0 e o--ere# -or carriage ;ithout regar# to their -aci'ities. 6he statute more so #oes not re8uire o- a common carrier, as a con#ition to the continuing in sai# usiness, that he must carr0 an0thing an# ever0thing?, an# there0 >ren#ers use'ess the -aci'ities she ma0 have -or the carriage o- certain t0pes o- -reight. 6he pra0er -or petition cannot e grante#. $t cannot e #outer that the re-usa' o- the sai# compan0, o;ner o- a 'arge numer o- vesse's engage# in tra#e to receive -or carriage such ep'osives in
Page | 4
an0 o- their vesse's ;ou'# su9ect the tra--ic o- such goo#s to mani-est pre9u#ice an# #iscrimination. Such pre9u#ice an# #iscrimination eing unnecessar0 an# unreasona'e given the -act that it has not een a''ege# that >#0namite, gunpo;#er, an# other ep'osives? cannot e transporte# ;ith reasona'e sa-et0 on oar# a vesse' engage# in the usiness o- common carriers. Further, it has not een a''ege# that the compan0Es vesse's are unsoun# -or such purposes. 6he mere -act that vio'ent an# #estruct can e otaine# 0 the use o- #0namite ;ou'# not e su--icient in itse'- to 9usti-0 the re-usa' o- the vesse', #u'0 'icense# as common carrier o- merchan#ise to accept i- -or carriage. $- it cannot e proven that the con#ition ;hich it is to e transporte# o--ers rea' #anger to the carriage or that there e reasona'e -ear that the vesse' ;i'' e epose# to unnecessar0 ris:s then such re-usa' is a vio'ation o- the prohiition against #iscrimination #iscrimination prohiite# 0 the Act. 3. US v. uinahon, 31 &hi' 1 11! CASE + .S. 1. ;$ina
De-en#ants &ascua' uina9on an# 7ugenio uitoriano have een engage# -or more than -our 0ears in the transportation transportation oo- passengers passengers an# merchan#ise merchan#ise in the port o- Currimao mao 0 means means o- vira0es. vira0es. 6he0, 6he0,0 mea m eans ns o- thei th eirr vira0es an# emp'o0ees, un'oa#e# !,% sac:s o- rice e'onging to the provincia' government o- $'ocos orte -rom ani'a an# #eman#e# #eman#e # -rom - rom the t he provincia' provincia ' treasurer tre asurer -or the un'oa#ing un'oa#in g o- each each one one 1 cent centav avos os ;hich amounte# to &!.%. 6he prosecuting attorne0 o- the &rovince o- $'ocos orte -i'e# a comp'aint against the #e-en#ants stating that the provincia' government o- $'ocos orte su--ere# #amage# in the sum o- 3!.1%, inasmuch as it shou'# have pai# on'0 23.44, in accor#ance ;ith the sai# norma' rate o- % centavos -or each pac:age. 6he provincia' -isca' presente# ;itnesses to prove that #e-en#ants entere# into a specia' contract ;ith certain merchants, un#er an# 0 virtue o- the terms o- ;hich the0 charge# an# co''ecte#, -or 'oa#ing merchan#ise in sai# port, the sum o- % centavos -or each pac:age, ;ithout re-erence to its size or ;eight. DeDe -en#a en #ant nts s ;ere charge# charge# o- vio'ating o'atingAct o. o. o- the the Civi' Commission. Commission. Sai# Act o. is HAn Act to regu'ate commerce in the &hi'ippine $s'an#s.H Its purpose, so far as it is possible, is to compel common carriers to render to all persons exactly the same or analogous service for exactly the same price, to the end that there may be no unjust advantage or unreasonable discrimination. discrimination. It applies to persons or corporation engaged as common carriers of passengers or property. A common carrier is a person or corporation corporation whose regular business business is to carry passengers passengers or property for for all persons who may choose to employ and remunerate him. A common carrier is a person or corporation who undertakes to carry goods or persons for hire.
6he 6h e appe''ants appe''ants a#mit that that the0 are are common carriers. carriers. 6he0 ;ere ;ere -oun# gui't0 gui't0 an# sentence# sentence# to pa0 a -ine ne oo - &2 &2 an# an # costs, an# to return to the provincia' government o- the &rovince o- $'ocos orte the sum o- &3!.1%. From that sentence each o- the #e-en#ants appea'e# to this court. Iss$:
hether or not the #e-en#ants an# appe''ants have vio'ate# Act o. .
Page | 5
RLING: 9ES.
$t ;i'' e note# that the 'a; re8uires common carriers to carr0 -or a'' persons, either passengers or propert0, -or eact'0 the same charge -or a 'i:e or contemporaneous service in the transportation o- 'i:e :in# o- tra--ic un#er sustantia''0 simi'ar circumstances or con#itions. 6he 'a; prohiits common carriers -rom su9ecting an0 person, etc., or 'oca'it0, or an0 particu'ar :in# o- tra--ic, to an0 un#ue or unreasona'e pre9u#ice or #iscrimination ;hatsoever. 6he 'a; #oes not re8uire that the same charge sha'' e ma#e -or the carr0ing o- passengers or propert0, un'ess a'' the con#itions are a'i:e an# contemporaneous. $t is not e'ieve# that the 'a; prohiits the charging o- a #i--erent rate -or the carr0ing o- passengers or propert0 ;hen the actua' cost o- han#'ing an# transporting the same is #i--erent. it is not e'ieve# that the 'a; inten#e# to re8uire common carriers to carr0 the same :in# o- merchan#ise, even at the same price, un#er #i--erent an# un'i:e con#itions an# ;here the actua' cost is #i--erent. 4. "oa#star Shipping Co., $nc. v. CA, G.. o. 131%21, 2 Septemer 1 CASE Loadsta# Shippin& Co#po#ation Inc. 1s Co$#t o! Appals GR No ,+,=2, FACTS:
1 ovemer 14, "oa#star Shipping Corporation $nc. receive# on oar# its =( Chero:ee vesse' herein is insure# 0 &ru#entia' Guarantee an# Assurance, $nc. &GA$ a *! a'es o- 'a;anit har#;oo#, 2* oes an# crates o- ti'e;oo# assem'ies an# othersI an# c 4 un#'es o- mou'#ings J 3 Apitong )o'i#enize# -or shipping, a'' amounting to &%,%*,1* goo#s herein insure# 0 ani'a $nsurance Co. $C.
Ptition#>s ?Loadsta#@ Contntion: •
"oa#star sumits that the vesse' ;as a private carrier ecause it ;as not issue# a certi-icate o- pu'ic convenience, it #i# not have a regu'ar trip or sche#u'e nor a -ie# route, an# there ;as on'0 one shipper, one consignee -or a specia' cargo.
Page | 6
hi'e it is true that the vesse' ha# on oar# on'0 the cargo o- ;oo# pro#ucts -or #e'iver0 to one consignee, it ;as a'so carr0ing passengers as part o- its regu'ar usiness. oreover, the i''s o- 'a#ing in this case ma#e no mention o- an0 charter part0 ut on'0 a statement that the vesse' ;as a genera' cargo carrier. either ;as there an0 specia' arrangement et;een "
•
•
•
&etitioner argues that as a private carrier, it cannot e presume# to have een neg'igent, an# the ur#en o- proving other;ise #evo've# upon $C. "oa#star a'so maintains that the vesse' ;as sea;orth0. )e-ore the -ate-u' vo0age, the vesse' ;as a''ege#'0 #r0 #oc:e# ;as #u'0 inspecte# an# certi-ie# -it -or vo0age 0 the maritime sa-et0 engineers o- the &hi'ippine Coast Guar#. $ts cre; at the time ;as eperience#, 'icense# an# un8uestiona'0 competent. 6here-ore it eercise# the #i'igence o- a goo# -ather o- a -ami'0 in ensuring the vesse's sea;orthiness. "oa#star -urther c'aims that it ;as not responsi'e -or the 'oss o- the cargo, such 'oss eing #ue to force majeure. $t points out that ;hen the vesse' 'e-t asipit, Agusan #e' orte the ;eather ;as -ine unti' the net #a0 ;hen the vesse' san: #ue to strong ;aves. "oa#star goes on to argue that, eing a private carrier, an0 agreement 'imiting its 'iai'it0, such as ;hat transpire# in this case, is va'i#. Since the cargo ;as eing shippe# at o;ners ris:, "
P#i1at Rspondnt>s ?(anila Ins$#anc Co.@ Ans4#: •
•
$C, on the other han#, c'aims that "
ISSES:
1 $s the =( Chero:ee a private or a common carrierK 2 Di# "
RLING:
Page | 7
&etition o- "oa#star D7$7DI CALs #ecision AFF$7D 1 "
1. /ome $nsurance Co. v. American Steamship, G.. o. "B2!!, 4 Apri' 1% CASE ,
Page | 8
'o% Ins$#anc Co. 1s A%#ican Sta%ship GR No. LB2// FACTS:
Consorcio &es8uero #e' &eru o- South America shippe# -reight preBpai# at Chimate, &eru, 21,*4 9ute ags o- &eruvian -ish mea' through SS Cro;orough. 6he cargo, consigne# to San igue' )re;er0, $nc., no; San igue' Corporation, an# insure# 0 /ome $nsurance Compan0 arrive# in ani'a on arch *, 1%3 an# ;as #ischarge# into the 'ighters o- "uzon Steve#oring Compan0. hen the cargo ;as #e'ivere# to consignee San igue' )re;er0 $nc., there ;ere shortages, causing the 'atter to 'a0 c'aims against "uzon Steve#oring Corporation, /ome $nsurance Compan0 an# the American Steamship Agencies, o;ner an# operator o- SS Cro;orough. /ome $nsurance Compan0 pai# the consignee the insurance va'ue o- the 'oss, as -u'' sett'ement o- the c'aim. /aving een re-use# reimursement 0 oth the "uzon Steve#oring Corporation an# American Steamship Agencies, /ome $nsurance Compan0, as surogee to the consignee, -i'e# against the e-ore the Court o- First $nstance o- ani'a a comp'aint -or recover0 amount pai# to consignee ;ith 'ega' interest, p'us attorne0Ls -ees. "uzon Steve#oring Corporation ans;ere# that it #e'ivere# ;ith #ue #i'igence the goo#s in the same 8uantit0 an# 8ua'it0 that it ha# receive# the same -rom the carrier. American Steamship Agencies #enie# 'iai'it0 0 a''eging that un#er the provisions o- the Charter part0 re-erre# to in the i''s o- 'a#ing, the charterer, not the shipo;ner, ;as responsi'e -or an0 'oss or #amage o- the cargo. Furthermore, it c'aime# to have eercise# #ue #i'igence in sto;ing the goo#s an# that as a mere -or;ar#ing agent, it ;as not responsi'e -or 'osses or #amages to the cargo. CF$ aso've# "uzon Steve#oring Corporation an# or#ere# American Steamship Agencies to pa0 p'ainti--, prompting the 'atter to appea' #irect'0 to SC. ISSE: $s the stipu'ation in the charter part0 o- the o;nerLs nonB'iai'it0 va'i# so as to aso've the
American Steamship Agencies -rom 'iai'it0 -or 'ossK RLING: Yes. 6he provisions o- our Civi' Co#e on common carriers ;ere ta:en -rom Ang'oBAmerican
'a;. Un#er American 9urispru#ence, a common carrier un#erta:ing to carr0 a specia' cargo or chartere# to a specia' person on'0, ecomes a private carrier. As a private carrier, a stipu'ation eempting the o;ner -rom 'iai'it0 -or the neg'igence o- its agent is not against pu'ic po'ic0, an# is #eeme# va'i#. 6he Civi' Co#e provisions on common carriers shou'# not e app'ie# ;here the carrier is not acting as such ut as a private carrier. 6he stipu'ation in the charter part0 aso'ving the o;ner -rom 'iai'it0 -or 'oss #ue to the neg'igence o- its agent ;ou'# e voi# on'0 i- the strict pu'ic po'ic0 governing common carriers is app'ie#. Such po'ic0 has no -orce ;here the pu'ic at 'arge is not invo've#, as in the case o- a ship tota''0 chartere# -or the use o- a sing'e part0. Section 2, paragraph 2 of the charter party, provides that the owner is liable for loss or damage to the goods caused by personal want of due diligence on its part or its manager to make the vessel in all respects seaworthy and to secure that she be properly manned, euipped and supplied or by the personal act or default of the owner or its manager. Said paragraph, however, exempts the owner of the vessel from any loss or damage or delay arising from any other source, even from the neglect or fault of the captain or crew or some other person employed by the owner on board, for whose acts the owner would ordinarily be liable except for said paragraph. !"#I declared that the above stipulation is contrary to
Page | 9
Art $%& of "ode of "ommerce and Art '&(( of )"" and that held unreasonable and contrary to the public policy on common carriers* however this was reversed by S".+
11. San &a'o v. &antranco
, G.. o. "B%14%1, 21 August 1*
CASE ,, EPITACIO SAN PA0LO 1s. PANTRANCO SOT' EPRESS- INC. FACTS:
&antranco South 7press, $nc. is a #omestic corp. engage# in the 'an# transportation usiness ;ith &U) service -or passengers an# -reight an# various certi-icates -or pu'ic conveniences to operate passenger uses -rom etro ani'a to )ico' egion an# 7astern Samar. 6hen a-ter, &antranco ;rote aritime $n#ustr0 Authorit0 A$A to re8uest to operate a -err0 oat service -rom atnog, Sorsogon to A''en, Samar -or their compan0 uses an# their -reight truc:s that have to cross San )ernar#o Strait, ut A$A re9ecte# their re8uest. &antranco neverthe'ess ac8uire# the vesse' ( )'ac: Dou'e, then re8ueste# the )oar# o- 6ransportation )<6 to e a'e to operate an# carr0 its passengers, uses an# -reight truc:s et;een A''en an# atnog. Due this re8uest, )<6 as:e# the 'ega' opinion o- inister o- 5ustice icar#o &uno, ;ho sai# that there is no nee# -or us companies to secure another certi-icate o- pu'ic convenience C&C to operate a -err0oat ecause ;hen the us compan0 proposes to a## a -err0 service to its &asa0 to Sorsogon to 6ac'oan route, it mere'0 #oes so in the #ischarge o- its current certi-icate o- pu'ic convenience as the -err0 is a mere continuation o- the hi;a0 ;hich is on'0 interrupte# 0 a sma'' o#0 o- ;ater. So, the )<6 ren#ere# its #ecision that the Ferr0 oat service is part o- the C&C to operate -rom &asa0 to Samar, an# the )<6 mere'0 amen#e# &natrancoEs C&C so as to re-'ect the same. Due this, 7pitacio San &a'o an# Car#ina' Shipping Corp., ;ho are -ranchise ho'#ers o- Ferr0 Service in the area that &antranco ;ants to operate at, -i'e# a &etition -or evie; on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, contesting that &antranco is not mere'0 a private carrier=-err0 service ;ho operates ec'usive'0 to transport its uses, passengers an# -reights an# #oes not o--er its services to the genera' pu'ic, so as to e ecuse# -rom app'0ing -or a separate Cert-icate o- &u'ic Convenience, ut that it is a coast;ise or interis'an# shipping service, ;hich sti'' nee#s to secure a separate Certi-icate o- &u'ic Convenience, asi#e -rom the one it current'0 has. ISSE: $s &antranco mere'0 a private carrier=-err0 service ;hich can operate its -err0 oat ;ithout nee# o-
another C&C, or is it operating as a coast;ise shipping service ;ith the nee# to secure a separate C&C asi#e -rom the one it current'0 has to operate 'an# transportationK RLING: &etition is grante# an# the #eicision o- )oar# o- 6ransportation is reverse# an# set asi#e. 6he
#istance et;een atnog an# A''en is aout 23 :i'ometers -or M to 2 hours an# the ocean at times is chopp0 an# rough. Consi#ering the environmenta' circumstances, the conve0ance o- passengers, truc:s an# cargo -rom atnog to A''en is certain'0 not a -err0 service, ut a coast;ise or interis'an# shipping service. atnog an# A''en are separate# 0 an open sea an# not a sma'' o#0 o- ;ater, so this open sea cannot e consi#ere# a continuation o- the hi;a0. &antranco #oes not #en0 that it charges passengers separate'0 -rom the us trips an# issues separate tic:ets -or oar#ing ( )'ac: Dou'e, an# &antranco cannot preten# that in issuing this tic:ets to its passengers, it #i# so as a private carrier an# not a common carrier.
