2nd assignment transpo

8/10/2019 2nd Assignment Transpo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2nd-assignment-transpo 1/41

2nd Assignment

1. Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines v. UCPB....................................................................2

2. Necesito v. Paras................................................................................................................113. Pilapil v. CA...........................................................................................................................17

4. !ntilla v. "ontanar.............................................................................................................22#. $acal v. PAL..........................................................................................................................27%. So!thern Lines v. CA.........................................................................................................31

&. $an'on v. CA........................................................................................................................34



1. Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines v. UCPB

()*+, ,*-*S*N

/$.+. No. 14%01. !ne 2# 2003

E,$A+ CAL*N$ S)*PP*N$ L*NES *NC. petitioner, vs. UCPB $ENE+AL *NSU+ANCEC5PAN6 *NC. respondent .

, E C * S * N

PAN$AN*BAN J.7

(he lia8ilit9 o: a co;;on carrier :or the loss o: goods ;a9 89 stip!lation in the 8ill o: lading8e li;ited to the val!e declared 89 the shipper. n the other hand the lia8ilit9 o: theins!rer is deter;ined 89 the act!al val!e covered 89 the ins!rance polic9 and the ins!rancepre;i!;s paid there:or and not necessaril9 89 the val!e declared in the 8ill o: lading.

(he Case

Be:ore the Co!rt is a Petition :or +evie< !nder +!le 4# o: the +!les o: Co!rt seeking to setaside the A!g!st 31 2000 ,ecision and the Nove;8er 1& 2000 +esol!tion o: the Co!rt o:Appeals =CA> in CA?$+ SP No. %2&#1. (he dispositive part o: the ,ecision reads7

@*N ()E L*$)( " ()E "+E$*N$ the appeal is GRANE!. (he ,ecision appealed :ro; isRE"ERSE!. /Petitioner is here89 conde;ned to pa9 to /respondent the total a;o!nt o:P14#00.00 <ith interest thereon at the rate o: % per ann!; :ro; date o: this ,ecisiono: the Co!rt. /+espondents clai; :or attorne9s :ees /is !#S$#SSE!. /Petitionersco!nterclai;s are !#S$#SSE!.

(he assailed +esol!tion denied petitioners 5otion :or +econsideration.

n the other hand the disposition o: the +egional (rial Co!rts ,ecision <hich <as laterreversed 89 the CA states7

@D)E+E"+E pre;ises considered the case is here89 ,*S5*SSE, :or lack o: ;erit.

@No cost.

(he "acts

(he :acts o: the case are s!;;ari'ed 89 the appellate co!rt in this <ise7

@So;eti;e on ,ece;8er 11 11 Nestor Angelia delivered to the Edgar CokaliongShipping Lines *nc. =no< Cokaliong Shipping Lines> %petitioner& 'or (revit) cargoconsisting o: one =1> carton o: Christ;as dFcor and t<o =2> sacks o: plastic to9s to 8etransported on 8oard the $*" andag on its "o)age No. +1,- sched!led to depart :ro;Ce8! Cit9 on ,ece;8er 12 11 :or (andag S!rigao del S!r. /Petitioner iss!ed Bill o'Lading No. , :reight prepaid covering the cargo. Nestor Angelia <as 8oth the shipperand consignee o: the cargo val!ed on the :ace thereo: in the a;o!nt o: P%#00.00. Gosi;o5ercado like<ise delivered cargo to /petitioner consisting o: t<o =2> cartons o: plastic to9s



and Christ;as decor one =1> roll o: Hoor ;at and one =1> 8!ndle o: vario!s or assortedgoods :or transportation thereo: :ro; Ce8! Cit9 to (andag S!rigao del S!r on 8oard thesaid vessel and said vo9age. /Petitioner iss!ed Bill o' Lading No. - covering the cargo<hich on the :ace thereo: <as val!ed in the a;o!nt o: P14000.00. Under the Bill o'Lading Gosi;o 5ercado <as 8oth the shipper and consignee o: the cargo.

@n ,ece;8er 12 11 "eliciana Legaspi ins!red the cargo covered 89 Bill o' Lading No.- <ith the UCPB $eneral *ns!rance Co. *nc. %respondent& 'or (revit) :or the a;o!nt o: P100000.00 Iagainst all risks !nder /pen Poli0) No. 2*-1*2 :or <hich she <asiss!ed 89 /respondent $arine Risk Note No. 1,- on said date. She also ins!red thecargo covered 89 Bill o' Lading No. , <ith /respondent :or the a;o!nt o: P#0000.00!nder /pen Poli0) No. 2*-1*2 on the 8asis o: <hich /respondent iss!ed $arineRisk Note No. 1,1 on said date.

@Dhen the vessel le:t port it had thirt9?:o!r =34> passengers and assorted cargo on 8oardincl!ding the goods o: Legaspi. A:ter the vessel had passed 89 the 5anda!e?5actan BridgeJre ens!ed in the engine roo; and despite earnest eKorts o: the ocers and cre< o: thevessel the Jre eng!l:ed and destro9ed the entire vessel res!lting in the loss o: the vesseland the cargoes therein. (he Captain Jled the reM!ired $arine Protest.

@Shortl9 therea:ter "eliciana Legaspi Jled a clai; <ith /respondent :or the val!e o: thecargo ins!red !nder $arine Risk Note No. 1,- and covered 89 Bill o' Lading No. -.She s!8;itted in s!pport o: her clai; a Re0eipt dated ,ece;8er 11 11 p!rportedl9signed 89 Gosi;o 5ercado and /rder Slips p!rportedl9 signed 89 hi; :or the goods hereceived :ro; "eliciana Legaspi val!ed in the a;o!nt o: P1100#%.00. /+espondentapproved the clai; o: "eliciana Legaspi and dre< and iss!ed UCPB Check No. %123 dated5arch 12 in the net a;o!nt o: P000.00 in settle;ent o: her clai; a:ter <hich sheeec!ted a S3(rogation Re0eipt*!eed :or said a;o!nt in :avor o: /respondent. She alsoJled a clai; :or the val!e o: the cargo covered 89 Bill o' Lading No. ,. She s!8;itted to/respondent a Re0eipt dated ,ece;8er 11 11 and /rder Slips p!rportedl9 signed 89Nestor Angelia :or the goods he received :ro; "eliciana Legaspi val!ed at P%033.00./+espondent approved her clai; and re;itted to "eliciana Legaspi the net a;o!nt o:

P4#00.00 a:ter <hich she signed a S3(rogation Re0eipt*!eed dated 5arch 12 in:avor o: /respondent.

@n !l9 14 12 /respondent as s!8rogee o: "eliciana Legaspi Jled a co;plaint anchoredon torts against /petitioner <ith the +egional (rial Co!rt o: 5akati Cit9 :or the collection o:the total principal a;o!nt o: P14#00.00 <hich it paid to "eliciana Legaspi :or the loss o:the cargo pra9ing that O!dg;ent 8e rendered in its :avor and against the /petitioner as:ollo<s7

ID)E+E"+E it is respect:!ll9 pra9ed o: this )onora8le Co!rt that a:ter d!e hearing O!dg;ent 8e rendered ordering /petitioner to pa9 /respondent the :ollo<ing.

1. Act!al da;ages in the a;o!nt o: P14#00.00 pl!s interest thereon at the legal rate :ro;the ti;e o: Jling o: this co;plaint !ntil :!ll9 paid

2. Attorne9s :ees in the a;o!nt o: P10000.00 and

3. Cost o: s!it.

I/+espondent :!rther pra9s :or s!ch other relie:s and re;edies as this )onora8le Co!rt ;a9dee; O!st and eM!ita8le !nder the pre;ises.



@/+espondent alleged inter alia in its co;plaint that the cargo s!8Oect o: its co;plaint<as delivered to and received 89 /petitioner :or transportation to (andag S!rigao del S!r!nder IBill o' Ladings Annees IA and IB o: the co;plaint that the loss o: the cargo <asd!e to the negligence o: the /petitioner and that "eliciana Legaspi had eec!tedS3(rogation Re0eipts*!eeds in :avor o: /respondent a:ter pa9ing to her the val!e o: thecargo on acco!nt o: the $arine Risk Notes it iss!ed in her :avor covering the cargo.

@*n its Ans<er to the co;plaint /petitioner alleged that7 =a> /petitioner <as cleared 89 theBoard o: 5arine *nM!ir9 o: an9 negligence in the 8!rning o: the vessel =8> the co;plaintstated no ca!se o: action against /petitioner and =c> the shippersQconsignee had alread98een paid the val!e o: the goods as stated in the Bill o' Lading and hence /petitionercannot 8e held lia8le :or the loss o: the cargo 8e9ond the val!e thereo: declared in the Billo' Lading.

@A:ter /respondent rested its case /petitioner pra9ed :or and <as allo<ed 89 the Co!rt aquo to take the depositions o: Chester Cokaliong the -ice?President and Chie: peratingcer o: /petitioner and a resident o: Ce8! Cit9 and o: Noel (an9! an ocer o: theEM!ita8le Banking Corporation in Ce8! Cit9 and a resident o: Ce8! Cit9 to 8e given 8e:orethe Presiding !dge o: Branch 10% o: the +egional (rial Co!rt o: Ce8! Cit9. Chester Cokaliong

and Noel (an9! did testi:9 89 <a9 o: deposition 8e:ore the Co!rt and declared inter aliathat7 /petitioner is a :a;il9 corporation like the Chester $arketing4 #n0. Nestor Angeliahad 8een doing 8!siness <ith /petitioner and Chester 5arketing *nc. :or 9ears andinc!rred an acco!nt <ith Chester 5arketing *nc. :or his p!rchases :ro; said corporation/petitioner did iss!e Bills o' Lading Nos. , and - :or the cargo descri8ed therein <ithGosi;o 5ercado and Nestor Angelia as shippersQconsignees respectivel9 the engine roo;o: the $*" andag ca!ght Jre a:ter it passed the 5anda!eQ5actan Bridge res!lting in thetotal loss o: the vessel and its cargo an investigation <as cond!cted 89 the Board o: 5arine*nM!ir9 o: the Philippine Coast $!ard <hich rendered a +eport dated "e8r!ar9 13 12a8solving /petitioner o: an9 responsi8ilit9 on acco!nt o: the Jre <hich +eport o: the Board<as approved 89 the ,istrict Co;;ander o: the Philippine Coast $!ard a :e< da9s a:ter thesinking o: the vessel a representative o: the Legaspi 5arketing Jled clai;s :or the val!es o:the goods !nder Bills o' Lading Nos. , and - in 8ehal: o: the shippersQconsignees

Nestor Angelia and Gosi;o 5ercado /petitioner <as a8le to ascertain :ro; theshippersQconsignees and the representative o: the Legaspi 5arketing that the cargo covered89 Bill o' Lading No. - <as o<ned 89 Legaspi 5arketing and consigned to Gosi;o5ercado <hile that covered 89 Bill o' Lading No. , <as p!rchased 89 Nestor Angelia:ro; the Legaspi 5arketing that /petitioner approved the clai; o: Legaspi 5arketing :or theval!e o: the cargo !nder Bill o' Lading No. - and re;itted to Legaspi 5arketing the saida;o!nt !nder EM!ita8le Banking Corporation Check No. 202304% dated A!g!st 12 12in the a;o!nt o: P14000.00 :or <hich the representative o: the Legaspi 5arketing signed-o!cher No. 43& dated A!g!st 12 12 :or the said a;o!nt o: P14000.00 in :!ll pa9;ento: clai;s !nder Bill o' Lading No. - that /petitioner approved the clai; o: NestorAngelia in the a;o!nt o: P%#00.00 8!t that since the latter o<ed Chester 5arketing *nc.:or so;e p!rchases /petitioner ;erel9 set oK the a;o!nt d!e to Nestor Angelia !nder Billo' Lading No. , against his acco!nt <ith Chester 5arketing *nc. /petitioner lostQ

/;isplaced the original o: the check a:ter it <as received 89 Legaspi 5arketing hence theprod!ction o: the ;icroJl; cop9 89 Noel (an9! o: the EM!ita8le Banking Corporation/petitioner never kne< 8e:ore settling <ith Legaspi 5arketing and Nestor Angelia that thecargo !nder 8oth Bills o' Lading <ere ins!red <ith /respondent or that "eliciana LegaspiJled clai;s :or the val!e o: the cargo <ith /respondent and that the latter approved theclai;s o: "eliciana Legaspi and paid the total a;o!nt o: P14#00.00 to her /petitionerca;e to kno< :or the Jrst ti;e o: the pa9;ents 89 /respondent o: the clai;s o: "elicianaLegaspi <hen it <as served <ith the s!;;ons and co;plaint on cto8er 12 a:tersettling his clai; Nestor Angelia eec!ted the Release and 53it0laim dated !l9 213 and A6davit dated !l9 2 13 in :avor o: /respondent hence /petitioner <as



a8solved o: an9 lia8ilit9 :or the loss o: the cargo covered 89 Bills o' Lading Nos. , and- and even i: it <as its lia8ilit9 sho!ld not eceed the val!e o: the cargo as stated in theBills o' Lading.

@/Petitioner did not an9;ore present an9 other <itnesses on its evidence?in?chie:. =Citations o;itted>

+!ling o: the Co!rt o: Appeals

(he CA held that petitioner had :ailed @to prove that the Jre <hich cons!;ed the vessel andits cargo <as ca!sed 89 so;ething other than its negligence in the !pkeep ;aintenanceand operation o: the vessel.

Petitioner had paid P14000 to Legaspi 5arketing :or the cargo covered 89 Bill o: Lading No.#. (he CA ho<ever held that the pa9;ent did not eting!ish petitioners o8ligation torespondent 8eca!se there <as no evidence that "eliciana Legaspi =the ins!red> <as theo<nerQproprietor o: Legaspi 5arketing. (he CA also pointed o!t the i;propriet9 o: treatingthe clai; !nder Bill o: Lading No. # ?? covering cargo val!ed therein at P%#00 ?? as a setoKagainst Nestor Angelias acco!nt <ith Chester Enterprises *nc.

"inall9 it r!led that respondent @is not 8o!nd 89 the val!ation o: the cargo !nder the Bills o:Lading nor is the val!e o: the cargo !nder said Bills o: Lading concl!sive on the/respondent. (his is so 8eca!se in the Jrst place the goods <ere ins!red <ith the/respondent :or the total a;o!nt o: P1#0000.00 <hich a;o!nt ;a9 8e considered as the:ace val!e o: the goods.

)ence this Petition.

*ss!es

Petitioner raises :or o!r consideration the :ollo<ing alleged errors o: the CA7

@*

@(he )onora8le Co!rt o: Appeals erred granting arg!endo that petitioner is lia8le in holdingthat petitioners lia8ilit9 sho!ld 8e 8ased on the Iact!al ins!red val!e o: the goods and not:ro; act!al val!ation declared 89 the shipperQconsignee in the 8ill o: lading.

@**

@(he Co!rt o: Appeals erred in not ar;ing the Jndings o: the Philippine Coast $!ard ass!stained 89 the trial co!rt a M!o holding that the ca!se o: loss o: the a:oresaid cargoes!nder Bill o: Lading Nos. # and # <as d!e to :orce ;aOe!re and d!e diligence <as

/eercised 89 petitioner prior to d!ring and i;;ediatel9 a:ter the Jre on /petitionersvessel.

@***

@(he Co!rt o: Appeals erred in not holding that respondent UCPB $eneral *ns!rance has noca!se o: action against the petitioner.



*n s!; the iss!es are7 =1> *s petitioner lia8le :or the loss o: the goodsR =2> *: it is lia8le<hat is the etent o: its lia8ilit9R

(his Co!rts +!ling

(he Petition is partl9 ;eritorio!s.

"irst *ss!e7Liability for Loss

Petitioner arg!es that the ca!se o: the loss o: the goods s!8Oect o: this case <as :orce;aOe!re. *t adds that its eercise o: d!e diligence <as adeM!atel9 proven 89 the Jndings o:the Philippine Coast $!ard.

