CANGCO V. MRR

ISAAC V. A.L. AMMEN

FORES V. MIRANDA

PHIL. RABBIT V. IAC

LRTA V. NAVIDAD

YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP CO. V. DEXTER

MIRASOL V. DOLLAR

TAN CHIONG V. YNCHAUSTI

MARTINI V. MACONDRAY

EASTERN SHIPPING V. IAC

ASIA LIGHTERAGE V. CA

GOVERNMENT V. YNCHAUSTI

SOUTHERN LINES V. CA

GANZON V. CA

CANGCO V. MRR

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-12191             October 14, 1918

JOSE CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs.MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendant-appellee.

Ramon Sotelo for appellant.Kincaid & Hartigan for appellee.

 

FISHER, J.:

          At the time of the occurrence which gave rise to this litigation the plaintiff, Jose Cangco, was in the employment of Manila Railroad Company in the capacity of clerk, with a monthly wage of P25. He lived in the pueblo of San Mateo, in the province of Rizal, which is located upon the line of the defendant railroad company; and in coming daily by train to the company's office in the city of Manila where he worked, he used a pass, supplied by the company, which entitled him to ride upon the company's trains free of charge. Upon the occasion in question, January 20, 1915, the plaintiff arose from his seat in the second class-car where he was riding and, making, his exit through the door, took his position upon the steps of the coach, seizing the upright guardrail with his right hand for support.

          On the side of the train where passengers alight at the San Mateo station there is a cement platform which begins to rise with a moderate gradient some distance away from the company's office and extends along in front of said office for a distance sufficient to cover the length of several coaches. As the train slowed down another passenger, named Emilio Zuñiga, also an employee of the railroad company, got off the same car, alighting safely at the point where the platform begins to rise from the level of the ground. When the train had proceeded a little farther the plaintiff Jose Cangco stepped off also, but one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons with the result that his feet slipped from under him and he fell violently on the platform. His body at once rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving car, where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. It appears that after the plaintiff alighted from the train the car moved forward possibly six meters before it came to a full stop.

          The accident occurred between 7 and 8 o'clock on a dark night, and as the railroad station was lighted dimly by a single light located some distance away, objects on the platform where the accident occurred were difficult to discern especially to a person emerging from a lighted car.

          The explanation of the presence of a sack of melons on the platform where the plaintiff alighted is found in the fact that it was the customary season for harvesting these melons and a large lot had been brought to the station for the shipment to the market. They were contained in numerous sacks which has been piled on the platform in a row one upon another. The testimony shows that this row of sacks was so placed of melons and the edge of platform; and it is clear that the fall of the plaintiff was due to the fact that his foot alighted upon one of these melons at the moment he stepped upon the platform. His statement that he failed to see these objects in the darkness is readily to be credited.

          The plaintiff was drawn from under the car in an unconscious condition, and it appeared that the injuries which he had received were very serious. He was therefore brought at once to a certain hospital in the city of Manila where an examination was made and his arm was amputated. The result of this operation

was unsatisfactory, and the plaintiff was then carried to another hospital where a second operation was performed and the member was again amputated higher up near the shoulder. It appears in evidence that the plaintiff expended the sum of P790.25 in the form of medical and surgical fees and for other expenses in connection with the process of his curation.

          Upon August 31, 1915, he instituted this proceeding in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover damages of the defendant company, founding his action upon the negligence of the servants and employees of the defendant in placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security of passenger alighting from the company's trains. At the hearing in the Court of First Instance, his Honor, the trial judge, found the facts substantially as above stated, and drew therefrom his conclusion to the effect that, although negligence was attributable to the defendant by reason of the fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct passengers passing to and from the cars, nevertheless, the plaintiff himself had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded form recovering. Judgment was accordingly entered in favor of the defendant company, and the plaintiff appealed.

          It can not be doubted that the employees of the railroad company were guilty of negligence in piling these sacks on the platform in the manner above stated; that their presence caused the plaintiff to fall as he alighted from the train; and that they therefore constituted an effective legal cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. It necessarily follows that the defendant company is liable for the damage thereby occasioned unless recovery is barred by the plaintiff's own contributory negligence. In resolving this problem it is necessary that each of these conceptions of liability, to-wit, the primary responsibility of the defendant company and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff should be separately examined.

          It is important to note that the foundation of the legal liability of the defendant is the contract of carriage, and that the obligation to respond for the damage which plaintiff has suffered arises, if at all, from the breach of that contract by reason of the failure of defendant to exercise due care in its performance. That is to say, its liability is direct and immediate, differing essentially, in legal viewpoint from that presumptive responsibility for the negligence of its servants, imposed by article 1903 of the Civil Code, which can be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in their selection and supervision. Article 1903 of the Civil Code is not applicable to obligations arising ex contractu, but only to extra-contractual obligations — or to use the technical form of expression, that article relates only to culpa aquiliana and not to culpa contractual.

          Manresa (vol. 8, p. 67) in his commentaries upon articles 1103 and 1104 of the Civil Code, clearly points out this distinction, which was also recognized by this Court in its decision in the case of Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. (7 Phil. rep., 359). In commenting upon article 1093 Manresa clearly points out the difference between "culpa, substantive and independent, which of itself constitutes the source of an obligation between persons not formerly connected by any legal tie" and culpa considered as an accident in the performance of an obligation already existing . . . ."

          In the Rakes case (supra) the decision of this court was made to rest squarely upon the proposition that article 1903 of the Civil Code is not applicable to acts of negligence which constitute the breach of a contract.

          Upon this point the Court said:

          The acts to which these articles [1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code] are applicable are understood to be those not growing out of pre-existing duties of the parties to one another. But where relations already formed give rise to duties, whether springing from contract or quasi-contract, then breaches of those duties are subject to article 1101, 1103, and 1104 of the same code. (Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil. Rep., 359 at 365.)

          This distinction is of the utmost importance. The liability, which, under the Spanish law, is, in certain cases imposed upon employers with respect to damages occasioned by the negligence of their employees to persons to whom they are not bound by contract, is not based, as in the English Common Law, upon the

principle of respondeat superior — if it were, the master would be liable in every case and unconditionally — but upon the principle announced in article 1902 of the Civil Code, which imposes upon all persons who by their fault or negligence, do injury to another, the obligation of making good the damage caused. One who places a powerful automobile in the hands of a servant whom he knows to be ignorant of the method of managing such a vehicle, is himself guilty of an act of negligence which makes him liable for all the consequences of his imprudence. The obligation to make good the damage arises at the very instant that the unskillful servant, while acting within the scope of his employment causes the injury. The liability of the master is personal and direct. But, if the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the selection and direction of the servant, he is not liable for the acts of the latter, whatever done within the scope of his employment or not, if the damage done by the servant does not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person injured.

          It is not accurate to say that proof of diligence and care in the selection and control of the servant relieves the master from liability for the latter's acts — on the contrary, that proof shows that the responsibility has never existed. As Manresa says (vol. 8, p. 68) the liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has caused damage to another. A master who exercises all possible care in the selection of his servant, taking into consideration the qualifications they should possess for the discharge of the duties which it is his purpose to confide to them, and directs them with equal diligence, thereby performs his duty to third persons to whom he is bound by no contractual ties, and he incurs no liability whatever if, by reason of the negligence of his servants, even within the scope of their employment, such third person suffer damage. True it is that under article 1903 of the Civil Code the law creates a presumption that he has been negligent in the selection or direction of his servant, but the presumption is rebuttable and yield to proof of due care and diligence in this respect.

          The supreme court of Porto Rico, in interpreting identical provisions, as found in the Porto Rico Code, has held that these articles are applicable to cases of extra-contractual culpa exclusively. (Carmona vs. Cuesta, 20 Porto Rico Reports, 215.)

          This distinction was again made patent by this Court in its decision in the case of Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes, (30 Phil. rep., 624), which was an action brought upon the theory of the extra-contractual liability of the defendant to respond for the damage caused by the carelessness of his employee while acting within the scope of his employment. The Court, after citing the last paragraph of article 1903 of the Civil Code, said:

          From this article two things are apparent: (1) That when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, or both; and (2) that that presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.

          This theory bases the responsibility of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his servant. This is the notable peculiarity of the Spanish law of negligence. It is, of course, in striking contrast to the American doctrine that, in relations with strangers, the negligence of the servant in conclusively the negligence of the master.

          The opinion there expressed by this Court, to the effect that in case of extra-contractual culpa based upon negligence, it is necessary that there shall have been some fault attributable to the defendant personally, and that the last paragraph of article 1903 merely establishes a rebuttable presumption, is in complete accord with the authoritative opinion of Manresa, who says (vol. 12, p. 611) that the liability created by article 1903 is imposed by reason of the breach of the duties inherent in the special relations of authority or superiority existing between the person called upon to repair the damage and the one who, by his act or omission, was the cause of it.

          On the other hand, the liability of masters and employers for the negligent acts or omissions of their servants or agents, when such acts or omissions cause damages which amount to the breach of a contact, is not based upon a mere presumption of the master's negligence in their selection or control, and proof of exercise of the utmost diligence and care in this regard does not relieve the master of his liability for the breach of his contract.

          Every legal obligation must of necessity be extra-contractual or contractual. Extra-contractual obligation has its source in the breach or omission of those mutual duties which civilized society imposes upon it members, or which arise from these relations, other than contractual, of certain members of society to others, generally embraced in the concept of status. The legal rights of each member of society constitute the measure of the corresponding legal duties, mainly negative in character, which the existence of those rights imposes upon all other members of society. The breach of these general duties whether due to willful intent or to mere inattention, if productive of injury, give rise to an obligation to indemnify the injured party. The fundamental distinction between obligations of this character and those which arise from contract, rests upon the fact that in cases of non-contractual obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas in contractual relations the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation.

          With respect to extra-contractual obligation arising from negligence, whether of act or omission, it is competent for the legislature to elect — and our Legislature has so elected — whom such an obligation is imposed is morally culpable, or, on the contrary, for reasons of public policy, to extend that liability, without regard to the lack of moral culpability, so as to include responsibility for the negligence of those person who acts or mission are imputable, by a legal fiction, to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them. The legislature which adopted our Civil Code has elected to limit extra-contractual liability — with certain well-defined exceptions — to cases in which moral culpability can be directly imputed to the persons to be charged. This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one's agents or servants, or in the control of persons who, by reason of their status, occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person made liable for their conduct.

          The position of a natural or juridical person who has undertaken by contract to render service to another, is wholly different from that to which article 1903 relates. When the sources of the obligation upon which plaintiff's cause of action depends is a negligent act or omission, the burden of proof rests upon plaintiff to prove the negligence — if he does not his action fails. But when the facts averred show a contractual undertaking by defendant for the benefit of plaintiff, and it is alleged that plaintiff has failed or refused to perform the contract, it is not necessary for plaintiff to specify in his pleadings whether the breach of the contract is due to willful fault or to negligence on the part of the defendant, or of his servants or agents. Proof of the contract and of its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to warrant a recovery.

          As a general rule . . . it is logical that in case of extra-contractual culpa, a suing creditor should assume the burden of proof of its existence, as the only fact upon which his action is based; while on the contrary, in a case of negligence which presupposes the existence of a contractual obligation, if the creditor shows that it exists and that it has been broken, it is not necessary for him to prove negligence. (Manresa, vol. 8, p. 71 [1907 ed., p. 76]).

          As it is not necessary for the plaintiff in an action for the breach of a contract to show that the breach was due to the negligent conduct of defendant or of his servants, even though such be in fact the actual cause of the breach, it is obvious that proof on the part of defendant that the negligence or omission of his servants or agents caused the breach of the contract would not constitute a defense to the action. If the negligence of servants or agents could be invoked as a means of discharging the liability arising from contract, the anomalous result would be that person acting through the medium of agents or servants in the performance of their contracts, would be in a better position than those acting in person. If one delivers a valuable watch to watchmaker who contract to repair it, and the bailee, by a personal negligent act causes its destruction, he is unquestionably liable. Would it be logical to free him from his liability for the breach of his contract, which involves the duty to exercise due care in the preservation of the watch, if he shows that it was his

servant whose negligence caused the injury? If such a theory could be accepted, juridical persons would enjoy practically complete immunity from damages arising from the breach of their contracts if caused by negligent acts as such juridical persons can of necessity only act through agents or servants, and it would no doubt be true in most instances that reasonable care had been taken in selection and direction of such servants. If one delivers securities to a banking corporation as collateral, and they are lost by reason of the negligence of some clerk employed by the bank, would it be just and reasonable to permit the bank to relieve itself of liability for the breach of its contract to return the collateral upon the payment of the debt by proving that due care had been exercised in the selection and direction of the clerk?

          This distinction between culpa aquiliana, as the source of an obligation, and culpa contractual as a mere incident to the performance of a contract has frequently been recognized by the supreme court of Spain. (Sentencias of June 27, 1894; November 20, 1896; and December 13, 1896.) In the decisions of November 20, 1896, it appeared that plaintiff's action arose ex contractu, but that defendant sought to avail himself of the provisions of article 1902 of the Civil Code as a defense. The Spanish Supreme Court rejected defendant's contention, saying:

          These are not cases of injury caused, without any pre-existing obligation, by fault or negligence, such as those to which article 1902 of the Civil Code relates, but of damages caused by the defendant's failure to carry out the undertakings imposed by the contracts . . . .

          A brief review of the earlier decision of this court involving the liability of employers for damage done by the negligent acts of their servants will show that in no case has the court ever decided that the negligence of the defendant's servants has been held to constitute a defense to an action for damages for breach of contract.

          In the case of Johnson vs. David (5 Phil. Rep., 663), the court held that the owner of a carriage was not liable for the damages caused by the negligence of his driver. In that case the court commented on the fact that no evidence had been adduced in the trial court that the defendant had been negligent in the employment of the driver, or that he had any knowledge of his lack of skill or carefulness.

          In the case of Baer Senior & Co's Successors vs. Compania Maritima (6 Phil. Rep., 215), the plaintiff sued the defendant for damages caused by the loss of a barge belonging to plaintiff which was allowed to get adrift by the negligence of defendant's servants in the course of the performance of a contract of towage. The court held, citing Manresa (vol. 8, pp. 29, 69) that if the "obligation of the defendant grew out of a contract made between it and the plaintiff . . . we do not think that the provisions of articles 1902 and 1903 are applicable to the case."

          In the case of Chapman vs. Underwood (27 Phil. Rep., 374), plaintiff sued the defendant to recover damages for the personal injuries caused by the negligence of defendant's chauffeur while driving defendant's automobile in which defendant was riding at the time. The court found that the damages were caused by the negligence of the driver of the automobile, but held that the master was not liable, although he was present at the time, saying:

          . . . unless the negligent acts of the driver are continued for a length of time as to give the owner a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct the driver to desist therefrom. . . . The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such length of time that the owner by his acquiescence, makes the driver's acts his own.

          In the case of Yamada vs. Manila Railroad Co. and Bachrach Garage & Taxicab Co. (33 Phil. Rep., 8), it is true that the court rested its conclusion as to the liability of the defendant upon article 1903, although the facts disclosed that the injury complaint of by plaintiff constituted a breach of the duty to him arising out of the contract of transportation. The express ground of the decision in this case was that article 1903, in dealing with the liability of a master for the negligent acts of his servants "makes the distinction between private individuals and public enterprise;" that as to the latter the law creates a rebuttable presumption of

negligence in the selection or direction of servants; and that in the particular case the presumption of negligence had not been overcome.

          It is evident, therefore that in its decision Yamada case, the court treated plaintiff's action as though founded in tort rather than as based upon the breach of the contract of carriage, and an examination of the pleadings and of the briefs shows that the questions of law were in fact discussed upon this theory. Viewed from the standpoint of the defendant the practical result must have been the same in any event. The proof disclosed beyond doubt that the defendant's servant was grossly negligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. It also affirmatively appeared that defendant had been guilty of negligence in its failure to exercise proper discretion in the direction of the servant. Defendant was, therefore, liable for the injury suffered by plaintiff, whether the breach of the duty were to be regarded as constituting culpa aquiliana or culpa contractual. As Manresa points out (vol. 8, pp. 29 and 69) whether negligence occurs an incident in the course of the performance of a contractual undertaking or its itself the source of an extra-contractual undertaking obligation, its essential characteristics are identical. There is always an act or omission productive of damage due to carelessness or inattention on the part of the defendant. Consequently, when the court holds that a defendant is liable in damages for having failed to exercise due care, either directly, or in failing to exercise proper care in the selection and direction of his servants, the practical result is identical in either case. Therefore, it follows that it is not to be inferred, because the court held in the Yamada case that defendant was liable for the damages negligently caused by its servants to a person to whom it was bound by contract, and made reference to the fact that the defendant was negligent in the selection and control of its servants, that in such a case the court would have held that it would have been a good defense to the action, if presented squarely upon the theory of the breach of the contract, for defendant to have proved that it did in fact exercise care in the selection and control of the servant.

          The true explanation of such cases is to be found by directing the attention to the relative spheres of contractual and extra-contractual obligations. The field of non- contractual obligation is much more broader than that of contractual obligations, comprising, as it does, the whole extent of juridical human relations. These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say, the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties.

          The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff carried with it, by implication, the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains (civil code, article 1258). That duty, being contractual, was direct and immediate, and its non-performance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant's servants.

          The railroad company's defense involves the assumption that even granting that the negligent conduct of its servants in placing an obstruction upon the platform was a breach of its contractual obligation to maintain safe means of approaching and leaving its trains, the direct and proximate cause of the injury suffered by plaintiff was his own contributory negligence in failing to wait until the train had come to a complete stop before alighting. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence announced in the Rakes case (supra), if the accident was caused by plaintiff's own negligence, no liability is imposed upon defendant's negligence and plaintiff's negligence merely contributed to his injury, the damages should be apportioned. It is, therefore, important to ascertain if defendant was in fact guilty of negligence.

          It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a full stop before alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could not have occurred. Defendant contends, and cites many authorities in support of the contention, that it is negligence per se for a passenger to alight from a moving train. We are not disposed to subscribe to this doctrine in its absolute form. We are of the opinion that this proposition is too badly stated and is at variance with the experience of every-day life. In this particular instance, that the train was barely moving when plaintiff alighted is shown conclusively by the fact that it came to stop within six meters from the place where he stepped from it. Thousands of person alight from trains under these conditions every day of the year, and sustain no injury where the company has kept its platform free from

dangerous obstructions. There is no reason to believe that plaintiff would have suffered any injury whatever in alighting as he did had it not been for defendant's negligent failure to perform its duty to provide a safe alighting place.

          We are of the opinion that the correct doctrine relating to this subject is that expressed in Thompson's work on Negligence (vol. 3, sec. 3010) as follows:

          The test by which to determine whether the passenger has been guilty of negligence in attempting to alight from a moving railway train, is that of ordinary or reasonable care. It is to be considered whether an ordinarily prudent person, of the age, sex and condition of the passenger, would have acted as the passenger acted under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence. This care has been defined to be, not the care which may or should be used by the prudent man generally, but the care which a man of ordinary prudence would use under similar circumstances, to avoid injury." (Thompson, Commentaries on Negligence, vol. 3, sec. 3010.)

          Or, it we prefer to adopt the mode of exposition used by this court in Picart vs. Smith (37 Phil. rep., 809), we may say that the test is this; Was there anything in the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff at the time he alighted from the train which would have admonished a person of average prudence that to get off the train under the conditions then existing was dangerous? If so, the plaintiff should have desisted from alighting; and his failure so to desist was contributory negligence.1awph!l.net

          As the case now before us presents itself, the only fact from which a conclusion can be drawn to the effect that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence is that he stepped off the car without being able to discern clearly the condition of the platform and while the train was yet slowly moving. In considering the situation thus presented, it should not be overlooked that the plaintiff was, as we find, ignorant of the fact that the obstruction which was caused by the sacks of melons piled on the platform existed; and as the defendant was bound by reason of its duty as a public carrier to afford to its passengers facilities for safe egress from its trains, the plaintiff had a right to assume, in the absence of some circumstance to warn him to the contrary, that the platform was clear. The place, as we have already stated, was dark, or dimly lighted, and this also is proof of a failure upon the part of the defendant in the performance of a duty owing by it to the plaintiff; for if it were by any possibility concede that it had right to pile these sacks in the path of alighting passengers, the placing of them adequately so that their presence would be revealed.

          As pertinent to the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in this case the following circumstances are to be noted: The company's platform was constructed upon a level higher than that of the roadbed and the surrounding ground. The distance from the steps of the car to the spot where the alighting passenger would place his feet on the platform was thus reduced, thereby decreasing the risk incident to stepping off. The nature of the platform, constructed as it was of cement material, also assured to the passenger a stable and even surface on which to alight. Furthermore, the plaintiff was possessed of the vigor and agility of young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble person. In determining the question of contributory negligence in performing such act — that is to say, whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly — the age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered. Women, it has been observed, as a general rule are less capable than men of alighting with safety under such conditions, as the nature of their wearing apparel obstructs the free movement of the limbs. Again, it may be noted that the place was perfectly familiar to the plaintiff as it was his daily custom to get on and of the train at this station. There could, therefore, be no uncertainty in his mind with regard either to the length of the step which he was required to take or the character of the platform where he was alighting. Our conclusion is that the conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while the train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and that therefore he was not guilty of contributory negligence.

          The evidence shows that the plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was earning P25 a month as a copyist clerk, and that the injuries he has suffered have permanently disabled him from continuing that employment. Defendant has not shown that any other gainful occupation is open to plaintiff. His expectancy

of life, according to the standard mortality tables, is approximately thirty-three years. We are of the opinion that a fair compensation for the damage suffered by him for his permanent disability is the sum of P2,500, and that he is also entitled to recover of defendant the additional sum of P790.25 for medical attention, hospital services, and other incidental expenditures connected with the treatment of his injuries.

          The decision of lower court is reversed, and judgment is hereby rendered plaintiff for the sum of P3,290.25, and for the costs of both instances. So ordered.

          Arellano, C.J., Torres, Street and Avanceña, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

Separate Opinions

 

MALCOLM, J., dissenting:

          With one sentence in the majority decision, we are of full accord, namely, "It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a full stop before alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could not have occurred." With the general rule relative to a passenger's contributory negligence, we are likewise in full accord, namely, "An attempt to alight from a moving train is negligence per se." Adding these two points together, should be absolved from the complaint, and judgment affirmed.

Johnson, J., concur.

ISAAC V. A.L. AMMEN

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-9671             August 23, 1957

CESAR L. ISAAC, plaintiff-appellant, vs.A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., defendant-appellee.

Angel S. Gamboa for appellant.Manuel O. Chan for appellee.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as defendant, is a corporation engaged in the business of transporting passengers by land for compensation in the Bicol provinces and one of the lines it operates is the one connecting Legaspi City, Albay with Naga City, Camarines Sur. One of the buses which defendant was operating is Bus No. 31. On May 31, 1951, plaintiff boarded said bus as a passenger paying the required fare from Ligao, Albay bound for Pili, Camarines Sur, but before reaching his destination, the bus collided with a motor vehicle of the pick-up type coming from the opposite direction, as a result of

which plaintiff's left arm was completely severed and the severed portion fell inside the bus. Plaintiff was rushed to a hospital in Iriga, Camarines Sur where he was given blood transfusion to save his life. After four days, he was transferred to another hospital in Tabaco, Albay, where he under went treatment for three months. He was moved later to the Orthopedic Hospital where he was operated on and stayed there for another two months. For these services, he incurred expenses amounting to P623.40, excluding medical fees which were paid by defendant.

As an aftermath, plaintiff brought this action against defendants for damages alleging that the collision which resulted in the loss of his left arm was mainly due to the gross incompetence and recklessness of the driver of the bus operated by defendant and that defendant incurred in culpa contractual arising from its non-compliance with its obligation to transport plaintiff safely to his, destination. Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant as follows: (1) P5,000 as expenses for his medical treatment, and P3,000 as the cost of an artificial arm, or a total of P8,000; (2) P6,000 representing loss of earning; (3) P75,000 for diminution of his earning capacity; (4) P50,000 as moral damages; and (5) P10,000 as attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

Defendant set up as special defense that the injury suffered by plaintiff was due entirely to the fault or negligence of the driver of the pick-up car which collided with the bus driven by its driver and to the contributory negligence of plaintiff himself. Defendant further claims that the accident which resulted in the injury of plaintiff is one which defendant could not foresee or, though foreseen, was inevitable.

The after trial found that the collision occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the pick-up car and not to that of the driver of the bus it appearing that the latter did everything he could to avoid the same but that notwithstanding his efforts, he was not able to avoid it. As a consequence, the court dismissed complaint, with costs against plaintiff. This is an appeal from said decision.

It appears that plaintiff boarded a bus of defendant as paying passenger from Ligao, Albay, bound for Pili, Camarines Sur, but before reaching his destination, the bus collided with a pick-up car which was coming from the opposite direction and, as a, result, his left arm was completely severed and fell inside the back part of the bus. Having this background in view, and considering that plaintiff chose to hold defendant liable on its contractual obligation to carry him safely to his place of destination, it becomes important to determine the nature and extent of the liability of a common carrier to a passenger in the light of the law applicable in this jurisdiction.

In this connection, appellant invokes the rule that, "when an action is based on a contract of carriage, as in this case, all that is necessary to sustain recovery is proof of the existence of the contract of the breach thereof by act or omission", and in support thereof, he cites several Philippine cases.1 With the ruling in mind, appellant seems to imply that once the contract of carriage is established and there is proof that the same was broken by failure of the carrier to transport the passenger safely to his destination, the liability of the former attaches. On the other hand, appellee claims that is a wrong presentation of the rule. It claims that the decisions of this Court in the cases cited do not warrant the construction sought to be placed upon, them by appellant for a mere perusal thereof would show that the liability of the carrier was predicated not upon mere breach of its contract of carriage but upon the finding that its negligence was found to be the direct or proximate cause of the injury complained of. Thus, appellee contends that "if there is no negligence on the part of the common carrier but that the accident resulting in injuries is due to causes which are inevitable and which could not have been avoided or anticipated notwithstanding the exercise of that high degree of care and skill which the carrier is bound to exercise for the safety of his passengers", neither the common carrier nor the driver is liable therefor.

We believe that the law concerning the liability of a common carrier has now suffered a substantial modification in view of the innovations introduced by the new Civil Code. These innovations are the ones embodied in Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 in so far as the relation between a common carrier and its passengers is concerned, which, for ready reference, we quote hereunder:

ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extra ordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.

ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.

The Code Commission, in justifying this extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier, says the following:

A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost deligence of very cautions persons, with due regard for all circumstances. This extraordinary diligence required of common carriers is calculated to protect the passengers from the tragic mishaps that frequently occur in connection with rapid modern transportation. This high standard of care is imperatively demanded by the precariousness of human life and by the consideration that every person must in every way be safeguarded against all injury. (Report of the Code Commission, pp. 35-36)" (Padilla, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1956 ed., p. 197).

From the above legal provisions, we can make the following restatement of the principles governing the liability of a common carrier: (1) the liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. There is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of each case; (2) a carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, having due regard for all the circumstances; (3) a carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death of, or injury to, passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence; and (4) the carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel.

