Transportation LawPinedapcg,rn,man 2015Page32

A. Common Carriage of Goods

1. Liability and pr4esumption of negligence Arts. 1733, 1734, 1735

Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in Articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in Articles 1755 and 1756.SUBSECTION 2. - Vigilance Over Goods

Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;(3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;(5) Order or act of competent public authority.Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.

Ynchausti Steamship Co. v. Dexter, 41 Phil 289

EN BANC[G.R. No. 15652. December 14, 1920.]THE YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP COMPANY, petitioner, vs. I. B. DEXTER, as Auditor of the Philippine Islands, and C. E. UNSON, as Acting Purchasing Agent of the Philippine Islands, respondents.Cohn & Fisher for petitioner.Attorney-General Paredes and Assistant Attorney-General A. Santos for respondents.

SYLLABUS

1.COMMON CARRIER; TRANSPORTATION OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY; NOTATION OF SHORTAGE BY CONSIGNEE. When Government property is transported by common carrier, it is the duty of the consignee, under section 646 of the Administrative Code, to make notation of any loss, shortage, or damage upon the bill of lading, or receipt, before accomplishing it; and where in obedience to this precept a shortage is noted by the consignee upon the bill of lading at the time of delivery, such notation is competent evidence to show that the shortage in fact existed.2.ID.; LOSS OR DAMAGE TO GOODS IN TRANSIT; LIABILITY OF CARRIER. Proof of the delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination short or in bad order, makes out a prima facie case; and it is incumbent on the carrier, in order to exonerate itself, to prove that the loss or injury was due to some circumstance inconsistent with its liability.3.ID.; FREIGHT DUE TO CARRIER; SET-OFF FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE IN TRANSIT. The Purchasing Agent, under the direction of the Insular Auditor, may properly deduct from the freight due to a common carrier for the transportation of Government property any sum for which the carrier is liable to the Government for loss, shortage, or damage occurring in course of the transportation of the same property.4.MANDAMUS; COMMON CARRIER; CLAIM AGAINST GOVERNMENT; BURDEN OF PROOF. A common carrier cannot maintain an action for the writ of mandamus to compel the Purchasing Agent to pay a bill for freight due to the carrier, under the doctrine enunciated in Compaia General de Tabacos vs. French and Unson (39 Phil., 34), without showing that the loss, shortage, or damage suffered by the property while in the hands of the carrier for transportation resulted from some other cause that its own fault or negligence.

D E C I S I O N

STREET, J p:

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed in this court by the Ynchausti Steamship Company to compel the Purchasing Agent of the Philippine Islands and the Insular Auditor to sign, countersign, and deliver to the petitioner a warrant upon the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands for the sum of P82.79 in satisfaction of a claim for that amount, which is alleged to be due the petitioner as a common carrier for freight earned in transporting for the Government two distinct consignments of mineral oil from Manila to two other ports in the Philippine Islands. After the defendants had duly answered, denying all the allegations of the petition except such as relate to the character and places of residence of the parties to the petition (which are admitted) the controversy was submitted for determination by this court upon an agreed statement of facts as follows:"On July 23, 1918, the Government of the Philippine Islands, acting by and through the respondent Insular Purchasing Agent, employed the services of the petitioner, Ynchausti Steamship Co., a common carrier, for the transportation, on board the steamship Venus, from the port of Manila to the port of Aparri, Cagayan, of a consignment of merchandise, consisting of thirty (30) cases of 'White Rose' mineral oil of two five-gallon cans to the case; and on September 18, 1918, the said Government likewise employed the services of petitioner for the transportation on board the steamship Venus, from Manila to Aparri, Cagayan, of ninety-six case of 'Cock' brand mineral oil, ten gallons to the case. The goods were delivered by the shipper to the carrier, which accordingly received them, and to evidence the contract of transportation, the parties duly executed and delivered what is popularly called the Government bill of lading (General Form 9-A), hereto attached, marked Exhibit A and made a part hereof, wherein and whereby it was stipulated that the carrier, the petitioner Ynchausti & Co., received the above-mentioned supplies in apparent good condition, obligating itself to carry said supplies to the place agreed upon, in accordance with the authorized and prescribed rates and classifications, and subject to the law of common carriers in force on the date of the shipment, and to the conditions prescribed by the Insular Collector of Customs in Philippine Marine Regulations at page 16 under the heading of 'Bill of Lading Conditions,' hereto attached, marked Exhibit B and made a part hereof."Upon the delivery of the said shipment of 'Cock' brand oil the consignee claimed that one case was delivered empty, and noted such claim upon the bill of lading; and upon the delivery of the said shipment of 'White Rose,' brand oil the consignee claimed that one case was delivered empty, and noted said claim upon the bill of lading."Thereafter, notwithstanding the protestations of the petitioner, Ynchausti Steamship Co., that said shortages were due to causes entirely unknown to it, and were not due to any fault or negligence on its part, or on the part of its agents or servants, the Acting Insular Purchasing Agent of the Philippine Islands notified the petitioners herein that after due investigation the Insular Auditor found and decided that the leakages of the two whole cases were due to its negligence and that the deduction of the sum of P22.53, the invoice value of the goods lost, and held by the Auditor to be the true value thereof, had been authorized by the said Insular Auditor."Petitioner thereupon protested against the threatened deduction, and demanded that it be paid the full amount due for the transportation of the two said shipments of merchandise, to wit. the sum of P82.79. as shown by its transportation voucher presented in this cause, hereto attached marked Exhibit C and made a part hereof.

"Thereafter, notwithstanding the protest and demand of the petitioner as aforesaid, the Insular Auditor, in conformity with his ruling, declined and still declines to issue to the petitioner a warrant for the full sum of P82.79, and has tendered to it a warrant for the sum of P60.26, which the petitioner has refused to accept.

"The sum of P22.53 authorized to be deducted by the Insular Auditor, as appears herein, has not at any time been liquidated by consent, agreement, or by the judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction."

Upon a perusal of the foregoing agreed statement it will be seen that the present litigation had its origin in a situation practically identical with that considered by this court in Compaia General de Tabacos vs. French and Unson (39 Phil., 34). It will be noted, however, that the case mentioned was decided upon demurrer, while the one now before us is to be heard and determined upon the petition, answer, and the admitted facts.We note that in this case, as in the case of Compaia General de Tabacos vs. French and Unson (supra), the petition alleges that the leakage of the lost gasoline was due to causes unknown to the petitioner and was not due to any fault or negligence of petitioner, its agents, or servants. The respondents, by demurring to the petition in the earlier case, admitted that allegation. In the case now before us that allegation is put in issue, and we find nothing in the admitted statement of facts to support it. It results that if that allegation is material to the relief here sought, the petition must fail.

We are of the opinion that the allegation in question is material and that the relief sought in this case cannot be granted.

In section 646 of the Administrative Code it is provided that when Government property is transmitted from one place to another by carrier, it shall be upon proper bill of lading, or receipt, from such carrier; and it shall be the duty of the consignee, or his representative, to make full notation of any evidence of loss, shortage, or damage, upon the bill of lading, or receipt, before accomplishing it. It is admitted by the petitioner in the agreed statement of facts that the consignee, at the time the oil was delivered, noted the loss in the present case upon the two respective bills of lading. The notation of these losses by the consignee, in obedience to the precept of section 646 of the Administrative Code, is competent evidence to show that the shortage in fact existed. As the petitioner admits that the oil was received by it for carriage and inasmuch as the fact of loss is proved in the manner just stated, it results that there is a presumption that the petitioner was to blame for the loss; and it was incumbent upon the petitioner in order to entitle it to relief in this case to rebut that presumption by proving, as is alleged in the petition, that the loss was not due to any fault or negligence of the petitioner.The mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination in bad order, makes out a prima facie case against the carrier, so that if no explanation is given as to how the injury occurred, the carrier must be held responsible. (4 R. C. L., p. 917.) It is incumbent upon the carrier to prove that the loss was due to accident or some other circumstance inconsistent with its liability. (Articles 361-363, Code of Commerce. ) Indeed, if the Government of the Philippine Islands had instituted an action in a court of law against the petitioner to recover the value of the oil lost while these consignments were in the course of transportation, it would, upon the facts appearing before us, have been entitled to judgment.

From this it is apparent that the mandamus prayed for cannot be granted. It is a rule of universal application that a petition for extraordinary relief of the character here sought must show merit. That is, the petitioner's right to relief must be clear. Such cannot be said to be the case where, as here, a presumption of responsibility on the part of the petitioner stands unrefuted upon the record.