De are not convinced. (he !ncontroverted Jndings o: the Philippine Coast $!ard sho< thatthe M/V Tandag sank d!e to a Jre <hich res!lted :ro; a crack in the a!iliar9 engine :!el oilservice tank. "!el sp!rted o!t o: the crack and dripped to the heating eha!st ;ani:oldca!sing the ship to 8!rst into Ha;es. (he crack <as located on the side o: the :!el oil tank<hich had a ;ere t<o?inch gap :ro; the engine roo; <alling th!s precl!ding constantinspection and care 89 the cre<.

)aving originated :ro; an !nchecked crack in the :!el oil service tank the Jre co!ld nothave 8een ca!sed 89 :orce ;aOe!re. Broadl9 speaking :orce ;aOe!re generall9 applies to anat!ral accident s!ch as that ca!sed 89 a lightning an earthM!ake a te;pest or a p!8licene;9. )ence Jre is not considered a nat!ral disaster or cala;it9. *n Eastern ShippingLines, Inc. v. Intermediate ppellate !o"rt <e eplained7

@ . (his ;!st 8e so as it arises al;ost invaria8l9 :ro; so;e act o: ;an or 89 h!;an;eans. *t does not :all <ithin the categor9 o: an act o: $od !nless ca!sed 89 lighting or 89other nat!ral disaster or cala;it9. *t ;a9 even 8e ca!sed 89 the act!al :a!lt or privit9 o: thecarrier.

@Article 1%0 o: the Civil Code <hich considers Jre as an etraordinar9 :ort!ito!s eventre:ers to leases or r!ral lands <here a red!ction o: the rent is allo<ed <hen ;ore than one?hal: o: the :r!its have 8een lost d!e to s!ch event considering that the la< adopts aprotective polic9 to<ards agric!lt!re.

@As the peril o: Jre is not co;prehended <ithin the eceptions in Article 1&34 s"pra Article1&3# o: the Civil Code provides that in all cases other than those ;entioned in Article 1&34the co;;on carrier shall 8e pres!;ed to have 8een at :a!lt or to have acted negligentl9!nless it proves that it has o8served the etraordinar9 diligence reM!ired 89 la<.

Dhere loss o: cargo res!lts :ro; the :ail!re o: the ocers o: a vessel to inspect their ship:reM!entl9 so as to discover the eistence o: cracked parts that loss cannot 8e attri8!ted to

:orce ;aOe!re 8!t to the negligence o: those ocials.

(he la< provides that a co;;on carrier is pres!;ed to have 8een negligent i: it :ails toprove that it eercised etraordinar9 vigilance over the goods it transported. Ens!ring thesea<orthiness o: the vessel is the Jrst step in eercising the reM!ired vigilance. Petitionerdid not present s!cient evidence sho<ing <hat ;eas!res or acts it had !ndertaken toens!re the sea<orthiness o: the vessel. *t :ailed to sho< <hen the last inspection and careo: the a!iliar9 engine :!el oil service tank <as ;ade <hat the nor;al practice <as :or its;aintenance or so;e other evidence to esta8lish that it had eercised etraordinar9



diligence. *t ;erel9 stated that constant inspection and care <ere not possi8le and that thelast ti;e the vessel <as dr9?docked <as in Nove;8er 10. Necessaril9 in accordance <ithArticle 1&3# o: the Civil Code <e hold petitioner responsi8le :or the loss o: the goodscovered 89 Bills o: Lading Nos. # and #.

Second *ss!e7

E#tent of Liability

+espondent contends that petitioners lia8ilit9 sho!ld 8e 8ased on the act!al ins!red val!eo: the goods s!8Oect o: this case. n the other hand petitioner clai;s that its lia8ilit9sho!ld 8e li;ited to the val!e declared 89 the shipperQconsignee in the Bill o: Lading.

(he records sho< that the Bills o: Lading covering the lost goods contain the stip!lation thatin case o: clai; :or loss or :or da;age to the shipped ;erchandise or propert9 @/thelia8ilit9 o: the co;;on carrier shall not eceed the val!e o: the goods as appearing inthe 8ill o: lading. (he atte;pt 89 respondent to ;ake light o: this stip!lation is!nconvincing. As it had the consignees copies o: the Bills o: Lading it co!ld have easil9prod!ced those copies instead o: rel9ing on ;ere allegations and s!ppositions. )o<ever itpresented ;ere photocopies thereo: to disprove petitioners evidence sho<ing the eistence

o: the a8ove stip!lation.

A stip!lation that li;its lia8ilit9 is valid as long as it is not against p!8lic polic9. *n EverettSteamship !orporation v. !o"rt of ppeals, the Co!rt stated7

@A stip!lation in the 8ill o: lading li;iting the co;;on carriers lia8ilit9 :or loss or destr!ctiono: a cargo to a certain s!; !nless the shipper or o<ner declares a greater val!e issanctioned 89 la< partic!larl9 Articles 1&4 and 1&#0 o: the Civil Code <hich provides7

IArt. 1&4. A stip!lation that the co;;on carriers lia8ilit9 is li;ited to the val!e o: thegoods appearing in the 8ill o: lading !nless the shipper or o<ner declares a greater val!e is8inding.

IArt. 1&#0. A contract Jing the s!; that ;a9 8e recovered 89 the o<ner or shipper :or theloss destr!ction or deterioration o: the goods is valid i: it is reasona8le and O!st !nder thecirc!;stances and has 8een :reel9 and :airl9 agreed !pon.

@S!ch li;ited?lia8ilit9 cla!se has also 8een consistentl9 !pheld 89 this Co!rt in a n!;8er o:cases. (h!s in Sea$Land Service, Inc. vs. Intermediate ppellate !o"rt <e r!led7

I*t see;s clear that even i: said section 4 =#> o: the Carriage o: $oods 89 Sea Act did noteist the validit9 and 8inding eKect o: the lia8ilit9 li;itation cla!se in the 8ill o: lading hereare nevertheless :!ll9 s!staina8le on the 8asis alone o: the cited Civil Code Provisions. (hatsaid stip!lation is O!st and reasona8le is arg!a8le :ro; the :act that it echoes Art. 1&#0 itsel: in providing a li;it to lia8ilit9 onl9 i: a greater val!e is not declared :or the ship;ent in the

8ill o: lading. (o hold other<ise <o!ld a;o!nt to M!estioning the O!stness and :airness o:the la< itsel: and this the private respondent does not pretend to do. B!t over and a8ovethat consideration the O!st and reasona8le character o: s!ch stip!lation is i;plicit in itgiving the shipper or o<ner the option o: avoiding accr!al o: lia8ilit9 li;itation 89 the si;pleand s!rel9 :ar :ro; onero!s epedient o: declaring the nat!re and val!e o: the ship;ent inthe 8ill o: lading.



@P!rs!ant to the a:ore?M!oted provisions o: la< it is reM!ired that the stip!lation li;iting theco;;on carriers lia8ilit9 :or loss ;!st 8e Ireasona8le and O!st !nder the circ!;stancesand has 8een :reel9 and :airl9 agreed !pon.

@(he 8ill o: lading s!8Oect o: the present controvers9 speciJcall9 provides a;ong others7

1. All clai;s :or <hich the carrier ;a9 8e lia8le shall 8e adO!sted and settled on the8asis o: the shippers net invoice cost pl!s :reight and ins!rance pre;i!;s i: paid and in noevent shall the carrier 8e lia8le :or an9 loss o: possi8le proJts or an9 conseM!ential loss.

I(he carrier shall not 8e lia8le :or an9 loss o: or an9 da;age to or in an9 connection <ithgoods in an a;o!nt eceeding ne )!ndred (ho!sand 6en in apanese C!rrenc9=100000.00> or its eM!ivalent in an9 other c!rrenc9 per package or c!sto;ar9 :reight !nit=<hichever is least> "nless the val"e of the goods higher than this amo"nt is declared in%riting by the shipper before receipt of the goods by the carrier and inserted in the &ill ofLading and e#tra freight is paid as re'"ired.

@(he a8ove stip!lations are to o!r ;ind reasona8le and O!st. *n the 8ill o: lading thecarrier ;ade it clear that its lia8ilit9 <o!ld onl9 8e !p to ne )!ndred (ho!sand

=6100000.00> 6en. )o<ever the shipper 5ar!;an (rading had the option to declare ahigher val"ation if the val"e of its cargo %as higher than the limited liability of the carrier.!onsidering that the shipper did not declare a higher val"ation, it had itself to blame for notcomplying %ith the stip"lations. =*talics s!pplied>

*n the present case the stip!lation li;iting petitioners lia8ilit9 is not contrar9 to p!8licpolic9. *n :act its O!st and reasona8le character is evident. (he shippersQconsignees ;a9recover the :!ll val!e o: the goods 89 the si;ple epedient o: declaring the tr!e val!e o: theship;ent in the Bill o: Lading. ther than the pa9;ent o: a higher :reight there <asnothing to stop the; :ro; placing the act!al val!e o: the goods therein. *n :act the9co;;itted :ra!d against the co;;on carrier 89 deli8eratel9 !nderval!ing the goods in theirBill o: Lading th!s depriving the carrier o: its proper and O!st transport :are.

Concededl9 the p!rpose o: the li;iting stip!lation in the Bill o: Lading is to protect theco;;on carrier. S!ch stip!lation o8liges the shipperQconsignee to noti:9 the co;;oncarrier o: the a;o!nt that the latter ;a9 8e lia8le :or in case o: loss o: the goods. (heco;;on carrier can then take appropriate ;eas!res ?? getting ins!rance i: needed to coveror protect itsel:. (his preca!tion on the part o: the carrier is reasona8le and pr!dent.)ence a shipperQconsignee that !nderval!es the real <orth o: the goods it seeks totransport does not onl9 violate a valid contract!al stip!lation 8!t co;;its a :ra!d!lent act<hen it seeks to ;ake the co;;on carrier lia8le :or ;ore than the a;o!nt it declared in the8ill o: lading.

*ndeed Gosi;o 5ercado and Nestor Angelia ;isled petitioner 89 !nderval!ing the goods intheir respective Bills o: Lading. )ence petitioner <as eposed to a risk that <as

deli8eratel9 hidden :ro; it and :ro; <hich it co!ld not protect itsel:.

*t is <ell to point o!t that :or ass!;ing a higher risk =the alleged act!al val!e o: the goods>the ins!rance co;pan9 <as paid the correct higher pre;i!; 89 "eliciana Legaspi <hilepetitioner <as paid a :ee lo<er than <hat it <as entitled to :or transporting the goods thathad 8een deli8eratel9 !nderval!ed 89 the shippers in the Bill o: Lading. Bet<een the t<o o:the; the ins!rer sho!ld 8ear the loss in ecess o: the val!e declared in the Bills o: Lading.

(his is the O!st and eM!ita8le sol!tion.



*n boiti( Shipping !orporation v. !o"rt of ppeals the description o: the nat!re and theval!e o: the goods shipped <ere declared and reHected in the 8ill o: lading like in thepresent case. (he Co!rt therein considered this declaration as the 8asis o: the carrierslia8ilit9 and ordered pa9;ent 8ased on s!ch a;o!nt. "ollo<ing this r!ling petitioner sho!ldnot 8e held lia8le :or ;ore than <hat <as declared 89 the shippersQconsignees as the val!eo: the goods in the 8ills o: lading.

De Jnd no cogent reason to dist!r8 the CAs Jnding that "eliciana Legaspi <as the o<ner o:the goods covered 89 Bills o: Lading Nos. # and #. Undo!8tedl9 the goods <ere ;erel9consigned to Nestor Angelia and Gosi;o 5ercado respectivel9 th!s "eliciana Legaspi orher s!8rogee =respondent> <as entitled to the goods or in case o: loss to co;pensationthere:or. (here is no evidence sho<ing that petitioner paid her :or the loss o: those goods.*t does not even clai; to have paid her.

n the other hand Legaspi 5arketing Jled <ith petitioner a clai; :or the lost goods !nderBill o: Lading No. # :or <hich the latter s!8seM!entl9 paid P14000. B!t nothing in therecords convincingl9 sho<s that the :or;er <as the o<ner o: the goods. +espondent <asho<ever a8le to prove that it <as "eliciana Legaspi <ho o<ned those goods and <ho <asth!s entitled to pa9;ent :or their loss. )ence the clai; :or the goods !nder Bill o: Lading

No. # cannot 8e dee;ed to have 8een eting!ished 8eca!se pa9;ent <as ;ade to aperson <ho <as not entitled thereto.

Dith regard to the clai; :or the goods that <ere covered 89 Bill o: Lading No. # and val!edat P%#00 the parties have not convinced !s to dist!r8 the Jndings o: the CA thatco;pensation co!ld not validl9 take place. (h!s <e !phold the appellate co!rts r!ling onthis point.

78ERE9/RE the Petition is here89 )*TILL+ *-TE. (he assailed ,ecision isMI0IE in the sense that petitioner is *E*E to pa9 respondent the s!;s o: P14000and P%#00 <hich represent the val!e o: the goods stated in Bills o: Lading Nos. # and #respectivel9. No costs.

S +,E+E,.

P!no =Chair;an> Sandoval?$!tierre' Corona and Carpio?5orales . conc!r.

*ollo pp. 10?34.

Id. pp. 3%?%0.

Id. p. %2.

"irst ,ivision. Penned 89 !stice +o;eo . CalleOo Sr. =no< a ;e;8er o: this Co!rt> andconc!rred in 89 !stices Salo;e A. 5onto9a =,ivision chair> and 5artin S. -illara;a

=;e;8er>.

Assailed ,ecision p. & rollo p. 3%.

Branch 14% 5akati Cit9.

Penned 89 !dge Salvador S. (ens!an.



+(C ,ecision p. 4 rollo p. %%.

Assailed ,ecision pp. 1?# rollo pp. 3%?40 e;phases in original.

Id. pp. 12 T 4&.

Id. pp. 23 T #.

(he case <as dee;ed s!8;itted :or decision on Septe;8er 24 2001 !pon receipt 89 thisCo!rt o: respondents 5e;orand!; <hich <as signed 89 Att9. Bernard ,. S9. Petitioners5e;orand!; signed 89 Att9. 5elv9n S. "lorencio <as received 89 this Co!rt on A!g!st 312001.

Petitioners 5e;orand!; pp. 12?13 rollo pp. 134?13#. riginal in !pper case.

Pons 9 Co;paia v . La Co;paia 5ariti;a Phil. 12# cto8er 2% 10&.

Eastern Shipping Lines *nc. v . *nter;ediate Appellate Co!rt 1#0 SC+A 4%3 5a9 2 1&

per 5elencio?)errera J.

Ibid.

@Art. 1&3#. *n all cases other than those ;entioned in Nos. 1 2 3 4 and # o: the precedingarticle i: the goods are lost destro9ed or deteriorated co;;on carriers are pres!;ed tohave /8een at :a!lt or to have acted negligentl9 !nless the9 prove that the9 o8servedetraordinar9 diligence as reM!ired in Article 1&33.

See the ,eposition dated Septe;8er 30 1% o: Chester C. Cokaliong petitioners vicepresident and chie: operating ocer. ,eposition p. 1% records p. 2&%.

Ehi8it &?A?2 id. p. 233.

(SN A!g!st 1% p. 4.

Article 1&4 o: the Civil Code. See also St. Pa!l "ire T 5arine *ns!rance Co. v . 5acondra9 TCo. *nc. &0 SC+A 122 5arch 2# 1&%.

3# SC+A 12 13#?13% cto8er 1 per 5artine' J.

1 SC+A 3& A!g!st % 10.



2. Ne0esito v. Paras

+ep!8lic o: the PhilippinesSUPRE$E C/UR

5anila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L+1: ;3ne <4 1-,

PREC#LLAN/ NECES#/4 EC.4 plaintiK?appellantvs.NA#"#!A! PARAS4 E AL.4 de:endants?appellees.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

G.R. No. L+1:: ;3ne <4 1-,

GER$AN NECES#/4 E AL.4 plaintiKs?appellantsvs.NA#"#!A! PARAS4 E AL.4 de:endants?appellees.

Tomas &esa and 0ederico grava for appellants. Jose 1. io2no for appellees.