Page | 10
)e-ore &antranco can operate its ;ater transport, it must secure -irst a separate C&C -or the operation o- sai# service as a common carrier. NAt the eginning pantranco p'anne# to operate the -err0 oat service as a common carrier so it re8ueste# authorit0 -rom A$A to purchase ( )'ac: #ou'e, ut A$A #enie# its re8uest, as the routes to e use# 0 pantranco are a#e8uate'0 service# 0 eisting operators. 12. ationa' Stee' Corp. v. CA, G.. o. 1122*, 12 Decemer 1* 13. &'anters &ro#ucts $nc. v. CA, G.. o. 11!3, 1! Septemer 13 CASE ,+ PLANTERS PRODCTS- INC. 1s. CORT OF APPEALS- SORIA(ONT STEA(S'IP AGENCIES)9OSEI )ISEN )A0S'I)I )AIS'A FACTS:
&'anters &ro#ucts, $nc. &&$ purchase# -rom itsuishi $nternationa' Corp., e; Yor:, USA, ,32.*% metric tons o- Urea 4%O -erti'izer ;hich the 'atter shippe# in u': aoar# the vesse' ( Sun &'um, o;ne# 0 +0osei +isen +aushi:i +aisha ++++ -rom A'as:a to San Fernan#o "a Union. &revious'0, a ti% cha#t# pa#ty on the vesse' ( Sun &'um ;as entere# into 0 itsuishi as shipper=charterer an# ++++ as shipo;ner. 6he time charter part0 ;as entere# into in 6o:0o, 5apan. A-ter the urea ;as 'oa#e# in u': 0 steve#ores un#er the supervision o- shipper, the stee' hatches ;ere c'ose# ;ith heav0 iron 'i#s, covere# ;ith three 'a0ers o- tarpau'in, then tie# ;ith stee' on#s. Upon arriva' at port o- ca'', petitioner un'oa#e# the cargo -rom the ho'#s into the #ump truc:s using meta' scoops attache# to the ship. 7ach time a #ump truc: ;as -i''e#, its 'oa# o- urea ;as covere# ;ith tarpau'in e-ore it ;as transporte# to the ;arehouse o- petitioner. Cargo Superinten#ents Co., hire# 0 petitioner to #etermine the outturn o- the cargo, reporte# that there ;as a shortage in the cargo o- 1%.*2% metric tons o- urea -erti'izer an# 1 metric tons ;ere contaminate# ;ith #irt. &etitioner a'so ha# a certi-icate o- shortage=#amage# cargo sho;ing a shortage o- 4.3 metric tons an# aout 23 metric tons ;ere ren#ere# un-it -or commerce, having een po''ute# ;ith san#, rust, #irt. &etitoner &'anters &&$ sent a c'aim 'etter to Soriamont Steamship Agencies, the resi#ent agent o- carrier ++++, -or 24!,%.31 pesos representing the cost o- the a''ege# shortage in the goo#s shippe# an# the #iminution in va'ue o- that portion sai# to have een contaminate# ;ith #irt, ut Soriamont argue# that the0 ha# nothing to #o ;ith the #ischarge o- the shipment. Th d!ndant ca##i# also a#&$d that st#ict p$7lic policy #&a#din& co%%on ca##i#s dos not apply to th% 7ca$s thy ha1 7co% p#i1at ca##i#s 7y #ason o! th cha#t# pa#ty.
NA co%%on ca##i# is p#s$%d n&li&nt in cas o! loss o# da%a& o! th &oods it cont#acts to t#anspo#t- all that a shipp# has to do in a s$it to #co1# !o# loss o# da%a& is to sho4 #cipt 7y th ca##i# o! th &oods and to dli1#y 7y it o! lss than 4hat it #ci1d.
&etitioner -i'e# an action -or #amages at CF$ ani'a. CF$ sustaine# the c'aim o- petitioner against #e-en#ant carrier. De-en#ant appea'e# at Court o- Appea's. Court o- Appea's reverse# the 'o;er court ru'ing, an# ru'e# that the cargo vesse' ( Sun &'um o;ne# 0 ++++ is a private carrier 0 reason o- the ti% cha#t##Bpa#ty, an# the Civi' Co#e provisions on common carriers ;hich set -orth a presumption o-
Page | 11
neg'igence #o not -in# app'ication, so it ;as incument upon petitioner p'anters to a##uce su--icient evi#ence to prove neg'igence, ut it -ai'e# to prove the a''ege# neg'igence. &etitioner p'anters -i'e# to the Supreme Court a petition -or revie; assai'ing the #ecision o- the Court o- Appea's.
ISSE: $s ( Sun &'um o;ne# 0 ++++ a common carrier so as to su9ect it to the presumption o- neg'igence, or is it a private carrier 0 virtue o- the ti% cha#t# pa#ty that itsuishi an# ++++ entere#
intoK Ncha#t# pa#tyB d!ind as a cont#act 7y 4hich an nti# ship o# so% p#incipal pa#t th#o! is lt 7y th o4n# to anoth# p#son !o# a spci!id ti% o# $s- a cont#act o! a!!#i&ht%nt 7y 4hich th o4n# o! th ship o# th 1ssl lts th 4hol o# a pa#t o! h# to a %#chant o# oth# p#son !o# th con1yanc o! &oods- on a pa#tic$la# 1oya&- in consid#ation o! th pay%nt o! !#i&ht.
RLING: espon#ent carrier is a common carrier, in the or#inar0 course o- usiness, operates as a
common carrier transporting goo#s in#iscriminate'0 -or a'' persons. 6he vesse'Es ship captain, its o--icers an# comp'iment ;ere un#er the emp'o0 o- the ship o;ner an# there-ore continue# to e un#er its #irect supervision an# contro'. /ar#'0 then can ;e charge the charterer itsuishi, ;ith the #ut0 o- caring -or the cargo ;hen the charterer #i# not have an0 contro' o- the means in #oing so. $t is there-ore that the pu'ic carrier sha'' remain as such, not;ithstan#ing the charter o- the ;ho'e or portion o- a vesse' 0 one or more persons, provi#e# that the charter is 'imite# to the ship on'0, as in the case o- a time charter or a vo0age charter. $t is on'0 ;hen the charter inc'u#es oth the vesse' an# its cre; that a common carrier ecomes private. /o;ever, -or the Court, respon#ent carrier has overcome the presumption o- neg'igence, as no proo- ;as a##uce# 0 petitioner p'anters sho;ing that the carrier ;as remise in the eercise o- #ue #i'igence in or#er to minimize the 'oss or #amage to the goo#s carrie#. 6he master o- the vesse', Capt. "ee 6ae )o, in his #eposition, even testi-ie# that the hatches ;ere c'eane#, #rie#, -umigate#, then a-ter 'oa#ing the cargo, the stee' pontoon hatches ;ere c'ose# an# sea'e# ;ith iron 'i#s, then covere# ;ith three 'a0ers o- servicea'e tarpau'ins ;hich ;ere tie# ;ith stee' on#s. 6hat even the vesse' ;as in goo# con#ition, -orec'osing the possii'it0 o- spi''age o- the cargo into the sea or seepage o- ;ater insi#e the hu'' o- the vesse'. 6he perio# 0 ;hich respon#ent ;as to oserve the #egree o- #i'igence re8uire# o- a pu'ic carrier egan -rom the time the cargo ;as p'ace# in the vesse'Es ho'#s unti' it reaches its #estination an# its hu'' ;as reeamine# 0 the consignee, ut prior to un'oa#ing. A chemica' engineer, ;itness o- respon#ent carrier, even testi-ie# that in un'oa#ing -erti'izer in u': ;ith use o- c'ampe# she'' 'osses #ue to spi''age #uring such operation amounting to one percent against the i'' o- 'a#ing is #eeme# Hnorma'H or Hto'era'e.H 6he primar0 cause o- these spi''ages is the c'ampe# she'' ;hich #oes not sea' ver0 tight'0. A'so, the ;in# ten#s to 'o; a;a0 some o- the materia's #uring the un'oa#ing process. 6he #issipation o- 8uantities o- -erti'izer, or its #eterioration in va'ue, is cause# either 0 an etreme'0 high temperature in its p'ace o- storage, or ;hen it comes in contact ;ith ;ater. hen Urea is #renche# in ;ater, either -resh or sa'ine, some o- its partic'es #isso've. )ut the sa'vage# portion ;hich is in 'i8ui# -orm sti'' remains potent an# usa'e a'though no 'onger sa'ea'e in its origina' mar:et va'ue.
Page | 12
6he proai'it0 o- the cargo eing #amage# or getting mie# or contaminate# ;ith -oreign partic'es ;as ma#e greater 0 the -act that the -erti'izer ;as transporte# in Hu':,H there0 eposing it to the inimica' e--ects o- the e'ements an# the grim0 con#ition o- the various pieces o- e8uipment use# in transporting an# hau'ing it. 6he Court notes that it ;as in the month o- 5u'0 ;hen the vesse' arrive# port an# un'oa#e# her cargo. $t raine# -rom time to time at the haror area ;hi'e the cargo ;as eing #ischarge# accor#ing to the supp'0 o--icer o- &etitioner p'anters, ;ho a'so testi-ie# that it ;as ;in#0 at the ;ater-ront an# a'ong the shore'ine ;here the #ump truc:s passe# enroute to the consigneeLs ;arehouse. 6he Court #ismisse# the &etition.
. Go1#n%nt R&$lation o! Co%%on Ca##i#3s 0$sinss
14. +U "aor Center v. Garcia, 5r., G.. o. 11!31, 23 Decemer 14 CASE , )ILSANG (A9O NO LA0OR CENTER 1s. 'ON. *ESS 0. GARCIA- *R.- th LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANC'ISING AND REGLATOR9 0OARD- and th PROINCIAL 0S OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF T'E P'ILIPPINES
G..
o.
11!31
Decemer
23,
14
FACTS:
6hen Secretar0 o- D<6C,
Page | 13
$s the authorit0 given 0 respon#ent "6F) to provincia' us operators unconstitutiona', inva'i# an# i''ega'K RLING:
Y7S. Un#er section 1%c o- the &u'ic Service Act, the "egis'ature #e'egate# to the #e-unct &u'ic Service Commission the po;er o- -iing the rates o- pu'ic services. espon#ent "6F), the eisting regu'ator0 o#0 to#a0, is 'i:e;ise veste# ;ith the same un#er 7ecutive
ii iii
the app'icant must e a citizen o- the &hi'ippines, or a corporation or coBpartnership, association or 9ointBstoc: compan0 constitute# an# organize# un#er the 'a;s o- the &hi'ippines, at 'east % per centum o- its stoc: or pai#Bup capita' must e'ong entire'0 to citizens o- the &hi'ippinesI the app'icant must e -inancia''0 capa'e o- un#erta:ing the propose# service an# meeting the responsii'ities inci#ent to its operationI an# the applicant must prove that the operation of the public service proposed and the authori-ation to do business will promote the public interest in a proper and suitable manner . $t is un#erstoo# that there must e proper notice an# hearing e-ore the &SC
can eercise its po;er to issue a C&C. )asic convenience is the primar0 consi#eration -or ;hich a C&C is issue#, an# that -act a'one must e consistent'0 orne in min#. A'so, eisting operators in su9ect routes must e given an opportunit0 to o--er proo- an# oppose the app'ication. 6here-ore, an app'icant must, at a'' times, e re8uire# to prove his capacit0 an# capai'it0 to -urnish the service ;hich he has un#erta:en to ren#er. An# a'' this ;i'' e possi'e on'0 i- a pu'ic hearing ;ere con#ucte# -or that purpose.