The question that now arises is: Has defendant observed extraordinary diligence or the utmost diligence of every cautious person, having due regard for all circumstances, in avoiding the collision which resulted in the injury caused to the plaintiff?

After examining the evidence in connection with how the collision occurred, the lower court made the following finding:

Hemos examinado muy detenidamente las pruebas presentadas en la vista, principalmente, las declaraciones que hemos acotado arriba, y hernos Ilegado a la conclusion de que el demandado ha hecho, todo cuanto estuviere de su parte para evitar el accidente, pero sin embargo, no ha podido evitarlo.

EI hecho de que el demandado, antes del choque, tuvo que hacer pasar su truck encima de los montones de grava que estaban depositados en la orilla del camino, sin que haya ido mas alla, por el grave riesgo que corrian las vidas de sus pasajeros, es prueba concluyente de lo que tenemos dicho, a saber: — que el cuanto esuba de su parte, para evitar el accidente, sin que haya podidoevitardo, por estar fuera de su control.

The evidence would appear to support the above finding. Thus, it appears that Bus No. 31, immediately prior to the collision, was running at a moderate speed because it had just stopped at the school zone of

Matacong, Polangui, Albay. The pick-up car was at full speed and was running outside of its proper lane. The driver of the bus, upon seeing the manner in which the pick-up was then running, swerved the bus to the very extreme right of the road until its front and rear wheels have gone over the pile of stones or gravel situated on the rampart of the road. Said driver could not move the bus farther right and run over a greater portion of the pile, the peak of which was about 3 feet high, without endangering the safety of his passengers. And notwithstanding all these efforts, the rear left side of the bus was hit by the pick-up car.

Of course, this finding is disputed by appellant who cannot see eye to eye with the evidence for the appellee and insists that the collision took place because the driver of the bus was going at a fast speed. He contends that, having seen that a car was coming from the opposite direction at a distance which allows the use of moderate care and prudence to avoid an accident, and knowing that on the side of the road along which he was going there was a pile of gravel, the driver of the bus should have stopped and waited for the vehicle from the opposite direction to pass, and should have proceeded only after the other vehicle had passed. In other words, according to appellant, the act of the driver of the bus in squeezing his way through of the bus in squeezing his way through between the oncoming pick-up and the pile of gravel under the circumstances was considered negligent.

But this matter is one of credibility and evaluation of the evidence. This is evidence. This is the function of the trial court. The trial court has already spoken on this matter as we have pointed out above. This is also a matter of appreciation of the situation on the part of the driver. While the position taken by appellant appeals more to the sense of caution that one should observe in a given situation to avoid an accident or mishap, such however can not always be expected from one who is placed suddenly in a predicament where he is not given enough time to take the course of action as he should under ordinary circumstances. One who is placed in such a predicament cannot exercise such coolness or accuracy of judgment as is required of him under ordinary circumstances and he cannot therefore be expected to observe the same judgment, care and precaution as in the latter. For this reason, authorities abound where failure to observe the same degree of care that as ordinary prudent man would exercise under ordinary circumstances when confronted with a sadden emergency was held to be warranted and a justification to exempt the carrier from liability. Thus, it was held that "where a carrier's employee is confronted with a sudden emergency, the fact that he is obliged to act quickly and without a chance for deliberation must be taken into account, and he is held to the some degree of care that he would otherwise be required to exercise in the absence of such emergency but must exercise only such care as any ordinary prudent person would exercise under like circumstances and conditions, and the failure on his part to exercise the best judgement the case renders possible does not establish lack of care and skill on his part which renders the company, liable. . . . (13 C. J. S., 1412; 10 C. J.,970). Considering all the circumstances, we are persuaded to conclude that the driver of the bus has done what a prudent man could have done to avoid the collision and in our opinion this relieves appellee from legibility under our law.

A circumstances which miliates against the stand of appellant is the fact borne out by the evidence that when he boarded the bus in question, he seated himself on the left side thereof resting his left arm on the window sill but with his left elbow outside the window, this being his position in the bus when the collision took place. It is for this reason that the collision resulted in the severance of said left arm from the body of appellant thus doing him a great damage. It is therefore apparent that appellant is guilty of contributory negligence. Had he not placed his left arm on the window sill with a portion thereof protruding outside, perhaps the injury would have been avoided as is the case with the other passenger. It is to be noted that appellant was the only victim of the collision.

It is true that such contributory negligence cannot relieve appellee of its liability but will only entitle it to a reduction of the amount of damage caused (Article 1762, new Civil Code), but this is a circumstance which further militates against the position taken by appellant in this case.

It is the prevailing rule that it is negligence per se for a passenger on a railroad voluntarily or inadvertently to protrude his arm, hand, elbow, or any other part of his body through the window of a moving car beyond the outer edge of the window or outer surface of the car, so as to come in contact

with objects or obstacles near the track, and that no recovery can be had for an injury which but for such negligence would not have been sustained. (10 C. J. 1139)

Plaintiff, (passenger) while riding on an interurban car, to flick the ashes, from his cigar, thrust his hand over the guard rail a sufficient distance beyond the side line of the car to bring it in contact with the trunk of a tree standing beside the track; the force of the blow breaking his wrist. Held, that he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. (Malakia vs. Rhode Island Co., 89 A., 337.)

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with cost against appellant.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Cangco contra Manila Railroad Co., 38 Jur. Fil., p. 825; Juan Castro vs. Arco, Taxicab Co., 82 Phil. 359, 46 Off. Gaz., (No. 3), pp. 2023, 2028-2029; and Enrique Layda vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al, 90 Phil., 724.

FORES V. MIRANDA

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-12163             March 4, 1959

PAZ FORES, petitioner, vs.IRENEO MIRANDA, respondent.

Alberto O. Villaraza for petitioner.Almazan and Ereneta for respondent.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Defendant-petitioner Paz Fores brings this petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals (C.A. Case No. 1437-R) awarding to the plaintiff-respondent Ireneo Miranda the sums of P5,000 by way of actual damages and counsel fees, and P10,000 as moral damages, with costs.

Respondent was one of the passengers on a jeepney driven by Eugenio Luga. While the vehicle was descending the Sta. Mesa bridge at an excessive rate of speed, the driver lost control thereof, causing it to swerve and to his the bridge wall. The accident occurred on the morning of March 22, 1953. Five of the passengers were injured, including the respondent who suffered a fracture of the upper right humerus. He was taken to the National Orthopedic Hospital for treatment, and later was subjected to a series of operations; the first on May 23, 1953, when wire loops were wound around the broken bones and screwed into place; a second, effected to insert a metal splint, and a third one to remove such splint. At the time of the trial, it appears that respondent had not yet recovered the use of his right arm.

The driver was charged with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, and upon interposing a plea of guilty was sentenced accordingly.

The contention that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the identity of the vehicle as the belonging to the petitioner was rejected by the appellate court which found, among other things, that is carried plate No. TPU-1163, SERIES OF 1952, Quezon City, registered in the name of Paz Fores, (appellant herein) and that the vehicle even had the name of "Doña Paz" painted below its wind shield. No evidence to the contrary was introduced by the petitioner, who relied on an attack upon the credibility of the two policemen who went to the scene of the incident.

A point to be further remarked is petitioner's contention that on March 21, 1953, or one day before the accident happened, she allegedly sold the passenger jeep that was involved therein to a certain Carmen Sackerman.

The initial problem raised by the petitioner in this appeal may be formulated thus — "Is the approval of the Public Service Commission necessary for the sale of a public service vehicle even without conveying therewith the authority to operate the same?" Assuming the dubious sale to be a fact, the court of Appeals answered the query in the affirmative. The ruling should be upheld.

Section 20 of the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 146) provides:

Sec. 20. Subject to established limitations and exceptions and saving provisions to the contrary, it shall be unlawful for any public service or for the owner, lessee or operator thereof, without the previous approval and authority of the Commission previously had —

x x x           x x x           x x x

(g) To sell, alienate, mortgage, encumber or lease its property, franchises, certificates, privileges, or rights, or any part thereof; or merge or consolidate its property, franchises, privileges or rights, or any part thereof, with those of any other public service. The approval herein required shall be given, after notice to the public and after hearing the persons interested at a public hearing, if it be shown that there are just and reasonable grounds for making the mortgage or encumbrance, for liabilities of more than one year maturity, or the sale, alienation, lease, merger, or consolidation to be approved and that the same are not detrimental to the public interest, and in case of a sale, the date on which the same is to be consummated shall be fixed in the order of approval: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the transaction from being negotiated or completed before its approval or to prevent the sale, alienation, or lease by any public service of any of its property in the ordinary course of its business.

Interpreting the effects of this particular provision of law, we have held in the recent cases of Montoya vs. Ignacio, * 50 Off. Gaz. No. 1, p. 108; Timbol vs. Osias, et al., G. R. No. L-7547, April 30, 1955, and Medina vs. Cresencia, 99 Phil., 506; 52 Off. Gaz. No. 10, p. 4606, that a transfer contemplated by the law, if made without the requisite approval of the Public Service Commission, is not effective and binding in so far as the responsibility of the grantee under the franchise in relation to the public is concerned. Petitioner assails, however, the applicability of these rulings to the instant case, contending that in those cases, the operator did not convey, by lease or by sale, the vehicle independently of his rights under the franchise. This line of reasoning does not find support in the law. The provisions of the statute are clear and prohibit the sale, alienation, lease, or encumbrance of the property, franchise, certificate, privileges or rights, or any part thereof of the owner or operator of the public service Commission. The law was designed primarily for the protection of the public interest; and until the approval of the public Service Commission is obtained the vehicle is, in contemplation of law, still under the service of the owner or operator standing in the records of the Commission which the public has a right to rely upon.

The proviso contained in the aforequoted law, to the effect that nothing therein shall be construed "to prevent the transaction from being negotiated or complete before its approval", means only that the sale without the required approval is still valid and binding between the parties (Montoya vs. Ignacio, supra). The phrase "in the ordinary course of its business" found in the other proviso" or to prevent the sale, alienation, or lease by any public service of any of its property". As correctly observed by the lower court,

could not have been intended to include the sale of the vehicle itself, but at most may refer only to such property that may be conceivably disposed or by the carrier in the ordinary course of its business, like junked equipment or spare parts.

The case of Indalecio de Torres vs. Vicente Ona (63 Phil., 594, 597) is enlightening; and there, it was held:

Under the law, the Public Service Commission has not only general supervision and regulation of, but also full jurisdiction and control over all public utilities including the property, equipment and facilities used, and the property rights and franchise enjoyed by every individual and company engaged i the performance of a public service in the sense this phrase is used in the Public Service Act or Act No. 3108). By virtue of the provisions of said Act, motor vehicles used in the performance of a service, as the transportation of freight from one point to another, have to this date been considered — and they cannot but be so considered-public service property; and, by reason of its own nature, a TH truck, which means that the operator thereof places it at the disposal of anybody who is willing to pay a rental of its use, when he desires to transfer or carry his effects, merchandise or any other cargo from one place to another, is necessarily a public service property. (Emphasis supplied)

Of course, this court has held in the case of Bachrach Motor co. vs. Zamboanga Transportation Co., 52 Phil., 244, that there may be a nunc pro tunc authorization which has the effect of having the approval retroact to the date of the transfer; but such outcome cannot prejudice rights intervening in the meantime. It appears that no such approval was given by the Commission before the accident occurred.

The P10,000 actual damages awarded by the Court of First Instance of Manila were reduced by the Court of Appeals to only P2,000, on the ground that a review of the records failed to disclose a sufficient basis for the trial court's appraisal, since the only evidence presented on this point consisted of respondent's bare statement that his expenses and loss of income amounted to P20,000. On the other hand, "it cannot be denied," the lower court said, "that appellee (respondent) did incur expenses"' It is well to note further that respondent was a painter by profession and a professor of Fine Arts, so that the amount of P2,000 awarded cannot be said to be excessive (see Arts. 2224 and 2225, Civil Code of the Philippines). The attorney's fees in the sum of P3,000 also awarded to the respondent are assailed on the ground that the Court of First Instance did not provided for the same, and since no appeal was interposed by said respondent, it was allegedly error for the Court of Appeals to award them motu proprio. Petitioner fails to note that attorney's fees are included in the concept of actual damages under the Civil Code and may be awarded whenever the court deems it is just and equitable (Art. 2208, Civil Code of the Philippines). We see no reason to alter these awards.

Anent the moral damages ordered to be paid to the respondent, the same must be discarded. We have repeatedly ruled (Cachero vs. Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. Inc., 101 Phil., 523; 54 Off. Gaz., [26], 6599; Necesito, et al vs. Paras, 104 Phil., 75; 56 Off. Gaz., [23] 4023, that moral damages are not recoverable in damage actions predicted on a breach of the contract of transportation, in view of Articles 2219 and 2220 of the new Civil Code, which provide as follows:

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

x x x           x x x           x x x

Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under circumstances, such damages are justify due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

By contrasting the provisions of these two article it immediately becomes apparent that:

(a) In case of breach of contract (including one of transportation) proof of bad faith or fraud (dolus), i.e., wanton or deliberately injurious conduct, is essential to justify an award of moral damages; and

(b) That a breach of contract can not be considered included in the descriptive term "analogous cases" used in Art. 2219; not only because Art. 2220 specifically provides for the damages that are caused by contractual breach, but because the definition of quasi-delict in Art. 2176 of the Code expressly excludes the cases where there is a "preexisting contractual relation between the parties."

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage dome. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

The exception to the basic rule of damages now under consideration is a mishap resulting in the death of a passenger, in which case Article 1764 makes the common carrier expressly subject to the rule of Art. 2206, that entitles the deceased passenger to "demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased" (Necesito vs. Paras, 104 Phil., 84, Resolution on motion to reconsider, September 11, 1958). But the exceptional rule of Art. 1764 makes it all the more evident that where the injured passenger does not die, moral damages are not recoverable unless it is proved that the carrier was guilty of malice or bad faith. We think it is clear that the mere carelessness of the carrier's driver does not per se constitute of justify an inference of malice or bad faith on the part of the carrier; and in the case at bar there is no other evidence of such malice to support the award of moral damages by the Court of Appeals. To award moral damages for breach of contract, therefore, without proof of bad faith or malice on the part of the defendant, as required by Art. 220, would be to violate the clear provisions of the law, and constitute unwarranted judicial legislation.

The Court of Appeals has invoked our rulings in Castro vs. Acro Taxicab Co., G.R. No. 49155, December 14, 1948 and Layda vs. Court of Appeals, 90 Phil., 724; but these doctrines were predicated upon our former law of damages, before judicial discretion in fixing them became limited by the express provisions of the new Civil Code (previously quoted). Hence, the aforesaid rulings are now inapplicable.

Upon the other hand, the advantageous position of a party suing a carrier for breach of the contract of transportations explains, to some extent, the limitations imposed by the new Code on the amount of the recovery. The action for breach of contract imposes on the defendant carrier a presumption of liability upon mere proof of injury to the passenger; that latter is relieved from the duty to established the fault of the carrier, or of his employees, and the burden is placed on the carrier to prove that it was due to an unforseen event or to force majeure (Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil., 768, 777). Moreover, the carrier, unlike in suits for quasi-delict, may not escape liability by proving that it has exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees (Art. 1759, new civil code; Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co., supra; Prado vs. Manila Electric Co., 51 Phil., 900).

The difference in conditions, defenses and proof, as well as the codal concept of quasi-delict as essentially extra contractual negligence, compel us to differentiate between action ex contractu, and actions quasi ex delicto, and prevent us from viewing the action for breach of contract as simultaneously embodying an action on tort. Neither can this action be taken as one to enforce on employee's liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code, since the responsibility is not alleged to be subsidiary, nor is there on record any averment or proof that the driver of appellant was insolvent. In fact, he is not even made a party to the suit.

It is also suggested that a carrier's violation of its engagement to safety transport the passenger involves a breach of the passenger's confidence, and therefore should be regarded as a breach of contract in bad faith, justifying recovery of moral damages under Art. 2220. This theory is untenable, for under it the carrier would always be deemed in bad faith, in every case its obligation to the passenger is infringed, and it would be never accountable for simple negligence; while under the law (Art. 1756). the presumption is that common carriers acted negligently (and not maliciously), and Art. 1762 speaks of negligence of the common carrier.

ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in article 1733 and 1755.

ART. 1762. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced.

The distinction between fraud, bad faith or malice in the sense of deliberate or wanton wrong doing and negligence (as mere carelessness) is too fundamental in our law to be ignored (Arts. 1170-1172); their consequences being clearly differentiated by the Code.

ART. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.

In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.

It is to be presumed, in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary, that this difference was in the mind of the lawmakers when in Art. 2220 they limited recovery of moral damages to breaches of contract in bad faith. It is true that negligence may be occasionally so gross as to amount to malice; but that fact must be shown in evidence, and a carrier's bad faith is not to be lightly inferred from a mere finding that the contract was breached through negligence of the carrier's employees.

In view of the foregoing considerations, the decision of the Court of Appeals is modified by eliminating the award of P5,000.00 by way of moral damages. (Court of Appeals Resolution of May 5, 1957). In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. No costs in this instance. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Endencia, JJ., concur.

PHIL. RABBIT V. IAC

G.R. Nos. 66102-04 August 30, 1990

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND CASIANO PASCUA, ET AL., respondents.

Santiago & Santiago for petitioner.

Federico R. Vinluan for private respondents.

 

MEDIALDEA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) dated July 29, 1983 in AC-G.R. Nos. CV-65885, CV-65886 and CV-65887 which reversed the

decision of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Pangasinan dated December 27, 1978; and its resolution dated November 28, 1983 denying the motion for reconsideration.

It is an established principle that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and may not be reviewed by this Court on appeal. However, this principle is subject to certain exceptions. One of these is when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to those of the trial court (see Sabinosa v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-47981, July 24, 1989) in which case, a re-examination of the facts and evidence may be undertaken. This is Our task now.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

About 11:00 o'clock in the morning on December 24, 1966, Catalina Pascua, Caridad Pascua, Adelaida Estomo, Erlinda Meriales, Mercedes Lorenzo, Alejandro Morales and Zenaida Parejas boarded the jeepney owned by spouses Isidro Mangune and Guillerma Carreon and driven by Tranquilino Manalo at Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga bound for Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan to spend Christmas at their respective homes. Although they usually ride in buses, they had to ride in a jeepney that day because the buses were full. Their contract with Manalo was for them to pay P24.00 for the trip. The private respondents' testimonial evidence on this contractual relationship was not controverted by Mangune, Carreon and Manalo, nor by Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc., the insurer of the jeepney, with contrary evidence. Purportedly riding on the front seat with Manalo was Mercedes Lorenzo. On the left rear passenger seat were Caridad Pascua, Alejandro Morales and Zenaida Parejas. On the right rear passenger seat were Catalina Pascua, Adelaida Estomo, and Erlinda Meriales. After a brief stopover at Moncada, Tarlac for refreshment, the jeepney proceeded towards Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan.

Upon reaching barrio Sinayoan, San Manuel, Tarlac, the right rear wheel of the jeepney was detached, so it was running in an unbalanced position. Manalo stepped on the brake, as a result of which, the jeepney which was then running on the eastern lane (its right of way) made a U-turn, invading and eventually stopping on the western lane of the road in such a manner that the jeepney's front faced the south (from where it came) and its rear faced the north (towards where it was going). The jeepney practically occupied and blocked the greater portion of the western lane, which is the right of way of vehicles coming from the north, among which was Bus No. 753 of petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (Rabbit) driven by Tomas delos Reyes. Almost at the time when the jeepney made a sudden U-turn and encroached on the western lane of the highway as claimed by Rabbit and delos Reyes, or after stopping for a couple of minutes as claimed by Mangune, Carreon and Manalo, the bus bumped from behind the right rear portion of the jeepney. As a result of the collision, three passengers of the jeepney (Catalina Pascua, Erlinda Meriales and Adelaida Estomo) died while the other jeepney passengers sustained physical injuries. What could have been a festive Christmas turned out to be tragic.

The causes of the death of the three jeepney passengers were as follows (p. 101, Record on Appeal):

The deceased Catalina Pascua suffered the following injuries, to wit: fracture of the left parietal and temporal regions of the skull; fracture of the left mandible; fracture of the right humenous; compound fracture of the left radious and ullma middle third and lower third; fracture of the upper third of the right tibia and fillnea; avulsion of the head, left internal; and multiple abrasions. The cause of her death was shock, secondary to fracture and multiple hemorrhage. The fractures were produced as a result of the hitting of the victim by a strong force. The abrasions could be produced when a person falls from a moving vehicles (sic) and rubs parts of her body against a cement road pavement. . . .

Erlinda Mariles (sic) sustained external lesions such as contusion on the left parietal region of the skull; hematoma on the right upper lid; and abrasions (sic) on the left knee. Her internal lesions were: hematoma on the left thorax; multiple lacerations of the left lower lobe of the lungs; contusions on the left lower lobe of the lungs; and simple fractures of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th ribs, left. The forcible impact of the jeep caused the above injuries which resulted in her death. . . .

The cause of death of Erlinda or Florida Estomo (also called as per autopsy of Dr. Panlasiqui was due to shock due to internal hemorrhage, ruptured spleen and trauma. . . .

Caridad Pascua suffered physical injuries as follows (p. 101, Record on Appeal):

. . . lacerated wound on the forehead and occipital region, hematoma on the forehead, multiple abrasions on the forearm, right upper arm, back and right leg. . . .

The police investigators of Tacpal and policemen of San Manuel, Tarlac, Tarlac, upon arrival at the scene of the mishap, prepared a sketch (common exhibit "K" for private respondents "19" for Rabbit) showing the relative positions of the two vehicles as well as the alleged point of impact (p. 100, Record on Appeal):

. . . The point of collision was a cement pave-portion of the Highway, about six (6) meters wide, with narrow shoulders with grasses beyond which are canals on both sides. The road was straight and points 200 meters north and south of the point of collision are visible and unobstructed. Purportedly, the point of impact or collision (Exh. "K-4", Pascua on the sketch Exh. "K"-Pascua) was on the western lane of the highway about 3 feet (or one yard) from the center line as shown by the bedris (sic), dirt and soil (obviously from the undercarriage of both vehicles) as well as paint, marron (sic) from the Rabbit bus and greenish from the jeepney. The point of impact encircled and marked with the letter "X" in Exh. "K"-4 Pascua, had a diameter of two meters, the center of which was about two meters from the western edge of cement pavement of the roadway. Pictures taken by witness Bisquera in the course of the investigation showed the relative positions of the point of impact and center line (Exh. "P"-Pascua) the back of the Rabbit bus (Exh. "P"-1-Pascua"), the lifeless body of Catalina Pascua (Exh. "P-2 Pascua"), and the damaged front part of the Rabbit bus (Exh. "P-3 Pascua"). No skid marks of the Rabbit bus was found in the vicinity of the collision, before or after the point of impact. On the other hand, there was a skid mark about 45 meters long purportedly of the jeepney from the eastern shoulder of the road south of, and extending up to the point of impact.

At the time and in the vicinity of the accident, there were no vehicles following the jeepney, neither were there oncoming vehicles except the bus. The weather condition of that day was fair.

After conducting the investigation, the police filed with the Municipal Court of San Manuel, Tarlac, a criminal complaint against the two drivers for Multiple Homicide. At the preliminary investigation, a probable cause was found with respect to the case of Manalo, thus, his case was elevated to the Court of First Instance. However, finding no sufficiency of evidence as regards the case of delos Reyes, the Court dismissed it. Manalo was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. Not having appealed, he served his sentence.

Complaints for recovery of damages were then filed before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. In Civil Case No. 1136, spouses Casiano Pascua and Juana Valdez sued as heirs of Catalina Pascua while Caridad Pascua sued in her behalf. In Civil Case No. 1139, spouses Manuel Millares and Fidencia Arcica sued as heirs of Erlinda Meriales. In Civil Case No. 1140, spouses Mariano Estomo and Dionisia Sarmiento also sued as heirs of Adelaida Estomo.

In all three cases, spouses Mangune and Carreon, Manalo, Rabbit and delos Reyes were all impleaded as defendants. Plaintiffs anchored their suits against spouses Mangune and Carreon and Manalo on their contractual liability. As against Rabbit and delos Reyes, plaintiffs based their suits on their culpability for a quasi-delict. Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc. was also impleaded as additional defendant in Civil Case No. 1136 only.

For the death of Catalina Pascua, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1136 sought to collect the aggregate amount of P70,060.00 in damages, itemized as follows: P500.00 for burial expenses; P12,000.00 for loss of wages for 24 years; P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; P10,000.00 for moral damages; and P3,000.00 for attorney's

fees. In the same case, plaintiff Caridad Pascua claimed P550.00 for medical expenses; P240.00 for loss of wages for two months; P2,000.00 for disfigurement of her face; P3,000.00 for physical pain and suffering; P2,500.00 as exemplary damages and P2,000.00 for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

In Civil Case No. 1139, plaintiffs demanded P500.00 for burial expenses; P6,000.00 for the death of Erlinda, P63,000.00 for loss of income; P10,000.00 for moral damages and P3,000.00 for attorney's fees or total of P80,000.00.

In Civil Case No. 1140, plaintiffs claimed P500.00 for burial expenses; P6,000.00 for the death of Adelaide, P56,160.00 for loss of her income or earning capacity; P10,000.00 for moral damages; and P3,000.00 for attorney's fees.

Rabbit filed a cross-claim in the amount of P15,000.00 for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. On the other hand, spouses Mangune and Carreon filed a cross-claim in the amount of P6,168.00 for the repair of the jeepney and P3,000.00 for its non-use during the period of repairs.

On December 27, 1978, the trial court rendered its decision finding Manalo negligent, the dispositive portion of which reads (pp. 113-114, Record on Appeal):

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court is of the opinion and so holds:

1) That defendants Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Tranquilino Manalo thru their negligence, breached contract of carriage with their passengers the plaintiffs' and/or their heirs, and this Court renders judgment ordering said defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs —

a) In Civil Case No. 1136, for the death of Catalina Pascua, to pay her heirs the amounts of P12,000.00 for indemnity for loss of her life; P41,760.00 for loss of earnings; P324.40 for actual expenses and P2,000.00 for moral damages;

b) In the same Civil Case No.1136 for the injuries of Caridad Pascua, to pay her the amounts of P240.00 for loss of wages, P328.20 for actual expenses and P500.00 for moral damages;

c) In Civil Case No.1139 for the death of Erlinda Meriales, to pay her heirs (the plaintiffs) the amount of P12,000.00 — for indemnity for loss of her life; P622.00 for actual expenses, P60,480.00 for loss of wages or income and P2,000.00 for moral damages;

d) In Civil Case No. 1140, for the death of Erlinda (also called Florida or Adelaida Estomo), to pay her heirs (the plaintiff the amount of P12,000.00 for indemnity for the loss of her life; P580.00 for actual expenses; P53,160.00 for loss of wages or income and P2,000.00 for moral damages.

