Transportation Law Case Digest Summary

TRANSPORTATION
LAW CASE DIGEST

Bance | Benitez| Cheng | Damasing | Ratilla

1. Manay, et al v. Cebu Air fees in the aggregate sum of P150,000. Cebu Pacific denied all the
allegations in the complaint and insisted that Jose was given a full recap of
April 4, 2016 the tickets, and emphasized that Jose had the tickets in his possession 37
days before the scheduled flight; hence, he had sufficient time and
Facts: On June 13, 200, Carlos Jose purchased 20 Cebu Pacific roundtrip opportunity to check the flight information and itinerary.
tickets from Manila to Palawan for himself and on behalf of his relatives and
friends. MeTC ordered Cebu Pacific to pay Jose actual damages and attorney's fees.
It found that the ticketing agent should have placed markings or underlined
Acording to Jose, he specified to the ticketing agent his preferred date and the time of the departure of the nine passengers who were not in the
time of departure from Manila to Plawa which was on July 20, 2008 at 8:20 afternoon flight since it was only logical for Jose to expect that all of them
in the morning, while the return flight is on July 22, 2008 at 4 in the would be on the same flight.
afternoon. He paid for the tickets and that when the tickets were printed
out, which consisted of three pages, the ticketing agent only recapped the RTC dismissed the appeal but deleted the award of attorney's fees ont he
first page. Since the first page contained the details he specified, he did not ground that this was granted without stating the ground for its grant.
check the other pages of the flight information.
CA granted the appeal and reversed the lower courts. CA stated that the
Problems arose when on the date of their return flight to Manila, they were extraordinary diligence required of common carriers only applies to the
informed by the Cebu Pacific personnel that 9 out of the 20 tickets could not carriage of passengers and not to the act of encoding the requested flight
be admitted because their tickets were for earlier that day. Upon checking schedule. It was incumbet upon the passenger to exercise ordinary care in
the tickets, it was found that the flight details on the last page were reviewing flight details and checking schedules.
different and that the 9 passengers were scheduled for an earlier flight on
the same day. They tried to purchase 9 tickets but the same would cost Before the SC, Jose argues that Cebu Pacific is a common carrier obligated
P65K, and as Cebu Pacific only accepts cash and not credit cards, they were to exercise extraordinary diligence to carry Jose to their destination at the
only able to pool money for 5. Hence, the four were left for one more day time clearly instructed to its ticketing agent. On the other hand, Cebu Pacific
and incurred additional expenses. argues that the damage was caused by Jose's gross and inexplicable
neglience. Jose should have read the details of their flight, and if there were
Jose went to Cebu Pacific to complain about the incident and later on sent errors in the encoded flight details, Jose would still have time to correct the
demand letters asking for reimbursement of P42,955 representing error. Furthermore, under the Parol Evidence Rule, the tickets issued to Jose
additional amounts spent to purchase the 9 tickets, accommodation and show that the 9 passengers agreed to board the 10 am flight.
meals of the four that were left behind. They also filed a complaint before
the DTI. Cebu pacific however informed their group that ticketing agents Issue: Whether Cebu Pacific may be held liable for the alleged "erroneous"
recap flight details to avoid erroneous bookings, and again by the cashier. booking.
Cebu Pacific alleged that Jose was given a full recap and was made aware of
the flight restriction of promo tickets which included that promo fares are Ruling: No.
non-refundable.
Extraordinary diligence not only in the transportation, but issuance of
Jose and companions filed a complaint for damages before the MTC of contract of carriage
Mandaluyong, asking for actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorneys

TRANSPORTATION LAW CASE DIGEST

the true intention of the parties.
The SC first rejected the reason of the CA that the extraordinary diligence of
common carriers is required only in the transportation of goods and However perusal of the evidence (tickets) show that Jose was fully
persons, and not in the act of encoding the flight details. The SC apprised of the flight details as the tickets contained comments that Jose
emphasized that common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary was given full recap on each of the three pages. On the other hand, the only
diligence in the performance of its obligations not only in the transportation evidence petitioner have to prove their intent is Jose's self-serving
of goods and services but also in the issuance of the contract of carriage, testimony that the airline failed to recap the last page of the tickets.
including its ticketing operations.
Passenger's duty to check all information
Cebu Pacific as one of he four domestic airlines in the country, is a Even assuming that the ticketing agent encoded the incorrect flight
common carrier required by law to exercise extraordinary diligence. information, it is incumbent upon the purchaser of the tickets to at least
Extraordinary diligence require that the common carrier must transport check if all the information is correct before making the purchase. Once the
goods and passengers "safely as far as human care and foresight can ticket is paid for and printed, the purchaser is presumed to have agreed to
provide," and it must exercise the "utmost diligence of very cautious all its terms and conditions.
persons . . . with due regard for all circumstances."
The Court held in Ong Yiu v. CA, that contracts of adhesion, such as the
When a common carrier, through its ticketing agent, has not yet isued a plane ticket, are not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the
ticket to the prospective passenger, the transaction between them is still contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his
that of a seller and a buyer. The obligaton of the airline to exercise consent. In this case, the SC observed that the ticket provides that
extraordinary diligence commences upon the issuance of the contract of passengers may be denied check-in if the name in the identification card
carriage. Ticketing, as he act of issuing the contract of carriage, is necessarily does not match that on the ticket.
included in the exercise of extraordinary diligence.
Hence, it would have been prudent for Jose to check if all the names of his
Obligation of parties governed by contract of carriage companions were encoded correctly. Since the tickets were for 20
Once a plane ticket is issued, the common carrier binds itself to deliver passengers, he was expected to have checked each name on each page of
the passenger safely on the date and time stated in the ticket. The the tickets in order to see if all the passengers' names were encoded and
contractual obligation of the common carrier to the passenger is governed correctly spelled. Had he done this, he would have noiced that there was a
principally by what is written on the contract of carriage. different flight scheduled encoded on the third page of the tickets since the
In this case, both parties stipulated that the flight scheduled for the 9 flight schedule was stated directly above the passengers' names.
disputed tickets was at 10 in the morning. According to the contract of
carriage, Cebu Pacific's obligation as a common carrier was to transport the The flight information was not written in fine print. It was clearly stated
9 petitioners safely on the 10am flight of July 22, 2008. on the left portion of the tiket above the passengers' names. If petitioners
had exercised even the slgihtest bit of prudence, the would have been able
Petitioners argue that Cebu Pacific was negligent in the issuance of the to remedy any erronous booking.
contract of carriage since it did not embody their intention. While Cebu
Pacific relies its defense on the Parole Evidence Rule, petitioners counter Air passenger has the correlative duty to exercise ordinary care
that the case falls under the exception since the contract did not embody This is not the first time that this Court has explained that an air


passenger has the correlative duty to exercise ordinary care int eh conduct
of his or her affairs.

Most of the petitioners were balikbayans. It is reasonable to presume

that they were adequately versed with the procedures of air travel,
including familiarizing themselves with the itinerary before departure.
Moreover, the tickets were issued 37 days before their departure from
Manila and 39 days from their departure from Palawan. There was more
than enough time to correct any alleged mistake in the flight schedule.

Jose et al. failed to exercise the necessary care in the conduct of their

affairs, and were thus negligent. They are thus not entitled to damages.

The Air Passenger Bill of Rights acknowledges that "while a passenger has
the option to buy or not buy the service, the decision of the passenger to
buy the ticket binds such passenger. Thus, the airline is mandated to place
in writing all the conditions it will impose on the passenger. 2. Designer Baskets, Inc. Vs Air Sea Transport, Inc. And Asia Cargo
Containers
However, the duty of an airline to disclose all the necessary information
March 9, 2016
in the contract of carriage does not remove the correlative obligation of the
passenger to exercise ordinary diligence in the conduct of his or her affairs. GR No. 184513
The passenger is still expected to read through the flight information in the
contract of carriage before making his or her purchase. If he or she fails to
exercise the ordinary diligence expected of passengers, any resulting
damage should be borne by the passenger. Facts:
Ambiente, a foreign-based corporation, ordered from Petitioner sometime

in October 1995 223 boxes of assorted wooden items worth $12,590.87
(P333,658) to be shipped to California, and payable through telegraphic
transfer. Ambiente designated Respondent Asia Cargo Containers (ACCLI) as
the carrier, and as agent of co-respondent ASTI.

On January 1, 1996, Petitioner had the goods shipped, and kept in
possession of the bill of lading pending payment of Ambiente. However,

Ambiente and ASTI made an indemnity agreement wherein ASTI will
release to Ambiente the goods even without the Bill of Lading, and


Ambiente will not hold ASTI or his agent liable. Because of that agreement, -(a) A common carrier may release the goods to the consignee even without
ASTI released the goods to Ambiente. Ambiente never paid Petitioner the surrender of the bill of lading.
thereafter despite demands from petitioner.

A bill of lading is defined as "a written acknowledgment of the receipt of
On October 1996, Petitioner filed a claim with the RTC against Ambiente, goods and an agreement to transport and to deliver them at a specified
ASTI, ACCLI and the latters stockholders for the payment. place to a person named or on his order."53 It may also be defined as an
instrument in writing, signed by a carrier or his agent, describing the freight
so as to identify it, stating the name of the consignor, the terms of the
contract of carriage, and agreeing or directing that the freight be delivered
The RTC held in favor of Petitioner saying that both ASTI and ACCLI were
to bearer, to order or to a specified person at a specified place.
negligent. As a common carrier, ASTI is bound to observe extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods. However, ASTI was remiss in its
duty when it allowed the unwarranted release of the shipment to Ambiente.
Further, Ambientes liability is very clear. The RTC however absolved the Under Article 350 of the Code of Commerce, "the shipper as well as the
stockholders of ACCLI because their participation was not direct as carrier of the merchandise or goods may mutually demand that a bill of
compared with ACCLI. lading be made." A bill of lading, when issued by the carrier to the shipper,
is the legal evidence of the contract of carriage between the former and the
latter. It defines the rights and liabilities of the parties in reference to the
contract of carriage. The stipulations in the bill of lading are valid and
Upon appeal, the CA absolved ASTI and ACCLI saying There is nothing in the
binding unless they are contrary to law, morals, customs, public order or
applicable laws that require the surrender of bills of lading before the goods
public policy.
may be released to the buyer/consignee.

Further, a carrier is allowed by law to release the goods to the consignee
Issue:
even without the latter's surrender of the bill of lading.
whether ASTI and ACCLI may be held solidarily liable to DBI for the value of

the shipment.
The general rule is that upon receipt of the goods, the consignee surrenders

the bill of lading to the carrier and their respective obligations are
Held: considered canceled. The law, however, provides two exceptions where the
goods may be released without the surrender of the bill of lading when:
No.
1. the bill of lading gets lost or

2. for other cause.


In either case, the consignee must issue a receipt to the carrier upon the
release of the goods. Such receipt shall produce the same effect as the
surrender of the bill of lading.
-(b) Articles 1733, 1734, and 1735 of the Civil Code are not applicable in this
case.

Articles 1733, 1734, and 1735 speak of the common carrier's responsibility

over the goods. They refer to the general liability of common carriers in case
of loss, destruction or deterioration of goods and the presumption of 3. Travel and Tours vs. Cruz et. Al. (G.R. 199282 March 14, 2016)
negligence against them. This responsibility or duty of the common carrier
lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession Facts: In the evening of January 8, 1998, a passenger jeep being driven by
of, and received by the carrier for transportation, until the same are Edgar Hernandez was bumped at the rear portion by a passenger bus
delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to owned by Travel and Tours. The collision lead to the death of jeep
the person who has a right to receive them.67 It is, in fact, undisputed that passenger Alberto Cruz Jr. and the serious physical injuries of Munoz.
the goods were timely delivered to the proper consignee or to the one who Hernandez, Cruz, Sr. and Munoz thus, filed a complaint for damages
was authorized to receive them. DBFs only cause of action against ASTI and against Travel and Tours. Both the RTC and the CA found Travel and Tours
ACCLI is the release of the goods to Ambiente without the surrender of the liable.
bill of lading, purportedly in violation of the terms of the bill of lading. We
have already found that Bill of Lading No. AC/MLLA601317 does not contain Issue: Whether Travel and Tours is liable.
such express prohibition. Without any prohibition, therefore, the carrier had
Held: YES. The evidence was clear that the passenger jeep was bumped at
no obligation to withhold release of the goods. Articles 1733, 1734, and
the rear portion. It has been held that drivers of vehicles who bump the
1735 do not give ASTI any such obligation.
rear of another vehicle are presumed to be the cause of the accident,
unless contradicted by other evidence. The rationale behind this
presumption is that the driver of the rear vehicle has full control of the
In view of the foregoing, we hold that under Bill of Lading No. situation as he is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him. All
AC/MLLA601317 and the pertinent law and jurisprudence, ASTI and ACCLI evidence point to the fact that it was the passenger bus that bumped the
are not liable to DBI. We sustain the finding of the CA that only Ambiente, as rear of the passenger jeep, and thus the negligent party. This is all the
the buyer of the goods, has the obligation to pay for the value of the more bolstered by the finding that because the bus ran too fast, it failed to
shipment. stop on time. Thus, based on the findings, it is apparent that the


proximate cause of the accident is the passenger bus. Travel and Tours, When the plaintiffs ngligence was the immediate and proximate cause of
being the owner of the bus is liable. his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code shed light to the matter: defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides:

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault

or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.
and
Article. 2180 of the Civil Code states:
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's
own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible x x x. Employers shall be liable for the damages. caused by
their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
theirassigned tasks, even though the former are not engage in any
business or industry x x x.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.
There is also the rule that when an injury is caused by the negligence of an
employee there instantly arises a presumption of the law that there was
negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection of his
employee or in the supervision over him after such election. Since Travel
and Tours failed to rebut these presumptions of the law, Article 2180
applies, making it liable.
However, these circumstances do not erase the fact of the jeep drivers
negligence. The jeep was in violation of its allowed route as found by the
lower courts. The owner and driver of the jeep are also guilty of
negligence under Article 2179 of the Civil Code which reads:


and diligence in the handling of the goods and that no damage was
sustained by the same while in its custody or care.
4. ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., v. ALLIED GUARANTEE INSURANCE, CO.,
INC., The other co-defendants Transocean and Philippine Transmarine
also denied most of the complaint's allegations and counter-alleged that a
G.R. No. 182208, October 14, 2015 large portion of "the shipment was already in torn/scuffed condition prior to
loading" in their vessel. In addition, they attributed the damage to the

nature, vice or defect of the goods, the perils and accidents of the sea, to
FACTS pre-shipment loss and insufficiency of packing. They claimed to have
exercised the diligence required by law so that the damage incurred was not
Marina Port Services, Inc. is the predecessor of herein petitioner their fault.
ATI. A shipment was made of 72,322 lbs. of kraft linear board loaded and
received from the ports of Lake Charles, LA, and Mobile, AL, U.S.A., for Ruling of the RTC
transport and delivery to San Miguel Corporation in Manila. The vessel used
The RTC found the defendant shipping company Transocean liable
was the M/V Nicole, operated by Transocean Marine, Inc., a foreign
for the 158 rolls of damaged goods due to the latter's failure to observe the
corporation, whose Philippine representative is Philippine Transmarine
necessary precautions and extraordinary diligence as common carrier to
Carrier, Inc.
prevent such damage. Then, the additional 54 rolls of the goods that were
The M/V Nicole arrived in Manila on April 8, 1989 and, shortly lost were found to have been damaged while in the possession of Marina,
thereafter, the subject shipment was offloaded from the vessel to the the arrastre operator and Dynamic, the broker. It found Marina and
arrastre Marina until April 13, 1989. Thereafter, it was assessed that a total Dynamic solidarity liable for the said damaged goods. Thus, the trial court
of 158 rolls of the goods were "damaged" during shipping. Upon the goods' found all the defendants liable for portions of the cargo that were damaged
withdrawal from the arrastre and their delivery, first, to San Miguel's in their respective custody.
customs broker, Dynamic Brokerage Co. Inc., and, eventually, to the
Marina, now Asian Terminals Inc. (ATI), elevated the case to the CA.
consignee San Miguel, another 54 rolls were found to have been damaged,
for a total of 212 rolls of damaged shipment worth P755,666.84. ATI maintained that the goods were withdrawn by the broker in the
same condition as they were discharged from the vessel. It argued that it is
Respondent Allied Guarantee Insurance, Co., Inc., was the insurer of
not liable for the damage to the additional 54 rolls as these were discovered
the shipment. Thus, it paid San Miguel P755,666.84 and was subrogated in
only at the warehouse of San Miguel and these were the broker's
the latter's rights.
responsibility after they were released from ATI's custody until delivery to
Allied filed a Complaint for maritime damages against Transocean, the consignee.
Philippine Transmarine, Dynamic and Marina seeking indemnification of
Ruling of the CA
what it paid to San Miguel.
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. It found the carriers
Marina denied the complaint's allegations and maintained that 158
Transocean and Philippine Transmarine liable to the plaintiff insurer, the
rolls in the shipment were already in "bad order condition" when it turned
subrogee of the consignee, for the 158 rolls of kraft linear board that were
over the same to the consignee's representative/broker, claiming due care
lost or damaged while in the former's custody during shipping. The common


carriers were held liable because they were found unable to overcome the consignee's warehouse and then they unloaded said cargoes with their
presumption of negligence while in custody of the goods. Then", the equipment. He claimed that the Marina personnel used a "grabbed lift." The
arrastre ATI and the broker Dynamic were likewise found liable for the consignee sometimes used forklifts, depending on the availability of
additional 54 rolls of the same goods destroyed as both failed to prove the equipment. Before they received the cargoes from Marina, the condition of
exercise of the amount of diligence required in- the safekeeping of said the cargoes were already damaged.
goods. In particular, the CA stated that ATI failed to present the Turn Over
Inspector and Bad Order Inspector as witnesses who could have testified In general, the nature of the work of an arrastre operator covers the
that no additional goods were damaged during its custody. handling of cargoes at piers and wharves," which was what exactly
defendant Marina's function entails in this case. "To carry out its duties, the
Aggrieved, ATI filed the instant petition for review. arrastre is required to provide cargo handling equipment which includes,
among others, trailer, chassis for containers." On the other hand, defendant
Petitioner ATI argues that the appellate court erroneously failed to Dynamic which in its capacity as broker, withdrew the 357 rolls of kraft
note the so-called Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes and the Requests linear board from the custody of defendant Marina and delivered the same
for Bad Order Survey which supposedly could absolve it from liability for the to the consignee, San Miguel Corporation's warehouse, is considered a
damaged shipment. The reports were allegedly made prior to the common carrier.
shipment's turnover from ATI to Dynamic and they purportedly show that
no additional loss or damage happened while the shipment was in ATI's Hence, the "legal relationship between the consignee and the
custody as the reports only mention the 158 rolls that were damaged during arrastre operator is akin to that of a depositor and the warehouseman. The
shipping or prior to ATI's possession. relationship between the consignee and the common carrier is similar to
that of the consignee and the arrastre operator. Since it is the duty of the
arrastre to take good care of the goods that are in its custody and to deliver
them in good condition to the consignee, such responsibility also develops
ISSUE
upon the carrier. Both the arrastre and the carrier are, therefore, charged
Whether or not petitioner ATI is liable for the additional 54 rolls of with and obligated to deliver the goods in good condition to the consignee."
damaged goods to respondent.
The arrastre operator's principal work is that of handling cargo, so
that its drivers/operators or employees should observe the standards and
measures necessary to prevent losses and damage to shipments under its
RULING custody. In the performance of its obligations, an arrastre operator should
observe the same degree of diligence as that required of a common carrier
Yes, it is. and a warehouseman. Being the custodian of the goods discharged from a
vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to take good care of the goods and to
During the proceedings before the trial court, Defendants witness,
turn them over to the party entitled to their possession. With such a
Mr. Robert Rosario, head of defendants trucking department, claimed that
responsibility, the arrastre operator must prove that the losses were not
Dynamic received the subject cargoes in damaged condition and when it
due to its negligence or to that of its employees. And to prove the exercise
was delivered to the consignee, San Miguel Corporation's warehouse, the
of diligence in handling the subject cargoes, petitioner must do more than
condition of the cargoes were the same as when it was received by
merely show the possibility that some other party could be responsible for
Dynamic. He further claimed that the personnel of Marina loaded the
cargoes to Dynamic's truck. After the loading, their truck proceeded to the


the loss or the damage. It must prove that it exercised due care in the documents, the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes, pertain to the 158
handling thereof. rolls of damaged goods which occurred during shipment and prior to ATI's
custody.49 But responsibility for the 158 rolls was already established to be
The trial court correctly held that the broker, Dynamic, cannot alone that of the common carrier and is no longer disputed by the parties. Thus,
be held liable for the additional 54 rolls of damaged goods since such this fact has little or no more relevance to the issue of liability over the
damage occurred during the following instances: (1) while the goods were in additional 54 rolls of damaged goods. Anent the second set of documents,
the custody of the arrastre ATI; (2) when they were in transition from ATI's the Requests for Bad Order Survey, which mention only 158 rolls of
custody to that of Dynamic; and (3) during Dynamic's custody. While the damaged goods and do not mention any additional damage, the same do
trial court could not determine with pinpoint accuracy who among the two not result in an automatic exculpation of ATI from liability. As previously
caused which particular damage and in what proportion or quantity, it was stated, jurisprudence states that the signature by a-customs broker's
clear that both ATI and Dynamic failed to discharge the burden of proving representative of "receipt in good order" does not foreclose the consignee's
that damage on the 54 rolls did not occur during their custody. As for or its subrogee's right or remedy to prove that additional loss or damage to
petitioner ATI, in particular, what worked against it was the testimony that the subject shipment occurred while the same was under the custody,
its employees' use of the wrong lifting equipment while loading the goods control and possession of the arrastre operator.50 Further, it is unclear
onto Dynamic's trucks had a role in causing the damage. Such is a finding of whether these Requests for Bad Order Survey were executed prior to or
fact made by the trial court which this Court, without a justifiable ground, after loading was done onto Dynamic's trucks. As earlier indicated, there is
will not disturb, testimony that it was during the loading to the trucks that some or all of the
damage was incurred.
But ATI submits that the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes and
the Requests for Bad Order Survey help establish that damage to the Since the relationship of an arrastre operator and a consignee is
additional 54 rolls of goods did not happen in its custody. In particular, the akin to that between a warehouseman and a depositor, then, in instances
Requests for Bad Order Survey was allegedly signed by Dynamic's when the consignee claims any loss, the burden of proof is on the arrastre
representative stating that only 158 rolls were damaged as of the goods' operator to show that it complied with the obligation to deliver the goods
transfer from ATI to Dynamic. However, this Court has already held that a and that the losses were not due to its negligence or that of its employees.
mere sign-off from the customs broker's representative that he had ATI failed to dislodge this burden.
received the subject shipment "in good order and condition without
exception" would not absolve the arrastre from liability, simply because the As observed by the CA:
representative's signature merely signifies that said person thereby frees
the arrastre from any liability for loss or damage to the cargo so withdrawn Marina was not able to overcome the presumption of negligence.
while the same was in the custody of such representative to whom the The Bad Order Cargo Receipts, the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes
cargo was released, but it does not foreclose the remedy or right of the as well as the Request for Bad Order Survey did not establish that the
consignee (or its subrogee) to prove that any loss or damage to the subject additional 54 rolls were in good condition while in the custody of the
shipment occurred while the same was under the custody, control and arrastre. Said documents proved only that indeed the 158 rolls were already
possession of the arrastre operator. damaged when they were discharged to the arrastre operator and when it
was subsequently withdrawn from the arrastre operator by the broker.
Certainly, ATI's reliance on the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Further, the Turn Over Inspector and the Bad Order Inspector who
Cargoes as well as the Requests for Bad Order Survey is misplaced. An conducted the inspections and who signed the Turn Over Survey of Bad
examination of the documents would even reveal that the first set of Order Cargoes and the Request for Bad Order Survey were not presented by


Marina as witnesses to verify the correctness of the document and to testify
that only 158 rolls was reported and no others sustained damage while the
shipment was in its possession.
The non-presentation of ATI of the so-called inspectors who

prepared the Requests for Bad Order Survey further proved detrimental to
its case. Instead, all that ATI presented were the Requests for Bad Order
Survey which, being private documents that had not been authenticated by
the inspectors who prepared them, were correctly disregarded by the trial
court and appellate court. Private documents whose authenticity and due
execution was not established may not be received in evidence and are
hearsay.
Failing to present the necessary evidence, ATI was unable to

overcome the presumption of its own negligence while in the custody of the
goods.
As it is now established that there was negligence in both petitioner

ATI's and Dynamic's performance of their duties in the handling, storage and
delivery of the subject shipment to San Miguel, resulting in the loss of 54
rolls of kraft linear board, both shall be solidarily liable for such loss.


5. GV Florida v. Heirs of Battung extraordinary care, vigilance and precaution in the carriage of passengers by
common carriers to only such as human care and foresight can provide.
October 14, 2015 What constitutes compliance with said duty is adjudged with due regard to
all the circumstances.
Facts: On March 22, 2003, Romeo Battung boarded a Florida bus bound for
Manila. He was seated at the first row behind the driver and slept during Art. 1755 merely creates a presumption, which is rebuttable by proof that
the ride. When the bus reached Nueva Ecija, the bus driver stopped the bus the common carrier had exercised extraordinary diligence as required by
and checked the tires. At this point, a man who was seated on the fourt row law in the performance of its contractual obligation, or that the injury
stood up and shot Battung in the head. Battung died. suffered by the passenger was solely due to a fortuitous event.

The heirs of Battung then filed a complaint before the RTC for breach of It is therefore imperative for a party claiming against a common carrier to
contract of carriage against Florida Bus, contending that Florida and its show that the injury or death to the passenger arose from the negligence of
employees are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in ensuing the the common carrier and/or its employees in providing safe transport to its
safety of passengers; and in case of injuries and/or death on the part of a passengers.
passenger, they are presumed to be at fault and thus responsible.
In a case, the court held that where the injury sustained by the passenger
Florida aruges that it had exercised extraordianry diligence and claimed was in no way due:
that a common carrier is not an absolute insurer of its passengers and that (1)to any defect in the means of transport or in the method of transporting;
Battung's death should be properly deemed a fortuitous event. or
(2)to the negligent or willful acts of the common carrier's employees with
RTC ruled in favor of the heirs and order Florida to pay compensatory respect to the foregoing
damages, actual and moral damages in the aggregate amount of P1.7M. RTC
found that Florida failed to rebut the presumed liability of common carriers - such as when the injury arises wholly from causes created by strangers
in case of injuries/death of its passengers due to their failure to show that which the carrier had no control of or prior knowledge to prevent - there
they implemented the proper security measures to prevent passengers would be no issue regarding the common carrier's negligence in its duty to
from carrying deadly weapons inside the bus. provide safe and suitable care, as well as comptent employees in relation to
its transport business, as such, the presumption of fault/negligence under
CA affirmed the RTC's ruling in toto. It held that Battung's death cannot Art. 1756 should not apply.
be deemed a fortuitous event, considering that such killing happened right
inside Florida's bus and that it did not take any safety measures in ensuring In this case, Battung's death was neither caused by any defect in the means
that no deadly weapon would be smuggled inside the bus. of transport or in the method of transporting, or to the negligent or willful
acts of Florida's employees, namely that of the driver and conductor.
Issue: Whether Florida is liable for damages arising from breach of contract. Instead, this case involves the death of Battung wholly caused by the
surreptitious act of a co-passenger who, after consummating such crime,
Ruling: No. hurriedly alighted from the vehicle. Hence, there is no proper issue on
petitioner's duty to observe extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of
The law does not make the common carrier an insurer of the absolute passengers transported by it, and the presumption of fault/negligence
safety of its passengers. Art. 1755 of the Civil Code qualifies the dut of


agaisnt Florida under Art. 1756 should not apply. 6. Metro Manila Transit Corp. (MMTC) vs. CUEVAS (G.R. No. 167797, June
15, 2015)
Art. 1763, applicable provision
Since the death of Battung was caused by a co-passenger, the applicable Facts: MMTC entered into an agreement to sell with Minas Transit in 1990.
provision is Art. 1763 which states that a common carrier is responsible for The agreement was that Minas Transit would buy from MMTC several bus
injuries suffere by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of units at a stipulated price. The agreement contained the provision that
other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees MMTC would retain ownership of the buses until certain conditions were
through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have met but in the meantime Minas Transit could operate the buses within
prevented or stopped the act or omission." In this obligation, the law Metro Manila. In 1994, one of the buses subject to the said agreement hit
requires a lesser degree of diligence, i.e. diligence of a good father of a and damaged a Honda Motorcycle owned and driven by the Cuevases. The
family, in assessing the existence of any culpability on the common carrier's Cuevases thus filed a complaint for damages against MMTC and Minas
part. Transit. MMTC filed a cross-claim against Minas Transit, the latter being the
operator. Both the lower courts found for the Cuevases and ordered MMTC
The court distinguished this case with that of Fortune, where despite and Minas Transit to be solidariliy liable.
receiving reports of lawless elements planning to hijack and burn its buses,
Issue: Who is/are liable?
it failed to implement necessary precautions to ensure the safety of its
buses and passengers and held Fortune liable. In this case however, there Held: MMTC is liable, but it can file a cross-claim against Minas Transit.
was no similar danger so as to impel Florida or its employees to heightened
security measures to ensure the safety of its passengers. There was also no
showing that during the course of the trip, Battung's killer made suspicious The registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in a vehicular accident
actions which would have forewarned Florida's employees of the need to could be held liable for the consequences. The main aim of registration is to
conduct thorough checks on him or any of the passengers. identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or
injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility
The SC emphasized that common carriers should be given sufficient leeway therefore can be fixed on a definite individual the registered owners. Its
in assuming that the passengers they take in will not bring anything that primary purpose is to making it certain that the violator of the law or of the
would prove dangerous to himself, as well as his co-passengers, unless there rules of safety shall not escape because of lack of means to discover him.
is something that will indicate that a more stringent inspection should be
made. In the case at bar, the driver and conductor took note of the four It is well settled that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered owner
men who boared the bus (two of which killed Battung) and observed of the motor vehicle is considered as the employer of the tortfeasor-driver ,
nothing that would rouse their suspicion that the men were armed or were and is made primarily liable for the tort committed by the latter under
to carry out an unlawfuly activity. With no such indication, there was no Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code.
need for them to conduct a more stringent search (i.e. bodily search) on
In Equitable Leasing Corporation v. Suyom, we ruled that in so far as third
these men. By all accounts, it cannot be concluded that Florida or any of its
persons are concerned, the registered owner of the motor vehicle is the
employyes failed to employ the diligence of a good father of a family. It is
employer of the negligent driver, and the actual employer is considered
thus no civilly liable.
merely as an agent of such owner. There is thus a clear presumption that
the law intends the registered owner primarily and directly liable for


damages under Article 2176 in relation to 2180 and the existence of an incidental services in order to undertake its arrastre service. Petitioners
employer-employee relationship is not necessarily. services are clearly not maritime.
However, MMTC was not left without recourse in law. MMTC could recover In Insurance Company of North America v. Asian Terminals, Inc., the SC
from Minas Transit, the actual employer of the negligent driver, under the explained that the liabilities of the arrastre operator for losses and damages
principle of unjust enrichment, by means of a cross-claim seeking are set forth in the contract for cargo handling services it had executed with
reimbursement of all the amounts that it could be required to pay as the PPA. Corollarily then, the rights of an arrastre operator to be paid for
damages arising from the drivers negligence. damages it sustains from handling cargoes do not likewise spring from
contracts of carriage.
7. UNKNOWN OWNER OF THE VESSEL MN CHINA JOY, SAMSUN SHIPPING Instead, Article 2176 of the Civil Code and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
LTD., and INTER-ASIA MARINE TRANSPORT, INC (Petitioners) vs. ASIAN apply.
TERMINALS, INC G.R. No. 195661 March 11, 2015
Art. 2176 provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to
Facts: Under the Charter Party Agreement over M/V "China Joy," another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
ContiQuincyBunge represented itself as the Charterer of the Vessel, with done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
San Miguel Foods, Inc. as Co-Charterer, and Samsun represented itself as relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
the Agent of the Shipowners. Samsun is a foreign corporation not doing provisions of this Chapter.
business in the Philippines. While unloading the cargo of China Joy, the
unloader of Asian Terminals, Inc (ATI) got broken because of a flat steel bar In Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co. the Court explained that to
found in the cargo. ATI then filed damages against the Petitioners for the establish a plaintiffs right to recovery for quasi-delicts, three elements must
repair. exist, to wit: (a) damages to the plaintiff; (b) negligence by act or omission
of which defendant personally, or some person for whose acts it must
Issue: Whether petitioners may be held liable for the damage sustained by respond, was guilty; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the
ATIs unloader. negligence and the damage.
Ruling. Yes, but under quasi-delicts and not under a contract of carriage. There is no dispute that ATIs unloader got damaged and such damage is a
consequence of negligence caused by someone.
There is no contract of carriage between the petitioners and ATI in this case.
As can be gleaned from the complaint, the subject is not damage caused to The petitioners deny liability claiming that it was not established with
the cargo but to the equipment of ATI, an arrastre operator. Also, ATIs reasonable certainty whose negligence had caused the co-mingling of the
contractual relation is not with petitioners, but with the consignee and the metal bars with the soybean meal cargo. The SC disagreed, holding that
Philippine Ports of Authority (PPA). petitioners should be held jointly and severally liable to ATI. ATI cannot be
faulted for its lack of direct access to evidence determinative as to who
Petitioners functions as arrastre operator are (1) to receive, handle, care among the petitioners should assume liability. The doctrine of res ipsa
for, and deliver all merchandise imported and exported, upon or passing loquitur applies.
over Government-owned wharves and piers in the Port of Manila, (2) as well
as to record or cheek all merchandise which may be delivered to said port at First, under normal unloading procedures of bulk grain, it is not expected
shipside, and in general[,] (3) to furnish light and water services and other that a metal foreign object would be among the grain to be unloaded;


second, the damage to the vertical screws of ATIs unloader was caused by
the presence of the metal bar among the cargo of the ship: an
instrumentality within the exclusive control of the shipowner; and third,
there is neither allegation nor evidence in the record that ATIs negligence
contributed to the damage of its unloader.


ESLIs vessel with the second shipment arrived at the port of Manila
partly damaged and in bad order. The coils sustained further damage during
8. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., v. BPI/MS INSURANCE the discharge from vessel to shore until its turnover to ATIs custody for
CORP., & MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO., LTD., safekeeping.
G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015 Upon withdrawal from ATI and delivery to Calamba Steel, it was
found out that the damage amounted to US$12,961.63. As it did before,

Calamba Steel rejected the damaged shipment for being unfit for the
FACTS intended purpose.
BPI/MS Insurance Corporation and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Calamba Steel filed a claim against ESLI as the carrier and ATI as the
Company Limited filed a Complaint before the RTC against ESLI and ATI to arrastre operator for the damages to both shipments. When ESLI and ATI
recover actual damages amounting to US$17,560.48 with legal interest, refused to pay, Calamba Steel filed an insurance claim for the total amount
attorneys fees and costs of suit. of the cargo against BPI/MS and Mitsui as cargo insurers. As a result, BPI/MS
and Mitsui became subrogated in place of and with all the rights and
BPI/MS and Mitsui alleged that Sumitomo Corporation shipped on defenses accorded by law in favor of Calamba Steel.
board ESLIs vessel M/V Eastern Venus 22 22 coils of various Steel Sheet
weighing 159,534 kilograms in good order and condition for transportation ATI insisted that the coils in two shipments were already damaged
from at Yokohama, Japan to and delivery at the port of Manila in favor of upon receipt from ESLIs vessels. It likewise insisted that it exercised due
consignee Calamba Steel Center, Inc. The declared value of the shipment diligence in the handling of the shipments and invoked that in case of
was US$83,857.59. The shipment was insured with the respondents BPI/MS adverse decision, its liability should not exceed P5,000.00 pursuant to
and Mitsui against all risks. Section 7.01, Article VII4 of the Contract for Cargo Handling Services
between Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and ATI.
The shipment arrived at the port of Manila in an unknown condition
and was turned over to ATI for safekeeping. Upon withdrawal by the On its part, ESLI averred that the damage to both shipments was
Calamba Steels representative, part of the shipment was damaged and was incurred while the same were in the possession and custody of ATI and/or
in bad order condition such that there was a Request for Bad Order Survey. of the consignee or its representatives.
It was found out that the damage amounted to US$4,598.85 prompting
Ruling of the RTC
Calamba Steel to reject the damaged shipment for being unfit for the
intended purpose. The RTC found both the ESLI and ATI liable for the damages
sustained by the two shipments.
Sumitomo Corporation again shipped on board ESLIs vessel M/V
Eastern Venus 25 50 coils in various Steel Sheet weighing 383,532 Aggrieved, ESLI and ATI filed their respective appeals before the CA.
kilograms in good order and condition for transportation from Kashima,
Japan, to and delivery at the port of Manila in favor of the same consignee ESLI argued that the trial court erred when it found BPI/MS has the
Calamba Steel. The declared value of the shipment was US$221,455.58. The capacity to sue and when it assumed jurisdiction over the case. It also
shipment was insured with the respondents BPI/MS and Mitsui against all questioned the ruling on its liability since the Survey Reports indicated that
risks. the cause of loss and damage was due to the rough handling of ATIs


stevedores during discharge from vessel to shore and during loading
operation onto the trucks. It invoked the limitation of liability of US$500.00
per package as provided in Commonwealth Act No. 65 or COGSA. ISSUE
On the other hand, ATI questioned the capacity to sue of BPI/MS WON ESLI is liable for the loss.
and Mitsui and the award of attorneys fees despite its lack of justification in

the body of the decision. ATI also imputed error on the part of the trial
court when it ruled that ATIs employees were negligent in the ruling of the RULING
shipments. It also insisted on the applicability of the provision of COGSA on
limitation of liability. First Issue: Liability of ESLI
Ruling of the CA ESLI bases of its non-liability on the survey reports prepared by
BPI/MS and Mitsuis witness Manuel which found that the cause of damage
The CA modified the decision of the trial court and absolved ATI was the rough handling on the shipment by the stevedores of ATI during the
from liability. discharging operations. However, Manuel does not absolve ESLI of liability.
The witness in fact includes ESLI in the findings of negligence. Paragraphs 3
Before the SC, ESLI seeks the reversal of the ruling on its liability.
and 11 of the affidavit of witness Manuel attribute fault to both ESLI and
At the outset, and notably, ESLI included among its arguments the ATI.
attribution of liability to ATI but it failed to implead the latter as a party to
Manuel attested that he personally noticed that the 22 coils in the
the present petition. This non-inclusion was raised by BPI/MS and Mitsui as
first shipment and the 50 coils in the second shipment were roughly
an issue in its Comment/Opposition and Memorandum.
handled during their discharging from the vessel to the pier of ATI and even
ESLI, in its Reply, put the blame for the non-exclusion of ATI to during the loading operations of these coils from the pier to the trucks that
BPI/MS and Mitsui claiming that if BPI/MS and Mitsui believe that ATI will transport the coils to the consignees warehouse. During the aforesaid
should be made liable, they should have filed a Motion for Reconsideration operations, the employees and forklift operators of ESLI and ATI were very
with the CA. The fact that BPI/MS and Mitsui did not even lift a finger to negligent in the handling of the subject cargoes.
question the decision of the CA goes to show that BPI/MS and Mitsui are
ESLI cannot rely only on parts it chooses. The entire body of
not interested as to whether or not ATI is indeed liable.
evidence should determine the liability of the parties. From the statements
It is clear from the exchange that both parties are aware of the non- of Manuel, ESLI was negligent, whether solely or together with ATI.
inclusion of ATI, the arrastre operator. By blaming each other for the
To further press its cause, ESLI cites the affidavit of its witness
exclusion of ATI, ESLI and BPI/MS and Mitsui impliedly agree that the
Rodrigo, the Cargo Surveyor, who stated that the cause of the damage was
absolution of ATI from liability is final and beyond review. Clearly, ESLI is the
the rough mishandling by ATIs stevedores. Rodrigo testified that, upon
consequential loser. It alone must bear the proven liability for the loss of the
arrival at Manila of the two vessels of ESLI, he immediately boarded the
shipment. It cannot shift the blame to ATI, the arrastre operator, which has
vessels to inspect and monitor the unloading of the cargoes. In both
been cleared by the CA. Neither can it argue that the consignee should bear
instances, it was his finding that there was mishandling on the part of ATIs
the loss.
stevedores which he reported as the cause of the damage.


However, there is an absence of a crucial point in determining Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common
liability of either or both ESLI and ATI lack of determination whether the carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes a
cargo was in a good order condition as described in the bills of lading at the prima facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no adequate
time of his boarding. The actual condition of the cargoes upon arrival prior explanation is given as to how the deterioration, loss, or destruction of the
to discharge is equally important and cannot be disregarded. Proof is goods happened, the transporter shall be held responsible.61 From the
needed that the cargo arrived at the port of Manila in good order condition foregoing, the fault is attributable to ESLI. While no longer an issue, it may
and remained as such prior to its handling by ATI. be nonetheless state that ATI was correctly absolved of liability for the
damage.
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and on public
policy considerations, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the Second Issue: Limitation of Liability
vigilance over the goods transported by them. Subject to certain exceptions
enumerated under Article 1734 of the Civil Code, common carriers are ESLI assigns as error the appellate courts finding and reasoning that
responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The the package limitation under the COGSA is inapplicable even if the bills of
extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the lading covering the shipments only made reference to the corresponding
goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the invoices. Noticeably, the invoices specified among others the weight,
carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or quantity, description and value of the cargoes, and bore the notation
constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a Freight Prepaid and As Arranged. ESLI argues that the value of the
right to receive them. cargoes was not incorporated in the bills of lading and that there was no
evidence that the shipper had presented to the carrier in writing prior to the
A bill of lading is issued by a common carrier as a contract, receipt loading of the actual value of the cargo, and, that there was a no payment
and symbol of the goods covered by it. If it has no notation of any defect or of corresponding freight. Finally, despite the fact that ESLI admits the
damage in the goods, it is considered as a clean bill of lading. A clean bill existence of the invoices, it denies any knowledge either of the value
of lading constitutes prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the declared or of any information contained therein.
goods as therein described.
According to the New Civil Code, the law of the country to which
Based on the bills of lading issued, it is undisputed that ESLI the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common
received the two shipments of coils from shipper Sumitomo Corporation in carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration. The Code takes
good condition at the ports of Yokohama and Kashima, Japan. However, precedence as the primary law over the rights and obligations of common
upon arrival at the port of Manila, some coils from the two shipments were carriers with the Code of Commerce and COGSA applying suppletorily.
partly dented and crumpled as evidenced by the Turn Over Surveys of Bad
Order Cargoes. The New Civil Code provides that a stipulation limiting a common
carriers liability to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading is
Calamba Steel requested for a re-examination of the damages binding, unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value. In addition, a
sustained by the two shipments. Based on the Requests for Bad Order contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner or shipper for
Survey Nos. 5826757 and 5825458 covering the first shipment, four coils the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is reasonable
were damaged prior to turnover. The second Request for Bad Order Survey and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed
No. 5865859 also affirmed the earlier findings that eleven coils on the upon.
second shipment were damaged prior to turnover.


COGSA, on the other hand, provides under Section 4, Subsection 5 and value of the goods have been declared by Sumitomo Corporation and
that an amount recoverable in case of loss or damage shall not exceed inserted in the bills of lading.
US$500.00 per package or per customary freight unless the nature and
value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and ESLI contends that the invoices specifying the weight, quantity,
inserted in the bill of lading. description and value of the cargo in reference to the bills of lading do not
prove the fact that the shipper complied with the requirements mandated
In line with these maritime law provisions, paragraph 13 of bills of by the COGSA. It contends that there must be an insertion of this
lading issued by ESLI to the shipper specifically provides a similar restriction: declaration in the bill of lading itself to fall outside the statutory limitation
of liability.
The value of the goods, in calculating and adjusting any claims for
which the Carrier may be liable shall, to avoid uncertainties and difficulties ESLI asserts that the appellate court erred when it ruled that there
in fixing value, be deemed to the invoice value of the goods plus ocean was compliance with the declaration requirement even if the value of the
freight and insurance, if paid, Irrespective of whether any other value is shipment and fact of payment were indicated on the invoice and not on the
greater or less, and any partial loss or damage shall be adjusted pro rata on bill of lading itself.
the basis of such value; provided, however, that neither the Carrier nor the
ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss, non-delivery or There is no question about the declaration of the nature, weight
misdelivery of or damage or delay to, or in connection with the custody or and description of the goods on the first bill of lading.
transportation of the goods in an amount exceeding $500.00 per package
The bills of lading represent the formal expression of the parties
lawful money of the United States, or in case of goods not shipped in
rights, duties and obligations. It is the best evidence of the intention of the
packages, per customary freight unit, unless the nature of the goods and a
parties which is to be deciphered from the language used in the contract,
valuation higher than $500.00 is declared in writing by the shipper on
not from the unilateral post facto assertions of one of the parties, or of third
delivery to the Carrier and inserted in the bill of lading and extra freight is
parties who are strangers to the contract. Thus, when the terms of an
paid therein as required by applicable tariffs to obtain the benefit of such
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is deemed to contain all the
higher valuation. In which case even if the actual value of the goods per
terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their
package or unit exceeds such declared value, the value shall nevertheless be
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of
deemed to be the declared value and any Carriers liability shall not exceed
the written agreement.
such declared value and any partial loss or damage shall be adjusted pro-
rata on the basis thereof. The Carrier shall not be liable for any loss or profit As to the non-declaration of the value of the goods on the second
or any consequential or special damage and shall have the option of bill of lading, we see no error on the part of the appellate court when it
replacing any lost goods and replacing o reconditioning any damage goods. ruled that there was a compliance of the requirement provided by COGSA.
No oral declaration or agreement shall be evidence of a value different from The declaration requirement does not require that all the details must be
that provided therein. written down on the very bill of lading itself. It must be emphasized that all
the needed details are in the invoice, which contains the itemized list of
x x x x
goods shipped to a buyer, stating quantities, prices, shipping charges, and
Accordingly, the issue whether or not ESLI has limited liability as a other details which may contain numerous sheets. Compliance can be
carrier is determined by either absence or presence of proof that the nature attained by incorporating the invoice, by way of reference, to the bill of
lading provided that the former containing the description of the nature,


value and/or payment of freight charges is as in this case duly admitted as The admission having been made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial
evidence. by the parties, it must be treated as a judicial admission. Under Section 4, of
Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no proof.
Also, ESLI admitted the existence and due execution of the Bills of
Lading and the Invoice containing the nature and value of the goods on the It is inconceivable that a shipping company with maritime
second shipment. experience and resource like the ESLI will admit the existence of a maritime
document like an invoice even if it has no knowledge of its contents or
The effect of admission of the genuineness and due execution of a without having any copy thereof.
document means that the party whose signature it bears admits that he
voluntarily signed the document or it was signed by another for him and ESLI also asserts that the notation Freight Prepaid and As
with his authority. Arranged, does not prove that there was an actual declaration made in
writing of the payment of freight as required by COGSA. ESLI did not as it
A review of the bill of ladings and invoice on the second shipment could not deny payment of freight in the amount indicated in the
indicates that the shipper declared the nature and value of the goods with documents. Indeed, the earlier discussions on ESLIs admission of the
the corresponding payment of the freight on the bills of lading. Further, existence and due execution of the invoices, cover and disprove the
under the caption description of packages and goods, it states that the argument regarding actual declaration of payment. The bills of lading bore a
description of the goods to be transported as various steel sheet in coil notation on the manner of payment which was Freight Prepaid and As
with a gross weight of 383,532 kilograms (89.510 M3). On the other hand, Arranged while the invoices indicated the amount exactly paid by the
the amount of the goods is referred in the invoice, the due execution and shipper to ESLI.
genuineness of which has already been admitted by ESLI, is US$186,906.35
as freight on board with payment of ocean freight of US$32,736.06 and
insurance premium of US$1,813.17. From the foregoing, we rule that the
non- limitation of liability applies in the present case.
We likewise accord the same binding effect on the contents of the

invoice on the first shipment.
ESLI contends that what was admitted and written on the pre-trial
order was only the existence of the first shipment invoice but not its
contents and due execution. It invokes admission of existence but
renounces any knowledge of the contents written on it.
Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the

admissions. Pre-trial admission in civil cases is one of the instances of
judicial admissions explicitly provided for under Section 7, Rule 18 of the
Rules of Court, which mandates that the contents of the pre-trial order shall
control the subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting
the issues to be tried.


fees. Loadstar denied the allegation of Malayan and presented the following
arguments: (1) the entry of seawater into the cargo hold must have been
9. Loadstar Shipping v. Malayan November 26, 2014 caused by force majeure; (2) they were denied the opportunity to
participate in the salvage sale; and (3) the claim has already prescribed in
Facts: Loadstar Shipping and Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining accordance with the Bill of Lading and the Code of Commerce.
Corporation (PASAR) entered into a contract of affreightment for domestic
bulk transport of the latter's copper concentrates. RTC rendered judgment dismissing the complaint as it was convinced that
the vessel was seaworthy at the time of loading and that the damage was
On September 10, 2000, 5,000 metric tons of copper concentrates were attributable to the perils of the sea and not due to the fault or negligence of
loaded in Loadstar Shipping under a charter party agreement. The shipper Loadstar. RTC further found that although contaminated by seawater, the
and consignee are Philex Mining and PASAR. The cargo was insured with copper concentrates can still be used. Furthermore, Loadstar was not
Malayan insurance while P & I Association is the third party liability insurer afforded the opportunity to object or participate in the sale of the
of Loadstar Shipping. contaminated copper concentrates to lessen the damages to be paid.
Neither was a public bidding conducted. RTC stated that Malayan sold the
However, when the cargo arrived, it turned out that a portion of the cargo contaminated copper concentrates to PASAR at a low price then paid PASAR
was contaminated because the seawater entered and wet Cargo Hold No. 2. the total value of the damaged concentrate without deducting anything
Hence, PASAR rejected 750 metric ton of the 2,300 metric ton cargo in from the claim.
Cargo Hold No. 2.
CA first reversed the RTC decision and ordered Loadstar to pay actual
On November 6, 2000, PASAR then sent a formal notice of claim amounting damages plus legal interest. It later modified its decision and ordered
to P37.4M to Loadstar shipping which was eventually paid by Malayan in the Loadstar to pay the the P33M less the USD90K. According to the CA, the
amount recommended by the surveyor (which was only P32M). amount of USD90K should be deducted from Malayan's claim in order to
prevent undue enrichment on the part of Malayan. Otherwise, Malayan
Meanwhile, Malayan wrote Loadstart Shipping informing the latter that would recover from Loadstar not merely entire amount of loss, but would
there is a prospective buyer for the damaged concetrates and that it may also end up unjustly enriching itself in the amount of USD90K.
nominate or refer other salvage buyers. PASAR however was able to
purchase the damaged copper concentrates at USD90K. Loadstar later Issue: Whether Malayan may recover from Loadstar.
requested for a reversal of this and to instead have a publi bidding to allow
Loadstar to match or top PASARs bid. Ruling: No.

On January 23, 2001, PASAR signed a subrogation receipt in favor of The fact that PASAR did not suffer a penalty under its contract does not
Malayan for it to recover from Loadstar Shipping. When Malayan demanded necessarily mean that it did not suffer a loss.
payment, Loadstar refused to comply. Hence, Malayan instituted a It is the contention of Loadstar that PASAR did not suffer any damage. It
complaint for damages before the RTC. pointed out that PASAR's contract with Philex Mining (the supposed buyer
of the copper concentrate) only provided a penalty where the other
Malayan alleged that due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel, PASAR elements in the copper concentrate exceed the pre-agreed formula.
suffered loss of the cargo. It then prayed for the payment of P33M Loadstart stressed that since the chlorine content (brought about by the
representing the P32M damages and legal interest, as well as attorneys


seawater) is still below the minimum level provided under the Philex
Mining-PASAR contract, no penalty was imposed against the latter. In the case at bar, Malayan failed to establish that the goods were
rendered useless or unit for the purpose intended by PASAR due to
The SC however ruled that Loadstar cannot invoke the penalty clause contamination with seawater. Hence, there is no basis of the goods'
under the Philex-PASAR purchase agreement. It is not privy to the contract rejection under Art. 365 of the Code of Commerce. Clearly, it is erroneous
of sale of the copper concentrates upon delivery. The contract between for Malayan to reimburse PASAR as though the latter suffered from total
PASAR and Loadstar is a contract of carriage of goods and not a contract of loss of goods in the absence of proof that PASAR sustained such kind of loss.
sale. Hence, Loadstar and PASAR are bound by the laws on transportation of Otherwise, there will be no difference in the indemnification of the goods
goods and their contract of affreightment. which were not delivered at all; or delivered but rendered useless,
compared against those which were delivered, albeit, their is diminution in
Not a total loss, generally, carrier only bound to pay the depreciation in value.
value
The SC emphasized that the fact that PASAR, after filing its claim for total Malayan not subrogated to the rights of PASAR
loss at P32M, bought back the contaminated copper concentrates from The right of subrogation is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any
Malayan at the price of USD90K. The court held that the fact of repurchase privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim. It accrues simply
is enough to conclude that the contamination of the copper concentrates upon payment of the insurance claim by the insurer. The right of
cannot be considered as a total loss on the part of PASAR. subrogation however is not absolute and there are a few recognized
exceptions, such as:
Under Arts 361-365 of the Code of Commerce, if the goods are delivered a.When the assured by his own act releases the wrongdoer or third party
but arrived at the destination in damaged condition, the remedies to be liable for the loss, the insureds right of subrogation is defeated.
pursued by the consignee depends on the extent of damage on the goods. If b.Where the insurer pays the assured the value of the lost goods without
the goods are rendered useless for sale, consumption or for the intended notifying the carrier who has in good faith settled the assureds claim for
purpose, the consignee may reject the goods and demand the payment of loss, the settlement is binding on both the assured and the insurer; and the
such goods at their market price on that day pursuant to Art. 365. latter cannot bring an action against the carrier on his right of subrogation.
c.Where the insurer pays the assured for loss which is not a risk covered by
In case the damaged portion of the goods can be segregated from those the policy, thereby effecting voluntary payment, the insurer has no right
delivered in good condition, the consignee may reject those in damaged of subrogation against the third party liable for the loss.
condition and accept merely those which are in good condition. But if the
consignee is able to prove that it is impossible to use those goods which The rights of a subrogee cannot be superior to the rights possessed by a
were delivered in good condition without the others, then the entire subrogor. Subrogation is the substitution of one person in the place of
shipment may be rejected. another with reference to a lawful claim or right, so that he who is
substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to a debt or claim,
To reiterate, under Art. 365, the nature of damage must be such that goods including its remedies or securities. The rights to which the subrogee
are rendered useless for sale, consumption or intended purpose for the succeeds are the same as, but not greater than, those of the person for
consignee to be able to validly reject him. If the effect of damage on the whom he is substituted, that is, he cannot acquire any claim, security or
goods consisted merely of diminution in value, the carrier is bound to pay remedy the subrogor did not have. In other words, a subrogee cannot
only the difference between its price on that day and its depreciated value. succeed to a right not possessed by a subrogor. A subrogee in effect steps


into the shoes of the insured and can recover only if the insured likewise
could have recovered.

An insurer indemnifies the insured based on the loss or injury the latter
actually suffered from. If there is no loss or injury, then there is no
obligation on the part of the insurer to indemnify the insured. Should the
insurer pay the insured and it turns out that indemnification is not due, or if
due, the amoutn paid is excessive, the insurer takes the risk of not being
able to seek recompense from the alleged wrongdoer. This is because the
supposed subrogor did not possess the right to be indemnified and
therefore, no right to collect is passed on to the subrogee.

Actual damages must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. In the
instant case, the CA merely deducted the amount of USD90K from the
award of actual damages. This is however iniquitous for Loadstar to merely
accept that the salvage value of the goods is USD90K, since the price was
arbitrarily fixed between PASAR and Malayan. Furthermore, when the
witness of Loadstar testified as to the adverse effect of seawater on the
copper concentrates, Malayan never presented evidence of its own in
refutation. As Malayan is claiming for actual damages, it bears the burden of
proof to substantiate its claim.

As Malayan did not adduce proof of pecuniary loss to PASAR for which the
latter was indemnified, there is no more need to expound on the other
issues raised by Loadstar.


10. Nedlloyd Lijnen BV Noterdam Vs Glow Laks Enterprises RTC held in favor of petitioners and dismissed the case saying that the
petitioners duly proved Panama Laws on surrendering custody of goods to
November 19, 2014, GR No. 156330 Panama Ports Authority.
Facts:
Respondent loaded 343 cartons of garments valued at $53,640 with vessel On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC ruling saying that the Petitioners failed
owned by petitioner through Philippine agent East Asiatic from Manila to to prove foreign law based on the Rules of Court, and thus, processual
Hong kong and arrived in good condition. Then loaded again to a different pressumption applies.
vessel likewise owned by petitioner from Hong kong to Panama.

Upon arrival on October 23 1987, the consignee was informed of its arrival
and the custody was turned over to the PPA. However, through falsified of
the bills of lading, the items were released to unauthorized persons.
Issue:

whether or not petitioners are liable for the misdelivery of goods under
On July 16 1988, the respondents filed a formal demand against petitioner Philippine laws
for was denied; hence, a complaint was filed with the RTC.

Contentions of the petitioners:
Held:
they cannot be faulted for the release of the goods to unauthorized
persons, their extraordinary responsibility as a common carrier having No
ceased at the time the possession of the goods were turned over to the

possession of the port authorities in accordance with Panama law.
-(a) Foreign law was not properly proved [this is Remedial law law topic...

Skip (a) and proceed to (b) if you want, but connected sila kay mao naa
Contention of respondents: letter b tunod sa letter a]
he fact that the shipments were not delivered to the consignee as stated in
the bill of lading or to the party designated or named by the consignee,
foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are
constitutes misdelivery thereof, and under the law it is presumed that the
not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must
common carrier is at fault or negligent if the goods they transported fell into
be alleged and proved.13 To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must
the hands of persons who have no right to receive them.


present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of Explicit is the rule under Article 1736 of the Civil Code that the extraordinary
the Revised Rules of Court responsibility of the common carrier begins from the time the goods are
delivered to the carrier.29 This responsibility remains in full force and effect
even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, unless the
shipper or owner exercises the right of stoppage in transitu, and terminates
For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following
only after the lapse of a reasonable time for the acceptance, of the goods by
requisites are mandatory:
the consignee or such other person entitled to receive them.30
(1) it must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or
It was further provided in the same statute that the carrier may be relieved
by his deputy; and (2) it must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary
from the responsibility for loss or damage to the goods upon actual or
of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consular or consular
constructive delivery of the same by the carrier to the consignee or to the
agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.15 Such official
person who has the right to receive them.
publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody
thereof.16The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine
embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the In this case, there is no dispute that the custody of the goods was never
record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.17 The attestation turned over to the consignee or his agents but was lost into the hands of
must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a unauthorized persons who secured possession thereof on the strength of
specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be under the official seal falsified documents. The loss or the misdelivery of the goods in the instant
of the attesting officer.18 case gave rise to the presumption that the common carrier is at fault or
negligent.

A common carrier is presumed to have been negligent if it fails to prove that
The deposition of Mr. Enrique Cajigas, a maritime law practitioner in the it exercised extraordinary vigilance over the goods it transported.34 When
Republic of Panama, before the Philippine Consulate in Panama, is not the the goods shipped are either lost or arrived in damaged condition, a
certificate contemplated by law. At best, the deposition can be considered presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that diligence,
as an opinion of an expert witness who possess the required special and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold it liable.35 To
knowledge on the Panamanian laws but could not be recognized as proof of overcome the presumption of negligence, the common carrier must
a foreign law, the deponent not being the custodian of the statute who can establish by adequateproof that it exercised extraordinary diligence over
guarantee the genuineness of the document from a foreign country. the goods.36 It must do more than merely show that some other party could
be responsible for the damage.37

In the present case, petitioners failed to prove that they did exercise the

degree of diligence required by law over the goods they transported.
- (b) Philippine law applies in the case


opportunity to remove the cargoes from the port of discharge. We have
scoured the records and found that neither the consignee nor the notify
- (c) Common carrier not released of responsibility upon delivery to custom paiiy was informed by the petitioners of the arrival of the goods, a crucial
authorities fact indicative of petitioners' failure to observe extraordinary diligence in
handling the goods entrusted to their custody for transport.

Nothing in the New Civil Code, however, suggests, even remotely, that the
common carriers responsibility over the goods ceased upon delivery
thereof to the custom authorities. To the mind of this Court, the contract of
carriage remains in full force and effect even after the delivery of the goods
to the port authorities; the only delivery that releases it from their
obligation to observe extraordinary care is the delivery to the consignee or
his agents.
While surrender of the original bill of lading is not a condition precedent for
the common carrier to be discharged from its contractual obligation, there
must be, at the very least, an acknowledgement of the delivery by signing
the delivery receipt, if surrender of the original of the bill of lading is not
possible.38 There was neither surrender of the original copies of the bills of
lading nor was there acknowledgment of the delivery in the present case.
This leads to the conclusion that the contract of carriage still subsists and
petitioners could be held liable for the breach thereof
- (d) lack of proof on the part of the Petitioner
Petitioners could have offered evidence before the trial court to show that
they exercised the highest degree of care and caution even after the goods
was turned over to the custom authorities, by promptly notifying the
consignee of its arrival at the P01i of Cristobal in order to afford them ample


Adjusters and Surveyors were forth with hailed to inspect and
conduct a survey of the shipment. Their Certificate of Survey yielded the
11. same results of the technician.
PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY v. HEUNG-A SHIPPING CORPORATION and Aggrieved, NOVARTIS demanded indemnification but were
WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC G.R. No. 187701 unheeded. Aggrieved, NOVARTIS demanded indemnification Insurance
claims were, thus, filed with PHILAM which paid
And
the insured value of the shipment. Philam was then subrogated to all the
EUNG-A SHIPPING CORPORATION and WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC.,
rights and claims of NOVARTIS against the parties liable.
v. PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY, INC G.R. No. 187812
The RTC ruled that HEUNG-A was the common carrier and that any
Facts:
damage to the shipment is the responsibility of the carrier. WALLEM was
In 2000, Novartis Consumer Health Philippines, Inc. (NOVARTIS) imported held liable as HEUNG-As ship agent in the Philippines while PROTOP was
from Jinsuk Trading Co. Ltd., (JINSUK) in South Korea 9 pallets of 200 rolls of adjudged liable because the damage sustained by the shipment was due to
Ovaltine Power 18 G laminated plastic packaging material. the bad condition of the container van.
In order to ship the goods to the Philippines, JINSUK engaged the services of The CA agreed with the RTC that PROTOP, HEUNG-A and WALLEM
Protop Shipping Corporation (PROTOP), a freight forwarder likewise based are liable for the damaged shipment.
in South Korea, to forward the goods to their consignee, NOVARTIS.

PROTOP shipped the cargo through Dongnama Shipping Co. Ltd.
Issue:
(DONGNAMA) which in turn loaded the same on M/V Heung-A Bangkok V-
019 owned and operated by Heung-A Shipping Corporation, (HEUNG-A), a 1. Whether the shipment sustained damage while in the possession
Korean corporation, pursuant to a slot charter agreement. Whereby a and custody of HEUNG-A
space in the latters vessel was reserved for the exclusive use of the former.
Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. (WALLEM) is the ship agent of HEUNG-A in 2. What is the extent of their liability
the Philippines.
3. Whether or not NOVARTIS/PHILAM failed to file a timely claim
NOVARTIS insured the shipment with Philam Insurance Company under All against HEUNG-A and/or WALLEM.
Risk Marine Open Insurance Policy.
Ruling:
The shipment reached NOVARTIS premises and was thereupon
inspected by the companys Senior Laboratory Technician. She inspected its 1. YES.
contents and discovered that the boxes of the shipment were wet and
HEUNG-As failure to demonstrate how it exercised due diligence in
damp. The technician then rejected the entire shipment.
handling and preserving the container van while in transit, it is liable for the
damages sustained thereby.


As the carrier of the subject shipment, HEUNG-A was bound to PROTOP is solidarily liable with HEUNG-A for the lost/damaged
exercise extraordinary diligence in conveying the same and its slot charter shipment in view of the bill of lading the former issued to NOVARTIS. A bill
agreement with DONGNAMA did not divest it of such characterization nor of lading is a written acknowledgement of the receipt of goods and an
relieve it of any accountability for the shipment. agreement to transport and to deliver them at a specified place to a person
named or on his or her order. It operates both as a receipt and as a
A charter party has two types. First, it could be a contract of contract. It is a receipt for the goods shipped and a contract to transport
affreightment whereby the use of shipping space on vessels is leased in part and deliver the same as therein stipulated. PROTOP breached its contract
or as a whole, to carry goods for others. The charter-party provides for the with NOVARTIS when it failed to deliver the goods in the same quantity,
hire of vessel only, either for a determinate period of time (time charter) or quality and description as stated in Bill of Lading.
for a single or consecutive voyage (voyage charter). The shipowner supplies
the ships stores, pay for the wages of the master and the crew, and defray
the expenses for the maintenance of the ship. The voyage remains under
the responsibility of the carrier and it is answerable for the loss of goods 2. $500 per package or pallet
received for transportation. The charterer is free from liability to third
Under Article 1753 of the Civil Code, the law of the country to which the
persons in respect of the ship.
goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier
Second, charter by demise or bareboat charter under which the for their loss, destruction or deterioration. Since the subject shipment was
whole vessel is let to the charterer with a transfer to him of its entire being transported from South Korea to the Philippines, the Civil Code
command and possession and consequent control over its navigation, provisions shall apply.
including the master and the crew, who are his servants. The charterer
While the Civil Code contains provisions making the common carrier liable
mans the vessel with his own people and becomes, in effect, the owner for
for loss/damage to the goods transported, it failed to outline the manner of
the voyage or service stipulated and hence liable for damages or loss
determining the amount of such liability. Article372 of the Code of
sustained by the goods transported.
Commerce fills in this gap. Article 372. The value of the goods which the
Clearly then, despite its contract of affreightment with DONGNAMA, carrier must pay in cases if loss or misplacement shall be determined in
HEUNG-A remained responsible as the carrier, hence, answerable for the accordance with that declared in the bill of lading, the shipper not being
damages incurred by the goods received for transportation. allowed to present proof that among the goods declared therein there were
articles of greater value and money.
[C]ommon carriers, as a general rule, are presumed to have been at fault or
negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or In case, however, of the shippers failure to declare the value of the goods in
destroyed. That is, unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary the bill of lading, Section 4, paragraph 5 of the COGSA provides: Neither the
diligence in transporting the goods. In order to avoid responsibility for any carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or
loss or damage, therefore, they have the burden of proving that they damage to or in connection with the transportation of goods in an amount
observed such diligence. exceeding $500 per package lawful money of the United States, or in case of
goods not shipped in packages, per customary freight unit, or the equivalent
Here, HEUNG-A failed to rebut this prima facie presumption when it of that sum in other currency, unless the nature and value of such goods
failed to give adequate explanation as to how the shipment inside the have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill
container van was handled, stored and preserved to forestall or prevent any of lading. This declaration, if embodied in the bill of lading shall be prima
damage or loss while the same was in its possession, custody and control. facie evidence, but shall be conclusive on the carrier


Hence, when there is a loss/damage to goods covered by contracts of The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the
carriage from a foreign port to a Philippine port and in the absence a goods has at the time of their receipt been the subject of
shippers declaration of the value of the goods in the bill of lading, as in the joint survey or inspection.
present case, the foregoing provisions of the COGSA shall apply.

The Court likewise affirms the CA in pronouncing HEUNG-A, WALLEM and
PROTOP liable only for the lost/damaged 17 pallets instead of 19 pallets In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged
stated in the bill of lading. This is because, per the Shippers Load and from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is
Count arrangement, the contents are not required to be checked and brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the
inventoried by the carrier at the port of loading or before said carrier enters date when the goods should have been delivered: Provided,
the port of unloading in the Philippines since it is the shipper who has the That if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or
sole responsibility for the quantity, description and condition of the cargoes concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that
shipped in container vans. As such, the carrier cannot be held responsible fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to
for any discrepancy if the description in the bill of lading is different from bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or
the actual contents of the container. the date when the goods should have been delivered.
3. No. It was filed timely. It was further ruled in Asian Terminals that pursuant to the foregoing
COGSA provision, failure to comply with the notice requirement shall not
The prescriptive period for filing an action for lost/damaged goods governed affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit within one year after
by contracts of carriage by sea to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade delivery of the goods.
is governed by paragraph 6, Section 3 of the COGSA which states:
Despite NOVARTIS' failure to comply with the three-day notice requirement,
(6) Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature its subrogee PHILAM is not barred from seeking reimbursement from
of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or PROTOP, HEUNG-A and WALLEM because the demands for payment were
his agent at the port of discharge before or at the time of timely filed.
the removal of the goods into the custody of the person
entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage,
such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery
by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading.
If the loss or damage is not apparent, the notice must be
given within three days of the delivery.
Said notice of loss or damage maybe endorsed upon the

receipt for the goods given by the person taking delivery
thereof.


Additionally, respondents averred that the mishap deprived them of
a daily income of P1,000.00. Engaged in the business of buying plastic scraps
12. MARIANO C. MENDOZA and ELVIRA LIM v. SPS. GOMEZ and delivering them to recycling plants, respondents claimed that the Isuzu
G.R. No. 160110 June 18, 2014 truck was vital in their business.
(Disclaimer: Long discussion in the ruling on damages, skip if you want) Respondents argued that although the registered owner was Lim,
the actual owner of the bus was SPO1 Cirilo Enriquez, who had the bus
FACTS attached with Mayamy Transportation Company under the "kabit system."
Respondents then impleaded both Lim and Enriquez.
On 7 March 1997, an Isuzu Elf truck with plate number UAW 582,
owned by respondent Leonora J. Gomez and driven by Antenojenes Perez, Petitioners witness Teresita Gutierrezs testimony was offered to
was hit by a Mayamy Transportation bus with temporary plate number prove that Mayamy Bus is a business name registered under her name, and
1376-1280, registered under the name of petitioner Elvira Lim and driven by that such business is a sole proprietorship. Such was presented by
petitioner Mariano C. Mendoza. petitioners to rebut the allegation of respondents that Mayamy Transport is
a corporation; and to show that although Gutierrez is the sole proprietor of
An Information for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
Mayamy Transport, she was not impleaded by respondents in the case at
property and multiple physical injuries was filed against Mendoza.
bar.
Mendoza, however, eluded arrest, thus, respondents filed a separate
complaint for damages against Mendoza and Lim for damages, Ruling of the RTC
compensation for lost income, attorneys fees and costs of the suit.
The RTC found Mendoza liable for direct personal negligence under
According to PO1 Rosales, investigating officer of the case, at Article 2176 of the Civil Code, and it also found Lim vicariously liable under
around 5:30 a.m., the Isuzu truck, coming from Katipunan Road and heading Article 2180 of the same Code.
towards E. Rodriguez, Sr. Avenue, was travelling along the downward As regards Lim, the RTC relied on the Certificate of Registration issued by
portion of Boni Serrano Avenue when, upon reaching the corner of Riviera the LTO on in concluding that she is the registered owner of the bus in
Street, fronting St. Ignatius Village, its left front portion was hit by the question. Although actually owned by Enriquez, following the established
Mayamy bus. According to PO1 Rosales, the Mayamy bus, while traversing principle in transportation law, Lim, as the registered owner, is the one who
the opposite lane, intruded on the lane occupied by the Isuzu truck. can be held liable.
PO1 Rosales also reported that Mendoza tried to escape by Ruling of the CA
speeding away, but he was apprehended in Katipunan Road corner C. P.
Garcia Avenue by one Traffic Enforcer Galante and a security guard of St. The Decision of the RTC was affirmed by the CA with the exception
Ignatius Village. of the award of unrealized income which the CA ordered deleted.
Becasue of the incident, Perez, as well as the three helpers on board

the Isuzu truck, sustained injuries necessitating medical treatment
amounting to P11,267.35,which amount was shouldered by respondents. ISSUE/S
Moreover, the Isuzu truck sustained extensive damages on its cowl, chassis,
WON Mendoza and Lim are liable for the injury.
lights and steering wheel, amounting to P142,757.40.


provides that unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a
person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the
RULING mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. In the case at bar, Mendozas
violation of traffic laws was the proximate cause of the harm.
The petition is partially meritorious.
Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and
Negligence of Mendoza
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
Respondents anchor their claim for damages on Mendozas produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
negligence, banking on Article 2176 of the Civil Code, to wit: And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first
and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances
Chapter. that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary
prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the
In impleading Lim, on the other hand, respondents invoke the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably
latters vicarious liability as espoused in Article 2180 of the same Code: result therefrom.
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for The evidence on record shows that before the collision, the Isuzu
ones own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is truck was in its rightful lane, and was even at a stop, having been flagged
responsible. down by a security guard of St. Ignatius Village. The mishap occurred when
the Mayamy bus, travelling at a fast speed as shown by the impact of the
x x x x
collision, and going in the opposite direction as that of the Isuzu truck,
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees encroached on the lane rightfully occupied by said Isuzu truck, and caused
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even the latter to spin, injuring the passengers, and considerably damaging the
though the former are not engaged in any business of industry. Isuzu truck.
The first question to address, then, is whether or not Mendozas Who are liable
negligence was duly proven. Negligence is defined as the failure to observe
According to Manresa, liability for personal acts and omissions is
for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care,
founded on that indisputable principle of justice recognized by all
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby
legislations that when a person by his act or omission causes damage or
such other person suffers injury.
prejudice to another, a juridical relation is created by virtue of which the
As found by the RTC, Mendoza was negligent in driving the subject injured person acquires a right to be indemnified and the person causing
Mayamy bus since, at the time of the collision, the bus intruded on the lane the damage is charged with the corresponding duty of repairing the
intended for the Isuzu truck. Having encroached on the opposite lane, damage. The reason for this is found in the obvious truth that man should
Mendoza was clearly in violation of traffic laws. Art. 2185 of the Civil Code subordinate his acts to the precepts of prudence and if he fails to observe


them and causes damage to another, he must repair the damage. His injuries to pedestrians or other vehicles without positive identification of the
negligence having caused the damage, Mendoza is certainly liable to repair owner or drivers, or with very scant means of identification. It is to forestall
said damage. these circumstances, so inconvenient or prejudicial to the public, that the
motor vehicle registration is primarily ordained, in the interest of the
Additionally, Mendozas employer may also be held liable under the determination of persons responsible for damages or injuries caused on
doctrine of vicarious liability or imputed negligence. Under such doctrine, a public highways.
person who has not committed the act or omission which caused damage or
injury to another may nevertheless be held civilly liable to the latter either "One of the principal purposes of motor vehicles legislation is
directly or subsidiarily under certain circumstances. identification of the vehicle and of the operator, in case of accident; and
another is that the knowledge that means of detection are always available
In our jurisdiction, vicarious liability or imputed negligence is may act as a deterrent from lax observance of the law and of the rules of
embodied in Article 2180 of the Civil Code and the basis for damages in the conservative and safe operation. Whatever purpose there may be in these
action under said article is the direct and primary negligence of the statutes, it is subordinate at the last to the primary purpose of rendering it
employer in the selection or supervision, or both, of his employee. certain that the violator of the law or of the rules of safety shall not escape
because of lack of means to discover him." The purpose of the statute is
In the case at bar, who is deemed as Mendozas employer? Is it
thwarted, and the displayed number becomes a "snare and delusion," if
Enriquez, the actual owner of the bus or Lim, the registered owner of the
courts will entertain such defenses as that put forward by appellee in this
bus?
case. No responsible person or corporation could be held liable for the most
In Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas, we held that the registered outrageous acts of negligence, if they should be allowed to place a
owner is deemed the employer of the negligent driver, and is thus "middleman" between them and the public, and escape liability by the
vicariously liable under Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180, of the Civil manner in which they recompense their servants.
Code. Citing Equitable Leasing Corporation v. Suyom, the Court ruled that in
Generally, when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant
so far as third persons are concerned, the registered owner of the motor
or employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was
vehicle is the employer of the negligent driver, and the actual employer is
negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of
considered merely as an agent of such owner. Thus, whether there is an
the servant or employee (culpa in eligiendo) or in the supervision over him
employer-employee relationship between the registered owner and the
after the selection (culpa vigilando), or both. Accordingly, the general rule is
driver is irrelevant in determining the liability of the registered owner who
that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in the
the law holds primarily and directly responsible for any accident, injury or
selection and supervision of his employee he has exercised the care and
death caused by the operation of the vehicle in the streets and highways.
diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he
In Erezo v. Jepte, the Court summarized the justification for holding is relieved of liability. However, with the enactment of the motor vehicle
the registered owner directly liable, to wit: registration law, the defenses available under Article 2180 of the Civil Code -
that the employee acts beyond the scope of his assigned task or that it
x x x The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage
owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is are no longer available to the registered owner of the motor vehicle,
caused by the vehicles on the public highways, responsibility therefore can because the motor vehicle registration law, to a certain extent, modified
be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner. Instances are Article 2180.
numerous where vehicle running on public highways caused accidents or


As such, Lim is vicariously liable with Mendoza. Moral Damages. In prayers for moral damages, however, recovery is
more an exception rather than the rule. Moral damages are not meant to be
However, Lim has recourse against Enriquez and Mendoza. Under punitive but are designed to compensate and alleviate the physical
the civil law principle of unjust enrichment, the registered owner of the suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
motor vehicle has a right to be indemnified by the actual employer of the wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly
driver; and under Article 2181 of the Civil Code, whoever pays for the caused to a person. An award of moral damages calls for the presentation of
damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the 1) evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological
latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. suffering sustained by the claimant; 2)a culpable act or omission factually
established; 3) proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is
What may be awarded
the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the claimant; and 4) the
Actual or Compensatory Damages. Actual or compensatory proof that the act is predicated on any of the instances expressed or
damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or envisioned by Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code.
injury sustained. They simply make good or replace the loss caused by the
A review of the complaint and the transcript of stenographic notes
wrong.
yields the pronouncement that respondents neither alleged nor offered any
Art. 2202 of the NCC provides that in crimes and quasi delicts, the evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological
defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable suffering incurred by them.
consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that
If the plaintiff fails to take the witness stand and testify as to his
such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen
social humiliation, wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages cannot be
by the defendant. Article 2199 of the same Code, however, sets the
awarded.
limitation that, except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to
an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as Moreover, respondents were not able to show that their claim
he has duly proved. As such, to warrant an award of actual or compensatory properly falls under Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Respondents
damages, the claimant must prove that the damage sustained is the natural cannot rely on Article 2219 (2) of the Civil Code which allows moral damages
and probable consequences of the negligent act and, moreover, the in quasi-delicts causing physical injuries because in physical injuries, moral
claimant must adequately prove the amount of such damage. damages are recoverable only by the injured party, and in the case at bar,
herein respondents were not the ones who were actually injured.
In the case at bar, the RTC, basing on the receipts submitted by
respondents and which receipts petitioners had the opportunity to examine, Neither can respondents rely on Article 21 of the Civil Code as the
found that the total repairs on the Isuzu truck amounted to P142,757.40, RTC erroneously did. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has
and that the full hospitalization and medical expenses of Perez, Anla, Banca, the following elements: (1) There is an act which is legal; (2) but which is
and Repisada amounted to P11,267.35. As such, these are the amounts that contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; (3) and it is
respondents are entitled to as actual and compensatory damages. done with intent to injure. In the present case, it can hardly be said that
Mendozas negligent driving and violation of traffic laws are legal acts.
Although respondents alleged in their complaint that the damage to
Moreover, it was not proven that Mendoza intended to injure Perez, et al.
their Isuzu truck caused them the loss of a daily income of P1,000.00, such
Thus, Article 21 finds no application to the case at bar. All in all, we find that
claim was not duly substantiated by any evidence on record, and thus
the RTC and the CA erred in granting moral damages to respondents.
cannot be awarded in their favor.


Exemplary Damages. Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that (2) When the defendants act or omission has compelled the
exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his
correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated interest;
or compensatory damages. Article 2231 of the same Code further states
that in quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the
acted with gross negligence. plaintiff;
Certain conditions when exemplary damages may be awarded: (1), (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding
they may be imposed by way of example or correction only in addition, against the plaintiff;
among others, to compensatory damages, and cannot be recovered as a
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in
matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of
refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs valid and demandable claim;
compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant. (2), the
claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, liquidated or (6) In actions for legal support;
compensatory damages. (3), the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad
faith, and the award would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers,
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. laborers and skilled workers;
In motor vehicle accident cases, exemplary damages may be (8) In actions for indemnity under workmens compensation
awarded where the defendants misconduct is so flagrant as to transcend and employers liability laws;
simple negligence and be tantamount to positive or affirmative misconduct
rather than passive or negative misconduct. In characterizing the requisite (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from
positive misconduct which will support a claim for punitive damages, the a crime;
courts have used such descriptive terms as willful, wanton, grossly
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
negligent, reckless, or malicious, either alone or in combination.
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and
Gross negligence is the absence of care or diligence as to amount to
equitable that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation should be
a reckless disregard of the safety of persons or property. It evinces a
recovered;
thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid
them. In all cases, the attorneys fees and expenses of litigation must be
In the case at bar, having established respondents right to compensatory reasonable.
damages, exemplary damages are also in order, given the fact that Mendoza
was grossly negligent becuase he encrouached the lane rightfully occupied It is clearly intended to retain the award of attorneys fees as the
by the Isuzu truck. exception in our law, as the general rule remains that attorneys fees are
not recoverable in the absence of a stipulation thereto, the reason being
Attorneys Fees. Article 2208 of the Civil Code enumerates the that it is not sound policy to set a premium on the right to litigate.
instances when attorneys fees may be recovered:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;


The reason for the award of attorneys fees must be stated in the measured against a reasonably certain standard. Moreover, justice would
text of the courts decision; otherwise, if it is stated only in the dispositive seem to require that the delay in paying for past losses which can be made
portion of the decision, the same must be disallowed on appeal. reasonably certain should be compensated through an award of interest.

In the case at bar, the RTC Decision had nil discussion on the
propriety of attorneys fees, and it merely awarded such in the dispositive.
The CA Decision, on the other hand, merely stated that the award of
attorneys fees is merited as such is allowed when exemplary damages are
awarded. Following established jurisprudence, however, the CA should have
disallowed on appeal said award of attorneys fees as the RTC failed to
substantiate said award.
Costs of suit. The Rules of Court provide that, generally, costs shall
be allowed to the prevailing party as a matter of course. In the present case,
the award of costs of suit to respondents, as the prevailing party, is in order.
Interests. Interest by way of damages has been defined as interest

allowed in actions for breach of contractor tort for the unlawful detention
of money already due. This type of interest is frequently called "moratory
interest." Interest as a part of damage, is allowed, not by application of
arbitrary rules, but as a result of the justice of the individual case and as
compensation to the injured party.
The legal provision on interests in quasi-delicts is Article 2211 of the

Civil Code which provides that in crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as part of
the damage, may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the
court.
Generally, interest is allowed as a matter of right for failure to pay

liquidated claims when due. For unliquidated claims, however, Article 2213
of the Civil Code provides that interest cannot be recovered upon
unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be
established with reasonable certainty.
In the case at bar, although the award of exemplary damages is

unliquidated in the sense that petitioners cannot know for sure, before
judgment, the exact amount that they are required to pay to respondents,
the award of actual or compensatory damages, however, such as the truck
repairs and medical expenses, is arguably liquidated in that they can be


MTC held in favor of Petitioners saying that Respondent insurer failed to

establish cause of action.
13.

Asian Terminals Inc Vs First Lepanto-Taisho
Upon appeal to RTC, the decision was reversed saying that Petitioner ATI
June 16, 2014 failed to prove it exercised due diligence.
GR No.185964
CA likewise denied the appeal affirming the decision of he RTC.
Facts:
China Ocean Shipping Corp (Cosco) shipped 3,000 bags cased in 100 Jumbo Petitioners Contentions:
bags in favor of Grand Asian Sales Inc (GASI). GASI insured the shipment to
Respondent. - Petitioner denied that the damage of the goods was during the time it had
custody of it (SC did not mind this because RTC and CA had same findings)

- Questioned the subrogation rights of Respondent having failed to present
Upon arrival on July 18 1996, petitioners were the ones who performed the insurance policy (SC did not also give credence to contention because
arrastre services to the goods until the goods were withdraw to be this is an issue raised on appeal. Cannot change theories on appeal, further,
delivered on August 8 and 9, 1996 by Proven Customs Brokerage (PROVEN). SC upheld the subrogation rights of respondent)
- prescription:
Upon inspection, there were shortages and spillages amounting to the claim letter of GASI to ATI was served only on September 27, 1996 or
P166,772.41. GASI demanded payment from COSCO, Smith Bell (Philippine more than one month from the date the shipment was delivered to the
agent of Cosco), Petitioner and PROVEN, however, the same was denied. consignees warehouse on August 9, 1996. The claim of GASI was thus filed
beyond the 15-day period stated in ATIs Management Contract with PPA

which in turn was reproduced in the gate passes issued to the consignees
GASI claimed from respondents as its insurer, which paid the amount and broker, PROVEN (see letter (b) for SC ruling on this)
was subrogated to its rights.