1!. 6ata# v. Garcia, 5r., G.. o. 114222, % Apri' 1! CASE ,/ FRANCISCO S. TATAD- *O'N '. OS(ENA and RODOLFO G. 0IAON- 1s.'ON. *ESS 0. GARCIA*R.- in his capacity as th Sc#ta#y o! th Dpa#t%nt o! T#anspo#tation and Co%%$nicationsand EDSA LRT CORPORATION- LTD
G.. o. 114222 Apri' %, 1!
FACTS:
$n 1, the government p'anne# to ui'# a rai';a0 transit 'ine a'ong 7DSA 7DSA "6 $$$. o i##ing ;as ma#e ut certain corporations ;ere invite# to pre8ua'i-0. /o;ever, a-ter #etermination the
Page | 14
on'0 corporation to 8ua'i-0 ;as the 7DSA "6 Consortium ;hich ;as ovious'0 -orme# -or this particu'ar un#erta:ing. An agreement ;as then ma#e et;een the government, through the Department o- 6ransportation an# Communication D<6C, an# 7DSA "6 Consortium. 6he agreement ;as ase# on the )ui'#B
<. 6he Supreme Court ma#e a c'ari-ication. 6he phrasing o- the 8uestion is erroneousI it is 'oa#e#. hat private respon#ent o;ns are the rai' trac:s, ro''ing stoc:s 'i:e the coaches, rai' stations, termina's an# the po;er p'ant, not a p$7lic $tility . hi'e a -ranchise is nee#e# to operate these -aci'ities to serve the pu'ic, the0 #o not 0 themse'ves constitute a pu'ic uti'it0. hat constitutes a pu'ic uti'it0 is not their o;nership ut their use to serve the pu'ic. 6he right to operate a pu'ic uti'it0 ma0 eist in#epen#ent'0 an# separate'0 -rom the o;nership o- the -aci'ities thereo-.
1%. Samar ining Co., $nc. v. or#eutscher "'o0#, G.. o. "B2%*3, 23
Page | 15
Sa%a# (inin& Co.- Inc. 1. No#d$tsch# Lloyd G.R. No. LB2=H+Octo7# 2+- , C$1as- *. FACTS: 6he case arose -rom an importation ma#e 0 the p'ainti--, Samar o- one crate
;e#ge ;ire sieves through the =S Sch;aenstein a vesse' o;ne# 0 #e-en#ant, or#eutscher "'o0#, ;hich shipment is covere# 0 )i'' o- "a#ing o. 1 #u'0 issue# to consignee Samar ining Compan0, $nc. Upon arriva' o- the a-oresai# vesse' at the port o- ani'a, the importation ;as un'oa#e# an# #e'ivere# in goo# or#er an# con#ition to the on#e# ;arehouse o- ACY". 6he goo#s ;ere, ho;ever, never #e'ivere# to, nor receive# 0, the consigne# at the port o- #estinationBDavao. ISSE: hether or not the provisions o- the Civi' Co#e shou'# govern. RLING: 6he 'iai'it0 o- the common carrier -or the 'oss, #estruction or #eterioration o- the goo#s
transporte# -rom -oreign countr0 to the &hi'ippines is governe# primari'0 0 the Civi' Co#e. $n a'' matters not regu'ate# 0 sai# co#e, the rights an# o'igations o- common carriers sha'' e governe# 0 the Co#e o- Commerce an# 0 specia' 'a;s. Artic'e 1*3% is app'ica'e to the instant suit. Un#er the sai# artic'e, the carrier ma0 e re'ieve# o- the responsii'it0 -or the 'oss or #amage to the goo#s upon actua' or constructive #e'iver0 o- the same 0 the carrier to the consignee, or to the person ;ho has a right to receive them. 6here is actua' #e'iver0 in contracts -or the transport o- goo#s ;hen possession has een turne# over the consignee or his #u'0 authorize# agent an# a reasona'e time has een given to him to remove the goo#s. 6he a 8uo -oun# that there ;as actua' #e'iver0 to the consignee through its #u'0 authorize# agent, the carrier. 6he Court ru'e# that the persona'it0 o- the respon#ent changes -rom that o- carrier to that o- agent o- the consignee. 6hus, the character o- respon#entEs possession a'so changes, -rom possession in its o;n name as carrier to possession in the name o- the consignee as the 'atterEs agent. Such eing the case, there ;as, in e--ect, actua' #e'iver0 o- the goo#s -rom respon#ent as carrier to the same respon#ent as agent o- the consignee. Upon such #e'iver0, the respon#ent , an erst;hi'e carrier, ceases to e responsi'e -or an0 'oss or #amage that ma0 e-a'' the goo#s -rom that point on;ar#s. /o;ever, in the case at ar, the recor#s -ai' to prove the neg'igence, #eceit or -rau# committe# 0 the respon#ent. 6hus, the0 incur no 'iai'it0 -or the 'oss o- the goo#s in 8uestion.
Page | 16
1*, 7astern Shipping "ines v. $AC, G.. o. "B%44, 2 a0 1* CASE ,H East#n Shippin& Lins- Inc. 1. IAC and D1lop%nt Ins$#anc S$#ty Co#p. G.R. No. LB=- (ay 2- ,H East#n Shippin& Lins- Inc. 1. Th Nisshin Fi# and (a#in Ins$#anc Co.- and Do4a Fi# (a#in Ins$#anc Co.- Ltd.
G.. o. *14*, a0 2, 1* e'encioB/errera, 5. FACTS: 6hese t;o cases, oth -or the recover0 o- the va'ue o- cargo insurance, arose -rom the same
inci#ent, the sin:ing o- the =S Asiatica ;hen it caught -ire resu'ting to the tota' 'oss o- ship an# cargo. $n G.. o. %44, the =S Asiatica, a vesse' operate# 0 petitioner 7astern Shipping "ines &etitioner carrier 'oa#e# at +oe, 5apan -or transportation to ani'a, !, co'orize# 'ance pipes in 2 pac:ages consigne# to the &hi'ippine )'ooming i''s, Co. an# * cases o- spare parts consigne# to Centra' 6eti'e i''s, $nc. )oth sets o- goo#s ;ere insure# against marine ris:. $n G.. o. *14*, #uring the same perio#, the same vesse' too: on oar# 12 cartons o- garment -arics an# accessories, in 2 containers, consigne# to arive'es Appare' Co., an# 2 cases o- surve0ing instruments consigne# to Aman 7nterprises an# Genera' erchan#ise. 7n route -or +o'a, 5apan to ani'a, the vesse' caught -ire an# san:, resu'ting in the tota' 'oss o- the ship an# cargo. 6he respective respon#ent insurers pai# the correspon#ing marine insurance va'ues. ISSE: hether or not the provisions o- the Civi' Co#e on Common Carriers shou'# govern. RLING: 6he 'a; o- the countr0 to ;hich the goo#s are to e transporte# governs the 'iai'it0 o- the
common carrier oin case o- their 'oss, #estruction or #eterioration. As the cargoes ;ere transporte# -rom 5apan to the &hi'ippines, the 'iai'it0 o- &etitioner carrier is governe# primari'0 0 the Civi' Co#e. /o;ever, in a'' matters not regu'ate# 0 sai# Co#e, the rights an# o'igations o- common carrier sha'' e governe# 0 the Co#e o- Commerce an# 0 specia' 'a;s. 6hus, the Carriage o- Goo#s 0 Sea Act C
1. ationa' Deve'opment Co. v. Court o- Appea's, G.. o. "B44*, 1 August 1 CASE , National D1lop%nt Co%pany 1. Co$#t o! Appals ,= SCRA /+
Page | 17
FACTS:
$n accor#ance ;ith a memoran#um agreement entere# into et;een #e-en#ants DC an# C& on Septemer 13, 1%2, #e-en#ant DC as the -irst pre-erre# mortgagee o- three ocean going vesse's inc'u#ing one ;ith the name LDona atiL appointe# #e-en#ant C& as its agent to manage an# operate sai# vesse' -or an# in its eha'- an# account. 6hus, on Feruar0 2, 1%4 the 7. &hi'ipp Corporation o- e; Yor: 'oa#e# on oar# the vesse' HDona atiH at San Francisco, Ca'i-ornia, a tota' o- 1,2 a'es o- American ra; cotton consigne# to the or#er o- ani'a )an:ing Corporation, ani'a an# the &eop'eLs )an: an# 6rust Compan0 acting -or an# in eha'- o- the &an Asiatic Commercia' Compan0, $nc., ;ho represents iversi#e i''s Corporation. A'so 'oa#e# on the same vesse' at 6o:0o, 5apan, ;ere the cargo o- +0o:uto )oe:ui, +aisa, "t#., consigne# to the or#er o- ani'a )an:ing Corporation consisting o- 2 cartons o- so#ium 'aur0' su'-ate an# 1 cases o- a'uminum -oi'. 7n route to ani'a the vesse' Do-ia ati -igure# in a co''ision at %P4 a.m. on Apri' 1!, 1%4 at $se )a0, 5apan ;ith a 5apanese vesse' LSS Yasushima aruL as a resu't o- ;hich !! a'es o- a-oresai# cargo o- American ra; cotton ;ere 'ost an#=or #estro0e#, o- ;hich !3! a'es as #amage# ;ere 'an#e# an# so'# on the authorit0 o- the Genera' Average Surve0or -or Yen %,4!,B! an# 1! a'es ;ere not 'an#e# an# #eeme# 'ost. 6he #amage# an# 'ost cargoes ;as ;orth &344,**.% ;hich amount, the p'ainti-- as insurer, pai# to the iversi#e i''s Corporation as ho'#er o- the negotia'e i''s o- 'a#ing #u'0 en#orse#. A'so consi#ere# tota''0 'ost ;ere the a-oresai# shipment o- +0o:uto, )oe:ui +aisa "t#., consigne# to the or#er o- ani'a )an:ing Corporation, ani'a, acting -or Gui'con, ani'a, 6he tota' 'oss ;as &1,3. ;hich the p'ainti-- as insurer pai# to Gui'con as ho'#er o- the #u'0 en#orse# i'' o- 'a#ing 7hiits B1 an# SB3. 6hus, the p'ainti-- ha# pai# as insurer the tota' amount o- &3%4,1!.% to the consignees or their successorsBinBinterest, -or the sai# 'ost or #amage# cargoes. /ence, p'ainti-- -i'e# this comp'aint to recover sai# amount -rom the #e-en#antsB DC an# C& as o;ner an# ship agent respective'0, o- the sai# LDo-ia atiL vesse'.
6he tria' court ren#ere# a #ecision or#ering the #e-en#ants C& an# DC to pa0 9oint'0 an# so'i#arit0 to D$SC the sum o- &3%4,1!.% p'us the 'ega' rate o- interest to e compute# -rom the -i'ing o- the comp'aint on Apri' 22, 1%!, unti' -u''0 pai# an# attorne0Ls -ees o- &1,.. "i:e;ise, in sai# #ecision, the tria' court grante# C&Ls crossc'aim against DC.
C& interpose# its appea' on Decemer 2, 1%, ;hi'e DC -i'e# its appea' on Feruar0 1*, 1* a-ter its motion to set asi#e the #ecision ;as #enie# 0 the tria' court in its or#er #ate# Feruar0 13,1*.
Page | 18
ISSE:
6he pivota' issue in these conso'i#ate# cases is the #etermination o- ;hich 'a;s govern 'oss or #estruction o- goo#s #ue to co''ision o- vesse's outsi#e &hi'ippine ;aters, an# the etent o- 'iai'it0 as ;e'' as the ru'es o- prescription provi#e# thereun#er.
RLING:
$n 7aster Shipping "ines, $nc., v. $AC, 1! SCA 4% 1*, ;e he'# un#er simi'ar circumstances that the 'a; o- the countr0 to ;hich the goo#s are to e transporte# governs the 'iai'it0 o- the common carrier in case o- their 'oss, #estruction or #eterioration. 6hus, the ru'e ;as speci-ica''0 'ai# #o;n that -or cargoes transporte# -rom 5apan to the &hi'ippines, the 'iai'it0 o- the carrier is governe# primari'0 0 the Civi' Co#e an# in a'' matters not regu'ate# 0 sai# Co#e, the rights an# o'igations o- common carrier sha'' e governe# 0 the Co#e o- Commerce an# 0 especia' 'a;s Artic'e 1*%%, Civi' Co#e. /ence, the carriage o- Goo#s 0 Sea Act, a specia' 'a;, is mere'0 supp'ementa' to the provisions o- the Civi' Co#e. 6he goo#s in 8uestion ;ere eing transporte# -rom San Francisco, Ca'i-ornia an# 6o:0o, 5apan to the &hi'ippines an# that the0 ;ere 'ost or #amage# #ue to a co''ision ;hich ;as -oun# to have een cause# 0 neg'igence or -au't o- oth captains o- the co''i#ing vesse's. Un#er the aove ru'ing, it is evi#ent that 'a;s o- the &hi'ippines ;i'' app'0, an# it is immateria' that the co''ision actua''0 occurre# in -oreign ;aters, such as $se )a0, 5apan. $t appears, ho;ever, that co''ision -a''s among matters not speci-ica''0 regu'ate# 0 the Civi' Co#e, so that no reversi'e error can e -oun# in respon#ent courtTs app'ication to the case at ar o- Artic'es 2% to 3, )oo: 6hree o- the Co#e o- Commerce, ;hich #ea' ec'usive'0 ;ith co''ision o- vesse's. Artic'e 2% o- the Co#e o- Commerce provi#es that ;here co''ision is imputa'e to the personne' o- a vesse', the o;ner o- the vesse' at -au't sha'' in#emni-0 the 'osses an# #amages incurre# a-ter an epert appraisa'. )ut more in point to the instant case in is Artic'e 2* o- the same Co#e, ;hich provi#es that i- the co''ision is imputa'e to oth vesse's, each one sha'' su--er its o;n #amages an# oth sha'' e so'i#ari'0 responsi'e -or the 'osses an# #amages su--ere# 0 their cargoes. 6here is, there-ore, no room -or DCs interpretation that the Co#e o- Commerce shou'# app'0 on'0 to #omestic tra#e an# not to -oreign tra#e.C& net conten#s that it cannot e 'ia'e so'i#ari'0 ;ith DC ecause it is mere'0 the manager an# operator o- the vesse' >DoRa ati?, nor a ship agent. As the genera' managing agent, accor#ing, to C&, it can on'0 e 'ia'e i- it acte# in ecess o- its authorit0. 6he emoran#um Agreement o- Septemer 13, 1%2 sho;s that DC appointe# C& as agent, a term roa# enough to inc'u#e the concept o- ship agent in aritime "a;. $n -act, C& ;as even con-erre# a'' the po;ers o- the o;ner o- the vesse', inc'u#ing the po;er to contract in the name o- the DC. Conse8uent'0, un#er the circumstances, C& cannot escape 'iai'it0. $t is ;e''Bsett'e# that oth the o;ner an# agent o- the o--en#ing vesse' are 'ia'e -or the #amage #one ;here oth are imp'ea#e#.