2) The defendant Filriters Guaranty Insurance Co., having contracted to ensure and answer for the obligations of defendants Mangune and Carreon for damages due their passengers, this Court renders judgment against the said defendants Filriters Guaranty Insurance Co., jointly and severally with said defendants (Mangune and Carreon) to pay the plaintiffs the amount herein above adjudicated in their favor in Civil Case No. 1136 only. All the amounts awarded said plaintiff, as set forth in paragraph one (1) hereinabove;

3) On the cross claim of Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. ordering the defendant, Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Tranquilino Manalo, to pay jointly and severally, cross-claimant Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., the amounts of P216.27 as actual damages to its Bus No. 753 and P2,173.60 for loss of its earning.

All of the above amount, shall bear legal interest from the filing of the complaints.

Costs are adjudged against defendants Mangune, Carreon and Manalo and Filriters Guaranty.

SO ORDERED

On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the above-quoted decision by finding delos Reyes negligent, the dispositive portion of which reads (pp. 55-57, Rollo):

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the lower court's decision is hereby REVERSED as to item No. 3 of the decision which reads:

3) On the cross claim of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. ordering the defendants Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Tranquilino Manalo, to pay jointly and severally, the amounts of P216.27 as actual damages to its Bus No. 753 and P2,173.60 for loss of its earnings.

and another judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs-appellants Casiana Pascua, Juan Valdez and Caridad Pascua, ordering the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and its driver Tomas delos Reyes to pay the former jointly and severally damages in amounts awarded as follows:

For the death of Catalina Pascua, the parents and/or heirs are awarded

Civil Case No. 1136 —

a) Indemnity for the loss of life — P12,000.00

b) Loss of Salaries or earning capacity — 14,000.00

c) Actual damages (burial expenses) — 800.00

d) For moral damages — 10,000.00

e) Exemplary damages — 3,000.00

f) For attorney's fees — 3,000.00

—————

Total — P38,200.00 (sic)

For the physical injuries suffered by Caridad Pascua:

Civil Case No. 1136

a) Actual damages (hospitalization expenses) — P550.00

b) Moral damages (disfigurement of the

face and physical suffering — 8,000.00

c) Exemplary damages — 2,000.00

—————

Total — P10,550.00

For the death of Erlinda Arcega Meriales. the parents and/or heirs:

Civil Case No. 1139

a) Indemnity for loss of life — P12,000.00

b) Loss of Salary or Earning Capacity — 20,000.00

c) Actual damages (burial expenses) — 500.00

d) Moral damages — 15,000.00

e) Exemplary damages — 15,000.00

f) Attorney's fees — 3,000.00

—————

Total — P65,500.00

For the death of Florida Sarmiento Estomo:

Civil Case No. 1140

a) Indemnity for loss of life — P12,000.00

b) Loss of Salary or Earning capacity — 20,000.00

c) Actual damages (burial expenses) — 500.00

d) Moral damages — 3,000.00

e) Exemplary damages — 3,000.00

f) Attorney's fees — 3,000.00

—————

Total — P41,500.00

With costs against the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.

SO ORDERED.

The motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present petition.

The issue is who is liable for the death and physical injuries suffered by the passengers of the jeepney?

The trial court, in declaring that Manalo was negligent, considered the following (p. 106, Record on Appeal):

(1) That the unrebutted testimony of his passenger plaintiff Caridad Pascua that a long ways (sic) before reaching the point of collision, the Mangune jeepney was "running fast" that his passengers cautioned driver Manalo to slow down but did not heed the warning: that the right rear wheel was detached causing the jeepney to run to the eastern shoulder of the road then

back to the concrete pavement; that driver Manalo applied the brakes after which the jeepney made a U-turn (half-turn) in such a manner that it inverted its direction making it face South instead of north; that the jeepney stopped on the western lane of the road on the right of way of the oncoming Phil. Rabbit Bus where it was bumped by the latter;

(2) The likewise unrebutted testimony of Police Investigator Tacpal of the San Manuel (Tarlac) Police who, upon responding to the reported collission, found the real evidence thereat indicate in his sketch (Exh. K, Pascua ), the tracks of the jeepney of defendant Mangune and Carreon running on the Eastern shoulder (outside the concrete paved road) until it returned to the concrete road at a sharp angle, crossing the Eastern lane and the (imaginary) center line and encroaching fully into the western lane where the collision took place as evidenced by the point of impact;

(3) The observation of witness Police Corporal Cacalda also of the San Manuel Police that the path of the jeepney they found on the road and indicated in the sketch (Exh. K-Pascua) was shown by skid marks which he described as "scratches on the road caused by the iron of the jeep, after its wheel was removed;"

(4) His conviction for the crime of Multiple Homicide and Multiple Serious Physical Injuries with Damage to Property thru Reckless Imprudence by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac (Exh. 24-Rabbit) upon the criminal Information by the Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac (Exh. 23-Rabbit), as a result of the collision, and his commitment to prison and service of his sentence (Exh. 25-Rabbit) upon the finality of the decision and his failure to appeal therefrom; and

(5) The application of the doctrine of res-ipsa loquitar (sic) attesting to the circumstance that the collision occured (sic) on the right of way of the Phil. Rabbit Bus.

The respondent court had a contrary opinion. Applying primarily (1) the doctrine of last clear chance, (2) the presumption that drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle guilty and the cause of the accident unless contradicted by other evidence, and (3) the substantial factor test. concluded that delos Reyes was negligent.

The misappreciation of the facts and evidence and the misapplication of the laws by the respondent court warrant a reversal of its questioned decision and resolution.

We reiterate that "[t]he principle about "the last clear" chance, would call for application in a suit between the owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence." This was Our ruling in Anuran, et al. v. Buño et al., G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354, May 20, 1966, 17 SCRA 224. 1 Thus, the respondent court erred in applying said doctrine.

On the presumption that drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle guilty and the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence, the respondent court said (p. 49, Rollo):

. . . the jeepney had already executed a complete turnabout and at the time of impact was already facing the western side of the road. Thus the jeepney assumed a new frontal position vis a vis, the bus, and the bus assumed a new role of defensive driving. The spirit behind the presumption of guilt on one who bumps the rear end of another vehicle is for the driver following a vehicle to be at all times prepared of a pending accident should the driver in front suddenly come to a full stop, or change its course either through change of mind of the front driver, mechanical trouble, or to avoid an accident. The rear vehicle is given the responsibility of avoiding a collision with the front vehicle for it is the rear vehicle who has full control of the situation as it is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of it.

The above discussion would have been correct were it not for the undisputed fact that the U-turn made by the jeepney was abrupt (Exhibit "K," Pascua). The jeepney, which was then traveling on the eastern shoulder, making a straight, skid mark of approximately 35 meters, crossed the eastern lane at a sharp angle, making a skid mark of approximately 15 meters from the eastern shoulder to the point of impact (Exhibit "K" Pascua). Hence, delos Reyes could not have anticipated the sudden U-turn executed by Manalo. The respondent court did not realize that the presumption was rebutted by this piece of evidence.

With regard to the substantial factor test, it was the opinion of the respondent court that (p. 52, Rollo):

. . . It is the rule under the substantial factor test that if the actor's conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred does not prevent him from being liable (Restatement, Torts, 2d). Here, We find defendant bus running at a fast speed when the accident occurred and did not even make the slightest effort to avoid the accident, . . . . The bus driver's conduct is thus a substantial factor in bringing about harm to the passengers of the jeepney, not only because he was driving fast and did not even attempt to avoid the mishap but also because it was the bus which was the physical force which brought about the injury and death to the passengers of the jeepney.

The speed of the bus was calculated by respondent court as follows (pp. 54-55, Rollo):

According to the record of the case, the bus departed from Laoag, Ilocos Norte, at 4:00 o'clock A.M. and the accident took place at approximately around 12:30 P.M., after travelling roughly for 8 hours and 30 minutes. Deduct from this the actual stopover time of two Hours (computed from the testimony of the driver that he made three 40-minute stop-overs), We will have an actual travelling time of 6 hours and 30 minutes.

Under the circumstances, We calculate that the Laoag-Tarlac route (365 kms.) driving at an average of 56 km. per hour would take 6 hours and 30 minutes. Therefore, the average speed of the bus, give and take 10 minutes, from the point of impact on the highway with excellent visibility factor would be 80 to 90 kms. per hour, as this is the place where buses would make up for lost time in traversing busy city streets.

Still, We are not convinced. It cannot be said that the bus was travelling at a fast speed when the accident occurred because the speed of 80 to 90 kilometers per hour, assuming such calculation to be correct, is yet within the speed limit allowed in highways. We cannot even fault delos Reyes for not having avoided the collision. As aforestated, the jeepney left a skid mark of about 45 meters, measured from the time its right rear wheel was detached up to the point of collision. Delos Reyes must have noticed the perilous condition of the jeepney from the time its right rear wheel was detached or some 90 meters away, considering that the road was straight and points 200 meters north and south of the point of collision, visible and unobstructed. Delos Reyes admitted that he was running more or less 50 kilometers per hour at the time of the accident. Using this speed, delos Reyes covered the distance of 45 meters in 3.24 seconds. If We adopt the speed of 80 kilometers per hour, delos Reyes would have covered that distance in only 2.025 seconds. Verily, he had little time to react to the situation. To require delos Reyes to avoid the collision is to ask too much from him. Aside from the time element involved, there were no options available to him. As the trial court remarked (pp. 107-108, Record on Appeal):

. . . They (plaintiffs) tried to impress this Court that defendant de los Reyes, could have taken either of two options: (1) to swerve to its right (western shoulder) or (2) to swerve to its left (eastern lane), and thus steer clear of the Mangune jeepney. This Court does not so believe, considering the existing exigencies of space and time.

As to the first option, Phil. Rabbit's evidence is convincing and unrebutted that the Western shoulder of the road was narrow and had tall grasses which would indicate that it was not passable. Even plaintiffs own evidence, the pictures (Exhs. P and P-2, Pascua) are mute

confirmation of such fact. Indeed, it can be noticed in the picture (Exh. P-2, Pascua) after the Rabbit bus came to a full stop, it was tilted to right front side, its front wheels resting most probably on a canal on a much lower elevation that of the shoulder or paved road. It too shows that all of the wheels of the Rabbit bus were clear of the roadway except the outer left rear wheel. These observation appearing in said picture (Exh P-2, Pascua) clearly shows coupled with the finding the Rabbit bus came to a full stop only five meters from the point of impact (see sketch, Exh. K-Pascua) clearly show that driver de los Reyes veered his Rabbit bus to the right attempt to avoid hitting the Mangune's jeepney. That it was not successful in fully clearing the Mangune jeepney as its (Rabbit's) left front hit said jeepney (see picture Exh. 10-A-Rabbit) must have been due to limitations of space and time.

Plaintiffs alternatively claim that defendant delos Reyes of the Rabbit bus could also have swerved to its left (eastern lane) to avoid bumping the Mangune jeepney which was then on the western lane. Such a claim is premised on the hypothesis (sic) that the eastern lane was then empty. This claim would appear to be good copy of it were based alone on the sketch made after the collision. Nonetheless, it loses force it one were to consider the time element involved, for moments before that, the Mangune jeepney was crossing that very eastern lane at a sharp angle. Under such a situation then, for driver delos Reyes to swerve to the eastern lane, he would run the greater risk of running smack in the Mangune jeepney either head on or broadside.

After a minute scrutiny of the factual matters and duly proven evidence, We find that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Manalo and spouses Mangune and Carreon. They all failed to exercise the precautions that are needed precisely pro hac vice.

In culpa contractual, the moment a passenger dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, and this disputable presumption may only be overcome by evidence that he had observed extra-ordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the New Civil Code 2 or that the death or injury of the passenger was due to a fortuitous event 3 (Lasam v. Smith, Jr., 45 Phil. 657).

The negligence of Manalo was proven during the trial by the unrebutted testimonies of Caridad Pascua, Police Investigator Tacpal, Police Corporal Cacalda, his (Manalo's) conviction for the crime of Multiple Homicide and Multiple Serious Injuries with Damage to Property thru Reckless Imprudence, and the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur supra. The negligence of spouses Mangune and Carreon was likewise proven during the trial (p. 110, Record on Appeal):

To escape liability, defendants Mangune and Carreon offered to show thru their witness Natalio Navarro, an alleged mechanic, that he periodically checks and maintains the jeepney of said defendants, the last on Dec. 23, the day before the collision, which included the tightening of the bolts. This notwithstanding the right rear wheel of the vehicle was detached while in transit. As to the cause thereof no evidence was offered. Said defendant did not even attempt to explain, much less establish, it to be one caused by a caso fortuito. . . .

In any event, "[i]n an action for damages against the carrier for his failure to safely carry his passenger to his destination, an accident caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its driver, is not a caso fortuito which would avoid the carriers liability for damages (Son v. Cebu Autobus Company, 94 Phil. 892 citing Lasam, et al. v. Smith, Jr., 45 Phil. 657; Necesito, etc. v. Paras, et al., 104 Phil. 75).

The trial court was therefore right in finding that Manalo and spouses Mangune and Carreon were negligent. However, its ruling that spouses Mangune and Carreon are jointly and severally liable with Manalo is erroneous The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the carrier in case of breach of the contract of carriage. The rationale behind this is readily discernible. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between the carrier and the passenger, and in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is exclusively responsible therefore to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the negligence of his driver (see Viluan

v. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. L-21477-81, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 742). In other words, the carrier can neither shift his liability on the contract to his driver nor share it with him, for his driver's negligence is his. 4 Secondly, if We make the driver jointly and severally liable with the carrier, that would make the carrier's liability personal instead of merely vicarious and consequently, entitled to recover only the share which corresponds to the driver, 5 contradictory to the explicit provision of Article 2181 of the New Civil Code. 6

We affirm the amount of damages adjudged by the trial court, except with respect to the indemnity for loss of life. Under Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the New Civil Code, the amount of damages for the death of a passenger is at least three thousand pesos (P3,000.00). The prevailing jurisprudence has increased the amount of P3,000.00 to P30,000.00 (see Heirs of Amparo delos Santos, et al. v. Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 51165, June 21, 1990 citing De Lima v. Laguna Tayabas Co., G.R. Nos. L-35697-99, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 70).

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated July 29, 1983 and its resolution dated November 28, 1983 are SET ASIDE. The decision of the Court of First Instance dated December 27, 1978 is REINSTATED MODIFICATION that only Isidro Mangune, Guillerma Carreon and Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, Inc. are liable to the victims or their heirs and that the amount of indemnity for loss of life is increased to thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino JJ., concur.

 

Footnotes

1 In this case, an improperly parked passenger jeepney was bumped from behind by a speeding truck with such violence that three of its passengers died whereas two other passengers suffered injuries. The representatives of the dead and of the injured passengers filed suits to recover damages against the driver and the owners of the truck and also against the driver and the owners of the jeepney. The trial court rendered judgment absolving the driver and the owners of the jeepney but required the driver and the owners of the truck to compensate the victims. The Plaintiffs appealed insisting that the driver and the owners of the jeepney should also be made liable. The appellate court, relying on the doctrine of last clear chance, affirmed the trial court's decision. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court. We modified the questioned decision by making all the defendants solidarity liable.

2 Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the New Civil Code, respectively provides:

ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1746. Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.

ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.

3 Article 1174 of the New Civil Code provides:

ART. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.

4 Article 1759 of the New Civil Code provides:

ART. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.

This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.

5 Article 1217 of the New Civil Code provides:

ART. 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the obligation. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may choose which offer to accept.

He who made the payment may claim from his codebtors only the share which corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment already made. If the payment is made before the debt is due, no interest for the intervening period may de demanded.

When one of the solidary debtors cannot, because of his insolvency, reimburse his share to the debtor paying the obligation, such share shall be borne by all his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each.

6 Article 2181 of the New Civil Code provides:

ART. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.

LRTA V. NAVIDAD

G.R. No. 145804             February 6, 2003

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners, vs.MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

VITUG, J.:

The case before the Court is an appeal from the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 27 April 2000 and 10 October 2000, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 60720, entitled "Marjorie Navidad and Heirs of the Late Nicanor Navidad vs. Rodolfo Roman, et. al.," which has modified the decision of 11 August 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 266, Pasig City, exonerating Prudent Security Agency (Prudent) from liability and finding Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) and Rodolfo Roman liable for damages on account of the death of Nicanor Navidad.

On 14 October 1993, about half an hour past seven o’clock in the evening, Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a "token" (representing payment of the fare). While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard assigned to the area approached Navidad. A misunderstanding or an altercation between the two apparently ensued that led to a fist fight. No evidence, however, was adduced to indicate how the fight started or who, between the two, delivered the first blow or how Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was killed instantaneously.

On 08 December 1994, the widow of Nicanor, herein respondent Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent for the death of her husband. LRTA and Roman filed a counterclaim against Navidad and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent. Prudent, in its answer, denied liability and averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its security guards.

The LRTA and Roman presented their evidence while Prudent and Escartin, instead of presenting evidence, filed a demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task. On 11 August 1998, the trial court rendered its decision; it adjudged:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Prudent Security and Junelito Escartin ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the following:

"a) 1) Actual damages of P44,830.00;

2) Compensatory damages of P443,520.00;

3) Indemnity for the death of Nicanor Navidad in the sum of P50,000.00;

"b) Moral damages of P50,000.00;

"c) Attorney’s fees of P20,000;

"d) Costs of suit.

"The complaint against defendants LRTA and Rodolfo Roman are dismissed for lack of merit.

"The compulsory counterclaim of LRTA and Roman are likewise dismissed."1

Prudent appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 27 August 2000, the appellate court promulgated its now assailed decision exonerating Prudent from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad and, instead, holding the LRTA and Roman jointly and severally liable thusly:

"WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment is hereby MODIFIED, by exonerating the appellants from any liability for the death of Nicanor Navidad, Jr. Instead, appellees Rodolfo Roman and the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) are held liable for his death and are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs-appellees, the following amounts:

a) P44,830.00 as actual damages;

b) P50,000.00 as nominal damages;

c) P50,000.00 as moral damages;

d) P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the deceased; and

e) P20,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees."2

The appellate court ratiocinated that while the deceased might not have then as yet boarded the train, a contract of carriage theretofore had already existed when the victim entered the place where passengers were supposed to be after paying the fare and getting the corresponding token therefor. In exempting Prudent from liability, the court stressed that there was nothing to link the security agency to the death of Navidad. It said that Navidad failed to show that Escartin inflicted fist blows upon the victim and the evidence merely established the fact of death of Navidad by reason of his having been hit by the train owned and managed by the LRTA and operated at the time by Roman. The appellate court faulted petitioners for their failure to present expert evidence to establish the fact that the application of emergency brakes could not have stopped the train.

The appellate court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in its resolution of 10 October 2000.

In their present recourse, petitioners recite alleged errors on the part of the appellate court; viz:

"I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED BY DISREGARDING THE FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE TRIAL COURT

"II.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF NICANOR NAVIDAD, JR.

"III.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT RODOLFO ROMAN IS AN EMPLOYEE OF LRTA."3

Petitioners would contend that the appellate court ignored the evidence and the factual findings of the trial court by holding them liable on the basis of a sweeping conclusion that the presumption of negligence on the part of a common carrier was not overcome. Petitioners would insist that Escartin’s assault upon Navidad, which caused the latter to fall on the tracks, was an act of a stranger that could not have been foreseen or prevented. The LRTA would add that the appellate court’s conclusion on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between Roman and LRTA lacked basis because Roman himself had testified being an employee of Metro Transit and not of the LRTA.

Respondents, supporting the decision of the appellate court, contended that a contract of carriage was deemed created from the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation, and that the appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Roman liable for the death of Navidad in failing to exercise extraordinary diligence imposed upon a common carrier.

Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers.4 The Civil Code, governing the liability of a common carrier for death of or injury to its passengers, provides:

"Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

"Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755."

"Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.

"This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees."

"Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission."

The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances.5 Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage.6 The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.7 In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and8 by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.9 In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the carrier on how the accident occurred, which petitioners, according to the appellate court, have failed to show, the presumption would be that it has been at fault,10 an exception from the general rule that negligence must be proved.11

The foundation of LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of the common carrier. In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage.

Should Prudent be made likewise liable? If at all, that liability could only be for tort under the provisions of Article 217612 and related provisions, in conjunction with Article 2180,13 of the Civil Code. The premise, however, for the employer’s liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been shown. Absent such a showing, one might ask further, how then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 219414 of the Civil Code can well apply.15 In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract.16 Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of

contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.17

Regrettably for LRT, as well as perhaps the surviving spouse and heirs of the late Nicanor Navidad, this Court is concluded by the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that "there is nothing to link (Prudent) to the death of Nicanor (Navidad), for the reason that the negligence of its employee, Escartin, has not been duly proven x x x." This finding of the appellate court is not without substantial justification in our own review of the records of the case.

There being, similarly, no showing that petitioner Rodolfo Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability. Needless to say, the contractual tie between the LRT and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation between the latter and Roman; thus, Roman can be made liable only for his own fault or negligence.

The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.18 It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages.19

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the appellate court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but only in that (a) the award of nominal damages is DELETED and (b) petitioner Rodolfo Roman is absolved from liability. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, p. 16.

2 Rollo, pp. 46-47.

3 Rollo, pp. 18-19.

4 Arada vs. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 624.

5 Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 423.

6 Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 202 SCRA 575.

7 Article 1763, Civil Code.

8 Gatchalian vs. Delim, 203 SCRA 126; Yobido vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 1; Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co., 33 SCRA 284.

9 Mercado vs. Lira, 3 SCRA 124.

10 Article 1756, Civil Code.

11 Vda. De Abeto vs. Phil. Air Lines, Inc., 30 July 1982.

12 Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

13 Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent, but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

14 Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary.

15 Air France vs. Carrascoso, 124 Phil. 722.

16 PSBA vs. CA, 205 SCRA 729.

17 Cangco vs. Manila Railroad, 38 Phil. 768; Manila Railroad vs. Compania Transatlantica, 38 Phil. 875.

18 Article 2221, Civil Code.

19 Medina, et al. vs. Cresencia, 99 Phil. 506.

YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP CO. V. DEXTER

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-15652 December 14, 1920

THE YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP COMPANY, petitioner, vs.I. B. DEXTER, as Auditor of the Philippine Islands, and C. E. UNSON, as Acting Purchasing Agent of the Philippine Islands, respondents.

Cohn & Fisher for petitioner.Attorney-General Paredes and Assistant Attorney-General A. Santos for respondents.

STREET, J.:

This a petition for a writ of mandamus filed in this court of the Ynchausti Steamship Company to compel the Purchasing Agent of the Philippine Islands and the Insular Auditor to sign, countersign, and deliver to the petitioner a warrant upon the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands for the sum of P82.79 in satisfaction of a claim for that amount, which is alleged to be due the petitioner as a common carrier for freight earned in transporting for the Government two distinct consignments of mineral oil from Manila to two other ports in the Philippine Islands. After the defendants had duly answered, denying all the allegations of the petition except such as relate to the character and places of residence of the parties to the petition (which are admitted) the controversy was submitted for determination by this court upon an agreed statement of facts as follows:

On July 23, 1918, the Government of the Philippine Islands, acting by and through the respondent Insular Purchasing Agent, employed the services of the petitioner, Ynchausti Steamship Co., a common carrier, for the transportation, on board the steamship Venus, from the port of Manila to the port of Aparri, Cagayan, of a consignment of merchandise, consisting of thirty (30) cases of "White Rose" mineral oil of two five-gallon cans to the case; and on September 18, 1918, the said Government likewise employed the services of petitioner for the transportation on board the steamship Venus, from Manila to Aparri, Cagayan, of ninety-six cases of "Cock" Brand mineral oil, ten gallons to the case. The goods were delivered by the shipper to the carrier, which accordingly received them, and to evidence the contract of transportation, the parties duly executed and delivered what is popularly called the Government bill of lading (General Form 9-A), hereto attached, marked Exhibit A and made a part hereof, wherein and whereby it was stipulated that the carrier, the petitioner Ynchausti & Co., received the above-mentioned supplies in apparent good condition, obligating itself to carry said supplies to the place agreed upon, in accordance with the authorized and prescribed rates and classifications, and subject to the law of common carriers in force on the date of the shipment, and to the conditions prescribed by the Insular Collector of Customs in Philippine Marine Regulations at page 16 under the heading of "Bill of Lading Conditions," hereto attached, marked Exhibit B and made a part hereof.

Upon the delivery of the said shipment of "Cock" brand oil and consignee claimed that one case was delivered empty, and noted such claim upon the bill of lading; and upon the delivery of the said shipment of "White Rose," brand oil the consignee claimed that one case was delivered empty, and noted said claim upon the bill of lading.

Thereafter, notwithstanding the protestations of the petitioner, Ynchausti Steamship Co., that said shortages were due to causes entirely unknown to it, and were not due to any fault or negligence on its part, or on the part of its agents or servants, the Acting Insular Purchasing Agent of the Philippine Islands notified the petitioners herein that after due investigation the Insular Auditor found and decided that the leakages of the two whole cases were due to its negligence and that the deduction of the sum of P22.53, the invoice value of the goods lost, and held by the Auditor to be the true value thereof had been authorized by the said Insular Auditor.

Petitioner thereupon protested against the threatened deduction, and demanded that it be paid the full amount due for the transportation of the two said shipments of merchandise, to wit, the sum of P82.79, as shown by its transportation voucher presented in this cause, hereto attached. marked Exhibit C and made a part hereof.

Thereafter, notwithstanding the protest and demand of the petitioner as aforesaid, the Insular Auditor, in conformity with his ruling, declined and still declines to issue to the petitioner a warrant for the full sum of P82.79, and has tendered to it a warrant for the sum of P60.26, which the petitioner has refused to accept.lawphi1.net

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

Upon a perusal of the foregoing agreed statement it will be seen that the present litigation had its origin in a situation practically identical with that considered by this court in Compañia General de Tabacos vs. French and Unson (39 Phil., 34). It will be noted, however, that the case mentioned was decided upon demurrer, while the one now before us is to be heard and determined upon the petition, answer, and the admitted facts.

We note that in this case, as in the case of Compañia General de Tabacos vs. French and Unson (supra), the petition alleges that the leakage of the lost gasoline was due to causes unknown to the petitioner and was not due to any fault or negligence of petitioner, its agents, or servants. The respondents, by demurring to the petition in the earlier case, admitted that allegation. In the case now before us that allegation is put in issue, and we find nothing in the admitted statement of facts to support it. It results that if that allegation is material to the relief here sought, the petition must fail.

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

In section 646 of the Administrative Code it is provided that when Government property is transmitted from one place to another by carrier, it shall be upon proper bill of lading, or receipt, from such carrier, and it shall be the duty of the consignee, or his representative, to make full notation of any evidence of loss, shortage, or damage, upon the bill of lading, or receipt, before accomplishing it. It is admitted by the petitioner in the agreed statement of facts that the consignee, at the time the oil was delivered, noted the loss in the present case upon the two respective bills of lading. The notation of these losses by the consignee, in obedience to the precept of section 646 of the Administrative Code, is competent evidence to show that the shortage in fact existed. As the petitioner admits that the oil was received by it for carriage and inasmuch as the fact of loss is proved in the manner just stated, it results that there is a presumption that the petitioner was to blame for the loss; and it was incumbent upon the petitioner in order to entitle it to relief in the case to rebut that presumption by proving, as is alleged in the petition, that the loss was not due to any fault or negligence of the petitioner.

The mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination in bad order, makes out a prima facie case against the carrier, so that if no explanation is given as to how the injury occurred, the carrier must be held responsible. (4 R. C. L., p. 917.) It is incumbent upon the carrier to prove that the loss was due to accident or some other circumstance inconsistent with its liability. (Articles 361-363, Code of Commerce.) Indeed, if the Government of the Philippine Islands had instituted an action in a court of law against the petitioner to recover the value of the oil lost while these consignments were in the court of transportation, it would, upon the facts appearing before us, have been entitled to judgment.

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

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

The petition will be dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Mapa, C.J., Araullo, Avanceña, and Villamor, JJ., concur.Malcolm, J., concurs in the result.

MIRASOL V. DOLLAR

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-29721             March 27, 1929

AMANDO MIRASOL, plaintiff-appellant, vs.THE ROBERT DOLLAR CO., defendant-appellant.

Vicente Hilado for plaintiff-appellant.J.A. Wolfson for defendant-appellant.

STATEMENT

After the promulgation of the decision rendered by the Second Division of February 13, 1929,1 the defendant filed a motion to have the case heard and decided in banc, and inasmuch as the legal questions involved are important to the shipping interests, the court thought it best to do so.

After the formal pleas, plaintiff alleges that he is the owner and consignee of two cases of books, shipped in good order and condition at New York, U.S.A., on board the defendant's steamship President Garfield, for transport and delivery to the plaintiff in the City of Manila, all freight charges paid. That the two cases arrived in Manila on September 1, 1927, in bad order and damaged condition, resulting in the total loss of one case and a partial loss of the other. That the loss in one case is P1,630, and the other P700, for which he filed his claims, and defendant has refused and neglected to pay, giving as its reason that the damage in question "was caused by sea water." That plaintiff never entered into any contract with the defendant limiting defendant's liability as a common carrier, and when he wrote the letter of September 3, 1927, he had not then ascertained the contents of the damaged case, and could not determine their value. That he never intended to ratify or confirm any agreement to limit the liability of the defendant. That on September 9, 1927, when the other case was found, plaintiff filed a claim for the real damage of the books therein named in the sum of $375.

Plaintiff prays for corresponding judgment, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint and costs.

For answer the defendant made a general and specific denial, and as a separate and special defense alleges that the steamship President Garfield at all the times alleged was in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped and supplied, and fit for the voyage. That the damage to plaintiff's merchandise, if any, was not caused through the negligence of the vessel, its master, agent, officers, crew, tackle or appurtenances, nor by reason of the vessel being unseaworthy or improperly manned, "but that such damage, if any, resulted from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of said vessel." As a second separate and special defense, defendant alleges that in the bill of lading issued by the defendant to plaintiff, it was agreed in writing that defendant should not be "held liable for any loss of, or damage to, any of said merchandise resulting from any of the following causes, to wit: Acts of God, perils of the sea or other waters," and that plaintiff's damage, if any, was caused by "Acts of God" or "perils of the sea." As a third special defense, defendant quoted clause 13 of the bill of lading, in which it is stated that in no case shall it be held liable "for or in respect to said merchandise or property beyond the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars for any piece, package or any article not enclosed in a package, unless a higher value is stated herein

and ad valorem freight paid or assessed thereon," and that there was no other agreement. That no September 3, 1927 the plaintiff wrote the defendant a letter as follows:

Therefore, I wish to file claim of damage to the meager maximum value that your bills of lading will indemnify me, that is $250 as per condition 13.

As a fourth special defense, defendant alleges that the damage, if any, was caused by "sea water," and that the bill of lading exempts defendant from liability for that cause. That damage by "sea water" is a shipper's risk, and that defendant is not liable.

As a result of the trial upon such issues, the lower court rendered judgment for the plaintiff for P2,080, with legal interest thereon from the date of the final judgment, with costs, from which both parties appealed, and the plaintiff assigns the following errors:

I. The lower court erred in holding that plaintiff's damage on account of the loss of the damaged books in the partially damaged case can be compensated with an indemnity of P450 instead of P750 as claimed by plaintiff.

II. The lower court, consequently, also erred in giving judgment for plaintiff for only P2,080 instead of P2,380.

III. The lower court erred in not sentencing defendant to pay legal interest on the amount of the judgment, at least, from the date of the rendition of said judgment, namely, January 30, 1928.

The defendant assigns the following errors:

I. The lower court erred in failing to recognize the validity of the limited liability clause of the bill of lading, Exhibit 2.

II. The lower court erred in holding defendant liable in any amount and in failing to hold, after its finding as a fact that the damage was caused by sea water, that the defendant is not liable for such damage by sea water.

III. The lower court erred in awarding damages in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for P2,080 or in any other amount, and in admitting, over objection, Exhibits G, H, I and J.

JOHNS, J.:

Plaintiff's contention that he is entitled to P700 for his Encyclopedia Britannica is not tenable. The evidence shows that the P400 that the court allowed, he could buy a new set which could contain all of the material and the subject matter of the one which he lost. Plaintiff's third assignment of error is well taken, as under all of the authorities, he is entitled to legal interest from the date of his judgement rendered in the lower court and not the date when it becomes final. The lower court found that plaintiff's damage was P2,080, and that finding is sustained by that evidence. There was a total loss of one case and a partial loss of the other, and in the very nature of the things, plaintiff could not prove his loss in any other way or manner that he did prove it, and the trial court who heard him testify must have been convinced of the truth of his testimony.

There is no claim or pretense that the plaintiff signed the bill of lading or that he knew of his contents at the time that it was issued. In that situation he was not legally bound by the clause which purports to limit defendant's liability. That question was squarely met and decided by this court in banc in Juan Ysmael and Co., vs. Gabino Baretto and Co., (51 Phil., 90; see numerous authorities there cited).

Among such authorities in the case of The Kengsington decided by the Supreme Court of the U.S. January 6, 1902 (46 Law. Ed., 190), in which the opinion was written by the late Chief Justice White, the syllabus of which is as follows:

1. Restrictions of the liability of a steamship company for its own negligence or failure of duty toward the passenger, being against the public policy enforced by the courts of the United States, will not to be upheld, though the ticket was issued and accepted in a foreign country and contained a condition making it subject to the law thereof, which sustained such stipulation.

2. The stipulation in a steamship passenger's ticket, which compels him to value his baggage, at a certain sum, far less than it is worth, or, in order to have a higher value put upon it, to subject it to the provisions of the Harter Act, by which the carrier would be exempted from all the liability therefore from errors in navigation or management of the vessel of other negligence is unreasonable and in conflict with public policy.

3. An arbitrary limitation of 250 francs for the baggage of any steamship passenger unaccompanied by any right to increase the amount of adequate and reasonable proportional payment, is void as against public policy.

Both the facts upon which it is based and the legal principles involved are square in point in this case.

The defendant having received the two boxes in good condition, its legal duty was to deliver them to the plaintiff in the same condition in which it received them. From the time of their delivery to the defendant in New York until they are delivered to the plaintiff in Manila, the boxes were under the control and supervision of the defendant and beyond the control of the plaintiff. The defendant having admitted that the boxes were damaged while in transit and in its possession, the burden of proof then shifted, and it devolved upon the defendant to both allege and prove that the damage was caused by reason of some fact which exempted it from liability. As to how the boxes were damaged, when or where, was a matter peculiarly and exclusively within the knowledge of the defendant and in the very nature of things could not be in the knowledge of the plaintiff. To require the plaintiff to prove as to when and how the damage was caused would force him to call and rely upon the employees of the defendant's ship, which in legal effect would be to say that he could not recover any damage for any reason. That is not the law.

Shippers who are forced to ship goods on an ocean liner or any other ship have some legal rights, and when goods are delivered on board ship in good order and condition, and the shipowner delivers them to the shipper in bad order and condition, it then devolves upon the shipowner to both allege and prove that the goods were damaged by the reason of some fact which legally exempts him from liability; otherwise, the shipper would be left without any redress, no matter what may have caused the damage.

The lower court in its opinion says:

The defendant has not even attempted to prove that the two cases were wet with sea water by fictitious event, force majeure or nature and defect of the things themselves. Consequently, it must be presumed that it was by causes entirely distinct and in no manner imputable to the plaintiff, and of which the steamer President Garfield or any of its crew could not have been entirely unaware.

And the evidence for the defendant shows that the damage was largely caused by "sea water," from which it contends that it is exempt under the provisions of its bill of lading and the provisions of the article 361 of the Code of Commerce, which is as follows:

Merchandise shall be transported at the risk and venture of the shipper, if the contrary was not expressly stipulated.

Therefore, all damages and impairment suffered by the goods during the transportation, by reason of accident, force majeure, or by virtue of the nature or defect of the articles, shall be for the account and risk of the shipper.

The proof of these accidents is incumbent on the carrier.

In the final analysis, the cases were received by the defendant in New York in good order and condition, and when they arrived in Manila, they were in bad condition, and one was a total loss. The fact that the cases were damaged by "sea water," standing alone and within itself, is not evidence that they were damaged by force majeure or for a cause beyond the defendant's control. The words "perils of the sea," as stated in defendant's brief apply to "all kinds of marine casualties, such as shipwreck, foundering, stranding," and among other things, it is said: "Tempest, rocks, shoals, icebergs and other obstacles are within the expression," and "where the peril is the proximate cause of the loss, the shipowner is excused." "Something fortuitous and out of the ordinary course is involved in both words 'peril' or 'accident'."

Defendant also cites and relies on the case of Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Ynchausti & Company (40 Phil., 219), but it appears from a reading of that case that the facts are very different and, hence, it is not in point. In the instant case, there is no claim or pretense that the two cases were not in good order when received on board the ship, and it is admitted that they were in bad order on their arrival at Manila. Hence, they must have been damaged in transit. In the very nature of things, if they were damaged by reason of a tempest, rocks, icebergs, foundering, stranding or the perils of the sea, that would be a matter exclusively within the knowledge of the officers of defendant's ship, and in the very nature of things would not be within plaintiff's knowledge, and upon all of such questions, there is a failure of proof.

The judgment of the lower court will be modified, so as to give the plaintiff legal interest on the amount of his judgment from the date of its rendition in the lower court, and in all respects affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

STREET, J., dissenting in part:

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

TAN CHIONG V. YNCHAUSTI

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6092             March 8, 1912

TAN CHIONG SIAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs.INCHAUSTI AND CO., defendant-appellant.

Haussermann, Cohn and Fisher for appellant. O'Brien and DeWitt for appellee.

TORRES, J.:

This is an appeal through bill of exceptions, by counsel for the firm of Inchausti & Co., from a judgment rendered by the Honorable A.S. Crossfield, judge.

On January 11, 1909, the Chinaman, Tan Chiong Sian or Tan Chinto, filed a written complaint, which was amended on the 28th of the same month and again amended on October 27 of the same year, against the said firm, wherein he alleged, among other things, as a cause of action: That, on or about November 25, 1908, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant 205 bundles or cases of general merchandise belonging to him, which Inchausti & Co., upon receiving, bound themselves to deliver in the pueblo of Catarman, Province of Samar, to the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, and in consideration of the obligations contracted by the defendant party, the plaintiff obligated himself to pay to the latter the sum of P250 Philippine currency, which payment should be made upon the delivery of the said merchandise in the said pueblo Catarman; but that the defendant company neither carried nor delivered the aforementioned merchandise to the said Ong Bieng Sip, in Catarman, but unjustly and negligently failed to do so, with the result that the said merchandise was almost totally lost; that, had the defendant party complied well and faithfully with its obligation, according to the agreement made, the merchandise concerned would have a value of P20,000 in the said pueblo of Catarman on the date when it should have been delivered there, wherefore the defendant party owed the plaintiff the said sum of P20,000, which it had not paid him, or any part thereof, notwithstanding the many demands of the plaintiff; therefore the latter prayed for judgment against the defendant for the said sum, together with legal interest thereon from November 25, 1908, and the costs of the suit.

Counsel for the defendant company, in his answer, set forth, that he admitted the allegations of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, amended for the second time, and denied those paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the same. As his first special defense, he alleged that on or about November 28, 1908, his client, the said firm, received in Manila from Ong Bieng Sip 205 bundles, bales, or cases of merchandise to be placed on board the steamer Sorsogon, belonging to the defendant, for shipment to the port of Gubat, Province of Sorsogon, to be in the said port transshipped into another of the defendant's vessels for transportation to the port of Catarman, Samar, and delivered to the aforesaid Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip; that the defendant company, upon receiving the said merchandise from the latter, Ong Bieng Sip, and on its entering into a contract of maritime transportation with him did not know and was not notified that the plaintiff, Tan Chiong Sian, had any interest whatever in the said merchandise and had made with the plaintiff no contract relative to the transportation of such goods, for, on receiving the latter from the said Ong Bieng Sip, for transportation, there were made out and delivered to him three bills of lading, Nos. 38, 39 and 76, which contained a list of the goods received and, printed on the back thereof were the terms of the maritime transportation contract entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendant company, copies of which bills of lading and contract, marked as Exhibits A, B, and C, are of record, attached to and made an integral part of the said answer; that Ong Bieng Sip accepted the said bills of lading and the contract extended on the backs thereof; that the merchandise mentioned was put on board the steamer Sorsogon and carried to the port of Gubat, Province of Sorsogon, where this vessel arrived on November 28, 1908, on which date the lorcha Pilar, into which the said merchandise was to be transshipped for carriage to Catarman, was not at Gubat, and therefore the goods had to be unloaded and stored in the defendant company's warehouses at Gubat; that, on the 4th of December of the same year, the lorcha Pilar arrived at Gubat and, after the termination of certain necessary work, the goods received from Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, were taken aboard the same, together with other merchandise belonging to the defendant party, for the purpose of transportation to the port of Catarman; that, before the said lorcha could leave for its destination, a strong wind arose which in the course of the day increased in force until, early in the morning of the following day, the lorcha was dragged and driven, by the force of the storm, upon the shore, despite the means employed by the crew to avoid the accident, and notwithstanding the five anchors that held the craft, which was thus wrecked and completely destroyed and the merchandise with which it was laden, including the 205 bundles or packages taken aboard for the said Chinaman, was scattered on the shore; that, on the occasion, the lorcha Pilar was in good condition, provided with all the proper and necessary equipment and accessories and carried a crew of sufficient

number in command of a skillful patron or master, wherefore the wreck of the said craft was solely due to the irresistible force of the elements and of the storm which drove it upon the shore; that the defendant company, with the greatest possible diligence, gathered up the said shipwrecked goods that had been shipped by the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, but, owing to the damage they had suffered, it was impossible to preserve them, so, after having offered to deliver them to him, the defendant proceeded, in the presence of a notary, to sell them at public auction and realized from the sale thereof P1,693.67, the reasonable value of the same in the condition in which they were after they had been gathered up and salved from the wreck of the lorcha Pilar; that the expenses occasioned by such salvage and sale of the said goods amounted to P151.35, which were paid by the defendant party; that the latter offered to the Chinese shipper, the plaintiff, the amount realized from the sale of the said merchandise, less P151.35, the amount of the expenses, and the sum of P250, the amount of the freight stipulated, and is still willing to pay such products of the said sale to the aforementioned Ong Bieng Sip or to any other person who should establish his subrogation to the rights of the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, with respect to the said amount; that, as his client's second special defense, the defendant company alleged that one of the conditions of the shipping contract executed between it and the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, relative to the transportation of the said merchandise, was that the said firm should not be held liable for more than P25 for any bundle or package, unless the value of its contents should be stated in the bill of lading, and that the shipper, Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, did not state in the bill of lading the value of any of the bundles or packages in which the goods shipped by him were packed. Counsel for the defendant company, therefore, prayed the court to absolve his client from the complaint, with costs against the plaintiff.

After the hearing of the case and the introduction of testimony by the parties, judgment was rendered, on March 18, 1910, in favor of the plaintiff, Tan Chiong Sian or Tan Chinto, against the defendant Inchausti and Co., for the sum of P14,642.63, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from January 11, 1909, and for the costs of the trial. The defendant party appealed from this judgment.

This suit was brought for the purpose of collecting a certain sum which it is alleged the defendant firm owes the plaintiff for losses and damages suffered by the latter as a result of the former's noncompliance with the terms of an agreement or contract to transport certain merchandise by sea from this city to the pueblo of Catarman, Island of Samar, for the sum of P250.

The principal question to be determined is whether the defendant is liable for the loss of the merchandise and for failure to deliver the same at the place of destination, or whether he is relieved from responsibility on the ground of force majeure.

Article 1601 of the Civil Code prescribes:

Carriers of goods by land or by water shall be subject with regard to the keeping and preservation of the things entrusted to them, to the same obligations as determined for innkeepers by articles 1783 and 1784.

The provisions of this article shall be understood without prejudice to what is prescribed by the Code of Commerce with regard to transportation by sea and land.

Article 1602 reads:

Carriers are also liable for the loss of and damage to the things which they receive, unless they prove that the loss or damage arose from a fortuitous event or force majeure.

The articles aforecited are as follows:

ART. 1783. The depositum of goods made by travelers in inns or hostelries shall also be considered a necessary one. The keepers of inns and hostelries are liable for them as such bailees, provided that notice thereof may have been given to them or to their employees, and that the travelers on their part

take the precautions which said innkeepers or their substitutes may have advised them concerning the care and vigilance of said goods.

ART. 1784. The liability referred to in the preceding article shall include damages to the goods of the travelers caused the servants or employees of the keepers for inns or hostelries as well as by strangers, but not those arising from robbery or which may be caused by any other case of force majeure.

Article 361 of the Code of Commerce provides:

Merchandise shall be transported at the risk and venture of the shipper, unless the contrary was expressly stipulated.

Therefore, all damages and impairment suffered by the goods in transportation, by reason of accident, force majeure, or by virtue of the nature or defect of the articles, shall be for the account and risk of the shipper.

The proof of these accidents in incumbent on the carrier.

ART. 362. The carrier, however, shall be liable for the losses and damages arising from the causes mentioned in the foregoing article if it is proved that they occurred on account of his negligence or because he did not take the precautions usually adopted by careful persons, unless the shipper committed fraud in the bill of lading, stating that the goods were of a class or quality different from what they really were.

If, notwithstanding the precaution referred to in this article, the goods transported run the risk of being lost on account of the nature or by reason of an unavoidable accident, without there being time for the owners of the same to dispose thereof, the carrier shall proceed to their sale, placing them for this purpose at the disposal of the judicial authority or of the officials determined by special provisions.

ART. 363. With the exception of the cases prescribed in the second paragraph of article 361, the carrier shall be obliged to deliver the goods transported in the same condition in which, according to the bill of lading, they were at the time of their receipt, without any detriment or impairment, and should he not do so, he shall be obliged to pay the value of the goods not delivered at the point where they should have been and at the time the delivery should have taken place.

If part of the goods transported should be delivered the consignee may refuse to receive them, when he proves that he can not make use thereof without the others.

On November 25, 1908, Inchausti & Co. received in Manila from the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, 205 bundles, bales or cases of goods to be conveyed by the steamer Sorsogon to the port of Gubat, Province of Sorsogon, where they were to be transshipped to another vessel belonging to the defendant company and by the latter transported to the pueblo of Catarman, Island of Samar, there to be delivered to the Chinese shipper with whom the defendant party made the shipping contract. To this end three bills of lading were executed, Nos. 38, 39, and 76, copies of which, marked as Exhibits A, B, and C, are found on pages 13, 14, and 15 of the record.

The steamer Sorsogon, which carried the goods, arrived at the port of Gubat on the 28th of that month and as the lorcha Pilar, to which the merchandise was to be transshipped for its transportation to Catarman, was not yet there, the cargo was unloaded and stored in the defendant company's warehouses at that port.

Several days later, the lorcha just mentioned arrived at Gubat and, after the cargo it carried had been unloaded, the merchandise belonging to the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, together with other goods owned by the defendant Inchausti & Co., was taken aboard to be transported to Catarman; but on December 5, 1908,

before the Pilar could leave for its destination, towed by the launch Texas, there arose and, as a result of the strong wind and heavy sea, the lorcha was driven upon the shore and wrecked, and its cargo, including the Chinese shipper's 205 packages of goods, scattered on the beach. Laborers or workmen of the defendant company, by its order, then proceeded to gather up the plaintiff's merchandise and, as it was impossible to preserve it after it was salved from the wreck of the lorcha, it was sold at public auction before a notary for the sum of P1,693.67.

The contract entered into between the Chinese shipper, Ong Bieng Sip, and the firm of Inchausti & Co., provided that transportation should be furnished from Manila to Catarman, although the merchandise taken aboard the steamer Sorsogon was to be transshipped at Gubat to another vessel which was to convey it from that port to Catarman; it was not stipulated in the said contract that the Sorsogon should convey the goods to their final destination, nor that the vessel into which they were to be transshipped, should be a steamer. The shipper, Ong Bieng Sip, therefore assented to these arrangements and made no protest when his 205 packages of merchandise were unloaded from the ship and, on account of the absence of the lorcha Pilar, stored in the warehouses at Gubat nor did he offer any objection to the lading of his merchandise on to this lorcha as soon as it arrived and was prepared to receive cargo; moreover, he knew that to reach the port of Catarman with promptness and dispatch, the lorcha had to be towed by some vessel like the launch Texas, which the defendant company had been steadily using for similar operations in those waters.

Hence the shipper, Ong Bieng Sip, made no protest or objection to the methods adopted by the agents of the defendant for the transportation of his gods to the port of their destination, and the record does not show that in Gubat the defendant possessed any other means for the conveyance and transportation of merchandise, at least for Catarman, than the lorcha Pilar, towed by said launch and exposed during its passage to all sorts of accidents and perils from the nature and seafaring qualities of a lorcha, from the circumstances then present and the winds prevailing on the Pacific Ocean during the months of November and December.

It is to be noted that a lorcha is not easily managed or steered when the traveling, for, out at sea, it can only be moved by wind and sails; and along the coast near the shore and in the estuaries where it customarily travels, it can only move by poling. For this reason, in order to arrive at the pueblo of Catarman with promptness and dispatch, the lorcha was usually towed by the launch Texas.

The record does not show that, from the afternoon of the 4th of December, 1908, until the morning of the following day, the 5th, the patron or master of the lorcha which was anchored in the cove of Gubat, received any notice from the captain of the steamer Ton Yek, also anchored near by, of the near approach of a storm. The said captain, Juan Domingo Alberdi, makes no reference in his sworn testimony of having given any such notice to the patron of the lorcha, nor did the latter, Mariano Gadvilao, testify that he received such notice from the captain of the Ton Yek or from the person in charge of the Government observatory. Gadvilao, the patron, testified that only between 10 and 11 o'clock of Saturday morning, the 5th of December, was he informed by Inchausti & Co.'s agent in Gubat that a baguio was approaching; that thereupon, on account of the condition of the sea, he dropped the four anchors that the lorcha had on board and immediately went ashore to get another anchor and a new cable in order more securely to hold the boat in view of the predicted storm. This testimony was corroborated by the said representative, Melchor Muñoz. So the lorcha, when the storm broke upon it, was held fast by five anchors and was, as testified by the defendant without contradiction or evidence to the contrary, well found and provided with all proper and necessary equipment and had a sufficient crew for its management and preservation.

The patron of the lorcha testified specifically that at Gubat or in its immediate vicinity there is no port whatever adequate for the shelter and refuge of vessels in cases of danger, and that, even though there were, on being advised between 10 and 11 o'clock of the morning of the 5th, of the approach of a storm from the eastern Pacific, it would have been impossible to spread any sails or weigh anchor on the lorcha without being dragged or driven against the reefs by the force of the wind. As the craft was not provided with steam or other motive power, it would not have been possible for it to change its anchorage, nor move from the place where it lay, even several hours before the notice was received by its patron. A lorcha can not be compared with a steamer which does not need the help or assistance of any other vessel in its movements.

Due importance must be given to the testimony of the weather observer, Antonio Rocha, that the notice received from the Manila Observatory on the afternoon of December 4, with regard to a storm travelling from the east of the Pelew Islands toward the northwest, was not made known to the people of Gubat and that he merely left a memorandum notice on the desk of the station, intending to give explanations thereof to any person who should request them of him. So the notice of the storm sent by the Manila Observatory was only known to the said observer, and he did not apprise the public of the approach of the storm until he received another notice from Manila at 20 minutes past 8 o'clock on Saturday morning, December 5. Then he made a public announcement and advised the authorities of the storm that was coming.

The patron of the lorcha Pilar is charged with gross negligence for not having endeavored to remove his craft to a safe place in the Sabang River, about half a mile from where it was anchored.

In order to find out whether there was or was not such negligence on the part of the patron, it becomes necessary to determine, first, whether the lorcha, on the morning of December 5, could be moved by its own power and without being towed by any steamboat, since it had no steam engine of its own; second, whether the lorcha, on account of its draft and the shallowness of the mouth of the said river, could have entered the latter before the storm broke.

The patron, Mariano Gadvilao, stated under oath that the weather during the night of December 4 was not threatening and he did not believe there would be a storm; that he knew the Sabang River; and that the lorcha Pilar, when loaded, could not enter as there was not sufficient water in its channel; that, according to an official chart of the port of Gubat, the bar of the Sabang River was covered by only a foot and a half of water at ordinary low tide and the lorcha Pilar, when loaded, drew 6 feet and a half; that aside from the fact that the condition of the sea would not have permitted the lorcha to take shelter in the said river, even could it have relied upon the assistance of a towboat, at half past 8 o'clock in the morning the tide was still low; there was but little water in the river and still less over the bar.

It was proven by the said official chart of the port of Gubat, that the depth of water over the bar or entrance of the Sabang River is only one foot and a half at ordinary low tide; that the rise and fall of the tide is about 4_«_ feet, the highest tide being at 2 o'clock in the afternoon of every day; and at that hour, on the 5th of December, the hurricane had already made its appearance and the wind was blowing with all its fury and raising great waves.

The lorcha Pilar, loaded as it had been from the afternoon of December 4, even though it could have been moved by means of poles, without being towed, evidently could not have entered the Sabang River on the morning of the 5th, when the wind began to increase and the sea to become rough, on account of the low tide, the shallowness of the channel, and the boat's draft.

The facts stated in the foregoing paragraph were proved by the said chart which was exhibited in evidence and not rejected or assailed by the plaintiff. They were also supported by the sworn testimony of the patron of the lorcha, unrebutted by any oral evidence on the part of the plaintiff such as might disprove the certainty of the facts related, and, according to section 275 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the natural phenomenon of the tides, mentioned in the official hydrographic map, Exhibit 7, which is prima facie evidence on the subject, of the hours of its occurrence and of the conditions and circumstances of the port of Gubat, shall be judicially recognized without the introduction of proof, unless the facts to the contrary be proven, which was not done by the plaintiff, nor was it proven that between the hours of 10 and 11 o'clock of the morning of December 5, 1908, there did not prevail a state of low tide in the port of Gubat.