Respondents claimed for the amount it paid to GASI, but was also denied
Issue:
payment, hence case was filed with the MeTC.


Whether or not Petitioner is liable for the damage caused to the goods and diligence while the subject shipment was under its custody, control and
possession as arrastre operator.

Held:
To prove the exercise of diligence in handling the subject cargoes, an
Yes arrastre operator must do more than merely show the possibility that some
other party could be responsible for the loss or the damage.37 It must prove

that it used all reasonable means to handle and store the shipment with due
-(a) ATI failed to prove that it exercised due care and diligence while the care and diligence including safeguarding it from weather elements, thieves
shipment was under its custody, control and possession as arrastre or vandals.
operator.

- (b) ATI cannot invoke prescription
The relationship between the consignee and the arrastre operator is akin to

that existing between the consignee and/or the owner of the shipped goods
and the common carrier, or that between a depositor and a warehouseman. In the present case, ATI was notified of the loss/damage to the subject
Hence, in the performance of its obligations, an arrastre operator should shipment as early as August 9, 1996 thru a Request for Bad Order Survey
observe the same degree of diligence as that required of a common carrier (document presented by ATI on trial)0 jointly prepared by the consignees
and a warehouseman. Being the custodian of the goods discharged from a broker, PROVEN, and the representatives of ATI. For having submitted a
vessel, an arrastre operators duty is to take good care of the goods and to provisional claim, GASI is thus deemed to have substantially complied with
turn them over to the party entitled to their possession.34 the notice requirement to the arrastre operator notwithstanding that a
formal claim was sent to the latter only on September 27, 1996. ATI was not
In a claim for loss filed by the consignee (or the insurer), the burden of proof
deprived the best opportunity to probe immediately the veracity of such
to show compliance with the obligation to deliver the goods to the
claims.
appropriate party devolves upon the arrastre operator. Since the

safekeeping of the goods is its responsibility, it must prove that the losses
were not due to its negligence or to that of its employees. To avoid liability,
the arrastre operator must prove that it exercised diligence and due care in
handling the shipment.
What the document submitted by ATI established is that when the

loss/damage was discovered, the shipment has been in ATIs custody for at
least two weeks. This circumstance, coupled with the undisputed
declaration of PROVENs witnesses that while the shipment was in ATIs
custody, it was left in an open area exposed to the elements, thieves and
vandals,36 all generate the conclusion that ATI failed to exercise due care


Westwind argues that it no longer had actual or constructive custody of the
containers/skids at the time they were damaged by ATIs forklift operator
14. during the unloading operations. It contends that its responsibility already
ceased from the moment the cargoes were delivered to ATI, which is
WESTWIND SHIPPING CORPORATION, vs. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO.,
reckoned from the moment the goods were taken into the latters custody.
INC. and ASIAN TERMINALS INC G.R. No. 200289
As for OFII, it maintains that it is not a common carrier, but only a customs
And
broker whose participation is limited to facilitating withdrawal of the
ORIENT FREIGHT INTERNATIONAL INC. vs. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., shipment in the custody of ATI by overseeing and documenting the
INC. and ASIAN TERMINALS INC G.R. No. 200314 turnover and counterchecking if the quantity of the shipments were in
tally with the shipping documents at hand, but without participating in
Facts: the physical withdrawal and loading of the shipments into the delivery
trucks.
Kinsho-Mataichi Corporation shipped from the port of Kobe, Japan,
197 metal containers/skids of tin-free steel for delivery to the
consignee, San Miguel Corporation (SMC). The shipment was loaded in a
vessel owned by Westwind Shipping Corporation. SMC insured the cargoes Issue:
against all risks with UCPB General Insurance Co.
1. Whether a common carrier and an arrastre operator should be
During the unloading operation, however, six containers/skids sustained responsible for damage or loss incurred by the shipment during its
dents and punctures from the forklift used by the stevedores of Ocean unloading
Terminal Services, Inc. (OTSI) in centering and shuttling the
2. Which entity had custody of the shipment during its unloading from
containers/skids.
the vessel
Orient Freight International, Inc. (OFII), the customs broker of SMC,
3. Whether OFII is also liable
withdrew from ATI the 197 containers/skids, including the six in
damaged condition, and delivered the same at SMCs warehouse. It was
discovered upon discharge that additional nine containers/skids were
also damaged due to the forklift operations; thus, making the total Ruling:
number of 15 containers/skids in bad order.
1. Depends on the facts of the case
SMC filed a claim against UCPB, Westwind, ATI, and OFII to recover the
amount corresponding to the damaged 15 containers/skids. When UCPB Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of
paid the total sum SMC signed the subrogation receipt. Thereafter, in the public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
exercise of its right of subrogation, UCPB instituted then a complaint for vigilance over the goods transported by them. Subject to certain
damages against Westwind, ATI, and OFII. exceptions enumerated under Article 1734 of the Civil Code, common
carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the
RTC dismissed UCPBs complaint. The CA reversed and set aside the trial goods. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts
court. Only Westwind and OFII. from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of,


and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, containers/skids, which were covered by only one bill of lading, had
actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the not yet been completed at the time the damage occurred, there is no
person who has a right to receive them. reason to imply that there was already delivery, actual or constructive,
of the cargoes to ATI.
The functions of an arrastre operator involve the handling of cargo
deposited on the wharf or between the establishment of the consignee Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of
or shipper and the ship's tackle. Being the custodian of the goods public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in vigilance
discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to take good care of over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them,
the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their possession. according to all the circumstances of each case. The mere proof of delivery
of goods in good order to the carrier, and their arrival in the place of
The legal relationship between the consignee and the arrastre operator destination in bad order, make out a prima facie case against the carrier, so
is akin to that of a depositor and warehouseman. The relationship that if no explanation is given as to how the injury occurred, the
between the consignee and the common carrier is similar to that of carrier must be held responsible. It is incumbent upon the carrier to prove
the consignee and the arrastre operator. Since it is the duty of the that the loss was due to accident or some other circumstances
ARRASTRE to take good care of the goods that are in its custody and to inconsistent with its liability
deliver them in good condition to the consignee, such responsibility also
devolves upon the CARRIER. Both the ARRASTRE and the CARRIER are 3. YES
therefore charged with and obligated to deliver the goods in good
condition to the consignee. A customs broker has been regarded as a common carrier because
transportation of goods is an integral part of its business. Under Article
The liability of the arrastre operator was reiterated in Eastern 1732 of the Civil Code, Common carriers are persons, corporations,
Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals with the clarification that the firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
arrastre operator and the carrier are not always and necessarily solidarily passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation,
liable as the facts of a case may vary the rule. offering their services to the public.
Article 1732 does not distinguish between one whose principal business
activity is the carrying of goods and one who does such carrying only as an
2. WESTWIND ancillary activity. The contention, therefore, of petitioner that it is not a
common carrier but a customs broker whose principal function is to
It is settled in maritime law jurisprudence that cargoes while being
prepare the correct customs declaration and proper shipping documents
unloaded generally remain under the custody of the carrier.
as required by law is bereft of merit. It suffices that petitioner undertakes to
Westwind failed to realize is that the extraordinary responsibility of the deliver the goods for pecuniary consideration.
common carrier lasts until the time the goods are actually or
For undertaking the transport of cargoes from ATI to SMCs warehouse in
constructively delivered by the carrier to the consignee or to the person
Columba, Laguna, OFII is considered a common carrier. As long as a person
who has a right to receive them. There is actual delivery in contracts for
or corporation holds itself to the public for the purpose of transporting
the transport of goods when possession has been turned over to the
goods as a business, it is already considered a common carrier regardless of
consignee or to his duly authorized agent and a reasonable time is given
whether it owns the vehicle to be used or has to actually hire one. As a
him to remove the goods. In this case, since the discharging of the
common carrier, OFII is mandated to observe, under Article 1733 of the Civil


Code, extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the good sit transports
according to the peculiar circumstances of each case. In the event that the
goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, it is presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently unless it proves that it observed
extraordinary diligence. In the case at bar it was established that except for
the six containers/skids already damaged OFII received the cargoes
from ATI in good order and condition; and that upon its delivery to SMC
additional nine containers/skids were found to be in bad order.


Thereafter, the cargoes were stored for temporary safekeeping inside CFS
Warehouse in Pier No. 5.
15.
The shipment was withdrawn by R.F. Revilla Customs Brokerage, Inc., the
authorized broker of Universal Motors, and delivered to the latters
warehouse in Mandaluyong City. Upon the request of Universal Motors, a
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC. G.R. No. 181163
bad order survey was conducted on the cargoes and it was found that one
Frame Axle Sub without LWR was deeply dented on the buffle plate while
six Frame Assembly with Bush were deformed and misaligned. Owing to the
And extent of the damage to said cargoes, Universal Motors declared them a
total loss.

PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC. v. WESTWIND SHIPPING CORPORATION and
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. G.R. No. 181262 Universal Motors filed a formal claim for damages against Westwind, ATI
and R.F. Revilla. When Universal Motors demands remained unheeded, it
sought reparation from and was compensated by Philam. Philam, as
subrogee of Universal Motors, filed a Complaint for damages against
And
Westwind, ATI and R.F. Revilla Customs.

The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Philam and ordered Westwind and
WESTWIND SHIPPING CORPORATION v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC. G.R. ATI to pay Philam, jointly and severally. It held Westwind vicariously liable
No. 181319 for failing to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in the
supervision of the ATI stevedores who unloaded the cargoes from the
vessel. However, the court absolved R.F. Revilla Customs Brokerage, Inc.
from liability in light of its finding that the cargoes had been damaged
Facts: before delivery to the consignee. the CA affirmed with modification the
ruling of the RTC.
In 1995, Nichimen Corporation shipped to Universal Motors Corporation
(Universal Motors) 219 packages containing 120 units of brand new Nissan
Pickup Trucks without engine, tires and batteries, on board the vessel S/S
Calayan Iris of Westwind Shipping from Japan to Manila. The shipment, Issues:
was insured with Philam against all risks under Marine Policy.
1. Has Philams action for damages prescribed?
The carrying vessel arrived at the port of Manila and when the shipment
was unloaded by the staff of ATI, it was found that the package marked as 2. Who between Westwind and ATI should be held liable for the
03-245-42K/1 was in bad order. A survey also identified two packages, damaged cargoes?
labeled 03-245-42K/1 and 03/237/7CK/2, as being dented and broken.


Ruling: was not until August 4, 1995 that Universal Motors filed a formal claim for
damages against petitioner Westwind.

Even so, we have held in Insurance Company of North America v. Asian
1. No. The prescriptive period for filing an action for the loss or Terminals, Inc. that a request for, and the result of a bad order
damage of the goods under the COGSA is found in paragraph (6), Section 3, examination, done within the reglementary period for furnishing notice of
thus: loss or damage to the carrier or its agent, serves the purpose of a claim. A
claim is required to be filed within the reglementary period to afford the
(6) Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature
carrier or depositary reasonable opportunity and facilities to check the
of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or
validity of the claims while facts are still fresh in the minds of the persons
his agent at the port of discharge before or at the time of the
who took part in the transaction and documents are still available. Here,
removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled
Universal Motors filed a request for bad order survey even before all the
to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, such
packages could be unloaded to its warehouse.
removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the
carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading. If the Moreover, paragraph (6), Section 3 of the COGSA clearly states that failure
loss or damage is not apparent, the notice must be given to comply with the notice requirement shall not affect or prejudice the right
within three days of the delivery. of the shipper to bring suit within one year after delivery of the goods.
Petitioner Philam, as subrogee of Universal Motors, filed the Complaint for
Said notice of loss or damage maybe endorsed upon the
damages on January 18, 1996, just eight months after all the packages were
receipt for the goods given by the person taking delivery
delivered to its possession on May 17, 1995. Evidently, petitioner Philams
thereof.
action against petitioners Westwind and ATI was seasonably filed.
The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the
2. They are concurrently liable. Common carriers, from the nature of
goods has at the time of their receipt been the subject of
their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe
joint survey or inspection.
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them.
In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged Subject to certain exceptions enumerated under Article 1734 of the Civil
from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is Code, common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the deterioration of the goods. The extraordinary responsibility of the common
date when the goods should have been delivered: Provided, carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the
That if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same
concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or
fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to to the person who has a right to receive them.
bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or
It is settled in maritime law jurisprudence that cargoes while being
the date when the goods should have been delivered.
unloaded generally remain under the custody of the carrier. Since the
S/S Calayan Iris arrived at the port of Manila on April 20, 1995, and the damage to the cargo was incurred during the discharge of the shipment and
subject cargoes were discharged to the custody of ATI the next day. Yet, it while under the supervision of the carrier, the Westwind is liable for the
damage caused to the cargo.


This is not to say, however, that petitioner ATI is without liability for the
damaged cargo. The functions of an arrastre operator involve the handling
of cargo deposited on the wharf or between the establishment of the
consignee or shipper and the ships tackle. Being the custodian of the goods

discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operators duty is to take good care of
the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their possession.
Handling cargo is mainly the arrastre operators principal work so its
drivers/operators or employees should observe the standards and measures
necessary to prevent losses and damage to shipments under its custody
16.
Spouses Perena and Philippine National Railways Vs Spouses Nicolas et al
August 29, 2012
GR No. 157917
Doctrine:
The operator of a school bus service is a common carrier in the eyes of the
law. He is bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the conduct of his
business. He is presumed to be negligent when death occurs to a passenger.
His liability may include indemnity for loss of earning capacity even if the

deceased passenger may only be an unemployed high school student at the
time of the accident.
Facts:


The Perenas own a school bus business using a kia van to transport 14 - Penera himself sometimes accompany the driver in its daily route
passengers from Paranaque to Makati every day with Alfaro as driver.
- their very own son rides the van everyday

The Zarates availed of the services of this school bus to transport their son
Aaron.
The RTC held in favor of Respondents, granting them loss of earning

capacity of Aaron P2.1M; Moral Damages of P4M among others such as
On August 22, 1996, while on the road to their destination to Don Bosco, exemplary, actual, death, attorneys fees.
the van was running late due to the heavy traffic. So the school bus took a
different route and traversed in a narrow path which had railroad tracks,
with no warning signs of any sort. The van was closlely tailing the large
Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, but reduced the
passenger bus when the train driven by Alano blew its horn to warn the
Moral Damages to P2.8M
motorists. However, it was until about 50Meters, when collussion was
imminent that Alano applied the emergency brakes. The passenger bus
successfully crossed the railroad tracks on time but the van did not. The
train hit the van tossing 9 out of 14 of its passengers. Aaron was dragged to Formula to get earning capacity:
the railroad tacks severing his head.