RE=ES4 ;. B. L.4 J.>

(hese cases involve e# contract" against the o<ners and operators o: the co;;on carrierkno<n as Philippine +a88it B!s Lines Jled 89 one passenger and the heirs o: another <hoinO!red as a res!lt o: the :all into a river o: the vehicle in <hich the9 <ere riding.

*n the ;orning o: an!ar9 2 1%4 Severina $arces and her one?9ear old son PrecillanoNecesito carr9ing vegeta8les 8oarded passenger a!to tr!ck or 8!s No. 1 o: the Philippine+a88it B!s Lines at Agno Pangasinan. (he passenger tr!ck driven 89 "rancisco Bandonellthen proceeded on its reg!lar r!n :ro; Agno to 5anila. A:ter passing 5angatare;Pangasinan tr!ck No. 1 entered a <ooden 8ridge 8!t the :ront <heels s<erved to theright the driver lost control and a:ter <recking the 8ridgeVs <ooden rails the tr!ck :ell onits right side into a creek <here <ater <as 8reast deep. (he ;other Severina $arces <asdro<ned the son Precillano Necesito <as inO!red s!Kering a8rasions and :ract!re o: thele:t :e;!r. )e <as 8ro!ght to the Provincial )ospital at ,ag!pan <here the :ract!re <as set8!t <ith :rag;ents one centi;eter o!t o: line. (he ;one9 <rist <atch and cargo o:vegeta8les <ere lost.

(<o actions :or da;ages and attorne9Vs :ees totalling over P#000 having 8een Jled in theCo!rt o: "irst *nstance o: (arlac =Cases Nos. 0 and 0> against the carrier the latterpleaded that the accident <as d!e to Wengine or ;echanical tro!8leW independent or 8e9ondthe control o: the de:endants or o: the driver Bandonell.

A:ter Ooint trial the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance :o!nd that the 8!s <as proceeding slo<l9 d!e tothe 8ad condition o: the road that the accident <as ca!sed 89 the :ract!re o: the rightsteering kn!ckle <hich <as de:ective in that its center or core <as not co;pact 8!t



W8!88led and cell!lo!sW a condition that co!ld not 8e kno<n or ascertained 89 the carrierdespite the :act that reg!lar thirt9?da9 inspections <ere ;ade o: the steering kn!ckle sincethe steel eterior <as s;ooth and shin9 to the depth o: 3Q1% o: an inch all aro!nd that thekn!ckles are designed and ;an!:act!red :or heav9 d!t9 and ;a9 last !p to ten 9ears thatthe kn!ckle o: 8!s No. 1 that 8roke on an!ar9 2 1#4 <as last inspected on an!ar9 #1#4 and <as d!e to 8e inspected again on "e8r!ar9 #th. )ence the trial co!rt holding

that the accident <as ecl!sivel9 d!e to :ort!ito!s event dis;issed 8oth actions. PlaintiKsappealed directl9 to this Co!rt in vie< o: the a;o!nt in controvers9.

De are inclined to agree <ith the trial co!rt that it is not likel9 that 8!s No. 1 o: thePhilippine +a88it Lines <as driven over the deepl9 r!tted road leading to the 8ridge at aspeed o: #0 ;iles per ho!r as testiJed :or the plaintiKs. S!ch cond!ct on the part o: thedriver <o!ld have provoked instant and vehe;ent protest on the part o: the passengers8eca!se o: the attendant disco;:ort and there is no trace o: an9 s!ch co;plaint in therecords. De are th!s :orced to ass!;e that the proi;ate ca!se o: the accident <as thered!ced strength o: the steering kn!ckle o: the vehicle ca!sed 89 de:ects in casting it. Dhileappellants hint that the 8roken kn!ckle ehi8ited in co!rt <as not the real Jtting attached tothe tr!ck at the ti;e o: the accident the records the9 registered no o8Oection on that gro!ndat the trial 8elo<. (he iss!e is th!s red!ced to the M!estion <hether or not the carrier is

lia8le :or the ;an!:act!ring de:ect o: the steering kn!ckle and <hether the evidencediscloses that in regard thereto the carrier eercised the diligence reM!ired 89 la< =Art.1&## ne< Civil Code>.

A+(. 1&##. A co;;on carrier is 8o!nd to carr9 the passengers sa:el9 as :ar as h!;ancare and :oresight can provide !sing the !t;ost diligence o: ver9 ca!tio!s persons<ith a d!e regard :or the all the circ!;stances.

*t is clear that the carrier is not an ins!rer o: the passengersV sa:et9. )is lia8ilit9 rests !ponnegligence his :ail!re to eercise the W!t;ostW degree o: diligence that the la< reM!ires and89 Art. 1&#% in case o: a passengerVs death or inO!r9 the carrier 8ears the 8!rden o:satis:9ing the co!rt that he has d!l9 discharged the d!t9 o: pr!dence reM!ired. *n theA;erican la< <here the carrier is held to the sa;e degree o: diligence as !nder the ne<

Civil Code the r!le on the lia8ilit9 o: carriers :or de:ects o: eM!ip;ent is th!s epressed7W(he preponderance o: a!thorit9 is in :avor o: the doctrine that a passenger is entitled torecover da;ages :ro; a carrier :or an inO!r9 res!lting :ro; a de:ect in an appliancep!rchased :ro; a ;an!:act!rer <henever it appears that the de:ect <o!ld have 8eendiscovered 89 the carrier i: it had eercised the degree o: care <hich !nder thecirc!;stances <as inc!;8ent !pon it <ith regard to inspection and application o: thenecessar9 tests. "or the p!rposes o: this doctrine the ;an!:act!rer is considered as 8eingin la< the agent or servant o: the carrier as :ar as regards the <ork o: constr!cting theappliance. According to this theor9 the good rep!te o: the ;an!:act!rer <ill not relieve thecarrier :ro; lia8ilit9W =10 A;. !r. 20# s 1324 see also Penns9lvania +. Co. vs. +o9 102 U.S. 4#1 20 L. Ed. 141 So!thern +. Co. vs. )!sse9 &4 AL+ 11&2 42 "ed. 2d &0 and Ed Note2 AL+ & Ann. Cas. 11%E 2>.

(he rationale o: the carrierVs lia8ilit9 is the :act that the passenger has neither choice norcontrol over the carrier in the selection and !se o: the eM!ip;ent and appliances in !se 89the carrier. )aving no privit9 <hatever <ith the ;an!:act!rer or vendor o: the de:ectiveeM!ip;ent the passenger has no re;ed9 against hi; <hile the carrier !s!all9 has. *t is 8!tlogical there:ore that the carrier <hile not in ins!rer o: the sa:et9 o: his passengers sho!ldnevertheless 8e held to ans<er :or the Ha<s o: his eM!ip;ent i: s!ch Ha<s <ere at alldiscovera8le. (h!s )annen . in 0rancis vs. !oc2rell L+ # X. B. 14 said7



*n the ordinar9 co!rse o: things the passenger does not kno< <hether the carrierhas hi;sel: ;an!:act!red the ;eans o: carriage or contracted <ith so;eone else :orits ;an!:act!re. *: the carrier has contracted <ith so;eone else the passenger doesnot !s!all9 kno< <ho that person is and in no case has he an9 share in the selection.

(he lia8ilit9 o: the ;an!:act!rer ;!st depend on the ter;s o: the contract 8et<eenhi; and the carrier o: <hich the passenger has no kno<ledge and over <hich he

can have no control <hile the carrier can introd!ce <hat stip!lations and take <hatsec!rities he ;a9 think proper. "or inO!r9 res!lting to the carrier hi;sel: 89 the;an!:act!rerVs <ant o: care the carrier has a re;ed9 against the ;an!:act!rer 8!tthe passenger has no re;ed9 against the ;an!:act!rer :or da;age arising :ro; a;ere 8reach o: contract <ith the carrier . . . . Unless there:ore the pres!;edintention o: the parties 8e that the passenger sho!ld in the event o: his 8eing inO!red89 the 8reach o: the ;an!:act!rerVs contract o: <hich he has no kno<ledge 8e<itho!t re;ed9 the onl9 <a9 in <hich eKect can 8e given to a diKerent intention is89 s!pposing that the carrier is to 8e responsi8le to the passenger and to look :or hisinde;nit9 to the person <ho; he selected and <hose 8reach o: contract has ca!sedthe ;ischie:. =2 AL+ &>

And in the leading case o: Morgan vs. !hesapea2e 3 . *. !o. 1# L+A =NS> &0 1% Ann. Cas.

%0 the Co!rt in holding the carrier responsi8le :or da;ages ca!sed 89 the :ract!re o: a carale d!e to a Wsand holeW in the co!rse o: ;o!lding the ale ;ade the :ollo<ingo8servations.

(he carrier in consideration o: certain <ell?kno<n and highl9 val!a8le rights grantedto it 89 the p!8lic !ndertakes certain d!ties to<ard the p!8lic a;ong the; 8eing toprovide itsel: <ith s!ita8le and sa:e cars and vehicles in <hich carr9 the travelingp!8lic. (here is no s!ch d!t9 on the ;an!:act!rer o: the cars. (here is no reciprocallegal relation 8et<een hi; and the p!8lic in this respect. Dhen the carrier elects tohave another 8!ild its cars it o!ght not to 8e a8solved 89 that :acts :ro; its d!t9 tothe p!8lic to :!rnish sa:e cars. (he carrier cannot lessen its responsi8ilit9 89 shi:tingits !ndertaking to anotherVs sho!lders. *ts d!t9 to :!rnish sa:e cars is side 89 side<ith its d!t9 to :!rnish sa:e track and to operate the; in a sa:e ;anner. None o: its

d!ties in these respects can 8e s!8let so as to relieve it :ro; the :!ll ;eas!repri;aril9 eacted o: it 89 la<. (he carrier selects the ;an!:act!rer o: its cars i: itdoes not itsel: constr!ct the; precisel9 as it does those <ho grade its road and la9its tracks and operate its trains. (hat it does not eercise control over the :or;er is8eca!se it elects to place that ;atter in the hands o: the ;an!:act!rer instead o:retaining the s!pervising control itsel:. (he ;an!:act!rer sho!ld 8e dee;ed theagent o: the carrier as respects its d!t9 to select the ;aterial o!t o: <hich its carsand loco;otive are 8!ilt as <ell as in inspecting each step o: their constr!ction. *:there 8e tests kno<n to the cra:ts o: car 8!ilders or iron ;o!lders 89 <hich s!chde:ects ;ight 8e discovered 8e:ore the part <as incorporated into the car then the:ail!re o: the ;an!:act!rer to ;ake the test <ill 8e dee;ed a :ail!re 89 the carrier to;ake it. (his is not a vicario!s responsi8ilit9. *t etends as the necessit9 o: this8!siness de;ands the r!le o: respondeat s!perior to a sit!ation <hich :alls clearl9

<ithin its scope and spirit. Dhere an inO!r9 is inHicted !pon a passenger 89 the8reaking or <recking o: a part o: the train on <hich he is riding it is pres!;a8l9 theres!lt o: negligence at so;e point 89 the carrier. As stated 89 !dge Stor9 in Stor9 onBail;ents sec. %01a7 WDhen the inO!r9 or da;age happens to the passenger 89 the8reaking do<n or overt!rning o: the coach or 89 an9 other accident occ!rring on thegro!nd the pres!;ption pri;a :acie is that it occ!rred 89 the negligence o: thecoach;en and on!s pro8andi is on the proprietors o: the coach to esta8lish thatthere has 8een no negligence <hatever and that the da;age or inO!r9 has 8eenoccasioned 89 inevita8le cas!alt9 or 89 so;e ca!se <hich h!;an care and :oresightco!ld not prevent :or the la< <ill in tenderness to h!;an li:e and li;8 hold the



proprietors lia8le :or the slightest negligence and <ill co;pel the; to repel 89satis:actor9 proo:s ever9 i;p!tation thereo:.W Dhen the passenger has proved hisinO!r9 as the res!lt o: a 8reakage in the car or the <recking o: the train on <hich he<as 8eing carried <hether the de:ect <as in the partic!lar car in <hich he <as ridingor not the 8!rden is then cast !pon the carrier to sho< that it <as d!e to a ca!se orca!ses <hich the eercise o: the !t;ost h!;an skill and :oresight co!ld not prevent.

And the carrier in this connection ;!st sho< i: the accident <as d!e to a latentde:ect in the ;aterial or constr!ction o: the car that not onl9 co!ld it not havediscovered the de:ect 89 the eercise o: s!ch care 8!t that the 8!ilders co!ld not 89the eercise o: the sa;e care have discovered the de:ect or :oreseen the res!lt. (hisr!le applies the sa;e <hether the de:ective car 8elonged to the carrier or not.

*n the case no< 8e:ore !s the record is to the eKect that the onl9 test applied to thesteering kn!ckle in M!estion <as a p!rel9 vis!al inspection ever9 thirt9 da9s to see i: an9cracks developed. *t no<here appears that either the ;an!:act!rer or the carrier at an9 ti;etested the steering kn!ckle to ascertain <hether its strength <as !p to standard or that ithad no hidden Ha<s <o!ld i;pair that strength. And 9et the carrier ;!st have 8een a<areo: the critical i;portance o: the kn!ckleVs resistance that its :ail!re or 8reakage <o!ld res!ltin loss o: 8alance and steering control o: the 8!s <ith disastro!s eKects !pon the

passengers. No arg!;ent is reM!ired to esta8lish that a vis!al inspection co!ld not directl9deter;ine <hether the resistance o: this criticall9 i;portant part <as not i;paired. Nor hasit 8een sho<n that the <eakening o: the kn!ckle <as i;possi8le to detect 89 an9 kno<ntest on the contrar9 there is testi;on9 that it co!ld 8e detected. De are satisJed that theperiodical vis!al inspection o: the steering kn!ckle as practiced 89 the carrierVs agents didnot ;eas!re !p to the reM!ired legal standard o: W!t;ost diligence o: ver9 ca!tio!s personsWY Was :ar as h!;an care and :oresight can provideW and there:ore that the kn!ckleVs :ail!recan not 8e considered a :ort!ito!s event that ee;pts the carrier :ro; responsi8ilit9 =Lasa;vs. S;ith 4# Phil. %#& Son vs. Ce8! A!to8!s Co. 4 Phil. 2.>

*t ;a9 8e i;practica8le as appellee arg!es to reM!ire o: carriers to test the strength o:each and ever9 part o: its vehicles 8e:ore each trip 8!t <e are o: the opinion that a d!eregard :or the carrierVs o8ligations to<ard the traveling p!8lic de;ands adeM!ate periodical

tests to deter;ine the condition and strength o: those vehicle portions the :ail!re o: <hich;a9 endanger the sa:e o: the passengers.

As to the da;ages s!Kered 89 the plaintiKs <e agree <ith appellee that no allo<ance ;a98e ;ade :or ;oral da;ages since !nder Article 2220 o: the ne< Civil Code in case o: s!its:or 8reach o: contract ;oral da;ages are recovera8le onl9 <here the de:endant acted:ra!d!lentl9 or in 8ad :aith and there is none in the case 8e:ore !s. As to ee;plar9da;ages the carrier has not acted in a W<anton :ra!d!lent reckless oppressive or;alevolent ;annerW to <arrant their a<ard. )ence <e 8elieve that :or the ;inor PrecillanoNecesito =$. +. No. L?10%0#> an inde;nit9 o: P#000 <o!ld 8e adeM!ate :or the a8rasionsand :ract!re o: the :e;!r incl!ding ;edical and hospitali'ation epenses there 8eing noevidence that there <o!ld 8e an9 per;anent i;pair;ent o: his :ac!lties or 8odil9 :!nctions8e9ond the lack o: anato;ical s9;;etr9. As :or the death o: Severina $arces =$. +. No. L?