The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff with respect to the depth of the Sabang River, was unable to overcome that introduced by the defendant, especially the said chart. According to section 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such a chart is prima facie evidence of particulars of general notoriety and interest, such as the existence of shoals of varying depths in the bar and mouth of the Sabang River and which obstruct the entrance into the same; the distance, length, and number of the said shoals, with other details apparently well known to the patron of the lorcha Pilar, to judge from his testimony.

Vessels of considerable draft, larger than the said lorcha, might have entered the Sabang River some seven or nine years before, according to the testimony of the Chinaman, Antonio B. Yap Cunco, though he did not state whether they did so at high tide; but, since 1901, or previous years, until 1908, changes may have taken place in the bed of the river, its mouth and its bar. More shoals may have formed or those in existence may have increased in extent by the constant action of the sea. This is the reason why the patron, Gadvilao, who was acquainted with the conditions of the port and cove of Gubat, positively declared that the lorcha Pilar could not, on account of her draft, enter the Sabang River, on account of low water.

The patron of the lorcha, after stating (p.58) that at Gubat or in its vicinity there is no port that affords shelter, affirmed that it was impossible to hoist the sails or weigh the anchors on the morning of the 5th of December, owing to the force of the wind and because the boat would immediately have been dragged or driven upon the shoals; that furthermore the lorcha was anchored in a channel some 300 brazas wide, but, notwithstanding this width, the Pilar was, for want of motive power, unable to move without being exposed to be dashed against the coast by the strong wind and the heavy sea then prevailing. The testimony of this witness was neither impugned nor offset by any evidence whatever; he was a patron of long years of service and of much practice in seafaring, especially in the port of Gubat and its vicinity, who had commanded or been intrusted with the command of other crafts similar to the lorcha Pilar and his testimony was absolutely uncontradicted.

The patron Gadvilao, being cognizant of the duties imposed upon him by rules 14 and 15 of article 612, and others, of the Code of Commerce, remained with sailors, during the time the hurricane was raging, on board the lorcha from the morning of December 5 until early the following morning, the 6th, without abandoning the boat, notwithstanding the imminent peril to which he was exposed, and kept to his post until after the wreck and the lorcha had been dashed against the rocks. Then he solicited help from the captain of the steamer Ton Yek, and, thanks to the relief afforded by a small boat sent by the latter officer, Gadvilao with his crew succeeded in reaching land and immediately reported the occurrence to the representative of Inchausti & Co. and to the public official from whom he obtained the document of protest, Exhibit 1. By such procedure, he showed that, as a patron skilled in the exercise of his vocation, he performed the duties imposed by law in cases of shipwreck brought about by force majeure.

Treating of shipwrecks, article 840 of the Code of Commerce prescribes:

The losses and damages suffered by a vessel and her cargo by reason of shipwreck or standing shall be individually for the account of the owners, the part of the wreck which may be saved belonging to them in the same proportion.

And Article 841 of the same code reads:

If the wreck or stranding should arise through the malice, negligence, or lack of skill of the captain, or because the vessel put to sea insufficiently repaired and supplied, the owner or the freighters may demand indemnity of the captain for the damages caused to the vessel or cargo by the accident, in accordance with the provisions contained in articles 610, 612, 614, and 621.

The general rule established in the first of the foregoing articles is that the loss of the vessel and of its cargo, as the result of shipwreck, shall fall upon the respective owners thereof, save for the exceptions specified in the second of the said articles.

These legal provisions are in harmony with those of articles 361 and 362 of the Code of Commerce, and are applicable whenever it is proved that the loss of, or damage to, the goods was the result of a fortuitous event or of force majeure; but the carrier shall be liable for the loss or the damage arising from the causes aforementioned, if it shall have been proven that they occurred through his own fault or negligence or by his failure to take the same precautions usually adopted by diligent and careful persons.

In the contract made and entered into by and between the owner of the goods and the defendant, no term was fixed within which the said merchandise should be delivered to the former at Catarman, nor was it proved

that there was any delay in loading the goods and transporting them to their destination. From the 28th of November, when the steamer Sorsogon arrived at Gubat and landed the said goods belonging to Ong Bieng Sip to await the lorcha Pilar which was to convey them to Catarman, as agreed upon, no vessel carrying merchandise made the voyage from Gubat to the said pueblo of the Island of Samar, and with Ong Bieng Sip's merchandise there were also to be shipped goods belonging to the defendant company, which goods were actually taken on board the said lorcha and suffered the same damage as those belonging to the Chinaman. So that there was no negligence, abandonment, or delay in the shipment of Ong Bieng Sip's merchandise, and all that was done by the carrier, Inchausti & Co., was what it regularly and usually did in the transportation by sea from Manila to Catarman of all classes of merchandise. No attempt has been made to prove that any course other than the foregoing was pursued by that firm on this occasion; therefore the defendant party is not liable for the damage occasioned as a result of the wreck or stranding of the lorcha Pilar because of the hurricane that overtook this craft while it was anchored in the port of Gubat, on December 5, 1908, ready to be conveyed to that of Catarman.

It is a fact not disputed, and admitted by the plaintiff, that the lorcha Pilar was stranded and wrecked on the coast of Gubat during the night of the 5th or early in the morning of the 6th of December, 1908, as a result of a violent storm that came from the Pacific Ocean, and, consequently, it is a proven fact that the loss or damage of the goods shipped on the said lorcha was due to the force majeure which caused the wreck of the said craft.

According to the aforecited article 361 of the Code of Commerce, merchandise shall be transported at the risk and venture of the shipper, unless the contrary be expressly stipulated. No such stipulation appears of record, therefore, all damages and impairment suffered by the goods in transportation, by reason of accident, force majeure, or by virtue of the nature or defect of the articles, are for the account and risk of the shipper.

A final clause of this same article adds that the burden of proof of these accidents is upon the carrier; the trial record fully discloses that the loss and damage of the goods shipped by the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, was due to the stranding and wreck of the lorcha Pilar in the heavy storm or hurricane aforementioned; this the plaintiff did not deny, and admitted that it took place between the afternoon of the 5th and early in the morning of the 6th of December, 1908, so it is evident that the defendant is exempt from the obligation imposed by the law to prove the occurrence of the said storm, hurricane, or cyclone in the port of Gubat, and, therefore, if said goods were lost or damaged and could not be delivered in Catarman, it was due to a fortuitous event and a superior, irresistible natural force, or force majeure, which completely disabled the lorcha intended for their transportation to the said port of the Island of Samar.

The record bears no proof that the said loss or damage caused by the stranding or wreck of the lorcha Pilar as a result of the storm mentioned, occurred through carelessness or negligence on the part of the defendant company, its agents or the patron of the said lorcha, or because they did not take the precautions usually adopted by careful and diligent persons, as required by article 362 of the Code of Commerce; the defendant company, as well as its agents and the patron of the lorcha, had a natural interest in preserving the craft and its own goods laden therein — an interest equal to that of the Chinese shipper in preserving his own which were on board the ship lorcha — and, in fact, the defendant, his agents and the patron did take the measures which they deemed necessary and proper in order to save the lorcha and its cargo from the impending danger; accordingly, the patron, as soon as he was informed that a storm was approaching, proceeded to clear the boat of all gear which might offer resistance to the wind, dropped the four anchors he had, and even procured an extra anchor from the land, together with a new cable, and cast it into the water, thereby adding, in so far as possible, to the stability and security of the craft, in anticipation of what might occur, as presaged by the violence of the wind and the heavy sea; and Inchausti & Company's agent furnished the articles requested by the patron of the lorcha for the purpose of preventing the loss of the boat; thus did they all display all the diligence and care such as might have been employed by anyone in similar circumstances, especially the patron who was responsible for the lorcha under his charge; nor is it possible to believe that the latter failed to adopt all the measures that were necessary to save his own life and those of the crew and to free himself from the imminent peril of shipwreck.

In view of the fact that the lorcha Pilar had no means of changing its anchorage, even supposing that there was a better one, and was unable to accept help from any steamer that might have towed it to another point, as wherever it might have anchored, it would continually have been exposed to the lashing of the waves and to the fury of the hurricane, for the port of Gubat is a cove or open roadstead with no shelter whatever from the winds that sweep over it from the Pacific Ocean, and in view of the circumstances that it was impossible for the said lorcha, loaded as it then was, to have entered the Sabang River, even though there had been a steamer to tow it, not only because of an insufficient depth of water in its channel, but also on account of the very high bar at the entrance of the said river, it is incontrovertible that the stranding and wreck of the lorcha Pilar was due to a fortuitous event or to force majeure and not to the fault and negligence of the defendant company and its agents or of the patron, Mariano Gadvilao, inasmuch as the record discloses it to have been duly proved that the latter, in difficult situation in which unfortunately the boat under his charge was placed, took all the precautions that any diligent man should have taken whose duty it was to save the boat and its cargo, and, by the instinct of self-preservation, his own life and those of the crew of the lorcha; therefore, considering the conduct of the patron of the lorcha and that of the defendant's agent in Gubat, during the time of the occurrence of the disaster, the defendant company has not incurred any liability whatever for the loss of the goods, the value of which is demanded by the plaintiff; it must, besides, be taken into account that the defendant itself also lost goods of its own and the lorcha too.

From the moment that it is held that the loss of the said lorcha was due to force majeure, a fortuitous event, with no conclusive proof or negligence or of the failure to take the precautions such as diligent and careful persons usually adopt to avoid the loss of the boat and its cargo, it is neither just nor proper to attribute the loss or damage of the goods in question to any fault, carelessness, or negligence on the part of the defendant company and its agents and, especially, the patron of the lorcha Pilar.

Moreover, it is to be noted that, subsequent to the wreck, the defendant company's agent took all the requisite measures for the salvage of such of the goods as could be recovered after the accident, which he did with the knowledge of the shipper, Ong Bieng Sip, and, in effecting their sale, he endeavored to secure all possible advantage to the Chinese shipper; in all these proceedings, as shown by the record, he acted in obedience to the law.

From all the foregoing it is concluded that the defendant is not liable for the loss and damage of the goods shipped on the lorcha Pilar by the Chinaman, Ong Bieng Sip, inasmuch as such loss and damage were the result of a fortuitous event or force majeure, and there was no negligence or lack of care and diligence on the part of the defendant company or its agents.

Therefore, we hold it proper to reverse the judgment appealed from, and to absolve, as we hereby do, the defendant, Inchausti & Co., without special findings as to costs.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa and Johnson, JJ., concur. Carson and Trent, JJ., dissent.

Separate Opinions

MORELAND, J., dissenting:

In my opinion the decision of the court below, which this court reverses, is clearly in accordance with law and in strict conformity with equity and justice. The defendant, a shipowner, agreed with the plaintiff to transport P14,000 worth of property from Manila to Catarman, Province of Samar. The defendant never fulfilled its contract. Instead of delivering the property at Catarman, Province of Samar, it left it on board of a lorcha in the waters of Gubat, a port in the southern part of the Island of Luzon, where, during a storm, the lorcha foundered and the property was lost.

This court holds that the Chinaman must lose his property. This is the manner in which the defendant lost the goods of the plaintiff:

The Sorsogon, on which the goods were loaded at Manila, arrived at Gubat about the 28th of November, 1908. A few days later the lorcha Pilar arrived at Gubat, towed by the tug Texas. The lorcha was without means of locomotion of its own, except its sails, which, from the record, appear never to have been used and were substantially useless, and could move about and protect itself from the weather only by being towed or "poled." The only boat on the coast owned by the defendant which could tow the lorcha was the tug Texas. Sometime before the 5th of December, at least one day before the storm broke, the goods belonging to the plaintiff were loaded on this lorcha. The tug Texas, under the orders of the defendant, left the locality where the lorcha was loaded and did not return until after it was wrecked.

Let us see what were the conditions at the time the defendant voluntarily and unnecessarily placed the property of the plaintiff on the lorcha Pilar:

(1) It must be remembered that Gubat is located on the Pacific coast. The waters of Gubat are not protected waters; they are not inclosed; they are in the form of a bay; they are directly open to the winds from the Pacific Ocean, without protection or shelter of any kind, except possibly the mouth of the river, a matter here in dispute and which will be referred to later. They are likewise open to the full sweep of the waves of the Pacific coming from its widest reaches.

(2) At the time the plaintiff's goods were loaded upon the lorcha Pilar it was the height of the typhoon season in that locality. The prevailing winds were from the Pacific. Destructive baguios might reasonably be expected at any time. It was only with the exercise of diligence and prudence that shipping could be protected therefrom.

(3) As I have before indicated, the lorcha Pilar had substantially no means of locomotion of its own and depended for its protection in stormy weather entirely upon the steam tug Texas or being "poled" into the mouth of the river by its crew. At the time of the storm which destroyed the lorcha, and for some time prior thereto and for some days thereafter, the Texas was at the port of Barcelona, on the coast several miles south of Gubat, having been sent by order of the defendant, its owner.

Summarizing, then, we have the defendant voluntarily placing the property of the plaintiff upon the kind of craft above described, dispatching to a distant port substantially the only means of locomotion and protection which that craft had, except, as we have said, by being poled, placing that lorcha in waters directly exposed to the winds and waves of the Pacific and at the mercy of every baguio that blew; and this during a season of the year when winds were generally high and destructive baguios might be expected at any time, and with full knowledge that if a typhoon came while the agents of the defendant were unprepared the property of the plaintiff would in all probability be lost.

Having these facts in mind, let us see what the agents of the defendant did to protect the property of the plaintiff which they had voluntarily placed in a situation of such peril.

(4) At the time of the destruction of the lorcha there was a Government weather observatory at Gubat which received advices many hours in advance of the approach of a typhoon toward the locality. It had been there for some years. The purpose of that observatory was to furnish information to the public concerning the formation and approach of typhoons from the Pacific and of warning the people with exposed shipping to take such precautions as were necessary for its protection. This was known to the defendant's agents at Gubat. They knew that the observatory had a public office, open to anybody who cared to visit it, in which would be found all of the latest information relating to storms and baguios coming from the Pacific Ocean. They knew that the officials of said observatory were there for the express purpose of giving such information. The defendant's agents had at Gubat a barometer and all the other instruments usually kept by seamen and navigators for forecasting the weather.

(5) As we have said, the storm occurred on the 5th of December. It wrought its greatest havoc late in the afternoon and the early part of the night. At about 2 o'clock on the day before the storm, that is, on the 4th of December, the observatory at Gubat received notice from the Manila observatory that a baguio was forming in the Pacific Ocean. At about the same time at Barcelona, only 10 miles south of Gubat, the barometer on board the Texas dropped so rapidly as to indicate such dangerous weather probabilities that the captain of the Texas deemed it unsafe to venture out of the harbor. On the same afternoon the barometer on board the only steam vessel near Gubat, the Ton Yek, also went down. Although it does not expressly appear in the evidence, yet it is an inference entirely fair from the record, and against which nothing whatever can be urged, that the barometer in the possession of agents of the defendant also dropped with the same rapidity. In all human probability this could not be otherwise in view of the rapid and decisive fall of the barometer on board the Texas, only 10 miles away, and the fact that the typhoon broke over both places equally. At the same time, and more pronounced a little later, every symptom which men who have to deal with the sea could and would readily observe, and which the captain of the Ton Yek did observe as a matter of fact, indicated the approach of a heavy storm. These evidences were heeded by the captain of the Ton Yek, who, early on the morning of the 5th, without waiting for the appearance of a storm signal at the observatory, sent a messenger to the observatory for the purpose of ascertaining with more accuracy what was going to happen. In spite of all these things, most of which occurred on the afternoon or evening of the day preceding the storm, the agents of the defendant did absolutely nothing to inform themselves as to the prospective whether conditions or as to whether or not a baguio was approaching, and did absolutely nothing to preserve or protect the property which they had placed in so exposed and dangerous a place.

(6) The morning of the 5th arrived. As we have already stated, all of the signs which men who have to do with the sea so readily read indicated unquestionably and decisively the approach of the storm which the advices received by the observatory at 2 o'clock on the afternoon before told the inhabitants of that locality was probably coming. Still the agents of the defendant did nothing. The captain of the Ton Yek, although his vessel was a steam vessel and was able to take care of itself by reason of its machinery, judging these signs and portents, found it advisable to consult with the observatory early on the morning of the 5th. The approach of a storm was apparent to him and he took precautions accordingly. Yet the agents of the defendant did nothing. Although the lorcha on which they had put the property of the plaintiff was, according to their own admissions, utterly unprotected, and although P14,000 worth of goods intrusted to their care was in great danger of being lost, still they did absolutely nothing, either by anticipation or otherwise, to protect that property therefrom.

(7) On the morning of the 5th at about 8.20 or 8.30 o'clock the observatory run up the first danger signal. Still the agents of the defendant noted nothing, did nothing. They paid absolutely no attention to it, as they had paid no attention whatever to the other indications. They left the lorcha to its fate without lifting a finger to save it. At 9 o'clock the wind had risen and the waves had commenced to roll. Still nothing was done. At 9.30 the winds were still stronger and the waves higher. Still nothing was done. At 10.30 the increase in the strength of the wind and of the height of the waves continued. And yet the agents of the defendant did nothing. It was well toward 11 o'clock before they began to move. And that time it was too late. The wind and waves were so high that, with the means at hand, the lorcha could not be moved from the exposed position in which it was, even if it be conceded that there was any safer place within those waters. The lorcha was prevented from dashing itself immediately upon the rocks only by virtue of its anchor. At between 10.30 and 11 o'clock the captain of the lorcha came to ashore to secure additional anchors. And that time, however, as we have observed, it was too late to unload the goods and too late to remove the lorcha to a safe place within the mouth of the river, even if that were possible. The agents of the defendant, having done absolutely nothing up to this time, now found, after they had awakened from their lethargy, that it was too late to do more than stand by and see the property, which had been intrusted to their care and for carrying of which they had been paid, dashed to pieces on the rock and swallowed up by the sea.

(8) For nearly eighteen hours prior to the disaster the information that the disaster was coming lay under the very noses of the agents of the defendant. For nearly eighteen hours the barometer had been dropping steadily, so much so that their own vessel dared not leave a port only 10 miles distant on the afternoon before. For eighteen hours every warning which nature could give, indicating the disaster which subsequently came, had been repeatedly thrust upon them. Yet they did nothing. Having placed the goods of

the plaintiff in an exposed and dangerous position, in waters open to the winds and waves of the Pacific Ocean, at the height of the typhoon season, in a vessel which had no motive power of its own, and having sent away that which they themselves substantially admit was its only protection, the agents of the defendant exercised no care or precaution whatever to the end that they might protect the goods which they themselves had so recklessly exposed.

Yet this court, under such circumstances, holds that the defendant may go in peace and that the plaintiff is the one who must bear the burden of such negligence.

With that decision I can not agree.

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

The act of God which excuses the carrier must not only be the proximate cause of the loss, but the better opinion is that it must be the sole cause. And where the loss is caused by the "act of God," if the negligence of the carrier mingles with it as an active and cooperative cause, he is still responsible. (Amies vs. Stevens, 1 Stra., 128.)

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

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

Manresa in his commentaries to section 1105 of the Civil Code of Spain, volume 8, page 91, says:

Elucidation of article 1105 and the idea of the accident is interesting under the following aspects; Relation between it and the blame; enumeration of the requisites that must be present; proof of the event and characterization thereof; and the consequence it produces. Let us examine them.

Even when the distinction is simple and reasonable between blame for some exempting circumstance (because it may not be serious enough to involve such blame, under the law or the obligation) and accident, since the former admits an imputation which the latter excludes, even when the former may not be the basis for legal responsibility, and therefore it can not be said that where no responsible blame exists there the accident commences, yet the latter is undeniably characterized by unexpectedness and inevitability, circumstances susceptible of relative interpretation, and so whatever relates to the blame must be taken into account, because, as we shall see, it is in certain sense, especially in practical application, connected with the matter under consideration.

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

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

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

In an essentially analogous way, judgments were pronounced on June 12, 1899 (Tribunal contencioso administrativo), and on October 27, 1905 (Sala tercera), against the company leasing the tobacco monopoly, for losses caused by theft and fire. It was further decided in these cases that the company and not the State must bear the losses, for while accidental fire in a tobacco factory and theft of stamped goods stored in a branch house may constitute accidents, yet they do not deserve

this characterization when they occur through omission, neglect or lack of care which imply breach of the contract.

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

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

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

Such was the doctrine established in our ancient law regarding the obligor; the reasons whereof are theoretically set forth further on; and as a written provision, law 20, title 13, partida 5, which expressly laid down this principle in connection with pawn-broking contracts, and which was, by analogy, made the basis for extending a similar provision to the remaining cases.

That the Civil Code is inspired by the same idea is clearly expressed in article 1183 thereof, the commentary on which should be consulted. Still such solution depends upon the nature of proof and of the accident, since its existence as an abnormal event hindering the fulfillment of the obligation must be proved and not presumed, and the burden of this proof rests upon the obligor, and not upon the obligee, whose proof would have to be negative. Moreover since an accident is the basis for exemption from responsibility, it must be proved by him who will benefit thereby and who objects to the requirement that he fulfill his obligations. To these reasons are joined those above set forth in connection with the proof of contractual blame, since they are, according to the same article, 1183, above cited, closely related questions, so much so that they become two phases of one question — presumption against the existence of accident of what tends to establish presumption of blame, in the absence of proof to overcome it.

Proof of accident must include these points; the occurrence of the event, the bearing it has upon breach of the obligation, and the concurrence of unexpectedness and inevitably. In connection with the first two points, the proof resting upon the obligor must be specific and exact; but as for the last, although it may be admitted as a general proposition that, in addition to proving the event, he must also demonstrate that it involves the condition required to make it an accident, there are some of such magnitude and, by their nature, of almost impossible prevision, that proof of their occurrence demonstrates their condition. Undoubtedly, and differently from proof of the accident, the exceptional circumstance that the event (which should as a general proposition be regarded as unforeseen) was known to the obligor for some special reason, must be of proven by the obligee who asserts it, since the obligation of proof resting upon the former is fulfilled in this regard by demonstrating that the event ought rationally to be held to have been unforeseen.

Since proof of the accident is related to proof of the blame, it is evident that the obligor must also prove, so far as he is concerned, that he is not to blame for breach of the obligation.

Exemption from responsibility in accidents established by article 1105 has, according to its text, two exceptions, whereby an event may be plainly proven, and be unforeseen and unavoidable and still not produce such exemption, viz, when the execution is either stipulated in the obligation or is expressly mentioned by the law. The basis for these exceptions rests, according to this cases, either upon the freedom of contracts, which is opposed to prohibition of a compact, wherein, without immorality, there is merely an emphasized stipulation, which is meant to guarantee in every case an interest and indirectly to secure careful and special diligence in the fulfillment of the obligation; or upon the nature of the obligations when risk is an essential element therein; or finally upon cases whose circumstances, as happens with that provided for by the last paragraph of article 1096, justify the special strictness of the law.

In conclusion, we shall point out that in order to relieve the obligor from his obligation, it must be remembered that the occurrence of the event does not suffice, but that the impossibility of fulfilling the obligation must be the direct consequences of the accident, so that when it can be fulfilled it will subsists, even if only in part, and therefore, in order to see whether or not the accident produces this result the nature of the obligation must be considered, and according to whether it be specific or general, etc., it will or will not be extinguished.

To hold the carrier responsible in the case at bar, it is not necessary to go so far as the authorities just cited. The negligence is so clear that it is not necessary to strain doctrines or even press them to their limits.

I do not agree here argue the assertion of the plaintiff denied by the defendant, that, at any time before nine o'clock of the day of the destruction of the lorcha, the defendant's agents could have placed the lorcha in the mouth of the river out of harm's way. I believe that a fair preponderance of the evidence shows that this could have been done. The defendant denies this, asserting that the water was too shallow. Nevertheless, fourteen days after the storm, the foundered lorcha, water-logged and undoubtedly containing water, was " poled" by its crew from the place where it went on the rocks to a place of safety inside the mouth of the river. It is more than probable that this could have been done at any time before the storm became too high. At last common prudence would have required the unloading of the lorcha, which could easily have been accomplished before the storm if the agents of the defendant had awakened themselves to their duty.

MARTINI V. MACONDRAY

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 13972.  July 28, 1919.]

G. MARTINI, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MACONDRAY & CO. (INC.), Defendant-Appellant.

 

D E C I S I O N

STREET, J.:

In September of the year 1916, the Plaintiff G. Martini, Ltd., arranged with the Defendant company, as agents of the Eastern and Australian Steamship Company, for the shipment of two hundred and nineteen cases or packages of chemical products from Manila, Philippine Islands, to Kobe, Japan. The goods were

embarked at Manila on the steamship Eastern, and were carried to Kobe on the deck of that ship. Upon arrival at the port of destination it was found that the chemicals comprised in the shipment had suffered damage from the effects of both fresh and salt water; and the present action was instituted by the Plaintiff to recover the amount of the damage thereby occasioned. In the Court of First Instance judgment was rendered in favor of the Plaintiffs for the sum of P34,997.56, with interest from March 24, 1917, and costs of the proceeding. From this judgment the Defendant appealed.

That the damage was caused by water, either falling in the form of rain or splashing aboard by the action of wind and waves, is unquestionable; and the contention of the Plaintiff is that it was the duty of the ship’s company to stow this cargo in the hold and not to place it in an exposed position on the open deck. The defense is that by the contract of affreightment the cargo in question was to be carried on deck at the shipper’s risk; and attention is directed to the fact that on the face of each bill of lading is clearly stamped with a rubber stencil in conspicuous letters the words “on deck at shipper’s risk.” In this connection the Defendant relies upon paragraph 19 of the several bills of lading issued for transportation of this cargo, which reads as follows:

“19.        Goods signed for on this bill of lading as carried on deck are entirely at shipper’s risk, whether carried on deck or under hatches, and the steamer is not liable for any loss or damage from any cause whatever. “

The Plaintiff insists that the agreement was that the cargo in question should be carried in the ordinary manner, that is, in the ship’s hold, and that the Plaintiff never gave its consent for the goods to be carried on deck. The material facts bearing on this controverted point appear to be these: On September 15, 1916, the Plaintiff applied to the Defendant for necessary space on the steamship Eastern, and received a shipping order, which constituted authority for the ship’s officers to receive the cargo aboard. One part of this document contained a form which, when signed by the mate, would constitute the “mate’s receipt,” showing that the cargo had been taken on.

Ordinarily the shipper is supposed to produce the mate’s receipt to the agents of the ship’s company, who thereupon issue the bill of lading to the shipper. When, however, the shipper, as not infrequently happens, desires to procure the bill of lading before he obtains the mate’s receipt, it is customary for him to enter into a written obligation, binding himself, among other things, to abide by the terms of the mate’s receipt. In the present instance the mate’s receipt did not come to the Plaintiff’s hand until Monday night, but as the Plaintiff was desirous of obtaining the bills of lading on the Saturday morning preceding in order that he might negotiate them at the bank, a request was made for the delivery of the bills of lading on that day To effectuate this, the Plaintiff was required to enter into the written obligation, calling itself a “letter of guarantee,” which was introduced in evidence as Exhibit D-C. This document is of the date of September 16, 1916, and of the following tenor:

“In consideration of your signing us clean B/L for the undermentioned cargo per above steamer to be shipped on or under deck at ship’s option, for Kobe without production of the mate’s receipt, we hereby guarantee to hold you free from any responsibility by your doing so, and for any expense should the whole or part of the cargo be shut out, or otherwise, and to hand you said mate’s receipt as soon as it reaches us and to abide by all clauses and notations on the same.”

In conformity with the purpose of this document the bills of lading were issued, and the negotiable copies were, upon the same day, negotiated at the bank by the Plaintiff for 90 per cent of the invoice value of the goods. As already stated these bills of lading contained on their face, conspicuously stenciled, the words “on deck at shipper’s risks.” The mate’s receipt, received by the Plaintiff two days later also bore the notation “on deck at shipper’s risk,” written with pencil, and evidently by the officer who took the cargo on board and signed the receipt.

The Plaintiff insists that it had at no time agreed for the cargo to be carried on deck; and G. Martini, manager of Martini & Company, says that the first intimation he had of this was when, at about 4 p.m. on that Saturday afternoon, he examined the nonnegotiable copies of the bills of lading, which had been

retained by the house, and discovered the words “on deck at shipper’s risk” stamped thereon. Martini says that upon seeing this, he at once called the attention of S. Codina thereto, the latter being an employee of the house whose duty it was to attend to all shipments of merchandise and who in fact had entire control of all matters relating to the shipping of this cargo. Codina pretends that up to the time when Martini directed his attention to the fact, he himself was unaware that the cargo was being stowed on deck; and upon the discovery of this fact the two gentlemen mentioned expressed mutual surprise and dissatisfaction. Martini says that he told Codina to protest at once to Macondray & Company over the telephone, while Martini himself proceeded to endite a letter, which appears in evidence as Exhibit D-T of the Defendant and is in its material part as follows:

“MANILA, September 16, 1916.

“MESSRS. MACONDRAY & Co.,

                “Manila,

“DEAR SIRS: In re our shipment per steamship Eastern, we are very much surprised to see that the remark ‘on deck at shipper’s risk’ has been stamped on the bills of lading Nos. 8 to 23. . . . and although not believing that the same have actually been shipped on deck we must hold you responsible for any consequence, loss, or damage deriving from your action should they have been shipped as stated.

“Yours faithfully,

“G. MARTINI, LTD.

“By S. CODINA.”

This letter was followed by another of the same date and of substantially the same tenor but containing the following additional statement:

“It is the prevailing practice that, whenever a cargo is being carried on deck, shipowners or agents give advice of it to shippers previous to shipment taking place, and obtain their consent to it. If we had been advised of it, shipment would not have been effected by us. We regret very much this occurrence, but you will understand that in view of your having acted in this case on your own responsibility, we shall have to hold you amenable for any consequences that may be caused from your action.”

The first of these letters was forthwith dispatched by messenger, and upon receiving it, Macondray & Company called Codina by telephone at about 4.30 p.m. and, referring to the communication just received, told him that Macondray & Company could not accept the cargo for transportation otherwise than on deck and that if Martini & Company were dissatisfied, the cargo could be discharged from the ship.

There is substantial conformity in the testimony of the two parties with respect to the time of the conversation by telephone and the nature of the message which Macondray & Company intended to convey, though the witnesses differ as to some details and in respect to what occurred immediately thereafter. Basa, who was in charge of the shipping department of Macondray & Company and who conducted the conversation on the part of the latter, says that he told Codina that if Martini & Company was unwilling for the cargo to be carried on deck that they could discharge it and further advised him that Macondray & Company’s empty boats were still at the ship’s side ready to receive the cargo. In reply Codina stated that Martini, the manager, was then out and that he would answer in a few minutes, after communication with Martini. Within the course of half an hour Codina called Basa up and said that as the cargo was already stowed on deck, Martini & Company were willing for it to be carried in this way, and that their protest was a mere formality. Codina admits that he was informed by Basa that the cargo could not be carried under the hatches, and that if Martini & Company were dissatisfied to have it carried on deck, they could discharge it. He denies being told that it could be taken off in Macondray & Company’s boats. Codina further states that when the conversation was broken off for the purpose of enabling him to communicate with Martini, he

consulted with the latter, and was directed to say that Martini & Company did not consent for the cargo to be carried on deck and that it must be discharged. Upon returning to the telephone, he found that the connection had been broken, and he says that he was thereafter unable to get Macondray & Company by telephone during that afternoon, although he attempted to do so more than once.

In the light of all the evidence the conclusion seems clear enough that, although Martini & Company would have greatly preferred for the cargo to be carried under the hatches, they nevertheless consented for it to go on deck. Codina, if attentive to the interests of his house, must have known from the tenor of the guaranty to which his signature is affixed that the Defendant had reserved the right to carry it on deck, and when the bills of lading were delivered to the Plaintiff they plainly showed that the cargo would be so carried.

It must therefore be considered that the Plaintiff was duly affected with notice as to the manner in which the cargo was shipped. No complaint, however, was made until after the bills of lading had been negotiated at the bank. When the manager of Martini & Company first had his attention drawn to the fact that the cargo was being carried on deck, he called Codina to account, and the latter found it to his interest to feign surprise and pretend that he had been deceived by Macondray & Company. Even then there was time to stop the shipment, but Martini & Company failed to give the necessary instructions, thereby manifesting acquiescence in the accomplished fact.

In a later letter of October 25, 1916, addressed to Macondray & Company, Martini, referring to the incident says: “If previous to the mailing of the documents, you had actually notified us by phone or otherwise that you could not accept our cargo in any other way but on deck, we should have promptly given you instructions to leave it on the lighters and at our disposal.”

From this it is inferable that one reason why the Plaintiff allowed the cargo to be carried away without being discharged, was that the bills had been discounted and to stop the shipment would have entailed the necessity of refunding the money which the bank had advanced, with the inconveniences incident thereto. Another reason apparently was that Martini discerned, or thought he discerned the possibility of shifting the risk so as to make it fall upon the ship’s company.

With reference to the practicability of discharging the cargo in the late afternoon or evening of Saturday, September 16, before the ship departed, as it did at 8 p.m. some evidence was introduced tending to show that in order to get the cargo off certain formalities were necessary which could not be accomplished, as for instance, the return of the mate’s receipt (which had not yet come to the Plaintiff’s hands), the securing of a permit from the customs authorities, and the securing of an order of discharge from the steamship company. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff did nothing whatever looking towards the discharge of the cargo, not even so much as to notify Macondray & Company that the cargo must come off, the proof relative to the practicability of discharge is inconclusive. If the Plaintiff had promptly informed Macondray & Company of their resolve to have the cargo discharged, and the latter had nevertheless permitted the ship to sail without discharging it, there would have been some ground for Plaintiff’s contention that its consent had not been given for the goods to be carried on deck. Needless to say we attach no weight to the statement of Codina that he was unable to get Macondray & Company by telephone in order to communicate directions for the discharge of the cargo.

The evidence submitted in behalf of the Defendant shows that there was no space in the hold to take the cargo; and it was therefore unnecessary to consider whether the chemicals to be shipped were of an explosive or inflammable character, such as to require stowage on deck. By reason of the fact that the cargo had to be carried on deck at all events, if carried at all, the guaranty Exhibit D-C was so drawn as to permit stowage either on or under deck at the ship’s option; and the attention of Codina must have been drawn to this provision because Macondray & Company refused to issue the bills of lading upon a guaranty signed by Codina upon another form (Exhibit R), which contained no such provision. The messenger between the two establishments who was sent for the bills of lading accordingly had to make a second trip and go back for a letter of guaranty signed upon the desired form. The pretense of Codina that he was deceived into signing a document different from that which he supposed himself to be signing is wholly unsustained.

The result of the discussion is that Martini & Company must be held to have assented to the shipment of the cargo on deck and that they are bound by the bills of lading in the form in which they were issued. The trial court in our opinion erred in holding otherwise, and in particular by ignoring, or failing to give sufficient weight to the contract of guaranty.

Having determined that the Plaintiff consented to the shipment of the cargo on deck, we proceed to consider whether the Defendant can be held liable for the damage which befell the cargo in question. It of course goes without saying that if a clean bill of lading had been issued and the Plaintiff had not consented for the cargo to go on deck, the ship’s company would have been liable for all damage which resulted from the carriage on deck. In the case of The Paragon (1 Ware, 326; 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10708), decided in 1836 in one of the district courts of the United States, it appeared that cargo was shipped from Boston, Massachusetts, to Portland, Maine, upon what is called a clean bill of lading, that is, one in the common form without any memorandum in the margin or on its face showing that the goods are to be carried on deck. It was proved that the shipper had not given his consent for carriage on deck. Nevertheless, the master stowed the goods on deck; and a storm having arisen, it became necessary to jettison them. None of the cargo in the hold was lost. It was thus evident that although the cargo in question was lost by peril of the sea, it would not have been lost except for the fact that it was being carried on deck. It was held that the ship was liable. In the course of the opinion the following language was used:

“It is contended that the goods, in this case, having been lost by the dangers of the seas, both the master and the vessel are exempted from responsibility within the common exemption in bills of lading; and the goods having been thrown overboard from necessity, and for the safety of the vessel and cargo, as well as the lives of the crew, that it presents a case for a general average or contribution, upon the common principle that when a sacrifice is made for the benefit of all, that the loss shall be shared by all. . . . In every contract of affreightment, losses by the dangers of the seas are excepted from the risks which the master takes upon himself, whether the exception is expressed in the contract or not. The exception is made by the law, and falls within the general principle that no one is responsible for fortuitous events and accidents of major force. Casus fortuitous nemo praestat. But then the general law is subject to an exception, that when the inevitable accident is preceded by a fault of the debtor or person bound without which it would not have happened, then he becomes responsible for it. (Pothier, des Obligations, No. 542; Pret. a Usage, No. 57; Story, Bailm., c. 4, No. 241; In Majorious casibus si culpa ejus interveniat tenetur; Dig. 44, 7, 1, s. 4.)

“The master is responsible for the safe and proper stowage of the cargo, and there is no doubt that by the general maritime law he is bound to secure the cargo safely under deck. . . . If the master carries goods on deck without the consent of the shipper . . . he does it at his own risk. If they are damaged or lost in consequence of their being thus exposed, he cannot protect himself from responsibility by showing that they were damaged or lost by the dangers of the seas. . . . When the shipper consents to his goods being carried on deck, he takes the risk upon himself of these peculiar perils. . . . This is the doctrine of all the authorities, ancient and modern. “

Van Horn vs. Taylor (2 La. Ann., 587; 46 Am. Dec., 558), was a case where goods stowed on deck were lost in a collision. The court found that the ship carrying these goods was not at fault, and that the shipper had notice of the fact that the cargo was being carried on deck. It was held that the ship was not liable. Said the court:

“It is said that the Plaintiff’s goods were improperly stowed on deck; that the deck load only was thrown overboard by the collision, the cargo in the hold not being injured. The goods were thus laden with the knowledge and implied approbation of the Plaintiff. He was a passenger on board the steamer, and does not appear to have made any objection to the goods being thus carried, though the collision occurred several days after the steamer commenced her voyage.”

In the case of The Thomas P. Thorn (8 Ben., 3; 23 Fed., Cas. No. 13927), decided in the District Court in the State of New York, it appeared that tobacco was received upon a canal boat, with the understanding that it was to be carried on deck, covered with tarpaulins. Upon arrival at its destination it was found damaged by water, for the most part on the top, and evidently as a consequence of rains. At the same time a quantity of

malt stowed below deck on the same voyage was uninjured. In discussing the question whether upon a contract to carry on deck, the vessel was liable for the wetting of the tobacco, the court said:

“It is manifest that the injury to the tobacco arose simply from the fact that it was carried on deck. The malt, carried below, although an article easily injured, received no damage, and the voyage was performed with usual care, and without disaster. Indeed, there is evidence of a statement by the libelant, that tobacco must of necessity be injured by being carried on deck. But, under a contract to carry upon deck, the risk of any damage resulting from the place of carriage rests upon the shipper, and, without proof of negligence causing the damage, there can be no recovery. Here the evidence shows that all reasonable care was taken of the tobacco during its transportation; that the manner of stowing and covering it was known to and assented to by the shipper; and the inference is warranted that the injury arose, without fault of the carrier, from rain, to which merchandise transported on deck must necessarily be in some degree exposed. Any loss arising from damaged thus occasioned is to be borne by the shipper.”

Lawrence vs. Minturn (17 How [U.S,], 100; 15 L ed., 58), was a case where goods stowed on deck with the consent of the shipper were jettisoned during a storm at sea. In discussing whether this cargo was entitled to general average, the Supreme Court of the United States said:

“The maritime codes and writers have recognized the distinction between cargo placed on deck, with the consent of the shipper, and cargo under deck.

“There is not one of them which gives a recourse against the master, the vessel, or the owners, if the property lost had been placed on deck with the consent of its owner, and they afford very high evidence of the general and appropriate usages, in this particular, of merchants and shipowners.

“So the courts of this country and England, and the writers on this subject, have treated the owner of goods on deck, with his consent, as not having a claim on the master or owner of the ship in case of jettison. The received law, on the point, is expressed by Chancellor Kent, with his usual precision, in 3 Com., 240: ‘Nor is the carrier in that case (Jettison of deck load) responsible to the owner, unless the goods were stowed on deck without the consent of the owner, or a general custom binding him, and then he would be chargeable with the loss.’“

In Gould vs. Oliver (4 Bing., N. C., 132), decided in the English Court of Common Pleas in 1837, Tindal, C.J., said:

“Where the loading on deck has taken place with the consent of the merchant, it is obvious that no remedy against the shipowner or master for a wrongful loading of the goods on deck can exist. The foreign authorities are indeed express; on that point. And the general rule of the English law, that no one can maintain an action for a wrong, where he has consented or contributed to the act which occasioned his loss, leads to the same conclusion.”

The foregoing authorities fully sustain the proposition that where the shipper consents to have his goods carried on deck he takes the risks of any damage or loss sustained as a consequence of their being so carried. In the present case it is indisputable that the goods were injured during the voyage and solely as a consequence of their being on deck, instead of in the ship’s hold. The loss must therefore fall on the owner. And this would be true, under the authorities, even though paragraph 19 of the bills of lading, quoted near the beginning of this opinion, had not been made a term of the contract.

It is undoubtedly true that, upon general principle, and momentarily ignoring paragraph 19 of these bills of lading, the ship’s owner might be held liable for any damage directly resulting from a negligent failure to exercise the care properly incident to the carriage of the merchandise on deck. For instance, if it had been improperly placed or secured, and had been swept overboard as a proximate result of such lack of care, the ship would be liable, to the same extent as if the cargo had been deliberately thrown over without justification. So, if it had been shown that, notwithstanding the stowage of these goods on deck, the damage

could have been prevented, by the exercise of proper skill and diligence in the discharge of the duties incumbent on the ship, the owner might still be held.

To put the point concretely, let it be supposed that a custom had been proved among mariners to protect deck cargo from the elements by putting a tarpaulin over it; or approaching still more to imaginable conditions in the present case, let it be supposed that the persons charged with the duty of transporting this cargo, being cognizant of the probability of damage by water, had negligently and without good reason failed to exercise reasonable care to protect it by covering it with tarpaulins. In such case it could hardly be denied that the ship’s company should be held liable for such damage as might have been avoided by the use of such precaution.

But it should be borne in mind in this connection that it is incumbent on the Plaintiff, if his cause of action is founded on negligence of this character, to allege and prove that the damage suffered was due to failure of the persons in charge of the cargo to use the diligence properly incident to carriage under these conditions.

In Clark vs. Barnwell (12 How. [U.S.], 272; 13 L. ed., 985), the Supreme Court distinguishes with great precision between the situation where the burden of proof is upon the shipowner to prove that the loss resulted from an excepted peril and that where the burden of proof is upon the owner of the cargo to prove that the loss was caused by negligence on the part of the persons employed in the conveyance of the goods. The first two syllabi in Clark vs. Barnwell read as follows:

“Where goods are shipped and the usual bill of lading given, ‘promising to deliver them in good order, the dangers of the seas excepted,’ and they are found to be damaged the onus probandi is upon the owners of the vessel, to show that the injury was occasioned by one of the excepted causes.

“But, although the injury may have been occasioned by one of the excepted causes, yet still the owners of the vessel are responsible if the injury might have been avoided, by the exercise of reasonable skill and attention on the part of the persons employed in the conveyance of the goods. But the onus probandi then becomes shifted upon the shipper, to show the negligence.

The case just referred to was one where cotton thread, put up in boxes, had deteriorated during a lengthy voyage in a warm climate, owing to dampness and humidity. In discussing the question of the responsibility of the ship’s owner, the court said:

“Notwithstanding, therefore, the proof was clear that the damage was occasioned by the effect of the humidity and dampness of the vessel, which is one of the dangers of navigation, it was competent for the libelants to show that the Respondents might have prevented it by proper skill and diligence in the discharge of their duties; but no such evidence is found in the record. For caught that appears every precaution was taken that is usual or customary, or known to shipmasters, to avoid the damage in question. And hence we are obliged to conclude that it is to be attributed exclusively to the dampness of the atmosphere of the vessel, without negligence or fault on the part of the master or owners.”

Exactly the same words might be used as applicable to the facts of the present case; and as it is apparent that the damage here was caused by rain and sea water — the risk of which is inherently incident to carriage on deck — the Defendant cannot be held liable. It is not permissible for the court, in the absence of any allegation or proof of negligence, to attribute negligence to the ship’s employees in the matter of protecting the goods from rains and storms. The complaint on the contrary clearly indicates that the damage done was due to the mere fact of carriage on deck, no other fault or delinquency on the part of anybody being alleged.

It will be observed that by the terms of paragraph 19 of the bills of lading, the ship is not to be held liable, in the case of goods signed for as carried on deck, for any loss or damage from any cause whatever.” We are not to be understood as holding that this provision would have protected the ship from liability for the consequences of negligent acts, if negligence had been alleged and proved. From the discussion in Manila Railroad Co. vs. Compania Transatlantica and Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co. (38 Phil. Rep., 875), it may be collected that the carrier would be held liable in such case, notwithstanding the exemption contained in

paragraph 19. But however that may be damages certainly cannot be recovered on the ground of negligence, even from a carrier, where negligence is neither alleged nor proved.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the Defendant is absolved from the complaint. No express pronouncement will be made as to the costs of either instance. SO ORDERED.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Araullo, Malcolm, Avanceña and Moir, JJ., concur.

EASTERN SHIPPING V. IAC

G.R. No. L-69044 May 29, 1987

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and DEVELOPMENT INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, respondents.

No. 71478 May 29, 1987

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.THE NISSHIN FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., and DOWA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD., respondents.

 

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

These two cases, both for the recovery of the value of cargo insurance, arose from the same incident, the sinking of the M/S ASIATICA when it caught fire, resulting in the total loss of ship and cargo.

The basic facts are not in controversy:

In G.R. No. 69044, sometime in or prior to June, 1977, the M/S ASIATICA, a vessel operated by petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., (referred to hereinafter as Petitioner Carrier) loaded at Kobe, Japan for transportation to Manila, 5,000 pieces of calorized lance pipes in 28 packages valued at P256,039.00 consigned to Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and 7 cases of spare parts valued at P92,361.75, consigned to Central Textile Mills, Inc. Both sets of goods were insured against marine risk for their stated value with respondent Development Insurance and Surety Corporation.

In G.R. No. 71478, during the same period, the same vessel took on board 128 cartons of garment fabrics and accessories, in two (2) containers, consigned to Mariveles Apparel Corporation, and two cases of surveying instruments consigned to Aman Enterprises and General Merchandise. The 128 cartons were insured for their stated value by respondent Nisshin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., for US $46,583.00, and the 2 cases by respondent Dowa Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., for US $11,385.00.

Enroute for Kobe, Japan, to Manila, the vessel caught fire and sank, resulting in the total loss of ship and cargo. The respective respondent Insurers paid the corresponding marine insurance values to the consignees concerned and were thus subrogated unto the rights of the latter as the insured.

G.R. NO. 69044

On May 11, 1978, respondent Development Insurance & Surety Corporation (Development Insurance, for short), having been subrogated unto the rights of the two insured companies, filed suit against petitioner Carrier for the recovery of the amounts it had paid to the insured before the then Court of First instance of Manila, Branch XXX (Civil Case No. 6087).

Petitioner-Carrier denied liability mainly on the ground that the loss was due to an extraordinary fortuitous event, hence, it is not liable under the law.

On August 31, 1979, the Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of Development Insurance in the amounts of P256,039.00 and P92,361.75, respectively, with legal interest, plus P35,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs. Petitioner Carrier took an appeal to the then Court of Appeals which, on August 14, 1984, affirmed.

Petitioner Carrier is now before us on a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

G.R. NO. 71478

On June 16, 1978, respondents Nisshin Fire & Marine Insurance Co. NISSHIN for short), and Dowa Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (DOWA, for brevity), as subrogees of the insured, filed suit against Petitioner Carrier for the recovery of the insured value of the cargo lost with the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch 11 (Civil Case No. 116151), imputing unseaworthiness of the ship and non-observance of extraordinary diligence by petitioner Carrier.

Petitioner Carrier denied liability on the principal grounds that the fire which caused the sinking of the ship is an exempting circumstance under Section 4(2) (b) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA); and that when the loss of fire is established, the burden of proving negligence of the vessel is shifted to the cargo shipper.

On September 15, 1980, the Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of NISSHIN and DOWA in the amounts of US $46,583.00 and US $11,385.00, respectively, with legal interest, plus attorney's fees of P5,000.00 and costs. On appeal by petitioner, the then Court of Appeals on September 10, 1984, affirmed with modification the Trial Court's judgment by decreasing the amount recoverable by DOWA to US $1,000.00 because of $500 per package limitation of liability under the COGSA.

Hence, this Petition for Review on certiorari by Petitioner Carrier.

Both Petitions were initially denied for lack of merit. G.R. No. 69044 on January 16, 1985 by the First Division, and G. R. No. 71478 on September 25, 1985 by the Second Division. Upon Petitioner Carrier's Motion for Reconsideration, however, G.R. No. 69044 was given due course on March 25, 1985, and the parties were required to submit their respective Memoranda, which they have done.

On the other hand, in G.R. No. 71478, Petitioner Carrier sought reconsideration of the Resolution denying the Petition for Review and moved for its consolidation with G.R. No. 69044, the lower-numbered case, which was then pending resolution with the First Division. The same was granted; the Resolution of the Second Division of September 25, 1985 was set aside and the Petition was given due course.

At the outset, we reject Petitioner Carrier's claim that it is not the operator of the M/S Asiatica but merely a charterer thereof. We note that in G.R. No. 69044, Petitioner Carrier stated in its Petition:

There are about 22 cases of the "ASIATICA" pending in various courts where various plaintiffs are represented by various counsel representing various consignees or insurance companies. The common defendant in these cases is petitioner herein, being the operator of said vessel. ... 1

Petitioner Carrier should be held bound to said admission. As a general rule, the facts alleged in a party's pleading are deemed admissions of that party and binding upon it. 2 And an admission in one pleading in one

action may be received in evidence against the pleader or his successor-in-interest on the trial of another action to which he is a party, in favor of a party to the latter action. 3

The threshold issues in both cases are: (1) which law should govern — the Civil Code provisions on Common carriers or the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act? and (2) who has the burden of proof to show negligence of the carrier?

On the Law Applicable

The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs the liability of the common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration. 4 As the cargoes in question were transported from Japan to the Philippines, the liability of Petitioner Carrier is governed primarily by the Civil Code. 5 However, in all matters not regulated by said Code, the rights and obligations of common carrier shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws. 6 Thus, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, a special law, is suppletory to the provisions of the Civil Code. 7

On the Burden of Proof

Under the Civil Code, common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods, according to all the circumstances of each case. 8 Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity;

xxx xxx xxx 9

Petitioner Carrier claims that the loss of the vessel by fire exempts it from liability under the phrase "natural disaster or calamity. " However, we are of the opinion that fire may not be considered a natural disaster or calamity. This must be so as it arises almost invariably from some act of man or by human means. 10 It does not fall within the category of an act of God unless caused by lightning 11 or by other natural disaster or calamity. 12 It may even be caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier. 13

Article 1680 of the Civil Code, which considers fire as an extraordinary fortuitous event refers to leases of rural lands where a reduction of the rent is allowed when more than one-half of the fruits have been lost due to such event, considering that the law adopts a protection policy towards agriculture. 14

As the peril of the fire is not comprehended within the exception in Article 1734, supra, Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that all cases than those mention in Article 1734, the common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it has observed the extraordinary deligence required by law.

In this case, the respective Insurers. as subrogees of the cargo shippers, have proven that the transported goods have been lost. Petitioner Carrier has also proved that the loss was caused by fire. The burden then is upon Petitioner Carrier to proved that it has exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law. In this regard, the Trial Court, concurred in by the Appellate Court, made the following Finding of fact:

The cargoes in question were, according to the witnesses defendant placed in hatches No, 2 and 3 cf the vessel, Boatswain Ernesto Pastrana noticed that smoke was coming out from hatch No. 2 and hatch No. 3; that where the smoke was noticed, the fire was already big; that the fire must have started twenty-four 24) our the same was noticed; that carbon dioxide was ordered released and the crew was ordered to open the hatch covers of No, 2 tor commencement of fire fighting by sea water: that all of these effort were not enough to control the fire.

Pursuant to Article 1733, common carriers are bound to extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods. The evidence of the defendant did not show that extraordinary vigilance was observed by the vessel to prevent the occurrence of fire at hatches numbers 2 and 3. Defendant's evidence did not likewise show he amount of diligence made by the crew, on orders, in the care of the cargoes. What appears is that after the cargoes were stored in the hatches, no regular inspection was made as to their condition during the voyage. Consequently, the crew could not have even explain what could have caused the fire. The defendant, in the Court's mind, failed to satisfactorily show that extraordinary vigilance and care had been made by the crew to prevent the occurrence of the fire. The defendant, as a common carrier, is liable to the consignees for said lack of deligence required of it under Article 1733 of the Civil Code. 15

Having failed to discharge the burden of proving that it had exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law, Petitioner Carrier cannot escape liability for the loss of the cargo.

And even if fire were to be considered a "natural disaster" within the meaning of Article 1734 of the Civil Code, it is required under Article 1739 of the same Code that the "natural disaster" must have been the "proximate and only cause of the loss," and that the carrier has "exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during or after the occurrence of the disaster. " This Petitioner Carrier has also failed to establish satisfactorily.

Nor may Petitioner Carrier seek refuge from liability under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, It is provided therein that:

Sec. 4(2). Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from

(b) Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier.

xxx xxx xxx

In this case, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, in effect, found, as a fact, that there was "actual fault" of the carrier shown by "lack of diligence" in that "when the smoke was noticed, the fire was already big; that the fire must have started twenty-four (24) hours before the same was noticed; " and that "after the cargoes were stored in the hatches, no regular inspection was made as to their condition during the voyage." The foregoing suffices to show that the circumstances under which the fire originated and spread are such as to show that Petitioner Carrier or its servants were negligent in connection therewith. Consequently, the complete defense afforded by the COGSA when loss results from fire is unavailing to Petitioner Carrier.