We are of the opinion that, in the absence of proof showing that the carrier was-not at fault in respect to the matter under discussion, the Insular Auditor was entitled to withhold, from the amount admittedly due to the petitioner for the freight charges, a sum sufficient to cover the value of the oil lost in transit.

The petition will be dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.Mapa, C.J., Araullo, Avancea and Villamor, JJ., concur.Malcolm, J., concurs in the result.

Mirasol v. Dollar, 53 Phil 125

SECOND DIVISION[G.R. No. 29721. March 27, 1929.]AMANDO MIRASOL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE ROBERT DOLLAR CO., defendant-appellant.Vicente Hilado for plaintiff-appellant.J. A. Wolfson for defendant-appellant.

SYLLABUS

1.WHEN SHIPPER IS NOT BOUND. Where it appears that a bill of lading was issued to a shipper containing a clause limiting the carrier's liability, printed in fine letters on the back of the bill of lading, which he did not sign and of which he was not advised, in an action for damages, the shipper is not bound by the clause which limits the carrier's liability.2.WHEN BURDEN OF PROOF IS SHIFTED. Shippers who are forced to ship goods on an ocean liner, have some legal rights, and when goods are delivered on board ship in good order and condition, and the shipowner delivers them to the shipper in bad order and condition, in an action for damages, the burden of proof is then shifted, and it devolves upon the shipowner to both allege and prove that the goods were damaged by reason of some act which legally exempts him from liability.3.REASON FOR RULE. As to when and how goods were damaged in transit is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the shipowner and his employees, and to require the plaintiff to prove as to when and how the damage was done would force him to rely upon the employees of the defendant's ship which in legal effect would be to say that he cannot recover damages for any reason.

STATEMENT

After the promulgation of the decision rendered by the Second Division on February 13, 1929, 1 the defendant filed a motion to have the case heard and decided in banc, and inasmuch as the legal questions involved are important to the shipping interests, the court thought it best to do so.After the formal pleas, plaintiff alleges that he is the owner and consignee of two cases of books shipped in good order and condition at New York, U. S. A., on board the defendant's steamship President Garfield, for transport and delivery to the plaintiff in the City of Manila, all freight charges paid. That the two cases arrived in Manila on September 1, 1927, in bad order and damaged condition, resulting in the total loss of one case and a partial loss of the other. That the loss in one case is P1,630, and the other P700, for which he filed his claims, and defendant has refused and neglected to pay, giving as its reason that the damage in question "was caused by sea water." That plaintiff never entered into any contract with the defendant limiting defendant's liability as a common carrier, and when he wrote the letter of September 3, 1927, he had not then ascertained the contents of the damaged case, and could not determine their value. That he never intended to ratify or confirm any agreement to limit the liability of the defendant. That on September 9, 1927, when the other case was found, plaintiff filed a claim for the real damage of the books therein named in the sum of $375.Plaintiff prays for corresponding judgment, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint and costs.For answer the defendant made a general and specific denial, and as a separate and special defense alleges that the steamship President Garfield at all the times alleged was in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped and supplied, and fit for the voyage. That the damage to plaintiff's merchandise, if any, was not caused through the negligence of the vessel, its master, agent, officers, crew, tackle or appurtenances, nor by reason of the vessel being unseaworthy or improperly manned, "but that such damage, if any, resulted from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of said vessel." As a second separate and special defense, defendant alleges that in the bill of lading issued by the defendant to plaintiff, it was agreed in writing that defendant should not be "held liable for any loss of, or damage to, any of said merchandise resulting from any of the following causes, to wit: Acts of God, perils of the sea or other waters," and that plaintiff's damage, if any, was caused by "Acts of God" or "perils of the sea." As a third special defense, defendant quoted clause 13 of the bill of lading, in which it is stated that in no case shall it be held liable "for or in respect to said merchandise or property beyond the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars for any piece package or any article not enclosed in a package, unless a higher value is stated herein and ad valorem freight paid or assessed thereon," and that there was no other agreement. That on September 3, 1927 the plaintiff wrote the defendant a letter as follows:"Therefore, I wish to file claim of damage to the meager maximum value that your bills of lading will indemnify me, that is $250 as per condition 13."As a fourth special defense, defendant alleges that the damage, if any, was caused by "sea water," and that the bill of lading exempts defendant from liability for that cause. That damage by "sea water" is a shipper's risk, and that defendant is not liable.As a result of the trial upon such issues, the lower court rendered judgment for the plaintiff for P2,080, with legal interest thereon from the date of the final judgment, with costs, from which both parties appealed, and the plaintiff assigns the following errors:"I.The lower court erred in holding that plaintiff's damage on account of the loss of the damaged books in the partially damaged case can be compensated with an indemnity of P450 instead of P750 as claimed by plaintiff."II.The lower court, consequently, also erred in giving judgment for plaintiff for only P2,080 instead of P2,380."III.The lower court erred in not sentencing defendant to pay legal interest on the amount of the judgment, at least, from the date of the rendition of said judgment, namely, January 30, 1928."The defendant assigns the following errors:"I.The lower court erred in failing to recognize the validity of the limited liability clause of the bill of lading, Exhibit 2."II.The lower court erred in holding defendant liable in any amount and in failing to hold, after its finding as a fact that the damage was caused by sea water, that the defendant is not liable for such damage by sea water."IIIThe lower court erred in awarding damages in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for P2,080 or in any other amount, and in admitting, over objection, Exhibits G, H, I and J."

D E C I S I O N

JOHNS, J p:

Plaintiff's contention that he is entitled to P700 for his Encyclopedia Britannica is not tenable. The evidence shows that with the P400 which the court allowed, he could buy a new set which would contain all of the material and subject matter of the one which he lost. Plaintiff's third assignment of error is well taken, as under all of the authorities, he is entitled to legal interest from the date of his judgment rendered in the lower court and not the date when it becomes final. The lower court found that plaintiff's damage was P2,080, and that finding is sustained by the evidence. There was a total loss of one case and a partial loss of the other, and in the very nature of things, plaintiff could not prove his loss in any other way or manner than he did prove i, and the trial court who heard him testify must have been convinced of the truth of his testimony.There is no claim or pretense that the plaintiff signed the bill of lading or that he knew of its contents at the time it was issued. In that situation he was not legally bound by the clause which purports to limit defendant's liability. That question was squarely met and decided by this court in banc in Juan Ysmael & Co., vs. Gabino Barretto & Co. (51 Phil., 90; see numerous authorities there cited).Among such authorities is the case of The Kensington decided by the Supreme Court of the United States January 6, 1902 (46 Law. ed., 190), in which the opinion was written by the late Chief Justice White, the syllabus of which is as follows:"1.Restrictions of the liability of a steamship company for its own negligence or failure of duty toward a passenger, being against the public policy enforced by the courts of the United States, will not be upheld, though the ticket was issued and accepted in a foreign country and contained a condition making it subject to the law thereof, which sustain such stipulations."2.A stipulation in a steamship passenger's ticket, which compels him to value his baggage, at a certain sum, far less than it is worth, or, in order to have a higher value put upon it, to subject it to the provisions of the Harter Act, by which the carrier would be exempted from all liability therefor from errors in navigation or management of the vessel or other negligence, is unreasonable and in conflict with public policy."3.An arbitrary limitation of 250 francs for the baggage of any steamship passenger, unaccompanied by any right to increase the amount by adequate and reasonable proportional payment, is void as against public policy."Both the facts upon which it is based and the legal principles involved are square in point in this case.The defendant having received the two boxes in good condition, its legal duty was to deliver them to the plaintiff in the same condition in which it received them. From the time of their delivery to the defendant in New York until they were delivered to the plaintiff in Manila, the boxes were under the control and supervision of the defendant and beyond the control of the plaintiff. The defendant having admitted that the boxes were damaged while in transit and in its possession, the burden of proof then shifted, and it devolved upon the defendant to both allege and prove that the damage was caused by reason of some fact which exempted it from liability. As to how the boxes were damaged, when or where, was a matter peculiarly and exclusively within the knowledge of the defendant, and in the very nature of things could not be in the knowledge of the plaintiff. To require the plaintiff to prove as to when and how the damage was caused would force him to call and rely upon the employees of the defendant's ship, which in legal effect would be to say that he could not recover any damage for any reason. That is not the law.Shippers who are forced to ship goods on an ocean liner or any other ship have some legal rights, and when goods are delivered on board ship in good order and condition, and the shipowner delivers them to the shipper in bad order and condition, it then devolves upon the shipowner to both allege and prove that the goods were damaged by reason of some fact which legally exempts him from liability; otherwise, the shipper would be left without any redress, no matter what may have caused the damage.The lower court in its opinion says:"The defendant has not even attempted to prove that the two cases were wet with sea water by fortuitous event, force majeure or nature and defect of the things themselves. Consequently, it must be presumed that it was by causes entirely distinct and in no manner imputable to the plaintiff, and of which the steamer President Garfield or any of its crew could not have been entirely unaware."And the evidence for the defendant shows that the damage was largely caused by "sea water," from which it contends that it is exempt under the provisions of its bill of lading and the provisions of article 361 of the Code of Commerce, which is as follows:

"Merchandise shall be transported at the risk and venture of the shipper, if the contrary was not expressly stipulated."Therefore, all damages and impairment suffered by the goods during the transportation, by reason of accident, force majeure, or by virtue of the nature or defect of the articles, shall be for the account and risk of the shipper."The proof of these accidents is incumbent on the carrier."In the final analysis, the cases were received by the defendant in New York in good order and condition, and when they arrived in Manila, they were in bad condition, and one was a total loss. The fact that the cases were damaged by "sea water," standing alone and within itself, is not evidence that they were damaged by force majeure or for a cause beyond the defendant's control. The words "perils of the sea," as stated in defendant's brief apply to "all kinds of marine casualties, such as shipwreck, foundering, stranding," and among other things, it is said: "Tempest rocks, shoals, icebergs and other obstacles are within the expression," and "where the peril is the proximate cause of the loss, the shipowner is excused." "Something fortuitous and out of the ordinary course is involved in both words 'peril' or 'accident.'" Defendant also cites and relies on the case of Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Ynchausti & Company (40 Phil., 219), but it appears from a reading of that case that the facts are very different and, hence, it is not in point. In the instant case, there is no claim or pretense that the two cases were not in good order when received on board the ship, and it is admitted that they were in bad order on their arrival at Manila. Hence, they must have been damaged in transit. In the very nature of things, if they were damaged by reason of a tempest, rocks, icebergs, foundering, stranding or the perils of the sea, that would be a matter exclusively within the knowledge of the officers of defendant's ship, and in the very nature of things would not be within plaintiff's knowledge, and upon all of such questions, there is a failure of proof.The judgment of the lower court will be modified, so as to give the plaintiff legal interest on the amount of his judgment from the date of its rendition in the lower court, and in all other respects affirmed, with costs. So ordered.Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

STREET, J., dissenting in part:I gave a hesitating adherence to the decision of this case in division, and upon further reflection, I am now constrained to record my belief that the decision is in part erroneous. I agree with the court that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, but I think that its liability is limited, under clause 13, printed on the back of the bill of lading, to the amount of 250 dollars for each of the two boxes of books comprising this consignment. While the law does not permit a carrier gratuitously to exempt itself from liability for the negligence of its servants, it can effectually do so for a valuable consideration; and where freight rates are adjusted upon the basis of a reasonable limited value per package, where a higher value is not declared by the shipper, the limitation as to the value is binding. This court in two well considered decisions has heretofore upheld a limitation of exactly the character of that indicated in clause 13 (H. E. Heacock Co. vs. Macondray & Co., 42 Phil., 205; Freixas & Co. vs. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 42 Phil., 198); and I am unable to see any sufficient reason for ignoring those decisions.Footnotes 1.Not reported.2. Exception from liability

(a) Natural disasterArts. 1734(1), 1739, 1740; Art. 361Code of Commerce

ARTICLE 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;(5) Order or act of competent public authority.ARTICLE 1739. In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility, the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. However, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before, during and after the occurrence of flood, storm or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be exempted from liability for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The same duty is incumbent upon the common carrier in case of an act of the public enemy referred to in article 1734, No. 2.

ARTICLE 1740. If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the goods, a natural disaster shall not free such carrier from responsibility.

ARTICLE 361. The merchandise shall be transported at the risk and venture of the shipper, if the contrary has not been expressly stipulated. As a consequence, all the losses and deterioration which the goods may suffer during the transportation by reason of fortuitous event, force majeure, or the inherent nature and defect of the goods, shall be for the account and risk of the shipper. Proof of these accidents is incumbent upon the carrier.

Tan Chiong v. Ynchausti, 22 Phil 153

EN BANC[G.R. No. 6092. March 8, 1912.]TAN CHIONG SIAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. INCHAUSTI & CO., defendant-appellant.Haussermann, Cohn & Fisher, for appellant.O'Brien & DeWitt, for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1.COMMON CARRIERS; LOSS OF SHIP AND CARGO; FORCE MAJEURE. Loss of a ship and of its cargo, in a wreck due to accident or force majeure must, as a general rule, fall upon their respective owners, except in cases where the wrecking or stranding of the vessel occurred through malice, carelessness or lack of skill on the part of the captain and in the remaining cases indicated in article 841 of the Code of Commerce.2.ID.; ID.; ID.;-EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY. Under article the Code of Commerce transportation of merchandise is for account, risk and hazard of the shipper, unless the contrary has been expressly stipulated. The carrier is exempt from liability if he prove, as it is incumbent upon him to do, that the loss or destruction of the merchandise was due to accident and force majeure and not to fraud, fault, or negligence on the part of the captain or owners of the ship.

D E C I S I O N

TORRES, J p:

This is an appeal through bill of exceptions, by counsel for the firm of Inchausti & Co., from a judgment rendered by the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge.On January 11, 1909, the Chinaman, Tan Chiong Sian or Tan Chinto, filed a written complaint, which was amended on the 28th of the same month and again amended on October 27 of the same year, against the said firm, wherein he alleged, among other things, as a cause of action: That, on or about November 25, 1908, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant 205 bundles or cases of general merchandise belonging to him, which Inchausti & Co., upon receiving, bound themselves to deliver in the pueblo of Catarman, Province of Samar, to the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, and in consideration of the obligations contracted by the defendant party, the plaintiff obligated himself to pay to the latter the sum of P250 Philippine currency, which payment should be made upon the delivery of the said merchandise in the said pueblo of Catarman; but that the defendant company neither carried nor delivered the aforementioned merchandise to the said Ong Bieng Sip, in Catarman, but unjustly and negligently failed to do so, with the result that the said merchandise was almost totally lost; that, had the defendant party complied well and faithfully with its obligation, according to the agreement made, the merchandise concerned would have had a value of P20,000 in the said pueblo of Catarman on the date when it should have been delivered there, wherefore the defendant party owed the plaintiff the said sum of P20,000, which it had not paid him, or any part thereof, notwithstanding the many demands of the plaintiff; therefore the latter prayed for judgment against the defendant for the said sum, together with legal interest thereon from November 25, 1908, and the costs of the suit.Counsel for the defendant company, in his answer, set forth that he admitted the allegations of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, amended for the second time, and denied those of paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the same. As his first special defense, he alleged that on or about November 28, 1908, his client, the said firm, received in Manila from Ong Bieng Sip 205 bundles, bales, or cases of merchandise to be placed on board the steamer Sorsogon, belonging to the defendant, for shipment to the port of Gubat, Province of Sorsogon, to be in the said port transshipped into another of the defendant's vessels for transportation to the port of Catarman, Samar, and delivered to the aforesaid Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip; that the defendant company, upon receiving the said merchandise from the latter, Ong Bieng Sip, and on its entering into a contract of maritime transportation with him did not know and was not notified that the plaintiff, Tan Chiong Sian, had any interest whatever in the said merchandise and had made with the plaintiff no contract relative to the transportation of such goods, for, on receiving the latter from the said Ong Bieng Sip, for transportation, there were made out and delivered to him three bills of lading, Nos. 38, 39, and 76, which contained a list of the goods received and, printed on the back thereof were the terms of the maritime transportation contract entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendant company, copies of which bills of lading and contract, marked as Exhibits A, B, and C, are of record, attached to and made an integral part of the said answer; that Ong Bieng Sip accepted the said bills of lading and the contract extended on the backs thereof; that the merchandise mentioned was put on board the steamer Sorsogon and carried to the port of Gubat, Province of Sorsogon, where this vessel arrived on November 28, 1908, on which date the lorcha Pilar, into which the said merchandise was to be transshipped for carriage to Catarman, was not at Gubat, and therefore the goods had to be unloaded and stored in the defendant company's warehouses at Gubat; that, on the 4th of December of the same year, the lorcha Pilar arrived at Gubat and, after the termination of certain necessary work, the goods received from the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, were taken aboard the same, together with other merchandise belonging to the defendant party, for the purpose of transportation to the port of Catarman; that, before the said lorcha could leave for its destination, a strong wind arose which in the course of the day increased in force until, early in the morning of the following day, the lorcha was dragged and driven, by the force of the storm, upon the shore, despite the means employed by the crew to avoid the accident, and notwithstanding the five anchors that held the craft, which was thus wrecked and completely destroyed and the merchandise with which it was laden, including the 205 bundles or packages taken aboard for the said Chinaman, was scattered on the shore; that, on that occasion, the lorcha Pilar was in good condition, provided with all the proper and necessary equipment and accessories and carried a crew of sufficient number in command of a skillful patron or master, wherefore the wreck of the said craft was solely due to the irresistible force of the elements and of the storm which drove it upon the shore; that the defendant company, with the greatest possible diligence, gathered up the said shipwrecked goods that had been shipped by the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, but, owing to the damage they had suffered, it was impossible to preserve them, so, after having offered to deliver them to him, the defendant proceeded, in the presence of a notary, to sell them at public auction and realized from the sale thereof P1,693.67, the reasonable value of the same in the condition in which they were after they had been gathered up and salved from the wreck of the lorcha Pilar; that the expenses occasioned by such salvage and sale of the said goods amounted to P151.35, which were paid by the defendant party; that the latter offered to the Chinese shipper, the plaintiff, the amount realized from the sale of the said merchandise, less P151.35, the amount of the expenses, and the sum of P250, the amount of the freight stipulated, and is still willing to pay such products of the said sale to the aforementioned Ong Bieng Sip or to any other person who should establish his subrogation to the rights of the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, with respect to the said amount; that, as his client's second special defense, the defendant company alleged that one of the conditions of the shipping contract executed between it and the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, relative to the transportation of the said merchandise, was that the said firm should not be held liable for more than P25 for any bundle or package, unless the value of its contents should be stated in the bill of lading, and that the shipper, the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, did not state in the bill of lading the value of any of the bundles or packages in which the goods shipped by him were packed. Counsel for the defendant company, therefore, prayed the court to absolve his client from the complaint, with the costs against the plaintiff.After the hearing of the case and the introduction of testimony by the parties, judgment was rendered, on March 18, 1910, in favor of the plaintiff, Tan Chiong Sian or Tan Chinto, against the defendant Inchausti & Co., for the sum of P14,642.63, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from January 11, 1909, and for the costs of the trial. The defendant party appealed from this judgment.This suit was brought for the purpose of collecting a certain sum which it is alleged the defendant firm owes the plaintiff for losses and damages suffered by the latter as a result of the former's noncompliance with the terms of an agreement or contract to transport certain merchandise by sea from this city to the pueblo of Catarman, Island of Samar, for the sum of P250.The principal question to be determined is whether the defendant is liable for the loss of the merchandise and for failure to deliver the same at the place of destination, or whether he is relieved from responsibility on the ground of force majeure.Article 1601 of the Civil Code prescribes:"Carriers of goods by land or by water shall be subject with regard to the keeping and preservation of the things entrusted to them, to the same obligations as determined for innkeepers by articles 1783 and 1784."The provisions of this article shall be understood without prejudice to what is prescribed by the Code of Commerce with regard to transportation by sea and land.Article 1602 reads:"Carriers are also liable for the loss of and damage to the things which they receive, unless they prove that the loss or damage arose from a fortuitous event or force majeure."The articles aforecited are as follows:"ART. 1783.The depositum of goods made by travelers in inns or hostelries shall also be considered a necessary one. The keepers of inns and hostelries are liable for them as such bailees, provided that notice thereof may have been given to them or to their employees, and that the travelers on their part take the precautions which said innkeepers or their substitutes may have advised them concerning the care and vigilance of said goods."ART. 1784.The liability referred to in the preceding article shall include damages to the goods of the travelers caused by servants or employees of the keepers of inns or hostelries as well as by strangers, but not those arising from robbery or which may be caused by any other case of force majeure."Article 361 of the Code of Commerce provides:"Merchandise shall be transported at the risk and venture of the shipper, unless the contrary was expressly stipulated."Therefore, all damages and impairment suffered by the goods in transportation, by reason of accident, force majeure, or by virtue of the nature or defect of the articles, shall be for the account and risk of the shipper."The proof of these accidents is incumbent on the carrier."ART. 362.The carrier, however, shall be liable for the losses and damages arising from the causes mentioned in the foregoing article if it is proved that they occurred on account of his negligence or because he did not take the precautions usually adopted by careful persons, unless the shipper committed fraud in the bill of lading, stating that the goods were of a class or quality different from what they really were."If, notwithstanding the precaution referred to in this article, the goods transported run the risk of being lost on account of the nature or by reason of an unavoidable accident, without there being time for the owners of the same to dispose thereof, the carrier shall proceed to their sale placing them for this purpose at the disposal of the Judicial authority or of the officials determined by special provisions."ART. 363.With the exception of the cases prescribed in the second paragraph of article 361, the carrier shall be obliged to deliver the goods transported in the same condition in which, according to the bill of lading, they were at the time of their receipt, without any detriment or impairment, and should he not do so, he shall be obliged to pay the value of the goods not delivered at the point where they should have been and at the time the delivery should have taken place."If part