- first get life expectancy: aaron was 15 years old
The Zarates filed a complaint against the petitioners (Perena sps, Alfaro
[could not be served with summons], Philippine National Railways, driver Life expectancy= 2/3 x (80 - age at the time of death)
Alano) with the RTC.
Life Expectancy= 39.3

The Perenas was sued against its breach of contract of carriage and PNR on
- prevailing minimum wage = P280/day (annual is P110,716.65) x 39.3
quasi-delict
- result less the estimated expenses: P 4,351,164.30 - P 2,189,664.30 = P

2,161,500.00
The Perenas contend that they exercised diligence in the selection and

supervision of its employee Alfaro:

- Alfaro had a drivers license
Issue:
- Alfaro was never recorded to have had any collision before


Whether or not the Perenas would be solidarily liable with PNR public. Hey are governed by the provisions on common carriers of the Civil
Code, the Public Service act and other special laws relating to
transportation. It is required to exercise extraodinary diligence, and is
presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of los of the
Held:
effects of the passengers, or the death or injuries to passengers.
Yes

As held in US VS Tan Piaco:
- (a) The Perenas did not exercise extraordinary diligence; The school bus is
Public Use is the same as use by the public. The essential feature of
a common carrier
the public use is not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the
indefinite public. It is the indefinite and the unrestricted quality that gives it
its public character. In determining whether a use is public, we must look
The Perenas operated as a common carrier; and that their standard of care not only to the character of the business but also to the proposed mode of
was extraordinary diligence, not the ordinary diligence of a good father of a doing it. If the use is merely optional with the owners, or the public benefit
family. is merely incidental, it is not a public use, authorizing the exercise of the
jurisdiction of the public utility commission. There must be a right which the
law compels the owner to give to the general public. It is not enough that
the general prosperity of the public is promoted. The true criterion by which
A carrier is a person or corporation who undertakes to transport or convey
to judge the character of the use is whether the public may enjoy it by right
goods or persons from one place to another, gratuitously or for hire. The
or only by permission.
carrier is classified either as a private/special carrier or as a common/public
carrier.

A private carrier is one who, without making the activity a vocation, or
without holding himself or itself out to the public as ready to act for all who
may desire his or its services, undertakes, by special agreement in a The true test for a common carrier:
particular instance only to transport goods or persons from one place to
another either gratuitously or for hire. The provisions on ordinary contracts Is not the quantity or extent of the business actually transacted, or the
of the Civil Code govern the contract of private carriage. The diligence number and character of the conveyances used in the activity, but whether
required of a private carrier is the diligence of a good father of the family. the undertaking is a part of the activity engaged in by the carrier that he has
held out to the general public as his business or occupation. The question
must be determined by the character of the business actually carried on by
the carrier.
In contrast, a common carrier is a person, corporation, firm or association
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or
both by land, water or air, for compensation, offering such services to the


Acting as a common carrier, the Perenas were already presumed to be

negligent at the time of the accident because death had occurred to their
passenger. The presumption of negligence being a presumption in of law,
laid a burden of evidence on their shoulders to establish that they had not
been negligent. It was the law no less that required them to prove their
observance of the extraodinary diligence in seeing to the safe and secure
carriege of the passengers to their destination. Until they did so in a credible
manner, they stood to be held legally responsible for the death of aaron and
thus to be held liable for all the natural consequences of such death.
The Perenas were liable for the death of aaron despite the fact that their
driver might have acted beyond the scope of his authority or even in
violation of the orders of the common carrier.
- (b) The idemnity of aarons loss of earning capacity was proper.
The basis of the computation of Aarons earning capacity was not what he
would have become or what he would have wanted to be if not for his
untimely death, but the minimum wage in effect at the time of his death.
Aarons life expectancy was not reckoned from his age of 15 but on 21
years, when he would have graduated in college.
Accordingly, we emphatically hold in favor of the indemnification for

Aarons loss of earning capacity despite him having been unemployed,
because compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of time or
earnings but for loss of the deceaseds power or ability to earn money.


TSL, this time represented by Roland per Agustins Special Power of
Attorney, sub-chartered LCT-Josephine to Ramon Larrazabal (Larrazabal) for
17. the transport of cargo consisting of sand and gravel to Leyte.

Dela Torre v. CA G.R. No. 160088 The LCT-Josephine with its cargo of sand and gravel arrived at Philpos,
Isabel, and Leyte. The vessel was beached near the NDC Wharf. With the

vessels ramp already lowered, the unloading of the vessels cargo began with
And the use of Larrazabals Payloader. While the payloader was on the deck
of the LCT-Josephine scooping a load of the cargo, the vessels ramp started
to move downward, the vessel tilted and sea water rushed in. Shortly
thereafter, LCT-Josephine sank.
PHILIPPINE TRIGON SHIPYARD CORPORATION v. Concepcion et al G.R. No.
160565
Concepcion demanded that PTSC/ Roland refloat LCT-Josephine. The latter

assured Concepcion that negotiations were underway for the refloating of
Facts: his vessel. Unfortunately, this did not materialize.

Crisostomo G. Concepcion (Concepcion) owned LCT-Josephine. Concepcion Concepcion was constrained to institute a complaint for Sum of Money and
entered into a Preliminary Agreement with Roland de la Torre (Roland) for Damages against PTSC and Roland before the RTC. PTSC and Roland filed
the dry-docking and repairs of the said vessel as well as for its charter their answer together with a third-party complaint against Agustin. Agustin,
afterwards. in turn, filed his answer plus a fourth-party complaint against Larrazabal.
The fourth-party complaint against Larrazabal was dismissed when the RTC

rendered its decision in favor of Concepcion. CA affirmed the RTCs decision
Later on, Concepcion and the Philippine Trigon Shipyard Corporation (PTSC),

represented by Roland, entered into a Contract of Agreement, wherein the
latter would charter LCT-Josephine. Issue:
1. Whether the Limited Liability Rule is applicable
PTSC/Roland sub-chartered LCT-Josephine to Trigon Shipping Lines (TSL), 2. Whether Roland, PSTC and Agustin are solidarily liable
a single proprietorship owned by Rolands father, Agustin de la Torre
(Agustin).
Ruling:


1. NO No vessel, no liability, expresses in a nutshell the limited liability rule. The
shipowners or agents liability is merely coextensive with his interest in the
With respect to petitioners position that the Limited Liability Rule vessel such that a total loss thereof results in its extinction. The total
under the Code of Commerce should be applied to them, the argument is destruction of the vessel extinguishes maritime liens because there is
misplaced. The said rule has been explained to be that of the real and no longer any res to which it can attach. This doctrine is based on the
hypothecary doctrine in maritime law where the shipowner or ship agents real and hypothecary nature of maritime law which has its origin in the
liability is held as merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel such prevailing conditions of the maritime trade and sea voyages during the
that a total loss thereof results in its extinction. In this jurisdiction, this rule medieval ages, attended by innumerable hazards and perils. To offset
is provided in three articles of the Code of Commerce. These are: against these adverse conditions and to encourage shipbuilding and
maritime commerce, it was deemed necessary to confine the liability
Art. 587.The ship agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor
of the owner or agent arising from the operation of a ship to the vessel,
of third persons which may arise from the conduct of the captain in the
equipment, and freight, or insurance, if any.
care of the goods which he loaded on the vessel; but he may exempt
himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all her equipment and the
freight it may have earned during the voyage.
The charterer does not completely and absolutely step into the shoes of the
shipowner or even the ship agent because there remains conflicting rights
between the former and the real shipowner as derived from their charter
Art. 590. The co-owners of the vessel shall be civilly liable in the
agreement. the charterer or the sub-charterer, whose rights cannot rise
proportion of their interests in the common fund for the results of the acts
above that of the former, can never set up the Limited Liability Rule
of the captain referred to in Art. 587 Each co-owner may exempt himself
against the very owner of the vessel.
from this liability by the abandonment, before a notary, of the part of the
vessel belonging to him.
2. Yes
Art. 837. The civil liability incurred by shipowners in the case Although certain statutory rights and obligations of charter parties are
prescribed in this section, shall be understood as limited to the value found in the Code of Commerce, these provisions as correctly pointed out
of the vessel with all its appurtenances and freightage served during by the RTC, are not applicable in the present case. Indeed, none of the
the voyage. provisions found in the Code of Commerce deals with the specific rights and
obligations between the real shipowner and the charterer obtaining in

this case. Necessarily, the Court looks to the New Civil Code to supply the
The only person who could avail of this is the shipowner, Concepcion. He is deficiency. Thus, the RTC and the CA were both correct in applying the
the very person whom the Limited Liability Rule has been conceived to statutory provisions of the New Civil Code in order to define the respective
protect. The petitioners cannot invoke this as a defense. rights and obligations of the opposing parties.
Roland, who, in his personal capacity, entered into the Preliminary

Agreement with Concepcion for the dry-docking and repair of LCT-
Josephine, is liable under Article 1189 of the New Civil Code. There is


no denying that the vessel was not returned to Concepcion after the repairs Issue: Who is/are liable?
because of the provision in the Preliminary Agreement that the same should
be used by Roland for the first two years. Before the vessel could be Ruling: Both Glodel and Loadmasters are liable.
returned, it was lost due to the negligence of Agustin to whom Roland chose
Both Loadmasters and Glodel are common carriers. Under Article 1732 of
to sub-charter or sublet the vessel.
the Civil Code, common carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or
PTSC is liable to Concepcion under Articles 1665and 1667 of the New Civil associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passenger
Code. As the charterer or lessee under the Contract of Agreement dated or goods, or both by land, water or air for compensation, offering their
June 20, 1984, PTSC was contract-bound to return the thing leased and it services to the public.
was liable for the deterioration or loss of the same.
Loadmasters is a common carrier because it is engaged in the business of
Agustin, on the other hand, who was the sub-charterer or sub-lessee of LCT- transporting goods by land, through its trucking service. It is a common
Josephine, is liable under Article 1651 of the New Civil Code. Although he carrier as distinguished from a private carrier wherein the carriage is
was never privy to the contract between PTSC and Concepcion, he remained generally undertaken by special agreement and it does not hold itself out to
bound to preserve the chartered vessel for the latter. carry goods for the general public. There is no showing that Loadmasters
solely and exclusively rendered services to Glodel.
In any case, all three petitioners are liable under Article 1170 of the
New Civil Code. The necessity of insuring the LCT-Josephine, regardless Glodel is also considered a common carrier within the context of Article
of who will share in the payment of the premium, is very clear under 1732. Glodel admitted that it is engaged in the business of customs
the Preliminary Agreement and the subsequent Contracts of brokering. In Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v. Transport
Agreement. Clearly, the petitioners, to whom the possession of LCT Venture, Inc., a customs broker is also regarded as a common carrier, the
Josephine had been entrusted as early as the time when it was dry- transportation of goods being an integral part of its business.
docked for repairs, were obliged to insure the same. Unfortunately,
Loadmasters and Glodel, being both common carriers, are mandated from
they failed to do so in clear contravention of their respective agreements.
the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, to observe the
Certainly, they should now all answer for the loss of the vessel.
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them
18. LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC. vs. GLODEL BROKERAGE according to all the circumstances of such case, as required by Article 1733
CORPORATION and R&B INSURANCE CORPORATION (G.R. No. 179446, of the Civil Code. When the Court speaks of extraordinary diligence, it is that
January 10, 2011) extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence
and circumspection observe for securing and preserving their own property
Facts: Columbia insured the shipment of 132 bundles of electric copper or rights. Thus, in case of loss of the goods, the common carrier is presumed
cathodes against all risks, with R & B Insurance. Columbia engaged the to have been at fault or to have acted negligently.
services of Glodel for the release and withdrawal of the cargoes from the
pier and the subsequent delivery to the warehouse. Glodel in turn engaged With respect to the time frame of this extraordinary responsibility, the Civil
the services of Loadmasters for the use of the latters delivery trucks for Code provides that the exercise of extraordinary diligence lasts from the
transport of the cargo of Columbia. One truck however, failed to deliver. time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received
R&B insurance was held liable for the loss. The insurance company, by, the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or
exercising its subrogation rights, is now seeking reimbursement from Glodel constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a
and Loadmasters. right to receive them.


Loadmasters and Glodel are jointly and severally liable to R & B Insurance
for the loss of the subject cargo. Under Article 2194 of the New Civil Code,
"the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is
solidary.

Transportation Law Case Digest Summary

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Transportation Law Case Digest Summary

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TRANSPORTATION

LAW CASE DIGEST

Ambiente, a foreign-based corporation, ordered from Petitioner sometime

Article. 2180 of the Civil Code states:

The non-presentation of ATI of the so-called inspectors who

Failing to present the necessary evidence, ATI was unable to

As it is now established that there was negligence in both petitioner

We likewise accord the same binding effect on the contents of the

Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the

- (d) lack of proof on the part of the Petitioner

Said notice of loss or damage maybe endorsed upon the

Becasue of the incident, Perez, as well as the three helpers on board

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

Interests. Interest by way of damages has been defined as interest

The legal provision on interests in quasi-delicts is Article 2211 of the

Generally, interest is allowed as a matter of right for failure to pay

In the case at bar, although the award of exemplary damages is

MTC held in favor of Petitioners saying that Respondent insurer failed to

What the document submitted by ATI established is that when the

Spouses Perena and Philippine National Railways Vs Spouses Nicolas et al

August 29, 2012

The RTC held in favor of Respondents, granting them loss of earning

Acting as a common carrier, the Perenas were already presumed to be

- (b) The idemnity of aarons loss of earning capacity was proper.

Accordingly, we emphatically hold in favor of the indemnification for

Concepcion demanded that PTSC/ Roland refloat LCT-Josephine. The latter

Roland, who, in his personal capacity, entered into the Preliminary

Вам также может понравиться