a. 5R&ist#d O4n# R$l6
Page | 19
1. Ge'isan v. A'#a0, 1!4 SCA 3 1* CASE , 0in1nido Glisan 1s 0nito Alday ,/ SCRA + FACTS:
)ienveni#o Ge'isan is the o;ner o- a -reight truc:. /e an# oerto 7spiritu entere# into a contract un#er ;hich 7spiritu hire# the -reight truc: Ge'isan -or the purpose o- hau'ing sugar, -'our, an# -erti'izers. $t a'so stipu'ate# that 7spiritu sha'' ear the 'oss an# #amage atten#ing the goo#s to e hau'e# 0 him. )enito A'#a0, a truc:ing operator ;ho :ne; o- 7spiritu, ha# a contract to hau' the -erti'izers o- At'as Ferti'izer Corporation -rom &ier 4, orth /arorn, to an#a'u0ong. A'#a0 met 7spiritu at the gate o- &ier 4 an# the 'atter o--ere# the use o- his truc: ;ith the #river an# he'per. A'#a0 accepte# an# instructe# the chec:er to 'et 7spiritu hau -erti'izer. 7spiritu manage# 2 ags o- -erti'izer per trip. 6he -erti'izer ;as #e'ivere# to the #river an# mai# ;ith the necessar0 ;a0 i'' receipt. /o;ever, 7spiritu never #e'ivere# the -erti'izer to the At'as Ferti'izer o#ega in an#a'u0ong. /ence, A'#a0 ;as compe''e# to pa0 -or the 'oss o- 4 tags to At'as Ferti'izer Corporation an# -i'e# a comp'aint against 7spiritu an# Ge'isan ;ith the CF$ ani'a. hi'e the CF$ ru'e# that 7spiritu a'one is 'ia'e, the Court o- Appea's ru'e# to inc'u#e Ge'isan. ISSE: hether or not Ge'isan e he'# so'i#ari'0 'ia'e ;ith 7spiritu.
RLING:
6he court ru'e# in the a--irmative, Ge'isan eing the registere# o;ner o- the truc:. 6he court has he'# invaria'0 in severa' #ecisions that the registere# o;ner o- a pu'ic service vehic'e is responsi'e -or #amages that ma0 arise -rom conse8uences inci#enta' to its operation or that ma0 e cause# 0 an0 o- the passengers therein. 6he c'aim that the petitioner is not 'ia'e in vie; o- the 'ease contract eecute# 0 an# et;een him an# oerto 7spiritu ;hich eempts him -rom 'iai'it0 to thir# persons cannot e sustaine# ecause it appears that the 'ease contract, a#verte# to, ha# not een approve# 0 the &u'ic Service Commission. $t is sett'e# in our 9urispru#ence that i- a propert0 covere# 0 a -ranchise is trans-erre# or 'ease# to another ;ithout the re8uisite approva', the trans-er is not in#ing upon the pu'ic an# thir# persons. e a'so -in# no merit in the petitionerLs argument that the ru'e re8uiring the previous approva' 0 the &u'ic Service Commission, o- the trans-er or 'ease o- the motor vehic'e, ma0 e app'ie# on'0 in cases ;here there is no positive $#enti-ication o- the o;ner or #river, or ;here there are ver0 scant means o- $#enti-ication, ut not in those instances ;here the person responsi'e -or #amages has een -ie# or #etermine# e-orehan#, as in the case at ar. /o;ever, Ge'isan is not ;ithout recourse. /e has a right to e in#emni-ie# 0 oerto 7spiritu -or the amount that he ma0 e re8uire# to pa0 as #amages -or the in9ur0 cause# to )enito A'#a0, since the 'ease contract in 8uestion, a'though not e--ective against the pu'ic -or not having een approve# 0 the &u'ic Service Commission, is va'i# an# in#ing et;een the contracting parties. 2. )ene#icto v. $AC, 1* SCA !4* 1 CASE 2 0ndicto 1. Int#%diat Appllat Co$#t G.R. No. HH=- *$ly ,- ,
Page | 20
FACTS:
Greenhi''s oo# $n#ustries B oun# itse'- to se'' an# #e'iver to )'ue Star ahogan0, $nc. 1, oar# -eet o- sa;n 'umer ;ith the un#erstan#ing that an initia' #e'iver0 ;ou'# e ma#e. Greenhi''s resi#ent manager in a##e'a, Domina#or Cruz, contracte# (irgi'io "icu#en, the #river o- a cargo truc:, to transport its sa;n 'umer to the consignee )'ue Star in (a'enzue'a, )u'acanI this cargo truc: ;as registere# in the name o- a. "uisa )ene#icto, the proprietor o- acoven 6ruc:ing, a usiness enterprise engage# in hau'ing -reight the anager o- )'ue Star ca''e# up Greenhi''sE presi#ent in-orming him that the sa;n 'umer on oar# the su9ect cargo truc: ha# not 0et arrive# in (a'enzue'a, )u'acanI ecause o- the #e'a0 in #e'iver0 )'ue Star ;as constraine# to 'oo: -or other supp'iers Greenhi''Es -i'e# crimina' case against #river "icu#en -or esta-aI an# a civi' case -or recover0 o- the va'ue o- the 'ost sa;n 'umer p'us #amages against )ene#icto )ene#icto #enie# 'iai'it0 as she ;as a comp'ete stranger to the contract o- carriage, the su9ect truc: having een ear'ier so'# 0 her to )en9amin 6eeI ut the truc: ha# remaine# registere# in her name ecause 6ee have not 0et -u''0 pai# the amount o- the truc:I e that as it ma0, 6ee ha# een operating the sai# truc: in Centra' "uzon -rom that an# "icu#en ;as 6eeEs emp'o0ee an# not hers. ISSE:
hether or not )ene#icto, eing the registere# o;ner o- the carrier, shou'# e he'# 'ia'e -or the va'ue othe un#e'ivere# or 'ost sa;n 'umer RLING:
Yes. 6he registere# o;ner 'ia'e -or conse8uences -'o;ing -rom the operations o- the carrier, even though the speci-ic vehic'e invo've# ma0 a'rea#0 have een trans-erre# to another person. 6his #octrine rests upon the princip'e that in #ea'ing ;ith vehic'es registere# un#er the &u'ic Service "a;, the pu'ic has the right to assume that the registere# o;ner is the actua' or 'a;-u' o;ner thereo- $t ;ou'# e ver0 #i--icu't an# o-ten impossi'e as a practica' matter, -or memers o- the genera' pu'ic to en-orce the rights o- action that the0 ma0 have -or in9uries in-'icte# 0 the vehic'es eing neg'igent'0 operate# i- the0 shou'# e re8uire# to prove ;ho the actua' o;ner is. Greenhi''s is not re8uire# to go e0on# the vehic'eEs certi-icate o- registration to ascertain the o;ner o- the carrier.
21. &hi'tranco Service 7nterprises, $nc. v. CA, 2*3 SCA !%2 1* CASE 2, P'ILTRANCO 1s. Co$#t o! Appals G.R. No. ,2//+- *$n ,H- ,H FACTS:
amon Acuesta, ;hi'e ri#ing in his ic0c'e, ;as umpe# an# ran over 0 a #e-en#antEs us ;hich resu'te# to his #eath.
Page | 21
As epecte#, the heirs o- amon -i'e# a suit -or #amages ;ith the tria' court ;hich eventua''0 or#ere#, a-ter tria', that the petitioners to 9oint'0 an# severa''0 pa0 the private respon#ents the -o''o;ing amountsP 1 &!!, %1!.*2 as actua' #amagesI 2 &2, as #eath in#emnit0 -or the #eath o- the victim amon A. AcuestaI 3 &1 mi''ion as mora' #amagesI 4 &!, 0 ;a0 o- eemp'ar0 #amagesI ! &!, as attorne0Ls -eesI an# % the costs o- suit.
hether or not the #amages a;ar#e# are improper an# ecessive. RLING:
Yes. 6he tria' court erroneous'0 -ie# the H#eath in#emnit0H at &2,. 6he private respon#ents #e-en#e# the a;ar# in their
Page | 22
e proportiona' to the su--ering in-'icte#. 2 $n 'ight o- the circumstances in this case, an a;ar# o- &!, -or mora' #amages is in or#er. 6he a;ar# o- &!, -or eemp'ar0 #amages is a'so ecessive. $n 8uasiB#e'icts, eemp'ar0 #amages ma0 e a;ar#e# i- the part0 at -au't acte# ;ith gross neg'igence. 6he Court o- Appea's -oun# that there ;as gross neg'igence on the part o- petitioner ani'hig. Un#er Artic'e 222 o- the Civi' Co#e, eemp'ar0 #amages are impose# 0 ;a0 o- eamp'e or correction -or the pu'ic goo#, in a##ition to the mora', temperate, 'i8ui#ate#, or compensator0 #amages. Consi#ering its purpose, it must e -air an# reasona'e in ever0 case an# shou'# not e a;ar#e# to un9ust'0 enrich a prevai'ing part0. $n the instant case, an a;ar# o- &!, -or the purpose ;ou'# e a#e8uate, -air, an# reasona'e. Fina''0, the a;ar# o- &!, -or attorne0Ls -ees must e re#uce#. 6he genera' ru'e is that attorne0Ls -ees cannot e recovere# as part o- #amages ecause o- the p o'ic0 that no premium shou'# e p'ace# on the right to 'itigate. State# other;ise, the grant o- attorne0Ls -ees a s part o- #amages is the eception rather than the ru'e, as counse'Ls -ees are not a;ar#e# ever0 time a part0 prevai's in a suit. Such attorne0Ls -ees can e a;ar#e# in the cases enumerate# in Artic'e 22 o- the Civi' Co#e, an# in a'' cases it must e reasona'e. $n the instant case, the counse' -or the p'ainti--s is himse'- a coBp'ainti--I it is then un'i:e'0 that he #eman#e# -rom his rothers an# sisters &1, as attorne0Ls -ees as a''ege# in the comp'aint an# testi-ie# to 0 him. /e #i# not present an0 ;ritten contract -or his -ees. /e is, ho;ever, entit'e# to a reasona'e amount -or attorne0Ls -ees, consi#ering that eemp'ar0 #amages a re a;ar#e#. Among the instances mentione# in Artic'e 22 o- the Civi' Co#e ;hen attorne0Ls -ees ma0 e recovere# is H1 ;hen eemp'ar0 #amages are a;ar#e#.H Un#er the circumstances in this case, an a;ar# o- &2!, -or attorne0Ls -ees is reasona'e. 6he petitioners #i# not contest the a;ar# -or actua' #amages -ie# 0 the tria' court. /ence, such a;ar# sha'' stan#.
22. 78uita'e "easing Corporation v. "ucita Su0on, et a'., G.. o. 1433%, ! Septemer 22 CASE 22 EJ$ita7l Lasin& Co#p. s. L$cita S$yo%- (a#issa Enano- (y#na Ta%ayo and Fli8 Oldan
G.. o. 1433% X Septemer !, 22 X &anganian, 5.X >egistere# <;ner u'e? FACTS:
Page | 23
hether or not &etitioner is 'ia'e -or the acci#ent #espite a va'i# #ee# o- sa'e in -avour o- 7catine. RLING:
e ho'# petitioner 'ia'e -or the #eaths an# the in9uries comp'aine# o-, ecause it ;as the registere# o;ner o- the tractor at the time o- the acci#ent on 5u'0 1*, 14. 6he Court has consistent'0 ru'e# that, regar#'ess o- sa'es ma#e o- a motor vehic'e, the registere# o;ner is the 'a;-u' operator inso-ar as the pu'ic an# thir# persons are concerne#I conse8uent'0, it is #irect'0 an# primari'0 responsi'e -or the conse8uences o- its operation. $n contemp'ation o- 'a;, the o;ner=operator o- recor# is the emp'o0er o- the #river, the actua' operator an# emp'o0er eing consi#ere# as mere'0 its agent. 6he same princip'e app'ies even i- the registere# o;ner o- an0 vehic'e #oes not use it -or pu'ic service. Since 78uita'e remaine# the registere# o;ner o- the tractor, it cou'# not escape primar0 'iai'it0 -or the #eaths an# the in9uries arising -rom the neg'igence o- the #river. e must stress that the -ai'ure o- 78uita'e an#=or 7catine to register the sa'e ;ith the "6< shou'# not pre9u#ice respon#ents, ;ho have the 'ega' right to re'0 on the 'ega' princip'e that the registere# vehic'e
Page | 24
o;ner is 'ia'e -or the #amages cause# 0 the neg'igence o- the #river.&etitioner cannot hi#e ehin# its a''egation that 6utor ;as the emp'o0ee o- 7catine.6his ;i'' e--ective'0 prevent respon#ents -rom recovering their 'osses on the asis o- the inaction or -au't o- petitioner in -ai'ing to register the sa'e.6he nonBregistration is the -au't o- petitioner, ;hich shou'# thus -ace the 'ega' conse8uences thereo-. 7. )a7it Syst%
23. Santos vs. Siug
14 SCA !2 11
CASE 2+ Adol!o Santos 1s. A7#aha% Si7$& and Co$#t o! Appals
G.. o. "B2%1!X a0 2%, 11 X e'encioB/errera., 5.X >+ait S0stem? Ptition#s P A#o'-o ". Santos
Rspondnt P Araham Siug an# Court o- Appea's, respondents.