of the goods transported should be delivered the consignee may refuse to receive them, when he proves that he can not make use thereof without the others."On November 25, 1908, Inchausti & Co. received in Manila from the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, 205 bundles, bales or cases of goods to be conveyed by the steamer Sorsogon to the port of Gubat, Province of Sorsogon, where they were to be transshipped to another vessel belonging to the defendant company and by the latter transported to the pueblo of Catarman, Island of Samar, there to be delivered to the Chinese shipper with whom the defendant party made the shipping contract. To this end three bills of lading were executed, Nos. 38, 39, and 76, copies of which, marked as Exhibits A, B, and C, are found on pages 13, 14, and 15 of the record.The steamer Sorsogon, which carried the goods, arrived at the port of Gubat on the 28th of that month and as the lorcha Pilar, to which the merchandise was to be transshipped for its transportation to Catarman, was not yet there, the cargo was unloaded and stored in the defendant company's warehouses at that port.Several days later, the lorcha just mentioned arrived at Gubat and, after the cargo it carried had been unloaded, the merchandise belonging to the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, together with other goods owned by the defendant Inchausti & Co., was taken aboard to be transported to Catarman; but on December 5, 1908, before the Pilar could leave for its destination, towed by the launch Texas, there arose a storm, which, coming from the Pacific, passed over Gubat and, as a result of the strong wind and heavy sea, the lorcha was driven upon the shore and wrecked, and its cargo, including the Chinese shipper's 205 packages of goods, scattered on the beach. Laborers or workmen of the defendant company, by its order, then proceeded to gather up the plaintiff's merchandise and, as it was impossible to preserve it after it was salved from the wreck of the lorcha, it was sold at public auction before a notary for the sum of P1,693.67.The contract entered into between the Chinese shipper, Ong Bieng Sip, and the firm of Inchausti & Co., provided that transportation should be furnished from Manila to Catarman, although the merchandise taken aboard the steamer Sorsogon was to be transshipped at Gubat to another vessel which was to convey it from that port to Catarman; it was not stipulated in the said contract that the Sorsogon should convey the goods to their final destination, nor that the vessel into which they were to be transshipped, should be a steamer. The shipper, Ong Bieng Sip, therefore assented to these arrangements and made no protest when his 205 packages of merchandise were unloaded from the ship and, on account of the absence of the lorcha Pilar, stored in the warehouses at Gubat nor did he offer any objection to the lading of his merchandise on to this lorcha as soon as it arrived and was prepared to receive cargo; moreover, he knew that to reach the port of Catarman with promptness and dispatch, the lorcha had to be towed by some vessel like the launch Texas, which the defendant company had been steadily using for similar operations in those waters.Hence the shipper, Ong Bieng Sip, made no protest or objection to the methods adopted by the agents of the defendant for the transportation of his goods to the port of their destination, and the record does not show that in Gubat the defendant possessed any other means for the conveyance and transportation of merchandise, at least for Catarman, than the lorcha Pilar, towed by the said launch and exposed during its passage to all sorts of accidents and perils from the nature and seafaring qualities of a lorcha, from the circumstances then present and the winds prevailing on the Pacific Ocean during the months of November and December.It is to be noted that a lorcha is not easily managed or steered when traveling, for, out at sea, it can only be moved by wind and sails; and along the coast near the shore and in the estuaries where it customarily travels, it can only move by poling. For this reason, in order to arrive at the pueblo of Catarman with promptness and dispatch, the lorcha was usually towed by the launch Texas.The record does not show that, from the afternoon of the 4th of December, 1908, until the morning of the following day, the 5th, the patron or master of the lorcha which was anchored in the cove of Gubat, received any notice from the captain of the steamer Ton Yek, also anchored near by, of the near approach of a storm. The said captain, Juan Domingo Alberdi, makes no reference in his sworn testimony of having given any such notice to the patron of the lorcha, nor did the latter, Mariano Gadvilao, testify that he received such notice from the captain of the Ton Yek or from the person in charge of the Government observatory. Gadvilao, the patron, testified that only between 10 and 11 o'clock of Saturday morning, the 5th of December, was he informed by Inchausti & Co.'s agent in Gubat that a baguio was approaching; that thereupon, on account of the condition of the sea, he dropped the four anchors that the lorcha had on board and immediately went ashore to get another anchor and a new cable in order more securely to hold the boat in view of the predicted storm. This testimony was corroborated by the said representative, Melchor Muoz. So the lorcha, when the storm broke upon it, was held fast by five anchors and was, as testified by the defendant without contradiction or evidence to the contrary, well found and provided with all proper and necessary equipment and had a sufficient crew for its management and preservation.The patron of the lorcha testified specifically that at Gubat or in its immediate vicinity there is no port whatever adequate for the shelter and refuge of vessels in cases of danger, and that, even though there were, on being advised between 10 and 11 o'clock of the morning of the 5th, of the approach of a storm from the eastern Pacific, it would have been impossible to spread any sails or weigh anchor on the lorcha without being dragged or driven against the reefs by the force of the wind. As the craft was not provided with steam or other motive power, it would not have been possible for it to change its anchorage, nor move from the place where it lay, even several hours before the notice was received by its patron. A lorcha can not be compared with a steamer which does not need the help or assistance of any other vessel in its movements.Due importance must be given to the testimony of the weather observer, Antonio Rocha, that the notice received from the Manila Observatory on the afternoon of December 4, with regard to a storm traveling from the east of the Pelew Islands toward the northwest, was not made known to the people of Gubat and that he merely left a memorandum notice on the desk of the station, intending to give explanations thereof to any person who should request them of him. So the notice of the storm sent by the Manila Observatory was only known to the said observer, and he did not apprise the public of the approach of the storm until he received another notice from Manila at 20 minutes past 8 o'clock on Saturday morning, December 5. Then he made a public announcement and advised the authorities of the storm that was coming.The patron of the lorcha Pilar is charged with gross negligence for not having endeavored to remove his craft to a safe place in the Sabang River, about half a mile from where it was anchored.In order to find out whether there was or was not such negligence on the part of the patron, it becomes necessary to determine, first, whether the lorcha, on the morning of December 5, could be moved by its own power and without being towed by any steamboat, since it had no steam engine of its own; second, whether the lorcha, on account of its draft and the shallowness of the mouth of the said river, could have entered the latter before the storm broke.The patron, Mariano Gadvilao, stated under oath that the weather during the night of December 4 was not threatening and he did not believe there would be a storm; that he knew the Sabang River; and that the lorcha Pilar, when loaded, could not enter as there was not sufficient water in its channel; that, according to an official chart of the port of Gubat, the bar of the Sabang River was covered by only a foot and a half of water at ordinary low tide and the lorcha Pilar, when loaded, drew 6 feet and a half; that aside from the fact that the condition of the sea would not have permitted the lorcha to take shelter in the said river, even could it have relied upon the assistance of a towboat, at half past 8 o'clock in the morning the tide was still low; there was but little water in the river and still less over the bar.It was proven by the said official chart of the port of Gubat, that the depth of water over the bar or entrance of the Sabang River is only one foot and a half at ordinary low tide; that the rise and fall of the tide is about 4 feet, the highest tide being at 2 o'clock in the afternoon of every day; and at that hour, on the 5th of December, the hurricane had already made its appearance and the wind was blowing with all its fury and raising great waves.The lorcha Pilar, loaded as it had been from the afternoon of December 4, even though it could have been moved by means of poles, without being towed, evidently could not have entered the Sabang River on the morning of the 5th, when the wind began to increase and the sea to become rough, on account of the low tide, the shallowness of the channel, and the boat's draft.The facts stated in the foregoing paragraph were proved by the said chart which was exhibited in evidence and not rejected or assailed by the plaintiff. They were also supported by the sworn testimony of the patron of the lorcha, unrebutted by any oral evidence on the part of the plaintiff such as might disprove the certainty of the facts related, and, according to section 275 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the natural phenomenon of the tides, mentioned in the official hydrographic map, Exhibit 7, which is prima facie evidence on the subject, of the hours of its occurrence and of the conditions and circumstances of the port of Gubat, shall be judicially recognized without the introduction of proof, unless facts to the contrary be proven, which was not done by the plaintiff, nor was it proven that between the hours of 10 and 11 o'clock of the morning of December 5, 1908, there did not prevail a state of low tide in the port of Gubat.The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff with respect to the depth of the Sabang River, was unable to overcome that introduced by the defendant, especially the said chart. According to section 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such a chart is prima facie evidence of particulars of general notoriety and interest, such as the existence of shoals of varying depths in the bar and mouth of the Sabang River and which obstruct the entrance into the same; the distance, length, and number of the said shoals, with other details apparently well known to the patron of the lorcha Pilar, to judge from his testimony.Vessels of considerable draft, larger than the said lorcha, might have entered the Sabang River some seven or nine years before, according to the testimony of the Chinaman, Antonio B. Yap Cunco, though he did not state whether they did so at high tide; but, since 