TRANSPO 3

PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 226 SCRA 476 , SEPTEMBER
15, 1993
Facts:
Planters Products (Planters) purchased from Mitsubishi International Corporation of USA
of 9,000 metric tons of urea fertilizer which the latter shipped abroad the cargo vessel
owned by private respondent Kyosei Kisin Kabushiki Kaisha (KKKK) from America to La
Union. Prior to its voyage, a time charter party was entered into between Mitusbishi as
shipper/charterer and KKKK as ship-owner. After the Urea fertilizer was loaded in bulk by
stevedored hired by the shipper, the steel hatches were closed with heavy iron lids which
remained closed during the entire journey.
Upon arrival of the vessel, the hatches were opened with the use of the vessel boom.
Planters unloaded the cargo from the holders into the steel bodied dump trucks. Each
time the dump trucks were filled up, its load of urea was covered with tarpaulin before it
was transported to the consignee’s warehouse located some (50) fifty meteres from the
wharf. It took (11) eleven days from planters to unload the cargo. The report submitted by
private marine and cargo surveyors revealed a shortage in the cargo, and some portion in
the cargo was contaminated with dirt, rendering the same unfit for commerce. Planters
filed an action for damages bu the appellate court absolved the carrier from liability.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the respondent is a common carrier.
2. Whether or not the respondent is liable for damages.
Held:
1. The court rules the affirmative as to the respondent being a common carrier. The
term common carrier is defined in Article 1732 of the Civil Code. The definition refers to
carriers either by land, water, or air which holds themselves out as ready to engage in
carrying goods on transporting passengers or both for compensation as a public
employment and not as a casual occupation; if the undertaking is a single transaction, not
a part of the general business or corporation, although involving the carriage of goods for
a fee, then the person or corporation offering such services is a private carrier. In the case
at bar respondent carrier transports goods indiscriminately for all persons. Being such, he
is a common carrier.
2. The court rules the negative. True, being a common carrier, respondent must have
observed extraordinary diligence over the goods it carries. In the case at bar it has been
proven that the respondent has sufficiently overcome this, by clear and convincing proof,
the prima facie presumption of negligence, due to the manner of storage of the goals
during the vogyage. In fact, it was pointed out that there was a risk in shipping the urea
due to its character.