NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND VLASONS SHIPPING, INC., respondents.

G.R. No. 112287 December 12, 1997

Facts:
On July 17, 1974, National Steel Corporation (NSC) as Charterer and defendant Vlasons
Shipping, Inc. (VSI) as Owner, entered into a Contract of Voyage Charter Hire whereby
NSC hired VSI’s vessel, the MV ‘VLASONS I’ to make 1 voyage to load steel products at
Iligan City and discharge them at North Harbor, Manila.

On August 6, 7 and 8, 1974, in accordance with the Contract of Voyage Charter Hire, the
MV ‘VLASONS I’ loaded at plaintiff’s pier at Iligan City, the NSC’s shipment of 1,677 skids
of tinplates and 92 packages of hot rolled sheets or a total of 1,769 packages.

The vessel arrived with the cargo at Pier 12, North Harbor, Manila, on August 12, 1974.
The following day, August 13, 1974, when the vessel’s three (3) hatches containing the
shipment were opened by plaintiff’s agents, nearly all the skids of tinplates and hot rolled
sheets were allegedly found to be wet and rusty.

Hence, plaintiff filed with the defendant its claim for damages suffered due to the
downgrading of the damaged tinplates in the amount of P941,145.18.

Issue:
Whether or not Vlasons Shipping, Inc is a common carrier, hence, required to exercise
extraordinary diligence?

Ruling:
No, in the instant case, it is undisputed that VSI did not offer its services to the general
public. As found by the Regional Trial Court, it carried passengers or goods only for those
it chose under a “special contract of charter party.” As correctly concluded by the Court of
Appeals, the MV Vlasons I “was not a common but a private carrier.” Consequently, the
rights and obligations of VSI and NSC, including their respective liability for damage to the
cargo, are determined primarily by stipulations in their contract of private carriage or
charter party.

Because the MV Vlasons I was a private carrier, the shipowner’s obligations are governed
by the foregoing provisions of the Code of Commerce and not by the Civil Code which, as
a general rule, places the prima facie presumption of negligence on a common carrier. It is
a hornbook doctrine that: “In an action against a private carrier for loss of, or injury to,
cargo, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the carrier was negligent or unseaworthy,
and the fact that the goods were lost or damaged while in the carrier’s custody does not
put the burden of proof on the carrier.”