Loadmasters Customs Services Inc., v.

Globel Brokerage
FACTS:
Columbia Wire and Cable Corporation (Columbia) insured a cargo of copper cathodes through
R&B Insurance Corporation (R&B). Columbia also engaged the services of Glodel Brokerage
Corporation (Glodel) for the transport of the cargo to Columbia facilities. Glodel then engaged
the services of Loadmasters Customs Services (Loadmasters) for the delivery of said cargo to
Columbia. Out of 12 trucks, owned by Loadmasters, used to deliver the cargo of Columbia, only
11 made it to their respective destinations. Columbia claimed the amount of loss ₱1,903,335.39
from R&B, which sued both Glodel and Loadmasters. The RTC ruled in favor of R&B, but did
not hold Loadmasters liable. Both R&B and Glodel appealed the judgement. The Court of
Appeals modified the decision of the RTC and ruled that Loadmasters, being the agent of Glodel,
is liable to Glodel for all the damages it might be required to pay.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Loadmasters is an agent of Glodel.
2. Whether or not it may be held liable under the transaction between Glodel and Columbia.
3. Whether Glodel can collect from Loadmasters, it having failed to file a cross-claim
against the latter.

HELD: Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Loadmasters and Glodel jointly and

severally liable to respondent R&B Insurance.
1. No. Article 1868 of the Civil Code provides: "By the contract of agency a person binds
himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of
another, with the consent or authority of the latter." Hence, Loadmasters cannot be
considered an agent of Glodel. Loadmasters in no way represented itself as such, and in
the transfer of cargo, did not represent itself as doing such in behalf of Glodel. In fact,
Loadmasters is not privy to the agreement between Glodel and Columbia. It cannot be
considered an agent of Glodel, and cannot be held liable to Glodel.
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. On the part of
the principal, there must be an actual intention to appoint or an intention naturally
inferable from his words or actions, while on the part of the agent, there must be an
intention to accept the appointment and act on it. Such mutual intent is not obtaining in
this case.

2. Yes. ART. 2207. If the plaintiff’s property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from
the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract
complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the
wrong-doer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance
 company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the
deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.
-As subrogee of the rights and interest of the consignee, R&B Insurance has the right to
seek reimbursement from either Loadmasters or Glodel or both for breach of contract
and/or tort.
Glodel and Loadmasters are both common carriers as they hold out their carriage services
to the public (common carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in
the business of carrying or transporting passenger or goods, or both by land, water or air
for compensation, offering their services to the public) and Loadmasters admitted that it is
a common carrier. As such, under the Article 1733 of the Civil Code, they are mandated to
show extraordinary diligence in the conduct of transport. In the case at bar, both Glodel
and Loadmasters were negligent as the cargo failed to reach its destination. Loadmasters
failed to ensure that its employees would not tamper with the cargo. Glodel failed to
ensure that Loadmasters is sufficiently capable of completing the delivery. Glodel and
Loadmasters are therefore joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable to R&B Insurance.

Loadmasters’ claim that it was never privy to the contract entered into by Glodel with
Columbia or R&B Insurance as subrogee, is not a valid defense. It may not have a direct
contractual relation with Columbia, but it is liable for tort under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code on quasi-delicts:
ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions
of this Chapter.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry.
It is not disputed that the subject 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.

3. Glodel has a definite cause of action against Loadmasters for breach of contract of service
as the latter is primarily liable for the loss of the subject cargo. However, it cannot succeed
in seeking judicial sanction against Loadmasters because the records disclose that it did
not properly interpose a cross-claim against the latter. Glodel did not even pray that
Loadmasters be liable for any and all claims that it may be adjudged liable in favor of
R&B Insurance. Under the Rules, a compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up
shall be barred. Thus, a cross-claim cannot be set up for the first time on appeal.