Transportation Law Case Digests Part I

TRANSPORTATION LAW CASE DIGESTS
I. CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION A. CONCEPT, PARTIES AND PERFECTION DANGWA TRANSPORTATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Private respondents filed a complaint for dama es a ainst petitioners for t!e deat! of Pedrito C"diamat as a res"lt of a ve!ic"lar accident #!ic! occ"rred on $arc! %&' ()*& at $arivic' Sapid' $an+a,an' -en "et. Petitioner T!eodore $. Lardi.a/al #as drivin a passen er /"s /elon in to petitioner corporation in a rec+less and impr"dent manner and #it!o"t d"e re ard to traffic r"les and re "lations and safet, to persons and propert,' it ran over its passen er' Pedrito C"diamat. Petitioners alle ed t!at t!e, !ad o/served and contin"ed to o/serve t!e e0traordinar, dili ence and t!at it #as t!e victim1s o#n carelessness and ne li ence #!ic! ave rise to t!e s"/2ect incident. RTC prono"nced t!at Pedrito C"diamat #as ne li ent' #!ic! ne li ence #as t!e pro0imate ca"se of !is deat!. 3o#ever' Co"rt of Appeals set aside t!e decision of t!e lo#er co"rt' and ordered petitioners to pa, private respondents dama es d"e to ne li ence. ISSUE: WON t!e CA erred in reversin t!e decision of t!e trial co"rt and in findin petitioners ne li ent and lia/le for t!e dama es claimed. HELD: CA Decision A44IR$ED T!e testimonies of t!e #itnesses s!o# t!at t!at t!e /"s #as at f"ll stop #!en t!e victim /oarded t!e same. T!e, f"rt!er confirm t!e concl"sion t!at t!e victim fell from t!e platform of t!e /"s #!en it s"ddenl, accelerated for#ard and #as r"n over /, t!e rear ri !t tires of t!e ve!icle. 5nder s"c! circ"mstances' it cannot /e said t!at t!e deceased #as "ilt, of ne li ence. It is not ne li ence per se' or as a matter of la#' for one attempt to /oard a train or streetcar #!ic! is movin slo#l,. An ordinaril, pr"dent person #o"ld !ave made t!e attempt /oard t!e movin conve,ance "nder t!e same or similar circ"mstances. T!e fact t!at passen ers /oard and ali !t from slo#l, movin ve!icle is a matter of common e0perience /ot! t!e driver and cond"ctor in t!is case co"ld not !ave /een "na#are of s"c! an ordinar, practice. Common carriers' from t!e nat"re of t!eir /"siness and reasons of p"/lic polic,' are /o"nd to o/serve e0traordinar, dili ence for t!e safet, of t!e passen ers transported /, t!e accordin to all t!e circ"mstances of eac! case. A common carrier is /o"nd to carr, t!e passen ers safel, as far as !"man care and foresi !t can provide' "sin t!e "tmost dili ence ver, ca"tio"s persons' #it! a d"e re ard for all t!e circ"mstances. It !as also /een repeatedl, !eld t!at in an action /ased on a contract of carria e' t!e co"rt need not ma+e an e0press findin of fa"lt or ne li ence on t!e part of t!e carrier in order to !old it responsi/le to pa, t!e dama es so" !t /, t!e passen er. -, contract of carria e' t!e carrier ass"mes t!e e0press o/li ation to transport t!e passen er to !is destination safel, and o/serve e0traordinar, dili ence #it! a d"e re ard for all t!e circ"mstances' and an, in2"r, t!at mi !t /e s"ffered /, t!e passen er is ri !t a#a, attri/"ta/le to t!e fa"lt or ne li ence of t!e carrier. T!is is an e0ception to t!e eneral r"le t!at ne li ence m"st /e proved' and it is t!erefore inc"m/ent "pon t!e carrier to prove t!at it !as e0ercised e0traordinar, dili ence as prescri/ed in Articles (677 and (6&& of t!e Civil Code. 8OREAN AIRLINES CO. v. CA LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, vers"s MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs o !"e L#!e NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY FACTS: Nicanor Navidad' t!en dr"n+' entered t!e EDSA LRT station after p"rc!asin a 9to+en9 :representin pa,ment of t!e fare;. W!ile Navidad #as standin on t!e platform near t!e LRT trac+s' <"nelito Escartin' t!e sec"rit, "ard assi ned to t!e area approac!ed !im. A mis"nderstandin or an altercation /et#een t!e t#o apparentl, ens"ed t!at led to a fist fi !t. No evidence' !o#ever' #as add"ced to indicate !o# t!e fi !t started or #!o' /et#een t!e t#o' delivered t!e first /lo# or !o# Navidad later fell on t!e LRT trac+s. At t!e e0act moment t!at Navidad fell' an LRT train' operated /, petitioner Rodolfo Roman' #as comin in. Navidad #as str"c+ /, t!e movin train' and !e #as +illed instantaneo"sl,. T!e #ido# of Nicanor' $ar2orie Navidad' alon #it! !er c!ildren' filed a complaint for dama es a ainst <"nelito Escartin' Rodolfo Roman' t!e LRTA' t!e $etro Transit Or ani.ation' Inc. :$etro Transit;' and Pr"dent for t!e deat! of !er !"s/and. Trial co"rt r"led in favor Navidad=s #ife and a ainst t!e defendants Pr"dent Sec"rit, and <"nelito Escartin . LRTA and Rodolfo Roman #ere dismissed for lac+ of merit. CA !eld LRTA and Roman lia/le' !ence t!e petition. ISSUE: W!et!er or not t!ere #as a perfected contract of carria e /et#een Navidad and LRTA HELD: A44IR$ED #it! $ODI4ICATION /"t onl, in t!at :a; t!e a#ard of nominal dama es is DELETED and :/; petitioner Rodolfo Roman is a/solved from lia/ilit, Contract of carria e #as deemed created from t!e moment Navidad paid t!e fare at t!e LRT station and entered t!e premises of t!e latter' entitlin Navidad to all t!e ri !ts and protection "nder a contract"al relation. T!e appellate co"rt !ad correctl, !eld LRTA and Roman lia/le for t!e deat! of Navidad in failin to e0ercise e0traordinar, dili ence imposed "pon a common carrier. W!ile t!e deceased mi !t not !ave
EH $%&
P#'e (

t!en as ,et /oarded t!e train' a contract of carria e t!eretofore !ad alread, e0isted #!en t!e victim entered t!e place #!ere passen ers #ere s"pposed to /e after pa,in t!e fare and ettin t!e correspondin to+en t!erefor. T!e la# re>"ires common carriers to carr, passen ers safel, "sin t!e "tmost dili ence of ver, ca"tio"s persons #it! d"e re ard for all circ"mstances. S"c! d"t, of a common carrier to provide safet, to its passen ers so o/li ates it not onl, d"rin t!e co"rse of t!e trip /"t for so lon as t!e passen ers are #it!in its premises and #!ere t!e, o" !t to /e in p"rs"ance to t!e contract of carria e. T!e stat"tor, provisions render a common carrier lia/le for deat! of or in2"r, to passen ers :a; t!ro" ! t!e ne li ence or #illf"l acts of its emplo,ees or /; on acco"nt of #illf"l acts or ne li ence of ot!er passen ers or of stran ers if t!e common carrier=s emplo,ees t!ro" ! t!e e0ercise of d"e dili ence co"ld !ave prevented or stopped t!e act or omission. In case of s"c! deat! or in2"r,' a carrier is pres"med to !ave /een at fa"lt or /een ne li ent' and /, simple proof of in2"r,' t!e passen er is relieved of t!e d"t, to still esta/lis! t!e fa"lt or ne li ence of t!e carrier or of its emplo,ees and t!e /"rden s!ifts "pon t!e carrier to prove t!at t!e in2"r, is d"e to an "nforeseen event or to force ma2e"re. T!e lia/ilit, of t!e common carrier and t!at of t!e independent contractor is solidar,. ). COMMON CARRIERS *Ar!s. (+,( !o (+-- NCC. 1. Definitions of domestic shipping under R.A. No. 9295 and of public service under ommon!ealth Act No. 1"# 2. ommon arriage PEDRO DE GU/MAN vs.COURT OF APPEALS #01 ERNESTO CENDANA FACTS: Ernesto Cendana' a 2"n+ dealer' #as en a ed in /",in "p "sed /ottles and scrap metal in Pan asinan' and /rin s"c! material to $anila for resale. 3e "tili.ed t#o :%; si0?#!eeler tr"c+s #!ic! !e o#ned for !a"lin t!e material to $anila. 3e c!ar ed frei !t rates #!ic! #ere commonl, lo#er t!an re "lar commercial rates for t!e car o loaded in !is ve!icle. Pedro de G".man a merc!ant and a"t!ori.ed dealer of General $il+ Compan, contracted #it! Cendana for t!e !a"lin of 6&@ cartons of Li/ert, filled mil+ from a #are!o"se of General $il+ in $a+ati' Ri.al. (&@ cartons #ere loaded on a tr"c+ driven /, Cendana !imself' #!ile A@@ cartons #ere placed on /oard t!e ot!er tr"c+ #!ic! #as driven /, $an"el Estrada' Cendana=s driver and emplo,ee. T!e ot!er A@@ /o0es never reac!ed de G".man' since t!e tr"c+ #!ic! carried t!ese /o0es #as !i2ac+ed some#!ere alon t!e $acArt!"r 3i !#a, in Pani>"i' Tarlac' /, armed men #!o too+ #it! t!em t!e tr"c+' its driver' !is !elper and t!e car o. 3avin failed to e0ercise t!e e0traordinar, dili ence re>"ired of !im /, t!e la#' !e is !eld lia/le for t!e val"e of t!e "ndelivered oods. Cendana denied t!at !e #as a common carrier and ar "ed t!at !e co"ld not /e !eld responsi/le for t!e val"e of t!e lost oods' s"c! loss !avin /een d"e to force majeure. ISSUE: W!et!er or not Ernesto Cendana ma,' "nder t!e facts earlier set fort!' /e properl, c!aracteri.ed as a common carrierB W!et!er or not !i ! 2ac+in #it! ro//er, can /e properl, re arded as a fort"ito"s event t!at can e0empt t!e carrierB HELD: T!e trial co"rt rendered a Decision findin private respondent to /e a common carrier and !oldin !im lia/le for t!e val"e of t!e "ndelivered oods as dama es and as attorne,1s fees. T!e Co"rt of Appeals reversed t!e 2"d ment of t!e trial co"rt and !eld t!at respondent !ad /een en a ed in transportin ret"rn loads of frei !t 9as a cas"al occ"pation C a sideline to !is scrap iron /"siness9 and not as a common carrier. Lia/ilit, arises t!e moment a person or firm acts as a common carrier' #it!o"t re ard to #!et!er or not s"c! carrier !as also complied #it! t!e re>"irements of t!e applica/le re "lator, stat"te and implementin re "lations and !as /een ranted a certificate of p"/lic convenience or ot!er franc!ise. To e0empt private respondent from t!e lia/ilities of a common carrier /eca"se !e !as not sec"red t!e necessar, certificate of p"/lic convenience' #o"ld /e offensive to so"nd p"/lic polic,D t!at #o"ld /e to re#ard private respondent precisel, for failin to compl, #it! applica/le stat"tor, re>"irements. Common carriers' 9/, t!e nat"re of t!eir /"siness and for reasons of p"/lic polic,9 2 are !eld to a ver, !i ! de ree of care and dili ence :9e0traordinar, dili ence9; in t!e carria e of oods as #ell as of passen ers. Article (67E esta/lis!es t!e eneral r"le t!at common carriers are responsi/le for t!e loss' destr"ction or deterioration of t!e oods #!ic! t!e, carr,' 9unless t!e same is d"e to any of the following causes onlyF :(; 4lood' storm' eart!>"a+e' li !tnin or ot!er nat"ral disaster or calamit,D :%; Act of t!e p"/lic enem, in #ar' #!et!er international or civilD :7; Act or omission of t!e s!ipper or o#ner of t!e oodsD :E; T!e c!aracter?of t!e oods or defects in t!e pac+in or?in t!e containersD and :&; Order or act of competent p"/lic a"t!orit,. T!e a/ove list of ca"ses of loss' destr"ction or deterioration #!ic! e0empt t!e common carrier for responsi/ilit, t!erefor' is a closed list. Ca"ses fallin o"tside t!e fore oin list' even if t!e, appear to constit"te a species of force ma2e"re fall #it!in t!e scope of Article (67&' #!ic! provides as follo#sF In all cases other than those mentioned in numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
EH $%&
P#'e 2

negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as re>"ired in Article (677. :Emp!asis s"pplied; T!e limits of t!e d"t, of e0traordinar, dili ence in t!e vi ilance over t!e oods carried are reac!ed #!ere t!e oods are lost as a res"lt of a ro//er, #!ic! is attended /, 9 rave or irresisti/le t!reat' violence or force.9 In t!e instant case' armed men !eld "p t!e second tr"c+ o#ned /, private respondent #!ic! carried petitioner1s car o. T!e occ"rrence of t!e loss m"st reasona/l, /e re arded as >"ite /e,ond t!e control of t!e common carrier and properl, re arded as a fort"ito"s event. It is necessar, to recall t!at even common carriers are not made a/sol"te ins"rers a ainst all ris+s of travel and of transport of oods' and are not !eld lia/le for acts or events #!ic! cannot /e foreseen or are inevita/le' provided t!at t!e, s!all !ave complied #it! t!e ri oro"s standard of e0traordinar, dili ence. Cendana is not lia/le for t!e val"e of t!e "ndelivered merc!andise #!ic! #as lost /eca"se of an event entirel, /e,ond private respondent1s control. Petition for Revie# on certiorari is !ere/, DENIED and t!e Decision of t!e Co"rt of Appeals dated 7 A" "st ()66 is A44IR$ED. No prono"ncement as to costs. PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, SORIAMONT STEAMSHIP AGENCIES AND 3YOSEI 3ISEN 3A)USHI3I 3AISHA G.R. No. (@(&@7 Septem/er (&' ())7 FACTS: Planters Prod"cts' Inc. :PPI;' p"rc!ased from $its"/is!i International Corporation :$ITS5-IS3I; of Ne# Gor+' 5.S.A.' )'7%).6@A) metric tons :$HT; of 5rea EAI fertili.er #!ic! t!e latter s!ipped in /"l+ on (A <"ne ()6E a/oard t!e car o vessel $HJ 9S"n Pl"m9 o#ned /, private respondent 8,osei 8isen 8a/"s!i+i 8ais!a :8888; from 8enai' Alas+a' 5.S.A.' to Poro Point' San 4ernando' La 5nion' P!ilippines' as evidenced /, -ill of Ladin No. 8P?( si ned /, t!e master of t!e vessel and iss"ed on t!e date of depart"re. Prior to its vo,a e' a time c!arter?part, on t!e vessel $HJ 9S"n Pl"m9 p"rs"ant to t!e 5niform General C!arter #as entered into /et#een $its"/is!i as s!ipperHc!arterer and 8888 as s!ipo#ner' in To+,o' <apan. -efore loadin t!e fertili.er a/oard t!e vessel' fo"r :E; of !er !olds #ere all pres"ma/l, inspected /, t!e c!arterer1s representative and fo"nd fit to ta+e a load of "rea in /"l+ p"rs"ant to par. (A of t!e c!arter? part, . After t!e 5rea fertili.er #as loaded in /"l+ /, stevedores !ired /, and "nder t!e s"pervision of t!e s!ipper' t!e steel !atc!es #ere closed #it! !eav, iron lids' covered #it! t!ree :7; la,ers of tarpa"lin' t!en tied #it! steel /onds. T!e !atc!es remained closed and ti !tl, sealed t!ro" !o"t t!e entire vo,a e. Petitioner "nloaded t!e car o from t!e !olds into its steel/odied d"mp tr"c+s #!ic! #ere par+ed alon side t!e /ert!' "sin metal scoops attac!ed to t!e s!ip' p"rs"ant to t!e terms and conditions of t!e c!arter? partl, :#!ic! provided for an 4.I.O.S. cla"se;. 3o#ever' t!e !atc!es remained open t!ro" !o"t t!e d"ration of t!e disc!ar e. Eac! time a d"mp tr"c+ #as filled "p' its load of 5rea #as covered #it! tarpa"lin. T!e port area #as #ind,' certain portions of t!e ro"te to t!e #are!o"se #ere sand, and t!e #eat!er #as varia/le' rainin occasionall, #!ile t!e disc!ar e #as in pro ress. It too+ eleven :((; da,s for PPI to "nload t!e car o. A private marine and car o s"rve,or' Car o S"perintendents Compan, Inc. :CSCI;' #as !ired /, PPI to determine t!e 9o"tt"rn9 of t!e car o s!ipped' /, ta+in draft readin s of t!e vessel prior to and after disc!ar e. T!e s"rve, report s"/mitted /, CSCI to t!e consi nee :PPI; revealed a s!orta e in t!e car o of (@A.6%A $HT and t!at a portion of t!e 5rea fertili.er appro0imatin (* $HT #as contaminated #it! dirt' sand and r"st and rendered "nfit for commerce. Conse>"entl,' PPI sent a claim letter to Soriamont Steams!ip A encies :SSA;' t!e resident a ent of t!e carrier' 8888' representin t!e cost of t!e alle ed s!orta e in t!e oods s!ipped and t!e dimin"tion in val"e of t!at portion said to !ave /een contaminated #it! dirt. Respondent SSA #as not a/le to respond to t!is consi nee=s claim for pa,ment /eca"se accordin to t!em' t!e, onl, received a re>"est for s!ortlanded certificate and not a formal claim. 3ence' PPI filed an action for dama es #it! t!e Co"rt of 4irst Instance of $anila. T!e defendant carrier ar "ed t!at t!e strict p"/lic polic, overnin common carriers does not appl, to t!em /eca"se t!e, !ave /ecome private carriers /, reason of t!e provisions of t!e c!arter?part,. T!e co"rt a uo !o#ever s"stained t!e claim of t!e plaintiff a ainst t!e defendant carrier for t!e val"e of t!e oods lost or dama ed. On appeal' respondent Co"rt of Appeals reversed t!e lo#er co"rt and a/solved t!e carrier from lia/ilit, for t!e val"e of t!e car o t!at #as lost or dama ed. Rel,in on t!e ()A* case of !ome Insurance "o.v. #merican $teamship #gencies, Inc.' t!e appellate co"rt r"led t!at t!e car o vessel $HJ 9S"n Pl"m9 o#ned /, private respondent 8888 #as a private carrier and not a common carrier /, reason of t!e time c!arterer?part,. Accordin l,' t!e Civil Code provisions on common carriers #!ic! set fort! a pres"mption of ne li ence do not find application in t!e case at /ar. ISSUE: W!et!er a common carrier /ecomes a private carrier /, reason of a c!arter?part,. HELD: T!e assailed decision of t!e Co"rt of Appeals' #!ic! reversed t!e trial co"rt' is affirmed. A 9c!arter?part,9 is defined as a contract /, #!ic! an entire s!ip' or some principal part t!ereof' is let /, t!e o#ner to anot!er person for a specified time or "seD a contract of affrei !tment /, #!ic! t!e o#ner of a s!ip or ot!er vessel lets t!e #!ole or a part of !er to a merc!ant or ot!er person for t!e conve,ance of oods' on a partic"lar vo,a e' in consideration of t!e pa,ment of frei !tD C!arter parties are of t#o t,pesF :a; contract
EH $%&
P#'e ,