S$%%a#y: A#o'-o Santos SA6
C&C .$n or#er to operate his 9eep, he -ictitious'0 so'# it to (icente (i#a# ($DAD an authorize# 9eepne0 operator ;ith a C&C :ait s0stem.
A#o'-o ". Santos SA6
Page | 25
)ranch issue# a estraining
+ere we to allow a third person to prove that he is the real owner of a particular vehicle and not the registered owner it would in effect be tantamount to sanctioning the attempt of the registered owner of the particular vehicle in evading responsibility for it cannot be dispelled that the door would be opened to collusion between a person and a registered owner for the latter to escape said responsibility to the public or to any person. ...*
ISSE: hether or not petitioner ma0 sti'' prove his o;nership over the 'evie# motor vehic'e. RLING:
6he 9u#gment ren#ere# in SantosE -avor 0 )ranch , #ec'aring him to e the o;ner o- the propert0, #i# not as a asic proposition, constitute inter-erence ;ith the po;ers or processes o- )ranch ($$ ;hich ren#ere# the 9u#gment, to en-orce ;hich the ;as 'evie# upon. An# this is so ecause propert0 e'onging to a stranger is not or#inari'0 su9ect to 'ev0. hi'e it is true that the vehic'e in 8uestion ;as in custo#ia 'egis, an# shou'# not e inter-ere# ;ith ;ithout the permission o- the proper Court, the propert0 must e one in ;hich the #e-en#ant has proprietar0 interest. here the Sheri-- seizes a strangerLs propert0, the ru'e #oes not app'0 an# inter-erence ;ith his custo#0 is not inter-erence ;ith another CourtLs
Page | 26
/77F<7, as pra0e# -or 0 private respon#ent Araham Siug, the petition -or revie; on certiorari -i'e# 0 A#o'-o ". Santos is #ismisse# ;ith costs against the petitioner. 24. "ita 7nterprises, $nc. vs. CA G.. o. %4%3. Apri' 2*, 14 CASE 2 G.R. No. LB==+
Ap#il 2H- ,
LITA ENTERPRISES- INC.- ptition#1s. SECOND CIIL CASES DIISION- INTER(EDIATE APPELLATE CORT- NICASIO (. OCA(PO and FRANCISCA P. GARCIA- #spondnts. ESCOLIN- *.
FACTS:
Sometime in 1%%, spouses icasio .
hether or not the petition ho'#s merit. RLING:
o. Un8uestiona'0, the parties herein operate# un#er an arrangement, common'0 :no;n as the H:ait s0stemH, ;here0 a person ;ho has een grante# a certi-icate o- pu'ic convenience a''o;s another person ;ho o;ns motors vehic'es to operate un#er such -ranchise -or a -ee. A certi-icate o- pu'ic convenience is a specia' privi'ege con-erre# 0 the government. Ause o- this privi'ege 0 the grantees thereo- cannot e countenance#. A'though not outright'0 pena'ize# as a crimina' o--ense, the H:ait s0stemH is invaria'0 recognize# as eing contrar0 to pu'ic po'ic0 an#, there-ore, voi# an# ineistent
Page | 27
un#er Artic'e 14 o- the Civi' Co#e. Further, it ;as a -'agrant error on the part o- oth the tria' an# appe''ate courts to have accor#e# the parties re'ie- in pursuant to Artic'e 1412 o- the Civi' Co#e. H7 pacto i''icito non oritur actioH Vo action arises out o- an i''icit argainW is the tuneBhonore# maim that must e app'ie# to the parties in the case at ar. /aving entere# into an i''ega' contract, neither can see: re'ie- -rom the courts, an# each must ear the conse8uences o- his acts.
2!. 6e9a ar:eting vs. $AC
14 SCA 34* 1*
CASE 2/ G.R. No. LB=//,
(a#ch - ,H
TE*A (AR)ETING ANDOR ANGEL *ACIAN- ptition#- 1s. 'ONORA0LE INTER(EDIATE APPELLATE CORT AND PEDRO N. NALE- #spondnts. PARAS- *.: FACTS:
Page | 28
ISSE:
hether or not respon#ent court erre# in app'0ing the #octrine o- Hpari #e'icto.H RLING:
o. Un8uestiona'0, the parties herein operate# un#er an arrangement, common'0 :no;n as the H:ait s0stemH ;here0 a person ;ho has een grante# a certi-icate o- pu'ic convenience a''o;s another person ;ho o;ns motor vehic'es to operate un#er such -ranchise -or a -ee. A certi-icate o- pu'ic convenience is a specia' privi'ege con-erre# 0 the government. Ause o- this privi'ege 0 the grantees thereo- cannot e countenance#. 6he H:ait s0stemH has een i#enti-ie# as one o- the root causes o- the preva'ence o- gra-t an# corruption in the government transportation o--ices. A'though not outright'0 pena'ize# as a crimina' o--ense, the >:ait s0stem? is invaria'0 recognize# as eing contrar0 to pu'ic po'ic0 an#, there-ore, voi# an# in eistent un#er Artic'e 14 o- the Civi' Co#e. 6he #e-ect o- in eistence o- a contract is permanent an# cannot e cure# 0 rati-ication or 0 prescription. 6he mere 'apse o- time cannot give e--icac0 to contracts that are nu'' an# voi#. L7 pacto i''icitoL non oritur actioH o action arises out o- i''icit argain is the timeBhonore# maim that must e app'ie# to the parties in the case at ar. /aving entere# into an i''ega' contract, neither can see: re'ie- -rom the courts, an# each must ear the conse8uences o- his acts.H "ita 7nterprises vs. $AC, 12 SCA 1. c. 0o$nda#y Syst%
2%. agoo vs. )ernar#o
* SCA !2 1%3
CASE 2= #7ano (a&7oo and E%ilia (a&7oo 1. Dl!in 0#na#do G.R. No. LB,=H Ap#il +- ,=+ (aKalintal- *. FACTS:
Cesar agoo, 0ears o'# an# chi'# o- spouses agoo ;as :i''e# in a motor vehic'e acci#ent invo'ving a passenger 9eepne0 #riven 0 Conra#o o8ue 6he contract et;een o8ue an# )ernar#o ;as that o8ue ;as to pa0 to )ernar#o the sum o- &. -or the privi'ege o- #riving the 9eepne0I an# ;hatever earnings o8ue cou'# ma:e out o- the use o- the 9eepne0 in transporting passengers -rom one point to another in the Cit0 o- ani'a ;ou'# e'ong entire'0 to him As a conse8uence o- the acci#ent an# as a resu't o- the #eath o- Cesar, o8ue ;as prosecute# -or homici#e thru rec:'ess impru#ence
•
•
•
o8ue serve# his sentence ut he ;as not a'e to pa0 the in#emnit0 ecause he ;as inso'vent Spouses agoo -i'e# an action against )ernar#o -or the en-orcement o- his susi#iar0 'iai'it0 as emp'o0er in accor#ance ;ith Artic'e 13, evise# &ena' Co#e 6he tria' court or#ere# #e-en#ant to pa0 p'ainti--s &3,. an# costs. De'-in )ernar#o, the a ppe''ant, conten#s that the re'ationship is essentia''0 that o- 'essor an# 'essee an# not that o- an emp'o0eeBemp'o0ee.
•
•
•
•
M
Page | 29
ISSE: < an emp'o0erBemp'o0ee re'ationship eists et;een a 9eepne0Bo;ner an# a #river un#er a
>oun#ar0 s0stem? arrangement. RLING P Yes. 6he -act that the #river #oes not receive a -ie# ;age ut gets on'0 the ecess o- the
receipt o- -ares co''ecte# 0 him over the amount he pa0s to the 9eepBo;ner an# that the gaso'ine consume# 0 the 9eep is -or the account o- the #river Z are not su--icient to ;ith#ra; the re'ationship et;een them -rom that o- emp'o0er an# emp'o0ee. RatioP $n#ee# to eempt -rom 'iai'it0 the o;ner o- a pu'ic vehic'e ;ho operates it un#er the >oun#ar0
s0stem? on the groun# that he is a mere 'essor ;ou'# e not on'0 to aet -'agrant vio'ations o- the &u'ic Service 'a; ut a'so to p'ace the ri#ing pu'ic at the merc0 o- rec:'ess an# irresponsi'e #rivers II. TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS
+. E8t#ao#dina#y Dili&nc
2*. 7astern Shipping v. Court o- Appea's, G.. o. 41!1 Apri' 3, 11. CASE 2H EASTERN S'IPPING LINES- INC.- petitioner 1s. T'E CORT OF APPEALS and T'E FIRST NATIONWIDE ASSRANCE CORPORATIONrespon#ents. G.R. No. ,/,
Ap#il +- ,,
FACTS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ISSE: = the petitioner can e he'# 'ia'e -or the #amages incurre# 0 the private respon#ent. DECISION: 6he petition is D$S$SS7D.
Page | 30
RLING:
&'ain'0, the heav0 seas an# rains re-erre# to in the masterLs report ;ere not caso -ortuito, ut norma' occurrences that an oceanBgoing vesse', particu'ar'0 in the month o- Septemer ;hich, in our area, is a month o- rains an# heav0 seas ;ou'# encounter as a matter o- routine. 6he0 are not un-oreseen nor un-oreseea'e. 6hese are con#itions that oceanBgoing vesse's ;ou'# encounter an# provi#e -or, in the or#inar0 course o- a vo0age. 6hat rain ;ater not sea ;ater -oun# its ;a0 into the ho'#s o- the 5upri (enture is a c'ear in#ication that care an# -oresight #i# not atten# the c'osing o- the shipLs hatches so that rain ;ater ;ou'# not -in# its ;a0 into the cargo ho'#s o- the ship. 6he presumption, there-ore, that the cargo ;as in apparent goo# con#ition ;hen it ;as #e'ivere# 0 the vesse' to the arrastre operator 0 the c'ean ta''0 sheets has een overturne# an# traverse#. 6he evi#ence is c'ear to the e--ect that the #amage to the cargo ;as su--ere# ;hi'e aoar# petitionerLs vesse'. 2. De'san 6ransport v. Court o- Appea's, G.. o. 12**, ovemer 1!, 21. CASE 2 DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES- INC.- ptition#-1s. T'E 'ON. CORT OF APPEALS and A(ERICAN 'O(E ASSRANCE CORPORATION#spondnts.
G.. o. 12** ovemer 1!, 21 FACTS:
Carrier [ De'san 6ransport "ines $nc. Shipper [ Ca'te &hi'ippine $nsurer [ American /ome Assurance Corporation Ca'te entere# into a contract ;ith De'san 6ransport "ines to transport its petro'eum goo#s -rom )atangas[)ataan e-iner0 to \amoanga Cit0. 6he shipment ;as insure# 0 private respon#entAmerican /ome Assurance Corp. 6 a0sum set sai' -rom )atangas -or \amoanga Cit0. Un-ortunate'0, the vesse' san: in the ear'0 morning o- August 1%, 1% near &ana0 Gu'- in the (isa0as ta:ing ;ith it the entire cargo o- -ue' oi'. Suse8uent'0, private respon#ent pai# Ca'te the sum o-&!,%,%3!.%* representing the insure# va'ue o- the 'ost cargo. 7ercising its right o- surogation, the private respon#ent #eman#e# o- the petitioner the same amount it pai# to Ca'te. De'san -ai'e# to pa0 its o'igation the American /ome Assurance Corp. /ence, the 'atter institutes an action to recover the amount pai#. 6he regiona' tria' court ru'e# in -avor o- petitioner stating that 6 a0sum, ;as sea;orth0 as certi-ie# 0 &hi'ippine Coastguar# an# the inci#ent ;as cause# 0 unepecte# inc'ement ;eather con#ition or -orce ma9eure. $ the court o- appea's, it reverse# the tria' courtEs #ecision 0 giving cre#ence to the ;eather report issue# 0 the &AGBASA that the sea ;as ca'm #uring the vo0age. ISSE:
= petitioner shou'# e he'# 'ia'e -or #amages. RLING:
Y7S. From the nature o- their usiness an# -or reasons o- pu'ic po'ic0, common carriers are oun# to oserve etraor#inar0 #i'igence in the vigi'ance over the goo#s an# -or the sa-et0 o- passengers
Page | 31
transporte# 0 them, accor#ing to a'' the circumstance o- each case. $n the event o- 'oss, #estruction or #eterioration o- the insure# goo#s, common carriers sha'' e responsi'e un'ess the same is rought aout, among others, 0 -'oo#, storm, earth8ua:e, 'ightning or other natura' #isaster or ca'amit0. $n a'' other cases, i- the goo#s are 'ost, #estro0e# or # eteriorate#, common carriers are presume# to have een at -au't or to have acte# neg'igent'0, un'ess the0 prove that the0 oserve# etraor#inar0 #i'igence. 6he ta'e o- strong ;in#s an# ig ;aves 0 the sai# o--icers o- the petitioner ho;ever, ;as e--ective'0 reutte# an# e'ie# 0 the ;eather report -rom the &AGASA, sho;ing that -rom 2P oEc'oc: to P oEc'oc: in the morning on August 1%, 1%, the ;in# spee# remaine# at ten 1 to t;ent0 2 :nots per hour ;hi'e the height o- the ;aves range# -rom .* to t;o 2 meters in the vicinit0 o- Cu0o 7ast &ass an# &ana0 Gu'- ;here the su9ect vesse' san:. 6hus, as the appe''ate court correct'0 ru'e#, petitionerEs vesse', 6 a0sun, san: ;ith its entire cargo -or the reason that it ;as not sea;orth0. 6here ;as no s8ua'' or a# ;eather or etreme'0 poor sea con#ition in the vicinit0 ;hen the sai# vesse' san:. 6hus not having overturne# the evi#ence presente#, that it oserve# etraor#inar0 #i'igence the presumption o- neg'igence stan#s, an# there-ore it is ut right an# proper to ru'e that petitioner shou'# e he'# 'ia'e -or #amages. 2. &hi'ippine Charter $nsurance Corp. v. Un:no;n <;ner o- (esse' =( >ationa' /onor?, ationa' Shipping Corp. an# $nternationa' Container Services, $nc., G.. o. 1%133, 5u'0 , 2! CASE 2 P'ILIPPINE C'ARTER INSRANCE CORPORATION 1s. N)NOWN OWNER OF T'E ESSEL ( 5NATIONAL 'ONOR-6 NATIONAL S'IPPING CORPORATION OF T'E P'ILIPPINES and INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER SERICESINC.