10%0%> <ho <as 33 9ears old <ith seven ;inor children <hen she died her heirs areo8vio!sl9 entitled to inde;nit9 not onl9 :or the incidental loses o: propert9 =cash <rist<atch and ;erchandise> <orth P34 that she carried at the ti;e o: the accident and :or the8!rial epenses o: P40 8!t also :or the loss o: her earnings =sho<n to average P120 a;onth> and :or the deprivation o: her protection g!idance and co;pan9. *n o!r O!dg;entan a<ard o: P1#000 <o!ld 8e adeM!ate =c: Alcantara vs. S!rro 4 K. $a'. 2&% 3 Phil.4&2>.



(he lo< inco;e o: the plaintiKs?appellants ;akes an a<ard :or attorne9Vs :ees O!st andeM!ita8le =Civil Code Art. 220 par. 11>. Considering that he t<o cases Jled <ere tried

Oointl9 a :ee o: P3#00 <o!ld 8e reasona8le.

*n vie< o: the :oregoing the decision appealed :ro; is reversed and the de:endants?appellees are sentenced to inde;ni:9 the plaintiKs?appellants in the :ollo<ing a;o!nts7

P#000 to Precillano Necesito and P1#000 to the heirs o: the deceased Severina $arcespl!s P3#00 89 <a9 o: attorne9Vs :ees and litigation epenses. Costs against de:endants?appellees. So ordered.

)aras, !. J., &eng(on, *eyes, ., &a"tista ngelo, !oncepcion, and Endencia, JJ., conc!r.

0eli#, J., conc!rs in the res!lt.

R E S / L U # / N

September 44, 4567

RE=ES4 ;. B. L.4 J.>

,e:endants?appellees have S!8;itted a ;otion asking this Co!rt to reconsider its decisiono: !ne 30 1# and that the sa;e 8e ;odiJed <ith respect to =1> its holding the carrierlia8le :or the 8reakage o: the steering kn!ckle that ca!sed the a!to8!s No. 1 to overt!rn<here89 the passengers riding in it <ere inO!red =2> the da;ages a<arded that appelleesarg!e to 8e ecessive and =3> the a<ard o: attorne9sV :ees.

=1> (he r!le prevailing in this O!risdiction as esta8lished in previo!s decisions o: this Co!rtcited in o!r ;ain opinion is that a carrier is lia8le to its passengers :or da;ages ca!sed 89;echanical de:ects o: the conve9ance. As earl9 as 124 in Lasam vs. Smith 4# Phil. %#

this Co!rt r!led7

As :ar as the record sho<s the accident <as ca!sed either 89 defects in thea"tomobile or else thro!gh the negligence o: its driver. That is not caso fort"ito.

And in Son vs. !eb" "tob"s !ompany 4 Phil. 2 this Co!rt held a co;;on carrier lia8lein da;ages to passenger :or inO!ries ca!se 89 an accident d!e to the 8reakage o: a :a!lt9drag?link spring.

*t can 8e seen that <hile the co!rts o: the United States are at variance on the M!estion o: acarrierVs lia8ilit9 :or latent ;echanical de:ects the r!le in this O!risdiction has 8eenconsistent in holding the carrier responsi8le. (his Co!rt has M!oted :ro; A;erican andEnglish decisions not 8eca!se it :elt 8o!nd to :ollo< the sa;e 8!t ;erel9 in approval o: therationale o: the r!le as epressed therein since the previo!s Philippine cases did not enlargeon the ideas !nderl9ing the doctrine esta8lished there89.

(he ne< evidence so!ght to 8e introd!ced do not <arrant the grant o: a ne< trial since theproposed proo: availa8le <hen the original trial <as held. Said evidence is not ne<l9discovered.

=2> Dith regard to the inde;nit9 a<arded to the child Precilliano Necesito the inO!riess!Kered 89 hi; are incapa8le o: acc!rate pec!niar9 esti;ation partic!larl9 8eca!se the :!ll



eKect o: the inO!r9 is not ascertaina8le i;;ediatel9. (his !ncertaint9 ho<ever does notprecl!de the right to an inde;nit9 since the inO!r9 is patent and not denied =Civil Code Art.2224>. (he reasons 8ehind this a<ard are epo!nded 89 the Code Co;;ission in its report7

(here are cases <here :ro; the nat!re o: the case deJnite proo: o: pec!niar9 losscannot 8e oKered altho!gh the co!rt is convinced that there has 8een s!ch loss. "or

instance inO!r9 to oneVs co;;ercial credit or to the good<ill o: a 8!siness Jr; iso:ten hard to sho< <ith certaint9 in ter;s o: ;one9. Sho!ld da;ages 8e denied :orthat reasonR (he O!dge sho!ld 8e e;po<ered to calc!late ;oderate da;ages in s!chcases rather than that the plaintiK sho!ld s!Ker <itho!t redress :ro; thede:endantVs <rong:!l act.W =+eport o: the Code Co;;ission p. &#>

*n a<arding to the heirs o: the deceased Severina $arces an inde;nit9 :or the loss o: herWg!idance protection and co;pan9W altho!gh it is 8!t ;oral da;age the Co!rt took intoacco!nt that the case o: a passenger <ho dies in the co!rse o: an accident d!e to thecarrierVs negligence constit!tes an eception to the general r!le. Dhile as pointed o!t in the;ain decision !nder Article 2220 o: the ne< Civil Code there can 8e no recover9 o: ;oralda;ages :or a 8reach o: contract in the a8sence o: :ra!d ;alice or 8ad :aith the case o: aviolation o: the contract o: carriage leading to a passengerVs death escapes this general r!le

in vie< o: Article 1&%4 in connection <ith Article 220% No. 3 o: the ne< Civil Code.

A+(. 1&%4. ,a;ages in cases co;prised in this Section shall 8e a<arded inaccordance <ith (itle Z-*** o: this Book concerning ,a;ages. Article 220% shall alsoappl9 to the death o: a passenger ca!sed 89 the 8reach o: contract 89 a co;;ancarrier. A+(. 220%. . . .

=3> (he spo!se legiti;ate and eligi;ate descendants and ascendants o: thedeceased ;a9 de;and ;oral da;ages :or ;ental ang!ish 89 reason o: the death o:the deceased.

Being a special r!le li;ited to cases o: :atal inO!ries these articles prevail over the generalr!le o: Art. 2220. Special provisions control general ones =Licha!co T Co. vs. Apostol 44 Phil.13 Sancio vs. Li'arraga ## Phil. %01>.

*t th!s appears that !nder the ne< Civil Code in case o: accident d!e to a carrierVsnegligence the heirs o: a deceased passenger ;a9 recover ;oral da;ages even tho!gh apassenger <ho is inO!red 8!t ;anages to s!rvive is not entitled to the;. (here isthere:ore no conHict 8et<een o!r ;ain decision in the instant case and that o: !achero vs.Manila +ello% Ta#i !ab !o. 101 Phil. #23 <here the passenger s!Kered inO!ries 8!t did notlose his li:e.

=3> *n the Cachero case this Co!rt disallo<ed attorne9sV :ees to the inO!red plaintiK 8eca!sethe litigation arose o!t o: his eaggerated and !nreasona8le deeds :or an inde;nit9 that<as o!t o: proportion <ith the co;pensator9 da;ages to <hich he <as solel9 entitled. B!t

in the present case plaintiKsV original clai;s can not 8e dee;ed a priori <holl9!nreasona8le since the9 had a right to inde;nit9 :or ;oral da;ages 8esides co;pensator9ones and ;oral da;ages are not deter;ined 89 set and invaria8le 8o!nds.

Neither does the :act that the contract 8et<een the passengers and their co!nsel <as on acontingent 8asis aKect the :or;erVs right to co!nsel :ees. As pointed o!t :or appellants theCo!rtVs a<ard is an part9 and not to co!nsel. A litigant <ho i;providentl9 stip!late higherco!nsel :ees than those to <hich he is la<:!ll9 entitled does not :or that reason earn theright to a larger inde;nit9 8!t 89 parit9 o: reasoning he sho!ld not 8e deprived o: co!nsel:ees i: 89 la< he is entitled to recover the;.



De Jnd no reason to alter the ;ain decision hereto:ore rendered. Ulti;atel9 the positiontaken 89 this Co!rt is that a co;;on carrierVs contract is not to 8e regarded as a ga;e o:chance <herein the passenger stakes his li;8 and li:e against the carrierVs propert9 andproJts.

Dhere:ore the ;otion :or reconsideration is here89 denied. So ordered.

)aras, !. J., &eng(on, )adilla, Montemayor, *eyes, ., &a"tista ngelo, !oncepcion,Endencia, and 0eli#, JJ., conc!r.



<. Pilapil v. CA


5anila

SECN, ,*-*S*N

G.R. No. 21- !e0em(er 224 1-,-

;/SE P#LAP#L4 petitionervs.8/N. C/UR /9 APPEALS and ALAC/ RANSP/RA#/N C/$PAN=4 #NC.4respondents.

Martin &adong, Jr. for petitioner.

E"fronio 8. Maristela for private respondent.

PA!#LLA4 J.:

(his is a petition to revie< on certiorari the decision[ rendered 89 the Co!rt o: Appeals dated1 cto8er 1& in CA?$.+. No. #&3#4?+ entitled Wose Pilapil plaintiK?appellee vers!s Alatco

(ransportation Co. *nc. de:endant?appellantW <hich reversed and set aside the O!dg;ent o: the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: Ca;arines S!r in Civil Case No. &230 ordering respondenttransportation co;pan9 to pa9 to petitioner da;ages in the total s!; o: siteen tho!sandthree h!ndred pesos =P 1%300.00>.

(he record discloses the :ollo<ing :acts7

Petitioner?plaintiK ose Pilapil a pa9ing passenger 8oarded respondent?de:endantVs 8!s8earing No. 40 at San Nicolas *riga Cit9 on 1% Septe;8er 1&1 at a8o!t %700 P.5. Dhilesaid 8!s No. 40 <as in d!e co!rse negotiating the distance 8et<een *riga Cit9 and NagaCit9 !pon reaching the vicinit9 o: the ce;eter9 o: the 5!nicipalit9 o: Baao Ca;arines S!ron the <a9 to Naga Cit9 an !nidentiJed ;an a 89stander along said national high<a9h!rled a stone at the le:t side o: the 8!s <hich hit petitioner a8ove his le:t e9e. PrivaterespondentVs personnel lost no ti;e in 8ringing the petitioner to the provincial hospital inNaga Cit9 <here he <as conJned and treated.

Considering that the sight o: his le:t e9e <as i;paired petitioner <as taken to ,r.

5ala8anan o: *riga Cit9 <here he <as treated :or another <eek. Since there <as noi;prove;ent in his le:t e9eVs vision petitioner <ent to -. L!na )ospital X!e'on Cit9 <herehe <as treated 89 ,r. Cap!long. ,espite the treat;ent accorded to hi; 89 ,r. Cap!longpetitioner lost partiall9 his le:t e9eVs vision and s!stained a per;anent scar a8ove the le:te9e.

(here!pon petitioner instit!ted 8e:ore the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: Ca;arines S!r Branch *an action :or recover9 o: da;ages s!stained as a res!lt o: the stone?thro<ing incident. A:tertrial the co!rt a M!o rendered O!dg;ent <ith the :ollo<ing dispositive part7



Dhere:ore O!dg;ent is here89 entered7

1. rdering de:endant transportation co;pan9 to pa9 plaintiK ose Pilapil the s!; o: P 10000.00 Philippine C!rrenc9representing act!al and ;aterial da;ages :or ca!sing aper;anent scar on the :ace and inO!ring the e9e?sight o: the

plaintiK

2. rdering :!rther de:endant transportation co;pan9 to pa9the s!; o: P #000.00 Philippine C!rrenc9 to the plaintiK as;oral and ee;plar9 da;ages

3. rdering :!rther;ore de:endant transportation co;pan9 torei;8!rse plaintiK the s!; o: P 300.00 :or his ;edical epensesand attorne9Vs :ees in the s!; o: P 1000.00 PhilippineC!rrenc9 and

4. (o pa9 the costs.

S +,E+E, 1

"ro; the O!dg;ent private respondent appealed to the Co!rt o: Appeals <here the appeal<as docketed as CA?$.+. No. #&3#4+. n 1 cto8er 1& the Co!rt o: Appeals in a Special,ivision o: "ive rendered O!dg;ent reversing and setting aside the O!dg;ent o: the co!rt a'"o.

)ence the present petition.

*n seeking a reversal o: the decision o: the Co!rt o: Appeals petitioner contends that saidco!rt has decided the iss!e not in accord <ith la<. SpeciJcall9 petitioner arg!es that thenat!re o: the 8!siness o: a transportation co;pan9 reM!ires the ass!;ption o: certain risks

and the stoning o: the 8!s 89 a stranger res!lting in inO!r9 to petitioner?passenger is ones!ch risk :ro; <hich the co;;on carrier ;a9 not ee;pt itsel: :ro; lia8ilit9.

De do not agree.

*n consideration o: the right granted to it 89 the p!8lic to engage in the 8!siness o:transporting passengers and goods a co;;on carrier does not give its consent to 8eco;ean ins!rer o: an9 and all risks to passengers and goods. *t ;erel9 !ndertakes to per:or;certain d!ties to the p!8lic as the la< i;poses and holds itsel: lia8le :or an9 8reach thereo:.

Under Article 1&33 o: the Civil Code co;;on carriers are reM!ired to o8serve etraordinar9diligence :or the sa:et9 o: the passenger transported 89 the; according to all thecirc!;stances o: each case. (he reM!ire;ent o: etraordinar9 diligence i;posed !ponco;;on carriers is restated in Article 1&##7 WA co;;on carrier is 8o!nd to carr9 thepassengers sa:el9 as :ar as h!;an care and :oresight can provide !sing the !t;ostdiligence o: ver9 ca!tio!s persons <ith d!e regard :or all the circ!;stances.W "!rther incase o: death o: or inO!ries to passengers the la< pres!;es said co;;on carriers to 8e at:a!lt or to have acted negligentl9. 2

Dhile the la< reM!ires the highest degree o: diligence :ro; co;;on carriers in the sa:etransport o: their passengers and creates a pres!;ption o: negligence against the; it doesnot ho<ever ;ake the carrier an ins!rer o: the a8sol!te sa:et9 o: its passengers. <



Article 1&## o: the Civil Code M!aliJes the d!t9 o: etraordinar9 care vigilance andpreca!tion in the carriage o: passengers 89 co;;on carriers to onl9 s!ch as h!;an careand :oresight can provide. <hat constit!tes co;pliance <ith said d!t9 is adO!dged <ith d!eregard to all the circ!;stances.

Article 1&#% o: the Civil Code in creating a pres!;ption o: :a!lt or negligence on the part o:

the co;;on carrier <hen its passenger is inO!red ;erel9 relieves the latter :or the ti;e8eing :ro; introd!cing evidence to :asten the negligence on the :or;er 8eca!se thepres!;ption stands in the place o: evidence. Being a ;ere pres!;ption ho<ever the sa;eis re8!tta8le 89 proo: that the co;;on carrier had eercised etraordinar9 diligence asreM!ired 89 la< in the per:or;ance o: its contract!al o8ligation or that the inO!r9 s!Kered89 the passenger <as solel9 d!e to a :ort!ito!s event.

*n Jne <e can onl9 in:er :ro; the la< the intention o: the Code Co;;ission and Congress toc!r8 the recklessness o: drivers and operators o: co;;on carriers in the cond!ct o: their8!siness.

(h!s it is clear that neither the la< nor the nat!re o: the 8!siness o: a transportationco;pan9 ;akes it an ins!rer o: the passengerVs sa:et9 8!t that its lia8ilit9 :or personal

inO!ries s!stained 89 its passenger rests !pon its negligence its :ail!re to eercise thedegree o: diligence that the la< reM!ires.

Petitioner contends that respondent co;;on carrier :ailed to re8!t the pres!;ption o:negligence against it 89 proo: on its part that it eercised etraordinar9 diligence :or thesa:et9 o: its passengers.

De do not agree.