of affrei !tment #!ic! involves t!e "se of s!ippin space on vessels leased /, t!e o#ner in part or as a #!ole' to carr, oods for ot!ersD and' :/; c!arter /, demise or /are/oat c!arter' /, t!e terms of #!ic! t!e #!ole vessel is let to t!e c!arterer #it! a transfer to !im of its entire command and possession and conse>"ent control over its navi ation' incl"din t!e master and t!e cre#' #!o are !is servants. Contract of affrei !tment ma, eit!er /e time c!arter' #!erein t!e vessel is leased to t!e c!arterer for a fi0ed period of time' or vo,a e c!arter' #!erein t!e s!ip is leased for a sin le vo,a e. In /ot! cases' t!e c!arter?part, provides for t!e !ire of vessel onl,' eit!er for a determinate period of time or for a sin le or consec"tive vo,a e' t!e s!ipo#ner to s"ppl, t!e s!ip1s stores' pa, for t!e #a es of t!e master and t!e cre#' and defra, t!e e0penses for t!e maintenance of t!e s!ip. 5pon t!e ot!er !and' t!e term 9common or p"/lic carrier9 is defined in Art. (67% of t!e Civil Code. T!e definition e0tends to carriers eit!er /, land' air or #ater #!ic! !old t!emselves o"t as read, to en a e in carr,in oods or transportin passen ers or /ot! for compensation as a p"/lic emplo,ment and not as a cas"al occ"pation. T!e distinction /et#een a 9common or p"/lic carrier9 and a 9private or special carrier9 lies in t!e c!aracter of t!e /"siness' s"c! t!at if t!e "nderta+in is a sin le transaction' not a part of t!e eneral /"siness or occ"pation' alt!o" ! involvin t!e carria e of oods for a fee' t!e person or corporation offerin s"c! service is a private carrier. It is not disp"ted t!at respondent carrier' in t!e ordinar, co"rse of /"siness' operates as a common carrier' transportin oods indiscriminatel, for all persons. W!en petitioner c!artered t!e vessel $HJ 9S"n Pl"m9' t!e s!ip captain' its officers and compliment #ere "nder t!e emplo, of t!e s!ipo#ner and t!erefore contin"ed to /e "nder its direct s"pervision and control. 3ardl, t!en can #e c!ar e t!e c!arterer' a stran er to t!e cre# and to t!e s!ip' #it! t!e d"t, of carin for !is car o #!en t!e c!arterer did not !ave an, control of t!e means in doin so. T!is is evident in t!e present case considerin t!at t!e steerin of t!e s!ip' t!e mannin of t!e dec+s' t!e determination of t!e co"rse of t!e vo,a e and ot!er tec!nical incidents of maritime navi ation #ere all consi ned to t!e officers and cre# #!o #ere screened' c!osen and !ired /, t!e s!ipo#ner. It is t!erefore imperative t!at a p"/lic carrier s!all remain as s"c!' not#it!standin t!e c!arter of t!e #!ole or portion of a vessel /, one or more persons' provided t!e c!arter is limited to t!e s!ip onl,' as in t!e case of a time?c!arter or vo,a e?c!arter. It is onl, #!en t!e c!arter incl"des /ot! t!e vessel and its cre#' as in a /are/oat or demise t!at a common carrier /ecomes private' at least insofar as t!e partic"lar vo,a e coverin t!e c!arter?part, is concerned. Ind"/ita/l,' a s!ipo#ner in a time or vo,a e c!arter retains possession and control of t!e s!ip' alt!o" ! !er !olds ma,' for t!e moment' /e t!e propert, of t!e c!arterer. Respondent carrier1s !eav, reliance on t!e case of !ome Insurance "o. v. #merican $teamship #gencies, supra' is misplaced for t!e reason t!at t!e meat of t!e controvers, t!erein #as t!e validit, of a stip"lation in t!e c!arter?part, e0emptin t!e s!ipo#ners from lia/ilit, for loss d"e to t!e ne li ence of its a ent' and not t!e effects of a special c!arter on common carriers. At an, rate' t!e r"le in t!e 5nited States t!at a s!ip c!artered /, a sin le s!ipper to carr, special car o is not a common carrier' does not find application in o"r 2"risdiction' for #e !ave o/served t!at t!e ro#in concern for safet, in t!e transportation of passen ers and Hor carria e of oods /, sea re>"ires a more e0actin interpretation of admiralt, la#s' more partic"larl,' t!e r"les overnin common carriers. In an action for recover, of dama es a ainst a common carrier on t!e oods s!ipped' t!e s!ipper or consi nee s!o"ld first prove t!e fact of s!ipment and its conse>"ent loss or dama e #!ile t!e same #as in t!e possession' act"al or constr"ctive' of t!e carrier. T!ereafter' t!e /"rden of proof s!ifts to respondent to prove t!at !e !as e0ercised e0traordinar, dili ence re>"ired /, la# or t!at t!e loss' dama e or deterioration of t!e car o #as d"e to fort"ito"s event' or some ot!er circ"mstances inconsistent #it! its lia/ilit,. To o"r mind' respondent carrier !as s"fficientl, overcome' /, clear and convincin proof' t!e prima facie pres"mption of ne li ence. Jeril,' t!e pres"mption of ne li ence on t!e part of t!e respondent carrier !as /een efficacio"sl, overcome /, t!e s!o#in of e0traordinar, .eal and assid"it, e0ercised /, t!e carrier in t!e care of t!e car o. T!e period d"rin #!ic! private respondent #as to o/serve t!e de ree of dili ence re>"ired of it as a p"/lic carrier /e an from t!e time t!e car o #as "nconditionall, placed in its c!ar e after t!e vessel1s !olds #ere d"l, inspected and passed scr"tin, /, t!e s!ipper' "p to and "ntil t!e vessel reac!ed its destination and its !"ll #as ree0amined /, t!e consi nee' /"t prior to "nloadin . Article (67E of t!e Ne# Civil Code provides t!at common carriers are not responsi/le for t!e loss' destr"ction or deterioration of t!e oods if ca"sed /, t!e c!arterer of t!e oods or defects in t!e pac+a in or in t!e containers. T!e Code of Commerce also provides t!at all losses and deterioration #!ic! t!e oods ma, s"ffer d"rin t!e transportation /, reason of fort"ito"s event' force majeure' or t!e in!erent defect of t!e oods' s!all /e for t!e acco"nt and ris+ of t!e s!ipper' and t!at proof of t!ese accidents is inc"m/ent "pon t!e carrier. T!e carrier' nonet!eless' s!all /e lia/le for t!e loss and dama e res"ltin from t!e precedin ca"ses if it is proved' as a ainst !im' t!at t!e, arose t!ro" ! !is ne li ence or /, reason of !is !avin failed to ta+e t!e preca"tions #!ic! "sa e !as esta/lis!ed amon caref"l persons. T!"s' t!e petition is dismissed. ESTRELLITA M. )ASCOS 4s. COURT OF APPEALS #01 RODOLFO A. CIPRIANO G.R. No. (%(%56. A7ri8 +, (66,. FACTS: Rodolfo A. Cipriano representin Cipriano Tradin Enterprise :CIPTRADE; entered into a !a"lin contract #it! <i/fair S!ippin A enc, Corp. #!ere/, t!e former
EH $%&
P#'e $

/o"nd itself to !a"l t!e latter=s %'@@@ mHtons of so,a /ean meal from $a allanes Drive' Del Pan' $anila to t!e #are!o"se of P"refoods Corporation in Calam/a' La "na. To carr, o"t its o/li ation' CIPTRADE' t!ro" ! Rodolfo Cipriano' s"/contracted #it! Estrellita -ascos to transport and to deliver E@@ sac+s of so,a /ean meal from t!e $anila Port Area to Calam/a' La "na at t!e rate. -"t' -ascos failed to deliver t!e said car o. As a conse>"ence' Cipriano paid <i/fair S!ippin A enc, t!e amo"nt of t!e lost oods in accordance #it! t!e contract. Cipriano demanded reim/"rsement from -ascos /"t t!e latter ref"sed to pa,. Event"all,' Cipriano filed a complaint for a s"m of mone, and dama es #it! #rit of preliminar, attac!ment for /reac! of a contract of carria e. T!e trial co"rt ranted t!e #rit of preliminar, attac!ment and rendered a decision' orderin -ascos to pa, for act"al dama es #it! le al interest' attorne,=s fees and t!e costs of t!e s"it. T!e co"rt f"rt!er denied t!e K5r ent $otion To DissolveHLift preliminar, Attac!mentL filed /, -ascos for /ein moot and academic. -ascos appealed to t!e CA /"t t!e appellate co"rt affirmed t!e trial co"rt=s 2"d ment. 3ence' t!e petition for revie# on certiorari. Petitioner' -ascos interposed t!e follo#in defensesF t!at t!ere #as no contract of carria e since CIPTRADE leased !er car o tr"c+ to load t!e car o from $anila Port Area to La "naD t!at CIPTRADE #as lia/le to petitioner for loadin t!e car oD t!at t!e tr"c+ carr,in t!e car o #as !i2ac+ed alon Paco' $anilaD t!at t!e !i2ac+in #as immediatel, reported to CIPTRADE and t!at petitioner and t!e police e0erted all efforts to locate t!e !i2ac+ed propertiesD and t!at !i2ac+in ' /ein a force ma2e"re' e0c"lpated petitioner from an, lia/ilit, to CIPTRADE ISSUE: WON petitioner #as a common carrier. WON t!e !i2ac+in referred to a force ma2e"re. HELD: T!e S"preme Co"rt dismissed t!e petition and affirmed t!e decision of t!e Co"rt of Appeals. Petitioner is a common carrier. Article (67% of t!e Civil Code defines a common carrier as 9:a; person' corporation or firm' or association en a ed in t!e /"siness of carr,in or transportin passen ers or oods or /ot!' /, land' #ater or air' for compensation' offerin t!eir services to t!e p"/lic.9 T!e test to determine a common carrier is 9#!et!er t!e iven "nderta+in is a part of t!e /"siness en a ed in /, t!e carrier #!ic! !e !as !eld o"t to t!e eneral p"/lic as !is occ"pation rat!er t!an t!e >"antit, or e0tent of t!e /"siness transacted.9 In t!is case' petitioner !erself !as made t!e admission t!at s!e #as in t!e tr"c+in /"siness' offerin !er tr"c+s to t!ose #it! car o to move. <"dicial admissions are concl"sive and no evidence is re>"ired to prove t!e same. $oreover' in referrin to Article (67% of t!e Civil Code' it !eld in De G".man vs. Co"rt of Appeals t!at KT!e a/ove article ma+es no distinction /et#een one #!ose principal /"siness activit, is t!e carr,in of persons or oods or /ot!' and one #!o does s"c! carr,in onl, as an ancillar, activit, :in local idiom' as a KsidelineL;. Article (67% also caref"ll, avoids ma+in an, distinction /et#een a person or enterprise offerin transportation service on a re "lar or sc!ed"led /asis and one offerin s"c! service on an occasional' episodic or "nsc!ed"led /asis. Neit!er does Article (67% distin "is! /et#een a carrier offerin its services to t!e K eneral p"/lic'L i.e.' t!e eneral comm"nit, or pop"lation' and one #!o offers services or solicits /"siness onl, from a narro# se ment of t!e eneral pop"lation. Common carriers are o/li ed to o/serve e0traordinar, dili ence in t!e vi ilance over t!e oods transported /, t!em. Accordin l,' t!e, are pres"med to !ave /een at fa"lt or to !ave acted ne li entl, if t!e oods are lost' destro,ed or deteriorated. T!ere are ver, fe# instances #!en t!e pres"mption of ne li ence does not attac! and t!ese instances are en"merated in Article (67E. In t!ose cases #!ere t!e pres"mption is applied' t!e common carrier m"st prove t!at it e0ercised e0traordinar, dili ence in order to overcome t!e pres"mption. As to t!e second iss"e' t!e Co"rt !eld t!at !i2ac+in ' not /ein incl"ded in t!e provisions of Article (67E' m"st /e dealt #it! "nder t!e provisions of Article (67& and t!"s' t!e common carrier is pres"med to !ave /een at fa"lt or ne li ent. 5Article (6E& of t!e Civil Code provides t!at a common carrier is !eld responsi/leD and #ill not /e allo#ed to divest or to diminis! s"c! responsi/ilit, even for acts of stran ers li+e t!ieves or ro//ers e0cept #!ere s"c! t!ieves or ro//ers in fact acted #it! rave or irresisti/le t!reat' violence or force. Affidavits #ere not eno" ! to overcome t!e pres"mption. :(; -ascos=s affidavit a/o"t t!e !i2ac+in #as /ased on #!at !ad /een told !er /, <"anito $orden. It #as not a first?!and acco"nt. W!ile it !ad /een admitted in co"rt for lac+ of o/2ection on t!e part of Cipriano' t!e lo#er co"rt !ad discretion in assi nin #ei !t to s"c! evidence. :%; T!e affidavit of <es"s -ascos did not d#ell on !o# t!e !i2ac+in too+ place. :7; W!ile t!e affidavit of <"anito $orden' t!e tr"c+ !elper in t!e !i2ac+ed tr"c+' #as presented as evidence in co"rt' !e !imself #as a #itness as co"ld /e leaned from t!e contents of t!e petition. Mr. & Mrs. E0'r#9io F#:re, Jr. 4s. CA, e! #8. 2&6 SCRA $2F#9!s: Petitioners 4a/re and !is #ife #ere o#ners of a mini/"s #!ic! t!e, "sed principall, in connection #it! a /"s service for sc!ool c!ildren #!ic! t!e, operated. T!e co"ple !ad a driver' Porfirio Ca/il' #!om t!e, !ired after tr,in !im o"t for t#o #ee+s. 3is 2o/ #as to ta+e sc!ool c!ildren to and from t!e St. Sc!olastica=s Colle e. On Novem/er %' ()*E' private respondent Word for t!e World C!ristian 4ello#s!ip Inc. arran ed #it! petitioners for t!e transportation of 77 mem/ers from
EH $%&
P#'e &

$anila to La 5nion and /ac+ in consideration of #!ic! t!e, paid P7'@@@ to petitioners. T!e ro"p left at *F@@ in t!e evenin ' petitioner Ca/il drove t!e mini/"s. T!e "s"al ro"te to Ca/a' La 5nion #as t!ro" ! Carmen' Pan asinan. 3o#ever' t!e /rid e at Carmen #as "nder repair' so t!at petitioner Ca/il' #!o #as "nfamiliar #it! t!e area :it /ein !is first trip to La 5nion;' #as forced to ta+e a deto"r t!ro" ! t!e to#n of -a?a, in Lin a,en' Pan asinan. At ((F7@ t!at ni !t' petitioner Ca/il came "pon a s!arp c"rve on t!e !i !#a,' r"nnin on a so"t! to east direction. T!e road #as slipper, /eca"se it #as rainin ' ca"sin t!e /"s' #!ic! #as r"nnin at t!e speed of &@ +ilometers per !o"r' to s+id to t!e left road s!o"lder. T!e /"s !it t!e left traffic steel /race and si n alon t!e road and rammed t!e fence of one <es"s Escano' t!en t"rned over and landed on its left side' comin to a f"ll stop onl, after a series of impacts. T!e /"s came to rest off t!e road. A cocon"t tree #!ic! it !ad !it fell on it and smas!ed its front portion. Several passen ers #ere in2"red. Private respondent Am,line Antonio #as t!ro#n on t!e floor of t!e /"s and pinned do#n /, a #ooden seat #!ic! came off after /ein "nscre#ed. It too+ t!ree persons to safel, remove !er from t!is position. S!e #as in reat pain and co"ld not move. A case #as filed /, t!e respondents a ainst 4a/re and Ca/il. Am,line Antonio #as fo"nd to /e s"fferin from paraple ia and is permanentl, paral,.ed from t!e #aist do#n. T!e RTC r"led in favor of respondents. $r. M $rs. 4a/re and Ca/il #ere ordered to pa, 2ointl, and severall, act"al' moral and e0emplar, dama es' and as #ell as amo"nt of loss of earnin capacit, of Antonio and attorne,=s fees. T!e Co"rt of Appeals affirmed t!e decision of t!e trial co"rt #it! modification on t!e a#ard of dama es. Iss;es: (. W!et!er or not petitioners #ere ne li ent. %. W!et!er or not petitioners #ere lia/le for t!e in2"ries s"ffered /, private respondents. 7. W!et!er or not dama es can /e a#arded and in t!e positive' "p to #!at e0tent. He81: SC affirmed t!e decision of t!e CA /"t reverted t!e amo"nt of t!e a#ard of dama es to t!at ordered /, t!e RTC. (. T!e findin t!at Ca/il drove !is /"s ne li entl,' #!ile !is emplo,er' t!e 4a/res' #!o o#ned t!e /"s' failed to e0ercise t!e dili ence of a ood fat!er of t!e famil, in t!e selection and s"pervision of t!eir emplo,ee is f"ll, s"pported /, t!e evidence on record. Indeed' it #as admitted /, Ca/il t!at on t!e ni !t in >"estion' it #as rainin ' and' as a conse>"ence' t!e road #as slipper,' and it #as dar+. 3o#ever' it is "ndisp"ted t!at Ca/il drove !is /"s at t!e speed of &@ +ilometers per !o"r and onl, slo#ed do#n #!en !e noticed t!e c"rve some (& to 7@ meters a!ead. Given t!e conditions of t!e road and considerin t!at t!e trip #as Ca/il=s first one o"tside of $anila' Ca/il s!o"ld !ave driven !is ve!icle at a moderate speed. T!ere is testimon, t!at t!e ve!icles passin on t!at portion of t!e road s!o"ld onl, /e r"nnin %@ +ilometers per !o"r' so t!at at &@ +ilometers per !o"r' Ca/il #as r"nnin at a ver, !i ! speed. Ca/il #as rossl, ne li ent and s!o"ld /e !eld lia/le for t!e in2"ries s"ffered /, private respondent Am,line Antonio. P"rs"ant to Arts. %(6A and %(*@ of t!e Civil Code !is ne li ence ave rise to t!e pres"mption t!at !is emplo,ers' t!e 4a/res' #ere t!emselves ne li ent in t!e selection and s"pervision of t!eir emplo,ee. D"e dili ence in selection of emplo,ees is not satisfied /, findin t!at t!e applicant possessed a professional driver=s license. T!e emplo,er s!o"ld also e0amine t!e applicant for !is >"alifications' e0perience and record of service. In t!e case at /ar' t!e 4a/res' in allo#in Ca/il to drive t!e /"s to La 5nion' apparentl, did not consider t!e fact t!at Ca/il !ad /een drivin for sc!ool c!ildren onl,' from t!eir !omes to t!e St. Sc!olastica=s Colle e in $etro $anila. T!e, !ad !ired !im onl, after a t#o?#ee+ apprentices!ip. %. T!is case involves a contract of carria e. Petitioners' t!e 4a/res' did not !ave to /e en a ed in t!e /"siness of p"/lic transportation for t!e provisions of t!e Civil Code on common carriers to appl, to t!em. Art. (67%. Common carriers are persons' corporations' firms or associations en a ed in t!e /"siness of carr,in or transportin passen ers or oods or /ot!' /, land' #ater' or air for compensation' offerin t!eir services to t!e p"/lic. T!e a/ove article ma+es no distinction /et#een one #!ose principal /"siness activit, is t!e carr,in of persons or oods or /ot!' and one #!o does s"c! carr,in onl, as an ancillar, activit,. Neit!er does Article (67% distin "is! /et#een a carrier offerin its services to t!e K eneral p"/lic'L i.e.' t!e eneral comm"nit, or pop"lation' and one #!o offers services or solicits /"siness onl, from a narro# se ment of t!e eneral pop"lation. As common carriers' t!e 4a/res #ere /o"nd to e0ercise Ke0traordinar, dili enceL for t!e safe transportation of t!e passen ers to t!eir destination. T!is d"t, of care is not e0c"sed /, proof t!at t!e, e0ercised t!e dili ence of a ood fat!er of t!e famil, in t!e selection and s"pervision of t!eir emplo,ee. As Art. (6&) of t!e Code providesF Common carriers are lia/le for t!e deat! of or in2"ries to passen ers t!ro" ! t!e ne li ence or #ilf"l acts of t!e former=s emplo,ees' alt!o" ! s"c! emplo,ees ma, !ave acted /e,ond t!e scope of t!eir a"t!orit, or in violation of t!e orders of t!e common carriers. Firs! P"i8i77i0e I01;s!ri#8 Cor7or#!io0 4s. Co;r! o A77e#8s G.R. No. (2&6$5 De9e<:er 26, (665 F#9!s:
EH $%&
P#'e -

Petitioner' 4irst P!il. Ind"strial Corporation :4irstP!il for /revit,; is a rantee of a pipeline concession "nder Rep"/lic Act No. 7*6' as amended' to contract' install and operate oil pipelines. 4irstP!il applied for a ma,or1s permit' /"t /efore t!e ma,or1s permit co"ld /e iss"ed' t!e respondent Cit, Treas"rer re>"ired petitioner to pa, a local ta0 p"rs"ant to t!e Local Government Code. Petitioner filed a letter?protest addressed to t!e respondent Cit, Treas"rer' /"t t!e latter denied t!e same contendin t!at petitioner cannot /e considered en a ed in transportation /"siness' t!"s it cannot claim e0emption "nder Section (77 :2; of t!e Local Government Code. 4irstP!il filed #it! t!e RTC -atan as a complaint for ta0 ref"nd #it! pra,er for #rit of preliminar, in2"nction a ainst respondents' contendin t!at t!e imposition of ta0 "pon t!em violates Sec (77 of t!e Local Government Code. On t!e ot!er !and' respondents assert t!at pipelines are not incl"ded in t!e term 9common carrier9 #!ic! refers solel, to ordinar, carriers s"c! as tr"c+s' trains' s!ips and t!e li+e. Respondents f"rt!er posit t!at t!e term 9common carrier9 "nder t!e said code pertains to t!e mode or manner /, #!ic! a prod"ct is delivered to its destination. RTC dismissed t!e complaint' r"lin t!at e0emption ranted "nder Sec. (77 :2; encompasses onl, 9common carriers9 so as not to over/"rden t!e ridin p"/lic or comm"ters #it! ta0es. And t!at petitioner is not a common carrier' /"t a special carrier e0tendin its services and facilities to a sin le specific or 9special c"stomer9 "nder a 9special contract.9 T!e case #as elevated /, t!e petitioner to t!e CA' /"t CA affirmed t!e decision of t!e RTC. 3ence t!is petition. Iss;e: WON t!e petitioner is a 9common carrier9 and' t!erefore' e0empt from t!e /"siness ta0c He81: Petition #as ranted. REJERSED and SET ASIDE. CA decision #as 7. 3e m"st "nderta+e to carr, /, t!e met!od /, #!ic! !is /"siness is cond"cted and over !is esta/lis!ed roadsD and E. T!e transportation m"st /e for !ire. -ased on t!e a/ove definitions and re>"irements' t!ere is no do"/t t!at petitioner is a common carrier. It is en a ed in t!e /"siness of transportin or carr,in oods' i.e. petrole"m prod"cts' for !ire as a p"/lic emplo,ment. It "nderta+es to carr, for all persons indifferentl,' t!at is' to all persons #!o c!oose to emplo, its services' and transports t!e oods /, land and for compensation. T!e fact t!at petitioner !as a limited clientele does not e0cl"de it from t!e definition of a common carrier. T!e definition of 9common carriers9 in t!e Civil Code ma+es no distinction as to t!e means of transportin ' as lon as it is /, land' #ater or air. It does not provide t!at t!e transportation of t!e passen ers or oods s!o"ld /e /, motor ve!icle. In fact' in t!e 5nited States' oil pipe line operators are considered common carriers. 5nder t!e Petrole"m Act of t!e P!ilippines :Rep"/lic Act 7*6;' petitioner is considered a 9common carrier.9' and at t!e same time' said act also re ards petrole"m operation as a p"/lic "tilit,. -IR li+e#ise considers t!e petitioner a 9common carrier.9 In so r"lin ' it !eld t!at' since petitioner is a pipeline concessionaire t!at is en a ed onl, in transportin petrole"m prod"cts' it is considered a common carrier "nder Rep"/lic Act No. 7*6. S"c! /ein t!e case' it is not s"/2ect to #it!!oldin ta0 prescri/ed /, Reven"e Re "lations No. (7?6*' as amended. Section (77 :2;' of t!e Local Government Code' providesF Sec. (77. Common Limitations on t!e Ta0in Po#ers of Local Government 5nits. C 5nless ot!er#ise provided !erein' t!e e0ercise of t!e ta0in po#ers of provinces' cities' m"nicipalities' and /aran a,s s!all not e0tend to t!e lev, of t!e follo#in F :2; Ta0es on t!e ross receipts of transportation contractors and persons en a ed in t!e transportation of passen ers or frei !t /, !ire and common carriers /, air' land or #ater' e0cept as provided in t!is Code. SC !eld t!at t!e le islative intent in e0cl"din from t!e ta0in po#er of t!e local overnment "nit t!e imposition of /"siness ta0 a ainst common carriers is to prevent a d"plication of t!e so?called 9common carrier1s ta0.9
SC r"led in t!is case t!at petitioner is a common carrier and t!"s' e0empt from /"siness ta0. A 9common carrier9 ma, /e defined' /roadl,' as one #!o !olds !imself o"t to t!e p"/lic as en a ed in t!e /"siness of transportin persons or propert, from place to place' for compensation' offerin !is services to t!e p"/lic enerall,. Art. (67% of t!e Civil Code defines a 9common carrier9 as 9an, person' corporation' firm or association en a ed in t!e /"siness of carr,in or transportin passen ers or oods or /ot!' /, land' #ater' or air' for compensation' offerin t!eir services to t!e p"/lic.9 T!e test for determinin #!et!er a part, is a common carrier of oods isF (. 3e m"st /e en a ed in t!e /"siness of carr,in oods for ot!ers as a p"/lic emplo,ment' and m"st !old !imself o"t as read, to en a e in t!e transportation of oods for person enerall, as a /"siness and not as a cas"al occ"pationD %. 3e m"st "nderta+e to carr, oods of t!e +ind to #!ic! !is /"siness is confinedD
LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO., INC., vs. COURT OF APPEALS F#9!s: On () Novem/er ()*E' LOADSTAR received on /oard a; 6@& /ales of la#anit !ard#oodD /; %6 /o0es and crates of tile#ood assem/lies and t!e ot!ers Dand c; E) /"ndles of mo"ldin s R M W :7; Apiton -olideni.ed. On its #a, to $anila from t!e port of Nasipit' A "san del Norte' t!e vessel' alon #it! its car o' san+ off
EH $%&
P#'e +

Limasa#a Island. As a res"lt of t!e total loss of its s!ipment' t!e consi nee made a claim #it! LOADSTAR #!ic!' !o#ever' i nored t!e same. $IC filed a complaint a ainst LOADSTAR and PGAI' alle in t!at t!e sin+in of t!e vessel #as d"e to t!e fa"lt and ne li ence of LOADSTAR and its emplo,ees. LOADSTAR denied an, lia/ilit, for t!e loss of t!e s!ipper1s oods and claimed t!at sin+in of its vessel #as d"e to force majeure. LOADSTAR s"/mits t!at t!e vessel #as a private carrier /eca"se it #as not iss"ed certificate of p"/lic convenience' it did not !ave a re "lar trip or sc!ed"le nor a fi0ed ro"te' and t!ere #as onl, 9one s!ipper' one consi nee for a special car o. Iss;es: :(; Is t!e $HJ 9C!ero+ee9 a private or a common carrierB :%; Did LOADSTAR o/serve d"e andHor ordinar, dili ence in t!ese premises. He81: Petition is dismissedF SC !old t!at LOADSTAR is a common carrier. It is not necessar, t!at t!e carrier /e iss"ed a certificate of p"/lic convenience' and t!is p"/lic c!aracter is not altered /, t!e fact t!at t!e carria e of t!e oods in >"estion #as periodic' occasional' episodic or "nsc!ed"led. T!e /ills of ladin failed to s!o# an, special arran ement' /"t onl, a eneral provision to t!e effect t!at t!e $HJ9C!ero+ee9 #as a 9general cargo carrier.9 ($ 4"rt!er' t!e /are fact t!at t!e vessel #as carr,in a partic"lar t,pe of car o for one s!ipper' #!ic! appears to /e p"rel, coincidental' is not reason eno" ! to convert t!e vessel from a common to a private carrier' especiall, #!ere' as in t!is case' it #as s!o#n t!at t!e vessel #as also carr,in passen ers. 5nder Article (67% of t!e Civil Code t!e Civil Code defines 9common carriers9 in t!e follo#in termsF Art. (67%. Common carriers are persons' corporations' firms or associations en a ed in t!e /"siness of carr,in or transportin passen ers or oods or /ot!' /, land' #ater' or air for compensation' offerin t!eir services to t!e p"/lic. On to t!e second assi ned error' #e find t!at t!e $HJ 9C!ero+ee9 #as not sea#ort!, #!en it em/ar+ed on its vo,a e on () Novem/er ()*E. T!e vessel #as not even s"fficientl, manned at t!e time. 94or a vessel to /e sea#ort!,' it m"st /e ade>"atel, e>"ipped for t!e vo,a e and manned #it! a s"fficient n"m/er of competent officers and cre#. T!e fail"re of a common carrier to maintain in sea#ort!, condition its vessel involved in a contract of carria e is a clear /reac! of its d"t,. CALVO VS. UCP) GENERAL INSURANCE TERMINAL SERVICE, INC. F#9!s: A contract #as entered into /et#een Calvo and San $i "el Corporation :S$C; for t!e transfer of certain car oes from t!e port area in $anila to t!e #are!o"se of S$C. T!e car o #as ins"red /, 5CP- General Ins"rance Co.' Inc. W!en t!e s!ipment arrived and "nloaded from t!e vessel' Calvo #it!dre# t!e car o from t!e arrastre operator and delivered t!e same to S$C=s #are!o"se. W!en it #as inspected' it #as fo"nd o"t t!at some of t!e oods #ere torn. 5CP-' /ein t!e ins"rer' paid for t!e amo"nt of t!e dama es and as s"/ro ee t!ereafter' filed a s"it a ainst Calvo. Petitioner' on t!e ot!er !and' contends t!at it is a private carrier not re>"ired to o/serve s"c! e0traordinar, dili ence in t!e vi ilance over t!e oods. As c"stoms /ro+er' s!e does not indiscriminatel, !old !er services o"t to t!e p"/lic /"t onl, to selected parties. Iss;e: W!et!er or not Calvo is a common carrier lia/le for t!e dama es for fail"re to o/serve e0traordinar, dili ence in t!e vi ilance over t!e oods. He81: T!e contention !as no merit. In De G".man v. Co"rt of Appeals' t!e Co"rt dismissed a similar contention and !eld t!e part, to /e a common carrier' t!"s ? T!e Civil Code defines 9common carriers9 in t!e follo#in termsF 9Article (67%. Common carriers are persons' corporations' firms or associations en a ed in t!e /"siness of carr,in or transportin passen ers or oods or /ot!' /, land' #ater' or air for compensation' offerin t!eir services to t!e p"/lic.9 T!e la# ma+es no distinction /et#een a carrier offerin its services to t!e eneral comm"nit, or solicits /"siness onl, from a narro# se ment of t!e eneral pop"lation. Note t!at t!e transportation of oods !olds an inte ral part of Calvo=s /"siness' it cannot indeed /e do"/ted t!at it is a common carrier. Asi# Li'"!er#'e #01 S"i77i0' I09. 4. CA Gr, No. ($+2$-, A;';s! (6, 2%%, FACTS: Petitioner #as contracted as carrier /, a corporation from Portland' Ore on to deliver a car o to t!e consi nee1s #are!o"se at Pasi Cit,. T!e car o' !o#ever' never reac!ed t!e consi nee as t!e /ar e t!at carried t!e car o san+ completel,' res"ltin in dama e to t!e car o. Private respondent' as ins"rer' indemnified t!e consi nee for t!e lost car o and t!"s' as s"/ro ee' so" !t recover, from petitioner. -ot! t!e trial co"rt and t!e appellate co"rt r"led in favor of private respondent. T!e Co"rt r"led in favor of private respondent. W!et!er or not petitioner is a common carrier' t!e Co"rt r"led in t!e affirmative. T!e principal /"siness of petitioner is t!at of li !tera e and dra,a e' offerin its /ar es to t!e p"/lic' alt!o" ! for limited clientele' for carr,in or transportin oods /, #ater for compensation. W!et!er or not petitioner failed to e0ercise e0traordinar, dili ence in its care and c"stod, of t!e consi nee1s oods' t!e Co"rt also r"led in t!e affirmative. T!e /ar e completel, san+ after its to#in /its /ro+e' res"ltin in t!e loss of t!e car o. Petitioner failed to prove t!at t!e t,p!oon #as t!e pro0imate and
EH $%&
P#'e 5

onl, ca"se of t!e loss and t!at it !as e0ercised d"e dili ence /efore' d"rin and after t!e occ"rrence. 3CISED ISSUE: W!et!er or Not t!e petitioner is a common carrier. RULING: GES. Petitioner is a common carrier #!et!er its carr,in of oods is done on an irre "lar rat!er t!an sc!ed"led manner' and #it! an onl, limited clientele. A common carrier need not !ave fi0ed and p"/licl, +no#n ro"tes. Neit!er does it !ave to maintain terminals or iss"e tic+ets. To /e s"re' petitioner fits t!e test of a common carrier as laid do#n in -ascos vs. Co"rt of Appeals. T!e test to determine a common carrier is 9#!et!er t!e iven "nderta+in is a part of t!e /"siness en a ed in /, t!e carrier #!ic! !e !as !eld o"t to t!e eneral p"/lic as !is occ"pation rat!er t!an t!e >"antit, or e0tent of t!e /"siness transacted.9 In t!e case at /ar' t!e petitioner admitted t!at it is en a ed in t!e /"siness of s!ippin and li !tera e' offerin its /ar es to t!e p"/lic' despite its limited clientele for carr,in or transportin oods /, #ater for compensation. Article (67% of t!e Civil Code defines common carriers as persons' corporations' firms or associations en a ed in t!e /"siness of carr,in or transportin passen ers or oods or /ot!' /, land' #ater' or air' for compensation..offerin t!eir services to t!e p"/lic. Petitioner contends t!at it is not a common carrier /"t a private carrier. Alle edl,' it !as no fi0ed and p"/licl, +no#n ro"te' maintains no terminals' and iss"es no tic+ets. It points o"t t!at it is not o/li ed to carr, indiscriminatel, for an, person. It is not /o"nd to carr, oods "nless it consents. In s!ort' it does not !old o"t its services to t!e eneral p"/lic. In De G".man vs. Co"rt of Appeals' #e !eld t!at t!e definition of common carriers in Article (67% of t!e Civil Code ma+es no distinction /et#een one #!ose principal /"siness activit, is t!e carr,in of persons or oods or /ot!' and one #!o does s"c! carr,in onl, as an ancillar, activit,. We also did not distin "is! /et#een a person or enterprise offerin transportation service on a re "lar or sc!ed"led /asis and one offerin s"c! service on an occasional' episodic or "nsc!ed"led /asis. 4"rt!er' #e r"led t!at Article (67% does not distin "is! /et#een a carrier offerin its services to t!e eneral p"/lic' and one #!o offers services or solicits /"siness onl, from a narro# se ment of t!e eneral pop"lation. Common carriers are /o"nd to o/serve e0traordinar, dili ence in t!e vi ilance over t!e oods transported /, t!em. T!e, are pres"med to !ave /een at fa"lt or to !ave acted ne li entl, if t!e oods are lost' destro,ed or deteriorated. To overcome t!e pres"mption of ne li ence in t!e case of loss' destr"ction or deterioration of t!e oods' deterioration of t!e oods' t!e common carrier m"st prove t!at it e0ercised e0traordinar, dili ence. T!ere are' !o#ever' e0ceptions to t!is r"le. Article (67E of t!e Civil Code en"merates t!e instances #!en t!e pres"mption of ne li ence does not attac!F Art. (67E. Common carriers are responsi/le for t!e loss' destr"ction' or deterioration of t!e oods' "nless t!e same is d"e to an, of t!e follo#in ca"ses onl,F :(; 4lood' storm' In t!e case at /ar' t!e /ar e completel, san+ after its to#in /its /ro+e' res"ltin in t!e total loss of its car o. Petitioner claims t!at t!is #as ca"sed /, a t,p!oon' !ence' it s!o"ld not /e !eld lia/le for t!e loss of t!e car o. 3o#ever' petitioner failed to prove t!at t!e t,p!oon is t!e pro0imate and onl, ca"se of t!e loss of t!e oods' and t!at it !as e0ercised d"e dili ence /efore' d"rin and after t!e occ"rrence of t!e t,p!oon to prevent or minimi.e t!e loss. T!e evidence s!o# t!at' even /efore t!e to#in /its of t!e /ar e /ro+e' it !ad alread, previo"sl, s"stained dama e #!en it !it a s"n+en o/2ect #!ile doc+ed at t!e En ineerin Island. It even s"ffered a !ole. Clearl,' t!is co"ld not /e solel, attri/"ted to t!e t,p!oon. T!e partl,?s"/mer ed vessel #as refloated /"t its !ole #as patc!ed #it! onl, cla, and cement. T!e patc! #or+ #as merel, a provisional remed,' not eno" ! for t!e /ar e to sail safel,. T!"s' #!en petitioner persisted to proceed #it! t!e vo,a e' it rec+lessl, e0posed t!e car o to f"rt!er dama e. AF S#09"e= )ro>er#'e 4s CA *De9 2(, 2%%$. F#9!s: A4 Sanc!e. is en a ed in a /ro+er /"siness #!erein its main 2o/ is to calc"late c"stoms d"t,' fees and c!ar es as #ell as stora e fees for t!e car oes. Part also of t!e services /ein iven /, A4 Sanc!e. is t!e deliver, of t!e s!ipment to t!e consi nee "pon t!e instr"ction of t!e s!ipper. W,ett en a ed t!e services of A4 Sanc!e. #!ere t!e latter delivered t!e s!ipment to 3i.on La/oratories "pon instr"ction of W,ett. 5pon inspection' it #as fo"nd o"t t!at at least EE cartons containin contraceptives #ere in /ad condition. W,ett claimed ins"rance from 4G5. 4G5 e0ercisin its ri !t of s"/ro ation claims dama es a ainst A4 Sanc!e. #!o delivered t!e dama ed oods. A4 Sanc!e. contended t!at it is not a common carrier /"t a /ro+era e firm. Iss;e: He81: Is A4 Sanc!e. a common carrierB eart!>"a+e' li !tnin ' or ot!er nat"ral disaster or calamit,D :%; Act of t!e p"/lic enem, in #ar' #!et!er international or civilD :7; Act or omission of t!e s!ipper or o#ner of t!e oodsD :E; T!e c!aracter of t!e oods or defects in t!e pac+in or in t!e containersD :&; Order or act of competent p"/lic a"t!orit,.
SC !eld t!at Art (67% of t!e Civil Code in definin common carrier does not distin "is! #!et!er t!e activit, is "nderta+en as a principal activit, or merel, as an ancillar, activit,. In t!is case' #!ile it is tr"e t!at A4 Sanc!e. is principall, en a ed as a /ro+er' it cannot /e denied from t!e evidence presented t!at part of t!e services it offers to its c"stomers is t!e deliver, of t!e oods to t!eir respective consi nees. No!e: A4 Sanc!e. claimed t!at t!e pro0imate ca"se of t!e dama e is improper pac+in . 5nder t!e CC' improper pac+in of t!e oods is an e0oneratin circ"mstance. -"t in t!is case' t!e SC !eld t!at t!o" ! t!e oods
EH $%&
P#'e 6

#ere improperl, pac+ed' since A4 Sanc!e. +ne# of t!e condition and ,et it accepted t!e s!ipment #it!o"t protest or reservation' t!e defense is deemed #aived. S9"<i!= Tr#0s7or! #01 )ro>er#'e Cor7 4 Tr#0sor! Ve0!;re I09., GR (&%2&& A7ri8 22,2%%& F#9!s: On Septem/er %&' ())(' SGTCO Pte Ltd. Sin apore s!ipped from t!e port of Il,ic!evs+' R"ssia on /oard $HJ KAle0ander SavelievL &E& !ot rolled steel s!eets in coil #ei !in A'))%'E&@ metric tons. T!e car oes' #!ic! #ere to /e disc!ar ed at t!e port of $anila in favor of t!e consi nee' Little Giant Steel Pipe Corporation :Little Giant;' #ere ins"red a ainst all ris+s #it! Ind"strial Ins"rance Compan, Ltd. :Ind"strial Ins"rance; "nder $arine Polic, No. $?)(?76E6?TIS. T!e vessel arrived at t!e port of $anila and t!e P!ilippine Ports A"t!orit, :PPA; assi ned it a place of /ert! at t!e o"tside /rea+#ater at t!e $anila So"t! 3ar/or. Sc!mit. Transport' #!ose services t!e consi nee en a ed to sec"re t!e re>"isite clearances' to receive t!e car oes from t!e s!ipside' and to deliver t!em to its :t!e consi nee=s; #are!o"se at Cainta' Ri.al' in t"rn en a ed t!e services of TJI to send a /ar e and t" /oat at s!ipside. TJI=s t" /oat KLailaniL to#ed t!e /ar e KEri+a JL to s!ipside. T!e t" /oat' after positionin t!e /ar e alon side t!e vessel' left and ret"rned to t!e port terminal. Arrastre operator Ocean Terminal Services Inc. commenced to "nload 76 of t!e &E& coils from t!e vessel "nto t!e /ar e. -, (%F7@ a.m. of Octo/er %6' ())( d"rin #!ic! t!e #eat!er condition !ad /ecome inclement d"e to an approac!in storm' t!e "nloadin "nto t!e /ar e of t!e 76 coils #as accomplis!ed. No t" /oat p"lled t!e /ar e /ac+ to t!e pier' !o#ever. At aro"nd &F7@ a.m. of Octo/er %6' ())(' d"e to stron #aves' t!e cre# of t!e /ar e a/andoned it and transferred to t!e vessel. T!e /ar e pitc!ed and rolled #it! t!e #aves and event"all, capsi.ed' #as!in t!e 76 coils into t!e sea. Little Giant t!"s filed a formal claim a ainst Ind"strial Ins"rance #!ic! paid it t!e amo"nt of P&'%EA'((7.((. Little Giant t!ere"pon e0ec"ted a s"/ro ation receipt in favor of Ind"strial Ins"rance. I01;s!ri#8 I0s;r#09e 8#!er i8e1 # 9o<78#i0! #'#i0s! S9"<i!= Tr#0s7or!, TVI, #01 )8#9> Se# !"ro;'" i!s re7rese0!#!i4e I09"9#7e *!"e 1e e01#0!s. :e ore !"e RTC o M#0i8#, !"e? #;8!e1 !"e 1e e01#0!s or ;01er!#>i0' !"e ;08o#1i0' o !"e 9#r'oes @"i8e !?7"oo0 si'0#8 No. ( @#s r#ise1. T!e RTC !eld all t!e defendants ne li ent. Defendants $chmit% &ransport and &'( filed a )oint motion for reconsideration assailing the finding that the* are common carriers. R& denied the motion for reconsideration. CA affirmed t!e RTC decision in toto' findin t!at all t!e defendants #ere common carriers C -lac+ Sea and TJI for en a in in t!e transport of oods and car oes over t!e seas as a re "lar /"siness and not as an isolated transaction' and Sc!mit. Transport for enterin into a contract #it! Little Giant to transport t!e car oes from s!ip to port for a fee. Iss;e: W!et!er or not -lac+ Sea and TJI are common carriers He81 : Contrar, to petitioner=s insistence' t!is Co"rt' as did t!e appellate co"rt' finds t!at petitioner is a common carrier. 4or it "ndertoo+ to transport t!e car oes from t!e s!ipside of K$HJ Ale0ander SavelievL to t!e consi nee=s #are!o"se at Cainta' Ri.al. As t!e appellate co"rt p"t it' Kas long as a person or corporation holds +itself, to the public for the purpose of transporting goods as +a, business+it, is alread* considered a common carrier regardless if +it, o!ns the vehicle to be used or has to hire one.L T!at petitioner is a common carrier' t!e testimon, of its o#n Jice?President and General $ana er Noel Aro t!at part of t!e services it offers to its clients as a /ro+era e firm incl"des t!e transportation of car oes reflects so. It is settled t!at "nder a iven set of facts' a c"stoms /ro+er ma, /e re arded as a common carrier. T!"s' t!is Co"rt' in #%&% $anche' (ro)erage, Inc% v% *he !onorable "ourt of #ppeals'NEEO !eldF T!e appellate co"rt did not err in findin petitioner' a c"stoms /ro+er' to /e also a common carrier' as defined "nder Article (67% of t!e Civil Code' to #it' Ar!. (+,2. Co<<o0 9#rriers #re 7erso0s, 9or7or#!io0s, ir<s or #sso9i#!io0s e0'#'e1 i0 !"e :;si0ess o 9#rr?i0' or !r#0s7or!i0' 7#sse0'ers or 'oo1s or :o!", :? 8#01, @#!er, or #ir, or 9o<7e0s#!io0, o eri0' !"eir ser4i9es !o !"e 7;:8i9. 000 Article (67% does not distin "is! /et#een one #!ose principal /"siness activit, is t!e carr,in of oods and one #!o does s"c! carr,in onl, as an ancillar, activit,. T!e contention' t!erefore' of petitioner t!at it is not a common carrier /"t a c"stoms /ro+er #!ose principal f"nction is to prepare t!e correct c"stoms declaration and proper s!ippin doc"ments as re>"ired /, la# is /ereft of merit. (t suffices that petitioner underta.es to deliver the goods for pecuniar* consideration. And in "alvo v% +",( -eneral Insurance "o% Inc%'NEAO t!is Co"rt !eld t!at as the transportation of goods is an integral part of a customs bro.er- the customs bro.er is also a common carrier. 4or to declare ot!er#ise K#o"ld /e to deprive t!ose #it! #!om NitO contracts t!e protection #!ic! t!e la# affords t!em not#it!standin t!e fact t!at t!e o/li ation to carr, oods for NitsO c"stomers' is part and parcel of petitioner=s /"siness.L PHIL CHARTER 4s. MAV BNATIONAL HONOR,B CG.R. No. (-(5,,. J;8? 5, 2%%&.D FACTS: On Novem/er &' ())&' <. Tradin Co. Ltd. of Seo"l' 8orea' loaded a s!ipment of fo"r "nits of parts and accessories on /oard t!e vessel $HJ 9National 3onor'9
EH $%&
P#'e (%

represented in t!e P!ilippines /, its a ent' National S!ippin Corporation of t!e P!ilippines :NSCP;. T!e s!ipment #as contained in t#o #ooden crates' namel,' Crate No. ( and Crate No. %' complete and in ood order condition. Crate No. ( contained t!e follo#in articlesF one :(; "nit Lat!e $ac!ine complete #it! parts and accessoriesD one :(; "nit S"rface Grinder complete #it! parts and accessoriesD and one :(; "nit $illin $ac!ine complete #it! parts and accessories. On t!e floorin of t!e #ooden crates #ere t!ree #ooden /attens placed side /, side to s"pport t!e #ei !t of t!e car o. It #as ins"red for P%'&E6'%6@.@@ #it! t!e P!ilippine C!arter Ins"rance Corporation :PCIC;. T!e $HJ 9National 3onor9 arrived at t!e $anila International Container Terminal :$ICT;. T!e International Container Terminal Services' Incorporated :ICTSI; #as t!e e0cl"sive arrastre operator of $ICT and #as c!ar ed #it! disc!ar in t!e car oes from t!e vessel. Cla"dio Cansino' t!e stevedore of t!e ICTSI' placed t#o slin ca/les on eac! end of Crate No. (. No slin ca/le #as fastened on t!e mid?portion of t!e crate. As t!e crate #as /ein !oisted from t!e vessel1s !atc!' t!e mid?portion of t!e #ooden floorin s"ddenl, snapped in t!e air' a/o"t five feet !i ! from t!e vessel1s t#in dec+' sendin all its contents cras!in do#n !ard' res"ltin in e0tensive dama e to t!e s!ipment. -l"e $ono International Compan,' Incorporated :-$ICI; s"/se>"entl, filed separate claims a ainst t!e NSCP' t!e ICTSI' and its ins"rer' t!e PCIC' for 5SPA('&@@.@@. W!en t!e ot!er companies denied lia/ilit,' PCIC paid t!e claim and #as iss"ed a S"/ro ation Receipt for P('6E@'A7E.&@. On $arc! %%' ())&' PCIC' as s"/ro ee' filed #it! t!e RTC of $anila a Complaint for Dama es a ainst t!e 95n+no#n o#ner of t!e vessel $HJ National 3onor'9 NSCP and ICTSI' as defendants. ICTSI' for its part' filed its Ans#er #it! Co"nterclaim and Cross?claim a ainst its co?defendant NSCP' claimin t!at t!e lossHdama e of t!e s!ipment #as ca"sed e0cl"sivel, /, t!e defective material of t!e #ooden /attens of t!e s!ipment' ins"fficient pac+in or acts of t!e s!ipper. T!e trial co"rt rendered 2"d ment for PCIC and ordered t!e complaint dismissed. Accordin to t!e trial co"rt' t!e loss of t!e s!ipment contained in Crate No. ( #as d"e to t!e internal defect and #ea+ness of t!e materials "sed in t!e fa/rication of t!e crates. T!e CA affirmed in TOTO t!e decision of t!e RTC. ISSUE: W3ET3ER OR NOT T3E CO$$ON CARRIER IS LIA-LE 4OR T3E DA$AGE S5STAINED -G T3E S3IP$ENT IN T3E 3ANDS O4 T3E ARRASTRE OPERATOR. HELD: THE RULING OF THE RTC AND CA WAS UPHELD. T!e petitioner posits t!at t!e lossHdama e #as ca"sed /, t!e mis!andlin of t!e s!ipment /, t!erein respondent ICTSI' t!e arrastre operator' and not /, its ne li ence. T!e petition !as no merit. We a ree #it! t!e contention of t!e petitioner t!at common carriers' from t!e nat"re of t!eir /"siness and for reasons of p"/lic polic,' are mandated to o/serve e0traordinar, dili ence in t!e vi ilance over t!e oods accordin to all t!e circ"mstances of eac! case. T!e eE!r#or1i0#r? 1i8i'e09e i0 !"e 4i'i8#09e o4er !"e 'oo1s re>"ires common carriers to render service #it! t!e reatest s+ill and foresi !t and 9to "se all reasona/le means to ascertain t!e nat"re and c!aracteristic of oods tendered for s!ipment' and to e0ercise d"e care in t!e !andlin and sto#a e' incl"din s"c! met!ods as t!eir nat"re re>"ires.9 W!en t!e oods s!ipped are eit!er lost or arrive in dama ed condition' a pres"mption arises a ainst t!e carrier of its fail"re to o/serve t!at dili ence' and t!ere need not /e an e0press findin of ne li ence to !old it lia/le. 3o#ever' "nder Ar!i98e (+,$ o !"e Ne@ Ci4i8 Co1e' t!e pres"mption of ne li ence does not appl, to an, of t!e follo#in ca"sesF (. F8oo1, s!or<, e#r!"F;#>e, 8i'"!0i0' or o!"er 0#!;r#8 1is#s!er or 9#8#<i!?D %. A9! o !"e 7;:8i9 e0e<? i0 @#r, @"e!"er i0!er0#!io0#8 or 9i4i8D 7. A9! or o<issio0 o !"e s"i77er or o@0er o !"e 'oo1sD E. T"e 9"#r#9!er o !"e 'oo1s or 1e e9!s i0 !"e 7#9>i0' or i0 !"e 9o0!#i0ersD &. Or1er or #9! o 9o<7e!e0! 7;:8i9 #;!"ori!?. It /ears stressin t!at t!e en"meration in Article (67E of t!e Ne# Civil Code #!ic! e0empts t!e common carrier for t!e loss or dama e to t!e car o is a closed list. Crate No. ( #as provided /, t!e s!ipper of t!e mac!ineries in Seo"l' 8orea. T!ere is not!in in t!e record #!ic! #o"ld indicate t!at defendant ICTSI !ad an, role in t!e c!oice of t!e materials "sed in fa/ricatin t!is crate. Said defendant' t!erefore' cannot /e !eld as /lame #ort!, for t!e loss of t!e mac!ineries contained in Crate No. (. T!e CA affirmed t!e r"lin of t!e RTC' t!"sF .*he case at bar falls under one of the exceptions mentioned in #rticle 1/34 of the "ivil "ode, particularly number 041 thereof, i%e%, the character of the goods or defects in the pac)ing or in the containers% *he trial court found that the brea)age of the crate was not due to the fault or negligence of I"*$I, but to the inherent defect and wea)ness of the materials used in the fabrication of the said crate%2 5pon e0amination of t!e records' We find no compellin reason to depart from t!e fact"al findin s of t!e trial co"rt. It appears t!at t!e #ooden /atten "sed as s"pport for t!e floorin #as not made of ood materials' #!ic! ca"sed t!e middle portion t!ereof to ive #a, #!en it #as lifted. T!e s!ipper also failed to indicate si ns to notif, t!e stevedores t!at e0tra care s!o"ld /e emplo,ed in !andlin t!e s!ipment. Appellant1s alle ation t!at since t!e car o arrived safel, from t!e port of NPO"san' 8orea #it!o"t defect' t!e fa"lt s!o"ld /e attri/"ted to t!e arrastre operator #!o mis!andled t!e car oD is #it!o"t merit. T!e car o fell #!ile it #as /ein carried onl, at a/o"t five :&; feet !i ! a/ove t!e ro"nd. It #o"ld not !ave so easil, collapsed !ad t!e car o /een properl, pac+ed. T!e s!ipper s!o"ld !ave "sed materials of stron er >"alit, to s"pport t!e !eav, mac!ines. Not onl, did t!e s!ipper fail to properl, pac+ t!e car o' it also failed to
EH $%&
P#'e ((

