WESTWIND SHIPPING CORPORATION v . UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. and ASIAN TERMINALS INC ORIENT FREIGHT INTERNATIONAL INC. v. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. and ASIAN TERMINALS INC. G.R. No. 200314, G.R. No. 2002!, No"#$%#& 2', 2013 THIRD DIVISION PERALTA, J.
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. FACTS(
Kinsho Kinsho-Ma -Matai taichi chi Corpor Corporati ation on shipp shipped ed from from the port port of Kobe, Kobe, apan, !"# meta$ containers%s&ids containers%s&ids of tin-free stee$ for de$i'er( to the consi)nee, San Mi)*e$ Mi)*e$ Corporati Corporation on The shipment shipment +as $oaded $oaded and recei'ed recei'ed c$ean c$ean on board board M%V o$den Har'est Vo(a)e Vo(a)e No. , a 'esse$ o+ned and operated b( est+ind est+ind Shippin) Corporation. Corporation. SMC ins*red the car)oes a)ainst a$$ ris&s +ith /C01 enera$ Ins*rance Co., Inc. The shipment arri'ed in Mani$a and +as dischar)ed dischar)ed in the c*stod( of the arra arrast strre oper operat ator or,, 2s 2sia ian n Termi ermina na$s $s,, Inc. Inc. D*ri D*rin) n) the the *n$o *n$oad adin in) ) oper operat atio ion n si3 si3 contai container ners%s s%s&id &ids s s*s s*stai tained ned dents dents and p*nct* p*nct*re res s from from the for&$i for&$ift ft *sed *sed b( the ste' ste'ed edor ores es of Ocea Ocean n Termi ermina na$$ Ser' Ser'ic ices es,, Inc. Inc. in cent center erin in) ) and and sh*t sh*tt$ t$in in) ) the the containe containers%s rs%s&ids. &ids. Orient Orient 4rei)ht rei)ht Internatio Internationa$, na$, Inc., Inc., the c*stoms c*stoms bro&er bro&er of SMC, +ithd +ithdre re+ + from from 2TI the !"# contai container ners%s s%s&id &ids s and de$i'e de$i'ere red d the same same at SMC5s SMC5s +areho*se. It +as disco'ered *pon dischar)e that additiona$ nine containers%s&ids +ere a$so dama)ed d*e to the for&$ift operations6 th*s, ma&in) the tota$ n*mber of !7 containers%s&ids in bad order. SMC 8$ed comp$aints. The RTC opined that est+ind is not $iab$e, since the dischar)in) of the car)oes +ere done b( 2TI personne$ *sin) for&$ifts. It $i&e+ise abso$'ed O4II from an( $iabi$it(, reasonin) that it ne'er *ndertoo& the operation of the for&$ifts +hich ca*sed the dents and p*nct*res, and that it mere$( faci$itated the re$ease and de$i'er( of the shipment as the c*stoms bro&er and representati'e of SMC. On appea$ b( /C01, the C2 re'ersed and set aside the tria$ co*rt. It conc$*ded that that the common common carrie carrier, r, not the arras arrastr tre e operat operator, or, is respo responsi nsib$e b$e d*rin d*rin) ) the *n$oadin) of the car)oes and is sti$$ bo*nd to e3ercise e3traordinar( di$i)ence at the time. The C2 a$so considered that O4II is $iab$e, a)reein) +ith /C015s contention that that O4II O4II is a commo common n carr carrier ier bo*nd bo*nd to obser' obser'e e e3tra e3traor ordin dinar( ar( di$i) di$i)enc ence e and is pres*med to be at fa*$t or ha'e acted ne)$i)ent$( for s*ch dama)e. ISSUE( hether est+ind and O4II are $iab$e to e3ercise e3traordinar( di$i)ence
RULING(
9:S. Common carriers, from the nat*re of their b*siness and for reasons of p*b$ic po$ic(, are bo*nd to obser'e e3traordinar( di$i)ence in the 'i)i$ance o'er the )oods transported b( them. The e3traordinar( responsibi$it( of the common carrier $asts from the time the )oods are *nconditiona$$( p$aced in the possession of, and recei'ed b( the carrier for transportation *nti$ the same are de$i'ered, act*a$$( or constr*cti'e$(, b( the carrier to the consi)nee, or to the person +ho has a ri)ht to recei'e them. In this case, since the dischar)in) of the containers%s&ids, +hich +ere co'ered b( on$( one bi$$ of $adin), had not (et been comp$eted at the time the dama)e occ*rred, there is no reason to imp$( that there +as a$read( de$i'er(, act*a$ or constr*cti'e, of the car)oes to 2TI. The mere proof of de$i'er( of )oods in )ood order to the carrier, and their arri'a$ in the p$ace of destination in bad order, ma&e o*t a prima facie case a)ainst the carrier, so that if no e3p$anation is )i'en as to ho+ the in;*r( occ*rred, the carrier m*st be he$d responsib$e. It is inc*mbent *pon the carrier to pro'e that the $oss +as d*e to accident or some other circ*mstances inconsistent +ith its $iabi$it(. !< The contention of O4II is $i&e+ise *ntenab$e. 2 c*stoms bro&er has been re)arded as a common carrier beca*se transportation of )oods is an inte)ra$ part of its b*siness. 2rtic$e !#=> does not distin)*ish bet+een one +hose principa$ b*siness acti'it( is the carr(in) of )oods and one +ho does s*ch carr(in) on$( as an anci$$ar( acti'it(. The contention, therefore, of petitioner that it is not a common carrier b*t a c*stoms bro&er +hose principa$ f*nction is to prepare the correct c*stoms dec$aration and proper shippin) doc*ments as re?*ired b( $a+ is bereft of merit. It s*@ces that petitioner *nderta&es to de$i'er the )oods for pec*niar( consideration. 2s the transportation of )oods is an inte)ra$ part of a c*stoms bro&er, the c*stoms bro&er is a$so a common carrier. 4or to dec$are other+ise A+o*$d be to depri'e those +ith +hom Bit contracts the protection +hich the $a+ aords them not+ithstandin) the fact that the ob$i)ation to carr( )oods for Bits c*stomers, is part and parce$ of petitioner5s b*siness.A >!