1901, or previous years, until 1908, changes may have taken place in the bed of the river, its mouth and its bar. More shoals may have formed or those in existence may have increased in extent by the constant action of the sea. This is the reason why the patron, Gadvilao, who was acquainted with the conditions of the port and cove of Gubat, positively declared that the lorcha Pilar could not, on account of her draft, enter the Sabang River, on account of low water.The patron of the lorcha, after stating (p. 58) that at Gubat or in its vicinity there is no port that affords shelter, affirmed that it was impossible to hoist the sails or weigh the anchors on the morning of the 5th of December, owing to the force of the wind and because the boat would immediately have been dragged or driven upon the shoals; that furthermore the lorcha was anchored in a channel some 300 brazas wide, but, notwithstanding this width, the Pilar was, for want of motive power, unable to move without being exposed to be dashed against the coast by the strong wind and the heavy sea then prevailing. The testimony of this witness was neither impugned nor offset by any evidence whatever; he was a patron of long years of service and of much practice in seafaring, especially in the port of Gubat and its vicinity, who had commanded or been intrusted with the command of other crafts similar to the lorcha Pilar and his testimony was absolutely uncontradicted.The patron Gadvilao, being cognizant of the duties imposed upon him by rules 14 and 15 of article 612, and others, of the Code of Commerce, remained with his sailors, during the time the hurricane was raging, on board the lorcha from the morning of December 5 until early the following morning, the 6th, without abandoning the boat, notwithstanding the imminent peril to which he was exposed, and kept to his post until after the wreck and the lorcha had been dashed against the rocks. Then he solicited help from the captain of the steamer Ton Yek, and, thanks to the relief afforded by a small boat sent by the latter officer, Gadvilao with his crew succeeded in reaching land and immediately reported the occurrence to the representative of Inchausti & Co. and to the public official from whom he obtained the document of protest, Exhibit 1. By such procedure, he showed that, as a patron skilled in the exercise of his vocation, he performed the duties imposed by law in cases of shipwreck brought about by force majeure.Treating of shipwrecks, article 840 of the Code of Commerce prescribes:"The losses and damages suffered by a vessel and he cargo by reason of shipwreck or stranding shall be individually for the account of the owners, the part of the wreck which may be saved belonging to them in the same proportion."And article 841 of the same code reads:"If the wreck or stranding should arise through the malice, negligence, or lack of skill of the captain, or because the vessel put to sea insufficiently repaired and supplied, the owner or the freighters may demand indemnity of the captain for the damages caused to the vessel or cargo by the accident, in accordance with the provisions contained in articles 610, 612, 614 and 621." The general rule established in the first of the foregoing articles is that the loss of the vessel and of its cargo, as the result of shipwreck, shall fall upon the respective owners thereof, save for the exceptions specified in the second of the said articles.These legal provisions are in harmony with those of articles 361 and 362 of the Code of Commerce, and are applicable whenever it is proved that the loss of, or damage to, the goods was the result of a fortuitous event or of force majeure; but the carrier shall be liable for the loss or the damage arising from the causes aforementioned, if it shall have been proven that they occurred through his own fault or negligence or by his failure to take the same precautions usually adopted by diligent and careful persons.In the contract made and entered into by and between the owner of the goods and the defendant, no term was fixed within which the said merchandise should be delivered to the former at Catarman, nor was it proved that there was any delay in loading the goods and transporting them to their destination. From the 28th of November, when the steamer Sorsogon arrived at Gubat and landed the said goods belonging to Ong Bieng Sip to await the lorcha Pilar which was to convey them to Catarman, as agreed upon, no vessel carrying merchandise made the voyage from Gubat to the said pueblo of the Island of Samar, and with Ong Bieng Sip's merchandise there were also to be shipped goods belonging to the defendant company, which goods were actually taken on board the said lorcha and suffered the same damage as those belonging to the Chinaman. So that there was no negligence, abandonment, or delay in the shipment of Ong Bieng Sip's merchandise, and all that was done by the carrier, Inchausti & Co., was what it regularly and usually did in the transportation by sea from Manila to Catarman of all classes of merchandise. No attempt has been made to prove that any course other than the foregoing was pursued by that firm on this occasion; therefore the defendant party is not liable for the damage occasioned as a result of the wreck or stranding of the lorcha Pilar because of the hurricane that overtook this craft while it was anchored in the port of Gubat, on December 5, 1908, ready to be conveyed to that of Catarman.It is a fact not disputed, and admitted by the plaintiff, that the lorcha Pilar was stranded and wrecked on the coast of Gubat during the night of the 5th or early in the morning of the 6th of December, 1908, as the result of a violent storm that came from the Pacific Ocean, and, consequently, it is a proven fact that the loss or damage of the goods shipped on the said lorcha was due to the force majeure which caused the wreck of the said craft.According to the aforecited article 361 of the Code of Commerce, merchandise shall be transported at the risk and venture of the shipper, unless the contrary be expressly stipulated. No such stipulation appears of record, therefore, all damages and impairment suffered by the goods in transportation, by reason of accident, force majeure, or by virtue of the nature or defect of the articles, are for the account and risk of the shipper.A final clause of this same article adds that the burden of proof of these accidents is upon the carrier; the trial record fully discloses that the loss and damage of the goods shipped by the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, was due to the stranding and wreck of the lorcha Pilar in the heavy storm or hurricane aforementioned; this the plaintiff did not deny, and admitted that it took place between the afternoon of the 5th and early in the morning of the 6th of December, 1908, so it is evident that the defendant is exempt from the obligation imposed by the law to prove the occurrence of the said storm, hurricane, or cyclone in the port of Gubat, and, therefore, if the said goods were lost or damaged and could not be delivered in Catarman, it was due to a fortuitous event and a superior, irresistible natural force, or force majeure, which completely disabled the lorcha intended for their transportation to the said port of the Island of Samar.The record bears no proof that the said loss or damage caused by the stranding or wreck of the lorcha Pilar as a result of the storm mentioned, occurred through carelessness or negligence on the part of the defendant company, its agents or the patron of the said lorcha, or because they did not take the precautions usually adopted by careful and diligent persons, as required by article 362 of the Code of Commerce; the defendant company, as well as its agents and the patron of the lorcha, had a natural interest in preserving the craft and its own goods laden therein an interest equal to that of the Chinese shipper in preserving his own which were on board the said lorcha and, in fact, the defendant, his agents and the patron did take the measures which they deemed necessary and proper in order to save the lorcha and its cargo from the impending danger; accordingly, the patron, as soon as he was informed that a storm was approaching, proceeded to clear the boat of all gear which might offer resistance to the wind, dropped the four anchors he had, and even procured an extra anchor from the land, together with a new cable, and cast it into the water, thereby adding, in so far as possible, to the stability and security of the craft, in anticipation of what might occur, as presaged by the violence of the wind and the heavy sea; and Inchausti & Company's agent furnished the articles requested by the patron of the lorcha for the purpose of preventing the loss of the boat; thus did they all display all the diligence and care such as might have been employed by anyone in similar circumstances, especially the patron who was responsible for the lorcha under his charge; nor is it possible to believe that the latter failed to adopt all the measures that were necessary to save his own life and those of the crew and to free himself from the imminent peril of shipwreck.In view of the fact that the lorcha Pilar had no means of changing its anchorage, even supposing that there was a better one, and was unable to accept help from any steamer that might have towed it to another point, as wherever it might have anchored, it would continually have been exposed to the lashing of the waves and to the fury of the hurricane, for the port of Gubat is a cove or open roadstead with no shelter whatever from the winds that sweep over it from the Pacific Ocean, and in view of the circumstance that it was impossible for the said lorcha, loaded as it then was, to have entered the Sabang River, even though there had been a steamer to tow it, not only because of an insufficient depth of water in its channel, but also on account of the very high bar at the entrance of the said river, it is incontrovertible that the stranding and wreck of the lorcha Pilar was due to a fortuitous event or to force majeure and not to the fault and negligence of the defendant company and its agents or of the patron, Mariano Gadvilao, inasmuch as the record discloses it to have been duly proved that the latter, in the difficult situation in which unfortunately the boat under his charge was placed, took all the precautions that any diligent man should have taken whose duty it was to save the boat and its cargo, and, by the instinct of self-preservation, his own life and those of the crew of the lorcha; therefore, considering the conduct of the patron of the lorcha and that of the defendant's agent in Gubat, during the time of the occurrence of the disaster, the defendant company has not incurred any liability whatever for the loss of the goods, the value of which is demanded by the plaintiff; it must, besides, be taken into account that the defendant itself also lost goods of its own and the lorcha too.From the moment that it is held that the loss of the said lorcha was due to force majeure, a fortuitous event, with no conclusive proof of negligence or of the failure to take the precautions such as diligent and careful persons usually adopt to avoid the loss of the boat and its cargo, it is neither just nor proper to attribute the loss or damage of the goods in question to any fault, carelessness, or negligence on the part of the defendant company and its agents and, especially, the patron of the lorcha Pilar.

