Summer - Transpo Cases

7/26/2019 Summer - Transpo Cases

1/24

ARTICLE 1732

I. Common Carrier : Definition

First Philippine Industrial Corporation vs. CA

Based on Article 1732 NCC, tere is no do!"t tat #etitioner is a common carrier. It is en$a$ed in te"!siness of trans#ortin$ or carr%in$ $oods, i.e. #etrole!m #rod!cts, for ire as a #!"lic em#lo%ment. It !nderta&es tocarr% for all #ersons indifferentl%, tat is, to all #ersons 'o coose to em#lo% its ser(ices, and trans#orts te $oods"% land and for com#ensation. Te fact tat #etitioner as a limited clientele does not e)cl!de it from te definition ofa common carrier. *De +!man R!lin$ !#eld-.

Res#ondents ar$!ment tat te term /common carrier0 as !sed in ection 133*- of te Local +o(ernmentCode refers onl% to common carriers trans#ortin$ $oods and #assen$ers tro!$ mo(in$ (eicles or (essels eiter"% land, sea or 'ater is erroneo!s. Te definition of /common carriers0 in NCC ma&es no distinction as to te meansof trans#ortin$ as lon$ as it is "% land, 'ater or air. It does not #ro(ide tat te trans#ortin$ of te #assen$ers or$oods so!ld "e "% motor (eicle.

FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Fats! etitioner is a $rantee of a #i#eline concession !nder RA 347 to contract, install and o#erate oil #i#elines. Tefirst #i#eline concession 'as $ranted in 1567 and 'as rene'ed "% te ERB in 1552. In 155, #etitioner a##lied for a8a%ors #ermit in Batan$as Cit%. Res#ondent treas!rer re9!ired #etitioner to #a% a local ta) "ased on its $rossrecei#ts for te fiscal %ear in 1553 #!rs!ant to te Local +o(ernment Code.

To a(oid am#erin$ its o#erations, #etitioner #aid te amo!nt of ta) for te first 9!arter !nder #rotest.etitioner ar$!ed tat as a #i#eline o#erator 'it a $o(ernment concession en$a$ed in trans#ortin$ #etrole!m#rod!cts (ia #i#eline it is e)em#ted from #a%ment of ta) "ased on $ross recei#ts. Res#ondent ref!sed to ma&ereim"!rsement on te $ro!nd tat #etitioner is not a common carrier en$a$ed in trans#ortation "!siness "% land,'ater or air.

Issue! eter or not #etitioner is lia"le to #a% a local ta) "ased on $ross recei#ts since it is not a common carrier.

Held! No. Based on Article 1732 NCC, tere is no do!"t tat #etitioner is a common carrier. It is en$a$ed in te"!siness of trans#ortin$ or carr%in$ $oods, i.e. #etrole!m #rod!cts, for ire as a #!"lic em#lo%ment. It !nderta&es tocarr% for all #ersons indifferentl%, tat is, to all #ersons 'o coose to em#lo% its ser(ices, and trans#orts te $oods"% land and for com#ensation. Te fact tat #etitioner as a limited clientele does not e)cl!de it from te definition ofa common carrier. *De +!man R!lin$ !#eld-

Res#ondents ar$!ment tat te term /common carrier0 as !sed in ection 133*- of te Local +o(ernmentCode refers onl% to common carriers trans#ortin$ $oods and #assen$ers tro!$ mo(in$ (eicles or (essels eiter"% land, sea or 'ater is erroneo!s. Te definition of /common carriers0 in NCC ma&es no distinction as to te meansof trans#ortin$ as lon$ as it is "% land, 'ater or air. It does not #ro(ide tat te trans#ortin$ of te #assen$ers or

$oods so!ld "e "% motor (eicle.It is clear tat te le$islati(e intent in e)cl!din$ from te ta)in$ #o'er of te local $o(ernment !nit te

im#osition of "!siness ta) a$ainst common carriers is to #re(ent a d!#lication of te so;called common carrier=s ta) on its $ross sales?earnin$s !nder te National Internal Re(en!eCode. To ta) #etitioner a$ain on its $ross recei#ts in its trans#ortation of #etrole!m "!siness 'o!ld defeat te#!r#ose of te Local +o(ernment Code.


2/24

I. Test of a Common Carrier

"LASONS SHIPPIN#$ INC vs. CA and NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION%#.R. No. &&'()*. Dee+,er &'$ &--/

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION vs. CA and "LASONS SHIPPIN#$ INC.

%#.R. No. &&''0. Dee+,er &'$ &--/

Fats: National teel Cor#oration *NC- as Carterer and defendant @lasons i##in$, Inc. *@I- as 'ner,entered into a Contract of @o%a$e Carter ire *Affrei$tment- 'ere"% NC ired @Is (essel, te 8@ @LAN Ito ma&e one *1- (o%a$e to load steel #rod!cts at Ili$an Cit% and discar$e tem at Nort ar"or, 8anila. @I carried#assen$ers or $oods onl% for tose it cose !nder a /s#ecial contract of carter #art%.0

Te (essel arri(ed 'it te car$o in 8anila, "!t 'en te (essels tree *3- atces containin$ te si#ment 'ereo#ened, nearl% all te s&ids of tin #lates and ot rolled seets 'ere alle$edl% fo!nd to "e 'et and r!st%.

NC filed its com#laint a$ainst defendant "efore te CI 'erein it claimed tat it s!stained losses as a res!lt of te

/act, ne$lect and defa!lt of te master and cre' in te mana$ement of te (essel as 'ell as te 'ant of d!e dili$enceon te #art of te defendant to ma&e te (essel sea'ort% ;; all in (iolation of defendants !nderta&in$ !nder teirContract of @o%a$e Carter ire.0

In its ans'er, defendant denied lia"ilit% for te alle$ed dama$e claimin$ tat te 8@ @LAN I 'as sea'ort% inall res#ects for te carria$e of #laintiffs car$oF tat said (essel 'as not a common carrier inasm!c as se 'as!nder (o%a$e carter contract 'it te #laintiff as carterer !nder te carter #art%.

Te trial co!rt r!led in fa(or of @IF it 'as affirmed "% te CA on a##eal.

Issue: eter or not @laons is a #ri(ate carrier.

Held: Ges.

At te o!tset, it is essential to esta"lis 'eter @I contracted 'it NC as a common carrier or as a #ri(ate carrier.Te resol!tion of tis #reliminar% 9!estion determines te la', standard of dili$ence and "!rden of #roof a##lica"le tote #resent case.

Article 1732 of te Ci(il Code defines a common carrier as /#ersons, cor#orations, firms or associations en$a$ed inte "!siness of carr%in$ or trans#ortin$ #assen$ers or $oods or "ot, "% land, 'ater, or air, for com#ensation,offerin$ teir ser(ices to te #!"lic.0 It as "een eld tat te tr!e test of a common carrier is te carria$e of#assen$ers or $oods, #ro(ided it as s#ace, for all 'o o#t to a(ail temsel(es of its trans#ortation ser(ice for a fee.A carrier 'ic does not 9!alif% !nder te a"o(e test is deemed a #ri(ate carrier. /+enerall%, #ri(ate carria$e is!nderta&en "% s#ecial a$reement and te carrier does not old imself o!t to carr% $oods for te $eneral #!"lic. Te

most t%#ical, alto!$ not te onl% form of #ri(ate carria$e, is te carter #art%, a maritime contract "% 'ic tecarterer, a #art% oter tan te si#o'ner, o"tains te !se and ser(ice of all or some #art of a si# for a #eriod oftime or a (o%a$e or (o%a$es.0

In te instant case, it is !ndis#!ted tat @I did not offer its ser(ices to te $eneral #!"lic. As fo!nd "% te Re$ionalTrial Co!rt, it carried #assen$ers or $oods onl% for tose it cose !nder a /s#ecial contract of carter #art%.0 Ascorrectl% concl!ded "% te Co!rt of A##eals, te 8@ @lasons I /'as not a common "!t a #ri(ate carrier.0Conse9!entl%, te ri$ts and o"li$ations of @I and NC, incl!din$ teir res#ecti(e lia"ilit% for dama$e to te car$o,are determined #rimaril% "% sti#!lations in teir contract of #ri(ate carria$e or carter #art%. Recentl%, in @alen!ela


3/24

ard'ood and Ind!strial !##l%, Inc., (s. Co!rt of A##eals and e(en Broters i##in$ Cor#oration, te Co!rtr!led:

/ ) ) ) HIn a contract of #ri(ate carria$e, te #arties ma% freel% sti#!late teir d!ties and o"li$ations 'ic #erforce'o!ld "e "indin$ on tem. Jnli&e in a contract in(ol(in$ a common carrier, #ri(ate carria$e does not in(ol(e te$eneral #!"lic. ence, te strin$ent #ro(isions of te Ci(il Code on common carriers #rotectin$ te $eneral #!"lic

cannot !stifia"l% "e a##lied to a si# trans#ortin$ commercial $oods as a #ri(ate carrier. Conse9!entl%, te #!"lic#olic% em"odied terein is not contra(ened "% sti#!lations in a carter #art% tat lessen or remo(e te #rotection$i(en "% la' in contracts in(ol(in$ common carriers.0

"alen1uela Hard2ood 3 Industrial Suppl4 vs. Court o5 Appeals

In a contract of #ri(ate carria$e, te #arties ma% (alidl% sti#!late tat res#onsi"ilit% for te car$o rests solel%on te carterer, e)em#tin$ te si#o'ner from lia"ilit% for loss of or dama$e to te car$o ca!sed e(en "% tene$li$ence of te si# ca#tain. !rs!ant to Article 13K6 17 of te Ci(il Code, s!c sti#!lation is (alid "eca!se it isfreel% entered into "% te #arties and te same is not contrar% to la', morals, $ood c!stoms, #!"lic order, or #!"lic#olic%. Indeed, teir contract of #ri(ate carria$e is not e(en a contract of adesion. e stress tat in a contract of

#ri(ate carria$e, te #arties ma% freel% sti#!late teir d!ties and o"li$ations 'ic #erforce 'o!ld "e "indin$ ontem. Jnli&e in a contract in(ol(in$ a common carrier, #ri(ate carria$e does not in(ol(e te $eneral #!"lic. ence,te strin$ent #ro(isions of te Ci(il Code on common carriers #rotectin$ te $eneral #!"lic cannot !stifia"l% "ea##lied to a si# trans#ortin$ commercial $oods as a #ri(ate carrier. Conse9!entl%, te #!"lic #olic% em"odiedterein is not contra(ened "% sti#!lations in a carter #art% tat lessen or remo(e te #rotection $i(en "% la' incontracts in(ol(in$ common carriers.

"ALEN6UELA HARD7OOD AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPL8 INC. vs. CA

Fats! @alen!ela ard'ood entered into an a$reement 'it e(en Broter i##in$ Cor#oration 'ere"% telatter !ndertoo& to load on "oard its (essel 8?@ e(en Am"assador te formers la!an ro!nd lo$s n!m"erin$ 5K at

te #ort of Isa"ela for si#ment to 8anila.etitioner ins!red te lo$s a$ainst loss and?or dama$e 'it o!t ea !ret% and Ins!rance Com#an%. Te

said (essel san& res!ltin$ on te loss of #laintiffs ins!red "a$s.Bot res#ondent and ins!rer denied lia"ilit%. After trial, te co!rt eld tat te #ro)imate ca!se of te los is

te ne$li$ence of te ca#tain and te sti#!lation in te carter #art% limitin$ res#ondents lia"ilit% is (oid "ein$ a$ainst#!"lic #olic% citin$ Article 17 of te Ci(il Code. Te Co!rt of A##eals affirmed in #art te RTC !d$ment "%s!stainin$ te lia"ilit% of o!t !ret% and Ins!rance Com#an%, "!t modified it "% oldin$ tat e(en Broters 'asnot lia"le for te lost of te car$o.

Issue! eter or not te sti#!lation in te carter #art% e)em#tin$ te si#;o'ner from lia"ilit% for te loss of tecar$o arisin$ from te ne$li$ence of its ca#tain (alid.

Held ! Te sti#!lation in te instant case is (alid.In a contract of #ri(ate carria$e, te #arties ma% (alidl% sti#!latetat res#onsi"ilit% for te car$o rests solel% on te carterer, e)em#tin$ te si#;o'ner from lia"ilit% for te loss of ordama$e to te car$o ca!sed e(en "% te ne$li$ence of te si# ca#tain. !rs!ant to Article 13K6 of te Ci(il Code,s!c sti#!lation is (alid "eca!se it is freel% entered into "% te #arties and te same is not contrar% to la', morals,$ood c!stoms, #!"lic order or #!"lic #olic%.

In te case at "ar, te carter #art% "et'een te #etitioner and #ri(ate res#ondent sti#!lated tat te/o'ners sall not "e res#onsi"le for loss, s#lit, sort landin$, "rea&a$es and an% &ind of dama$es to te car$o0. Tissti#!lation is deemed (alid as it is !ndis#!ted tat #ri(ate res#ondent acted as a #ri(ate carrier in trans#ortin$


4/24

#etitioners la!an lo$s. T!s, Article 17 and oter Ci(il Code #ro(isions on common carriers 'ic 'ere cited "%te #etitioner ma% not "e a##lied !nless e)#ressl% sti#!lated "% te #arties in teir carter #art%.

Te #etition is denied "% te Co!rt.

ARTICLE 1733

Loadstar Shippin9 Co.$ In. vs. CA

Loadstar s!"mits tat te (essel 'as a #ri(ate carrier "eca!se it 'as not iss!ed a CCF it did not a(e are$!lar tri# or sced!le nor a fi)ed ro!teF and tere 'as onl% /one si##er, one consi$nee for a s#ecial car$o.0

Te C eld tat Loadstar is a common carrier. It is not necessar% tat te carrier "e iss!ed a CC, and tiscaracter is not altered "% te fact tat te carria$e of te $oods in 9!estion 'as #eriodic, occasional, e#isodic or!nsced!led.

LOADSTAR SHIPPIN# CO.$ INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Fats! n No(em"er 15, 154, LADTAR recei(ed on "oard its 8?@ Cero&ee $oods*certain t%#es of 'ood- forsi#ment. Te $oods 'ere ins!red 'it 8anila Ins!rance Co.*8IC- a$ainst (ario!s ris&s incl!din$ /TTAL L BGTTAL L TE @EEL0. Te (essel, in t!rn, 'as ins!red "% r!dential +!arantee M Ass!rance, Inc.*+AI-for 8illion.

n No(em"er 2K, 154, on its 'a% to 8anila from Nasi#it, A$!san del Norte, te (essel san& off Limasa'aIsland. As a res!lt of te total loss of its si#ment, te consi$nee made a claim 'it LADTAR 'ic, o'e(eri$nored te same. As te ins!rer, 8IC #aid te ins!red in f!ll settlement of its claim.

n e"r!ar% , 154, 8IC filed a com#laint a$ainst Loadstar and +AI, alle$in$ tat te sin&in$ of te(essel 'as d!e to te fa!lt and ne$li$ence of Loadstar and its em#lo%ees. Loadstar claimed force mae!r. +AIa(erred tat 8IC as no ca!se of action a$ainst it, Loadstar "ein$ te #art% ins!red. +AI 'as later dro##ed as a#art% defendant after it #aid te ins!rance #roceeds to Loadstar.

Te trial co!rt rendered !d$ment for 8IC, #rom#tin$ Loadstar to $o to te CA 'ic affirmed te decision.

Issue! eter or not Loadstar is a #ri(ate carrier.

Held! No. Loadstar s!"mits tat te (essel 'as a #ri(ate carrier "eca!se it 'as not iss!ed a CCF it did not a(e are$!lar tri# or sced!le nor a fi)ed ro!teF and tere 'as onl% /one si##er, one consi$nee for a s#ecial car$o.0

Te C eld tat Loadstar is a common carrier. It is not necessar% tat te carrier "e iss!ed a CC, and tiscaracter is not altered "% te fact tat te carria$e of te $oods in 9!estion 'as #eriodic, occasional, e#isodic or!nsced!led.

In s!##ort of its #osition Loadstar relied on te 1564 case of ome Ins!rance Co. (. American teamsi#A$encies, 'ere te Co!rt eld tat a common carrier trans#ortin$ s#ecial car$o or carterin$ te (essel to a s#ecial#erson "ecomes a #ri(ate carrier tat is not s!"ect to te #ro(isions of te Ci(il Code.

Tis case o'e(er is not a##lica"le in te case at "ar for te sim#le reason tat te act!al settin$s are

different. Te records do not disclose tat te 8?@ Cero&ee, on te date in 9!estion, !ndertoo& to carr% a s#ecialcar$o or 'as cartered to a s#ecial #erson onl%. Tere 'as no carter #art%. Te "ills of ladin$ failed to so' an%s#ecial arran$ement, "!t onl% a $eneral #ro(ision to te effect tat te 8?@ Cero&ee 'as a $eneral car$o carrier.!rter, te "are fact tat te (essel 'as carr%in$ a #artic!lar t%#e of car$o for one si##er, 'ic a##ears to "e#!rel% coincidental, is not reason eno!$ to con(ert te (essel from a common carrier to a #ri(ate carrier, es#eciall%'ere, as in tis case, it 'as so'n tat te (essel 'as also carr%in$ #assen$ers.

Jnder te facts and circ!mstances o"tainin$ in tis case, Loadstar fits te definition of a common carrier!nder Article 1732 of te NCC. Te doctrine en!nciated in te case of De +!man (. CA 'as also mentioned. CAdecision is ere"% affirmed.


5/24

SA:ENA :EL#IAN 7ORLD AIRLINES v. CA#.R. No. &*;arh &;$ &--< = ?. "ITU#

Doctrine:

; Art. 1733 of te HCi(il Code #ro(ides tat from te (er% nat!re of teir "!siness and "% reasons of #!"lic #olic%,common carriers are "o!nd to o"ser(e e)traordinar% dili$ence in te (i$ilance o(er te $oods trans#orted "% tem.

; Art. 173 esta"lises te #res!m#tion tat if te $oods are lost, destro%ed or deteriorated, common carriers are#res!med to a(e "een at fa!lt or to a(e acted ne$li$entl%, !nless te% #ro(e tat te% ad o"ser(ed e)traordinar%dili$ence as re9!ired in Article 1733.

; Te arsa' Con(ention denies to te carrier a(ailment of te #ro(isions 'ic e)cl!de or limit is lia"ilit%, if tedama$e is ca!sed "% is 'illf!l miscond!ct or "% s!c defa!lt on is #art as, in accordance 'it te la' of te co!rtseied of te case, is considered to "e e9!i(alent to 'illf!l miscond!ct, or if te dama$e is *similarl%- ca!sed ) ) )"% an% a$ent of te carrier actin$ 'itin te sco#e of is em#lo%ment.

Fats: laintiff 8a. a!la an A$!stin, erein #ri(ate res#ondent, 'as a #assen$er on "oard li$t N 24 ofdefendant airline ori$inatin$ from Casa"lanca to Br!ssels, Bel$i!m on er 'a% "ac& to 8anila. e cec&ed in erl!$$a$e 'ic contained er (al!a"les, namel%: e'elries (al!ed at 2,3K.KKF clotes 1,KK.KKF soes?"a$ 1KFaccessories 7F l!$$a$e itself 1K.KKF or a total of ,26.KK, for 'ic se 'as iss!ed Ta$ No. 7123. e sta%edo(erni$t in Br!ssels and er l!$$a$e 'as left on "oard li$t N 24.e arri(ed at 8anila International Air#ort and immediatel% s!"mitted er Ta$ No. 7123 "!t er l!$$a$e 'asmissin$. e 'as ad(ised to accom#lis and s!"mit a #ro#ert% Irre$!larit% Re#ort 'ic se s!"mitted and filed onte same da% "!t 'en er l!$$a$e co!ld not "e fo!nd, se filed a formal com#laint 'it defendants Local 8ana$er.!"se9!entl%, #laintiff 'as f!rnised co#ies of tele)es of defendants Br!ssels ffice tat te latter fo!nd erl!$$a$e and tat te% a(e "ro&en te loc&s for identification. laintiff 'as ass!red "% te defendant tat it asnotified its 8anila ffice tat te l!$$a$e 'ill "e si##ed to 8anila. B!t !nfort!natel% #laintiff 'as informed tat tel!$$a$e 'as lost for te second time.

laintiff demanded from te defendant te mone% (al!e of te l!$$a$e and its contents or its e)can$e (al!e, "!tdefendant ref!sed to settle te claim. Defendant asserts in its Ans'er and its e(idence tend to so' tat 'ile itadmits tat te #laintiff 'as a #assen$er 'it a #iece of cec&ed in l!$$a$e, te loss of te l!$$a$e 'as d!e to#laintiffs sole if not contri"!tor% ne$li$ence.etitioner airline com#an%, in contendin$ tat te alle$ed ne$li$ence of #ri(ate res#ondent so!ld "e considered te#rimar% ca!se for te loss of er l!$$a$e, a(ers tat, des#ite er a'areness tat te fli$t tic&et ad "een confirmedonl% for Casa"lanca and Br!ssels, and tat er fli$t from Br!ssels to 8anila ad %et to "e confirmed, se did notretrie(e te l!$$a$e !#on arri(al in Br!ssels. etitioner insists tat #ri(ate res#ondent, "ein$ a seasonedinternational tra(eler, m!st a(e li&e'ise "een familiar 'it te standard #ro(isions contained in er fli$t tic&et tatitems of (al!e are re9!ired to "e and;carried "% te #assen$er and tat te lia"ilit% of te airline or loss, dela% ordama$e to "a$$a$e 'o!ld "e limited, in an% e(ent, to onl% J2K.KK #er &ilo !nless a i$er (al!e is declared inad(ance and corres#ondin$ additional car$es are #aid tereon. At te Casa"lanca International Air#ort, #ri(ate

res#ondent, in cec&in$ in er l!$$a$e, e(identl% did not declare its contents or (al!e, #!rs!ant to ection *c-,Article IO, of te +eneral Conditions of Carria$e, 'ic states tat: /assen$ers sall not incl!de in is cec&ed"a$$a$e, and te carrier ma% ref!se to carr% as cec&ed "a$$a$e, fra$ile or #erisa"le articles, mone%, e'elr%,#recio!s metals, ne$otia"le #a#ers, sec!rities or oter (al!a"les.0Te trial co!rt rendered !d$ment orderin$ a"ena Bel$ian orld Airlines to #a% #ri(ate res#ondent. a"enaa##ealed "!t te CA affirmed in toto te trial co!rts !d$ment, ence te #resent #etition for re(ie'.

Issue: ?N te airline is lia"le for te lost l!$$a$e


6/24

Held: Ges. a!lt or ne$li$ence consists in te omission of tat dili$ence 'ic is demanded "% te nat!re of ano"li$ation and corres#onds 'it te circ!mstances of te #erson, of te time, and of te #lace. en te so!rce ofan o"li$ation is deri(ed from a contract, te mere "reac or non;f!lfillment of te #restation $i(es rise to te#res!m#tion of fa!lt on te #art of te o"li$or. Tis r!le is not different in te case of common carriers in te carria$eof $oods 'ic, indeed, are "o!nd to o"ser(e not !st te d!e dili$ence of a $ood fater of a famil% "!t tat of/e)traordinar%0 care in te (i$ilance o(er te $oods.

Te onl% e)ce#tions to te fore$oin$ e)traordinar% res#onsi"ilit% of te common carrier is 'en te loss, destr!ction,or deterioration of te $oods is d!e to an% of te follo'in$ ca!ses:

*1- lood, storm, eart9!a&e, li$tnin$, or oter nat!ral disaster or calamit%F

*2- Act of te #!"lic enem% in 'ar, 'eter international or ci(ilF

*3- Act or omission of te si##er or o'ner of te $oodsF

*- Te caracter of te $oods or defects in te #ac&in$ or in te containersF

*- rder or act of com#etent #!"lic a!torit%.

Not one of te a"o(e e)ce#ted ca!ses o"tains in tis case.

Te airline cannot in(o&e te tort doctrine of #ro)imate ca!se "eca!se te #ri(ate res#ondents l!$$a$e 'as lost'ile it 'as in te c!stod% of #etitioner. Te /loss of said "a$$a$e not onl% once "% t'ice,0 said te a##ellate co!rt,/!nderscores te 'anton ne$li$ence and lac& of care0 on te #art of te carrier. Te a"o(e findin$s foreclose'ate(er ri$ts #etitioner mi$t a(e ad to te #ossi"le limitation of lia"ilities eno%ed "% international air carriers!nder te arsa' Con(ention.

In Alitalia (s. Intermediate A##ellate Co!rt, te Co!rt eld tat /te arsa' Con(ention o'e(er denies to te carriera(ailment of te #ro(isions 'ic e)cl!de or limit is lia"ilit%, if te dama$e is ca!sed "% is 'ilf!l miscond!ct or "%

s!c defa!lt on is #art as, in accordance 'it te la' of te co!rt seied of te case, is considered to "e e9!i(alentto 'ilf!l miscond!ct, or if te dama$e is *similarl%- ca!sed ) ) ) "% an% a$ent of te carrier actin$ 'itin te sco#e ofis em#lo%ment.

Te a$!e rotocol amended te arsa' Con(ention "% remo(in$ te #ro(ision tat if te airline too& all necessar%ste#s to a(oid te dama$e, it co!ld e)c!l#ate itself com#letel%, and declarin$ te stated limits of lia"ilit% nota##lica"le if it is #ro(ed tat te dama$e res!lted from an act or omission of te carrier, its ser(ants or a$ents, done'it intent to ca!se dama$e or rec&lessl% and 'it &no'led$e tat dama$e 'o!ld #ro"a"l% res!lt. Te same deletion'as effected "% te 8ontreal A$reement of 1566, 'it te res!lt tat a #assen$er co!ld reco(er !nlimited dama$es!#on #roof of 'ilf!l miscond!ct.

Te Con(ention does not t!s o#erate as an e)cl!si(e en!meration of te instances of an airlines lia"ilit%, or as an

a"sol!te limit of te e)tent of tat lia"ilit%. It so!ld "e deemed a limit of lia"ilit% onl% in tose cases 'ere te ca!seof te deat or in!r% to #erson, or destr!ction, loss or dama$e to #ro#ert% or dela% in its trans#ort is not attri"!ta"leto or attended "% an% 'ilf!l miscond!ct, "ad fait, rec&lessness or oter'ise im#ro#er cond!ct on te #art of an%official or em#lo%ee for 'ic te carrier is res#onsi"le, and tere is oter'ise no s#ecial or e)traordinar% form ofres!ltin$ in!r%. Decision a##ealed from AIR8ED.

ARTICLE 173PHILA>#E> "S. P@S SHIPPIN# CO>PAN8


7/24

Fats! Da(ao Jnion 8ar&etin$ Cor#oration *DJ8C- contracted te ser(ices of res#ondent P i##in$ Com#an%*P i##in$- for te si#ment to Taclo"an Cit% of se(ent%;fi(e to!sand *7,KKK- "a$s of cement 'ort Tree8illion Tree !ndred e(ent%;i(e To!sand esos *3,37,KKK.KK-. DJ8C ins!red te $oods for its f!ll (al!e'it #etitioner ili##ine American +eneral Ins!rance Com#an% *ilam$en-. D!rin$ te trans#ort, te "ar$e 'erete "a$s of cement 'ere loaded, san&. J#on demand of #a%ment "% DJ8C, ilAm+en immediatel% #aid tem.

ence, it so!$t reim"!rsement from P i##in$ "!t te latter ref!sed.

Issue! *1- eter P i##in$ is a common carrier or a #ri(ate carrierF and*2- N P i##in$ e)ercised te re9!ired dili$ence o(er te $oods te% carr%.or, N P i##in$ is lia"le.

Held! *1- P i##in$ is a common carrier.P i##in$ as en$a$ed itself in te "!siness of carr%in$ $oods for oters, alto!$ for a limited

clientele, !nderta&in$ to carr% s!c $oods for a fee. Te re$!larit% of its acti(ities in tis area indicates more tan !sta cas!al acti(it% on its #art. Neiter can te conce#t of a common carrier can$e merel% "eca!se indi(id!al contractsare e)ec!ted or entered into 'it #atrons of te carrier.

*2- P i##in$ is not lia"le.Te (essel 'as s!ddenl% tossed "% 'a(es of e)traordinar% ei$t of si) *6-to ei$t *4- feet and "!ffeted "%

stron$ 'inds of 1. &nots res!ltin$ in te entr% of 'ater into te "ar$es atces. Te official Certificate of Ins#ectionof te "ar$e iss!ed "% te ili##ine Coast$!ard and te Coast'ise Load Line Certificate 'o!ld attest to tesea'ortiness of Limar I. As s!c, !nder Art. 1733, NCC, common carriers are e)em#t from lia"ilit% for loss,destr!ction, or deterioration of te $oods d!e to an% of te follo'in$ ca!ses, amon$ oters:*1- lood, storm,eart9!a&e, li$tnin$, or oter nat!ral disaster or calamit% ) ) )

TA:ACALERA INSURANCE CO.$ et. vs. NORTH FRONT SHIPPIN# SER"ICES$ INC.$ and COURT OFAPPEALS

H+.R. No. 115157. 8a% 16, 1557

Fats: etitioners are ins!rers of a si#ment of sac&s of corn $rains consi$ned to Re#!"lic lo!r 8ills Cor#orationin 8anila. Te car$o 'as si##ed "% Nort ront i##in$ er(ices, Inc. Te consi$nee 'as ad(ised of its arri(al "!tte !nloadin$ 'as dela%ed for si) da%s for !n&no'n reason, and te mercandise 'as alread% mold%, rancid anddeterioratin$.

Te moist!re content and te 'ettin$ 'as d!e to contact 'it salt 'ater "!t te mold $ro't 'as onl% inci#ient andnot s!fficient to ma&e te corn $rains to)ic and !nfit for cons!m#tion. In fact te mold $ro't co!ld still "e arrested"% dr%in$. o'e(er, Re#!"lic lo!r reected te entire car$o 'ic terefore forced te #etitioners to #a% te former.

No', as s!"ro$ees, te% lod$ed a com#laint for dama$es a$ainst res#ondents claimin$ tat te loss 'as e)cl!si(el%attri"!ta"le to te fa!lt and ne$li$ence of te carrier. Te 8arine Car$o Ad!sters ired "% te ins!rance com#anies

cond!cted a s!r(e% and fo!nd crac&s in te "ode$a of te "ar$e and ea(% concentration of molds on te tar#a!linsand 'ooden "oards. Te% did not notice an% seals in te atces. Te tar#a!lins 'ere not "rand ne' as tere 'ere#atces on tem, contrar% to te claim of Nort ront i##in$ er(ices, Inc., t!s ma&in$ it #ossi"le for 'ater tosee# in. Te% also disco(ered tat te "!l&ead of te "ar$e 'as r!st%.

Te trial co!rt dismissed te com#laint and r!led tat te contract entered into "et'een Nort ront i##in$er(ices, Inc., and Re#!"lic lo!r 8ills Cor#oration 'as a carter;#art% a$reement. As s!c, onl% ordinar% dili$encein te care of $oods 'as re9!ired. n te oter and, te Co!rt of A##eals r!led tat as a common carrier re9!ired


8/24

to o"ser(e a i$er de$ree of dili$ence Nort ront 777 satisfactoril% com#lied 'it all te re9!irements ence 'asiss!ed a ermit to ail after #ro#er ins#ection.

Issue! eter or not a carter;#art% a$reement "et'een and R re9!ires e)traordinar% dili$ence.

Held! Ges. Te carter;#art% a$reement "et'een Nort ront i##in$ er(ices, Inc., and Re#!"lic lo!r 8ills

Cor#oration did not in an% 'a% con(ert te common carrier into a #ri(ate carrier.

) ) )

Nort ront i##in$ er(ices, Inc., is a cor#oration en$a$ed in te "!siness of trans#ortin$ car$o and offers itsser(ices indiscriminatel% to te #!"lic. It is 'ito!t do!"t a common carrier. As s!c it is re9!ired to o"ser(ee)traordinar% dili$ence in its (i$ilance o(er te $oods it trans#orts. en $oods #laced in its care are lost ordama$ed, te carrier is #res!med to a(e "een at fa!lt or to a(e acted ne$li$entl%. Nort ront i##in$ er(ices,Inc., terefore as te "!rden of #ro(in$ tat it o"ser(ed e)traordinar% dili$ence in order to a(oid res#onsi"ilit% for telost car$o.

o'e(er, 'e cannot attri"!te te destr!ction, loss or deterioration of te car$o solel% to te carrier. e find te

consi$nee Re#!"lic lo!r 8ills Cor#oration $!ilt% of contri"!tor% ne$li$ence. It 'as seasona"l% notified of te arri(alof te "ar$e "!t did not immediatel% start te !nloadin$ o#erations. No e)#lanation 'as #roffered "% te consi$neeas to '% tere 'as a dela% of si) *6- da%s. ad te !nloadin$ "een commenced immediatel% te loss co!ld a(e"een com#letel% a(oided or at least minimied. As testified to "% te cemist 'o anal%ed te corn sam#les, temold $ro't 'as onl% at its inci#ient sta$e and co!ld still "e arrested "% dr%in$. Te corn $rains 'ere not %et to)ic or!nfit for cons!m#tion.

ARTICLE 173

Saries Tours Phils vs. Court o5 Appeals

Jnder te Ci(il Code, common carriers, from te nat!re of teir "!siness and for reasons of #!"lic #olic%,are "o!nd to o"ser(e e)traordinar% dili$ence in te (i$ilance o(er te $oods trans#orted "% tem, and tis lia"ilit%lasts from te time te $oods are !nconditionall% #laced in te #ossession of, and recei(ed "% te carrier fortrans#ortation !ntil te same are deli(ered, act!all% or constr!cti(el%, "% te carrier to te #erson 'o as a ri$t torecei(e tem, !nless te loss is d!e to an% of te e)ce#ted ca!ses !nder Article 173 tereof.

ere te common carrier acce#ted its #assen$er=s "a$$a$e for trans#ortation and e(en ad it #laced inte (eicle "% its o'n em#lo%ee, its fail!re to collect te frei$t car$e is te common carrier=s o'n loo&o!t. It isres#onsi"le for te conse9!ent loss of te "a$$a$e. In te instant case, defendant a##ellant=s em#lo%ee e(en el#edatima 8iner(a ortades and er "roter load te l!$$a$es?"a$$a$es in te "!s= "a$$a$e com#artment, 'ito!tas&in$ tat te% "e 'ei$ed, declared, recei#ted or #aid for. Neiter 'as tis re9!ired of te oter #assen$ers.

SAR@IES TOURS PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Fats! n A!$!st 31, 154, atima "oarded #etitioners De l!)e "!s in 8anila on er 'a% to Le$as#i Cit%. er"roter el#ed er load tree #ieces of l!$$a$e containin$ all of er o#tometr% re(ie' "oo&s, materials ande9!i#ment, trial contact lenses, #ass#ort and (isa. er "elon$in$s 'ere &e#t in te "a$$a$e com#artment and d!rin$te sto#o(er at Daet, it 'as disco(ered tat onl% one "a$ ad remained in te "a$$a$e com#artment. ome of te#assen$ers s!$$ested retracin$ te ro!te to tr% to reco(er te items, "!t te dri(er i$nored tem and #roceeded toLe$as#i Cit%.


9/24

atima re#orted te loss to er moter, 'o 'ent to #etitioners office. etitioner merel% offered er oneto!sand #esos for eac #iece of l!$$a$e lost, 'ic se t!rned do'n. atima as&ed te el# of radio stations ande(en from iltranco "!s dri(ers 'o #lied te same ro!te. T!s, one of atimas "a$s 'as reco(ered.

Res#ondents, tro!$ co!nsel, demanded satisfaction of teir com#laint from #etitioner. etitionera#olo$ied tro!$ a letter. After more tan nine monts of fr!itless 'aitin$, res#ondents decided to file te case.

Te trial co!rt r!led in fa(or of res#ondents. n a##eal, te a##ellate co!rt affirmed te trial co!rts

!d$ment.

Issue! eter or not #etitioner is lia"le for te lost "a$$a$es of atima.

Held! Te #etitioner is lia"le for te lost "a$$a$es.Jnder te Ci(il Code, /common carriers from te nat!re ofteir "!siness and for reasons of #!"lic #olic% are "o!nd to o"ser(e e)traordinar% dili$ence and (i$ilance o(er $oodstrans#orted "% te,0 and tis lia"ilit% /last from te time te $oods are !nconditionall% #laced in te #ossession of, andrecei(ed "% te carrier for trans#ortation !ntil te same are deli(ered, act!all% or constr!cti(el%, "% te carrier to te#erson 'o as a ri$t to recei(e tem, /!nless te loss is d!e to an% of te e)ce#ted ca!ses !nder Article 173tereof.

In te case at "ar, te ca!se of te loss 'as #etitioners ne$li$ence in not ens!rin$ tat te doors of te"a$$a$e com#artment of its "!s 'ere sec!rel% fastened. As a res!lt of tis lac& of care, almost all te "a$$a$e 'as

lost to te #re!dice of te #a%in$ #assen$ers. T!s, #etitioner is eld lia"le.Te Co!rt affirmed te decision of te Co!rt of A##eals 'it modification.

Coast2ise Li9htera9e Corp. vs. CAB#R &&;&


10/24

te #ossession, command mid na(i$ation of te (essels remained 'it Coast'ise Li$tera$e. Te contract t!sentered into 'it te consi$nee 'as one of affrei$tment.

2. Demise or bareboat charter of the vesselF !romines (s. CAJnder te demise or "are"oat carter of te (essel, te carterer 'ill $enerall% "e re$arded as te o'ner for te(o%a$e or ser(ice sti#!lated. Te carterer mans te (essel 'it is o'n #eo#le and "ecomes te o'nerpro hac

vice, s!"ect to lia"ilit% to oters for dama$es ca!sed "% ne$li$ence. To create a demise, te o'ner of a (essel m!stcom#letel% and e)cl!si(el% relin9!is #ossession, command and na(i$ation tereof to te carterer an%tin$ sort ofs!c a com#lete transfer is a contract of affrei$tment *time or (o%a$e carter #art%- or not a carter #art% all.

3. Contract of affreightment; !romines (s. CAA contract of affrei$tment is one in 'ic te o'ner of te (essel leases #art or all of its s#ace to a!l $oods foroters. It is a contract for s#ecial ser(ice to "e rendered "% te o'ner of te (essel and !nder s!c contract te$eneral o'ner retains te #ossession, command and na(i$ation of te si#, te carterer or frei$ter merel% a(in$!se of te s#ace in te (essel in ret!rn for is #a%ment or te carter ire. An o'ner 'o retains #ossession of tesi# to!$ te old is te #ro#ert% of te carterer, remains lia"le as carrier and m!st ans'er for an% "reac of d!t%as to te care, loadin$ and !nloadin$ of te car$o . . .0

. Presumption of negligenceTe la' and !ris#r!dence on common carriers "ot old tat te mere #roof of deli(er% of $oods in $ood order to acarrier and te s!"se9!ent arri(al of te same $oods at te #lace of destination in "ad order ma&es for a #rima faciecase a$ainst te carrier. It follo's ten tat te #res!m#tion of ne$li$ence tat attaces to common carriers, once te$oods it is s#orts are lost, destro%ed or deteriorated, a##lies to Coast'ise Li$tera$e. Tis #res!m#tion, 'ic iso(ercome onl% "% #roof of te e)ercise of e)traordinar% dili$ence, remained !nre"!tted in te #resent case. As acommon carrier, Coast'ise Li$tera$e is lia"le for "reac of te contract of carria$e, a(in$ failed to o(ercome te#res!m#tion of ne$li$ence 'it te loss and destr!ction of $oods it trans#orted, "% #roof of its e)ercise ofe)traordinar% dili$ence.

.Article 60 of the Co!e of CommerceArticle 6K5 of te Code of Commerce, 'ic s!"sidiaril% $o(erns common carriers *'ic are #rimaril% $o(erned "%

te #ro(isions of te Ci(il Code- #ro(ides tat /ca#tains, masters, or #atrons of (essels m!st "e ili#inos, a(e le$alca#acit% to contract in accordance 'it tis code, and #ro(e te s&ill ca#acit% and 9!alifications necessar% tocommand and direct te (essel, as esta"lised "% marine and na(i$ation la's, ordinances or re$!lations, and m!stnot "e dis9!alified accordin$ to te same for te discar$e of te d!ties of te #osition.0

6. Carrier remise! in observance of !uties; "nlicense! patron presumes lac# of s#ill an! lac# of familiarity to usualan! safe routes ta#en by seasone! an! authori$e! onesar from a(in$ rendered ser(ice 'it te $reatest s&ill and o!tmost foresi$t, and "ein$ free from fa!lt, te carrier'as c!l#a"l% remiss in te o"ser(ance of its d!ties. or one, es!s R. Constantino, te #atron of te (essel/Coast'ise 5Q admitted tat e 'as not licensed. Clearl%, Coast'ise Li$tera$es em"ar&in$ on a (o%a$e 'it an!nlicensed #atron (iolates Article 6K5 of te Code of Commerce. It cannot safel% claim to a(e e)ercisede)traordinar% dili$ence, "% #lacin$ a #erson 'ose na(i$ational s&ills are 9!estiona"le, at te elm of te (essel

'ic e(ent!all% met te fatef!l accident. It ma% also lo$icall%, follo' tat a #erson 'ito!t license to na(i$ate, lac&snot !st te s&ill to do so, "!t also te !tmost familiarit% 'it te !s!al and safe ro!tes ta&en "% seasoned and le$all%a!toried ones. ad te #atron "een licensed e co!ld "e #res!med to a(e "ot te s&ill and te &no'led$e tat'o!ld a(e #re(ented te (essels ittin$ te s!n&en derelict si# tat la% on teir 'a% to ier 14.

7.Article %%0&, 'CCArticle 22K7 of te Ci(il Code #ro(ides tat /If te #laintiffs #ro#ert% as "een ins!red, and e as recei(edindemnit% from te ins!rance com#an% for te in!r% or loses arisin$ o!t of te 'ron$ or "reac of contract


11/24

com#lained of te ins!rance com#an% sall "e s!"ro$ated to te ri$ts of te ins!red a$ainst te 'ron$doer or te#erson 'o (iolated te contract.0

4. Principle of subrogation e(plaine!Article 22K7 NCC containin$ te e9!ita"le #rinci#le of s!"ro$ation as "een a##lied in a lon$ line of cases incl!din$Com#ania 8aritima (. Ins!rance Com#an% of Nort AmericaF iremans !nd Ins!rance Com#an% (. amilla M

Com#an%, Inc., and an 8ala%an Ins!rance Cor#oration (. Co!rt of A##eals, 'erein te Co!rt e)#lained tat /Article22K7 of te Ci(il Code is fo!nded on te 'ell;settled #rinci#le of s!"ro$ation. If te ins!red #ro#ert% is destro%ed ordama$ed tro!$ te fa!lt or ne$li$ence of a #art% oter tan te ass!red, ten te ins!rer, !#on #a%ment to teass!red 'ill "e s!"ro$ated to te ri$ts of te ass!red to reco(er from te 'ron$doer to te e)tent tat te ins!reras "een o"li$ated to #a%. a%ment "% te ins!rer to te ass!red o#erated as an e9!ita"le assi$nment to te formerof all remedies 'ic te latter ma% a(e a$ainst te tird #art% 'ose ne$li$ence or 'ron$f!l act ca!sed te loss.Te ri$t of s!"ro$ation is not de#endent !#on, nor does it $ro' o!t of, an% #ri(ate of contract or !#on 'rittenassi$nment of, claim. It accr!es sim#l% !#on #a%ment of te ins!rance claim "% te ins!rer.0 erein, Coast'iseLi$tera$e 'as lia"le for "reac of te contract of carria$e it entered into 'it te a$;asa ales. o'e(er, for tedama$e s!stained "% te loss of te car$o 'ic te carrier 'as trans#ortin$, it 'as not te carrier 'ic #aid te(al!e tereof to a$;asa ales "!t te latters ins!rer, il+en. J#on #a%ment "% ins!rer il+en of te amo!nt of7KK,KKK.KK to a$;asa ales, te consi$nee of te car$o of molasses totall% dama$ed 'ile "ein$ trans#orted "%

Coast'ise Li$tera$e, te former 'as, s!"ro$ated into all te ri$ts 'ic a$;asa ales ma% a(e ad a$ainst tecarrier, Coast'ise Li$tera$e.

ARTICLE 1736

>aa+ vs. CA

Te e)traordinar% res#onsi"ilit% of te common carriers lasts !ntil act!al or constr!cti(e deli(er% of tecar$oes to te consi$nee or to te #erson 'o as a ri$t to recei(e tem. APITAN BANP 'as indicated in te"ills of ladin$ as consi$nee 'ereas +C 'as te notif% #art%. o'e(er, in te e)#ort in(oices +C 'as clearl%named as "!%er?im#orter. etitioner also referred to +C as s!c in is demand letter to res#ondent ALLE8 and in

is com#laint "efore te trial co!rt. Tis #remise dra's !s to concl!de tat te deli(er% of te car$oes to +C as"!%er?im#orter 'ic, conforma"l% 'it Art. 1736 ad, oter tan te consi$nee, te ri$t to recei(e tem 'as #ro#er.

Te real iss!e is 'eter res#ondents are lia"le to #etitioner for releasin$ te $oods to +C 'ito!t te "ills ofladin$ or "an& $!arantee. rom te testimon% of #etitioner, 'e $ater tat e as "een transactin$ 'it +C as"!%er?im#orter for aro!nd t'o *2- or tree *3- %ears alread%. en man$oes and 'atermelons are in season, issi#ment to +C !sin$ te facilities of res#ondents is t'ice or trice a 'ee&. Te $oods are released to +C. It as"een te #ractice of #etitioner to re9!est te si##in$ lines to immediatel% release #erisa"le car$oes s!c as'atermelons and fres man$oes tro!$ tele#one calls "% imself or is ACA> vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Fats! etitioner Benito 8acam si##ed on "oard te (essel Nen ian$, tro!$ local a$ent res#ondent allemili##ines i##in$, Inc. 'atermelons (al!ed at J,5K.KK and fres man$oes (al!ed at J1,273.6. Tesi#ment 'as "o!nd for on$ Pon$ 'it a&istan Ban& as consi$nee and +reat ros#ect Com#an% of Po'loon,


12/24

on$ Pon$ as notif% #art%. etitioners de#ositor% "an&, Consolidated Ban&in$ Cor#oration *LIDBANP- #aid#etitioner in ad(ance te total (al!e of te si#ment of J2K,223.6.

J#on arri(al in on$ Pon$, te si#ment 'as deli(ered "% res#ondent ALLE8 directl% to +C, not toa&istan Ban&, and 'ito!t te re9!ired "ill of ladin$ a(in$ "een s!rrendered. !"se9!entl%, +C failed to #a%a&istan Ban& s!c tat te latter, still in #ossession of te ori$inal "ills of ladin$, ref!sed to #a% #etitioner tro!$LIDBANP. ince LIDBANP alread% #re;#aid #etitioner te (al!e of te si#ment, it demanded #a%ment from

res#ondent ALLE8 "!t 'as ref!sed. etitioner ret!rned te amo!nt in(ol(ed to LIDBANP, and ten demanded#a%ment from res#ondent ALLE8 in 'ritin$ "!t to no a(ail.

ence #etitioner so!$t collection of te (al!e of te si#ment if J2K,223.6 from res#ondents "efore teRTC of 8anila, "ases on deli(er% of te si#ment to +C 'ito!t #resentation of te "ills of ladin$ and "an&$!arantee.

Issue! eter or not res#ondents are lia"le to #etitioner for releasin$ te $oods to +C 'ito!t te "ills of ladin$or "an& $!aranteeS

Held! Jnder Art. 1736 of te Ci(il Code, te e)traordinar% res#onsi"ilit% of te common carrier lasts !ntil act!al orconstr!cti(e deli(er% of te car$oes to te consi$nee or to te #erson 'o as a ri$t to recei(e tem. APITANBANP 'as indicated in te "ills of ladin$ as consi$nee 'ereas +C 'as notif%in$ #art%. o'e(er, in te e)#ort

in(oices +C 'as clearl% named as "!%er?im#orter. etitioner also referred to +C as s!c in is demand letter tores#ondent ALLE8 and in is com#laint "efore te trial co!rt. Tis #remise dra's !s to concl!de tat te deli(er%of te car$oes to +C as "!%er?im#orter 'ic, conforma"l% 'it Art. 1736 ad, oter tan te consi$nee, te ri$tto recei(e tem 'as #ro#er.

Te real iss!e is 'eter res#ondents are lia"le to #etitioner for releasin$ te $oods to +C 'ito!t te "illsof ladin$ or "an& $!arantee.

rom te testimon% of #etitioner, 'e $ater tat e as "een transactin$ 'it +C as "!%er?im#orter foraro!nd 2 to 3 %ears alread%. en man$oes and 'atermelons are in season, is si#ment to +C !sin$ te facilitiesof res#ondents is t'ice or trice a 'ee&. Te $oods are released to +C. It as "een te #ractice of #etitioner tore9!est te si##in$ lines to immediatel% release #erisa"le car$oes s!c as 'atermelons and fres man$oestro!$ tele#one calls "% imself or is /#eo#le.0 In transactions co(ered "% a letter of credit, "an& $!arantee isnormall% re9!ired "% te si##in$ lines #rior to releasin$ te $oods. B!t for "!%ers !sin$ tele$ra#ic transfers,

#etitioner dis#enses 'it te "an& $!arantee "eca!se te $oods are alread% f!ll% #aid. In is se(eral %ears of"!siness relationsi# 'it +C and res#ondents, tere 'as not a sin$le instance 'en te "ill of ladin$ 'as first#resented "efore te release of te car$oes.

Sa+ar >inin9 Co+pan4$ In. vs. Nordeutsher Llo4d

Te (alidit% of sti#!lations in "ills of ladin$ e)em#tin$ te carrier from lia"ilit% for loss or dama$e to te$oods 'en te same are not in its act!al c!stod% as "een !#eld. Tere is no do!"t tat Art. 1734 finds noa##lica"ilit% to te instant case. Te said article contem#lates a sit!ation 'ere te $oods ad alread% reaced teir#lace of destination and are stored in te 'areo!se of te carrier. Te s!"ect $oods 'ere still a'aitin$transsi#ment to teir #ort of destination, and 'ere stored in te 'areo!se of a tird #art% 'en last seen and?or

eard of.Article 1736 is a##lica"le to te instant s!it. Jnder said article, te carrier ma% "e relie(ed of te

res#onsi"ilit% for loss or dama$e to te $oods !#on act!al or constr!cti(e deli(er% of te same "% te carrier to teconsi$nee, or to te #erson 'o as a ri$t to recei(e tem. In sales, act!al deli(er% as "een defined as te cedin$of cor#oreal #ossession "% te seller, and te act!al a##reension of cor#oreal #ossession "% te "!%er or "% some#erson a!toried "% im to recei(e te $oods as is re#resentati(e for te #!r#ose of c!stod% or dis#osal. B% tesame to&en, tere is act!al deli(er% in contracts for te trans#ort of $oods 'en #ossession as "een t!rned o(er tote consi$nee or to is d!l% a!toried a$ent and a reasona"le time is $i(en im to remo(e te $oods. Te co!rt a9!o fo!nd tat tere 'as act!al deli(er% to te consi$nee tro!$ its d!l% a!toried a$ent, te carrier.


13/24

SA>AR >ININ# CO>PAN8$ INC. vs. NORDEUTSCHER LLO8D

Fats! Te case arose from an im#ortation made "% #laintiff, A8AR of one crate #tima 'elded 'ed$e 'ire sie(estro!$ te 8? CABENTEIN a (essel o'ned "% defendant NRDEJTCER LLGD, *re#resented in te

ili##ines "% its a$ent, C.. AR M C., INC.-, 'ic si#ment is co(ered "% Bill of Ladin$ No. 14 d!l% iss!ed toconsi$nee A8AR 8ININ+ C8ANG, INC.

J#on arri(al of te aforesaid (essel at te #ort of 8anila, te im#ortation 'as !nloaded and deli(ered in$ood order and condition to te "onded 'areo!se of A8CGL. Te $oods 'ere o'e(er ne(er deli(ered to, norrecei(ed "%, te consi$nee at te #ort of destinationDa(ao.

Bill of ladin$, No. 14 sets fort in te #a$e 2 tereof tat te $oods 'ere recei(ed "% NRDEJTCERLLGD at te /#ort of loadin$ at Bremen, +erman%, 'ile te frei$t ad "een #re#aid !# to te #ort of destination orte /#ort of discar$e of $oods0Da(ao. Te carrier !ndertoo& to trans#ort te $oods in its (essel, 8?ABENTEIN, onl% !# to te /#ort of discar$e from si#08anila. Tereafter, te $oods 'ere to "e transi##ed"% te carrier to te #ort of destination or /#ort of discar$e of $oods0.

ection 1, #ara$ra# 3 of Bill of Ladin$ No. 14, states:/Te carrier sall not "e lia"le in an% ca#acit% 'atsoe(er for an% dela%, loss or dama$e occ!rrin$ "efore

te $oods enter si#s tac&le to "e loaded or after te $oods lea(e si#s tac&le to "e discar$ed, transi##ed orfor'arded. )))0

Te trial co!rt rendered !d$ment in fa(or of #laintiff, ence te a##eal.

Issue! eter or not te (ario!s cla!ses and sti#!lations in te Bill of ladin$ is (alid.

Held! Ges. Te (alidit% of sti#!lations in "ills of ladin$ e)em#tin$ te carrier from lia"ilit% for loss or dama$e to te$oods 'en te same are not in its act!al c!stod% as "een !#eld in ENIO AJRANCE C., LTD. (s.JNITED TATE LINE, 22 CRA 67 *1564-.

Te sti#!lations in te "ill of ladin$ in te ENIO case 'ic are s!"stantiall% te same as te s!"ectsti#!lations #ro(ides:

/Te carrier sall not "e lia"le in an% ca#acit% 'atsoe(er for an% loss or dama$e to te $oods 'ile te $oods arenot in its act!al c!stod%.0 *ar. 2, last s!"#ar.-

/Te carrier or master, in ma&in$ arran$ements 'it an% #erson for or in connection 'it all transsi##in$ orfor'ardin$ of te $oods or te !se of an% means of trans#ortation or for'ardin$ of $oods not !sed or o#erated "% tecarrier, sall "e considered solel% te a$ent of te si##er and consi$nee and 'ito!t an% oter res#onsi"ilit%'atsoe(er or for te cost tereof.0 *ar. 16-

indin$ te a"o(e sti#!lations not contrar% to la', morals, $ood c!stoms, #!"lic order or #!"lic #olic% teir (alidit%'as s!stained.

A caref!l #er!sal of te #ro(isions of te Ne' Ci(il Code on common carriers 'as loo&ed into "% te Co!rt

#artic!larl%, Article 1736 and 1734.Tere is no do!"t tat Art. 1734 finds no a##lica"ilit% to te instant case. Te said article contem#lates a

sit!ation 'ere te $oods ad alread% reaced teir #lace of destination and are stored in te 'areo!se of tecarrier. Te s!"ect $oods 'ere still a'aitin$ transsi#ment to teir #ort of destination, and 'ere stored in te'areo!se of a tird #art% 'en last seen and?or eard of.

Article 1736 is a##lica"le to te instant s!it. Jnder said article, te carrier ma% "e relie(ed of teres#onsi"ilit% for loss or dama$e to te $oods !#on act!al or constr!cti(e deli(er% of te same "% te carrier to teconsi$nee, or to te #erson 'o as a ri$t to recei(e tem. In sales, act!al deli(er% as "een defined as te cedin$of cor#oreal #ossession "% te seller, and te act!al a##reension of cor#oreal #ossession "% te "!%er or "% some


14/24

#erson a!toried "% im to recei(e te $oods as is re#resentati(e for te #!r#ose of c!stod% or dis#osal. B% tesame to&en, tere is act!al deli(er% in contracts for te trans#ort of $oods 'en #ossession as "een t!rned o(er tote consi$nee or to is d!l% a!toried a$ent and a reasona"le time is $i(en im to remo(e te $oods. Te co!rt a9!o fo!nd tat tere 'as act!al deli(er% to te consi$nee tro!$ its d!l% a!toried a$ent, te carrier.

T'o !nderta&in$s a##eared em"odied and?or #ro(ided for in te Bill of Ladin$ in 9!estion. Te first is RTE TRANRT +D from Bremen, +erman% to 8anila. Te second, TE TRANI8ENT TE

A8E +D from 8anila to Da(ao, 'it a##ellant actin$ as a$ent of te consi$nee. At te iat!s "et'een teset'o !nderta&in$s of a##ellant 'ic is te moment 'en te s!"ect $oods are discar$ed in 8anila, its #ersonalit%can$es from tat of carrier to tat of a$ent of te consi$nee. T!s, te caracter of a##ellant=s #ossession alsocan$es, from #ossession in its o'n name as carrier, into #ossession in te name of consi$nee as te latter=s a$ent.!c "ein$ te case, tere 'as, in effect, act!al deli(er% of te $oods from a##ellant as carrier to te same a##ellantas a$ent of te consi$nee. J#on s!c deli(er%, te a##ellant, as erst'ile carrier, ceases to "e res#onsi"le for an%loss or dama$e tat ma% "efall te $oods from tat #oint on'ards. Tis is te f!ll im#ort of Article 1736, as a##lied tote case.

Te actions of a##ellant carrier and of its re#resentati(e in te ili##ines "ein$ in f!ll fait 'it te la'f!lsti#!lations of Bill of Ladin$ No. 14 and in conformit% 'it te #ro(isions of te Ne' Ci(il Code on common carriers,a$enc% and contracts, te% inc!r no lia"ilit% for te loss of te $oods in 9!estion.

A##ealed decision is RE@ERED. laintiff;a##ellee=s com#laint is DI8IED.

ARTICLE 1734

Servando vs. Phil. Stea+

Te co!rt a 9!o eld tat te deli(er% of te si#ment in 9!estion to te 'areo!se of te B!rea! of C!stoms is notte deli(er% contem#lated "% Article 1736F and since te "!rnin$ of te 'areo!se occ!rred "efore act!al orconstr!cti(e deli(er% of te $oods to te a##ellees, te loss is car$ea"le a$ainst te a##ellant.

It so!ld "e #ointed o!t, o'e(er, tat in te "ills of ladin$ iss!ed for te car$oes in 9!estion, te #artiesa$reed to limit te res#onsi"ilit% of te carrier for te loss or dama$e tat ma% "e ca!sed to te si#ment terein tefollo'in$ sti#!lation:

Cla!se 1. Carrier sall not "e res#onsi"le for loss or dama$e to si#ments "illed =o'ner=s ris&= !nless s!c loss ordama$e is d!e to ne$li$ence of carrier. Nor sall carrier "e res#onsi"le for loss or dama$e ca!sed "% force mae!re,dan$ers or accidents of te sea or oter 'atersF 'arF #!"lic enemiesF . . . fire . ...

e s!stain te (alidit% of te a"o(e sti#!lationF tere is notin$ terein tat is contrar% to la', morals or#!"lic #olic%.

A##ellees 'o!ld contend tat te a"o(e sti#!lation does not "ind tem "eca!se it 'as #rinted in fine letterson te "ac&;of te "ills of ladin$F and tat te% did not si$n te same. Tis ar$!ment o(erloo&s te #rono!ncement oftis Co!rt in n$ Gi! (s. Co!rt of A##eals, 'ere te same iss!e 'as resol(ed in tis 'ise:

)*hile it may be true that petitioner ha! not signe! the plane tic#et, he is nevertheless boun! by the

provisions thereof+ -uch provisions have been hel! to be a part of the contract of carriage, an! vali! an! bin!ingupon the passenger regar!less of the latters lac# of #nowle!ge or assent to the regulation+ It is what is #nown as acontract of a!hesion, in regar!s which it has been sai! that contracts of a!hesion wherein one party imposes area!y.ma!e form of contract on the other, as the plane tic#et in the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibite!+/he one who a!heres to the contract is in reality free to reect it entirely; if he a!heres, he gives his consent+1

SER"ANDO vs. PHILIPPINE STEA> NA"I#ATION CO.


15/24

Fats! Clara JG Bico and Am#aro er(ando loaded on "oard te ili##ine team Na(i$ation (essel, ;176, forcarria$e from 8anila to !l!#!ndan, Ne$ros ccidental, car$oes of rice and colored #a#er as e(idenced "% tecorres#ondin$ "ills of ladin$ iss!ed "% te carrier.

J#on arri(al of te (essel at !l!#andan in te mornin$ of No(em"er 14, 1563, te car$oes 'erediscar$ed, com#lete and in $ood order, !nto te 'areo!se of te B!rea! of C!stoms. A"o!t 2:KK #.m. of te sameda%, said 'areo!se 'as raed "% a fire of !n&no'n ori$in, destro%in$ er(andos car$oes.

Issue! eter or not te sti#!lations in te "ill of ladin$ limitin$ te lia"ilit% of carrier is (alid.

Held! Te co!rt a 9!o eld tat te deli(er% of te si#ment on 9!estion to te 'areo!se of te B!rea! ofC!stoms is not te deli(er% contem#lated "% Article 1736F and since te "!rnin$ of te 'areo!se occ!rred "eforeact!al or constr!cti(e deli(er% of te $oods to te a##ellees, te loss is car$ea"le a$ainst te a##ellant.

o'e(er, tat in te "ills of ladin$ iss!ed for te car$oes in 9!estion, #arties a$reed to limit teres#onsi"ilit% of te carrier for te loss or dama$e tat ma% "e ca!sed to te si#ment "% insertin$ terein tefollo'in$ sti#!lation.

/Cla!se 1. Carrier sall not "e res#onsi"le for loss or dama$e to si#ments "illed /o'ners ris&0 !nlesss!c dama$e is d!e to ne$li$ence of carrier. Nor sall carrier "e res#onsi"le for loss or dama$e ca!se "% forcemae!re, dan$ers or accidents of te sea or oter 'atersF 'arF #!"lic enemies, ))) fire ))).0

e s!stain te (alidit% of te a"o(e sti#!lationF tere is notin$ terein tat is contrar% to la', morals or#!"lic #olic%. A##ellees 'o!ld contend tat te a"o(e sti#!lation does not "ind tem "eca!se it 'as #rinted in fineletters on te "ac& of te "ills of ladin$F and tat te% did not si$n te same. Tis ar$!ment o(erloo&s te#rono!ncement of tis Co!rt in n$ Gi! (s. Co!rt of A##eals.

/ile it ma% "e tr!e tat #etitioner ad not si$ned te #lane tic&et, e is ne(erteless "o!nd "% te#ro(isions tereof. !c #ro(isions a(e "een eld to "e #art of te contract of carria$e and (alid and "indin$ !#onte #assen$er re$ardless of te latters lac& of &no'led$e or assent to te re$!lation.0

Tere is notin$ in te record to so' tat a##ellant carrier in dela% in te #erformance of its o"li$ation nortat 'as te ca!se of te fire tat "ro&e o!t in te C!stoms 'areo!se in an%'a% attri"!ta"le to te ne$li$ence ofte a##ellant or its em#lo%ees.

ARTICLE 17K>aers Line vs. CA

ile it is tr!e tat common carriers are not o"li$ated "% la' to carr% and to deli(er mercandise, and#ersons are not (ested 'it te ri$t to #rom#t deli(er%, !nless s!c common carriers #re(io!sl% ass!me teo"li$ation to deli(er at a $i(en date or time, deli(er% of si#ment or car$o so!ld at least "e made 'itin areasona"le time.

ile tere 'as no s#ecial contract entered into "% te #arties indicatin$ te date of arri(al of te s!"ectsi#ment, #etitioner ne(erteless, 'as (er% 'ell a'are of te s#ecific date 'en te $oods 'ere e)#ected to arri(eas indicated in te "ill of ladin$ itself. In tis re$ard, tere arises no need to e)ec!te anoter contract for te #!r#oseas it 'o!ld "e a mere s!#erfl!it%. In te case "efore !s, 'e find tat a dela% in te deli(er% of te $oods s#annin$ a#eriod of t'o monts and se(en da%s falls 'as "e%ond te realm of reasona"leness.

>AERS@ LINE vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Fats! ri(ate res#ondent *consi$nee- ordered from Eli Lill%. Inc. *si##er- 6KK,KKK em#t% $elatin ca#s!les for teman!fact!re of is #armace!tical #rod!cts. Te 8emorand!m of i#ment #ro(ides tat te si##er ad(ised teconsi$nee tat te $oods 'ere alread% si##ed on "oard te (essel of #etitioner for si#ment to te ili##ines (iaa&land, California. Te s#ecified date of arri(al 'as A#ril 3, 1577. or reasons !n&no'n, said car$o of ca#s!les'ere misi##ed and di(erted to Ricmond, @ir$inia, JA and ten trans#orted "ac& to a&land, California. Te


16/24

$oods finall% arri(ed in te ili##ines on !ne 1K, 1577 or after t'o monts from te date s#ecified. Te consi$neeref!sed to ta&e deli(er% of te $oods. ri(ate res#ondent alle$in$ $ross ne$li$ence and !nd!e dela% in te deli(er% ofte $oods, filed an action for rescission of contract 'it dama$es a$ainst #etitioner and si##er. etitioner alle$edtat te $oods 'ere trans#orted in accordance 'it te "ill of ladin$*..0te Carrier does not !nderta&e tat te $oodssall arri(e at te #ort of discar$e or te #lace of deli(er% at an% #artic!lar time..0- and tat its lia"ilit% !nder te la'attaces onl% in case of loss, destr!ction or deterioration of te $oods as #ro(ided for in Article 173 NCC. Te

si##er alle$ed tat te mis;si#ment 'as d!e solel% to te $ross ne$li$ence of #etitioner. Te RTC dismissed tecom#laint a$ainst te si##er and r!led in fa(or of te consi$nee. RTC r!led tat te sti#!lation in te BL is in tenat!re of contract of adesion and terefore (oid. CA affirmed said decision, ence te #resent #etition.

Issue! eter or not res#ondent is entitled to dama$es res!ltin$ from dela% in te deli(er% of te si#ment in tea"sence in te "ill of ladin$ of a sti#!lation on te #eriod of deli(er%.

Held! Ges. ile it is tr!e tat common carriers are not o"li$ated "% la' to carr% and to deli(er mercandise, and#ersons are not (ested 'it te ri$t to #rom#t deli(er%, !nless s!c common carriers #re(io!sl% ass!me teo"li$ation to deli(er at a $i(en date or time, deli(er% of si#ment or car$o so!ld at least "e made 'itin areasona"le time. An e)amination of te s!"ect "ill of ladin$ so's tat te s!"ect si#ment 'as estimated to arri(ein 8anila on A#ril 3, 1577. ile tere 'as no s#ecial contract entered into "% te #arties indicatin$ te date of arri(al

of te s!"ect si#ment, #etitioner ne(erteless, 'as (er% 'ell a'are of te s#ecific date 'en te $oods 'eree)#ected to arri(e as indicated in te "ill of ladin$ itself. In tis re$ard, tere arises no need to e)ec!te anotercontract for te #!r#ose as it 'o!ld "e a mere s!#erfl!it%. In te case "efore !s, 'e find tat a dela% in te deli(er% ofte $oods s#annin$ a #eriod of t'o monts and se(en da%s falls 'as "e%ond te realm of reasona"leness.

it res#ect to te r!lin$ tat contracts of adesion are (oid, C said tat it 'as necessaril% so and tat it isa settled r!le tat "ills of ladin$ are contracts not entirel% #roi"ited.

ARTICLE 172SOUTHERN LINES INC. vs. CA and CIT8 OF ILOILO

If te fact of im#ro#er #ac&in$ is &no'n to te carrier or is ser(ants, or a##arent !#on ordinar% o"ser(ation, "!t it

acce#ts te $oods not'itstandin$ s!c condition, it is not relie(ed of lia"ilit% for loss or in!r% res!ltin$ terefrom.

FACTS:; Te Cit% of Iloilo re9!isitioned for rice from te National Rice and Corn Cor#oration *NARIC-.; NARIC si##ed 1,726 sac&s of rice consi$ned to te Cit% of Iloilo on "oard of +eneral ri$t "elon$ too!tern Lines.; Te Cit% of Iloilo recei(ed te si#ment and #aid te amo!nt stated in te "ill of ladin$ *aro!nd # 63P-.; o'e(er, at te "ottom of te "ill of ladin$, it 'as noted tat Cit% of Iloilo recei(ed te mercandise in te samecondition as 'en si##ed, e)ce#t tat it recei(ed onl% 1,64 sac&s.; J#on act!al 'ei$in$, it 'as disco(ered tat te sorta$e 'as e9!al to 1 sac&s of rice.; T!s, te Cit% of Iloilo filed a com#laint a$ainst NARIC and o!tern Lines for te reco(er% of te (al!e of tesorta$e of te si#ment of rice * 6,46.3-.

; Te lo'er co!rt a"sol(ed NARIC "!t sentenced o!tern Lines to #a% te amo!nt.; CA affirmed.; ence, tis #etition for re(ie'.; o!tern Lines claims e)em#tion from lia"ilit% "% contendin$ tat te sorta$e in te si#ment of rice 'as d!e tos!c factors as srin&a$e, lea&a$e or s#illa$e of te rice on acco!nt of te "ad condition of te sac&s at te time itrecei(ed te same and ne$li$ence of te a$ents of Cit% of Iloilo in recei(in$ te si#ment.

ISSUES:; eter o!tern Lines is lia"le for te loss or sorta$e of te rice si##ed. *GE-


17/24

; eter te Cit% of Iloilo is #recl!ded from filin$ an action for dama$es on acco!nt of its fail!re to #resent a claim'itin 2 o!rs from recei#t of te si#ment as stated in te "ill of ladin$. *N-

HELD:; GE. Te C eld tat te contention of o!tern Lines 'it res#ect to te im#ro#er #ac&in$ is !ntena"le. JnderArt. 361 of te Code of Commerce, te carrier, in order to free itself from lia"ilit%, 'as onl% o"li$ed to #ro(e tat te

dama$es s!ffered "% te $oods 'ere /"% (irt!e of te nat!re or defect of te articles.0 Jnder Art. 362, te #laintiff, inorder to old te defendant lia"le, 'as o"li$ed to #ro(e tat te dama$es to te $oods is "% (irt!e of teir nat!re,occ!rred on acco!nt of its ne$li$ence or "eca!se te defendant did not ta&e te #reca!tion ado#ted "% caref!l#ersons.It eld tat if te fact of im#ro#er #ac&in$ is &no'n to te carrier or is ser(ants, or a##arent !#on ordinar%o"ser(ation, "!t it acce#ts te $oods not'itstandin$ s!c condition, it is not relie(ed of lia"ilit% for loss or in!r%res!ltin$ terefrom.

; N. Te C noted tat o!tern Lines failed to #lead tis defense in its ans'er to Cit% of Iloilos com#laint and,terefore, te same is deemed 'ai(ed and cannot "e raised for te first time. Te C also cited te findin$ of te CAtat Cit% of Iloilo filed te action 'itin a reasona"le timeF tat te action is one for te ref!nd of te amo!nt #aid ine)cess, and not for dama$es or te reco(er% of sorta$eF te "ill of ladin$ does not at all limit te time for te filin$ ofaction for te ref!nd of mone% #aid in e)cess.

CAL"O vs. UCP: #ENERAL INSURANCE#.R. No. &;0;-< >arh &-$ '**'

Fats: etitioner @ir$ines Cal(o, o'ner of Transorient Container Terminal er(ices, Inc. *TCTI-, and a c!stom"ro&er, entered into a contract 'it an 8i$!el Cor#oration *8C- for te transfer of 11 reels of semi;cemicalfl!tin$ #a#er and 12 reels of &raft liner "oard from te #ort area to te Ta"acalera Com#o!nd, Ermita, 8anila. Tecar$o 'as ins!red "% res#ondent JCB +eneral Ins!rance Co., Inc.

n !l% 1, 155K, contained in 3K metal (ans, arri(ed in 8anila on "oard /8?@ a%a&a'a 8ar!0. After 2 o!rs, te%'ere !nloaded from (essel to te c!stod% of te arrastre o#erator, 8anila ort er(ices, Inc. rom !l% 23 to 2,

155K, #etitioner, #!rs!ant to er contract 'it 8C, 'itdre' te car$o from te arrastre o#erator and deli(ered it to8Cs 'areo!se in 8anila. n !l% 2, te $oods 'ere ins#ected "% 8arine Car$o !r(e%ors, re#orted tat 1reels of te semi;cemical fl!tin$ #a#er 'ere /'et?stained?torn0 and 3 reels of &raft liner "oard 'ere also torn. Tedama$es cost 53,112.KK.

8C collected te said amo!nt from res#ondent JCB !nder its ins!rance contract. Res#ondent on te oter and,as a s!"ro$ee of 8C, "ro!$t a s!it a$ainst #etitioner in RTC, 8a&ati Cit%. n Decem"er 2K, 155, te RTCrendered !d$ment findin$ #etitioner lia"le for te dama$e to te si#ment. Te decision 'as affirmed "% te CA.

Issue: eter or not Cal(o is a common carrierS

Held: In tis case te contention tat te #etitioner is not a common carrier "!t a #ri(ate carrier, as no merit.

Article 1732 ma&es no distinction "et'een one 'ose #rinci#al "!siness acti(it% is te carr%in$ of #ersons or $oodsor "ot, and one 'o does s!c carr%in$ onl% as ancillar% acti(it%. Article 1732 also caref!ll% a(oids ma&in$ an%distinction "et'een a #erson or enter#rise offerin$ trans#ortation ser(ice on a re$!lar or sced!led "asis and oneofferin$ s!c ser(ice on an occasional, e#isodic or !nsced!led "asis. Neiter does Article 1732 distin$!is "et'eena carrier offerin$ its ser(ices to te


18/24

Te conce#t of /common carrier0 !nder Article 1732 coincide 'it te notion of /#!"lic ser(ice0, !nder te !"licer(ice Act 'ic #artiall% s!##lements te la' on common carrier. Jnder ection 13, #ara$ra# *"- of te !"licer(ice Act, it incl!des:

/ ) ) ) e(er% #erson tat no' or ereafter ma% o'n, o#erate, mana$e, or control in te ili##ines, for ire orcom#ensation, 'it $eneral or limited clientele, 'eter #ermanent, occasional or accidental, and done for $eneral

"!siness #!r#oses, an% common carrier, railroad, street rail'a%, traction rail'a%, s!"'a% motor (eicle, eiter forfrei$t or #assen$er, or "ot, 'it or 'ito!t fi)ed ro!te and 'ate(er ma% "e its classification, frei$t or carrierser(ice of an% class, e)#ress ser(ice, steam"oat, or steamsi# line, #ontines, ferries and 'ater craft, en$a$ed in tetrans#ortation of #assen$ers or frei$t or "ot, si#%ard, marine re#air so#, 'arf or doc&, ice #lant, ice;refri$eration#lant, canal, irri$ation s%stem, $as, electric li$t, eat and #o'er, 'ater s!##l% and #o'er #etrole!m, se'era$es%stem, 'ire or 'ireless comm!nications s%stems, 'ire or 'ireless "roadcastin$ stations and oter similar #!"licser(ices. ) ) )0

ARTICLE 173#an1on vs. CA

etitioner +anon failed to so' tat te loss of te scra# iron d!e to an% ca!se en!merated in Art. 173.Te order of te actin$ 8a%or did not constit!te (alid a!torit% for #etitioner to carr% o!t. In an% case, te inter(entionof te m!nici#al officials 'as not of a caracter tat 'o!ld render im#ossi"le te f!lfillment "% te carrier of itso"li$ation. Te #etitioner 'as not d!l% "o!nd to o"e% te ille$al order to d!m# into te sea te scra# of iron.8oreo(er, tere is a"sence of s!fficient #roof tat te iss!ance of te same order 'as attended 'it s!c force orintimidation as to com#letel% o(er#o'er te 'ill of te #etitioners em#lo%ees.

B% te deli(er% made d!rin$ Dec. 1, 156, te scra#s 'ere !nconditionall% #laced in te #ossession andcontrol of te common carrier, and !#on teir recei#t "% te carrier of trans#ortation, te contract of carria$e 'asdeemed #erfected. Conse9!entl%, +anons e)traordinar% res#onsi"ilit% for te loss, destr!ction or deterioration ofte $oods commenced. Accordin$ to Art 1734, s!c e)traordinar% res#onsi"ilit% 'o!ld cease onl% !#on te deli(er%"% te carrier to te consi$nee or #ersons 'it ri$t to recei(e tem. Te fact tat #art of te si#ment ad not "eenloaded on "oard did not im#air te contract of trans#ortation as te $oods remained in te c!stod% M control of te

carrier.