"irst as stated earlier the pres!;ption o: :a!lt or negligence against the carrier is onl9 adisp!ta8le pres!;ption. *t gives in <here contrar9 :acts are esta8lished proving either thatthe carrier had eercised the degree o: diligence reM!ired 89 la< or the inO!r9 s!Kered 89

the passenger <as d!e to a :ort!ito!s event. Dhere as in the instant case the inO!r9s!stained 89 the petitioner <as in no <a9 d!e to an9 de:ect in the ;eans o: transport or inthe ;ethod o: transporting or to the negligent or <ill:!l acts o: private respondentVse;plo9ees and there:ore involving no iss!e o: negligence in its d!t9 to provide sa:e ands!ita8le cars as <ell as co;petent e;plo9ees <ith the inO!r9 arising <holl9 :ro; ca!sescreated 89 strangers over <hich the carrier had no control or even kno<ledge or co!ld nothave prevented the pres!;ption is re8!tted and the carrier is not and o!ght not to 8e heldlia8le. (o r!le other<ise <o!ld ;ake the co;;on carrier the ins!rer o: the a8sol!te sa:et9 o: its passengers <hich is not the intention o: the la<;akers.

Second <hile as a general r!le co;;on carriers are 8o!nd to eercise etraordinar9diligence in the sa:e transport o: their passengers it <o!ld see; that this is not thestandard 89 <hich its lia8ilit9 is to 8e deter;ined <hen intervening acts o: strangers is to 8e

deter;ined directl9 ca!se the inO!r9 <hile the contract o: carriage Article 1&%3 governs7

Article 1&%3. A co;;on carrier is responsi8le :or inO!ries s!Kered 89 apassenger on acco!nt o: the <il:!l acts or negligence o: other passengers oro: strangers i: the co;;on carrierVs e;plo9ees thro!gh the eercise o: thediligence o: a good :ather o: a :a;il9 co!ld have prevented or stopped the actor o;ission.



Clearl9 !nder the a8ove provision a tort co;;itted 89 a stranger <hich ca!ses inO!r9 to apassenger does not accord the latter a ca!se o: action against the carrier. (he negligence:or <hich a co;;on carrier is held responsi8le is the negligent o;ission 89 the carrierVse;plo9ees to prevent the tort :ro; 8eing co;;itted <hen the sa;e co!ld have 8een:oreseen and prevented 89 the;. "!rther !nder the sa;e provision it is to 8e noted that<hen the violation o: the contract is d!e to the <ill:!l acts o: strangers as in the instant

case the degree o: care essential to 8e eercised 89 the co;;on carrier :or the protectiono: its passenger is onl9 that o: a good :ather o: a :a;il9.

Petitioner has charged respondent carrier o: negligence on the gro!nd that the inO!r9co;plained o: co!ld have 8een prevented 89 the co;;on carrier i: so;ething like ;esh?<ork grills had covered the <indo<s o: its 8!s.

De do not agree.

Altho!gh the s!ggested preca!tion co!ld have prevented the inO!r9 co;plained o: the r!leo: ordinar9 care and pr!dence is not so eacting as to reM!ire one charged <ith its eerciseto take do!8t:!l or !nreasona8le preca!tions to g!ard against !nla<:!l acts o: strangers.

(he carrier is not charged <ith the d!t9 o: providing or ;aintaining vehicles as to a8sol!tel9

prevent an9 and all inO!ries to passengers. Dhere the carrier !ses cars o: the ;ost approvedt9pe in general !se 89 others engaged in the sa;e occ!pation and eercises a high degreeo: care in ;aintaining the; in s!ita8le condition the carrier cannot 8e charged <ithnegligence in this respect. :

"inall9 petitioner contends that it is to the greater interest o: the State i: a carrier <ere;ade lia8le :or s!ch stone?thro<ing incidents rather than have the 8!s riding p!8lic loseconJdence in the transportation s9ste;.

Sad to sa9 <e are not in a position to so hold s!ch a polic9 <o!ld 8e 8etter le:t to theconsideration o: Congress <hich is e;po<ered to enact la<s to protect the p!8lic :ro; theincreasing risks and dangers o: la<lessness in societ9.

D)E+E"+E the O!dg;ent appealed :ro; is here89 A""*+5E,.

S +,E+E,.

Melencio$9errera :!hairperson;, Sarmiento and *egalado, conc"r.

)aras, J., too2 no part.

9ootnotes

[ .. Penned 89 !stice )!go E. $!tierre' r. <ith !stices Edgardo L. Paras5ilagros A. $er;an orge +. CoM!ia conc!rring. !stice +a;on $. $aviola r.dissented.

1. +ecord on Appeal Anne WBW +ollo p. 31.

2. Article 1&#% Ne< Civil Code.



3. Strong v. *loilo?Negros Air Epress Co. 40 $ S!pp. 12 p. 2&4 Al:aro v.A9son #4 $ ,ec. 1 1# p. &20.

4. Art. 11&4 Civil Code Lasa; v. S;ith 4# Phil. %#&.

#. Art. 11&0 11&3 Civil Code Al:aro v. A9son S!pra Necesito et al. vs. Paras

et al. 104 Phil. &#.

% *r<in v. Lo!isville T N.+. Co. #0 So!thern +eporter %2.



. ;3ntilla v. 9ontanar


5anila

"*+S( ,*-*S*N

G.R. No. L+:<? $a) <14 1-,

R/BER/ ;UN#LLA4 petitionervs.CLE$ENE 9/NANAR4 9ERNAN!/ BAN@/N and BER9/L CA$/R/4 respondents.

Valentin . <o(obrado for petitioner.

*"perto -. lfarara for respondents.

GU#ERRE@4 ;R.4 J.:

(his is a petition :or revie< on M!estions o: la< o: the decision o: the Co!rt o: "irst *nstanceo: Ce8! <hich reversed the decision o: the Cit9 Co!rt o: Ce8! and eonerated therespondents :ro; an9 lia8ilit9 arising :ro; a vehic!lar accident.

(he 8ackgro!nd :acts <hich led to the Jling o: a co;plaint :or 8reach o: contract andda;ages against the respondents are s!;;ari'ed 89 the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: Ce8! as:ollo<s7

(he :acts esta8lished a:ter trial sho< that the plaintiK <as a passenger o: thep!8lic !tilit9 Oeepne9 8earing plate No. PU?&1?& on the co!rse o: the trip :ro;,anao Cit9 to Ce8! Cit9. (he Oeepne9 <as driven 89 de:endant Ber:ol Ca;oro.*t <as registered !nder the :ranchise o: de:endant Cle;ente "ontanar 8!t <asact!all9 o<ned 89 de:endant "ernando Ban'on. Dhen the Oeepne9 reached5anda!e Cit9 the right rear tire eploded ca!sing the vehicle to t!rn t!rtle. *nthe process the plaintiK <ho <as sitting at the :ront seat <as thro<n o!t o:the vehicle. Upon landing on the gro!nd the plaintiK ;o;entaril9 lostconscio!sness. Dhen he ca;e to his senses he :o!nd that he had a lacerated<o!nd on his right pal;. Aside :ro; this he s!Kered inO!ries on his le:t ar;right thigh and on his 8ack. =Eh. W,W>. Beca!se o: his shock and inO!ries he<ent 8ack to ,anao Cit9 8!t on the <a9 he discovered that his W;egaW <rist<atch <as lost. Upon his arrival in ,anao Cit9 he i;;ediatel9 entered the,anao Cit9 )ospital to attend to his inO!ries and also reM!ested his :ather?in?la< to proceed i;;ediatel9 to the place o: the accident and look :or the<atch. *n spite o: the eKorts o: his :ather?in?la< the <rist <atch <hich he8o!ght :or P #2.&0 =Eh. WBW> co!ld no longer 8e :o!nd.



Petitioner +o8erto !ntilla Jled Civil Case No. +?1&3& :or 8reach o: contract <ith da;ages8e:ore the Cit9 Co!rt o: Ce8! Cit9 Branch * against Cle;ente "ontanar "ernando Ban'onand Ber:ol Ca;oro.

(he respondents Jled their ans<er alleging inter alia that the accident that ca!sed losses tothe petitioner <as 8e9ond the control o: the respondents taking into acco!nt that the tire

that eploded <as ne<l9 8o!ght and <as onl9 slightl9 !sed at the ti;e it 8le< !p.

A:ter trial !dge +o;!lo +. Senining o: the Civil Co!rt o: Ce8! rendered O!dg;ent in :avor o:the petitioner and against the respondents. (he dispositive portion o: the decision reads7

D)E+E"+E O!dg;ent is here89 rendered in :avor o: the plaintiK and againstthe de:endants and the latter are here89 ordered Oointl9 and severall9 to pa9the plaintiK the s!; o: P&#0.00 as rei;8!rse;ent :or the lost ;ega <rist<atch the s!; o: P24%.%4 as !nreali'ed salar9 o: the plaintiK :ro; hise;plo9er the :!rther s!; o: P100.00 :or the doctorVs :ees and ;edicine anadditional s!; o: P300.00 :or attorne9Vs :ees and the costs.

(he respondents appealed to the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: Ce8! Branch Z*-.

!dge Leonardo B. Canares reversed the O!dg;ent o: the Cit9 Co!rt o: Ce8! !pon a Jndingthat the accident in M!estion <as d!e to a :ort!ito!s event. (he dispositive portion o: thedecision reads7

D)E+E"+E O!dg;ent is here89 rendered eonerating the de:endants :ro;an9 lia8ilit9 to the plaintiK <itho!t prono!nce;ent as to costs.

A ;otion :or reconsideration <as denied 89 the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance.

(he petitioner raises the :ollo<ing alleged errors co;;itted 89 the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o:Ce8! on appealY

a. (he )onora8le Co!rt 8elo< co;;itted grave a8!se o: discretion in :ailingto take cogni'ance o: the :act that de:endants andQor their e;plo9ee :ailed toeercise W!t;ost andQor etraordinar9 diligenceW reM!ired o: co;;on carriersconte;plated !nder Art. 1&## o: the Civil Code o: the Philippines.

8. (he )onora8le Co!rt 8elo< co;;itted grave a8!se o: discretion 89deciding the case contrar9 to the doctrine laid do<n 89 the )onora8leS!pre;e Co!rt in the case o: -ecesito et al. v. )aras, et al.

De Jnd the petition i;pressed <ith ;erit.

(he Cit9 Co!rt and the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: Ce8! :o!nd that the right rear tire o: thepassenger Oeepne9 in <hich the petitioner <as riding 8le< !p ca!sing the vehicle to :all onits side. (he petitioner M!estions the concl!sion o: the respondent co!rt dra<n :ro; thisJnding o: :act.

(he Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: Ce8! erred <hen it a8solved the carrier :ro; an9 lia8ilit9 !pona Jnding that the tire 8lo< o!t is a :ort!ito!s event. (he Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: Ce8! r!ledthat7



A:ter revie<ing the records o: the case this Co!rt Jnds that the accident inM!estion <as d!e to a :ort!ito!s event. A tire 8lo<?o!t s!ch as <hathappened in the case at 8ar is an inevita8le accident that ee;pts the carrier:ro; lia8ilit9 there 8eing a8sence o: a sho<ing that there <as ;iscond!ct ornegligence on the part o: the operator in the operation and ;aintenance o:the vehicle involved. (he :act that the right rear tire eploded despite 8eing

8rand ne< constit!tes a clear case o: caso :ort!ito <hich can 8e a proper8asis :or eonerating the de:endants :ro; lia8ilit9. ...

(he Co!rt o: "irst *nstance relied on the r!ling o: the Co!rt o: Appeals in *odrig"e( v. *edLine Transportation !o., CA $.+. No. 13% ,ece;8er 2 1#4 <here the Co!rt o: Appealsr!led that7

A tire 8lo<?o!t does not constit!te negligence !nless the tire <as alread9 oldand sho!ld not have 8een !sed at all. *ndeed this <o!ld 8e a clear case o::ort!ito!s event.

(he :oregoing concl!sions o: the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: Ce8! are 8ased on a;isapprehension o: overall :acts :ro; <hich a concl!sion sho!ld 8e dra<n. (he reliance o:

the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance on the *odrig"e( case is not in order. *n La Mallorca and)ampanga &"s !o. v. e Jes"s, et al. =1& SC+A 23> <e held that7

Petitioner ;aintains that a tire 8lo<?o!t is a :ort!ito!s event and gives rise tono lia8ilit9 :or negligence citing the r!lings o: the Co!rt o: Appeals in+odrig!e' v. +ed Line (ransportation Co. CA $.+. No. 13% ,ece;8er 21#4 and People v. Palapad CA?$.+. No. 140 !ne 2& 1#. (hese r!lingsho<ever not onl9 are not 8inding on this Co!rt 8!t <ere 8ased onconsiderations M!ite diKerent :ro; those that o8tain in the case at 8ar. (heappellate co!rt there ;ade no Jndings o: an9 speciJc acts o: negligence onthe part o: the de:endants and conJned itsel: to the M!estion o: <hether ornot a tire 8lo<?o!t 89 itsel: alone and <itho!t a sho<ing as to the ca!sative:actors <o!ld generate lia8ilit9. ...

*n the case at 8ar there are speciJc acts o: negligence on the part o: the respondents. (herecords sho< that the passenger Oeepne9 t!rned t!rtle and O!;ped into a ditch i;;ediatel9a:ter its right rear tire eploded. (he evidence sho<s that the passenger Oeepne9 <asr!nning at a ver9 :ast speed 8e:ore the accident. De agree <ith the o8servation o: thepetitioner that a p!8lic !tilit9 Oeep r!nning at a reg!lar and sa:e speed <ill not O!;p into aditch <hen its right rear tire 8lo<s !p. (here is also evidence to sho< that the passenger

Oeepne9 <as overloaded at the ti;e o: the accident. (he petitioner stated that there <erethree =3> passengers in the :ront seat and :o!rteen =14> passengers in the rear.

Dhile it ;a9 8e tr!e that the tire that 8le<?!p <as still good 8eca!se the grooves o: the tire<ere still visi8le this :act alone does not ;ake the eplosion o: the tire a :ort!ito!s event.No evidence <as presented to sho< that the accident <as d!e to adverse road conditions orthat preca!tions <ere taken 89 the Oeepne9 driver to co;pensate :or an9 conditions lia8le toca!se accidents. (he s!dden 8lo<ing?!p there:ore co!ld have 8een ca!sed 89 too ;!ch airpress!re inOected into the tire co!pled 89 the :act that the Oeepne9 <as overloaded andspeeding at the ti;e o: the accident.

*n Lasam v. Smith =4# Phil. %#&> <e laid do<n the :ollo<ing essential characteristics o: caso:ort!ito7



... *n a legal sense and conseM!entl9 also in relation to contracts a casofort"ito presents the :ollo<ing essential characteristics7 =1> (he ca!se o: the!n:oreseen and !nepected occ!rrence or o: the :ail!re o: the de8tor toco;pl9 <ith his o8ligation ;!st 8e independent o: the h!;an <ill. =2> *t ;!st8e i;possi8le to :oresee the event <hich constit!tes the caso fort"ito or i: itcan 8e :oreseen it ;!st 8e i;possi8le to avoid. =3> (he occ!rrence ;!st 8e

s!ch as to render it i;possi8le :or the de8tor to :!lJll his o8ligation in anor;al ;anner. And =4> the o8ligor =de8tor> ;!st 8e :ree :ro; an9participation in the aggravation o: the inO!r9 res!lting to the creditor. =#Encyclopedia J"ridica Espanola 30.>

*n the case at 8ar the ca!se o: the !n:oreseen and !nepected occ!rrence <as notindependent o: the h!;an <ill. (he accident <as ca!sed either thro!gh the negligence o:the driver or 8eca!se o: ;echanical de:ects in the tire. Co;;on carriers sho!ld teach theirdrivers not to overload their vehicles not to eceed sa:e and legal speed li;its and to kno<the correct ;eas!res to take <hen a tire 8lo<s !p th!s ins!ring the sa:et9 o: passengers atall ti;es. +elative to the contingenc9 o: ;echanical de:ects <e held in -ecesito, et al. v.)aras, et al. =104 Phil. &#> that7

... (he preponderance o: a!thorit9 is in :avor o: the doctrine that a passengeris entitled to recover da;ages :ro; a carrier :or an inO!r9 res!lting :ro; ade:ect in an appliance p!rchased :ro; a ;an!:act!rer <henever it appearsthat the de:ect <o!ld have 8een discovered 89 the carrier i: it had eercisedthe degree o: care <hich !nder the circ!;stances <as inc!;8ent !pon it<ith regard to inspection and application o: the necessar9 tests. "or thep!rposes o: this doctrine the ;an!:act!rer is considered as 8eing in la< theagent or servant o: the carrier as :ar as regards the <ork o: constr!cting theappliance. According to this theor9 the good rep!te o: the ;an!:act!rer <illnot relieve the carrier :ro; lia8ilit9V =10 A;. !r. 20# s 1324 see alsoPenns9lvania +. Co. v. +o9 102 U.S. 4#1 20 L. Ed. 141 So!thern +. Co. v.)!sse9 &4 AL+ 11&2 42 "ed. 2d &0 and Ed Note 2 AL+ &.7 Ann. Cas.11%E 2>.