indicate an arro# in t!e middle portion of t!e car o #!ere additional slin s s!o"ld /e attac!ed. W!ile it is tr"e t!at t!e crate contained mac!ineries and spare parts' it cannot t!ere/, /e concl"ded t!at t!e respondents +ne# or s!o"ld !ave +no#n t!at t!e middle #ooden /atten !ad a !ole' or t!at it #as not stron eno" ! to /ear t!e #ei !t of t!e s!ipment. T!e statement in t!e -ill of Ladin ' t!at t!e s!ipment #as in apparent ood condition' is s"fficient to s"stain a findin of a/sence of defects in t!e merc!andise. Case la# !as it t!at s"c! statement #ill create a prima facie pres"mption onl, as to t!e e0ternal condition and not to t!at not open to inspection. LEA MER INDUSTRIES INC VS MALAYAN INSURANCE CO, INC. GR No. (-(+$&, SEPTEM)ER ,%, 2%%& FACTS: Ilian Silica $inin entered into a contract of carria e #it! t!e petitioner' Lea $er Ind"stries Inc. for t!e s!ipment of )@@ metric tons of silica sand #ort! P&A&'@@@. T!e car o #as consi ned to J"lcan Ind"strial and $inin Corporation and #as to /e s!ipped from Pala#an to $anila. T!e silica sand #as /oarded to <"d, JII' t!e vessel leased /, Lea $er. 3o#ever' d"rin t!e co"rse of its vo,a e' t!e vessel san+ #!ic! led to t!e loss of t!e car o. Conse>"entl,' t!e respondent' as t!e ins"rer' paid J"lcan t!e val"e of t!e lost car o. $ala,an Ins"rance Co.' Inc. t!en collected from t!e petitioner t!e amo"nt it paid to J"lcan as reim/"rsement and as its e0ercise on t!e ri !t of s"/ro ation. Lea $er ref"sed to pa, #!ic! led $ala,an to instit"te a complaint #it! t!e RTC. T!e RTC dismissed t!e complaint statin t!at t!e loss #as d"e to a fort"ito"s event' T,p!oon Trinin . Petitioner did not +no# t!at a t,p!oon #as comin and t!at it !as /een cleared /, t!e P!ilippine Coast G"ard to travel from Pala#an to $anila. T!e CA reversed t!e r"lin of t!e trial co"rt for t!e reason t!at said vessel #as not sea#ort!, #!en it sailed to $anila. ISSUE: W!et!er or not t!e petitioner is lia/le for t!e loss of t!e car o. HELD: CA reversed. Common carriers are persons' corporations' firms or associations en a ed in t!e /"siness of carr,in or transportin passen ers or oods' or /ot! C /, land' #ater' or air C #!en t!is service is offered to t!e p"/lic for compensation. Petitioner is clearl, a common carrier' /eca"se it offers to t!e p"/lic its /"siness of transportin oods t!ro" ! its vessels. T!"s' t!e Co"rt corrects t!e trial co"rt1s findin t!at petitioner /ecame a private carrier #!en J"lcan c!artered it. C!arter parties are classified as contracts of demise :or /are/oat; and affrei !tment' #!ic! are distin "is!ed as follo#sF 95nder t!e demise or /are/oat c!arter of t!e vessel' t!e c!arterer #ill enerall, /e considered as o#ner for t!e vo,a e or service stip"lated. T!e c!arterer mans t!e vessel #it! !is o#n people and /ecomes' in effect' t!e o#ner pro !ac vice' s"/2ect to lia/ilit, to ot!ers for dama es ca"sed /, ne li ence. To create a demise' t!e o#ner of a vessel m"st completel, and e0cl"sivel, relin>"is! possession' command and navi ation t!ereof to t!e c!artererD an,t!in s!ort of s"c! a complete transfer is a contract of affrei !tment :time or vo,a e c!arter part,; or not a c!arter part, at all.9 T!e distinction is si nificant' /eca"se a demise or /are/oat c!arter indicates a /"siness "nderta+in t!at is private in c!aracter. Conse>"entl,' t!e ri !ts and o/li ations of t!e parties to a contract of private carria e are overned principall, /, t!eir stip"lations' not /, t!e la# on common carriers. T!e Contract in t!e present case #as one of affrei !tment' as s!o#n /, t!e fact t!at it #as petitioner1s cre# t!at manned t!e t" /oat $HJ A,alit and controlled t!e /ar e <"d, JII. Common carriers are /o"nd to o/serve e0traordinar, dili ence in t!eir vi ilance over t!e oods and t!e safet, of t!e passen ers t!e, transport' as re>"ired /, t!e nat"re of t!eir /"siness and for reasons of p"/lic polic,. E0traordinar, dili ence re>"ires renderin service #it! t!e reatest s+ill and foresi !t to avoid dama e and destr"ction to t!e oods entr"sted for carria e and deliver,. Common carriers are pres"med to !ave /een at fa"lt or to !ave acted ne li entl, for loss or dama e to t!e oods t!at t!e, !ave transported. T!is pres"mption can /e re/"tted onl, /, proof t!at t!e, o/served e0traordinar, dili ence' or t!at t!e loss or dama e #as occasioned /, an, of t!e follo#in ca"sesF 9:(; 4lood' storm' eart!>"a+e' li !tnin ' or ot!er nat"ral disaster or calamit,D 9:%; Act of t!e p"/lic enem, in #ar' #!et!er international or civilD 9:7; Act or omission of t!e s!ipper or o#ner of t!e oodsD 9:E; T!e c!aracter of t!e oods or defects in t!e pac+in or in t!e containersD 9:&; Order or act of competent p"/lic a"t!orit,.9 <"rispr"dence defines t!e elements of a 9fort"ito"s event9 as follo#sF :a; t!e ca"se of t!e "nforeseen and "ne0pected occ"rrence' or t!e fail"re of t!e de/tors to compl, #it! t!eir o/li ations' m"st !ave /een independent of !"man #illD :/; t!e event t!at constit"ted t!e caso fort"ito m"st !ave /een impossi/le to foresee or' if foreseea/le' impossi/le to avoidD :c; t!e occ"rrence m"st !ave /een s"c! as to render it impossi/le for t!e de/tors to f"lfill t!eir o/li ation in a normal mannerD and :d; t!e o/li or m"st !ave /een free from an, participation in t!e a ravation of t!e res"ltin in2"r, to t!e creditor. To e0c"se t!e common carrier f"ll, of an, lia/ilit,' t!e fort"ito"s event m"st !ave /een t!e pro0imate and onl, ca"se of t!e loss. $oreover' it s!o"ld !ave e0ercised d"e dili ence to prevent or minimi.e t!e loss /efore' d"rin and after t!e occ"rrence of t!e fort"ito"s event. As re>"ired /, t!e pertinent la#' it #as not eno" ! for t!e common carrier to s!o# t!at t!ere #as an "nforeseen or "ne0pected occ"rrence. It !ad to s!o# t!at it #as free from an, fa"lt C a fact it misera/l, failed to prove.
EH $%&
P#'e (2

LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO., INC., 4. CA F#9!s: On () Novem/er ()*E' LOADSTAR received on /oard a; 6@& /ales of la#anit !ard#oodD /; %6 /o0es and crates of tile#ood assem/lies and t!e ot!ers Dand c; E) /"ndles of mo"ldin s R M W :7; Apiton -olideni.ed. On its #a, to $anila from t!e port of Nasipit' A "san del Norte' t!e vessel' alon #it! its car o' san+ off Limasa#a Island. As a res"lt of t!e total loss of its s!ipment' t!e consi nee made a claim #it! LOADSTAR #!ic!' !o#ever' i nored t!e same. $IC filed a complaint a ainst LOADSTAR and PGAI' alle in t!at t!e sin+in of t!e vessel #as d"e to t!e fa"lt and ne li ence of LOADSTAR and its emplo,ees. LOADSTAR denied an, lia/ilit, for t!e loss of t!e s!ipper1s oods and claimed t!at sin+in of its vessel #as d"e to force majeure. LOADSTAR s"/mits t!at t!e vessel #as a private carrier /eca"se it #as not iss"ed certificate of p"/lic convenience' it did not !ave a re "lar trip or sc!ed"le nor a fi0ed ro"te' and t!ere #as onl, 9one s!ipper' one consi nee for a special car o. Iss;es: :(; Is t!e $HJ 9C!ero+ee9 a private or a common carrierB :%; Did LOADSTAR o/serve d"e andHor ordinar, dili ence in t!ese premises. He81: Petition is dismissedF SC !old t!at LOADSTAR is a common carrier. It is not necessar, t!at t!e carrier /e iss"ed a certificate of p"/lic convenience' and t!is p"/lic c!aracter is not altered /, t!e fact t!at t!e carria e of t!e oods in >"estion #as periodic' occasional' episodic or "nsc!ed"led. T!e /ills of ladin failed to s!o# an, special arran ement' /"t onl, a eneral provision to t!e effect t!at t!e $HJ9C!ero+ee9 #as a 9general cargo carrier.9 ($ 4"rt!er' t!e /are fact t!at t!e vessel #as carr,in a partic"lar t,pe of car o for one s!ipper' #!ic! appears to /e p"rel, coincidental' is not reason eno" ! to convert t!e vessel from a common to a private carrier' especiall, #!ere' as in t!is case' it #as s!o#n t!at t!e vessel #as also carr,in passen ers. 5nder Article (67% of t!e Civil Code t!e Civil Code defines 9common carriers9 in t!e follo#in termsF Art. (67%. Common carriers are persons' corporations' firms or associations en a ed in t!e /"siness of carr,in or transportin passen ers or oods or /ot!' /, land' #ater' or air for compensation' offerin t!eir services to t!e p"/lic. On to t!e second assi ned error' #e find t!at t!e $HJ 9C!ero+ee9 #as not sea#ort!, #!en it em/ar+ed on its vo,a e on () Novem/er ()*E. T!e vessel #as not even s"fficientl, manned at t!e time. 94or a vessel to /e sea#ort!,' it m"st /e ade>"atel, e>"ipped for t!e vo,a e and manned #it! a s"fficient n"m/er of competent officers and cre#. T!e fail"re of a common carrier to maintain in sea#ort!, condition its vessel involved in a contract of carria e is a clear /reac! of its d"t,. In ans#er' L".on Stevedorin Corporation alle ed t!at it delivered #it! d"e dili ence t!e oods in t!e same >"antit, and >"alit, t!at it !ad received t!e same from t!e carrier. It also claimed t!at plaintiff1s claim !ad prescri/ed "nder Article 7AA of t!e Code of Commerce statin t!at t!e claim m"st /e made #it!in %E !o"rs from receipt of t!e car o. American Steams!ip A encies denied lia/ilit, /, alle in t!at "nder t!e provisions of t!e C!arter part, referred to in t!e /ills of ladin ' t!e c!arterer' not t!e s!ipo#ner' #as responsi/le for an, loss or dama e of t!e car o. 4"rt!ermore' it claimed to !ave e0ercised d"e dili ence in sto#in t!e oods and t!at as a mere for#ardin a ent' it #as not responsi/le for losses or dama es to t!e car o. T!e Co"rt of 4irst Instance a/solved t!e L".on Stevedorin Corporation from an, lia/ilit, and ordered t!e American Steams!ip A encies to pa, t!e s"m. 3ence' t!is petition. ISSUE: Is t!e stip"lation in t!e c!arter part, of t!e o#ner1s non?lia/ilit, valid so as to a/solve t!e American Steams!ip A encies from lia/ilit, for lossB RULING: <"d ment #as reversed and American Steams!ip A encies #as a/solved lia/ilit,. T!e /ills of ladin provided at t!e /ac+ t!ereof t!at t!e /ills of ladin s!all /e overned /, and s"/2ect to t!e terms and conditions of t!e c!arter part,' if CE-5 SALJAGE CORP. v. P3IL 3O$E ASS5RANCE /. 0rivate arriage
Ho<e I0s;r#09e Co. 4. A<eri9#0 S!e#<s"i7 A'e09ies 2, SCRA 2$ FACTS: 9Consorcio Pes>"ero del Per" of So"t! America9 s!ipped frei !t pre?paid at C!im/ate' Per"' %('6E@ 2"te /a s of Per"vian fis! meal t!ro" ! SS Cro#/oro" !. T!e car o' consi ned to San $i "el -re#er,' Inc.' no# San $i "el Corporation' and ins"red /, 3ome Ins"rance Compan, for P%@%'&@&' arrived in $anila and #as disc!ar ed into t!e li !ters of L".on Stevedorin Compan,. W!en t!e car o #as delivered to consi nee San $i "el -re#er, Inc.' t!ere #ere s!orta es amo"ntin to P(%'@77.*&' ca"sin t!e latter to la, claims a ainst L".on Stevedorin Corporation' 3ome Ins"rance Compan, and t!e American Steams!ip A encies' o#ner and operator of SS Cro#/oro" !. -eca"se t!e ot!ers denied lia/ilit,' 3ome Ins"rance Compan, paid t!e consi nee P(E'*6@.6(. 3avin /een ref"sed reim/"rsement /, /ot! t!e L".on Stevedorin Corporation and American Steams!ip A encies' 3ome Ins"rance Compan,' as s"/ro ee to t!e consi nee' filed a ainst t!em /efore t!e Co"rt of 4irst Instance a complaint for recover, of P(E'*6@.6( #it! le al interest' pl"s attorne,1s fees.
EH $%&
P#'e (,

an,' ot!er#ise' t!e /ills of ladin t!e a reements. o prevail over all distin "is!ed from its ot!er a ents or emplo,ees. In t!is case' no s"c! personal act or ne li ence !as /een proved. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION 4s. COURT OF APPEALS *(66+. F#9!s: NSC !ired $J Jlasons I' a private vessel o#ned /, JSI. T!e, entered into a contract of vo,a e c!arter !ire #!erein t!e contract states t!at NSC !ired JSI1s vessel to ma+e one vo,a e to load steel prod"cts at Ili an Cit, and disc!ar e t!em at Nort! 3ar/or' $anila. On arrival and "pon openin t!e t!ree !atc!es containin t!e s!ipment' nearl, all t!e s+ids of tinplates and !ot rolled s!eets #ere alle edl, fo"nd to /e #et and r"st,. NSC filed a complaint for dama es /"t RTC dismissed t!e complaint Iss;es: (. #!et!er JSI contracted #it! NSC as a common carrier or as a private carrier %. W!et!er or not t!e provisions of t!e Civil Code of t!e P!ilippines on common carriers p"rs"ant to #!ic! t!ere e0istNsO a pres"mption of ne li ence a ainst t!e common carrier in case of loss or dama e to t!e car o are applica/le to a private carrier. He81: (. JSI #as not a common carrier /"t a private carrier. It is "ndisp"ted t!at JSI did not offer its services to t!e eneral p"/lic. T!e e0tent of JSI1s responsi/ilit, and lia/ilit, over NSC1s car o are determined primaril, /, t!e stip"lations in t!e contract of carria e or c!arter part, and t!e Code of Commerce. T!e /"rden of proof lies on t!e part of NSC and not t!e JSI. Article (67% of t!e Civil Code defines a common carrier as 9persons' corporations' firms or associations en a ed in t!e /"siness of carr,in or transportin passen ers or oods or /ot!' /, land' #ater or air' for compensation' offerin t!eir services to t!e p"/lic.9 It !as /een !eld t!at t!e tr"e test of a common carrier is t!e carria e of passen ers or oods' provided it !as space' for all #!o opt to avail t!emselves of its transportation service for a fee. A carrier #!ic! does not >"alif, "nder t!e a/ove test is deemed a private carrier. 9Generall,' private carria e is "nderta+en /, special a reement and t!e carrier does not !old !imself o"t to carr, oods for t!e eneral p"/lic. . . .9 Section %' para rap! % of t!e c!arter part,' provides t!at t!e o#ner is lia/le for loss or dama e to t!e oods ca"sed /, personal #ant of d"e dili ence on its part or its mana er to ma+e t!e vessel in all respects sea#ort!, and to sec"re t!at s!e /e properl, manned' e>"ipped and s"pplied or /, t!e personal act or defa"lt of t!e o#ner or its mana er. Said para rap!' !o#ever' e0empts t!e o#ner of t!e vessel from an, loss or dama e or dela, arisin from an, ot!er so"rce' even from t!e ne lect or fa"lt of t!e captain or cre# or some ot!er person emplo,ed /, t!e o#ner on /oard' for #!ose acts t!e o#ner #o"ld ordinaril, /e lia/le e0cept for said para rap!..
T!e Co"rt of 4irst Instance declared t!e contract as contrar, to Article &*6 of t!e Code of Commerce ma+in t!e s!ip a ent civill, lia/le for indemnities s"ffered /, t!ird persons arisin from acts or omissions of t!e captain in t!e care of t!e oods and Article (6EE of t!e Civil Code "nder #!ic! a stip"lation /et#een t!e common carrier and t!e s!ipper or o#ner limitin t!e lia/ilit, of t!e former for loss or destr"ction of t!e oods to a de ree less t!an e0traordinar, dili ence is valid provided it /e reasona/le' 2"st and not contrar, to p"/lic polic,. T!e release from lia/ilit, in t!is case #as !eld "nreasona/le and contrar, to t!e p"/lic polic, on common carriers. o 5nder American 2"rispr"dence' a common carrier "nderta+in to carr, a special car o or c!artered to a special person onl,' /ecomes a private carrier.* As a private carrier' a stip"lation e0emptin t!e o#ner from lia/ilit, for t!e ne li ence of its a ent is not a ainst p"/lic polic,' and is deemed valid !e Civil Code provisions on common carriers s!o"ld not /e applied #!ere t!e carrier is not actin as s"c! /"t as a private carrier. T!e stip"lation in t!e c!arter part, a/solvin t!e o#ner from lia/ilit, for loss d"e to t!e ne li ence of its a ent #o"ld /e void onl, if t!e strict p"/lic polic, overnin common carriers is applied. S"c! polic, !as no force #!ere t!e p"/lic at lar e is not involved' as in t!e case of a s!ip totall, c!artered for t!e "se of a sin le part,.
And f"rt!ermore' in a c!arter of t!e entire vessel' t!e /ill of ladin iss"ed /, t!e master to t!e c!arterer' as s!ipper' is in fact and le al contemplation merel, a receipt and a doc"ment of title not a contract' for t!e contract is t!e c!arter part,. T!e consi nee ma, not claim i norance of said c!arter part, /eca"se t!e /ills of ladin e0pressl, referred to t!e same. Accordin l,' t!e consi nees "nder t!e /ills of ladin m"st li+e#ise a/ide /, t!e terms of t!e c!arter part,. And as stated' recover, cannot /e !ad t!ere"nder' for loss or dama e to t!e car o' a ainst t!e s!ipo#ners' "nless t!e same is d"e to personal acts or ne li ence of said o#ner or its mana er' as
2.
-eca"se t!e $J Jlason I #as a private carrier' t!e s!ipo#ner1s o/li ations are overned /, t!e provisions of t!e Code of Commerce and not /, t!e Civil Code #!ic!' as a eneral r"le places t!e prima facie pres"mption of ne li ence on a common carrier.
EH $%&
P#'e ($