#AN6ON vs. CA

Fats! In 156, #ri(ate res#ondent T!mam"in$ contracted te ser(ices of #etitioner +anon to a!l 3K tons ofscra# iron from 8ari(eles, Bataan on "oard te latters li$ter. !rs!ant to teir a$reement, #ri(ate res#ondentdeli(ered te scra# iron to te ca#tain for loadin$.

en alf of te scra# iron 'as loaded, 8a%or Ad(inc!la demanded ,KKK.KK from #ri(ate res#ondents,'ic te latter ref!sed to $i(e, #rom#tin$ te 8a%or to dra' is $!n and soot at im. Te $!nsot 'as not fatal "!te ad to "e ta&en to a os#ital.

Tereafter, te loadin$ of te scra# iron 'as res!med. Te Actin$ 8a%or, accom#anied "% tree #olicemen,

ordered te ca#tain and is cre' to d!m# te scra# iron, 'it te rest "ro!$t to Nassco Com#o!nd. A recei#t 'asiss!ed statin$ tat te 8!nici#alit% of 8ari(eles ad ta&en c!stod% of te scra# iron.

Issue! eter or not #etitioner is $!ilt% of "reac of contract of trans#ortation and in im#osin$ a lia"ilit% a$ainst imcommencin$ from te time te scra# iron 'as #laced in is c!stod% and control a(e no "asis in fact and in la'.

Held! Ges, #etitioner is $!ilt% of "reac of te contract of trans#ortation.B% te said act of deli(er%, te scra#s 'ere!nconditionall% #laced in te #ossession and control of te common carrier, and !#on teir recei#t "% te carrier fortrans#ortation, te contract of carria$e 'as deemed #erfected. Conse9!entl%, te #etitioner; carriers e)traordinar%


19/24

res#onsi"ilit% for te loss, destr!ction or deterioration of te $oods commenced. !rs!ant to Article 1736, s!ce)traordinar% res#onsi"ilit% 'o!ld cease onl% !#on te deli(er%, act!al or constr!cti(e, "% te carrier to teconsi$nee, or to te #erson 'o as a ri$t to recei(e tem. Te fact tat #art of te si#ment ad not "een eadedte li$ter did not im#air te said contract of trans#ortation as te $oods remained in te c!stod% and control of tecarrier, al"eit still !nloaded.

Te Co!rt r!led tat te #etition is DENIED.

ARTICLE 17

DE #U6>AN vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Fats! Res#ondent Ernesto CendaUa is a !n& dealer 'o 'as en$a$ed in "!%in$ !# !sed "ottles and scra# metal inan$asinan. J#on $aterin$ s!fficient 9!antities of s!c scra# material, res#ondent 'o!ld "rin$ s!c material to8anila for resale. e !tilied t'o si);'eeler tr!c&s 'ic e o'ned for a!lin$ te material to 8anila. n te ret!rntri# to an$asinan, res#ondent 'o!ld load is (eicles 'it car$o 'ic (ario!s mercants 'anted deli(ered todifferent esta"lisments in an$asinan. or tat ser(ice, res#ondent car$ed frei$t rates 'ic 'ere commonl%lo'er tan re$!lar commercial rates.

etitioner edro de +!man a mercant and a!toried dealer of +eneral 8il& Com#an% *ili##ines-, Inc.in Jrdaneta, an$asinan, contracted 'it res#ondent for te a!lin$ of 7K cartons of Li"ert% filled mil& from its'areo!se in 8a&ati to #etitioner=s esta"lisment in Jrdaneta. 1K cartons 'ere loaded on a tr!c& dri(en "%res#ondent, 'ile 6KK cartons 'ere #laced on "oard te oter tr!c& 'ic 'as dri(en "% 8an!el Estrada,res#ondent=s dri(er and em#lo%ee. nl% 1K "o)es of Li"ert% filled mil& 'ere deli(ered to #etitioner. Te oter 6KK"o)es ne(er reaced #etitioner, since te tr!c& 'ic carried tese "o)es 'as iac&ed some'ere alon$ te8acArt!r i$'a% in ani9!i, Tarlac, "% armed men 'o too& 'it tem te tr!c&, its dri(er, is el#er and tecar$o.

etitioner commenced action a$ainst #ri(ate res#ondent demandin$ #a%ment of 22,1K.KK, te claimed(al!e of te lost mercandise, #l!s dama$es and attorne%=s fees. etitioner ar$!ed tat #ri(ate res#ondent, "ein$ acommon carrier, and a(in$ failed to e)ercise te e)traordinar% dili$ence re9!ired of im "% te la', so!ld "e eldlia"le for te (al!e of te !ndeli(ered $oods. ri(ate res#ondent denied tat e 'as a common carrier and ar$!ed

tat e co!ld not "e eld res#onsi"le for te (al!e of te lost $oods, s!c loss a(in$ "een d!e to force mae!re.Te RTC r!led tat #ri(ate res#ondent 'as a common carrier. CA re(ersed te decision and eld tat

res#ondent ad "een en$a$ed in trans#ortin$ ret!rn loads of frei$t


20/24

e as not sec!red te necessar% certificate of #!"lic con(enience, 'o!ld "e offensi(e to so!nd #!"lic #olic%F tat'o!ld "e to re'ard #ri(ate res#ondent #recisel% for failin$ to com#l% 'it a##lica"le stat!tor% re9!irements.

2. No. Article 173 esta"lises te $eneral r!le tat common carriers are res#onsi"le for te loss, destr!ction ordeterioration of te $oods 'ic te% carr%,

Te iac&in$ of te carrier=s tr!c& does not fall 'itin an% of te fi(e cate$ories of e)em#tin$ ca!ses listed in Article173. It 'o!ld follo', terefore, tat te iac&in$ of te carrier=s (eicle m!st "e dealt 'it !nder te #ro(isions of

Article 173, in oter 'ords, tat te #ri(ate res#ondent as common carrier is #res!med to a(e "een at fa!lt or toa(e acted ne$li$entl%. Tis #res!m#tion, o'e(er, ma% "e o(ertro'n "% #roof of e)traordinar% dili$ence on te #artof #ri(ate res#ondent. etitioner ar$!es tat in te circ!mstances of tis case, #ri(ate res#ondent so!ld a(e ireda sec!rit% $!ard #res!ma"l% to ride 'it te tr!c& carr%in$ te 6KK cartons of Li"ert% filled mil&. e do not "elie(e,o'e(er, tat in te instant case, te standard of e)traordinar% dili$ence re9!ired #ri(ate res#ondent to retain asec!rit% $!ard to ride 'it te tr!c& and to en$a$e "ri$ands in a fireli$t at te ris& of is o'n life and te li(es of tedri(er and is el#er.

Article 17 #ro(ides in rele(ant #art:An% of te follo'in$ or similar sti#!lations sall "e considered !nreasona"le, !n!st and contrar% to #!"lic #olic%:

*6- tat te common carrier=s lia"ilit% for acts committed "% tie(es, or of ro""ers 'o do not act 'it $ra(eor irresisti"le treat, (iolence or force, is dis#ensed 'it or diminised.

In te instant case, armed men eld !# te second tr!c& o'ned "% #ri(ate res#ondent 'ic carried#etitioner=s car$o. Acc!sed acted 'it $ra(e, if not irresisti"le, treat, (iolence or force. In tese circ!mstances, 'eold tat te occ!rrence of te loss m!st reasona"l% "e re$arded as 9!ite "e%ond te control of te common carrierand #ro#erl% re$arded as a fort!ito!s e(ent. It is necessar% to recall tat e(en common carriers are not madea"sol!te ins!rers a$ainst all ris&s of tra(el and of trans#ort of $oods, and are not eld lia"le for acts or e(ents 'iccannot "e foreseen or are ine(ita"le, #ro(ided tat te% sall a(e com#lied 'it te ri$oro!s standard ofe)traordinar% dili$ence.

:asos v. CA and Cipriano

Fats: Rodolfo Ci#riano, re#resentin$ CITRADE, entered into a a!lin$ contract 'it i"fair i##in$ A$enc%

Cor#oration 'ere"% te former "o!nd itself to a!l te latters 2KKKm?tons of so%a "ean meal from 8anila toCalam"a. CITRADE s!"contracted 'it #etitioner Estrellita Bascos to trans#ort and deli(er te KK sac&s of so%a"eans. etitioner failed to deli(er te car$o, and as a conse9!ence, Ci#riano #aid i"fair te amo!nt of $oods lost inaccordance 'it teir contract. Ci#riano demanded reim"!rsement from #etitioner "!t te latter ref!sed to #a%.Ci#riano filed a com#laint for "reac of contract of carria$e. etitioner denied tat tere 'as no contract of carria$esince CITRADE leased er car$o tr!c&, and tat te iac&in$ 'as a force mae!re. Te trial co!rt r!led a$ainst#etitioner.

Issues:


21/24

*1- as #etitioner a common carrierS

*2- as te iac&in$ referred to a force mae!reS

Held:*1- Article 1732 of te Ci(il Code defines a common carrier as


22/24

does not a##l% in te instant caseF and *3- in allo'in$ #ri(ate res#ondent to f!ll% reco(er te f!ll alle$ed (al!e of itslost car$o.

Issue!eter or not te #etitioner is lia"le for te act!al (al!e and not te ma)im!m (al!e reco(era"le !nder te"ill of ladin$.

Held! No. A sti#!lation in te "ill of ladin$ limitin$ te lia"ilit% of te common carrier for te loss, dama$es of car$o toa certain s!m, !nless te si##er declares or a i$er (al!e is sanctioned "% la', #artic!larl% Articles 175 and 17Kof te Ci(il Code. !rs!ant to te afore;9!oted #ro(isions of la', it is re9!ired tat te sti#!lation limitin$ te commoncarrier=s lia"ilit% for loss m!st "e


23/24

m!st "e so as it arises almost in(aria"l% from some act of man or "% !man means. It does not fall 'itin tecate$or% of an act of +od !nless ca!sed "% li$tnin$ or "% oter nat!ral disaster or calamit%. It ma% e(en "e ca!sed"% te act!al fa!lt or #ri(it% of te carrier.

As te #eril of te fire is not com#reended 'itin te e)ce#tion in Article 173, s!#ra, Article 173 of teCi(il Code #ro(ides tat all cases tan tose mention in Article 173, te common carrier sall "e #res!med to a(e"een at fa!lt or to a(e acted ne$li$entl%, !nless it #ro(es tat it as o"ser(ed te e)traordinar% dili$ence re9!ired "%

la'.And e(en if fire 'ere to "e considered a


24/24

and "% s#ecial la's. T!s, te Carria$e of +oods "% ea Act, a s#ecial la', is s!##letor% to te #ro(isions of te Ci(ilCode.

*2- Jnder te Ci(il Code, common carriers, from te nat!re of teir "!siness and for reasons of #!"lic #olic%,are "o!nd to o"ser(e e)traordinar% dili$ence in te (i$ilance o(er $oods, accordin$ to all te circ!mstances of eaccase. Common carriers are res#onsi"le for te loss, destr!ction, or deterioration of te $oods !nless te same is d!eto an% of te follo'in$ ca!ses onl%:

*1- lood, storm, eart9!a&e, li$tnin$ or oter nat!ral disaster or calamit%F

etitioner Carrier claims tat te loss of te (essel "% fire e)em#ts it from lia"ilit% !nder te #rase

Documents

Summer - Transpo Cases