VG..
o.
1%133.
5u'0
,
2!W
FACTS:
&etitioner &hi'ippine Charter $nsurance Corporation &C$C is the insurer o- a shipment on oar# the vesse' =( >ationa' /onor,? represente# in the &hi'ippines 0 its agent, ationa' Shipping Corporation o- the &hi'ippines SC&. 6he =( >ationa' /onor? arrive# at the ani'a $nternationa' Container 6ermina' $C6. 6he $nternationa' Container 6ermina' Services, $ncorporate# $C6S$ ;as -urnishe# ;ith a cop0 o- the crate cargo 'ist an# i'' o- 'a#ing, an# it :ne; the contents o- the crate. 6he -o''o;ing #a0, the vesse' starte# #ischarging its cargoes using its ;inch crane. 6he crane ;as operate# 0 <'egario )a'sa, a ;inchman -rom the $C6S$, ec'usive arrastre operator o- $C6. Denasto Dauz, 5r., the chec:erBinspector o- the SC&, a'ong ;ith the cre; an# the surve0or o- the $C6S$, con#ucte# an inspection o- the cargo. 6he0 inspecte# the hatches, chec:e# the cargo an# -oun# it in apparent goo# con#ition. C'au#io Cansino, the steve#ore o- the $C6S$, p'ace# t;o s'ing ca'es on each en# o- Crate o. 1. o s'ing ca'e ;as -astene# on the mi#Bportion o- the crate. $n DauzEs eperience, this ;as a norma' proce#ure. As the crate ;as eing hoiste# -rom the vesse'Es hatch, the mi#Bportion o- the ;oo#en -'ooring su##en'0 snappe# in the air, aout -ive -eet high -rom the vesse'Es t;in #ec:, sen#ing a'' its contents crashing #o;n har#, resu'ting in etensive #amage to the shipment. &C$C pai# the #amage, an# as surogee, -i'e# a case against =( ationa' /onor, SC& an# $C6S$. )oth 6C an# CA #ismisse# the comp'aint. ISSE:
hether
or
not
the
presumption
o-
neg'igence
is
app'ica'e
in
the
instant
case.
RLING:
o. $ agree ;ith the contention o- the petitioner that common carriers, -rom the nature o- their usiness an# -or reasons o- pu'ic po'ic0, are man#ate# to oserve etraor#inar0 #i'igence in the vigi'ance over the
Page | 32
goo#s an# -or the sa-et0 o- the passengers transporte# 0 them, accor#ing to a'' the circumstances o- each case. he Court has #e-ine# etraor#inar0 #i'igence in the vigi'ance over the goo#s as -o''o;sP 6he etraor#inar0 #i'igence in the vigi'ance over the goo#s ten#ere# -or shipment re8uires the common carrier to :no; an# to -o''o; the re8uire# precaution -or avoi#ing #amage to, or #estruction o- the goo#s entruste# to it -or sa'e, carriage an# #e'iver0. $t re8uires common carriers to ren#er service ;ith the greatest s:i'' an# -oresight an# >to use a'' reasona'e means to ascertain the nature an# characteristic o- goo#s ten#ere# -or shipment, an# to eercise #ue care in the han#'ing an# sto;age, inc'u#ing such metho#s as their nature re8uires.? 6he common carrierEs #ut0 to oserve the re8uisite #i'igence in the shipment o- goo#s 'asts -rom the time the artic'es are surren#ere# to or uncon#itiona''0 p'ace# in the possession o-, an# receive# 0, the carrier -or transportation unti' #e'ivere# to, or unti' the 'apse o- a reasona'e time -or their acceptance, 0 the person entit'e# to receive them.W ]hen the goo#s shippe# are either 'ost or arrive in #amage# con#ition, a presumption arises against the carrier o- its -ai'ure to oserve that #i'igence, an# there nee# not e an epress -in#ing o- neg'igence to ho'# it 'ia'e. 6o overcome the presumption o- neg'igence in the case o- 'oss, #estruction or #eterioration o- the goo#s, the common carrier must prove that it eercise# etraor#inar0 #i'igence. /o;ever, un#er Artic'e 1*34 o- the e; Civi' Co#e, the presumption o- neg'igence #oes not app'0 to an0 othe -o''o;ing causesP 1. 2. 3. 4. !.
F'oo#, storm, earth8ua:e, 'ightning or other natura' #isaster or ca'amit0I Act othe pu'ic enem0 in ;ar, ;hether internationa' or civi'I Act or omission othe shipper or o;ner othe goo#sI 6he character o- the goo#s or #e-ects in the pac:ing or in the containersI
$t ears stressing that the enumeration in Artic'e 1*34 o- the e; Civi' Co#e ;hich eempts the common carrier -or the 'oss or #amage to the cargo is a c'ose# 'ist. 6o ecu'pate itse'- -rom 'iai'it0 -or the 'oss=#amage to the cargo un#er an0 o- the causes, the common carrier is ur#ene# to prove an0 o- the a-orecite# causes c'aime# 0 it 0 a prepon#erance o- evi#ence. $- the carrier succee#s, the ur#en o- evi#ence is shi-te# to the shipper to prove that the carrier is neg'igent. >De-ect? is the ;ant or asence o- something necessar0 -or comp'eteness or per-ectionI a 'ac: or asence o- something essentia' to comp'etenessI a #e-icienc0 in something essentia' to the proper use -or the purpose -or ;hich a thing is to e use#. #e-ectiveness? is not s0non0mous ;ith >in-eriorit0.? $n the present case, the tria' court #ec'are# that ase# on the recor#, the 'oss o- the shipment ;as cause# 0 the neg'igence othe petitioner as the shipperP 6he same ma0 e sai# ;ith respect to #e-en#ant $C6S$. 6he rea:age an# co''apse o- Crate o. 1 an# the tota' #estruction o- its contents ;ere not imputa'e to an0 -au't or neg'igence on the part o- sai# #e-en#ant in han#'ing the un'oa#ing o- the cargoes -rom the carr0ing vesse', ut ;as #ue so'e'0 to the inherent #e-ect an# ;ea:ness o- the materia's use# in the -arication o- sai# crate. 6he crate shou'# have three so'i# an# strong ;oo#en atten p'ace# si#e 0 si#e un#erneath or on the -'ooring o- the crate to support the ;eight o- its contents. 3. Sa'u#o v. Court o- Appea's, G.. o. !!3%, arch 23, 12.
CASE +
Page | 33
+. SALDO S. CORT OF APPEALS GR //+=- (a#ch 2+- ,2 R&alado- *.
Pa#tis o! th Cas: &omiers:i an# Son Funera' /ome Shipper, &etitioner aria Sa'u#o Consignee,
6rans;or'# Air'ines 6A Chicago [ San Francisco, an# &hi'ippine Air'ines &A"B San Francisco [ ani'a Carrier
Facts:
hen petitionerEs mother, Crispina Ga'#o Sa'u#o, #ie# in Chicago $''inois, shipper &omiers:i an# Son Funera' /ome o- Chicago ma#e the necessar0 preparations an# arrangements -or the shipment o- the remains -rom Chicago to the &hi'ippines. 6he remains ;ere sea'e# 0 &hi'ippine (ice Consu' )ienveni#o . "'aneta ;ho sea'e# such in an airtight an# ;aterproo- cas:et.
Ptition# all&s: that private respon#ents receive# the cas:ete# remains o- petitionersL mother on
Page | 34
RTC B aso've# the t;o respon#ent air'ines companies o- 'iai'it0. CA B a--irme# the #ecision o- the 'o;er court in toto.
ISSE
$s the #e'a0 in the #e'iver0 o- the cas:ete# remains o- petitionersL mother ;as #ue to the -au't o- respon#ent air'ine companiesK
'ELD:
<. 6he Court AFF$7D the CA #ecision an# 9ust a;ar#e# &4, #amages to petitioners since the s;itching o- cas:ets prior thereto ;as not cause# 0 respon#ents. 6he -acts e'ie the averment that there ;as #e'iver0 o- the cargo to the carrier on
6he i'' o- 'a#ing in this case, particu'ar'0 &A" Air;a0 )i'' issue# on
31. "orenzo Shipping v. )5 arthe', G.. o. 14!43, ovemer 1, 24. CASE +,
+,. LORENO S'IPPING CORP S. 0* (ART'EL
G.. o. 14!43 ChicoBazario, 5.
ovemer 1, 24
Page | 35
Pa#tis to th cas: "orenzo Shipping Corporation &etitioner, )5 arthe' $nternationa' $nc
espon#ent Facts: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
&etitioner "orenzo Shipping Corporation is a #omestic corporation engage# in coast;ise shipping. $t use# to o;n the cargo vesse' =( Da#iangas 7press ;hi'e respon#ent )5 arthe' $nternationa', $nc. is a usiness entit0 engage# in tra#ing, mar:eting, an# se''ing o- various in#ustria' commo#ities. $t is a'so an importer an# #istriutor o- #i--erent ran#s o- engines an# spare parts. espon#ent supp'ie# petitioner ;ith spare parts -or the 'atterLs marine engines. espon#ent supp'ie# petitioner ;ith spare parts -or the 'atterLs marine engines. Accor#ing to the 8uotation it sent, #e'iveries o- such items are >;ithin 2 months a-ter receipt o- -irm or#er.? &etitioner therea-ter issue# to respon#ent &urchase
Page | 36
•
•
6he 6C #ismisse# the comp'aint ;hich or#ere# the p'ainti-- to pa0 &!,. to the #e-en#ant. $t he'# respon#ent oun# to the 8uotation it sumitte# to petitioner particu'ar'0 ;ith respect to the terms o- pa0ment an# #e'iver0 o- the c0'in#er 'iners. $t a'so #ec'are# that respon#ent ha# agree# to the cance''ation o- the contract o- sa'e ;hen it returne# the post#ate# chec:s issue# 0 petitioner. CA B reverse# the #ecision o- the 6C.
ISSES
1. = respon#ent incurre# #e'a0 in per-orming its o'igation un#er the contract o- sa'e B NO 2. hether or not sai# contract ;as va'i#'0 rescin#e# 0 petitioner. [NO 'ELD:
6he Court D7$7D since time ;as not o- the essence in the contract, as #epicte# -rom the actua' or intention o- the parties. 6he #e'iver0 o- the c0'in#er 'iners on 2 Apri' 1 ;as ma#e ;ithin a reasona'e perio# o- time consi#ering that respon#ent ha# to p'ace the or#er -or the c0'in#er 'iners ;ith its principa' in 5apan an# that the 'atter ;as, at that time, eset 0 heav0 vo'ume o- ;or:. 6here having een no -ai'ure on the part o- the respon#ent to per-orm its o'igation, the po;er to rescin# the contract is unavai'ing to the petitioner. 6here-ore, it can e sai# that respon#ent eercise# #ue #i'igence in the per-ormance o- its o'igation.
32. Sea'oa#er Shipping v. Gran# Cement anu-acturing, G.. os. 1%*3%3 J 1**4%%, 1! Decemer 21. CASE +2
G.. o. 1%*3%3. Decemer 1!, 21. SEALOADER S'IPPING CORPORATION , petitioner v. GRAND CE(ENT (ANFACTRING CORPORATION- *O9CE LANC' TG CO.- INC. LEONARDOBDE CASTRO , 5 pP FACTS:
6hese are t;o petitions -or evie; on Certiorari un#er u'e 4! o- the u'es o- Court, oth see:ing to cha''enge the Amen#e# Decision o- the Court o- Appea's 0 re#ucing 0 !O the a;ar# o- actua' #amages that ;as previous'0 grante# in the Decision o- the egiona' 6ria' Court o- Ceu Cit0. 6he antece#ent -acts are as -o''o;sP Sea'oa#er Shipping Corporation, herein petitioner, is a #omestic corporation engage# in the usiness o- shipping an# hau'ing cargo -rom one point to another using seagoing interBis'an# arges. Gran# Cement anu-acturing Corporation, on the other han#, is a #omestic corporation engage# in the usiness o-
Page | 37
manu-acturing an# se''ing cement through its authorize# #istriutors an#, -or ;hich purposes, it maintains its o;n private ;har- in San Fernan#o, Ceu, &hi'ippines.
•
•
Page | 38
appea' an# ren#ere# its 9u#gement partia''0 mo#i-0ing 0 re#ucing the a;ar# -or actua' #amages 0 !O or ha'-. 6he appe''ate court #eci#e# that Gran# Cement #i# not ta:e an0 precaution to avoi# the #amages rought 0 the storm an# #ue to its contriutor0 neg'igence -or mere'0 instructing the &etitioners to 'eave the ;har- the #a0 e-ore the storm, Gran# Cement must carr0 part o- the runt o- the #amages. CA suse8uent'0 -oun# that Gran# Cement 'i:e;ise #i# not eercise #ue #i'igence since it e'ate#'0 in-orme# Sea'oa#er o- the approaching t0phoon an#, therea-ter, sti'' continue# to 'oa# another vesse'. ISSE: ho shou'# e 'ia'e -or the #amage sustaine# 0 the ;har- o- Gran# CementK RLING:
Sea'oa#er cannot pass to Gran# Cement the responsii'it0 o- casting o-- the mooring 'ines connecting the D=) 6op'oa#er to the ;har-. &eop'e at the ;har- cou'# not 9ust cast o-- the mooring 'ines ;ithout an0 instructions -rom the cre; o- the D=) 6op'oa#er an# the =6 (iper. As the D=) 6op'oa#er ;as ;ithout an engine, casting o-- the mooring 'ines premature'0 might sen# the arge a#ri-t or even run the ris: o- the arge hitting the ;har- sure enough. 6hus, Sea'oa#er shou'# have ta:en the initiative to cast o-- the mooring 'ines ear'0 on or, at the ver0 'east, re8ueste# the cre; at the ;har- to un#erta:e the same. $n -ai'ing to #o so, Sea'oa#er ;as mani-est'0 neg'igent. Contrar0 to the 9u#gement o- the CA, Gran# Cement ;as not gui't0 o- neg'igent acts, ;hich contriute# to the #amage that ;as incurre# on its ;har-. Court ho'#s that Sea'oa#er ha# the responsii'it0 to in-orm itse'- o- the prevai'ing ;eather con#itions in the areas ;here its vesse' ;as set to sai'. Sea'oa#er cannot mere'0 re'0 on other vesse's -or ;eather up#ates an# ;arnings on approaching storms, as ;hat apparent'0 happene# in this case. /ence, the petition -or revie; ;as D7$7D.
. P#s$%ption o! N&li&nc
33. De'san 6ransport v. American /ome, G.. o. 141, 1! August 2% CASE ++
G.. o. 141. August 1!, 2%. DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES- INC. , petitioner v. A(ERICAN 'O(E ASSRANCE CORPORATION , respon#ent . GARCIA , 5 pP FACTS:
6his is a petition -or revie; on certiorari un#er u'e 4! o- the u'es o- Court ;herein petitioner assai's an# see:s to set asi#e the Decision o- the CA, a--irming an ear'ier #ecision o- 6C o- ani'a in t;o separate comp'aints -or #amages. 6he -acts are as -o''o;sP De'san is a #omestic corporation ;hich o;ns an# operates the vesse' 6 "arusan.
Page | 39
)oth the tria' court an# the CA uni-orm'0 ru'e# that De'san -ai'e# to prove its c'aim that there ;as a contriutor0 neg'igence on the part o- the o;ner o- the goo#s ZCa'te an# the Court sees no reason to #epart there-rom. As the Court sa; it, the cre; o- the vesse' shou'# have prompt'0 in-orme# the shore ten#er that the port mooring 'ine ;as cut o-- ut De'san #i# not #o so on the 'ame ecuse that there ;as no avai'a'e anca. As it is, De'sanLs personne' signa'e# a Hre# 'ightH ;hich ;as not a su--icient ;arning ecause such signa' on'0 meant that the pumping o- #iese' oi' ha# een -inishe#. either #i# the 'o;ing o- ;hist'e su--ice consi#ering the #istance o- more than 2 :i'ometers et;een the vesse' an# the Ca'te )u': Depot, asi#e -rom the -act that it ;as not the agree# signa'. De'san, eing a common carrier, shou'# have eercise# etraor#inar0 #i'igence in the per-ormance o- its #uties. Conse8uent'0, it is o'ige# to prove that the #amage to its cargo ;as cause# 0 one o- the ecepte# causes i- it ;ere to see: eemption -rom responsii'it0. /aving -ai'e# to #o so, De'san must ear the conse8uences.
Page | 40
/ence, the petition ;as D7$7D. 34. De'san 6ransport "ines v. CA, G.. o. 12**, 1! ovemer 21
CASE + DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES CA
G o. 12**, ov. 1!, 2*
FACTSP Calt8 Philippins entere# into a contract o- a--reightment ;ith the petitioner, Dlsan T#anspo#t LinsInc., -or a perio# o- one 0ear ;here0 the sai# common carrier agree# to transport Ca'teLs in#ustria' -ue'
oi' -rom the )atangasB)ataan e-iner0 to #i--erent parts o- the countr0. Un#er the contract, petitioner too: on oar# its vesse', 6 a0sun, 2,2**.314 :i'o'iters o- in#ustria' -ue' oi' o- Ca'te to e #e'ivere# to the Ca'te
6 a0sun set sai' -rom )atangas -or \amoanga Cit0. Un-ortunate'0, the vesse' san: in the ear'0 morning o- August 1%, 1% near &ana0 Gu'- in the (isa0as ta:ing ;ith it the entire cargo o- -ue' oi'. Suse8uent'0, private respon#ent pai# Ca'te &!,%,%3!.!* representing the insure# va'ue o- the 'ost cargo. 7ercising its right o- surogation, the private respon#ent #eman#e# o- the petitioner the same amount it pai# to Ca'te. Due to its -ai'ure to co''ect -rom the petitioner #espite prior #eman#, private respon#ent -i'e# a comp'aint ;ith the 6C. 6he 6C #ismisse# the comp'aint ;hen it -oun# that the vesse', 6 a0sun, ;as sea;orth0 to un#erta:e the vo0age as #etermine# 0 the &hi'ippine Coast Guar# an# the inci#ent ;as cause# 0 unepecte# inc'ement ;eather con#ition or -orce ma9eure. CA reverse# the #ecision ;hich he'# that in the asence o- an0 ep'anation as to ;hat ma0 have cause# the sin:ing o- the vesse' coup'e# ;ith the -in#ing that the same ;as improper'0 manne#, petitioner is 'ia'e. )e-ore the Court, petitioner theorize# that ;hen private respon#ent pai# Ca'te the va'ue o- its 'ost cargo, the act o- the private respon#ent is e8uiva'ent to a tacit recognition that the i''B-ate# vesse' ;as sea;orth0I other;ise, private respon#ent ;as not 'ega''0 'ia'e to Ca'te #ue to the 'atterLs reach o- imp'ie# ;arrant0 un#er the marine insurance po'ic0 that the vesse' ;as sea;orth0. ISSE: hether or not the pa0ment ma#e 0 the private respon#ent to Ca'te -or the insure# va'ue o- the
'ost cargo amounte# to an a#mission that the vesse' ;as sea;orth0, thus prec'u#ing an0 action -or recover0 against the petitioner. RLING: <. 6he pa0ment ma#e 0 the private respon#ent -or the insure# va'ue o- the 'ost cargo
operates as ;aiver o- its private respon#ent right to en-orce the term o- the imp'ie# ;arrant0 against Ca'te un#er the marine insurance po'ic0. /o;ever, the same cannot e va'i#'0 interprete# as an automatic a#mission o- the vesse'Ls sea;orthiness 0 the private respon#ent as to -orec'ose recourse against the petitioner -or an0 'iai'it0 un#er its co ntractua' o'igation as a common carrier.
Page | 41
$n or#er to escape 'iai'it0 -or the 'oss o- its cargo o- in#ustria' -ue' oi' e'onging to Ca'te, petitioner attriutes the sin:ing o- 6 a0sun to -ortuitous event or -orce ma9eure. From the testimonies o- 5aime 5arae an# Francisco )erina, captain an# chie- mate, respective'0 o- the i''B-ate# vesse', it appears that a su##en an# unepecte# change o- ;eather con#ition that #a0 conten#ing that there ;ere strong ;in#s ;ith ve'ocit0 o- 3 :nots per hour an# ;aves 1B2 -eet high. /o;ever, this ta'e ;as reutte# 0 the ;eather report -rom &AGASA ;hich sho;e# that the ;in# spee# ;as on'0 at 1B2 :nots an# ;aves .*B2 meters high. 6hus, as the appe''ate court correct'0 ru'e#, petitionerLs vesse', 6 a0sun, san: ;ith its entire cargo -or the reason that it ;as not sea;orth0. 6here ;as no s8ua'' or a# ;eather or etreme'0 poor sea con#ition in the vicinit0 ;hen the sai# vesse' san:. &etitioner is 'ia'e -or the insure# va'ue o- the 'ost cargo o- in#ustria' -ue' oi' e'onging to Ca'te -or its -ai'ure to reut the presumption o- -au't or neg'igence as common carrier occasione# 0 the unep'aine# sin:ing o- its vesse', 6 a0sun, ;hi'e in transit.
3!. aers: "ines v. Court o- Appea's, 222 SCA 1, G.. 4*%1, a0 1*, 13. CASE +/ (AERS) LINES CA
G. o. 4*%1, a0 1*, 13 FACTS: Ptition# (a#sK Lin is engage# in the transportation o- goo#s 0 sea, #oing usiness in the &hi'ippines through its &n#al a&nt Co%pania d Ta7acos d Filipinas , ;hi'e p#i1at #spondnt E!#n Castillo is the proprietor o- Eth&al La7o#ato#is , a -irm engage# in the manu-acture o-
pharmaceutica' pro#ucts. An#ers aesr:'ine? an# #ate o- arriva' to e Apri' 3, 1**. /o;ever, -or un:no;n reasons, sai# cargoes o- capsu'es ;ere #iverte# to ichmon#, (A an# then transporte# ac: to
them sho; that, in -in#ing petitioner 'ia'e -or #amages -or the #e'a0 in the #e'iver0 o- goo#s, re'iance ;as ma#e on the ru'e that contracts o- a#hesion are voi#. A##e# to this, the 'o;er court state# that the
Page | 42
eemption against 'iai'it0 -or #e'a0 is against pu'ic po'ic0 an# is thus, voi#. )esi#es, private respon#entLs action is anchore# on Artic'e 11* o- the CC an# not un#er the 'a; on A#mira't0. $n the case at ar, a #e'a0 in the #e'iver0 o- the goo#s spanning a perio# o- t;o 2 months an# seven * #a0s -a''s ;as e0on# the rea'm o- reasona'eness. Descrie# as ge'atin capsu'es -or use in pharmaceutica' pro#ucts, su9ect shipment ;as #e'ivere# to, an# 'e-t in, the possession an# custo#0 o- petitionerBcarrier -or transport to ani'a via
VG.. o. 13!3**.
)er#e &'ants, $nc. #e'ivere# %32 units o- arti-icia' trees to C.F. Sharp an# Compan0, $nc., the Genera' Ship Agent o- DSBSenator "ines, a -oreign shipping corporation, -or transportation an# #e'iver0 to the consignee, A'Bohr $nternationa' Group, in i0a#h, Sau#i Araia. 6he cargo ;as 'oa#e# in =S Araian Senator. Fe#era' &hoeni Assurance Compan0, $nc. insure# the cargo against a'' ris:s in the amount o- &41,42.%1.
hether DSBSenator "ines an# C.F. Sharp are 'ia'e -or the 'oss o- the cargo RLING:
Yes, petitioners are 'ia'e to Fe#era' &hoeni Assurance Co., $nc. -or pa0ment o- the 'oss o- the cargo. Artic'e 1*34 o- the Civi' Co#e provi#esP Art. 1*34. Common carriers are responsi'e -or the 'oss, #estruction, or #eterioration o- the goo#s, un'ess the same is #ue to an0 o- the -o''o;ing causes on'0P 1F'oo#, storm, earth8ua:e, 'ightning, or other natura' #isaster or ca'amit0I 2 Act o- the pu'ic enem0 in ;ar, ;hether internationa' or civi'I
Page | 43
3 Act or omission o- the shipper or o;ner o- the goo#sI 4 6he character o- the goo#s or #e-ects in the pac:ing or in the containersI !