IN A CONTRACT O4 PRIJATE CARRIAGE' T3E -5RDEN O4 PROO4 IN CASE O4 ACCIDENT IS ON T3E CARRIER /"t t!e co"rt e0empts JSI d"e to force ma2e"re. NSC m"st prove t!at t!e dama e to its s!ipment #as ca"sed /, JSI1s #illf"l ne li ence or fail"re to e0ercise d"e dili ence in ma+in $J Jlason I sea#ort!, and fit for !oldin ' carr,in and safe+eepin t!e car o. T!e /"rden of proof #as placed on NSC /, t!e parties1 a reement. VALEN/UELA HARDWOOD AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 4. CA FACTS: Plaintiff s!ipped at $aconcon Port' Isa/ela )E@ ro"nd lo s on /oard $HJ Seven Am/assador' a vessel o#ned /, defendant Seven -rot!ers S!ippin Corporation. Plaintiff ins"red t!e lo s a ainst loss andHor dama e #it! defendant So"t! Sea S"ret, and Ins"rance Co.' Inc. for P%$ and t!e latter iss"ed its $arine Car o Ins"rance Polic, on said date. In t!e meantime' t!e $HJ Seven Am/assador san+ res"ltin in t!e loss of t!e plaintiff=s ins"red lo s. Plaintiff demanded from defendant So"t! Sea S"ret, and Ins"rance Co.' Inc. t!e pa,ment of t!e proceeds of t!e polic, /"t t!e latter denied lia/ilit, "nder t!e polic,. Plaintiff li+e#ise filed a formal claim #it! defendant Seven -rot!ers S!ippin Corporation for t!e val"e of t!e lost lo s /"t t!e latter denied t!e claim. Co"rt of Appeals affirmed in part t!e RTC 2"d ment /, s"stainin t!e lia/ilit, of So"t! Sea S"ret, and Ins"rance Compan, :9So"t! Sea9;' /"t modified it /, !oldin t!at Seven -rot!ers S!ippin Corporation :9Seven -rot!ers9; #as not lia/le for t!e lost car o. ISSUE: W!et!er defendants s!ippin corporation and t!e s"ret, compan, are lia/le to t!e plaintiff for t!e latter1s lost lo s. HELD: T!e c!arter part, /et#een t!e petitioner and private respondent stip"lated t!at t!e 9:o;#ners s!all not /e responsi/le for loss' split' s!ort?landin ' /rea+a es and an, +ind of dama es to t!e car o9 QJALID T!ere is no disp"te /et#een t!e parties t!at t!e pro0imate ca"se of t!e sin+in of $HJ Seven Am/assadors res"ltin in t!e loss of its car o #as t!e 9snappin of t!e iron c!ains and t!e s"/se>"ent rollin of t!e lo s to t!e portside d"e to t!e ne li ence of t!e captain in sto#in and sec"rin t!e lo s on /oard t!e vessel and not d"e to fort"ito"s event.9 Li+e#ise "ndisp"ted is t!e stat"s of Private Respondent Seven -rot!ers as a private carrier #!en it contracted to transport t!e car o of Petitioner Jalen."ela. Even t!e latter admits t!is in its petition. Private respondent !ad acted as a private carrier in transportin petitioner1s la"an lo s. T!"s' Article (6E& FACTS: In $a, ())(' petitioner Estela L. Crisostomo contracted t!e services of respondent Caravan Travel and To"rs International' Inc. to arran e and facilitate !er /oo+in ' tic+etin and accommodation in a to"r d"//ed K<e#els of E"ropeL. T!e pac+a e to"r incl"ded t!e co"ntries of En land' 3olland' German,' A"stria' Liec!stenstein' S#it.erland and 4rance at a total cost of P6E'7%%.6@.Petitioner #as iven a &I disco"nt on t!e amo"nt' #!ic! incl"ded airfare' and t!e /oo+in fee #as also #aived /eca"se petitioner=s niece' $eriam $enor' #as respondent compan,=s tic+etin mana er. and ot!er Civil Code provisions on common carriers #!ic! #ere cited /, petitioner ma, not /e applied "nless e0pressl, stip"lated /, t!e parties in t!eir c!arter part,. In a contract of private carria e' t!e parties ma, validl, stip"late t!at responsi/ilit, for t!e car o rests solel, on t!e c!arterer' e0emptin t!e s!ipo#ner from lia/ilit, for loss of or dama e to t!e car o ca"sed even /, t!e ne li ence of t!e s!ip captain. P"rs"ant to Article (7@A of t!e Civil Code' s"c! stip"lation is valid /eca"se it is freel, entered into /, t!e parties and t!e same is not contrar, to la#' morals' ood c"stoms' p"/lic order' or p"/lic polic,. Indeed' t!eir contract of private carria e is not even a contract of ad!esion. We stress t!at in a contract of private carria e' t!e parties ma, freel, stip"late t!eir d"ties and o/li ations #!ic! perforce #o"ld /e /indin on t!em. 5nli+e in contract involvin a common carrier' private carria e does not involve t!e eneral p"/lic. 3ence' t!e strin ent provisions of t!e Civil Code on common carriers protectin t!e eneral p"/lic cannot 2"stifia/l, /e applied to a s!ip transportin commercial oods as a private carrier. Conse>"entl,' t!e p"/lic polic, em/odied t!erein is not contravened /, stip"lations in a c!arter part, t!at lessen or remove t!e protection iven /, la# in contracts involvin common carriers. T!e provisions of o"r Civil Code on common carriers #ere ta+en from An lo?American la#. 5nder American 2"rispr"dence' a common carrier "nderta+in to carr, a special car o or c!artered to a special person onl,' /ecomes a private carrier. As a private carrier a stip"lation e0emptin t!e o#ner from lia/ilit, for t!e ne li ence of its a ent is not a ainst p"/lic polic, and is deemed valid. S"c! doctrine We find reasona/le. T!e Civil Code provisions on common carriers s!o"ld not /e applied #!ere t!e carrier is not actin as s"c! /"t as a private carrier. T!e stip"lation in t!e c!arter part, a/solvin t!e o#ner from lia/ilit, for loss d"e to t!e ne li ence of its a ent #o"ld /e void onl, if t!e strict p"/lic polic, overnin common carriers is applied. S"c! polic, !as no force #!ere t!e p"/lic at lar e is not involved as in t!is case of a s!ip totall, c!artered for t!e "se of a sin le part,. :3ome Ins"rance Co. vs. American Steams!ip A encies Inc.' %7 SCRA %E' April E' ()A*;
4G5 INS5RANCE v. G.P. SAR$IENTO Crisos!o<o 4s. CA G.R. No. (,5,,$ A;';s! 2&, 2%%,
EH $%&
P#'e (&

P"rs"ant to said contract' $enor #ent to !er a"nt=s residence on <"ne (%' ())( Q a Wednesda, Q to deliver petitioner=s travel doc"ments and plane tic+ets.Petitioner' in t"rn' ave $enor t!e f"ll pa,ment for t!e pac+a e to"r.$enor t!en told !er to /e at t!e Nino, A>"ino International Airport :NAIA; on S#!;r1#?'t#o !o"rs /efore !er fli !t on /oard -ritis! Air#a,s. Wit!o"t c!ec+in !er travel doc"ments' petitioner #ent to NAIA on Sat"rda,' <"ne (&' ())(' to ta+e t!e fli !t for t!e first le of !er 2o"rne, from $anila to 3on +on . To petitioner=s disma,' s!e discovered t!at t!e fli !t s!e #as s"pposed to ta+e !ad alread, departed t!e previo"s da,.S!e learned t!at !er plane tic+et #as for t!e fli !t sc!ed"led on <"ne (E' ())(. S!e t!"s called "p $enor to complain. S"/se>"entl,' $enor prevailed "pon petitioner to ta+e anot!er to"r Q t!e K-ritis! Pa eantL Q #!ic! incl"ded En land' Scotland and Wales in its itinerar,. 4or t!is to"r pac+a e' petitioner #as as+ed ane# to pa, 5SP6*&.@@ or P%@'**(.@@ :at t!e t!en prevailin e0c!an e rate of P%A.A@;. S!e ave respondent 5SP7@@ or P6')*@.@@ as partial pa,ment and commenced t!e trip in <"l, ())(. 5pon petitioner=s ret"rn from E"rope' s!e demanded from respondent t!e reim/"rsement of PA('E%(.6@' representin t!e difference /et#een t!e s"m s!e paid for K<e#els of E"ropeL and t!e amo"nt s!e o#ed respondent for t!e K-ritis! Pa eantL to"r. Despite several demands' respondent compan, ref"sed to reim/"rse t!e amo"nt' contendin t!at t!e same #as non?ref"nda/le.Petitioner #as t!"s constrained to file a complaint a ainst respondent for /reac! of contract of carria e and dama es' #!ic! #as doc+eted as Civil Case No. )%?(77 and raffled to -ranc! &) of t!e Re ional Trial Co"rt of $a+ati Cit,. After d"e proceedin s' t!e trial co"rt rendered a decision in favor of Estela Crisostomo. -"t it #as reversed /, t!e Co"rt of Appeals. 3ence' t!is petition. ISSUE: Is t!e Caravan Travel and reim/"rsement and dama esB 3ELDF Petition DENIED. -, definition' a contract of carria e or transportation is one #!ere/, a certain person or association of persons o/li ate t!emselves to transport persons' t!in s' or ne#s from one place to anot!er for a fi0ed price.S"c! person or association of persons are re arded as carriers and are classified as private or special carriers and common or p"/lic carriers.A common carrier is defined "nder Article (67% of t!e Civil Code as persons' corporations' firms or associations en a ed in t!e /"siness of carr,in or transportin passen ers or oods or /ot!' /, land' #ater or air' for compensation' offerin t!eir services to t!e p"/lic. It is o/vio"s from t!e a/ove definition t!at respondent is not an entit, en a ed in t!e /"siness of transportin To"rs lia/le for eit!er passen ers or oods and is t!erefore' neit!er a private nor a common carrier. Respondent did not "nderta+e to transport petitioner from one place to anot!er since its covenant #it! its c"stomers is simpl, to ma+e travel arran ements in t!eir /e!alf. Respondent=s services as a travel a enc, incl"de proc"rin tic+ets and facilitatin travel permits or visas as #ell as /oo+in c"stomers for to"rs. W!ile petitioner concededl, /o" !t !er plane tic+et t!ro" ! t!e efforts of respondent compan,' t!is does not mean t!at t!e latter ipso facto is a common carrier. At most' respondent acted merel, as an a ent of t!e airline' #it! #!om petitioner "ltimatel, contracted for !er carria e to E"rope. Respondent=s o/li ation to petitioner in t!is re ard #as simpl, to see to it t!at petitioner #as properl, /oo+ed #it! t!e airline for t!e appointed date and time. 3er transport to t!e place of destination' mean#!ile' pertained directl, to t!e airline. T!e o/2ect of petitioner=s contract"al relation #it! respondent is t!e latter=s service of #rr#0'i0' #01 #9i8i!#!i0' petitioner=s /oo+in ' tic+etin and accommodation in t!e pac+a e to"r. In contrast' t!e o/2ect of a contract of carria e is t!e !r#0s7or!#!io0 of passen ers or oods. It is in t!is sense t!at t!e contract /et#een t!e parties in t!is case #as an ordinar, one for services and not one of carria e. Petitioner=s s"/mission is premised on a #ron ass"mption.It is t!"s not /o"nd "nder t!e la# to o/serve e0traordinar, dili ence in t!e performance of its o/li ation' as petitioner claims. Since t!e contract /et#een t!e parties is an ordinar, one for services' t!e standard of care re>"ired of respondent is t!at of a ood fat!er of a famil, "nder Article ((67 of t!e Civil Code.T!is connotes reasona/le care consistent #it! t!at #!ic! an ordinaril, pr"dent person #o"ld !ave o/served #!en confronted #it! a similar sit"ation. T!e test to determine #!et!er ne li ence attended t!e performance of an o/li ation isF did t!e defendant in doin t!e alle ed ne li ent act "se t!at reasona/le care and ca"tion #!ic! an ordinaril, pr"dent person #o"ld !ave "sed in t!e same sit"ationBIf not' t!en !e is "ilt, of ne li ence.
#e
do not a ree #it! t!e findin of t!e lo#er co"rt t!at $enor=s ne li ence conc"rred #it! t!e ne li ence of petitioner and res"ltantl, ca"sed dama e to t!e latter. Contrar, to petitioner=s claim' t!e evidence on record s!o#s t!at respondent e0ercised d"e dili ence in performin its o/li ations "nder t!e contract and follo#ed standard proced"re in renderin its services to petitioner. As correctl, o/served /, t!e lo#er co"rt' t!e plane tic+et. iss"ed to petitioner clearl, reflected t!e depart"re date and time' contrar, to petitioner=s contention. T!e travel doc"ments' consistin of t!e to"r itinerar,' vo"c!ers and instr"ctions' #ere li+e#ise delivered to petitioner t#o da,s prior to t!e trip. Respondent also properl, /oo+ed petitioner for t!e to"r' prepared t!e necessar, doc"ments and proc"red t!e plane tic+ets. It arran ed petitioner=s !otel accommodation as #ell as food' land transfers and si !tseein e0c"rsions' in accordance #it! its avo#ed "nderta+in . T!erefore' it is clear t!at respondent performed its prestation "nder t!e contract as #ell as
EH $%&
P#'e (-

ever,t!in else t!at #as essential to /oo+ petitioner for t!e to"r. 3ence' petitioner cannot recover and m"st /ear !er o#n dama e. (. T!is iss"e s!o"ld /e ans#ered in t!e affirmative. T!e oral contract #as later confirmed /, a formal and #ritten /oo+in iss"ed /, t!e s!ipper1s /ranc! office' Davao Cit,' in virt"e of #!ic! t!e carrier sent t#o of its li !ters to "nderta+e t!e service. It also appears t!at t!e patrons of said li !ters #ere emplo,ees of t!e carrier #it! d"e a"t!orit, to "nderta+e t!e transportation and to si n t!e doc"ments t!at ma, /e necessar, t!erefor. T!e fact t!at t!e carrier sent its li !ters free of c!ar e to ta+e t!e !emp from $acleod1s #!arf at Sasa preparator, to its loadin onto t!e s!ip -o#line 8not does not in an, #a, impair t!e contract of carria e alread, entered into /et#een t!e carrier and t!e s!ipper' for t!at preparator, step is /"t part and parcel of said contract of carria e. In ot!er #ords' !ere #e !ave a complete contract of carria e t!e cons"mmation of #!ic! !as alread, /e "nF t!e s!ipper deliverin t!e car o to t!e carrier' and t!e latter ta+in possession t!ereof /, placin it on a li !ter manned /, its a"t!ori.ed emplo,ees' "nder #!ic! $acleod /ecame entitled to t!e privile e sec"red to !im /, la# for its safe transportation and deliver,' and t!e carrier to t!e f"ll pa,ment of its frei !t "pon completion of t!e vo,a e. T!e receipt of oods /, t!e carrier !as /een said to lie at t!e fo"ndation of t!e contract to carr, and deliver' and if act"all, no oods are received t!ere can /e no s"c! contract. T!e lia/ilit, and responsi/ilit, of t!e carrier "nder a contract for t!e carria e of oods commence on t!eir actual delivery to' or receipt by' t!e carrier or an authori'ed agent. ... and deliver, to a li !ter in c!ar e of a vessel for s!ipment on t!e vessel' #!ere it is t!e c"stom to deliver in t!at #a,' is a ood deliver, and /inds t!e vessel receivin t!e frei !t' t!e lia/ilit, commencin at t!e time of deliver, to t!e li !ter. ... and' similarl,' where there is a contract to carry goods from one port to another, and they cannot be loaded directly on the vessel and lighters are sent by the vessel to bring the goods to it, the lighters are for the time its substitutes, so that the bill of landing is applicable to the goods as soon as they are placed on the lighters. :*@ C.<.S.' p. )@(' emp!asis s"pplied; T!e lia/ilit, of t!e carrier as common carrier /e ins #it! t!e act"al deliver, of t!e oods for transportation' and not merel, #it! t!e formal e0ec"tion of a receipt or /ill of ladin D t!e iss"ance of a /ill of ladin is not necessar, to complete deliver, and acceptance. Even #!ere it is provided /, stat"te t!at lia/ilit, commences #it! t!e iss"ance of t!e /ill of ladin ' act"al deliver, and acceptance are s"fficient to /ind t!e carrier. SERVANDO 4s. PHILIPPINE STEAM NAVIGATION CO. FACTS: On Novem/er A' ()A7' appellees Clara 5, -ico and Amparo Servando loaded on /oard t!e appellant1s vessel' 4S?(6A' for carria e from $anila to P"l"pandan' Ne ros Occidental. In t!e /ills of ladin iss"ed for t!e car oes in >"estion' t!e parties a reed to limit t!e responsi/ilit, of t!e carrier for t!e loss or dama e t!at
". Distinction from to!agearrester and stevedoring 5. 1overning 2a!s #. Registered 3!ner Rule and 4abit $*stem C. O)LIGATIONS OF PARTIES AND DEFENSES 1. Duties of ommon arrier COMPAGIA MARITIMA v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA G.R. No. LH(56-& O9!o:er ,%, (6-$ FACTS: $acleod and Compan, of t!e P!ilippines contracted t!e services of t!e CompaRia $aritima' a s!ippin corporation' for t!e s!ipment of %'AE& /ales of !emp from t!e former1s Sasa private pier at Davao Cit, to $anila and for t!eir s"/se>"ent trans!ipment to -oston' $assac!"setts' 5.S.A. on /oard t!e S.S. Steel Navi ator. T!is oral contract #as later on confirmed /, a formal and #ritten /oo+in iss"ed /, $acleod1s /ranc! office in Sasa and !andcarried to CompaRia $aritima1s /ranc! office in Davao in compliance #it! #!ic! t!e latter sent to $acleod1s private #!arf on #!ic! t!e loadin of t!e !emp #as completed on Octo/er %)' ()&%. T!ese t#o li !ters #ere manned eac! /, a patron and an assistant patron. T!e patrons of /ot! /ar es iss"ed t!e correspondin carrier1s receipts. D"rin t!e ni !t of Octo/er %)' ()&%' or at t!e earl, !o"rs of Octo/er 7@' LCT No. (@%& san+' res"ltin in t!e dama e or loss of ('(A% /ales of !emp loaded t!erein. T!e total dama es totaled to PA@'E%(.@%. Since $acleod=s prod"cts #ere ins"red /, Ins"rance Compan, of Nort! America' it e0ec"ted a s"/ro ation contract #!ere $acleod assi ned all ri !ts to t!e Ins"rance Compan, of Nort! America to t!e dama ed and ins"red car o. 5na/le to collect from Compania $aritima' Compan, of Nort! America filed t!is case in co"rt. T!e trial co"rt ordered Compania $aritima to pa, $acleod t!e dama es it inc"rred d"e to its sin+in . T!e CA affirmed t!e decision of t!e lo#er co"rt promptin t!e petitioner to elevate t!e case to t!e S"preme Co"rt. ISSUE: :(; Was t!ere a contract of carria e /et#een t!e carrier and t!e s!ipper even if t!e loss occ"rred #!en t!e !emp #as loaded on a /ar e o#ned /, t!e carrier #!ic! #as loaded free of c!ar e and #as not act"all, loaded on t!e S.S. -o#line 8not #!ic! #o"ld carr, t!e !emp to $anila and no /ill of ladin #as iss"ed t!ereforeB HELD:
EH $%&
P#'e (+

ma, /e ca"sed to t!e s!ipment /, insertin t!erein t!e follo#in stip"lationF Cla"se (E. Carrier s!all not /e responsi/le for loss or dama e to s!ipments /illed 1o#ner1s ris+1 "nless s"c! loss or dama e is d"e to ne li ence of carrier. Nor s!all carrier /e responsi/le for loss or dama e ca"sed /, force ma2e"re' dan ers or accidents of t!e sea or ot!er #atersD #arD p"/lic enemiesD . . . fire . ... 5pon arrival of t!e vessel at P"l"pandan' in t!e mornin of Novem/er (*' ()A7' t!e car oes #ere disc!ar ed' complete and in ood order' "nto t!e #are!o"se of t!e -"rea" of C"stoms. At a/o"t %F@@ in t!e afternoon of t!e same da,' said #are!o"se #as ra.ed /, a fire of "n+no#n ori in' destro,in appellees1 car oes. -efore t!e fire' !o#ever' appellee 5, -ico #as a/le to ta+e deliver, of )@6 cavans of rice 2 Appellees1 claims for t!e val"e of said oods #ere re2ected /, t!e appellant SC RULING We s"stain t!e validit, of t!e a/ove stip"lationD t!ere is not!in t!erein t!at is contrar, to la#' morals or p"/lic polic,. -esides' t!e a reement contained in t!e a/ove >"oted Cla"se (E is a mere iteration of t!e /asic principle of la# #ritten in Article ( ( 6 E of t!e Civil CodeF Article ((6E. E0cept in cases e0pressl, specified /, t!e la#' or #!en it is ot!er#ise declared /, stip"lation' or #!en t!e nat"re of t!e o/li ation re>"ires t!e ass"mption of ris+' no person s!all /e responsi/le for t!ose events #!ic! co"ld not /e foreseen' or #!ic!' t!o" ! foreseen' #ere inevita/le. T!"s' #!ere fort"ito"s event or force ma2e"re is t!e immediate and pro0imate ca"se of t!e loss' t!e o/li or is e0empt from lia/ilit, for non?performance. T!e Partidas' $ t!e antecedent of Article ((6E of t!e Civil Code' defines 1caso fort"ito1 as 1an event t!at ta+es place /, accident and co"ld not !ave /een foreseen. E0amples of t!is are destr"ction of !o"ses' "ne0pected fire' s!ip#rec+' violence of ro//ers.1 In its dissertation of t!e p!rase 1caso fort"ito1 t!e Enciclopedia <"ridicada Espanola & sa,sF 9In a le al sense and' conse>"entl,' also in relation to contracts' a 1caso fort"ito1 presents t!e follo#in essential c!aracteristicsF :(; t!e ca"se of t!e "nforeseen and "ne0pected occ"rrence' or of t!e fail"re of t!e de/tor to compl, #it! !is o/li ation' m"st /e independent of t!e !"man #illD :%; it m"st /e impossi/le to foresee t!e event #!ic! constit"tes t!e 1caso fort"ito1' or if it can /e foreseen' it m"st /e impossi/le to avoidD :7; t!e occ"rrence m"st /e s"c! as to render it impossi/le for t!e de/tor to f"lfill !is o/li ation in a normal mannerD and :E; t!e o/li or m"st /e free from an, participation in t!e a ravation of t!e in2"r, res"ltin to t!e creditor.9 In t!e case at /ar' t!e /"rnin of t!e c"stoms #are!o"se #as an e0traordinar, event #!ic! !appened independentl, of t!e #ill of t!e appellant. T!e latter co"ld not !ave foreseen t!e event. T!ere is not!in in t!e record to s!o# t!at appellant carrier 'inc"rred in dela, in t!e performance of its o/li ation. It appears t!at appellant !ad not onl, notified appellees of t!e arrival of t!eir s!ipment' /"t !ad demanded t!at t!e same /e #it!dra#n. In fact' p"rs"ant to s"c! demand' appellee 5, -ico !ad ta+en deliver, of )@6 cavans of rice /efore t!e /"rnin of t!e #are!o"se. Nor can t!e appellant or its emplo,ees /e c!ar ed #it! ne li ence. T!e stora e of t!e oods in t!e C"stoms #are!o"se pendin #it!dra#al t!ereof /, t!e appellees #as "ndo"/tedl, made #it! t!eir +no#led e and consent. Since t!e #are!o"se /elon ed to and #as maintained /, t!e overnment' it #o"ld /e "nfair to imp"te ne li ence to t!e appellant' t!e latter !avin no control #!atsoever over t!e same. T!e lo#er co"rt in its decision relied on t!e r"lin laid do#n in 3u (iao $ontua vs% 4ssorio -' #!ere t!is Co"rt !eld t!e defendant lia/le for dama es arisin from a fire ca"sed /, t!e ne li ence of t!e defendant1s emplo,ees #!ile loadin cases of asoline and petroleon prod"cts. -"t "nli+e in t!e said case' t!ere is not a s!red of proof in t!e present case t!at t!e ca"se of t!e fire t!at /ro+e o"t in t!e C"stom1s #are!o"se #as in an, #a, attri/"ta/le to t!e ne li ence of t!e appellant or its emplo,ees. 5nder t!e circ"mstances' t!e appellant is plainl, not responsi/le MAERS3 LINE 4s. CA FACTSF Petitioner $aers+ Line is en a ed in t!e transportation of oods /, sea' doin /"siness in t!e P!ilippines t!ro" ! its eneral a ent Compania General de Ta/acos de 4ilipinas #!ile private respondent Efren Castillo' on t!e ot!er !and' is t!e proprietor of Et!e al La/oratories' a firm en a ed in t!e man"tact"re of p!armace"tical prod"cts. Private respondent ordered from Eli Lill,. Inc. :ELI; of P"erto Rico t!ro" ! its a ent in t!e P!ilippines' Elanco Prod"cts' A@@'@@@ empt, elatin caps"les for t!e man"fact"re of !is p!armace"tical prod"cts. T!e s!ipper ELI advised Castillo as consi nee t!at t!e elatin caps"les contained in A dr"ms #ere alread, s!ipped on /oard $J 9Anders $aers+line for s!ipment to t!e P!ilippines via Oa+land' California' #!ic! accordin to t!e memo sent' #as to arrive on April 7' ()66. 4or reasons "n+no#n' t!e car o of caps"les #ere mis!ipped and diverted to Ric!mond' Jir inia' 5SA and t!en transported /ac+ Oa+land' Califorilia ca"sin it to arrive % mont!s after it #as specified in t!e memo. Castillo ref"sed to receive t!e deliver, of t!e oods d"e to t!e dela,. Castillo filed /efore t!e rescission of t!e contract and dama es a ainst ELI. ELI=s ar "ment #as t!at it t!e s"/2ect s!ipment #as transported in accordance #it! t!e provisions of t!e coverin /ill of ladin and t!at its lia/ilit, "nder t!e la# on transportation of ood attac!es onl, in case of loss' destr"ction or deterioration of t!e oods as provided for in Article (67E of Civil Code and ELI filed a croos?claim a ainst $aers+line. iss"es !avin /een 2oined' private respondent moved for t!e dismissal of t!e complaint a ainst Eli Lill,' Inc.on t!e ro"nd t!at t!e evidence on record s!o#s t!at t!e dela, in t!e
EH $%&
P#'e (5

deliver, of t!e s!ipment #as attri/"ta/le solel, to petitioner. RTCF r"led in favor of Castillo on t!e ro"nd t!at /reac! in t!e performance of t!eir o/li ation consistin of t!eir ne li ence to deliver t!e oods on time. CAF Affirmed t!e Decision of t!e RTC. ISSUEF WHN maers+line ma, /e !eld lia/le for t!e dela, R;8i0'F T!e SC' in t!eir r"lin made reference to t!e stip"lations in t!e /ill of ladin . A provision in said /ill of ladin states t!at KT!e Carrier does not "nderta+e t!at t!e oods s!all arive at t!e port of disc!ar e or t!e place of deliver, at an, partic"lar time or to meet an, partic"lar mar+et or "se and save as is provided in cla"se E t!e Carrier s!all in no circ"mstances /e lia/le for an, direct' indirect or conse>"ential loss or dama e ca"sed /, dela,L. Accordin to t!e SC' t!e afore>"oted provision at t!e /ac+ of t!e /ill of ladin ' in fine print' is a contract of ad!esion. Generall,' contracts of ad!esion are considered void since almost all t!e provisions of t!ese t,pes of contracts are prepared and drafted onl, /, one part,' "s"all, t!e carrier. Nonet!eless' settled is t!e r"le t!at /ills of ladin are contracts not entirel, pro!i/ited. T!e >"estioned provision in t!e s"/2ect /ill of ladin !as t!e effect of practicall, leavin t!e date of arrival of t!e s"/2ect s!ipment on t!e sole determination and #ill of t!e carrier. W!ile it is tr"e t!at common carriers are not o/li ated /, la# to carr, and to deliver merc!andise' and persons are not vested #it! t!e ri !t to prompt deliver,' "nless s"c! common carriers previo"sl, ass"me t!e o/li ation to deliver at a iven date or time :$endo.a v. P!ilippine Air Lines' Inc.' )@ P!il. *7A N()&%O;' deliver, of s!ipment or car o s!o"ld at least /e made #it!in a reasona/le time. In t!e case /efore "s' #e find t!at a dela, in t!e deliver, of t!e oods spannin a period of t#o :%; mont!s and seven :6; da,s falls #as /e,ond t!e realm of reasona/leness. It #as d"e to petitioner=s ne li ence t!at t!e oods #ere mis!ipped to Ric!mond' Jir inia. re>"irement' copies of t!e /ills of ladin and commercial invoices #ere s"/mitted to petitioner1s depositor, /an+' Consolidated -an+in Corporation :SOLID-AN8;' #!ic! paid petitioner in advance t!e total val"e of t!e s!ipment of 5SP%@'%%7.EA. 5pon arrival in 3on +on ' t!e s!ipment #as :(; delivered /, respondent WALLE$ directl, to GPC :t!e /",er?importer;' not to PA8ISTAN -AN8' :%; and #it!o"t t!e re>"ired /ill of ladin !avin /een s"rrendered. S"/se>"entl,' GPC failed to pa, PA8ISTAN -AN8 s"c! t!at t!e latter' still in possession of t!e ori inal /ills of ladin ' ref"sed to pa, petitioner t!ro" ! SOLID-AN8. Since SOLID-AN8 alread, pre? paid petitioner t!e val"e of t!e s!ipment' it demanded pa,ment from respondent WALLE$ t!ro" ! five :&; letters /"t #as ref"sed. Petitioner #as t!"s alle edl, constrained to ret"rn t!e amo"nt involved to SOLID-AN8D petitioner t!en demanded pa,ment from respondent WALLE$ in #ritin /"t to no avail. On %& Septem/er ())( petitioner so" !t collection of t!e val"e of t!e s!ipment of 5SP%@'%%7.EA or its e>"ivalent of P&EA'@77.E% from respondents /efore t!e Re ional Trial Co"rt of $anila' /ased on deliver, of t!e s!ipment to GPC #it!o"t presentation of t!e /ills of ladin and /an+ "arantee. On (E $a, ())7' t!e trial co"rt favored Pet' orderin C!ina Ocean S!ippin and Wallem to pa,' 2ointl, and severall,. T!e Co"rt of Appeals appreciated t!e evidence in a different mannerD it set aside t!e decision of t!e trial co"rt and dismissed t!e complaint to et!er #it! t!e co"nterclaims. 3ence' t!e petition for revie#. ISSUES: :(; D"ration and e0tent of a common carrier=s e0traordinar, responsi/ilit,. WON deliver, to GPC #as proper. :%; WON respondents are lia/le to petitioner for releasin t!e oods to GPC #it!o"t t!e /ills of ladin or /an+ "arantee. RULING: (.; GES. #rt% 1/35 of the 6""% *he extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of article 1/37% We emp!asi.e t!at t!e e0traordinar, responsi/ilit, of t!e common carriers lasts "ntil act"al or constr"ctive deliver, of t!e car oes to t!e consi nee or to t!e person #!o !as a ri !t to receive t!em. PA8ISTAN -AN8 #as indicated in t!e /ills of ladin as consi nee #!ereas GPC #as t!e notif, part,. 3o#ever' in t!e e0port invoices GPC #as clearl, named as /",erHimporter. Petitioner also referred to GPC as s"c! in !is demand letter to respondent WALLE$ and in !is complaint /efore t!e trial co"rt.
MACAM 4s. CA CG.R. No. (2&&2$. A;';s! 2&, (666D FACTS: On E April ()*) petitioner $acam s!ipped on /oard t!e vessel Nen <ian ' o#ned and operated /, respondent C!ina Ocean S!ippin Co.' t!ro" ! local a ent respondent WALLE$' 7'&@@ /o0es of #atermelons and ('A(( /o0es of fres! man oesD t!e t#o sets of fr"its #ere covered /, t#o /ills of ladin and #ere e0ported t!ro" ! t!eir respective Letters of Credit /ot! iss"ed /, Pa+istan -an+. T!e s!ipment #as /o"nd for 3on +on #it! PA8ISTAN -AN8 as consi nee and Great Prospect Compan, of 8o#loon' 3on +on :GPC; as notif, part,. On A April ()*)' per letter of credit
EH $%&
P#'e (6

T!is premise dra#s "s to concl"de t!at t!e deliver, of t!e car oes to GPC as /",erHimporter #!ic!' conforma/l, #it! Art. (67A !ad' ot!er t!an t!e consi nee' t!e ri !t to receive t!em #as proper. %.; NO. Contrar, to petitioner=s claims' t!e Co"rt a rees #it! respondents t!at it #as !is :$acam=s; practice to as+ t!e s!ippin lines to immediatel, release s!ipment of peris!a/le oods t!ro" ! telep!one calls /, !imself or !is Kpeople.L 3e no lon er re>"ired presentation of a /ill of ladin nor of a /an+ "arantee as a condition to releasin t!e oods in case !e #as alread, f"ll, paid. T!"s' ta+in into acco"nt t!at s"/2ect s!ipment consisted of peris!a/le oods and SOLID-AN8 pre?paid t!e f"ll amo"nt of t!e val"e t!ereof' it is not !ard to /elieve t!e claim of respondent WALLE$ t!at petitioner indeed re>"ested t!e release of t!e oods to GPC #it!o"t presentation of t!e /ills of ladin and /an+ "arantee. Respondents s"/mitted in evidence a tele0 dated & April ()*) as /asis for deliverin t!e car oes to GPC #it!o"t t!e /ills of ladin and /an+ "arantee. T!e tele0 instr"cted deliver, of vario"s s!ipments to t!e respective consi nees #it!o"t need of presentin t!e /ill of ladin and /an+ "arantee per t!e respective s!ipper=s re>"est since Kfor prepaid s!ipt ofrt c!ar es alread, f"ll, paidL :sic;. It !as /een t!e practice of petitioner to re>"est t!e s!ippin lines to immediatel, release peris!a/le car oes s"c! as #atermelons and fres! man oes t!ro" ! telep!one calls /, !imself or !is Kpeople.L In transactions covered /, a letter of credit' /an+ "arantee is normall, re>"ired /, t!e s!ippin lines prior to releasin t!e oods. -"t for /",ers "sin tele rap!ic transfers' petitioner dispenses #it! t!e /an+ "arantee /eca"se t!e oods are alread, f"ll, paid. In !is several ,ears of /"siness relations!ip #it! GPC and respondents' t!ere #as not a sin le instance #!en t!e /ill of ladin #as first presented /efore t!e release of t!e car oes. In vie# of petitioner=s "tter fail"re to esta/lis! t!e lia/ilit, of respondents over t!e car oes' no reversi/le error #as committed /, respondent co"rt in r"lin a ainst !im. W3ERE4ORE' t!e petition is DENIED. 5nloadin operations commenced' disc!ar in of t!e diesel oil. T!e disc!ar in !ad to /e stopped on acco"nt of t!e discover, t!at t!e port /o# moorin of t!e vessel #as intentionall, c"t or stolen /, "n+no#n persons. -eca"se t!ere #as not!in !oldin it' t!e vessel drifted #est#ard' "ltimatel, ca"sed t!e diesel oil to spill into t!e sea. As a res"lt of spilla e and /ac+flo# of diesel oil' Calte0 so" !t recover, of t!e loss from Delsan' /"t t!e latter ref"sed to pa,. As ins"rer' A3AC paid Calte0. A3AC' as Calte0=s s"/ro ee' instit"ted Civil Case a ainst Delsan. ca"sed /, t!e spilla e. It li+e#ise pra,ed t!at it /e indemnified for dama es s"ffered Delsan insists t!at t!e r"le on contri/"tor, ne li ence a ainst Calte0' t!e s!ipper?o#ner of t!e car o' and t!e diesel oil #as alread, completel, delivered to Calte0. ISSUE: W.O.N. Delsan is lia/le /ased on Article (67E of t!e NCC and W.O.N. t!e r"le on contri/"tor, ne li ence s!o"ld /e applied a ainst Calte0. HELD: Petition is DENIED. CA is affirmed. Art. (67E. Common carriers are responsi/le for t!e loss' destr"ction' or deterioration of t!e oods' "nless t!e same is d"e to an, of t!e follo#in ca"ses onl,F (; 4lood storm' eart!>"a+e' li !tnin ' or ot!er nat"ral disaster or calamit,D %; Act of t!e p"/lic enem, in #ar' #!et!er international or civilD 7; Act or omission of t!e s!ipper or o#ner of t!e oodsD E; T!e c!aracter of t!e oods or defects in t!e pac+in or in t!e containersD &; Order or act of competent p"/lic a"t!orit,. Delsan failed to prove its claim t!at t!ere #as a contri/"tor, ne li ence on t!e part of t!e o#ner of t!e oods Q Calte0. Dlesan' as t!e o#ner of t!e vessel' #as o/li ed to prove t!at t!e loss #as ca"sed /, one of t!e e0cepted ca"ses if it #ere to see+ e0emption from responsi/ilit,. 6 5nfort"natel,' it misera/l, failed to disc!ar e t!is /"rden /, t!e re>"ired >"ant"m of proof. Delsan=s ar "ment t!at it s!o"ld not /e !eld lia/le for t!e loss of diesel oil d"e to /ac+flo# /eca"se t!e same !ad alread, /een act"all, and le all, delivered to Calte0 at t!e time it entered t!e s!ore tan+ !olds no #ater. It !ad /een settled t!at t!e s"/2ect car o #as still in t!e c"stod, of Delsan /eca"se t!e disc!ar in t!ereof !as not ,et /een finis!ed. 2. Defenses of ommon 5ire as ause arrier
DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC 4s. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION G.R. No. ($6%(6, A;';s! (&, 2%%FACTS: Delsan is a domestic corporation #!ic! o#ns and operates t!e vessel $T Lar"san. On t!e ot!er !and' respondent American 3ome Ass"rance Corporation :A3AC for /revit,; is a forei n ins"rance compan, d"l,. It is en a ed' amon ot!ers' in ins"rin car oes for transportation #it!in t!e P!ilippines.
D$R6$7NA&3R 2(N7$ AND .5. $8AR0 AND 390AN:- (N . vs. 57D7RA2 0837N(; A$$<RAN 7 3.- (N . 1.R. No. 1/5/==. 3ctober =- 2>>/
EH $%&
P#'e 2%

5acts8 (erde ,lants, Inc% 0(erde ,lants1 delivered 532 units of artificial trees to "%&% $harp and "ompany, Inc% 0"%&% $harp, for transportation and delivery to the consignee% *he cargo was loaded in 9:$ ;#rabian $enator%; &ederal ,hoenix #ssurance "ompany, Inc% 0&ederal ,hoenix #ssurance1 insured the cargo against all ris)s in the amount of ,<41,42<%51% 9:$ ;#rabian $enator; left the 9anila $outh !arbor for $audi #rabia with the cargo on board% =hen the vessel arrived in >hor &a))an ,ort, the cargo was reloaded on board ?$@A$enator BinesC feeder vessel, bound for ,ort ?ammam, $audi #rabia% !owever, while in transit, the vessel and all its cargo caught fire% "onse uently, &ederal ,hoenix #ssurance paid (erde ,lants ,<41,42<%51 corresponding to the amount of insurance for the cargo% In turn (erde ,lants executed in its favor a ;$ubrogation @eceipt; *hus, &ederal ,hoenix #ssurance filed a complaint for damages against ?$@A$enator Bines and "%&% $harp @*" rendered a ?ecision in favor of &ederal ,hoenix #ssurance 4n appeal, the "ourt of #ppeals rendered a ?ecision affirming the @*" ?ecision (ssue? =46 the liability was extinguished when the vessel carrying the cargo was gutted by fire Ruling? #rticle 1/34 of the "ivil "ode provides8 ;#rt% 1/34% "ommon carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only8 011 &lood, storm, earth ua)e, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamityD 021 #ct of the public enemy in war, whether international or civilD 031 #ct or omission of the shipper or owner of the goodsD 041 *he character of the goods or defects in the pac)ing or in the containersD 051 4rder or act of competent public authority%; &ire is not one of those enumerated under the above provision which exempts a carrier from liability for loss or destruction of the cargo% Even if fire were to be considered a natural disaster within the purview of #rticle 1/34, it is re uired under #rticle 1/3< of the same "ode that the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss, and that the carrier has exercised due diligence to prevent or minimi'e the loss before, during or after the occurrence of the disaster% "ommon carriers are obliged to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them% #ccordingly, they are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated% *here are very few instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach and these instances are enumerated in #rticle 1/3<% In those cases where the presumption is applied, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in order to overcome the presumption% @espondent &ederal ,hoenix #ssurance raised the presumption of negligence against petitioners% !owever, they failed to overcome it by sufficient proof of extraordinary diligence% ,etition is ?E6IE? $hore 0ass Re@uirement
JAPAN AIRLINES vs. ASUNCION FACTS: Respondents $ic!ael and <eanette As"ncion left $anila on /oard <apan Airlines :<AL; /o"nd for LA. T!eir itinerar, incl"ded a stop?over in Narita and an overni !t sta, at 3otel Ni++o Narita. 5pon arrival at Narita' <AL endorsed t!eir applications for s!ore pass and directed t!em to t!e <apanese immi ration official. A s"ore 7#ss is re>"ired of a forei ner a/oard a vessel or aircraft #!o desires to sta, in t!e nei !/or!ood of t!e port of call for not more t!an 6% !o"rs. D"rin t!eir intervie#' t!e <apanese immi ration official noted t!at $ic!ael appeared s!orter t!an !is !ei !t as indicated in !is passport. -eca"se of t!is inconsistenc,' respondents #ere denied s!ore pass entries and #ere /ro" !t instead to t!e Narita Airport Rest 3o"se #!ere t!e, #ere /illeted overni !t. Respondents #ere c!ar ed 5SPE@@.@@ eac! for t!eir accommodation' sec"rit, service and meals. Respondents filed a complaint for dama es claimin t!at <AL did not f"ll, apprise t!em of t!eir travel re>"irements and t!at t!e, #ere r"del, and forci/l, detained at Narita Airport. <AL denied t!e alle ations of respondents. It maintained t!at t!e ref"sal of t!e <apanese immi ration a"t!orities to iss"e s!ore passes to respondents is an act of state #!ic! <AL cannot interfere #it! or prevail "pon. Conse>"entl,' it cannot impose "pon t!e immi ration a"t!orities t!at respondents /e /illeted at 3otel Ni++o instead of t!e airport rest!o"se. ISSUE: WON <AL is "ilt, of /reac! of contract. HELD:
EH $%&
P#'e 2(

5nder Article (6&& of t!e Civil Code' a common carrier s"c! as <AL is /o"nd to carr, its passen ers safel, as far as !"man care and foresi !t can provide' "sin t!e "tmost dili ence of ver, ca"tio"s persons' #it! d"e re ard for all t!e circ"mstances. W!en an airline iss"es a tic+et to a passen er' confirmed for a partic"lar fli !t on a certain date' a contract of carria e arises. T!e passen er !as ever, ri !t to e0pect t!at !e /e transported on t!at fli !t and on t!at date and it /ecomes t!e carrier=s o/li ation to carr, !im and !is l" a e safel, to t!e a reed destination. If t!e passen er is not so transported or if in t!e process of transportin !e dies or is in2"red' t!e carrier ma, /e !eld lia/le for a /reac! of contract of carria e. We find t!at <AL did not /reac! its contract of carria e #it! respondents. It ma, /e tr"e t!at <AL !as t!e d"t, to inspect #!et!er its passen ers !ave t!e necessar, travel doc"ments' !o#ever' s"c! d"t, does not e0tend to c!ec+in the veracity of every entry in t!ese doc"ments. <AL co"ld not vo"c! for t!e a"t!enticit, of a passport and t!e correctness of t!e entries t!erein. T!e po#er to admit or not an alien into t!e co"ntr, is a soverei n act #!ic! cannot /e interfered #it! even /, <AL. T!is is not #it!in t!e am/it of t!e contract of carria e entered into /, <AL and !erein respondents. As s"c!' <AL s!o"ld not /e fa"lted for t!e denial of respondents= s!ore pass applications. 7Aercise of 7Atraordinar* Diligence- (nherent haracter of 1oods and (nade@uac* of 0ac.aging PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, SORIAMONT STEAMSHIP AGENCIES AND 3YOSEI 3ISEN 3A)USHI3I 3AISHA G.R. No. (@(&@7 Septem/er (&' ())7 FACTS: Planters Prod"cts' Inc. :PPI;' p"rc!ased from $its"/is!i International Corporation :$ITS5-IS3I; of Ne# Gor+' 5.S.A.' )'7%).6@A) metric tons :$HT; of 5rea EAI fertili.er #!ic! t!e latter s!ipped in /"l+ on (A <"ne ()6E a/oard t!e car o vessel $HJ 9S"n Pl"m9 o#ned /, private respondent 8,osei 8isen 8a/"s!i+i 8ais!a :8888; from 8enai' Alas+a' 5.S.A.' to Poro Point' San 4ernando' La 5nion' P!ilippines' as evidenced /, -ill of Ladin No. 8P?( si ned /, t!e master of t!e vessel and iss"ed on t!e date of depart"re. Prior to its vo,a e' a time c!arter?part, on t!e vessel $HJ 9S"n Pl"m9 p"rs"ant to t!e 5niform General C!arter #as entered into /et#een $its"/is!i as s!ipperHc!arterer and 8888 as s!ipo#ner' in To+,o' <apan. -efore loadin t!e fertili.er a/oard t!e vessel' fo"r :E; of !er !olds #ere all pres"ma/l, inspected /, t!e c!arterer1s representative and fo"nd fit to ta+e a load of "rea in /"l+ p"rs"ant to par. (A of t!e c!arter? part, . After t!e 5rea fertili.er #as loaded in /"l+ /, stevedores !ired /, and "nder t!e s"pervision of t!e s!ipper' t!e steel !atc!es #ere closed #it! !eav, iron lids' covered #it! t!ree :7; la,ers of tarpa"lin' t!en tied #it! steel /onds. T!e !atc!es remained closed and ti !tl, sealed t!ro" !o"t t!e entire vo,a e. Petitioner "nloaded t!e car o from t!e !olds into its steel/odied d"mp tr"c+s #!ic! #ere par+ed alon side t!e /ert!' "sin metal scoops attac!ed to t!e s!ip' p"rs"ant to t!e terms and conditions of t!e c!arter? partl, :#!ic! provided for an 4.I.O.S. cla"se;. 3o#ever' t!e !atc!es remained open t!ro" !o"t t!e d"ration of t!e disc!ar e. Eac! time a d"mp tr"c+ #as filled "p' its load of 5rea #as covered #it! tarpa"lin. T!e port area #as #ind,' certain portions of t!e ro"te to t!e #are!o"se #ere sand, and t!e #eat!er #as varia/le' rainin occasionall, #!ile t!e disc!ar e #as in pro ress. It too+ eleven :((; da,s for PPI to "nload t!e car o. A private marine and car o s"rve,or' Car o S"perintendents Compan, Inc. :CSCI;' #as !ired /, PPI to determine t!e 9o"tt"rn9 of t!e car o s!ipped' /, ta+in draft readin s of t!e vessel prior to and after disc!ar e. T!e s"rve, report s"/mitted /, CSCI to t!e consi nee :PPI; revealed a s!orta e in t!e car o of (@A.6%A $HT and t!at a portion of t!e 5rea fertili.er appro0imatin (* $HT #as contaminated #it! dirt' sand and r"st and rendered "nfit for commerce. Conse>"entl,' PPI sent a claim letter to Soriamont Steams!ip A encies :SSA;' t!e resident a ent of t!e carrier' 8888' representin t!e cost of t!e alle ed s!orta e in t!e oods s!ipped and t!e dimin"tion in val"e of t!at portion said to !ave /een contaminated #it! dirt. Respondent SSA #as not a/le to respond to t!is consi nee=s claim for pa,ment /eca"se accordin to t!em' t!e, onl, received a re>"est for s!ortlanded certificate and not a formal claim. 3ence' PPI filed an action for dama es #it! t!e Co"rt of 4irst Instance of $anila. T!e defendant carrier ar "ed t!at t!e strict p"/lic polic, overnin common carriers does not appl, to t!em /eca"se t!e, !ave /ecome private carriers /, reason of t!e provisions of t!e c!arter?part,. T!e co"rt a uo !o#ever s"stained t!e claim of t!e plaintiff a ainst t!e defendant carrier for t!e val"e of t!e oods lost or dama ed. On appeal' respondent Co"rt of Appeals reversed t!e lo#er co"rt and a/solved t!e carrier from lia/ilit, for t!e val"e of t!e car o t!at #as lost or dama ed. Rel,in on t!e ()A* case of !ome Insurance "o.v. #merican $teamship #gencies, Inc.' t!e appellate co"rt r"led t!at t!e car o vessel $HJ 9S"n Pl"m9 o#ned /, private respondent 8888 #as a private carrier and not a common carrier /, reason of t!e time c!arterer?part,. Accordin l,' t!e Civil Code provisions on common carriers #!ic! set fort! a pres"mption of ne li ence do not find application in t!e case at /ar. ISSUE: W!et!er a common carrier /ecomes a private carrier /, reason of a c!arter?part,. HELD: T!e assailed decision of t!e Co"rt of Appeals' #!ic! reversed t!e trial co"rt' is affirmed. A 9c!arter?part,9 is defined as a contract /, #!ic! an entire s!ip' or some principal part t!ereof' is let /, t!e o#ner to anot!er person for a specified time or "seD a
EH $%&
P#'e 22

contract of affrei !tment /, #!ic! t!e o#ner of a s!ip or ot!er vessel lets t!e #!ole or a part of !er to a merc!ant or ot!er person for t!e conve,ance of oods' on a partic"lar vo,a e' in consideration of t!e pa,ment of frei !tD C!arter parties are of t#o t,pesF :a; contract of affrei !tment #!ic! involves t!e "se of s!ippin space on vessels leased /, t!e o#ner in part or as a #!ole' to carr, oods for ot!ersD and' :/; c!arter /, demise or /are/oat c!arter' /, t!e terms of #!ic! t!e #!ole vessel is let to t!e c!arterer #it! a transfer to !im of its entire command and possession and conse>"ent control over its navi ation' incl"din t!e master and t!e cre#' #!o are !is servants. Contract of affrei !tment ma, eit!er /e time c!arter' #!erein t!e vessel is leased to t!e c!arterer for a fi0ed period of time' or vo,a e c!arter' #!erein t!e s!ip is leased for a sin le vo,a e. In /ot! cases' t!e c!arter?part, provides for t!e !ire of vessel onl,' eit!er for a determinate period of time or for a sin le or consec"tive vo,a e' t!e s!ipo#ner to s"ppl, t!e s!ip1s stores' pa, for t!e #a es of t!e master and t!e cre#' and defra, t!e e0penses for t!e maintenance of t!e s!ip. 5pon t!e ot!er !and' t!e term 9common or p"/lic carrier9 is defined in Art. (67% of t!e Civil Code. T!e definition e0tends to carriers eit!er /, land' air or #ater #!ic! !old t!emselves o"t as read, to en a e in carr,in oods or transportin passen ers or /ot! for compensation as a p"/lic emplo,ment and not as a cas"al occ"pation. T!e distinction /et#een a 9common or p"/lic carrier9 and a 9private or special carrier9 lies in t!e c!aracter of t!e /"siness' s"c! t!at if t!e "nderta+in is a sin le transaction' not a part of t!e eneral /"siness or occ"pation' alt!o" ! involvin t!e carria e of oods for a fee' t!e person or corporation offerin s"c! service is a private carrier. It is not disp"ted t!at respondent carrier' in t!e ordinar, co"rse of /"siness' operates as a common carrier' transportin oods indiscriminatel, for all persons. W!en petitioner c!artered t!e vessel $HJ 9S"n Pl"m9' t!e s!ip captain' its officers and compliment #ere "nder t!e emplo, of t!e s!ipo#ner and t!erefore contin"ed to /e "nder its direct s"pervision and control. 3ardl, t!en can #e c!ar e t!e c!arterer' a stran er to t!e cre# and to t!e s!ip' #it! t!e d"t, of carin for !is car o #!en t!e c!arterer did not !ave an, control of t!e means in doin so. T!is is evident in t!e present case considerin t!at t!e steerin of t!e s!ip' t!e mannin of t!e dec+s' t!e determination of t!e co"rse of t!e vo,a e and ot!er tec!nical incidents of maritime navi ation #ere all consi ned to t!e officers and cre# #!o #ere screened' c!osen and !ired /, t!e s!ipo#ner. It is t!erefore imperative t!at a p"/lic carrier s!all remain as s"c!' not#it!standin t!e c!arter of t!e #!ole or portion of a vessel /, one or more persons' provided t!e c!arter is limited to t!e s!ip onl,' as in t!e case of a time?c!arter or vo,a e?c!arter. It is onl, #!en t!e c!arter incl"des /ot! t!e vessel and its cre#' as in a /are/oat or demise t!at a common carrier /ecomes private' at least insofar as t!e partic"lar vo,a e coverin t!e c!arter?part, is concerned. Ind"/ita/l,' a s!ipo#ner in a time or vo,a e c!arter retains possession and control of t!e s!ip' alt!o" ! !er !olds ma,' for t!e moment' /e t!e propert, of t!e c!arterer. Respondent carrier1s !eav, reliance on t!e case of !ome Insurance "o. v. #merican $teamship #gencies, supra' is misplaced for t!e reason t!at t!e meat of t!e controvers, t!erein #as t!e validit, of a stip"lation in t!e c!arter?part, e0emptin t!e s!ipo#ners from lia/ilit, for loss d"e to t!e ne li ence of its a ent' and not t!e effects of a special c!arter on common carriers. At an, rate' t!e r"le in t!e 5nited States t!at a s!ip c!artered /, a sin le s!ipper to carr, special car o is not a common carrier' does not find application in o"r 2"risdiction' for #e !ave o/served t!at t!e ro#in concern for safet, in t!e transportation of passen ers and Hor carria e of oods /, sea re>"ires a more e0actin interpretation of admiralt, la#s' more partic"larl,' t!e r"les overnin common carriers. In an action for recover, of dama es a ainst a common carrier on t!e oods s!ipped' t!e s!ipper or consi nee s!o"ld first prove t!e fact of s!ipment and its conse>"ent loss or dama e #!ile t!e same #as in t!e possession' act"al or constr"ctive' of t!e carrier. T!ereafter' t!e /"rden of proof s!ifts to respondent to prove t!at !e !as e0ercised e0traordinar, dili ence re>"ired /, la# or t!at t!e loss' dama e or deterioration of t!e car o #as d"e to fort"ito"s event' or some ot!er circ"mstances inconsistent #it! its lia/ilit,. To o"r mind' respondent carrier !as s"fficientl, overcome' /, clear and convincin proof' t!e prima facie pres"mption of ne li ence. Jeril,' t!e pres"mption of ne li ence on t!e part of t!e respondent carrier !as /een efficacio"sl, overcome /, t!e s!o#in of e0traordinar, .eal and assid"it, e0ercised /, t!e carrier in t!e care of t!e car o. T!e period d"rin #!ic! private respondent #as to o/serve t!e de ree of dili ence re>"ired of it as a p"/lic carrier /e an from t!e time t!e car o #as "nconditionall, placed in its c!ar e after t!e vessel1s !olds #ere d"l, inspected and passed scr"tin, /, t!e s!ipper' "p to and "ntil t!e vessel reac!ed its destination and its !"ll #as ree0amined /, t!e consi nee' /"t prior to "nloadin . Article (67E of t!e Ne# Civil Code provides t!at common carriers are not responsi/le for t!e loss' destr"ction or deterioration of t!e oods if ca"sed /, t!e c!arterer of t!e oods or defects in t!e pac+a in or in t!e containers. T!e Code of Commerce also provides t!at all losses and deterioration #!ic! t!e oods ma, s"ffer d"rin t!e transportation /, reason of fort"ito"s event' force majeure' or t!e in!erent defect of t!e oods' s!all /e for t!e acco"nt and ris+ of t!e s!ipper' and t!at proof of t!ese accidents is inc"m/ent "pon t!e carrier. T!e carrier' nonet!eless' s!all /e lia/le for t!e loss and dama e res"ltin from t!e precedin ca"ses if it is proved' as a ainst !im' t!at t!e, arose t!ro" ! !is ne li ence or /, reason of !is !avin failed to ta+e t!e preca"tions #!ic! "sa e !as esta/lis!ed amon caref"l persons. T!"s' t!e petition is dismissed. 7Aercise of 7Atraordinar* Diligence and Doctrine of 2ast lear hance 5ortuitous 7vent
EH $%&
P#'e 2,
EH $%&
P#'e 2$

Transportation Law Case Digests Part I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Law Case Digests Part I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRANSPORTATION LAW CASE DIGESTS