(he rationale o: the carrierVs lia8ilit9 is the :act that the passenger has neitherchoice nor control over the carrier in the selection and !se o: the eM!ip;entand appliances in !se 89 the carrier. )aving no privit9 <hatever <ith the;an!:act!rer or vendor o: the de:ective eM!ip;ent the passenger has nore;ed9 against hi; <hile the carrier !s!all9 has. *t is 8!t logical there:orethat the carrier <hile not an ins!rer o: the sa:et9 o: his passengers sho!ldnevertheless 8e held to ans<er :or the Ha<s o: his eM!ip;ent i: s!ch Ha<s<ere at all discovera8le. ...

*t is s!cient to reiterate that the so!rce o: a co;;on carrierVs legal lia8ilit9 is the contracto: carriage and 89 entering into the said contract it 8inds itsel: to carr9 the passengerssa:el9 as :ar as h!;an care and :oresight can provide !sing the !t;ost diligence o: a ver9

ca!tio!s person <ith a d!e regard :or all the circ!;stances. (he records sho< that thiso8ligation <as not ;et 89 the respondents.

(he respondents like<ise arg!e that the petitioner cannot recover an9 a;o!nt :or :ail!re toprove s!ch da;ages d!ring the trial. (he respondents s!8;it that i: the petitioner <as reall9inO!red <h9 <as he treated in ,anao Cit9 and not in 5anda!e Cit9 <here the accident tookplace. (he respondents arg!e that the doctor <ho iss!ed the ;edical certiJcate <as notpresented d!ring the trial and hence not cross?ea;ined. (he respondents also clai; thatthe petitioner <as not <earing an9 <rist <atch d!ring the accident.



*t sho!ld 8e noted that the Cit9 Co!rt o: Ce8! :o!nd that the petitioner had a lacerated<o!nd on his right pal; aside :ro; inO!ries on his le:t ar; right thigh and on his 8ack andthat on his <a9 8ack to ,anao Cit9 he discovered that his W;egaW <rist <atch <as lost.

(hese are Jndings o: :acts o: the Cit9 Co!rt o: Ce8! <hich <e Jnd no reason to dist!r8. 5oreso <hen <e consider the :act that the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: Ce8! i;pliedl9 conc!rred inthese ;atters <hen it conJned itsel: to the M!estion o: <hether or not the tire 8lo< o!t <as

a :ort!ito!s event.

D)E+E"+E the decision o: the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: Ce8! Branch *- appealed :ro; ishere89 +E-E+SE, and SE( AS*,E and the decision o: the Cit9 Co!rt o: Ce8! Branch * is+E*NS(A(E, <ith the ;odiJcation that the da;ages shall earn interest at 12 per ann!;and the attorne9Vs :ees are increased to S*Z )UN,+E, PESS =P%00.00>. ,a;ages shall earninterests :ro; an!ar9 2& 1&#.

S +,E+E,.

Teehan2ee :!hairman;, Melencio$9errera, )lana, *elova, e la 0"ente and lampay, JJ.,conc"r.



. Ga0al v. PAL


5anila

SECN, ,*-*S*N

G.R. No. L+< $ar0h 14 1--

9RANL#N G. GACAL and C/RA@/N $. GACAL4 the latter assisted () her h3s(and49RANL#N G. GACAL4 petitionersvs.P8#L#PP#NE A#R L#NES4 #NC.4 and 8E 8/N/RABLE PE!R/ SA$S/N C. AN#$AS4 inhis 0apa0it) as PRES#!#NG ;U!GE o' the C/UR /9 9#RS #NSANCE /9 S/U8C/ABA/4 BRANC8 #4 respondents.

Vicente . Mirab"eno for petitioners.

Sig"ion *eyna, Montecillo 3 ngsia2o for private respondent.

PARAS4 J.:

(his is a petition :or revie< on certiorari o: the decision o: the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o:So!th Cota8ato Branch 1 pro;!lgated on A!g!st 2% 10 dis;issing three =3>consolidated cases :or da;ages7 Civil Case No. 1&01 Civil Case No. 1&&3 and Civil Case No.1&& =*ollo p. 3#>.

(he :acts as :o!nd 89 respondent co!rt are as :ollo<s7

PlaintiKs "ranklin $. $acal and his <i:e Cora'on 5. $acal Boni:acio S. Anislagand his <i:e 5ans!eta L. Anislag and the late El;a de $!';an <ere thenpassengers 8oarding de:endantVs BAC 1?11 at ,avao Airport :or a Hight to5anila not kno<ing that on the sa;e Hight 5acalinog (a!rac Pendat!;kno<n as Co;;ander Gapata Nasser ;ar Liling P!s!an +adia ,i;antong,i;arosing and 5ike +anda all o: 5ara<i Cit9 and ;e;8ers o: the 5oroNational Li8eration "ront =5NL"> <ere their co?passengers three =3> ar;ed<ith grenades t<o =2> <ith .4# cali8er pistols and one <ith a .22 cali8erpistol. (en =10> ;in!tes a:ter take oK at a8o!t 2730 in the a:ternoon thehiOackers 8randishing their respective Jrear;s anno!nced the hiOacking o: theaircra:t and directed its pilot to H9 to Li89a. Dith the pilot eplaining to the;especiall9 to its leader Co;;ander Gapata o: the inherent :!el li;itations o:the plane and that the9 are not rated :or international Hights the hiOackersdirected the pilot to H9 to Sa8ah. Dith the sa;e eplanation the9 relentedand directed the aircra:t to land at Ga;8oanga Airport Ga;8oanga Cit9 :orre:!eling. (he aircra:t landed at 3700 oVclock in the a:ternoon o: 5a9 21 1&%at Ga;8oanga Airport. Dhen the plane 8egan to tai at the r!n<a9 it <as;et 89 t<o ar;ored cars o: the ;ilitar9 <ith ;achine g!ns pointed at theplane and it stopped there. (he re8els thr! its co;;ander de;anded that a,C?aircra:t take the; to Li89a <ith the President o: the de:endant co;pan9 as



hostage and that the9 8e given \3&#000 and si =%> ar;alites other<ise the9<ill 8lo< !p the plane i: their de;ands <ill not 8e ;et 89 the govern;ent andPhilippine Air Lines. 5ean<hile the passengers <ere not served an9 :ood nor<ater and it <as onl9 on 5a9 23 a S!nda9 at a8o!t 1700 oVclock in thea:ternoon that the9 <ere served 1Q4 slice o: a sand<ich and 1Q10 c!p o: PAL<ater. A:ter that relatives o: the hiOackers <ere allo<ed to 8oard the plane 8!t

i;;ediatel9 a:ter the9 alighted there:ro; an ar;ored car 8!;ped the stairs. (hat co;;enced the 8attle 8et<een the ;ilitar9 and the hiOackers <hich led!lti;atel9 to the li8eration o: the s!rviving cre< and the passengers <ith theJnal score o: ten =10> passengers and three =3> hiOackers dead on the spot andthree =3> hiOackers capt!red.

Cit9 "iscal "ranklin $. $acal <as !nh!rt. 5rs. Cora'on 5. $acal s!KeredinO!ries in the co!rse o: her O!;ping o!t o: the plane <hen it <as peppered<ith 8!llets 89 the ar;9 and a:ter t<o =2> hand grenades eploded inside theplane. She <as hospitali'ed at $eneral Santos ,octors )ospital $eneralSantos Cit9 :or t<o =2> da9s spending P24#.%0 :or hospital and ;edicalepenses Assistant Cit9 "iscal Boni:acio S. Anislag also escaped !nh!rt 8!t5rs. Anislag s!Kered a :ract!re at the radial 8one o: her le:t el8o< :or <hich

she <as hospitali'ed and operated on at the San Pedro )ospital ,avao Cit9and there:ore at ,avao +egional )ospital ,avao Cit9 spending P4#00.00.El;a de $!';an died 8eca!se o: that 8attle. )ence the action o: da;agesinstit!ted 89 the plaintiKs de;anding the :ollo<ing da;ages to <it7

Civil Case No. 1&01 Y

Cit9 "iscal "ranklin $. $acal and 5rs. Cora'on 5. $acal Y act!alda;ages7 P24#.%0 :or hospital and ;edical epenses o: 5rs$acal P#.00 :or their personal 8elongings <hich <ere lostand not recovered P#0000.00 each :or ;oral da;ages andP#000.00 :or attorne9Vs :ees apart :ro; the pra9er :or ana<ard o: ee;plar9 da;ages =+ecord pp. 4?% Civil Case No.

1&01>.

Civil Case No. 1&&3 Y

Civil Case No. 1&& Y

(he trial co!rt on A!g!st 2% 10 dis;issed the co;plaints Jnding that all the da;agess!stained in the pre;ises <ere attri8!ted to force ma=e"re.

n Septe;8er 12 10 the spo!ses "ranklin $. $acal and Cora'on 5. $acal plaintiKs inCivil Case No. 1&01 Jled a notice o: appeal <ith the lo<er co!rt on p!re M!estions o: la<=*ollo p. ##> and the petition :or revie< on certiorari <as Jled <ith this Co!rt on cto8er 2010 =*ollo p. 30>.

(he Co!rt gave d!e co!rse to the petition =*ollo p. 14&> and 8oth parties Jled theirrespective 8rie:s 8!t petitioner :ailed to Jle repl9 8rie: <hich <as noted 89 the Co!rt in theresol!tion dated 5a9 3 12 =*ollo p. 13>.



Petitioners alleged that the ;ain ca!se o: the !n:ort!nate incident is the gross <anton andinec!sa8le negligence o: respondent Airline personnel in their :ail!re to :risk thepassengers adeM!atel9 in order to discover hidden <eapons in the 8odies o: the si =%>hiOackers. (he9 clai;ed that despite the prevalence o: sk9Oacking PAL did not !se a ;etaldetector <hich is the ;ost eKective ;eans o: discovering potential sk9Oackers a;ong thepassengers =*ollo pp. %?&>.

+espondent Airline averred that in the per:or;ance o: its o8ligation to sa:el9 transportpassengers as :ar as h!;an care and :oresight can provide it has eercised the !t;ostdiligence o: a ver9 ca!tio!s person <ith d!e regard to all circ!;stances 8!t the sec!rit9checks and ;eas!res and s!rveillance preca!tions in all Hights incl!ding the inspection o:8aggages and cargo and :risking o: passengers at the ,avao Airport <ere per:or;ed andrendered solel9 89 ;ilitar9 personnel <ho !nder appropriate a!thorit9 had ass!;edecl!sive O!risdiction over the sa;e in all airports in the Philippines.

Si;ilarl9 the negotiations <ith the hiOackers <ere a p!rel9 govern;ent ;atter and a;ilitar9 operation handled 89 and s!8Oect to the a8sol!te and ecl!sive O!risdiction o: the;ilitar9 a!thorities. )ence it concl!ded that the accident that 8e:ell +P?C11%1 <as ca!sed89 :ort!ito!s event force ma=e"re and other ca!ses 8e9ond the control o: the respondent

Airline.

(he deter;inative iss!e in this case is <hether or not hiOacking or air pirac9 d!ring ;artialla< and !nder the circ!;stances o8taining herein is a caso fort"ito or force ma=e"re <hich<o!ld ee;pt an aircra:t :ro; pa9;ent o: da;ages to its passengers <hose lives <ere p!tin Oeopard9 and <hose personal 8elongings <ere lost d!ring the incident.

Under the Civil Code co;;on carriers are reM!ired to eercise etraordinar9 diligence intheir vigilance over the goods and :or the sa:et9 o: passengers transported 89 the;according to all the circ!;stances o: each case =Article 1&33>. (he9 are pres!;ed at :a!lt orto have acted negligentl9 <henever a passenger dies or is inO!red =Philippine Airlines *nc. v.National La8or +elations Co;;ission 124 SC+A #3 /13> or :or the loss destr!ction ordeterioration o: goods in cases other than those en!;erated in Article 1&34 o: the Civil Code

=Eastern Shipping Lines *nc. v. *nter;ediate Appellate Co!rt 1#0 SC+A 4%3 /1&>.

(he so!rce o: a co;;on carrierVs legal lia8ilit9 is the contract o: carriage and 89 enteringinto said contract it 8inds itsel: to carr9 the passengers sa:el9 as :ar as h!;an care and:oresight can provide. (here is 8reach o: this o8ligation i: it :ails to eert etraordinar9diligence according to all the circ!;stances o: the case in eercise o: the !t;ost diligence o: a ver9 ca!tio!s person =*saac v. A;;en (ransportation Co. 101 Phil. 104% /1#& !ntilla v."ontanar 13% SC+A %24 /1#>.

*t is the d!t9 o: a co;;on carrier to overco;e the pres!;ption o: negligence =PhilippineNational +ail<a9s v. Co!rt o: Appeals 13 SC+A & /1#> and it ;!st 8e sho<n that thecarrier had o8served the reM!ired etraordinar9 diligence o: a ver9 ca!tio!s person as :ar ash!;an care and :oresight can provide or that the accident <as ca!sed 89 a :ort!ito!s event=Estrada v. Consolacion &1 SC+A #23 /1&%>. (h!s as r!led 89 this Co!rt no person shall8e responsi8le :or those Wevents <hich co!ld not 8e :oreseen or <hich tho!gh :oreseen <ereinevita8le. =Article 11&4 Civil Code>. (he ter; is s9non9;o!s <ith caso fort"ito =Lasa; v.S;ith 4# Phil. %#& /124> <hich is o: the sa;e sense as Wforce ma=e"reW =Dords andPhrases Per;anent Edition -ol. 1& p. 3%2>.

*n order to constit!te a caso fort"ito or force ma=e"re that <o!ld ee;pt a person :ro;lia8ilit9 !nder Article 11&4 o: the Civil Code it is necessar9 that the :ollo<ing ele;ents ;!stconc!r7 =a> the ca!se o: the 8reach o: the o8ligation ;!st 8e independent o: the h!;an <ill



=the <ill o: the de8tor or the o8ligor> =8> the event ;!st 8e either !n:oreseea8le or!navoida8le =c> the event ;!st 8e s!ch as to render it i;possi8le :or the de8tor to :!lJll hiso8ligation in a nor;al ;anner and =d> the de8tor ;!st 8e :ree :ro; an9 participation in oraggravation o: the inO!r9 to the creditor =Lasa; v. S;ith 4# Phil. %#& /124 A!stria v.Co!rt o: Appeals 3 SC+A #2& /1&1 Estrada v. Consolacion s"pra -asM!e' v. Co!rt o:Appeals 13 SC+A ##3 /1# !an ". Nakpil T Sons v. Co!rt o: Appeals 144 SC+A #%

/1%>. !aso fort"ito or force ma=e"re 89 deJnition are etraordinar9 events not:oreseea8le or avoida8le events that co!ld not 8e :oreseen or <hich tho!gh :oreseen areinevita8le. *t is there:ore not eno!gh that the event sho!ld not have 8een :oreseen oranticipated as is co;;onl9 8elieved 8!t it ;!st 8e one i;possi8le to :oresee or to avoid.

(he ;ere dic!lt9 to :oresee the happening is not i;possi8ilit9 to :oresee the sa;e=+ep!8lic v. L!'on Stevedoring Corporation 21 SC+A 2& /1%&>.

Appl9ing the a8ove g!idelines to the case at 8ar the :ail!re to transport petitioners sa:el9:ro; ,avao to 5anila <as d!e to the sk9Oacking incident staged 89 si =%> passengers o: thesa;e plane all ;e;8ers o: the 5oro National Li8eration "ront =5NL"> <itho!t an9connection <ith private respondent hence independent o: the <ill o: either the PAL or o: itspassengers.

Under nor;al circ!;stances PAL ;ight have :oreseen the sk9Oacking incident <hich co!ldhave 8een avoided had there 8een a ;ore thoro!gh :risking o: passengers and inspection o: 8aggages as a!thori'ed 89 +.A. No. %23#. B!t the incident in M!estion occ!rred d!ring5artial La< <here there <as a ;ilitar9 take?over o: airport sec!rit9 incl!ding the :risking o:passengers and the inspection o: their l!ggage preparator9 to 8oarding do;estic andinternational Hights. *n :act ;ilitar9 take?over <as speciJcall9 anno!nced on cto8er 201&3 89 $eneral ose L. +anc!do Co;;anding $eneral o: the Philippine Air "orce in a letterto Brig. $en. es!s Singson then ,irector o: the Civil Aerona!tics Ad;inistration =*ollo pp.&1?&2> later conJr;ed shortl9 8e:ore the hiOacking incident o: 5a9 21 1&% 89 Letter o:*nstr!ction No. 3 iss!ed on April 2 1&% =*ollo p. &2>.

ther<ise stated these events rendered it i;possi8le :or PAL to per:or; its o8ligations in ano;inal ;anner and o8vio!sl9 it cannot 8e :a!lted <ith negligence in the per:or;ance o:

d!t9 taken over 89 the Ar;ed "orces o: the Philippines to the ecl!sion o: the :or;er.

"inall9 there is no disp!te that the :o!rth ele;ent has also 8een satisJed. ConseM!entl9 theeistence o: force ma=e"re has 8een esta8lished ee;pting respondent PAL :ro; thepa9;ent o: da;ages to its passengers <ho s!Kered death or inO!ries in their persons and:or loss o: their 8aggages.

P+E5*SES CNS*,E+E, the petition is here89 ,*S5*SSE, :or lack o: ;erit and the decisiono: the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: So!th Cota8ato Branch * is here89 A""*+5E,.

S +,E+E,.

Melencio$9errera, )adilla, Sarmiento and *egalado, JJ., conc"r.

9ootnotes

[ Presided over 89 C"* !dge Pedro Sa;son C. Ani;as.



:. So3thern Lines v. CA


5anila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L+1::2- ;an3ar) <14 1-:2

S/U8ERN L#NES4 #NC.4 petitionervs.C/UR /9 APPEALS and C#= /9 #L/#L/4 respondents.

Jose Ma. Lope( Vito, Jr. for petitioner.The !ity 0iscal for respondents.

!E LE/N4 J.:

(his is a petition to revie< on certiorari the decision o: the Co!rt o: Appeals in CA?$.+. No.1##&?+ ar;ing that o: the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: *loilo <hich sentenced petitionerSo!thern Lines *nc. to pa9 respondent Cit9 o: *loilo the a;o!nt o: P431.41.

So;eti;e in 14 the Cit9 o: *loilo reM!isitioned :or rice :ro; the National +ice and CornCorporation =herea:ter re:erred to as NA+*C> in 5anila. n A!g!st 24 o: the sa;e 9earNA+*C p!rs!ant to the order shipped 1&2% sacks o: rice consigned to the Cit9 o: *loilo on8oard the SS W$eneral DrightW 8elonging to the So!thern Lines *nc. Each sack o: rice<eighed &# kilos and the entire ship;ent as indicated in the 8ill o: lading had a total <eighto: 124#0 kilos. According to the 8ill o: lading the cost o: the ship;ent <as P%311#.#0ite;i'ed and co;p!ted as :ollo<s7 .

Unit Price per 8agP3%.2#

P%2#%&.#0

)andling at P0.13 per8ag

224.3

(r!cking at P2.#0 per8ag

323.%2

( o t a l . . . . . .. . . . .%311#.#

0

n Septe;8er 3 14 the Cit9 o: *loilo received the ship;ent and paid the a;o!nt o:P%311#.#0. )o<ever it <as noted that the :oot o: the 8ill o: lading that the Cit9 o: *loiloV+eceived the a8ove ;entioned ;erchandise apparentl9 in sa;e condition as <hen shippedsave as noted 8elo<7 act!all9 received 1%# sacks <ith a gross <eight o: 11%131 kilos !ponact!al <eighing. (otal shortage ascertained 1331 kilos.W (he shortage <as eM!ivalent to 41sacks o: rice <ith a net <eight o: 1331 kilos the proportionate val!e o: <hich <asP%4%.3#.



n "e8r!ar9 14 1#1 the Cit9 o: *loilo Jled a co;plaint in the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: *loiloagainst NA+*C and the So!thern Lines *nc. :or the recover9 o: the a;o!nt o: P%4%.3#representing the val!e o: the shortage o: the ship;ent o: rice. A:ter trial the lo<er co!rta8solved NA+*C :ro; the co;plaint 8!t sentenced the So!thern Lines *nc. to pa9 thea;o!nt o: P431.41 <hich is the diKerence 8et<een the s!; o: P%4%.3# and P1##4.4representing the latterVs co!nterclai; :or handling and :reight.

(he So!thern Lines *nc. appealed to the Co!rt o: Appeals <hich ar;ed the O!dg;ent o:the trial co!rt. )ence this petition :or revie<.

(he onl9 M!estion to 8e deter;ined in this petition is <hether or not the de:endant?carrierthe herein petitioner is lia8le :or the loss or shortage o: the rice shipped.

Article 3%1 o: the Code o: Co;;erce provides7 .

A+(. 3%1. Y (he ;erchandise shall 8e transported at the risk and vent!re o: theshipper i: the contrar9 has not 8een epressl9 stip!lated.

As a conseM!ence all the losses and deteriorations <hich the goods ;a9 s!Kerd!ring the transportation 89 reason o: :ort!ito!s event :orce ;aOe!re or theinherent nat!re and de:ect o: the goods shall 8e :or the acco!nt and risk o: theshipper.4>%ph?4.@At

Proo: o: these accidents is inc!;8ent !pon the carrier.

Article 3%2 o: the sa;e Code provides7 .

A+(. 3%2. Y Nevertheless the carrier shall 8e lia8le :or the losses and da;agesres!lting :ro; the ca!ses ;entioned in the preceding article i: it is proved as againsthi; that the9 arose thro!gh his negligence or 89 reason o: his having :ailed to takethe preca!tions <hich !sage his esta8lis8ed a;ong care:!l persons !nless the

shipper has co;;itted :ra!d in the 8ill o: lading representing the goods to 8e o: akind or M!alit9 diKerent :ro; <hat the9 reall9 <ere.

*: not<ithstanding the preca!tions re:erred to in this article the goods transportedr!n the risk o: 8eing lost on acco!nt o: their nat!re or 89 reason o: !navoida8leaccident there 8eing no ti;e :or their o<ners to dispose o: the; the carrier ;a9proceed to sell the; placing the; :or this p!rpose at the disposal o: the O!diciala!thorit9 or o: the ocials designated 89 special provisions.

Under the provisions o: Article 3%1 the de:endant?carrier in order to :ree itsel: :ro; lia8ilit9<as onl9 o8liged to prove that the da;ages s!Kered 89 the goods <ere W89 virt!e o: thenat!re or de:ect o: the articles.W Under the provisions o: Article 3%2 the plaintiK in order tohold the de:endant lia8le <as o8liged to prove that the da;ages to the goods 89 virt!e o:

their nat!re occ!rred on acco!nt o: its negligence or 8eca!se the de:endant did not takethe preca!tion adopted 89 care:!l persons. =$overn;ent v. 6ncha!sti T Co. 40 Phil. 21223>.

Petitioner clai;s ee;ption :ro; lia8ilit9 89 contending that the shortage in the ship;ent o: rice <as d!e to s!ch :actors as the shrinkage leakage or spillage o: the rice on acco!nt o:the 8ad condition o: the sacks at the ti;e it received the sa;e and the negligence o: theagents o: respondent Cit9 o: *loilo in receiving the ship;ent. (he contention is !ntena8le:or i: the :act o: i;proper packing is kno<n to the carrier or his servants or apparent !pon



ordinar9 o8servation 8!t it accepts the goods not<ithstanding s!ch condition it is notrelieved o: lia8ilit9 :or loss or inO!r9 res!lting there:or;. = A; !r. %.> "!rther;oreaccording to the Co!rt o: Appeals Wappellant =petitioner> itsel: :rankl9 ad;itted that thestrings that tied the 8ags o: rice <ere 8roken so;e 8ags <ere <ith holes and plent9 o: rice<ere spilled inside the h!ll o: the 8oat and that the personnel o: the 8oat collected no lessthan 2% sacks o: rice <hich the9 had distri8!ted a;ong the;selves.W (his Jnding <hich is

8inding !pon this Co!rt sho<s that the shortage res!lted :ro; the negligence o: petitioner.

*nvoking the provisions o: Article 3%% o: the Code o: Co;;erce and those o: the 8ill o:lading petitioner :!rther contends that respondent is precl!ded :ro; Jling an action :orda;ages on acco!nt o: its :ail!re to present a clai; <ithin 24 ho!rs :ro; receipt o: theship;ent. *t also cites the cases o: overnment v. +ncha"sti 3 !o., 24 Phil. 31# and TritonIns"rance !o. v. Jose 33 Phil. 14 r!ling to the eKect that the reM!ire;ent that the clai; :orda;ages ;!st 8e ;ade <ithin 24 ho!rs :ro; deliver9 is a condition precedent to theaccr!al o: the right o: action to recover da;ages. (hese t<o cases a8ove?cited are notapplica8le to the case at 8ar. *n the Jrst cited case the plaintiK never presented an9 clai;at all 8e:ore Jling the action. *n the second case there <as pa9;ent o: the transportationcharges <hich precl!des the presentation o: an9 clai; against the carrier. =See Article 3%%Code o: Co;;erce.> *t is signiJcant to note that in the A;erican case o: 9oye v.

)ennsylvania *ailroad !o., 13 Ann. Case. 414 it has 8een said7 .

... W*t has 8een held that a stip!lation in the contract o: ship;ent reM!iring the o<nero: the goods to present a notice o: his clai; to the carrier <ithin a speciJed ti;ea:ter the goods have arrived at their destination is in the nat!re o: a conditionprecedent to the o<nerVs right to en:orce a recover9 that he ;!st sho< in the Jrstinstance that 8e has co;plied <ith the condition or that the circ!;stances <eres!ch that to have co;plied <ith it <o!ld have reM!ired hi; to do an !nreasona8lething. (he <eight o: a!thorit9 ho<ever s!stains the vie< that s!ch a stip!lation is;ore in the nat!re o: a li;itation !pon the o<nerVs right to recover9 and that the8!rden o: proo: is accordingl9 on the carrier to sho< that the li;itation <asreasona8le and in proper :or; or <ithin the ti;e stated.W =)!tchinson on Carrier 3ded. par. 44> E;phasis s!pplied.

*n the case at 8ar the record sho<s that petitioner :ailed to plead this de:ense in its ans<erto respondentVs co;plaint and there:ore the sa;e is dee;ed <aived =Section 10 +!le +!les o: Co!rt> and cannot 8e raised :or the Jrst ti;e at the trial or on appeal. =5ailo; v.

(a8ota8o Phil. 30.> 5oreover as the Co!rt o: Appeals has said7 .

... the records reveal that the appellee =respondent> Jled the present action <ithin areasona8le ti;e a:ter the short deliver9 in the ship;ent o: the rice <as ;ade. *tsho!ld 8e recalled that the present action is one :or the re:!nd o: the a;o!nt paid inecess and not :or da;ages or the recover9 o: the shortage :or ad;ittedl9 theappellee =respondent> had paid the entire val!e o: the 1&2% sacks o: rice s!8Oect tos!8seM!ent adO!st;ent as to shortages or losses. (he 8ill o: lading does not at allli;it the ti;e :or Jling an action :or the re:!nd o: ;one9 paid in ecess.

D)E+E"+E the decision o: the Co!rt o: Appeals is here89 ar;ed in all respects and thepetition :or certiorari denied.

Dith costs against the petitioner.

)adilla, Labrador, !oncepcion, *eyes, J.&.L., &arrera, and i(on, JJ., conc"r.&eng(on, !.J., &a"tista ngelo and )aredes, JJ., too2 no part.



?. Ganon v. CA


5anila

SECN, ,*-*S*N

G.R. No. L+,?? $a) <4 1-,,

$AUR/ GAN@/N4 petitionervs.C/UR /9 APPEALS and GELAC#/ E. U$A$B#NG4 respondents.

ntonio &. bino=a for petitioner.

B"i=ano, rroyo 3 )adilla La% Cce for respondents.

SAR$#EN/4 J.:

(he private respondent instit!ted in the Co!rt o: "irst *nstance o: 5anila 1 an action againstthe petitioner :or da;ages 8ased on c!lpa contract!al. (he antecedent :acts as :o!nd 89the respondent Co!rt 2 are !ndisp!ted7

n Nove;8er 2 1#% $elacio (!;a;8ing contracted the services o: 5a!ro B. $an'on toha!l 30# tons o: scrap iron :ro; 5ariveles Bataan to the port o: 5anila on 8oard the lighterLC( WBat;anW =Ehi8it 1 Stip!lation o: "acts A;ended +ecord on Appeal p. 3>. P!rs!ant tothat agree;ent 5a!ro B. $an'on sent his lighter WBat;anW to 5ariveles <here it docked inthree :eet o: <ater =t.s.n. Septe;8er 2 1&2 p. 31>. n ,ece;8er 1 1#% $elacio

(!;a;8ing delivered the scrap iron to de:endant "ilo;eno Ni'a captain o: the lighter :orloading <hich <as act!all9 8eg!n on the sa;e date 89 the cre< o: the lighter !nder thecaptainVs s!pervision. Dhen a8o!t hal: o: the scrap iron <as alread9 loaded =t.s.n.,ece;8er 14 1&2 p. 20> 5a9or ose Advinc!la o: 5ariveles Bataan arrived andde;anded P#000.00 :ro; $elacio (!;a;8ing. (he latter resisted the shakedo<n and a:tera heated arg!;ent 8et<een the; 5a9or ose Advinc!la dre< his g!n and Jred at $elacio

(!;a;8ing =t.s.n. 5arch 1 1&1 p. Septe;8er 2 1&2 pp. %?&>.D>reanFG4H% (heg!nshot <as not :atal 8!t (!;a;8ing had to 8e taken to a hospital in Balanga Bataan :ortreat;ent =t.s.n. 5arch 1 1&1 p. 13 Septe;8er 2 1&2 p. 1#>.

A:ter so;eti;e the loading o: the scrap iron <as res!;ed. B!t on ,ece;8er 4 1#% Acting5a9or Basilio +!8 acco;panied 89 three police;en ordered captain "ilo;eno Ni'a and hiscre< to d!;p the scrap iron =t.s.n. !ne 1% 1&2 pp. ?> <here the lighter <as docked=t.s.n. Septe;8er 2 1&2 p. 31>. (he rest <as 8ro!ght to the co;po!nd o: NASSC=+ecord on Appeal pp. 20?22>. Later on Acting 5a9or +!8 iss!ed a receipt stating that the5!nicipalit9 o: 5ariveles had taken c!stod9 o: the scrap iron =Stip!lation o: "acts +ecord onAppeal p. 40 t.s.n. Septe;8er 2 1&2 p. 10.>

n the 8asis o: the a8ove Jndings the respondent Co!rt rendered a decision the dispositiveportion o: <hich states7



D)E+E"+E the decision appealed :ro; is here89 reversed and set aside anda ne< one entered ordering de:endant?appellee 5a!ro $an'on to pa9 plaintiK?appellant $elacio E. (!;a;8i;g the s!; o: P##.00 as act!al da;ages thes!; o: P#000.00 as ee;plar9 da;ages and the a;o!nt o: P2000.00 asattorne9Vs :ees. Costs against de:endant?appellee $an'on. <

*n this petition :or revie< on certiorari the alleged errors in the decision o: the Co!rt o:Appeals are7

*

()E CU+( " APPEALS "*N,*N$ ()E )E+E*N PE(*(*NE+ $U*L(6 " B+EAC) " ()ECN(+AC( " (+ANSP+(A(*N AN, *N *5PS*N$ A L*AB*L*(6 A$A*NS( )*5 C55ENC*N$"+5 ()E (*5E ()E SC+AP DAS PLACE, *N )*S CUS(,6 AN, CN(+L )A-E N BAS*S *N"AC( AN, *N LAD.