Moreover, it is to be noted that, subsequent to the wreck, the defendant company's agent took all the requisite measures for the salvage of such of the goods as could be recovered after the accident, which he did with the knowledge of the shipper, Ong Bieng Sip, and, in effecting their sale, he endeavored to secure all possible advantage to the Chinese shipper; in all these proceedings, as shown by the record, he acted in obedience to the law.From all the foregoing it is concluded that the defendant is not liable for the loss and damage of the goods shipped on the lorcha Pilar by the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, inasmuch as such loss and damage were the result of a fortuitous event or force majeure, and there was no negligence or lack of care and diligence on the part of the defendant company or its agents.Therefore, we hold it proper to reverse the judgment appealed from, and to absolve, as we hereby do, the defendant, Inchausti & Co., without special finding as to costs.Arellano, C.J., Mapa and Johnson, JJ., concur.Carson and Trent, JJ., dissent.

Separate Opinions

MORELAND, J., dissenting:

In my opinion the decision of the court below, which this court reverses, is clearly in accordance with law and in strict conformity with equity and justice. The defendant, a shipowner, agreed with the plaintiff to transport P14,000 worth of property from Manila to Catarman, Province of Samar. The defendant never fulfilled its contract. Instead of delivering the property at Catarman, Province of Samar, it left it on board of a lorcha in the waters of Gubat, a port in the southern part of the Island of Luzon, where, during a storm, the lorcha foundered and the property was lost.This court holds that the Chinaman must lose his property. This is the manner in which the defendant lost the goods of the plaintiff:The Sorsogon, on which the goods were loaded at Manila, arrived at Gubat about the 28th of November, 1908. A few days later the lorcha Pilar arrived at Gubat, towed by the tug Texas. The lorcha was without means of locomotion of its own, except its sails, which, from the record, appear never to have been used and were substantially useless, and could move about and protect itself from the weather only by being towed or "poled." The only boat on the coast owned by the defendant which could tow the lorcha was the tug Texas. Sometime before the 5th of December, at least one day before the storm broke, the goods belonging to the plaintiff were loaded on this lorcha. The tug Texas, under the orders of the defendant, left the locality where the lorcha was loaded and did not return until after it was wrecked.Let us see what were the conditions at the time the defendant voluntarily and unnecessarily placed the property of the plaintiff on the lorcha Pilar:(1)It must be remembered that Gubat is located on the Pacific coast. The waters of Gubat are not protected waters; they are not inclosed; they are not in the form of a bay; they are directly open to the winds from the Pacific Ocean, without protection or shelter of any kind, except possibly the mouth of the river, a matter here in dispute and which will be referred to later. They are likewise open to the full sweep of the waves of the Pacific coming from its widest reaches.(2)At the time the plaintiff's goods were loaded upon the lorcha Pilar it was the height of the typhoon season in that locality. The prevailing winds were from the Pacific. Destructive baguios might reasonably be expected at any time. It was only with the exercise of diligence and prudence that shipping could be protected therefrom.(3)As I have before indicated, the lorcha Pilar had substantially no means of locomotion of its own and depended for its protection in stormy weather entirely upon the steam tug Texas or being "poled" into the mouth of the river by its crew. At the time of the storm which destroyed the lorcha, and for some time prior thereto and for some days thereafter, the Texas was at the port of Barcelona, on the coast several miles south of Gubat, having been sent by order of the defendant, its owner.Summarizing, then, we have the defendant voluntarily placing the property of the plaintiff upon the kind of craft above described, dispatching to a distant port substantially the only means of locomotion and protection which that craft had, except, as we have said, by being poled, placing that lorcha in waters directly exposed to the winds and waves of the Pacific and at the mercy of every baguio that blew; and this during a season of the year when winds were generally high and destructive baguios might be expected at any time, and with full knowledge that if a typhoon came while the agents of the defendant were unprepared the property of the plaintiff would in all probability be lost.Having these facts in mind, let us see what the agents of the defendant did to protect the property of the plaintiff which they had voluntarily placed in a situation of such peril.(4)At the time of the destruction of the lorcha there was a Government weather observatory at Gubat which received advices many hours in advance of the approach of a typhoon toward that locality. It had been there for some years. The purpose of that observatory was to furnish information to the public concerning the formation and approach of typhoons from the Pacific and of warning the people with exposed shipping to take such precautions as were necessary for its protection. This was known to the defendant's agents at Gubat. They knew that the observatory had a public office, open to anybody who cared to visit it, in which would be found all of the latest information relating to storms and baguios coming from the Pacific Ocean. They knew that the officials of said observatory were there for the express purpose of giving such information. The defendant's agents had at Gubat a barometer and all the other instruments usually kept by seamen and navigators for forecasting the weather.(5)As we have said, the storm occurred on the 5th of December. It wrought its greatest havoc late in the afternoon and the early part of the night. At about 2 o'clock on the day before the storm, that is, on the 4th of December, the observatory at Gubat received notice from the Manila observatory that a baguio was forming in the Pacific Ocean. At about the same time at Barcelona, only 10 miles south of Gubat, the barometer on board the Texas dropped so rupidly as to indicate such dangerous weather probabilities that the captain of the Texas deemed it unsafe to venture out of the harbor. On the same afternoon the barometer on board the only steam vessel near Gubat, the Ton Yek, also went down. Although it does not expressly appear in the evidence, yet it is an inference entirely fair from the record, and against which nothing whatever can be urged, that the barometer in the possession of the agents of the defendant also dropped with the same rapidity. In all human probability this could not be otherwise in view of the rapid and decisive fall of the barometer on board the Texas, only 10 miles away, and the fact that the typhoon broke over both places equally. At the same time, and more pronounced a little later, every symptom which men who have to deal with the sea could and would readily observe, and which the captain of the Ton Yek did observe as a matter of fact, indicated the approach of a heavy storm. These evidences were heeded by the captain of the Ton Yek, who, early on the morning of the 5th, without waiting for the appearance of a storm signal at the observatory, sent; a messenger to the observatory for the purpose of ascertaining with more accuracy what was going to happen. In spite of all of these things, most of which occurred on the afternoon or evening of the day preceding the storm, the agents of the defendant did absolutely nothing to inform themselves as to the prospective weather conditions or as to whether or not a baguio was approaching, and did absolutely nothing to preserve or protect the property which they had placed in so exposed and dangerous a place.(6)The morning of the 5th arrived. As we have already stated, all of the signs which men who have to do with the sea so readily read indicated unquestionably and decisively the approach of the storm which the advices received by the observatory at 2 o'clock on the afternoon before told the inhabitants of that locality was probably coming. Still the agents of the defendant did nothing. The captain of the Ton Yek, although his vessel was a steam vessel and was able to take care of itself by reason of its machinery, judging these signs and portents, found it advisable to consult with the observatory early on the morning of the 5th. The approach of a storm was apparent to him and he took precautions accordingly. Yet the agents of the defendant did nothing. Although the lorcha on which they had put the property of the plaintiff was, according to their own admissions, utterly unprotected, and although P14,000 worth of goods intrusted to their care was in great danger of being lost, still they did absolutely nothing, either by anticipation or otherwise, to protect that property therefrom.(7)On the morning of the 5th at about 8.20 or 8.30 o'clock the observatory ran up the first danger signal. Still the agents of the defendant noted nothing, did nothing. They paid absolutely no attention to it, as they had paid no attention whatever to the other indications. They left the lorcha to its fate without lifting a finger to save it. At 9 o'clock the wind had risen and the waves had commenced to roll. Still nothing was done. At 9.30 the winds were still stronger and the waves higher. Still nothing was done. At 10.30 the increase in the strength of the wind and of the height of the waves continued. And yet the agents of the defendant did nothing. It was well toward 11 o'clock before they began to move. At that time it was too late. The wind and waves were so high that, with the means at hand, the lorcha could not be moved from the exposed position in which it was, even if it be conceded that there was any safer place within those waters. The lorcha was prevented from dashing itself immediately upon the rocks only by virtue of its anchor. At between 10.30 and 11 o'clock the captain of the lorcha came ashore to secure additional anchors. At that time, however, as we have observed, it was too late to unload the goods and too late to remove the lorcha to a safe place within the mouth of the river, even if that were possible. The agents of the defendant, having done absolutely nothing up to this time now found, after they had awakened from their lethargy, that it was too late to do more than stand by and see the property, which had been intrusted to their care and for the carrying of which they had been paid, dashed to pieces on the rock and swallowed up by the sea.(8)For nearly eighteen hours prior to the disaster the information that the disaster was coming lay under the very noses of the agents of the defendant. For nearly eighteen hours the barometer had been dropping steadily, so much so that their own vessel dared not leave a port only 10 miles distant on the afternoon before. For eighteen hours every warning which nature could give, indicating the disaster which subsequently came, had been repeatedly thrust upon them. Yet they did nothing. Having placed the goods of the plaintiff in an exposed and dangerous position, in waters open to the winds and waves of the Pacific Ocean, at the height of the typhoon season, in a vessel which had no motive power of its own, and having sent away that which they themselves substantially admit was its only protection, the agents of the defendant exercised no care or precaution whatever to the end that they might protect the goods which they themselves had so recklessly exposed.

Yet this court, under such circumstances, holds that the defendant may go in peace and that the plaintiff is the one who must bear the burden of such negligence.With that decision I can not agree.

An act of God can not be urged for the protection of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to avert its results. One who has accepted responsibility for pay Can not weakly fold his hands and say that he was prevented from meeting that responsibility by an act of God, when the exercise of ordinary care end prudence would have averted the results flowing from that act. One who has placed the property of another, instructed to his care, in an unseaworthy craft, upon dangerous waters, cannot absolve himself by crying, "an act of God," when every effect which a typhoon produced upon that property could have been avoided by the exercise of common care and prudence. When the negligence of the carrier concurs with an act of God in producing a loss, the carrier is not exempted from liability by showing that the immediate cause of the damage was the act of God; or, as it has been expressed, "when the loss is caused by the act of God, if the negligence of the carrier mingles with it as an active and cooperative cause, he is still liable." The loss and damage to perishable articles in consequence of the weather will not excuse the carrier if it could have been prevented by due care and diligence. The carrier must not only show that it did all that was usual, but all that was necessary to be done under the circumstances. (Wing vs. New York, etc., Ry. Co., 1 Hilt. (N. Y.), 235; Philleo vs. Sanford, 17 Tex., 228.) To be exempt from liability for loss because of an act of God, the common carrier must be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by which that loss or damage may have been occasioned. For, although the immediate or proximate cause of a loss in any given instance may have been what is termed an act of God, yet if the carrier unnecessarily exposed the property to such accident by any culpable act or omission of his own, he is not excused. (Mcgraw vs. Baltimore and Ohio Ry. Co., 41 Am. Rep., 696.) In the case of Wolf vs. American Express Co., 43 Mo., 421, Wagner, J., said:"The act of God which excuses the carrier must not only be the proximate cause of the loss, but the better opinion is that it must be the sole cause. And where the loss is caused by the 'act of God,' if the negligence of the carrier mingles with it as an active and cooperative cause, he is still responsible. (Amies vs. Stevens, 1 Stra., 128.)"