3. &hi'amgen v. Court o- Appea's, 222 SCA 1!!, G.. o. 1 142%, a0 1*, 13. CASE + P'ILIPPINE A(ERICAN GENERAL INSRANCE CO(PAN9- INC.- ptition#- 1s. CORT OF APPEALS and TRANSPACIFIC TOWAGE- INC.- #spondnts. G.R. No. ,,2= (ay ,H- ,+Q FACTS:
hether the #e'a0 invo've# in the un'oa#ing o- the goo#s is #eeme# neg'igent'0 incurre# in so as not to -ree private respon#ent -rom responsii'it0
Page | 44
RLING:
o, the #e'a0 incurre# in the un'oa#ing o- the goo#s ;as not #ue to the neg'igence o- the parties ut ;as occasione# 0 causes that ma0 not e attriute# so'e'0 to human -actors, among ;hich ;ere the natura' con#itions o- the port ;here the =( HCraz0 /orseH ha# #oc:e#, the customs o- the p'ace, an# the ;eather con#itions. Un#er Art. 1*4 o- the e; Civi' Co#e, i- the common carrier neg'igent'0 incurs in #e'a0 in transporting the goo#s, a natura' #isaster sha'' not -ree the carrier -rom responsii'it0. hi'e it is true that there ;as in#ee# #e'a0 in #ischarging the cargo -rom the vesse', ;e agree ;ith the Court o- Appea's that neither o- the parties herein cou'# e -au'te# -or such #e'a0, -or the same #e'a0 ;as #ue not to neg'igence, ut to severa' -actors ear'ier #iscusse#. 6he cargo having een 'ost #ue to t0phoon HSa'ingH, an# the #e'a0 incurre# in its un'oa#ing not eing #ue to neg'igence, private respon#ent is eempt -rom 'iai'it0 -or the 'oss o- the cargo, pursuant to Artic'e 1*4 o- the Civi' Co#e. 3. )e'gian
o, petitioners have not overcome the presumption o- neg'igence o- a common carrier. e''Bsett'e# is the ru'e that common carriers, -rom the nature o- their usiness an# -or reasons o- pu'ic po'ic0, are oun# to oserve etraor#inar0 #i'igence an# vigi'ance ;ith respect to the sa-et0 o- the goo#s an# the passengers the0 transport. 6he etraor#inar0 responsii'it0 'asts -rom the time the goo#s are uncon#itiona''0 p'ace# in the possession o- an# receive# -or transportation 0 the carrier unti' the0 are #e'ivere#, actua''0 or constructive'0, to the consignee or to the person ;ho has a right to receive them. <;ing to this high #egree o- #i'igence re8uire# o- them, common carriers, as a genera' ru'e, are presume# to have een at -au't or neg'igent i- the goo#s the0 transporte# #eteriorate# or got 'ost or #estro0e#. 6hat is, un'ess the0 prove that the0 eercise# etraor#inar0 #i'igence in transporting the goo#s. /o;ever, the presumption o- -au't or neg'igence ;i'' not arise i- the 'oss is #ue to an0 o- the -o''o;ing causes enumerate# in Artic'e
Page | 45
1*34 o- the e; Civi' Co#e. Coro''ar0 to the -oregoing, mere proo- o- #e'iver0 o- the goo#s in goo# or#er to a common carrier an# o- their arriva' in a# or#er at their #estination constitutes a prima -acie case o- -au't or neg'igence against the carrier. $- no a#e8uate ep'anation is given as to ho; the #eterioration, the 'oss or the #estruction o- the goo#s happene#, the transporter sha'' e he'# responsi'e. 4. Co:a'iong Shipping "ines v. C&), Gen. $nsurance Co., G.. o. 14%1, 2! 5une 23 CASE CoKalion& Shippin& Lins 1. PC0
G.. o. 14%1 = 2! 5une 23 FACTS:
Page | 46
va'uation o- the cargo un#er the )i''s o- "a#ing issue# ecause the goo#s ;ere insure# ;ith the respon#ent -or the tota' amount o- &/&1!,.. ISSE:
Can the petitioner e 'ia'e -or the 'ost goo#sK $- it is, ;hat is the etent o- their 'iai'it0K RLING:
Yes, the petitioner is 'ia'e -or the 'ost cargoes. 6he uncontroverte# -in#ings o- the &hi'ippine Coast Guar# sho; that the /01 andag san: #ue to a -ire, ;hich resu'te# -rom an unchec:e# an# unten#e# crac: in the aui'iar0 engine -ue' oi' service tan: -rom ;hich -ue' spurte# out an# #rippe# to the heating ehaust mani-o'#, causing the ship to urst into -'ames. 6he crac: ;as 'ocate# on the si#e o- the -ue' oi' tan:, ;hich ha# a mere t;oBinch gap -rom the engine room ;a''ing, thus prec'u#ing constant inspection an# care 0 the cre;. 6he 'a; provi#es that a common carrier is presume# to have een neg'igent i- it -ai's to prove that it eercise# etraor#inar0 vigi'ance over the goo#s it transporte# there;ith. here 'oss o- cargo resu'ts -rom the -ai'ure o- the o--icers o- a vesse' to inspect their ship -re8uent'0 so that the0 ;ou'# have #iscovere# the eistence o- crac:e#, that 'oss cannot e attriute# to force majeure or even e consi#ere# as a caso fortuito, ut so'e'0 to the neg'igence o- those o--icia's ;ho ;ere suppose# to have inspecte# the ;orthiness o- their vesse' e-ore #eparture. ith respect to the etent o- its 'iai'it0, the respon#ent conten#e# that the petitionerEs 'iai'it0 shou'# e ase# on the actua' insure# va'ue o- the goo#s ;hi'e the petitioner c'aime# that its 'iai'it0 shou'# e 'imite# to the va'ue #ec'are# 0 the shipper=consignee in the )i'' o- "a#ing. A stipu'ation in a )i'' o- "a#ing 'imiting the common carrierEs 'iai'it0 -or 'oss or #estruction o- a cargo to a certain sum, un'ess the shipper or o;ner #ec'ares a greater va'ue, is sanctione# 0 Artic'es 1*4 an# 1*! o- the e; Civi' Co#e. 6he purpose o- the 'imiting stipu'ations in )i''s o- "a#ing is to protect the common carrier -rom eoritant 'iai'ities since such it o'iges the shipper=consignee to noti-0 the common carrier o- the amount that the 'atter ma0 e 'ia'e -or in case o- 'oss o- the goo#s. 6he common carrier can then ta:e appropriate measures to protect itse'- -rom harm. &ursuant to the a-orementione# provisions o- 'a;, it then must e re8uire# that the stipu'ation 'imiting the common carrierEs 'iai'it0 -or 'oss must e reasona'e an# 9ust un#er the circumstances, an# has een -ree'0 an# -air'0 agree# upon. $n the present case, ho;ever, in their #esire to otain 'o;er -reightage -ees, \osimo erca#o an# estor Ange'ia ;i''-u''0 mis'e# the petitioner 0 un#erva'uing the goo#s in their respective )i''s o- "a#ing, hence, the petitioner ;as epose# to a ris: that ;as #e'ierate'0 hi##en -rom it, an# -rom ;hich it cou'# not protect itse'-. ot on'0 #i# it vio'ate a va'i# contractua' stipu'ation, the0 'i:e;ise committe# a -rau#u'ent act ;hich sought to ma:e the common carrier 'ia'e -or more than the amount #ec'are# in the )i''s o- "a#ing. Consi#ering these circumstances then, in a##ition to the -acts that the insurance compan0 ;as pai# the correct higher premium 0 Fe'iciana "egaspi ;hi'e the petitioner ;as pai# a -ee 'o;er than ;hat it ;as entit'e# to -or transporting the goo#s that ha# een #e'ierate'0 un#erva'ue# 0 the shippers in the )i''s o- "a#ing the0 prepare#, it is in accor#ance ;ith 9ustice an# e8uit0 that et;een the t;o o- them, U&C) shou'# ear the 'oss in ecess o- the va'ue #ec'are# in the )i''s o- "a#ing.
41. Sar:ies 6ours &hi'., $nc. v. CA, 2 SCA !, G.. o. 1*.
Page | 47
CASE , Sa#Kis To$#s Philippins- Inc. 1. CA
G.. o. 1*= 2
$s the petitioner 'ia'e -or the 'ost 'uggageK RLING:
Yes, the0 are. Despite ;hat the petitioner ;ou'# have the Court e'ieve, the #ocumentar0 an# testimonia' evi#ence presente# at the tria' esta'ishe# that Fatima in#ee# oar#e# the us an# rought three pieces o- 'uggage ;ith her, one o- them ;as even recovere# ;ith the he'p o- a &hi'tranco us #river. Furthermore, in its 'etter on 1
Page | 48
assistance o- &hi'tranco us #rivers an# the ra#io stations. 6o epe#ite the rep'acement o- her motherEs 'ost immigration #ocuments, Fatima a'so ha# to eecute an a--i#avit o- 'oss. C'ear'0, the0 ;ou'# not have gone through a'' that trou'e in pursuit o- a -ancie# 'oss. $n -act, Fatima ;as not the on'0 one ;ho 'ost her 'uggage as ;e'' as other passengers have testi-ie# to have su--ere# simi'ar -ates as ;e''. Un#er the Civi' Co#e, common carriers, -rom the nature o- their usiness an# -or reasons o- pu'ic po'ic0, are oun# to oserve etraor#inar0 #i'igence in the vigi'ance over the goo#s transporte# 0 them, an# this 'iai'it0 'asts -rom the time the goo#s are uncon#itiona''0 p'ace# in the possession o-, an# receive# 0, the carrier -or transportation unti' the same are #e'ivere#, actua''0 or constructive'0, to the person ;ho has a right to receive them, un'ess the 'oss is #ue to an0 o- the ecepte# causes un#er Artic'e 1*34 thereo-. 6he cause o- the 'oss in the case at ar ;as the petitionerEs neg'igence in not ensuring that the #oors o- the aggage compartment o- its us ;ere secure'0 -astene#. As a resu't o- this 'ac: o- care, a'most a'' the 'uggage ;as 'ost to the pre9u#ice o- the pa0ing passengers. here the common carrier accepte# its passengerEs aggage -or transportation an# even ha# it p'ace# in the vehic'e 0 its o;n emp'o0ee, its -ai'ure to co''ect the necessar0 -reight charge is the common carrierEs o;n 'oo:out, ut it is neverthe'ess sti'' responsi'e -or the conse8uent 'oss o- the aggage.
42. (a'enzue'a /ar#;oo# an# $n#ustria' Supp'0 v. CA, 2*4 SCA %42, G.. o. 1231%. 5une 3, 1* CASE 2 aln$la 'a#d4ood 1s. CA ?GR ,2+,=- + *$n ,H@ FACTS:
(a'enzue'a /ar#;oo# an# $n#ustria' Supp'0, $nc. (/$S entere# into an agreement ;ith the Seven )rothers ;here0 the 'atter un#ertoo: to 'oa# on oar# its vesse' =( Seven Amassa#or the -ormerEs 'auan roun# 'ogs numering 4 at the port o- aconacon, $sae'a -or shipment to ani'a. (/$S insure# the 'ogs against 'oss an#=or #amage ;ith South Sea Suret0 an# $nsurance Co. 6he sai# vesse' san: resu'ting in the 'oss o- (/$SE insure# 'ogs. (/$S #eman#e# -rom South Sea Suret0 the pa0ment o- the procee#s o- the po'ic0 ut the 'atter #enie# 'iai'it0 un#er the po'ic0 -or nonBpa0ment o- premium. (/$S 'i:e;ise -i'e# a -orma' c'aim ;ith Seven )rothers -or the va'ue o- the 'ost 'ogs ut the 'atter #enie# the c'aim. 6he 6C ru'e# in -avor o- the petitioner.)oth Seven )rothers an# South Sea Suret0 appea'e#. 6he Court o- Appea's a--irme# the 9u#gment ecept as to the 'iai'it0 o- Seven )rothers.South Sea Suret0 an# (/$S
Page | 49
-i'e# separate petitions -or revie; e-ore the Supreme Court. $n a eso'ution #ate# 2 5une 1!, the Supreme Court #enie# the petition o- South Sea Suret0. 6he present #ecision concerns itse'- to the petition -or revie; -i'e# 0 (/$S. ISSE: $s a stipu'ation in a charter part0 that the o;ners sha'' not e responsi'e -or 'oss, sp'it, shortB
'an#ing, rea:ages an# an0 :in# o- #amages to the cargo? va'i#K RLING:
Yes. $t is un#ispute# that private respon#ent ha# acte# as a private carrier in transporting petitionerEs 'auan 'ogs. 6hus, Artic'e 1*4! an# other Civi' Co#e provisions on common carriers ;hich ;ere cite# 0 petitioner ma0 not e app'ie# un'ess epress'0 stipu'ate# 0 the parties in their charter part0. $n a contract o- private carriage, the parties ma0 va'i#'0 stipu'ate that responsii'it0 -or the cargo rests so'e'0 on the charterer, eempting the shipo;ner -rom 'iai'it0 -or 'oss o- or #amage to the cargo cause# even 0 the neg'igence o- the ship captain. &ursuant to Artic'e 13% o- the Civi' Co#e, such stipu'ation is va'i# ecause it is -ree'0 entere# into 0 the parties an# the same is not contrar0 to 'a;, mora's, goo# customs, pu'ic or#er, or pu'ic po'ic0. $n#ee#, their contract o- private carriage is not even a contract o- a#hesion. e stress that in a contract o- private carriage, the parties ma0 -ree'0 stipu'ate their #uties an# o'igations ;hich per-orce ;ou'# e in#ing on them. Un'i:e in a contract invo'ving a common carrier, private carriage #oes not invo've the genera' pu'ic. /ence, the stringent provisions o- the Civi' Co#e on common carriers protecting the genera' pu'ic cannot 9usti-ia'0 e app'ie# to a ship transporting commercia' goo#s as a private carrier. Conse8uent'0, the pu'ic po'ic0 emo#ie# therein is not contravene# 0 stipu'ations in a charter part0 that 'essen or remove the protection given 0 'a; in contracts invo'ving common carriers. 6he genera' pu'ic enters into a contract o- transportation ;ith common carriers ;ithout a han# or a voice in the preparation thereo-. 6he ri#ing pu'ic mere'0 a#heres to the contractI even i- the pu'ic ;ants to, it cannot sumit its o;n stipu'ations -or the approva' o- the common carrier. 6hus, the 'a; on common carriers eten#s its protective mant'e against oneBsi#e# stipu'ations inserte# in tic:ets, invoices or other #ocuments over ;hich the ri#ing pu'ic has no un#erstan#ing or, ;orse, no choice. Compare# to the genera' pu'ic, a charterer in a contract o- private carriage is not simi'ar'0 situate#. $t can BB an# in -act it usua''0 #oes BB enter into a -ree an# vo'untar0 agreement. $n practice, the parties in a contract o- private carriage can stipu'ate the carrierEs o'igations an# 'iai'ities over the shipment ;hich, in turn, #etermine the price or consi#eration o- the charter. 6hus, a charterer, in echange -or convenience an# econom0, ma0 opt to set asi#e the protection o- the 'a; on common carriers. hen the charterer #eci#es to eercise this option, he ta:es a norma' usiness ris:.
Page | 50
43. Yoi#o v. CA, 21 SCA 1, G.. o. 1133.
Spouses 6ito an# "en0 6umo0 an# their minor chi'#ren oar#e# at angago0, Surigao #e' Sur a Yoi#o "iner us oun# -or Davao Cit0. A'ong &icop oa# in, the 'e-t -ront tire o- the us ep'o#e#. 6he us -e'' into a ravine an# struc: a tree. 6he inci#ent resu'te# in the #eath o- 6ito 6umo0 an# ph0sica' in9uries to other passengers. 6he ;in#ing roa# ;as not cemente# an# ;as ;et #ue to the rainI it ;as rough ;ith crushe# roc:s. 6he us ;hich ;as -u'' o- passengers ha# cargoes on top. "en0 testi-ie# that it ;as running -ast an# she cautione# the #river to s'o; #o;n ut he mere'0 stare# at her through the mirror. /o;ever, Sa'ce, the us con#uctor, testi-ie# that the us ;as running spee# -or on'0 !B% :mh. 6he 'e-t -ront tire that ep'o#e# ;as a ran# ne; Goo#0ear tire that he mounte# on the us on'0 ! #a0s e-ore the inci#ent. She state# that a'' #river app'icants in Yoi#o "iner un#er;ent actua' #riving tests e-ore the0 ;ere emp'o0e#. 6he #e-en#ant is invo:ing that the tire 'o;out ;as a caso -ortuito.
ISSES:
1. < the tire 'o;out ;as pure'0 caso -otuitoK < 2. < the #e-en#ant us 'iner is 'ia'e -or #amages resu'ting -rom the #eath o- 6itoK Y7S RLING:
1. 6he ep'osion o- the tire is not in itse'- a -ortuitous event. 6he cause o- the 'o;Bout, i- #ue to a -actor0 #e-ect, improper mounting, ecessive tire pressure, is not an unavoi#a'e event.
Page | 51