**

()E APPELLA(E CU+( E++E, *N CN,E5N*N$ ()E PE(*(*NE+ "+ ()E AC(S " )*SE5PL6EES *N ,U5P*N$ ()E SC+AP *N( ()E SEA ,ESP*(E ()A( *( DAS +,E+E, B6 ()ELCAL $-E+N5EN( ""*C*AL D*()U( )*S PA+(*C*PA(*N.

***

()E APPELLA(E CU+( "A*LE, ( CNS*,E+ ()A( ()E LSS " ()E SC+AP DAS ,UE ( A"+(U*(US E-EN( AN, ()E PE(*(*NE+ *S ()E+E"+E N( L*ABLE "+ LSSES AS ACNSEXUENCE ()E+E".

(he petitioner in his Jrst assign;ent o: error insists that the scrap iron had not 8een!nconditionall9 placed !nder his c!stod9 and control to ;ake hi; lia8le. )o<ever heco;pletel9 agrees <ith the respondent Co!rtVs Jnding that on ,ece;8er 1 1#% the

private respondent delivered the scraps to Captain "ilo;eno Ni'a :or loading in the lighterWBat;anW (hat the petitioner thr! his e;plo9ees act!all9 received the scraps is :reel9ad;itted. SigniJcantl9 there is not the slightest allegation or sho<ing o: an9 conditionM!aliJcation or restriction acco;pan9ing the deliver9 89 the private respondent?shipper o:the scraps or the receipt o: the sa;e 89 the petitioner. n the contrar9 soon a:ter thescraps <ere delivered to and received 89 the petitioner?co;;on carrier loading <asco;;enced.

B9 the said act o: deliver9 the scraps <ere !nconditionall9 placed in the possession andcontrol o: the co;;on carrier and !pon their receipt 89 the carrier :or transportation thecontract o: carriage <as dee;ed per:ected. ConseM!entl9 the petitioner?carrierVsetraordinar9 responsi8ilit9 :or the loss destr!ction or deterioration o: the goodsco;;enced. P!rs!ant to Art. 1&3% s!ch etraordinar9 responsi8ilit9 <o!ld cease onl9 !pon

the deliver9 act!al or constr!ctive 89 the carrier to the consignee or to the person <ho hasa right to receive the;. (he :act that part o: the ship;ent had not 8een loaded on 8oardthe lighter did not i;pair the said contract o: transportation as the goods re;ained in thec!stod9 and control o: the carrier al8eit still !nloaded.

(he petitioner has :ailed to sho< that the loss o: the scraps <as d!e to an9 o: the :ollo<ingca!ses en!;erated in Article 1&34 o: the Civil Code na;el97

=1> "lood stor; earthM!ake lightning or other nat!ral disaster or cala;it9



=2> Act o: the p!8lic ene;9 in <ar <hether international or civil

=3> Act or o;ission o: the shipper or o<ner o: the goods

=4> (he character o: the goods or de:ects in the packing or in the containers

=#> rder or act o: co;petent p!8lic a!thorit9.

)ence the petitioner is pres!;ed to have 8een at :a!lt or to have acted negligentl9. : B9reason o: this pres!;ption the co!rt is not even reM!ired to ;ake an epress Jnding o: :a!ltor negligence 8e:ore it co!ld hold the petitioner ans<era8le :or the 8reach o: the contract o:carriage. Still the petitioner co!ld have 8een ee;pted :ro; an9 lia8ilit9 had he 8een a8leto prove that he o8served etraordinar9 diligence in the vigilance over the goods in hisc!stod9 according to all the circ!;stances o: the case or that the loss <as d!e to an!n:oreseen event or to force ma=e"re. As it <as there <as hardl9 an9 atte;pt on the part o: the petitioner to prove that he eercised s!ch etraordinar9 diligence.

*t is in the second and third assign;ents o: error <here the petitioner ;aintains that he isee;pt :ro; an9 lia8ilit9 8eca!se the loss o: the scraps <as d!e ;ainl9 to the interventiono: the ;!nicipal ocials o: 5ariveles <hich constit!tes a caso :ort!ito as deJned in Article11&4 o: the Civil Code. ?

De cannot s!stain the theor9 o: caso fort"ito. *n the co!rts 8elo< the petitionerVs de:ense<as that the loss o: the scraps <as d!e to an Worder or act o: co;petent p!8lic a!thorit9Wand this contention <as correctl9 passed !pon 89 the Co!rt o: Appeals <hich r!led that7

... *n the second place 8e:ore the appellee $an'on co!ld 8e a8solved :ro;responsi8ilit9 on the gro!nd that he <as ordered 89 co;petent p!8lica!thorit9 to !nload the scrap iron it ;!st 8e sho<n that Acting 5a9or Basilio+!8 had the po<er to iss!e the disp!ted order or that it <as la<:!l or that it<as iss!ed !nder legal process o: a!thorit9. (he appellee :ailed to esta8lish

this. *ndeed no a!thorit9 or po<er o: the acting ;a9or to iss!e s!ch an order<as given in evidence. Neither has it 8een sho<n that the cargo o: scrap iron8elonged to the 5!nicipalit9 o: 5ariveles. Dhat <e have in the record is thestip!lation o: the parties that the cargo o: scrap iron <as accil;illated 89 theappellant thro!gh separate p!rchases here and there :ro; private individ!als=+ecord on Appeal pp. 3?3>. (he :act re;ains that the order given 89 theacting ;a9or to d!;p the scrap iron into the sea <as part o: the press!reapplied 89 5a9or ose Advinc!la to shakedo<n the appellant :or P#000.00.

(he order o: the acting ;a9or did not constit!te valid a!thorit9 :or appellee5a!ro $an'on and his representatives to carr9 o!t.

No< the petitioner is changing his theor9 to caso :ort!ito. S!ch a change o: theor9 on appeal<e cannot ho<ever allo<. *n an9 case the intervention o: the ;!nicipal ocials <as not *n

an9 case o: a character that <o!ld render i;possi8le the :!lJll;ent 89 the carrier o: itso8ligation. (he petitioner <as not d!t9 8o!nd to o8e9 the illegal order to d!;p into the seathe scrap iron. 5oreover there is a8sence o: s!cient proo: that the iss!ance o: the sa;eorder <as attended <ith s!ch :orce or inti;idation as to co;pletel9 overpo<er the <ill o: thepetitionerVs e;plo9ees. (he ;ere dic!lt9 in the :!llJl;ent o: the o8ligation is notconsidered force ma=e"re. De agree <ith the private respondent that the scraps co!ld have8een properl9 !nloaded at the shore or at the NASSC co;po!nd so that a:ter the disp!te<ith the local ocials concerned <as settled the scraps co!ld then 8e delivered inaccordance <ith the contract o: carriage.



(here is no inco;pati8ilit9 8et<een the Civil Code provisions on co;;on carriers andArticles 3%1 , and 3%2 - o: the Code o: Co;;erce <hich <ere the 8asis :or this Co!rtVs r!lingin $overn;ent o: the Philippine *slands vs. 6ncha!sti T Co.10 and <hich the petitionerinvokes in tills petition. "or Art. 1&3# o: the Civil Code conversel9 stated ;eans that theshipper <ill s!Ker the losses and deterioration arising :ro; the ca!ses en!;erated in Art.1&34 and in these instances the 8!rden o: proving that da;ages <ere ca!sed 89 the :a!lt

or negligence o: the carrier rests !pon hi;. )o<ever the carrier ;!st Jrst esta8lish that theloss or deterioration <as occasioned 89 one o: the ecepted ca!ses or <as d!e to an!n:oreseen event or to :orce ;aOe!re. Be that as it ;a9 inso:ar as Art. 3%2 appears toreM!ire o: the carrier onl9 ordinar9 diligence the sa;e is .dee;ed to have 8een ;odiJed 89Art. 1&33 o: the Civil Code.

"inding the a<ard o: act!al and ee;plar9 da;ages to 8e proper the sa;e <ill not 8edist!r8ed 89 !s. Besides these <ere not s!cientl9 controverted 89 the petitioner.

D)E+E"+E the petition is ,EN*E, the assailed decision o: the Co!rt o: Appeals is here89A""*+5E,. Costs against the petitioner.

(his decision is *55E,*A(EL6 EZECU(+6.

+ap, !.J., )aras and )adilla, JJ., conc"r.

Separate /pinions

$ELENC#/+8ERRERA4 J., dissenting7

* a; constrained to dissent.

*t is ;9 vie< that petitioner can not 8e held lia8le in da;ages :or the loss and destr!ction o: the scrap iron. (he loss o: said cargo <as d!e to an ecepted ca!se an Vorder or act o:co;petent p!8lic a!thorit9W =Article 1&34/# Civil Code>.

(he loading o: the scrap iron on the lighter had to 8e s!spended 8eca!se o: 5!nicipal 5a9or ose Advinc!laVs intervention <ho <as a Wco;petent p!8lic a!thorit9.W Petitioner had nocontrol over the sit!ation as in :act (!;a;8ing hi;sel: the o<ner o: the cargo <asi;potent to stop the WactV o: said ocial and even s!Kered a g!nshot <o!nd on theoccasion.

Dhen loading <as res!;ed this ti;e it <as Acting 5a9or Basilio +!8 acco;panied 89 threepolice;en <ho ordered the d!;ping o: the scrap iron into the sea right <here the lighter<as docked in three :eet o: <ater. Again co!ld the captain o: the lighter and his cre< havedeJed said orderR

(hro!gh the WorderW or WactW o: Wco;petent p!8lic a!thorit9W there:ore the per:or;ance o: acontract!al o8ligation <as rendered i;possi8le. (he scrap iron that <as d!;ped into thesea <as Wdestro9edW <hile the rest o: the cargo <as Wsei'ed.W (he sei'!re is evidenced 89



the receipt iss!es 89 Acting 5a9or +!8 stating that the 5!nicipalit9 o: 5ariveles had takenc!stod9 o: the scrap iron. Apparentl9 there:ore the sei'!re and destr!ction o: the goods<as done !nder legal process or a!thorit9 so that petitioner sho!ld 8e :reed :ro;responsi8ilit9.

Art. 1&43. *: thro!gh order o: p!8lic a!thorit9 the goods are sei'ed or

destro9ed the co;;on carrier is not responsi8le provided said p!8lica!thorit9 had po<er to iss!e the order.

Separate /pinions

$ELENC#/+8ERRERA4 J., dissenting7

* a; constrained to dissent.

*t is ;9 vie< that petitioner can not 8e held lia8le in da;ages :or the loss and destr!ction o: the scrap iron. (he loss o: said cargo <as d!e to an ecepted ca!se an Vorder or act o:co;petent p!8lic a!thorit9W =Article 1&34/# Civil Code>.

(he loading o: the scrap iron on the lighter had to 8e s!spended 8eca!se o: 5!nicipal 5a9or ose Advinc!laVs intervention <ho <as a Wco;petent p!8lic a!thorit9.W Petitioner had nocontrol over the sit!ation as in :act (!;a;8ing hi;sel: the o<ner o: the cargo <asi;potent to stop the WactV o: said ocial and even s!Kered a g!nshot <o!nd on theoccasion.

Dhen loading <as res!;ed this ti;e it <as Acting 5a9or Basilio +!8 acco;panied 89 threepolice;en <ho ordered the d!;ping o: the scrap iron into the sea right <here the lighter

<as docked in three :eet o: <ater. Again co!ld the captain o: the lighter and his cre< havedeJed said orderR

(hro!gh the WorderW or WactW o: Wco;petent p!8lic a!thorit9W there:ore the per:or;ance o: acontract!al o8ligation <as rendered i;possi8le. (he scrap iron that <as d!;ped into thesea <as Wdestro9edW <hile the rest o: the cargo <as Wsei'ed.W (he sei'!re is evidenced 89the receipt iss!es 89 Acting 5a9or +!8 stating that the 5!nicipalit9 o: 5ariveles had takenc!stod9 o: the scrap iron. Apparentl9 there:ore the sei'!re and destr!ction o: the goods<as done !nder legal process or a!thorit9 so that petitioner sho!ld 8e :reed :ro;responsi8ilit9.

Art. 1&43. *: thro!gh order o: p!8lic a!thorit9 the goods are sei'ed ordestro9ed the co;;on carrier is not responsi8le provided said p!8lica!thorit9 had po<er to iss!e the order.

9ootnotes

1 Presided 89 !dge es!s P. 5or:e

2 Pasc!al Chair;an ponente Agrava and Cli;aco JJ., conc"rring.



3 ,ecision +ollo 1.

4 PetitionerVs Brie: 3 & +ollo 41.

# Article 1&3% Civil Code o: the Philippines7

Art. 1&3%. (he etraordinar9 responsi8ilit9 o: the co;;on carriers lasts :ro;the ti;e the goods are !nconditionall9 placed in the possession o: andreceived 89 the carrier :or transportation !ntil the sa;e are delivered act!all9or constr!ctivel9 89 the carrier to the consignee or to the person <ho has aright to receive the; <itho!t preO!dice to the provisions o: article 1&3.

% Article 1&3# s"pra.

Art. 1&3#. *n all cases other than those ;entioned in Nos. 1 2 3 4 and # o:the preceding article i: the goods are lost destro9ed or deteriorated co;;oncarriers are pres!;ed to have 8een at :a!lt or to have acted negligentl9!nless the9 prove that the9 o8served etraordinar9 diligence as reM!ired inArticle 1&33.

& Art. 11 &4 s"pra7

Art. 11&4. Ecept in cases epressl9 speciJed 89 the la< or <hen it isother<ise declared 89 stip!lation or <hen the nat!re o: the o8ligationreM!ires the ass!;ption o: risk no person shall 8e responsi8le :or thoseevents <hich co!ld not 8e :oreseen or <hich tho!gh :or :oreseen <ereinevita8le.

Article 3%1 Code o: Co;;erce7

Art. 3%1. (he ;erchandise shall 8e transported at

the risk and vent!re o: the shipper i: the contrar9has not 8een epressl9 stip!lated.

As a conseM!ence all the losses anddeterioration <hich the goods ;a9 s!Ker d!ringthe transportation 89 reason o: :ort!ito!s event:orce ;aOe!re or the inherent nat!re and de:ecto: the goods shall 8e :or the acco!nt and risk o:the shipper.

Proo: o: these accidents is inc!;8ent !pon thecarrier.

Article 3%2 Code o: Co;;erce7

Art. 3%2. Nevertheless the carrier shall 8e lia8le:or the losses and da;ages res!lting :ro; theca!ses ;entioned in the preceding article i: it isproved as against hi; that the9 arose thro!ghhis negligence or 89 reason o: his having :ailed totake the preca!tions <hich !sage has esta8lisheda;ong care:!l persons !nless the shipper has



co;;itted :ra!d in the 8ill o: lading representingthe goods to 8e o: a kind or M!alit9 diKerent :ro;<hat the9 reall9 <ere.

*: not<ithstanding the preca!tions re:erred to into article the goods transported r!n the risk o:

8eing lost on acco!nt o: their nat!re or 89reason o: !navoida8le accident there 8eing noti;e :or their o<ners to dispose o: the; thecarrier ;a9 proceed to sell the; placing the;:or this p!rpose at the disposal o: the O!diciala!thorit9 or o: the ocials designated 89 specialprovisions.

10 No. 1411 Septe;8er 2 11 40 Phil. 21.

2nd assignment transpo

Documents