Where perishable property, such as potatoes, is received by a common carrier at a season when a very low temperature may reasonably be apprehended, great diligence should be used in forwarding such property with dispatch and haste; and where, by a delay of two or three days, the property is damaged by freezing, the carrier may be held liable for the damage. (Hewett vs. The Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 63 Ia., 611.) A carrier is bound to provide a vessel in all respects adequate to the purpose, with a captain and crew of requisite skill or ability; and, failing in these particulars, though the loss be occasioned by an act of God, the carrier may not set up a providential calamity to protect himself against what may have arisen from his own folly. (Hart vs. Allen and Grant, 2 Watts (Pa.), 114.)

This doctrine is fully supported by the Spanish authorities on the subject.

Manresa in his commentaries to section 1105 of the Civil Code-of Spain, volume 8, page 91, says:"Elucidation of article 1105 and the idea of accident is interesting under the following aspects: Relation between it and the blame; enumeration of the requisites that must be present; proof of the event and characterization thereof; and the consequences it produces. Let us, examine them."Even when the distinction is simple and reasonable between blame for some exempting circumstance (because it may not be serious enough to involve such blame, under the law or the obligation) and accident, since the former admits an imputation which the latter excludes, even when the former may not be the basis for legal responsibility, and therefore it can not be said that where no responsible blame exists there the accident commences, yet the latter is undeniably characterized by unexpectedness and inevitability, circumstances susceptible of relative interpretation, and so whatever relates to the blame must be taken into account, because, as we shall see, it is in a certain sense, especially in practical application, connected with the matter under consideration.

"Aside from this statement of ideas, there may be another of consequences, for in the complexity of facts, in the same obligation, there may be present blame enough to involve such and also accident. When both causes are present, with separation of time and effects, for partial breach due to one of them may be possible and then the other may operate to aggravate or complete these consequences, the distinction is easy and to each cause may be assigned its own effect for the corresponding result, as neither exemption, on account of accident, can be extended to what may be imputed nor to what in any way depends upon it by basing responsibility arising from blame on the fact that the damage is the result thereof.

"The problem becomes more difficult when both causes concur to produce the same effect or when, even though the effect may be due to accident, the obligor has not exercised necessary diligence, however blameless he was for the results arising from the breach. In the first of the last two suppositions, the solution is plain, because when the obligor incurs the blame of actually producing the result, even when it is not the only cause, or even the principal one, there is still sufficient connection between it and the consequences to cause them to be imputed to him and, as a voluntary element exists in the causes, there is lacking the circumstance indispensable to exemption on account of accident. The second supposition presents a very difficult problem of proof, which rests upon the obligor, and calls for a careful analysis of the origin of the breach. The difficulty in this case consists in that the blame, in addition to its subjective aspect for imputing the consequences to the obligor, has an objective aspect, to wit, that these consequences may arise, that the damage which must be repaired is caused, in such manner that due diligence may be lacking and yet not extend to the point of involving responsibility, because it produces no results. Now then, if an accident occurs under these conditions, absolutely independent of the negligence that may have existed, it may have occurred with or without negligence and therefore any derivation of consequences was lacking, then it can not be said that responsibility arises therefrom; but to reach this conclusion there first rests with the obligor proof so difficult that, in addition to overcoming the presumption of existence of blame, it involves the very fine distinction of the origin of the breach and perfectly reveals the occurrence of the accident, joined by their coexistence, and demonstrating absolute lack of consequences and influence of blame.

"In connection with this question, a judgment of November 22, 1904, declares that there are some events which, independent of the will of the obligor, hinder the fulfillment of the obligation, and yet do not constitute cases of force majeure for the purposes of such fulfillment, because the possibility that they would occur could have been foreseen, articles 1101 and 1104 being applicable and not article 1105, since negligence or blame is also present from not informing the obligee, either at first or later on, of the state of affairs and the situation, so as to avoid the consequent damage. This was the case of a bull fight that could not be held because the ring was not completed in time for reasons beyond the control of the contractor, but the fact that the contract did not state that the ring was unconstructed and the possibility that it would not be at the time specified, reveals, in the opinion of the court, the lack of foresight or the negligence which makes article 1105 inapplicable.

"In an essentially analogous way, judgments were pronounced on June 12, 1899 (Tribunal Contencioso administrativo), and on October 27, 1905 (Sala tercera), against the company leasing the tobacco monopoly, for losses caused by theft and fire. It was further decided in these cases that the company and not the State must bear the losses, for while accidental fire in a tobacco factory and theft of stamped goods stored in a branch house may constitute accidents, yet they do not deserve this characterization when they occur through omission, neglect or lack of care which imply breach of the contract.

"According to the text of article 1105, which agrees with the rational idea of accident, it is sufficient for the event to constitute such that it have any of the two characteristics enumerated; if it is foreseen, it is of little import that it be unavoidable; and if it is unavoidable it does not matter that it may have been foreseen. The first supposition requires some explanation: an event may be wholly unforeseen, but, after it has occurred, be very slow in producing effects, and in such case. although it could not have been foreseen, as there is time before it produces its effects, the latter must be considered.

"Besides this special supposition, in which, if carefully considered, the two characteristics do not concur, since the idea of unexpectedness, as is seen, is relative, it will be sufficient that one or the other be present. The possibility of foresight must be weighed rationally with consideration of all the circumstances, but this general rule has, strictly speaking, an exception when the event, although in a general way very difficult, almost impossible to be foreseen, should for some reason be known to the obligor in due time.

"The condition of inevitability can not be understood in so absolute a sense that it should take away the character of accident from many that are strictly such, because they are undoubtedly causes, however powerful they may be, whose injurious effects might have been avoided by exercising a number of precautions, so exaggerated and so out of proportion to the importance of the trouble anticipated, that they would be unreasonable and not required in law. In such cases, if the means which can and must rationally be employed are not effective, it will be held to have been unavoidable. So we see demonstrated how the idea of diligence is related, somewhat in the nature of limitation, to the accident.

"Such was the doctrine established in our ancient law regarding the obligor; the reasons whereof are theoretically set forth further on; and as a written provision, law 20, title 13, partida 5, which expressly laid down this principle in connection with pawn-broking contracts, and which was, by analogy, made the basis for extending a similar provision to the remaining cases."That the Civil Code is inspired by the same idea is clearly expressed in article 1183 thereof, the commentary on which should be consulted. Still such solution depends upon the nature of the proof and of the accident, since its existence as an abnormal event hindering the fulfillment of the obligation must be proved and not presumed, and the burden of this proof rests upon the obligor, and not upon the obligee, whose proof would have to be negative. Moreover since an accident is the basis for exemption from responsibility, it must be proved by him who will benefit thereby and who objects to the requirement that he fulfill his obligations. To these reasons are joined those above set forth in connection with the proof of contractual blame, since they are, according to the same article, 1183, above cited, closely related questions, so much so that they become two phases of one question presumption against the existence of accident and of what tends to establish presumption of blame, in the absence of proof to overcome it."Proof of accident must include these points: the occurrence of the event, the bearing it has upon breach of the obligation, and the concurrence of unexpectedness and inevitability. In connection with the first two points, the proof resting upon the obligor must be specific and exact; but as for the last, although it may be admitted as a general proposition that, in addition to proving the event, he must also demonstrate that it involves the condition required to make it an accident, there are some of such magnitude and, by their nature, of almost impossible prevision, that proof of their occurrence demonstrates their condition. Undoubtedly, and differently from proof of the accident, the exceptional circumstance that the event (which should as a general proposition be regarded as unforeseen) was known to the obligor for some special reason, must be proven by the obligee who asserts it, since the obligation of proof resting upon the former is fulfilled in this regard by demonstrating that the event ought rationally to be held to have been unforeseen."Since proof of the accident is related to proof of the blame, it