On the US $500 Per Package Limitation:

Petitioner Carrier avers that its liability if any, should not exceed US $500 per package as provided in section 4(5) of the COGSA, which reads:

(5) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the transportation of goods in an amount exceeding $500 per package lawful money of the United States, or in case of goods not shipped in packages, per customary freight unit, or the equivalent of that sum in other currency, unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in bill of lading. This declaration if embodied in the bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence, but all be conclusive on the carrier.

By agreement between the carrier, master or agent of the carrier, and the shipper another maximum amount than that mentioned in this paragraph may be fixed: Provided, That such

maximum shall not be less than the figure above named. In no event shall the carrier be Liable for more than the amount of damage actually sustained.

xxx xxx xxx

Article 1749 of the New Civil Code also allows the limitations of liability in this wise:

Art. 1749. A stipulation that the common carrier's liability as limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value, is binding.

It is to be noted that the Civil Code does not of itself limit the liability of the common carrier to a fixed amount per package although the Code expressly permits a stipulation limiting such liability. Thus, the COGSA which is suppletory to the provisions of the Civil Code, steps in and supplements the Code by establishing a statutory provision limiting the carrier's liability in the absence of a declaration of a higher value of the goods by the shipper in the bill of lading. The provisions of the Carriage of Goods by.Sea Act on limited liability are as much a part of a bill of lading as though physically in it and as much a part thereof as though placed therein by agreement of the parties. 16

In G.R. No. 69044, there is no stipulation in the respective Bills of Lading (Exhibits "C-2" and "I-3") 1 7 limiting the carrier's liability for the loss or destruction of the goods. Nor is there a declaration of a higher value of the goods. Hence, Petitioner Carrier's liability should not exceed US $500 per package, or its peso equivalent, at the time of payment of the value of the goods lost, but in no case "more than the amount of damage actually sustained."

The actual total loss for the 5,000 pieces of calorized lance pipes was P256,039 (Exhibit "C"), which was exactly the amount of the insurance coverage by Development Insurance (Exhibit "A"), and the amount affirmed to be paid by respondent Court. The goods were shipped in 28 packages (Exhibit "C-2") Multiplying 28 packages by $500 would result in a product of $14,000 which, at the current exchange rate of P20.44 to US $1, would be P286,160, or "more than the amount of damage actually sustained." Consequently, the aforestated amount of P256,039 should be upheld.

With respect to the seven (7) cases of spare parts (Exhibit "I-3"), their actual value was P92,361.75 (Exhibit "I"), which is likewise the insured value of the cargo (Exhibit "H") and amount was affirmed to be paid by respondent Court. however, multiplying seven (7) cases by $500 per package at the present prevailing rate of P20.44 to US $1 (US $3,500 x P20.44) would yield P71,540 only, which is the amount that should be paid by Petitioner Carrier for those spare parts, and not P92,361.75.

In G.R. No. 71478, in so far as the two (2) cases of surveying instruments are concerned, the amount awarded to DOWA which was already reduced to $1,000 by the Appellate Court following the statutory $500 liability per package, is in order.

In respect of the shipment of 128 cartons of garment fabrics in two (2) containers and insured with NISSHIN, the Appellate Court also limited Petitioner Carrier's liability to $500 per package and affirmed the award of $46,583 to NISSHIN. it multiplied 128 cartons (considered as COGSA packages) by $500 to arrive at the figure of $64,000, and explained that "since this amount is more than the insured value of the goods, that is $46,583, the Trial Court was correct in awarding said amount only for the 128 cartons, which amount is less than the maximum limitation of the carrier's liability."

We find no reversible error. The 128 cartons and not the two (2) containers should be considered as the shipping unit.

In Mitsui & Co., Ltd. vs. American Export Lines, Inc. 636 F 2d 807 (1981), the consignees of tin ingots and the shipper of floor covering brought action against the vessel owner and operator to recover for loss of ingots and floor covering, which had been shipped in vessel — supplied containers. The U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of New York rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed. The United States Court of Appeals, Second Division, modified and affirmed holding that:

When what would ordinarily be considered packages are shipped in a container supplied by the carrier and the number of such units is disclosed in the shipping documents, each of those units and not the container constitutes the "package" referred to in liability limitation provision of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 4(5), 46 U.S.C.A.& 1304(5).

Even if language and purposes of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act left doubt as to whether carrier-furnished containers whose contents are disclosed should be treated as packages, the interest in securing international uniformity would suggest that they should not be so treated. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 4(5), 46 U.S.C.A. 1304(5).

... After quoting the statement in Leather's Best, supra, 451 F 2d at 815, that treating a container as a package is inconsistent with the congressional purpose of establishing a reasonable minimum level of liability, Judge Beeks wrote, 414 F. Supp. at 907 (footnotes omitted):

Although this approach has not completely escaped criticism, there is, nonetheless, much to commend it. It gives needed recognition to the responsibility of the courts to construe and apply the statute as enacted, however great might be the temptation to "modernize" or reconstitute it by artful judicial gloss. If COGSA's package limitation scheme suffers from internal illness, Congress alone must undertake the surgery. There is, in this regard, obvious wisdom in the Ninth Circuit's conclusion in Hartford that technological advancements, whether or not forseeable by the COGSA promulgators, do not warrant a distortion or artificial construction of the statutory term "package." A ruling that these large reusable metal pieces of transport equipment qualify as COGSA packages — at least where, as here, they were carrier owned and supplied — would amount to just such a distortion.

Certainly, if the individual crates or cartons prepared by the shipper and containing his goods can rightly be considered "packages" standing by themselves, they do not suddenly lose that character upon being stowed in a carrier's container. I would liken these containers to detachable stowage compartments of the ship. They simply serve to divide the ship's overall cargo stowage space into smaller, more serviceable loci. Shippers' packages are quite literally "stowed" in the containers utilizing stevedoring practices and materials analogous to those employed in traditional on board stowage.

In Yeramex International v. S.S. Tando,, 1977 A.M.C. 1807 (E.D. Va.) rev'd on other grounds, 595 F 2nd 943 (4 Cir. 1979), another district with many maritime cases followed Judge Beeks' reasoning in Matsushita and similarly rejected the functional economics test. Judge Kellam held that when rolls of polyester goods are packed into cardboard cartons which are then placed in containers, the cartons and not the containers are the packages.

xxx xxx xxx

The case of Smithgreyhound v. M/V Eurygenes, 18 followed the Mitsui test:

Eurygenes concerned a shipment of stereo equipment packaged by the shipper into cartons which were then placed by the shipper into a carrier- furnished container. The number of cartons was disclosed to the carrier in the bill of lading. Eurygenes followed the Mitsui test

and treated the cartons, not the container, as the COGSA packages. However, Eurygenes indicated that a carrier could limit its liability to $500 per container if the bill of lading failed to disclose the number of cartons or units within the container, or if the parties indicated, in clear and unambiguous language, an agreement to treat the container as the package.

(Admiralty Litigation in Perpetuum: The Continuing Saga of Package Limitations and Third World Delivery Problems by Chester D. Hooper & Keith L. Flicker, published in Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 6, 1982-83, Number 1) (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, the Bill of Lading (Exhibit "A") disclosed the following data:

2 Containers

(128) Cartons)

Men's Garments Fabrics and Accessories Freight Prepaid

Say: Two (2) Containers Only.

Considering, therefore, that the Bill of Lading clearly disclosed the contents of the containers, the number of cartons or units, as well as the nature of the goods, and applying the ruling in the Mitsui and Eurygenes cases it is clear that the 128 cartons, not the two (2) containers should be considered as the shipping unit subject to the $500 limitation of liability.

True, the evidence does not disclose whether the containers involved herein were carrier-furnished or not. Usually, however, containers are provided by the carrier. 19 In this case, the probability is that they were so furnished for Petitioner Carrier was at liberty to pack and carry the goods in containers if they were not so packed. Thus, at the dorsal side of the Bill of Lading (Exhibit "A") appears the following stipulation in fine print:

11. (Use of Container) Where the goods receipt of which is acknowledged on the face of this Bill of Lading are not already packed into container(s) at the time of receipt, the Carrier shall be at liberty to pack and carry them in any type of container(s).

The foregoing would explain the use of the estimate "Say: Two (2) Containers Only" in the Bill of Lading, meaning that the goods could probably fit in two (2) containers only. It cannot mean that the shipper had furnished the containers for if so, "Two (2) Containers" appearing as the first entry would have sufficed. and if there is any ambiguity in the Bill of Lading, it is a cardinal principle in the construction of contracts that the interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. 20 This applies with even greater force in a contract of adhesion where a contract is already prepared and the other party merely adheres to it, like the Bill of Lading in this case, which is draw. up by the carrier. 21

On Alleged Denial of Opportunity to Present Deposition of Its Witnesses: (in G.R. No. 69044 only)

Petitioner Carrier claims that the Trial Court did not give it sufficient time to take the depositions of its witnesses in Japan by written interrogatories.

We do not agree. petitioner Carrier was given- full opportunity to present its evidence but it failed to do so. On this point, the Trial Court found:

xxx xxx xxx

Indeed, since after November 6, 1978, to August 27, 1979, not to mention the time from June 27, 1978, when its answer was prepared and filed in Court, until September 26, 1978, when the pre-trial conference was conducted for the last time, the defendant had more than nine months to prepare its evidence. Its belated notice to take deposition on written interrogatories of its witnesses in Japan, served upon the plaintiff on August 25th, just two days before the hearing set for August 27th, knowing fully well that it was its undertaking on July 11 the that the deposition of the witnesses would be dispensed with if by next time it had not yet been obtained, only proves the lack of merit of the defendant's motion for postponement, for which reason it deserves no sympathy from the Court in that regard. The defendant has told the Court since February 16, 1979, that it was going to take the deposition of its witnesses in Japan. Why did it take until August 25, 1979, or more than six months, to prepare its written interrogatories. Only the defendant itself is to blame for its failure to adduce evidence in support of its defenses.

xxx xxx xxx 22

Petitioner Carrier was afforded ample time to present its side of the case. 23 It cannot complain now that it was denied due process when the Trial Court rendered its Decision on the basis of the evidence adduced. What due process abhors is absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. 24

On the Award of Attorney's Fees:

Petitioner Carrier questions the award of attorney's fees. In both cases, respondent Court affirmed the award by the Trial Court of attorney's fees of P35,000.00 in favor of Development Insurance in G.R. No. 69044, and P5,000.00 in favor of NISSHIN and DOWA in G.R. No. 71478.

Courts being vested with discretion in fixing the amount of attorney's fees, it is believed that the amount of P5,000.00 would be more reasonable in G.R. No. 69044. The award of P5,000.00 in G.R. No. 71478 is affirmed.

WHEREFORE, 1) in G.R. No. 69044, the judgment is modified in that petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines shall pay the Development Insurance and Surety Corporation the amount of P256,039 for the twenty-eight (28) packages of calorized lance pipes, and P71,540 for the seven (7) cases of spare parts, with interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint on June 13, 1978, plus P5,000 as attorney's fees, and the costs.

2) In G.R.No.71478,the judgment is hereby affirmed.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Feliciano and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

 

 

Separate Opinions

 

YAP, J., concurring and dissenting:

With respect to G.R. No. 71478, the majority opinion holds that the 128 cartons of textile materials, and not the two (2) containers, should be considered as the shipping unit for the purpose of applying the $500.00 limitation under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA).

The majority opinion followed and applied the interpretation of the COGSA "package" limitation adopted by the Second Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, in Mitsui & Co., Ltd. vs. American Export Lines, Inc., 636 F. 2d 807 (1981) and the Smithgreyhound v. M/V Eurygenes, 666, F 2nd, 746. Both cases adopted the rule that carrier-furnished containers whose contents are fully disclosed are not "packages" within the meaning of Section 4 (5) of COGSA.

I cannot go along with the majority in applying the Mitsui and Eurygenes decisions to the present case, for the following reasons: (1) The facts in those cases differ materially from those obtaining in the present case; and (2) the rule laid down in those two cases is by no means settled doctrine.

In Mitsui and Eurygenes, the containers were supplied by the carrier or shipping company. In Mitsui the Court held: "Certainly, if the individual crates or cartons prepared by the shipper and containing his goods can rightly be considered "packages" standing by themselves, they do not suddenly lose that character upon being stowed in a carrier's container. I would liken these containers to detachable stowage compartments of the ship." Cartons or crates placed inside carrier-furnished containers are deemed stowed in the vessel itself, and do not lose their character as individual units simply by being placed inside container provided by the carrier, which are merely "detachable stowage compartments of the ship.

In the case at bar, there is no evidence showing that the two containers in question were carrier-supplied. This fact cannot be presumed. The facts of the case in fact show that this was the only shipment placed in containers. The other shipment involved in the case, consisting of surveying instruments, was packed in two "cases."

We cannot speculate on the meaning of the words "Say: Two (2) Containers Only, " which appear in the bill of lading. Absent any positive evidence on this point, we cannot say that those words constitute a mere estimate that the shipment could fit in two containers, thereby showing that when the goods were delivered by the shipper, they were not yet placed inside the containers and that it was the petitioner carrier which packed the goods into its own containers, as authorized under paragraph 11 on the dorsal side of the bill of lading, Exhibit A. Such assumption cannot be made in view of the following words clearly stamped in red ink on the face of the bill of lading: "Shipper's Load, Count and Seal Said to Contain." This clearly indicates that it was the shipper which loaded and counted the goods placed inside the container and sealed the latter.

The two containers were delivered by the shipper to the carrier already sealed for shipment, and the number of cartons said to be contained inside them was indicated in the bill of lading, on the mere say-so of the shipper. The freight paid to the carrier on the shipment was based on the measurement (by volume) of the two containers at $34.50 per cubic meter. The shipper must have saved on the freight charges by using containers for the shipment. Under the circumstances, it would be unfair to the carrier to have the limitation of its liability under COGSA fixed on the number of cartons inside the containers, rather than on the containers themselves, since the freight revenue was based on the latter.

The Mitsui and Eurygenes decisions are not the last word on the subject. The interpretation of the COGSA package limitation is in a state of flux, 1 as the courts continue to wrestle with the troublesome problem of applying the statutory limitation under COGSA to containerized shipments. The law was adopted before modern technological changes have revolutionized the shipping industry. There is need for the law itself to be updated to meet the changes brought about by the container revolution, but this is a task which should be addressed by the legislative body. Until then, this Court, while mindful of American jurisprudence on the subject, should make its own interpretation of the COGSA provisions, consistent with what is equitable to the parties concerned. There is need to balance the interests of the shipper and those of the carrier.

In the case at bar, the shipper opted to ship the goods in two containers, and paid freight charges based on the freight unit, i.e., cubic meters. The shipper did not declare the value of the shipment, for that would have entailed higher freight charges; instead of paying higher freight charges, the shipper protected itself by insuring the shipment. As subrogee, the insurance company can recover from the carrier only what the shipper itself is entitled to recover, not the amount it actually paid the shipper under the insurance policy.

In our view, under the circumstances, the container should be regarded as the shipping unit or "package" within the purview of COGSA. However, we realize that this may not be equitable as far as the shipper is concerned. If the container is not regarded as a "package" within the terms of COGSA, then, the $500.00 liability limitation should be based on "the customary freight unit." Sec. 4 (5) of COGSA provides that in case of goods not shipped in packages, the limit of the carrier's liability shall be $500.00 "per customary freight unit." In the case at bar, the petitioner's liability for the shipment in question based on "freight unit" would be $21,950.00 for the shipment of 43.9 cubic meters.

I concur with the rest of the decision.

Sarmiento, J., concur.

Footnotes

1 Petition, p. 6, Rollo of G.R. No. 69044, p. 15.

2 Granada vs. PNB, 18 SCRA 1 (1966); Gardner vs. CA, 131 SCRA 85 (1984)

3 p.51, Vol. 5, Rules of Court by Ruperto G. Martin, citing 31 C.J.S. 1075.

4 Article 1753, Civil Code.

5 See Samar Mining Co., Inc. vs. Nordeutscher Lloyd, 132 SCRA 529 (1984).

6 Art. 1766, Civil Code; Samar Mining Co. Inc. vs. Lloyd, supra.

7 See American President Lines vs. Klepper, 110 Phil. 243, 248 (1960).

8 Article 1733, Civil Code.

9 Article 1734, Civil Code.

10 Africa vs. Caltex Phil. 16 SCRA 448, 455 (1966).

11 Lloyd vs. Haugh & K. Storage & Transport Co., 293 Pa. 148, A 516; Forward v. Pittard, ITR 27, 99 Eng. Reprint, 953.

12 Article 1734, Civil Code.

13 Section 4, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

14 Manresa, cited in p. 147, V. Outline of the Civil Law, J.B.L. Reyes and R.C. Puno.

15 Decision, Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 67848-R, appealed in G.R. No. 71478.

16 Shackman v. Cunard White Star, D.C. N. Y. 1940, 31 F. Supp. 948. 46 USCA 866: cited in Phoenix Assurance Company vs. Macondray 64 SCRA 15 (1975),

17 Folio of Exhibits, pp. 6 and 23.

18 666 F. 2d 746, 1982 A.M.C. 320 (2d Circuits 1981).

19 A container is a permanent reusable article of transport equipment not packaging of goods durably made of metal, and equipped with doors for easy access to the goods and for repeated use. It is designed to facilitate the handling, loading, stowage aboard ship, carriage, discharge from ship, movement, and transfer of large numbers of packages simultaneously by mechanical means to minimize the cost and risks of manually processing each package individually, It functions primarily as ship's gear for cargo handling, and is usually provided by the carrier. (Simon, The Law of Shipping Containers) (Emphasis supplied).

20 Article 1377, Civil Code.

21 See Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union & Rock Ins. Co., Ltd., 98 Phil. 85 (1956).

22 Amended Record on Appeal, Annex "D," p. 62; Rollo in G.R. No. 69044, p. 89.

23 Associated Citizens Bank vs. Ople, 103 SCRA 130 (1981).

24 Tajonera vs. Lamaroza, 110 SCRA 438 (1981).

Yap, J.:

1 See R.M. Sharpe, Jr. and Mark E. Steiner, "The Container as Customary Freight Unit". Round Two of the Container Debate?", South Texas Law Journal Vol. 24, No. 2 (1983).

ASIA LIGHTERAGE V. CA

G.R. No. 147246            August 19, 2003

ASIA LIGHTERAGE AND SHIPPING, INC., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC., respondents.

PUNO, J.:

On appeal is the Court of Appeals' May 11, 2000 Decision1 in CA-G.R. CV No. 49195 and February 21, 2001 Resolution2 affirming with modification the April 6, 1994 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila which found petitioner liable to pay private respondent the amount of indemnity and attorney's fees.

First, the facts.

On June 13, 1990, 3,150 metric tons of Better Western White Wheat in bulk, valued at US$423,192.354 was shipped by Marubeni American Corporation of Portland, Oregon on board the vessel M/V NEO CYMBIDIUM V-26 for delivery to the consignee, General Milling Corporation in Manila, evidenced by Bill of Lading No. PTD/Man-4.5 The shipment was insured by the private respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. against loss or damage for P14,621,771.75 under Marine Cargo Risk Note RN 11859/90.6

On July 25, 1990, the carrying vessel arrived in Manila and the cargo was transferred to the custody of the petitioner Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. The petitioner was contracted by the consignee as carrier to deliver the cargo to consignee's warehouse at Bo. Ugong, Pasig City.

On August 15, 1990, 900 metric tons of the shipment was loaded on barge PSTSI III, evidenced by Lighterage Receipt No. 03647 for delivery to consignee. The cargo did not reach its destination.

It appears that on August 17, 1990, the transport of said cargo was suspended due to a warning of an incoming typhoon. On August 22, 1990, the petitioner proceeded to pull the barge to Engineering Island off Baseco to seek shelter from the approaching typhoon. PSTSI III was tied down to other barges which arrived ahead of it while weathering out the storm that night. A few days after, the barge developed a list because of a hole it sustained after hitting an unseen protuberance underneath the water. The petitioner filed a Marine Protest on August 28, 1990.8 It likewise secured the services of Gaspar Salvaging Corporation which refloated the barge.9 The hole was then patched with clay and cement.

The barge was then towed to ISLOFF terminal before it finally headed towards the consignee's wharf on September 5, 1990. Upon reaching the Sta. Mesa spillways, the barge again ran aground due to strong current. To avoid the complete sinking of the barge, a portion of the goods was transferred to three other barges.10

The next day, September 6, 1990, the towing bits of the barge broke. It sank completely, resulting in the total loss of the remaining cargo.11 A second Marine Protest was filed on September 7, 1990.12

On September 14, 1990, a bidding was conducted to dispose of the damaged wheat retrieved and loaded on the three other barges.13 The total proceeds from the sale of the salvaged cargo was P201,379.75.14

On the same date, September 14, 1990, consignee sent a claim letter to the petitioner, and another letter dated September 18, 1990 to the private respondent for the value of the lost cargo.

On January 30, 1991, the private respondent indemnified the consignee in the amount of P4,104,654.22.15 Thereafter, as subrogee, it sought recovery of said amount from the petitioner, but to no avail.

On July 3, 1991, the private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of indemnity, attorney's fees and cost of suit.16 Petitioner filed its answer with counterclaim.17

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the private respondent. The dispositive portion of its Decision states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Asia Lighterage & Shipping, Inc. liable to pay plaintiff Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co., Inc. the sum of P4,104,654.22 with interest from the date complaint was filed on July 3, 1991 until fully satisfied plus 10% of the amount awarded as and for attorney's fees. Defendant's counterclaim is hereby DISMISSED. With costs against defendant.18

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals insisting that it is not a common carrier. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in the sense that the salvage value of P201,379.75 shall be deducted from the amount of P4,104,654.22. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated June 3, 2000 was likewise denied by the appellate court in a Resolution promulgated on February 21, 2001.

Hence, this petition. Petitioner submits the following errors allegedly committed by the appellate court, viz:19

(1) THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE A QUO IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER IS A COMMON CARRIER.

(2) THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE A QUO IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE LOWER COURT A QUO THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL CODE APPLICABLE TO COMMON CARRIERS, "THE LOSS OF THE CARGO IS, THEREFORE, BORNE BY THE CARRIER IN ALL CASES EXCEPT IN THE FIVE (5) CASES ENUMERATED."

(3) THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE A QUO IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN IT EFFECTIVELY CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE AND/OR WAS NEGLIGENT IN ITS CARE AND CUSTODY OF THE CONSIGNEE'S CARGO.

The issues to be resolved are:

(1) Whether the petitioner is a common carrier; and,

(2) Assuming the petitioner is a common carrier, whether it exercised extraordinary diligence in its care and custody of the consignee's cargo.

On the first issue, we rule that petitioner is a common carrier.

Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.

Petitioner contends that it is not a common carrier but a private carrier. Allegedly, it has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no terminals, and issues no tickets. It points out that it is not obliged to carry indiscriminately for any person. It is not bound to carry goods unless it consents. In short, it does not hold out its services to the general public.20

We disagree.

In De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals,21 we held that the definition of common carriers in Article 1732 of the Civil Code makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity. We also did not distinguish between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Further, we ruled that Article 1732 does not distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the general public, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population.

In the case at bar, the principal business of the petitioner is that of lighterage and drayage22 and it offers its barges to the public for carrying or transporting goods by water for compensation. Petitioner is clearly a common carrier. In De Guzman, supra,23 we considered private respondent Ernesto Cendaña to be a common carrier even if his principal occupation was not the carriage of goods for others, but that of buying used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan and selling these items in Manila.

We therefore hold that petitioner is a common carrier whether its carrying of goods is done on an irregular rather than scheduled manner, and with an only limited clientele. A common carrier need not have fixed and publicly known routes. Neither does it have to maintain terminals or issue tickets.

To be sure, petitioner fits the test of a common carrier as laid down in Bascos vs. Court of Appeals.24 The test to determine a common carrier is "whether the given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted."25 In the case at bar, the petitioner admitted that it is engaged in the business of

shipping and lighterage,26 offering its barges to the public, despite its limited clientele for carrying or transporting goods by water for compensation.27

On the second issue, we uphold the findings of the lower courts that petitioner failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in its care and custody of the consignee's goods.

Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them.28 They are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated.29 To overcome the presumption of negligence in the case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Article 1734 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach:

Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;

(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;

(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;

(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;

(5) Order or act of competent public authority.

In the case at bar, the barge completely sank after its towing bits broke, resulting in the total loss of its cargo. Petitioner claims that this was caused by a typhoon, hence, it should not be held liable for the loss of the cargo. However, petitioner failed to prove that the typhoon is the proximate and only cause of the loss of the goods, and that it has exercised due diligence before, during and after the occurrence of the typhoon to prevent or minimize the loss.30 The evidence show that, even before the towing bits of the barge broke, it had already previously sustained damage when it hit a sunken object while docked at the Engineering Island. It even suffered a hole. Clearly, this could not be solely attributed to the typhoon. The partly-submerged vessel was refloated but its hole was patched with only clay and cement. The patch work was merely a provisional remedy, not enough for the barge to sail safely. Thus, when petitioner persisted to proceed with the voyage, it recklessly exposed the cargo to further damage. A portion of the cross-examination of Alfredo Cunanan, cargo-surveyor of Tan-Gatue Adjustment Co., Inc., states:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. DONN LEE:31

x x x           x x x           x x x

q     -     Can you tell us what else transpired after that incident?

a     -     After the first accident, through the initiative of the barge owners, they tried to pull out the barge from the place of the accident, and bring it to the anchor terminal for safety, then after deciding if the vessel is stabilized, they tried to pull it to the consignee's warehouse, now while on route another accident occurred, now this time the barge totally hitting something in the course.

q     -     You said there was another accident, can you tell the court the nature of the second accident?

a     -     The sinking, sir.

q     -     Can you tell the nature . . . can you tell the court, if you know what caused the sinking?

a     -     Mostly it was related to the first accident because there was already a whole (sic) on the bottom part of the barge.

x x x           x x x           x x x

This is not all. Petitioner still headed to the consignee's wharf despite knowledge of an incoming typhoon. During the time that the barge was heading towards the consignee's wharf on September 5, 1990, typhoon "Loleng" has already entered the Philippine area of responsibility.32 A part of the testimony of Robert Boyd, Cargo Operations Supervisor of the petitioner, reveals:

DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. LEE:33

x x x           x x x           x x x

q     -     Now, Mr. Witness, did it not occur to you it might be safer to just allow the Barge to lie where she was instead of towing it?

a     -     Since that time that the Barge was refloated, GMC (General Milling Corporation, the consignee) as I have said was in a hurry for their goods to be delivered at their Wharf since they needed badly the wheat that was loaded in PSTSI-3. It was needed badly by the consignee.

q     -     And this is the reason why you towed the Barge as you did?

a     -     Yes, sir.

x x x           x x x           x x x

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. IGNACIO:34

x x x           x x x           x x x

q     -     And then from ISLOFF Terminal you proceeded to the premises of the GMC? Am I correct?

a     -     The next day, in the morning, we hired for additional two (2) tugboats as I have stated.

q     -     Despite of the threats of an incoming typhoon as you testified a while ago?

a     -     It is already in an inner portion of Pasig River. The typhoon would be coming and it would be dangerous if we are in the vicinity of Manila Bay.

q     -     But the fact is, the typhoon was incoming? Yes or no?

a     -     Yes.

q     -     And yet as a standard operating procedure of your Company, you have to secure a sort of Certification to determine the weather condition, am I correct?

a     -     Yes, sir.

q     -     So, more or less, you had the knowledge of the incoming typhoon, right?

a     -     Yes, sir.

q     -     And yet you proceeded to the premises of the GMC?

a     -     ISLOFF Terminal is far from Manila Bay and anytime even with the typhoon if you are already inside the vicinity or inside Pasig entrance, it is a safe place to tow upstream.

Accordingly, the petitioner cannot invoke the occurrence of the typhoon as force majeure to escape liability for the loss sustained by the private respondent. Surely, meeting a typhoon head-on falls short of due diligence required from a common carrier. More importantly, the officers/employees themselves of petitioner admitted that when the towing bits of the vessel broke that caused its sinking and the total loss of the cargo upon reaching the Pasig River, it was no longer affected by the typhoon. The typhoon then is not the proximate cause of the loss of the cargo; a human factor, i.e., negligence had intervened.

IN VIEW THEREOF, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49195 dated May 11, 2000 and its Resolution dated February 21, 2001 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., on official leave.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 49-59.

2 Id., p. 61.

3 Id., pp. 71-73.

4 Exhibit "B," Records, p. 91.

5 Exhibit "A," id., p. 90.

6 Exhibits "I" and "I-1," id., pp. 107-108.

7 Exhibit "C," id., p. 92.

8 Exhibit "4," id., p. 144.

9 Exhibits "G-1" and "1-A," id., p. 100.

10 Exhibits "G-2" and "1-B," id., p. 101.

11 Ibid.

12 Exhibit "5," Records, p. 145.

13 Supra note 10.

14 Exhibits "G-3" and "1-C," Records, p. 102.

15 Exhibit "L," id., p. 110.

16 Id., pp. 1-4.

17 Id., pp. 21-22.

18 Id., p. 172.

19 Rollo, p. 22.

20 Id., pp. 147-150.

21 G.R. No. L-47822, 22 December 1988.

22 Rollo, p. 127.

23 See note 21.

24 G.R. No. 101089, 07 April 1993, 221 SCRA 318.

25 Id., pp. 323-324.

26 Rollo, p. 14.

27 Id., pp. 148-150.

28 Article 1733, Civil Code. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756.

29 Article 1735, Civil Code. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733.

30 Article 1739, Civil Code. In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility, the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. However, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of flood, storm or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be exempted from liability for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The same duty is incumbent upon the common carrier in case of an act of the public enemy referred to in article 1734, no. 2.

31 TSN, 04 March 1993, pp. 12-13.

32 Certification dated 02 August 1991 issued by the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical & Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), Exhibit "7," Records, p. 147.

33 TSN, 09 March 1993, pp. 70-71.

34 Id., pp. 76-77.

GOVERNMENT V. YNCHAUSTI

EN BANC

G.R. No. 14191           September 29, 1919

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellant, vs.YNCHAUSTI & COMPANY, defendant-appellee.

Attorney-General Paredes for the appellant.Charles C. Cohn for the appellee.

JOHNSON, J.:

The purpose of this action was to recover the sum of P200 as damages to certain cargo of roofing tiles shipped by the plaintiff from Manila to Iloilo on a vessel belonging to the defendant. The tiles were delivered by the defendant to the consignee of the plaintiff at Iloilo. Upon delivery it was found that some of the tiles had been damaged; that the damage amounted to about P200. Upon a submission of that question to the lower court a judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in favor of the defendant, absolving the latter from all liability under the complaint.

There seems to be no dispute about the facts, except whether or not the tiles were broken by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant denied that the tiles were broken by reason of its negligence. The defendant proved, and the plaintiff did not attempt to dispute, that the roofing tiles in question were of a brittle and fragile nature; that they were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant in bundles of ten each, tied with bejuco [rattan], without any packing or protective covering. The plaintiff did not even attempt to prove any negligence on the part of the defendant. On the hand, the defendant offered proof to show that there was no negligence on its part, by showing that the tiles were loaded, stowed, and discharged by handlabor, and not be mechanical devices which might have caused the breakage in question.

It appears from the record that the tiles in question were received by the defendant from the plaintiff, as representative on a Government bill of lading known as "General Form No. 9-A," which was made out and submitted by a representative of the Bureau of Supply to the defendant. (Exhibit A.) At the head of Exhibit A is found the following:

You are hereby authorized to receive, carry, and deliver the following described merchandise to treasurer of Iloilo at Iloilo in accordance with the authorized and prescribed rates and classifications, and according to the laws of common carriers in force on the date hereof, settlement and payment of charges to be made by Bureau of Supply. (Sgd.) T. R. SCHOON, Chief Division of Supplies, Bureau of Supply.

On the said bill of lading we find the following, which was attempted thereon by the defendant:

The goods have been accepted for transportation subject to the conditions prescribed by the Insular Collector of Customs in Philippine Marine Regulations, page 16, under the heading "Bill of Lading Conditions."

The lower court, in discussing the said bill of lading with the two conditions found thereon, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was bound by the terms of the bill of lading as issued by the defendant and not by the terms which the plaintiff attempted to impose, — that is to say, that such merchandise was to be carried at owner's risk only; that there was no presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant from the fact that the tiles were broken when received by the consignee; and that since the plaintiff did not prove

negligence on the part of the defendant, the former was not entitled to recover damages from the latter. The lower court rendered judgment absolving the defendant from all liability under the complaint.

The important questions presented by the appeal are: (a) Where the terms and conditions stamped by the defendant upon the Government's bill of lading binding upon the plaintiff? (b) Was there a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant?

The record shows that ever since the Government began to use the bill of lading, General Form No. 9-A, the shipowners had always used the "stamp" in question; that in the present case the defendant placed said stamp upon the bill of lading before the plaintiff shipped the tiles in question; that having shipped the goods under the said bill of lading, with the terms and conditions of the carriage stamped thereon, the appellant must be deemed to have assented to the said terms and conditions thereon stamped.

The appellant contends also that it was not bound by the terms and conditions inserted by the appellee, because (a) the reference made by the appellee to the "Philippine Marine Regulations" prescribed by the Collector of Customs was vague; that the appellee should have expressed the conditions fully and clearly on the face of the bill of lading; and (b) that the Insular Collector of Customs had no authority to issue such regulations.

As to the first contention, it seems that the appellant fully knew the import and significance of the reference made in said regulations. The appellant attempted to show that prior to the transaction in question the Government notified the defendant and other shipowners that it would not be bound by the "stamp" that was placed by the shipowners on the Government's bill of lading.

With reference to the contention of the appellant that the Collector of Customs had no authority to make such regulations, it may be said in the present case that the binding effect of the conditions stamped on the bill of lading did not proceed from the authority of the Collector of Customs but from the actual contract which the parties made in the present case. Each bill of lading is a contract and the parties thereto are bound by its terms.

Findings as we do that the tiles in question were shipped at the owner's risk, under the law in this jurisdiction, the carrier is only liable where the evidence shows that he was guilty of some negligence and that the damages claimed were the result of such negligence. As was said above, the plaintiff offered no proof whatever to show negligence on the part of the defendant.

The plaintiff cites some American authorities to support its contention that the carrier is an absolute insurer of merchandise shipped and that the proof of breakage or damage to goods shipped in the hands of the carrier makes out a prima facie case of negligence against him, and that the burden of proof is thrown on him to show due care and diligence.

The law upon that question in this jurisdiction is found in articles 361 and 362 of the Commercial Code. Article 361 provides:

ART. 361. Merchandise shall be transported at the risk and venture of the shipper, if the contrary be not expressly stipulated.

Therefore, all damages and impairment, suffered by the goods in transportation by reason of accident, force majeure, or by virtue of the nature or defect of the articles, shall be for the account and risk of the shipper.

The proof of these accidents is incumbent upon the carrier.

Article 362 provides:

ART. 362. The carrier, however, shall be liable for the losses and damages arising from the causes mentioned in the foregoing article, if it be proved against him that they occurred on account of his negligence or because he did not take the precautions usually adopted by careful persons, unless the shipper committed fraud in the bill of lading stating that the goods were of a class or quality different from what they really were. . . .

Under the provisions of article 361 the defendant, in order to free itself from liability, was only obliged to prove that the damages suffered by the goods were "by virtue of the nature or defect of the articles." Under the provisions of article 362 the plaintiff, in order to hold the defendant liable, was obliged to prove that the damages to the goods by virtue of their nature, occurred on account of its negligence or because the defendant did not take the precaution usually adopted by careful persons.

The defendant herein proved, and the plaintiff did not attempt to dispute, that the tiles in question were of a brittle and fragile nature and that they were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant without any packing or protective covering. The defendant also offered proof to show that there was no negligence on its part, by showing that the tiles were loaded, stowed, and discharged in a careful and diligent manner.

In this jurisdiction there is no presumption of negligence on the part of the carriers in case like the present. The plaintiff, not having proved negligence on the part of the defendant, is not entitled to recover damages.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Araullo, Street, Malcolm and Avanceña, JJ., concur.

SOUTHERN LINES V. CA

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16629             January 31, 1962

SOUTHERN LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and CITY OF ILOILO, respondents.

Jose Ma. Lopez Vito, Jr. for petitioner.The City Fiscal for respondents.

DE LEON, J.:

This is a petition to review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 15579-R affirming that of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo which sentenced petitioner Southern Lines, Inc. to pay respondent City of Iloilo the amount of P4,931.41.

Sometime in 1948, the City of Iloilo requisitioned for rice from the National Rice and Corn Corporation (hereafter referred to as NARIC) in Manila. On August 24 of the same year, NARIC, pursuant to the order, shipped 1,726 sacks of rice consigned to the City of Iloilo on board the SS "General Wright" belonging to the Southern Lines, Inc. Each sack of rice weighed 75 kilos and the entire shipment as indicated in the bill of lading had a total weight of 129,450 kilos. According to the bill of lading, the cost of the shipment was P63,115.50 itemized and computed as follows: .

Unit Price per bag P36.25 P62,567.50

Handling at P0.13 per bag 224.38

Trucking at P2.50 per bag 323.62

T o t a l . . . . . .. . . . . 63,115.50

On September 3, 1948, the City of Iloilo received the shipment and paid the amount of P63,115.50. However, it was noted that the foot of the bill of lading that the City of Iloilo 'Received the above mentioned merchandise apparently in same condition as when shipped, save as noted below: actually received 1685 sacks with a gross weight of 116,131 kilos upon actual weighing. Total shortage ascertained 13,319 kilos." The shortage was equivalent to 41 sacks of rice with a net weight of 13,319 kilos, the proportionate value of which was P6,486.35.

On February 14, 1951 the City of Iloilo filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against NARIC and the Southern Lines, Inc. for the recovery of the amount of P6,486.35 representing the value of the shortage of the shipment of rice. After trial, the lower court absolved NARIC from the complaint, but sentenced the Southern Lines, Inc. to pay the amount of P4,931.41 which is the difference between the sum of P6,486.35 and P1,554.94 representing the latter's counterclaim for handling and freight.

The Southern Lines, Inc. appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this petition for review.

The only question to be determined in this petition is whether or not the defendant-carrier, the herein petitioner, is liable for the loss or shortage of the rice shipped.

Article 361 of the Code of Commerce provides: .

ART. 361. — The merchandise shall be transported at the risk and venture of the shipper, if the contrary has not been expressly stipulated.

As a consequence, all the losses and deteriorations which the goods may suffer during the transportation by reason of fortuitous event, force majeure, or the inherent nature and defect of the goods, shall be for the account and risk of the shipper.1äwphï1.ñët

Proof of these accidents is incumbent upon the carrier.

Article 362 of the same Code provides: .

ART. 362. — Nevertheless, the carrier shall be liable for the losses and damages resulting from the causes mentioned in the preceding article if it is proved, as against him, that they arose through his negligence or by reason of his having failed to take the precautions which usage his establisbed among careful persons, unless the shipper has committed fraud in the bill of lading, representing the goods to be of a kind or quality different from what they really were.

If, notwithstanding the precautions referred to in this article, the goods transported run the risk of being lost, on account of their nature or by reason of unavoidable accident, there being no time for their owners to dispose of them, the carrier may proceed to sell them, placing them for this purpose at the disposal of the judicial authority or of the officials designated by special provisions.

Under the provisions of Article 361, the defendant-carrier in order to free itself from liability, was only obliged to prove that the damages suffered by the goods were "by virtue of the nature or defect of the

articles." Under the provisions of Article 362, the plaintiff, in order to hold the defendant liable, was obliged to prove that the damages to the goods by virtue of their nature, occurred on account of its negligence or because the defendant did not take the precaution adopted by careful persons. (Government v. Ynchausti & Co., 40 Phil. 219, 223).

Petitioner claims exemption from liability by contending that the shortage in the shipment of rice was due to such factors as the shrinkage, leakage or spillage of the rice on account of the bad condition of the sacks at the time it received the same and the negligence of the agents of respondent City of Iloilo in receiving the shipment. The contention is untenable, for, if the fact of improper packing is known to the carrier or his servants, or apparent upon ordinary observation, but it accepts the goods notwithstanding such condition, it is not relieved of liability for loss or injury resulting thereform. (9 Am Jur. 869.) Furthermore, according to the Court of Appeals, "appellant (petitioner) itself frankly admitted that the strings that tied the bags of rice were broken; some bags were with holes and plenty of rice were spilled inside the hull of the boat, and that the personnel of the boat collected no less than 26 sacks of rice which they had distributed among themselves." This finding, which is binding upon this Court, shows that the shortage resulted from the negligence of petitioner.

Invoking the provisions of Article 366 of the Code of Commerce and those of the bill of lading, petitioner further contends that respondent is precluded from filing an action for damages on account of its failure to present a claim within 24 hours from receipt of the shipment. It also cites the cases of Government v. Ynchausti & Co., 24 Phil. 315 and Triton Insurance Co. v. Jose, 33 Phil. 194, ruling to the effect that the requirement that the claim for damages must be made within 24 hours from delivery is a condition precedent to the accrual of the right of action to recover damages. These two cases above-cited are not applicable to the case at bar. In the first cited case, the plaintiff never presented any claim at all before filing the action. In the second case, there was payment of the transportation charges which precludes the presentation of any claim against the carrier. (See Article 366, Code of Commerce.) It is significant to note that in the American case of Hoye v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 13 Ann. Case. 414, it has been said: .

... "It has been held that a stipulation in the contract of shipment requiring the owner of the goods to present a notice of his claim to the carrier within a specified time after the goods have arrived at their destination is in the nature of a condition precedent to the owner's right to enforce a recovery, that he must show in the first instance that be has complied with the condition, or that the circumstances were such that to have complied with it would have required him to do an unreasonable thing. The weight of authority, however, sustains the view that such a stipulation is more in the nature of a limitation upon the owner's right to recovery, and that the burden of proof is accordingly on the carrier to show that the limitation was reasonable and in proper form or within the time stated." (Hutchinson on Carrier, 3d ed., par. 44) Emphasis supplied.

In the case at bar, the record shows that petitioner failed to plead this defense in its answer to respondent's complaint and, therefore, the same is deemed waived (Section 10, Rule 9, Rules of Court), and cannot be raised for the first time at the trial or on appeal. (Maxilom v. Tabotabo, 9 Phil. 390.) Moreover, as the Court of Appeals has said: .

... the records reveal that the appellee (respondent) filed the present action, within a reasonable time after the short delivery in the shipment of the rice was made. It should be recalled that the present action is one for the refund of the amount paid in excess, and not for damages or the recovery of the shortage; for admittedly the appellee (respondent) had paid the entire value of the 1726 sacks of rice, subject to subsequent adjustment, as to shortages or losses. The bill of lading does not at all limit the time for filing an action for the refund of money paid in excess.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed in all respects and the petition for certiorari denied.

With costs against the petitioner.

Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Dizon, JJ., concur.Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo and Paredes, JJ., took no part.

GANZON V. CA

G.R. No. L-48757 May 30, 1988

MAURO GANZON, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and GELACIO E. TUMAMBING, respondents.

Antonio B. Abinoja for petitioner.

Quijano, Arroyo & Padilla Law Office for respondents.

 

SARMIENTO, J.:

The private respondent instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila 1 an action against the petitioner for damages based on culpa contractual. The antecedent facts, as found by the respondent Court, 2 are undisputed:

On November 28, 1956, Gelacio Tumambing contracted the services of Mauro B. Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataan, to the port of Manila on board the lighter LCT "Batman" (Exhibit 1, Stipulation of Facts, Amended Record on Appeal, p. 38). Pursuant to that agreement, Mauro B. Ganzon sent his lighter "Batman" to Mariveles where it docked in three feet of water (t.s.n., September 28, 1972, p. 31). On December 1, 1956, Gelacio Tumambing delivered the scrap iron to defendant Filomeno Niza, captain of the lighter, for loading which was actually begun on the same date by the crew of the lighter under the captain's supervision. When about half of the scrap iron was already loaded (t.s.n., December 14, 1972, p. 20), Mayor Jose Advincula of Mariveles, Bataan, arrived and demanded P5,000.00 from Gelacio Tumambing. The latter resisted the shakedown and after a heated argument between them, Mayor Jose Advincula drew his gun and fired at Gelacio Tumambing (t.s.n., March 19, 1971, p. 9; September 28, 1972, pp. 6-7).<äre||anº•1àw> The gunshot was not fatal but Tumambing had to be taken to a hospital in Balanga, Bataan, for treatment (t.s.n., March 19, 1971, p. 13; September 28, 1972, p. 15).

After sometime, the loading of the scrap iron was resumed. But on December 4, 1956, Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, accompanied by three policemen, ordered captain Filomeno Niza and his crew to dump the scrap iron (t.s.n., June 16, 1972, pp. 8-9) where the lighter was docked (t.s.n., September 28, 1972, p. 31). The rest was brought to the compound of NASSCO (Record on Appeal, pp. 20-22). Later on Acting Mayor Rub issued a receipt stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap iron (Stipulation of Facts, Record on Appeal, p. 40; t.s.n., September 28, 1972, p. 10.)

On the basis of the above findings, the respondent Court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and a new one entered ordering defendant-appellee Mauro Ganzon to pay plaintiff-appellant Gelacio E. Tumambimg the sum of P5,895.00 as actual damages, the sum of P5,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the amount of P2,000.00 as attorney's fees. Costs against defendant-appellee Ganzon. 3

In this petition for review on certiorari, the alleged errors in the decision of the Court of Appeals are:

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS FINDING THE HEREIN PETITIONER GUILTY OF BREACH OF THE CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION AND IN IMPOSING A LIABILITY AGAINST HIM COMMENCING FROM THE TIME THE SCRAP WAS PLACED IN HIS CUSTODY AND CONTROL HAVE NO BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW.

II

THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN CONDEMNING THE PETITIONER FOR THE ACTS OF HIS EMPLOYEES IN DUMPING THE SCRAP INTO THE SEA DESPITE THAT IT WAS ORDERED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WITHOUT HIS PARTICIPATION.

III

THE APPELLATE COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE LOSS OF THE SCRAP WAS DUE TO A FORTUITOUS EVENT AND THE PETITIONER IS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR LOSSES AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF. 4

The petitioner, in his first assignment of error, insists that the scrap iron had not been unconditionally placed under his custody and control to make him liable. However, he completely agrees with the respondent Court's finding that on December 1, 1956, the private respondent delivered the scraps to Captain Filomeno Niza for loading in the lighter "Batman," That the petitioner, thru his employees, actually received the scraps is freely admitted. Significantly, there is not the slightest allegation or showing of any condition, qualification, or restriction accompanying the delivery by the private respondent-shipper of the scraps, or the receipt of the same by the petitioner. On the contrary, soon after the scraps were delivered to, and received by the petitioner-common carrier, loading was commenced.

By the said act of delivery, the scraps were unconditionally placed in the possession and control of the common carrier, and upon their receipt by the carrier for transportation, the contract of carriage was deemed perfected. Consequently, the petitioner-carrier's extraordinary responsibility for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods commenced. Pursuant to Art. 1736, such extraordinary responsibility would cease only upon the delivery, actual or constructive, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them. 5 The fact that part of the shipment had not been loaded on board the lighter did not impair the said contract of transportation as the goods remained in the custody and control of the carrier, albeit still unloaded.

The petitioner has failed to show that the loss of the scraps was due to any of the following causes enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code, namely:

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;

(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;

(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;

(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;

(5) Order or act of competent public authority.

Hence, the petitioner is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. 6 By reason of this presumption, the court is not even required to make an express finding of fault or negligence before it could hold the petitioner answerable for the breach of the contract of carriage. Still, the petitioner could have been

exempted from any liability had he been able to prove that he observed extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods in his custody, according to all the circumstances of the case, or that the loss was due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. As it was, there was hardly any attempt on the part of the petitioner to prove that he exercised such extraordinary diligence.

It is in the second and third assignments of error where the petitioner maintains that he is exempt from any liability because the loss of the scraps was due mainly to the intervention of the municipal officials of Mariveles which constitutes a caso fortuito as defined in Article 1174 of the Civil Code. 7

We cannot sustain the theory of caso fortuito. In the courts below, the petitioner's defense was that the loss of the scraps was due to an "order or act of competent public authority," and this contention was correctly passed upon by the Court of Appeals which ruled that:

... In the second place, before the appellee Ganzon could be absolved from responsibility on the ground that he was ordered by competent public authority to unload the scrap iron, it must be shown that Acting Mayor Basilio Rub had the power to issue the disputed order, or that it was lawful, or that it was issued under legal process of authority. The appellee failed to establish this. Indeed, no authority or power of the acting mayor to issue such an order was given in evidence. Neither has it been shown that the cargo of scrap iron belonged to the Municipality of Mariveles. What we have in the record is the stipulation of the parties that the cargo of scrap iron was accilmillated by the appellant through separate purchases here and there from private individuals (Record on Appeal, pp. 38-39). The fact remains that the order given by the acting mayor to dump the scrap iron into the sea was part of the pressure applied by Mayor Jose Advincula to shakedown the appellant for P5,000.00. The order of the acting mayor did not constitute valid authority for appellee Mauro Ganzon and his representatives to carry out.

Now the petitioner is changing his theory to caso fortuito. Such a change of theory on appeal we cannot, however, allow. In any case, the intervention of the municipal officials was not In any case, of a character that would render impossible the fulfillment by the carrier of its obligation. The petitioner was not duty bound to obey the illegal order to dump into the sea the scrap iron. Moreover, there is absence of sufficient proof that the issuance of the same order was attended with such force or intimidation as to completely overpower the will of the petitioner's employees. The mere difficulty in the fullfilment of the obligation is not considered force majeure. We agree with the private respondent that the scraps could have been properly unloaded at the shore or at the NASSCO compound, so that after the dispute with the local officials concerned was settled, the scraps could then be delivered in accordance with the contract of carriage.

There is no incompatibility between the Civil Code provisions on common carriers and Articles 361 8 and 362 9 of the Code of Commerce which were the basis for this Court's ruling in Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Ynchausti & Co.10 and which the petitioner invokes in tills petition. For Art. 1735 of the Civil Code, conversely stated, means that the shipper will suffer the losses and deterioration arising from the causes enumerated in Art. 1734; and in these instances, the burden of proving that damages were caused by the fault or negligence of the carrier rests upon him. However, the carrier must first establish that the loss or deterioration was occasioned by one of the excepted causes or was due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. Be that as it may, insofar as Art. 362 appears to require of the carrier only ordinary diligence, the same is .deemed to have been modified by Art. 1733 of the Civil Code.

Finding the award of actual and exemplary damages to be proper, the same will not be disturbed by us. Besides, these were not sufficiently controverted by the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED; the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.

This decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

Yap, C.J., Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur.

 

 

Separate Opinions

 

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:

I am constrained to dissent.

It is my view that petitioner can not be held liable in damages for the loss and destruction of the scrap iron. The loss of said cargo was due to an excepted cause an 'order or act of competent public authority" (Article 1734[5], Civil Code).

The loading of the scrap iron on the lighter had to be suspended because of Municipal Mayor Jose Advincula's intervention, who was a "competent public authority." Petitioner had no control over the situation as, in fact, Tumambing himself, the owner of the cargo, was impotent to stop the "act' of said official and even suffered a gunshot wound on the occasion.

When loading was resumed, this time it was Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, accompanied by three policemen, who ordered the dumping of the scrap iron into the sea right where the lighter was docked in three feet of water. Again, could the captain of the lighter and his crew have defied said order?

Through the "order" or "act" of "competent public authority," therefore, the performance of a contractual obligation was rendered impossible. The scrap iron that was dumped into the sea was "destroyed" while the rest of the cargo was "seized." The seizure is evidenced by the receipt issues by Acting Mayor Rub stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap iron. Apparently, therefore, the seizure and destruction of the goods was done under legal process or authority so that petitioner should be freed from responsibility.

Art. 1743. If through order of public authority the goods are seized or destroyed, the common carrier is not responsible, provided said public authority had power to issue the order.

 

Footnotes

1 Presided by Judge Jesus P. Morfe

2 Pascual, Chairman, ponente; Agrava and Climaco, JJ., concurring.

3 Decision, 9; Rollo 19.

4 Petitioner's Brief, 3, 7, 9; Rollo, 41.

5 Article 1736, Civil Code of the Philippines:

Art. 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the

consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of article 1738.

6 Article 1735, supra.

Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733.

7 Art. 11 74, supra:

Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which though for foreseen were inevitable.

8 Article 361, Code of Commerce:

Art. 361. The merchandise shall be transported at the risk and venture of the shipper, if the contrary has not been expressly stipulated.

As a consequence, all the losses and deterioration which the goods may suffer during the transportation by reason of fortuitous event, force majeure, or the inherent nature and defect of the goods, shall be for the account and risk of the shipper.

Proof of these accidents is incumbent upon the carrier.

9 Article 362, Code of Commerce:

Art. 362. Nevertheless, the carrier shall be liable for the losses and damages resulting from the causes mentioned in the preceding article if it is proved, as against him, that they arose through his negligence or by reason of his having failed to take the precautions which usage has established among careful persons, unless the shipper has committed fraud in the bill of lading, representing the goods to be of a kind or quality different from what they really were.

If, notwithstanding the precautions referred to in to article, the goods transported run the risk of being lost, on account of their nature or by reason of unavoidable accident, there being no time for their owners to dispose of them, the carrier may proceed to sell them, placing them for this purpose at the disposal of the judicial authority or of the officials designated by special provisions.

10 No. 14191, September 29, 1919, 40 Phil. 219.