7/28/2019 Philam Gen vs PKS

1/1

Philam Gen Vs PKS

Facts:

Davao Union Marketing Corporation (DUMC) contracted the services of respondent PKS shipping company(PKS) to transport its 75,000 bags of cement. DUMC insured the full amount of the goods with the petitionerinsurance company(Philamgen). Ironically, the barge sank bringing down the entire cargo of 75,000 bags of cement. DUMC filed aformal claim for the entire amount of insurance, to which Philamgen promptly paid. Philamgen then sought a

reimbursement of the amount it paid to DUMC but the PKS refused to pay, which prompted Philamgen to file asuit against PKS. The trial court, finding the cause of the loss to be through fortuitous event, dismissed thecomplaint filed. Philamgen interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the decision ofthe trial court. In this appeal before the Supreme Court, Philamgen contended that the appellate courtcommitted patent error in ruling that PKS is not a common carrier and it is not liable for the loss of the subjectcargo.

According to the Supreme Court, the issue of whether a carrier is private or common carrier on the basis offacts found by the trial court or the appellate court can be a valid and reviewable question of law. Contrary tothe conclusion made by theappellate court, its factual findings indicated that PKS engaged itself in the business of carrying goods forothers, although for a limited clientele, undertaking to carry such goods for a fee. Hence, the Court found PKSto be a common carrier. However, the Court also found that PKS exercised the proper diligence demanded of acommon carrier. The factual findings of the appellate court were strengthened by the Certificate of Inspectionof the barge issued by the Philippine Coastguard and the Coastwise Load Line Certificate, which attested to the

seaworthiness of the vessel involved in this case. Hence, the Court found no error in the judgment made bythe appellate court in absolving PKS from liability for the loss of the DUMC cargo.

Doctrine: Much of the distinction between a "common or public carrier" and a "private or special carrier" lies inthe character of the business, such that if the undertaking is an isolated transaction, not a part of the businessor occupation, and the carrier does not hold itself out to carry the goods for the general public or to a limitedclientele, although involving the carriage of goods for a fee, the person or corporation providing such servicecould very well be just a private carrier. A typical case is that of a charter party which includes both the vesseland its crew, such as in a bareboat or demise, where the charterer obtains the use and service of all or somepart of a ship for a period of time or a voyage or voyages and gets the control of the vessel and its crew.