Case Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. v.

Glodel Brokerage
Citation Corporation, G.R. No. 179446, 10 January 2011, (639 SCRA
69)

Facts Columbia engaged the services of Glodel for the release and
withdrawal of the 132 bundles of electric copper cathodes
from the pier and the subsequent delivery to its
warehouses/plants. Glodel, in turn, engaged the services of
Loadmasters for the use of its delivery trucks to transport the
cargoes to Columbia’s warehouses/plants in Bulacan and
Valenzuela City.

One of the trucks, loaded with with 11 bundles or 232 pieces of

copper cathodes, failed to deliver its cargo because it was
hijacked on its way. The truck was later on recovered empty.

R&B Insurance, as the insurer, paid Columbia the amount of

₱1,896,789.62 as insurance indemnity. R&B Insurance in turn
filed a complaint for damages against Glodel and Loadmasters
for the loss of its cargo.

RTC held Glodel liable and awarded damages in favor of R&B

Insurance. Loadmasters counterclaim is dismissed.

Issue Whether who between Glodel and Loadmaster is liable for the
cargo

Ruling First. The Court considered whether Loadmasters and Glodel

are common carriers under the Civil Code in which it ruled in
affirmative.

Loadmasters is a common carrier because it is engaged in the

business of transporting goods by land, through its trucking
service. It is a common carrier as distinguished from a private
carrier wherein the carriage is generally undertaken by special
agreement and it does not hold itself out to carry goods for the
general public. Here, there is no indication that the
undertaking in the contract between Loadmasters and Glodel
was private in character. There is no showing that
Loadmasters solely and exclusively rendered services to
Glodel.

Glodel is also considered a common carrier within the context

of Article 1732. In its Memorandum, it states that it "is a
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines and is engaged in the business of
customs brokering." It cannot be considered otherwise
because as held by this Court in Schmitz Transport &
Brokerage Corporation v. Transport Venture, Inc., a customs
broker is also regarded as a common carrier, the
transportation of goods being an integral part of its business.

THUS:
Loadmasters and Glodel, being both common carriers, are to
observe the extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
goods transported by them according to all the circumstances
of such case, as required by Article 1733 of the Civil Code.

As to the exercise of extraordinary diligence:

The cargo was lost while in the custody of Loadmasters whose

employees (truck driver and helper) were instrumental in the
hijacking or robbery of the shipment. As employer,
Loadmasters should be made answerable for the
damages caused by its employees who acted within
the scope of their assigned task of delivering the
goods safely to the warehouse.

Glodel is also liable because of its failure to exercise

extraordinary diligence. It failed to ensure that Loadmasters
would fully comply with the undertaking to safely transport
the subject cargo to the designated destination. It should have
been more prudent in entrusting the goods to Loadmasters by
taking precautionary measures, such as providing escorts to
accompany the trucks in delivering the cargoes

The Court further ruled that there can be no contract of

agency between the parties. Loadmasters never represented
Glodel. Neither was it ever authorized to make such
 representation. It is a settled rule that the basis for agency is
representation, that is, the agent acts for and on behalf of the
principal on matters within the scope of his authority and said
acts have the same legal effect as if they were personally
executed by the principal.

However, since Glodel did not file a cross claim against

Loadmaster, it could not recover any amount from the latter

Key There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors whose

concept/s liability is solidary since both of them are liable for the total
to damage. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
remembe omissions of two or more persons, although acting
r independently, are in combination the direct and proximate
cause of a single injury to a third person, it is impossible to
determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury
and either of them is responsible for the whole injury. Where
their concurring negligence resulted in injury or damage to a
third party, they become joint tortfeasors and are solidarily
liable for the resulting damage under Article 2194 of the Civil
Code.