[COMMON CARRIAGE OF GOODS – LIABILITY AND PRESUMPTION OF ● The mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and

of goods in good order to a carrier, and of their arrival

NEGLIGENCE] at the place of destination in bad order, makes out a prima facie case against
01 YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP V. DEXTER carrier so that if no explanation is given as to how the injury occurred, the carrier
December 14, 1920 | Street, J. | must be held responsible.
● If the Government of the Philippine Islands had instituted an action in a court of
Petitioner/s: THE YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP COMPANY law against the petitioner to recover the value of the oil lost while these
Respondent/s: I. B. DEXTER, as Auditor of the Philippine Islands, and C. E. UNSON, consignments were in the course of transportation, it would, upon the facts
as Acting Purchasing Agent of the Philippine Islands appearing before us, have been entitled to judgment.
● The mandamus prayed for cannot be granted. It is a rule of universal application
Doctrine: The mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and of their that a petition for extraordinary relief of the character here sought must show merit.
arrival at the place of destination in bad order, makes out a prima facie case against That is, the petitioner's right to relief must be clear. Such cannot be said to be the
carrier so that if no explanation is given as to how the injury occurred, the carrier must case where, as here, a presumption of responsibility on the part of the petitioner
be held responsible. stands unrefuted upon the record.
● In the absence of proof showing that the carrier was not at fault in respect to the
Facts: matter under discussion, the Insular Auditor was entitled to withhold, from the
● On July 1918, the Government through respondent Insular Purchasing Agent, amount admittedly due to the petitioner for the freight charges, a sum sufficient to
employed the petitioner common carrier for the transportation of 30 cases of White cover the value of the oil lost in transit.
Rose Mineral Oil (two five-gallon cans to the case) from Manila to Aparri, Cagayan
on board steamship Venus.
● On Sept 1918, the Government again employed petitioner for transportation of 96 Dispositive
cases (ten gallons to the case) of Cock brand mineral oil on the same route on The petition will be dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.
board the same steamship.
● The shipper delivered the goods to petitioner as evidenced by a Government bill Notes
of lading whereby it was stipulated that petitioner received the merchandise in Insert notes
good condition. Upon delivery of the Cock brand to the consignee, one case was
delivered empty. Likewise, the shipment of the White Rose brand oil had one
empty case. These were noted upon the bills of lading.
● Petitioner argued that the losses were due to causes entirely unknown to it and
were not due to any fault or negligence on its part, or on the part of its servants.
Acting Insular Purchasing Agent then notified petitioner that after due investigation,
the former found that the latter was liable for the loss and that the invoice value of
the goods lost (P22.53) will be deducted from the full amount to be received by
petitioner.
● Notwithstanding the protest of petitioner, the Insular Auditor declined to issue
petitioner a warrant for the full sum of P82.79. Consequently, petitioner refused to
accept the offered amount of P60.26 and wanted the full amount as indicated in
the transportation voucher.

Ruling:
W/N the petitioner common carrier will be held liable for the lost goods – YES
● According to Section 646 of the Administrative Code, when carrier transmits
government property from one place to another, it shall be upon proper bill of lading
from such carrier and it shall be the duty of the consignee to make full notation of
any loss, shortage, or damage, upon the bill of lading, before accomplishing it. As
admitted in the facts, the notations made by the consignee are competent evidence
to show that shortage indeed existed. As the petitioner admits that the oil was
received by it for carriage and in as much as the fact of loss is proved in the manner
just stated, it results that there is a presumption that petitioner was to blame for the
loss. It is incumbent upon petitioner to rebut such presumption by proving that the
loss was not due to any fault or negligence on its part if it wants to be accorded
relief.