The carrier delivered the goods in question to the consignee after obtaining certified true copies of the bills of lading instead of the originals. The consignee later resigned and the goods could not be accounted for, so the plaintiff filed a case against the carrier for breach of contract. The court ruled that the carrier was not presumed liable as it proved it exercised due diligence by obtaining the certified copies and delivery receipts from the consignee.
The carrier delivered the goods in question to the consignee after obtaining certified true copies of the bills of lading instead of the originals. The consignee later resigned and the goods could not be accounted for, so the plaintiff filed a case against the carrier for breach of contract. The court ruled that the carrier was not presumed liable as it proved it exercised due diligence by obtaining the certified copies and delivery receipts from the consignee.
The carrier delivered the goods in question to the consignee after obtaining certified true copies of the bills of lading instead of the originals. The consignee later resigned and the goods could not be accounted for, so the plaintiff filed a case against the carrier for breach of contract. The court ruled that the carrier was not presumed liable as it proved it exercised due diligence by obtaining the certified copies and delivery receipts from the consignee.
Binamira or deterioration takes place while the goods are in the
possession of the carrier, and not after it has lost - plaintiff led action to recover amount of certain control of them. shpment and for damages incurred -TC ordered payment because in such case the goods are still in the hands of -CA affirmed the Government and the owner cannot exercise dominion over them- This is a situation where we may - Delta photo supply co. of New York shipped cases of say that the carrier loses control of the goods because photographic supplies consigned to BINAMIRA; bill of of a custom regulation and it is unfair that it be made lading was issued responsible for what may happen during the - arrived at the port of Cebu, discharged, placed in the interregnum. And this is precisely what was done by the possession of the arrastre operator- VISAYAN CEBU parties herein. In the bill of lading that was issued TERMINAL COMPANY covering the shipment in question, both the carrier and - pet hired Cebu Stevedoring Co. to unload cargo, good the consignee have stipulated to limit the responsibility and bad cargo separated, list of bad order cargo was of the carrier for the loss or damage that may be caused made by checker of SD to the goods before they are actually delivered -all cargo- recd by arrastre, they also had a checker- also recorded good from bad. It therefore appears clear that the carrier does not - cargo in question was not included in both bad order assume liability for any loss or damage to the goods reports of checker- meaning discharged in good once they have been "taken into the custody of customs condition or other authorities", or when they have been delivered - Binamira took delivery of the six cases and discovered at ship's tackle. These stipulations are clear. They have that the cases showed signs of pilferage- hired marine been adopted precisely to mitigate the responsibility of surveyors to examine, made the countin front of the the carrier considering the present law on the matter, representatives of the parties involved. and we nd nothing therein that is contrary to morals or - Appears that as the cases were checked by both the public policy arrastre and SD- is the carrier responsible Republic v. Lorenzo Shipping ISSUE: Is the carrier responsible for the loss considering - Republic of the Philippines, through the that the same occurred after the shipment was Department of Health (DOH), and the Cooperative discharged from the ship and placed in the possession for American Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE) signed and custody of the customs authorities an agreement wherein CARE - donations of non-fat dried milk and other food RATIO: products It is now contended that the Court of Appeals erred in - Philippines would transport and distribute the its nding not only because it made a wrong donated commodities to the intended interpretation of the law on the matter, but also beneficiaries in the country. because it ignored the provisions of the bill of lading - government entered into a contract of carriage of covering the shipment wherein it was stipulated that goods with herein petitioner National Trucking the responsibility of the carrier is limited only to losses that may occur while the cargo is still under its custody and Forwarding Corporation (NTFC). and control. through herein respondent Lorenzo Shipping Corporation (LSC) from September to December We believe this contention is well taken. It is true that, 1988. The consignee named in the bills of lading as a rule, a common carrier is responsible for the loss, issued by the respondent was Abdurahman Jama, destruction or deterioration of the goods it assumes to branch supervisor in Zamboanga City.
- On reaching the port of Zamboanga City, delivered
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com the goods to petitioner's warehouse. Before each delivery, Rogelio Rizada and Ismael Zamora, both carry from one place to another unless the same is due delivery checkers to any of the causes mentioned in Article 1734 but - requested Abdurahman to surrender the original these provisions only apply when the loss, destruction bills of lading, but the latter merely presented certi ed true copies thereof. Upon completion of - This, to our mind, is su cient and substantial each delivery, Rogelio and Ismael asked compliance with the requirements. Abdurahman to sign the delivery receipts. However, at times when Abdurahman had to LRTA v Navidad attend to other business before a delivery was completed, he instructed his subordinates to sign - Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT - petitioner allegedly did not receive the subject tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard assigned to goods. the area approached Navidad. - the respondent explained that the cargo had - A misunderstanding or an altercation between the two already been delivered to Abdurahman Jama. The apparently ensued that led to a fight. No evidence, petitioner then decided to investigate the loss of however, was adduced to indicate how the ght started the goods. But before the investigation was over, or who, between the two, delivered the rst blow or how Abdurahman Jama resigned as branch supervisor of Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. petitioner. - At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, - NTFC as plaintiffs led an action for breach of operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. contract of carriage, against respondent as Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was defendant killed instantaneously. - widow of Nicanor, herein respondent Marjorie RTC: dismissed complaint Navidad, along with her children, led a complaint for CA: found no reversible error damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro ISSUE: Is respondent presumed at fault or negligent as Transit), and Prudent for the death of her husband. common carrier for the loss or deterioration of the - LRTA and Roman led a counterclaim against Navidad goods and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent. Prudent, in its answer, denied liability and averred that it had RATIO: exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision - we agree with the court a quo that the respondent of its security guards. adequately proved that it exercised extraordinary diligence. Although the original bills of lading RTC: decision against prudent and escartin remained with petitioner, respondent's agents CA: the appellate court promulgated its now assailed demanded from Abdurahman the certi ed true decision exonerating Prudent from any liability for the copies of the bills of lading. They also asked the death of Nicanor Navidad and, instead, holding the latter and in his absence, his designated LRTA and Roman jointly and severally liable subordinates, to sign the cargo delivery receipts. - After the contract has been complied with, the bill ISSUE: w/n respondents are guilty of lading which the carrier has issued shall be returned to him, and by virtue of the exchange of RATIO: Nope this title with the thing transported, the respective - The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of obligations and actions shall be considered carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim cancelled (ART 353) arises from the breach of that contract by reason of - the surrender of the original bill of lading is not a its failure to exercise the high diligence required of condition precedent for a common carrier to be the common carrier. discharged of its contractual obligation. If surrender - In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the of the original bill of lading is not possible, safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its acknowledgment of the delivery by signing the own employees or avail itself of the services of an delivery receipt suffices outsider or an independent rm to undertake the - were signed by Abdurahman's subordinates task. In either case, the common carrier is not - Abdurahman was always present at the initial phase relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of - although on the few occasions when Abdurahman carriage. could not stay to witness the complete delivery of - Should Prudent be made likewise liable? If at all, the shipment, he authorized his subordinates to that liability could only be for tort under the sign provisions of Article 2176; The premise, however, for the employer's liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be made liable - Absent such a showing, one might ask further, how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, - no showing that petitioner Rodolfo Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability