ART.

1744-1754
MENDOZA v. Contract of Transportation by air may be regarded as commercial, because the transpo WON MENDOZA CAN RECOVER DAMAGES AGAINST PAL
PAL company is a common carrier. Besides, air transpo is clearly similar to lad and water [NO]
transpo
COURT: won transportation y air should be regarded as commercial contract
UNFORSEEN DAMAGES under Art. 349 of Code of Commerce, it would be IMMATERIAL
 PAL cannot be held liable for damages where it could have not been foreseen  Court is inclined to believe thata contract of transportation by air
the damages that would have suffered by the plaintiff upon failure to deliver may be regarded as commercial
the can of film  because the transpo company like PAL is a common carrier . Besides,
o For reason that the plans of plaintiff to exhibit the film during the air transpo is clearly similar to lad and water transpo
fiesta and his preparation, and advertisement were not called to the  non inclusion in the Code of Commerce> transo
PAL’s attention by ar on commercial basis was not yet known

RIGHT TO PROMT DELIVERY DAMAGES: UNER ART 1107 OF NCC

 COmmon carriers are not obligated by law to carry and to deliver
merchandise, and persons are not vested with the right to prompt delivery
o UNLESS such common carrier previously assume the obligation
 Said rights and obligations are created by specific contract entered into by the
parties
DAMAGES; PROMPT DELIVERY
 Failure to exhibit the films on a certain day would spells substantial waste of
efforts and expenses, exhibitors may get hold of the film well ahead of time of
exhibition, or else enter into a special contract or make arrangement with the
carrier for the prompt delivery of the film
o Calling the attention of the carrier to the circumstances surrounding
the case and the approximate amount of damages to be suffered in
case of delay
 debtor in good faith may be held liable only for damages that
were foreseen or might have been foreeen at the time of
contartc of transportation was entered into
 trial court correcty ruled that PAL could not have foreseen the
damages that would be suffered by Mendoza upon failure to deliver
the can of film the 17th
o IT WAS NOT CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF PAL
THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMON CARRIER SHOULD BE CALLED TO THE
NATURE OF THE ARTICLES SHIPPED. PURPOSE OF SHIPMENT AND
DESIRE TO RUSH
 ABSENT IN THE PRESENT CASE

JOSE MENDOZA WAS THE OWNER OF CITA THEATER IN NAGA CITY

 Plans to exhibit film during the town fiesta, for Saint Virgin of Pena Frnacia SUING ON TORT
 HE CONTRACTED WITH LVN PICTURES> for him to show the film “HIMALA
NG BIRHEN”
 He had EXTENSIVE PREPARATIONS
o Had posters printed and distributed
o Advertisments

PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT, LVN PICTIRES DELIVERED TO DEFENDANT PAL A

CAN CONTAINING THE FILM
 PAL carried passengers and cargo, MLA to PILI
 The can of film was load to flight 113
 The plane arrived at Pili Airport
 BUT FOR REASON NOT EXPLAINED, but which would appear to the fault of
the employees of PAL > the can was not unloaded at Pili and was brought
back to MLA

MENDOZA WAS ABLE TO LOCATE THE FILM ON THE 18th and SHIPPED ON 20tH
 But he missed his opportunity to realize a large profit
 Not able to show it on the 17th and 18th
 Thus he brought action against PAL to recoup his losses
 PAL CLAIMS THAT IT HAS NO OBLIGATION TO CARRY THE FILM ON ANY SPECIFIED
TIME
 Thus cannot be held liable gor the delay of 3 days
TC: inasmuch there are damages suffered by Mendoza were not foreseen or could not
have been foreseen at the time PAL accepted the can of film for shipment, NEITHER
LVN NOT MENDOZA HAD CALLED ITS ATTENTION TO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE
 THUS MENDOZA MAY NOT RECOVER DAMAGES
MARITIME CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT; SHIP AGENT
COMPANY v.  FACTS ESTABLSIHED PREPONDERANTLY DEMONSTRATE THE CHARACTER
CA OF MARITME CO. AS A SHIP AGENT UNDER THE CODE OF COMMERCE
o Evidence estblaished that NDC had appointed Martimie Coo as its
agnet to mange and operate its 3 vessels , including SS Dona Nati
Rizal Surety sued NDC and Maritime Co for the RECOVERY OF SUM OF MONEY
 Money paid by RIZAL SRUETY as INSURER for the VALUE OF GOODS LOST
IN TRANSIT on BOARD of SS DONA NATI
ACCORDING TO RTC:
 RIZAL SURETY was the insurer of 800 packages of PVC compound loaded on
SS DONA NATI
 SS Dona Nati was OWNED by NDC whereas MARITIME CO was its AGENT
o As appears in the bill of lading
 GOODS WERE NEVER DELIVERED TO THE CONSIGNEE> ACME ELECTRICAL
o Rizal as Insurer paid Acme
 CAUSE OF NON DELIVERY
o In NAGOYA BAY, SS DONA NATI WAS RAMMED BY MV
YASHUSHIMA MARU > causing damage to hul Dona Nati and the
flooding damaged the goods beyond repair
 UNDER THE CODE OF COMMERCE
o It would be the vessel at fault in the collision > responsible for
the damage to the cargo
o Evidence show that MV Yasushima was at faukt
RTC: NDC and Maritime Co NOT LIABLE
CA: REVERSED> NDC and Maritime Co liable to Rizal Surety
WON MARITIME CO IS LIABLE TO RIZAL SURETY
[YES]
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NDC HAD APPOINTED MARITIME CO AS ITS
AGNET TO MANAGE AND OPERATE ITS VESSELS [INCLUDING SS DONA
NATI]
 Under the agreement
 These facts PREPODERANTLY DEMONSTRATE THE CHARACTER
OF MARITIME AS SHIP AGENT under the Code of Commerce
BUT MARITIME INSISTS THAT IS WAS NOT A SHIP AGENT OF NDC IN
JAPAN
 But Fuji Asanno Co is the agent
 HOWEVER THIS CLAIM IS BELIED BY THE BILL OF LADING
o Shows that Maritime as the Agent of NDC in the MAIN
LETTER HEAD
o Fuji ASsana and North American Maritime> SUB AGENTS
ACME AS THE CONSIGNEE
 no question to its entitlement to the proceeds of the insurance
againt the loss of the goods in question
 THUS, RIZAL SURETY WAS SUBROGATED TO ACME;S RIGHTS
AGAINST THE SHIPOWNER AND THE SHIP AGENT FROM THE LOSS
OF THE GOODS
o When rizal as insurer paid Acme for the loss
UNDER ART 1753 OF NCC
 ACME’S RIGHT ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY CC, NOT BY CODE
OF COMMERCE
 DERIVED FROM ART 1753
o IT IS THE LAW OF THE COUNTRY TO WHICH THE
GOODS ARE TO BE TRANSPORTED WHICH SHALL
GOVERN THE LIABILITY OF THE COMMON CARRIER
FOR THE LOSS, DESTRUCTION OR DETERIORATION
 Only the matters not regulated by CC that rights and obligations of
common carriers be goverened by Code of Commerce
 Provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act are MERELY
SUPPLETORY TO THE CIVIL CODE

DE GUZMAN v. DEIFINITION OF ART 17732 MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PERSON OR
CA ENTERPRISE OFFERING TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ON A REGUALR OR SCHEDULED
BASIS AND SUCH SERVICE ON AN OCCASIONAL, EPISODIC, OR UNSCHEDULED BASIS
CONCEPT OF COMMON CARRIER > under 1732 coincides with the notion of “PUBLIC
SERVICE” under Public Service Act
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENE is NOT A REQUISITE FOR THE INCURIING OF
LIABILITY under PROVISONS OF CC GOVERNING COMMON CARRIERS
LIABILITY OF COMMON CARRIERS
 In case of LOSS,DESTRUCTION or DETERIORATION of GOOD
 Nature of Business and Reasons of Public Policy > Common Carriers are held to
a very high degree of care and diligence> EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
 GENARAL RULE and EXCEPTION under 1734
 1735: causes falling utside the list, even if they are cuased byb force majeure
HIJACKING DOES NOT FALL UNDER 1734
 But may be under 1735
 Thus PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE APPLIES
o But thepresumption may be overthrown by proof of extraordinary
diligence on the part of private respondent
RESPONDENT CANEDA WAS A JUNK DEALER
 Buys in Pangasinan> brings to Manila for resale
 Uses 2 six wheelers trucks
 He charged rate lower than regular commercial rates
PETITIONER DE GUZMAN, A MERCHANT, CONTRACTED CANEDA FOR HAULING 750
CARTINS OF LIVERTY MILK
 From Makati to Urdaneta on or before Dec. 4 1970
UNDER THE ESTBALISHED FACTS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ART.
1734
 MARITIME AND NDC AS “COMMON CARRIERS” ARE LIABLE TO
ACME FOR “LOSS DESTRUCTION OR DETERIORATION OF THE
GOODS”
 ONLY RELIVED OF RESPONSIBILITY if loss is due to:
1. Calamity
2. Act of public enemy
3. Act/omission of the shipper/owner of goods
4. Character of the goods/defects in the packaging or in
the containers
5. Orders /act of competent public authorit
NONE OF THE CAUSES UNDER 1734 IS PRESENT IN THE CASE
NOR CAN BE CLIAMED THAT FAULT IS ENTIRELY TO MV YASUSHIMA
CA found that Dona NAti did not exercise due diligence to avoid the collision
WON CANEDA IS CONSIDERED AS A COMMON CARRIER UNDER THE LAW
CC: COMMON CARRIERS >” ARE PERSONS, CORPORATIONS, FIRMS OR
ASSOCATIONS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CARRYING OR
TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS OR GOODS OR BOTH, BY LAND, WATER OR
AIR FOR COMPESNATION OFFERING THEIR SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC”
1732 MAKES NO DISTINCTION
 BETWEEN WHOSE principal business activity is carrying persons or
goods and ONE who does carrying only as ANCILLAY ACTIVITY
“SIDELINE”
 NO distinction between a person or enterprise offing transpo
service on a REGULAR or SCHEDULED bAsis and One offering on
OCCASSIONAL, EPISODIC, and UNSCHEDULED BASIES
 NO distinction on offering service to “GENERAL PUBLIC” and for a
NORROW SEGMENT of the population
1732 COINCIDE WITH THE NOTION OF “PUBLIC SERVICE” UNDER PUBLIC
ASERVICE ACT
EVEN OF NO CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
 The certificate is not a requisite for incurring liability under the
provisions of CC governing common carriers
 To require such is against public policy> seem to be reward fir
failing to comply with such requirement
LAIBILITY OF CANEDA AS COMMON CARRIER
 EXTRAORDINARY DLIGENCE IS EXPECTED> care of goods and
passengers
o By nature of business and for reason of public policy
1734: liability for loss, destruction or deterioration of Goods
  Dec. 1 , Caneda loaded the merchandise on his truck: 150 in one truck,600 to
the other
150 CARTS WERE DELIVERED ; BUT THE OTHER 600 NEVER REACHED DE GUZMAN
 Since the truck was HIJACKED SOMEWHERE ALONG MACARTHUR
HIGHWAY in PANIQUI, TARLAC > by armed men
DE GUZMAN FILED AN ACTION AGAINST CANEDA> DEMANDING PAYMENT P22K>
VALUE OF LOST MERCHANDISE
 Claimed that Caneda failed to exercise extraordinary diligence required by
law
CANEDA CLAIMED THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE VALUE OF GOODS LOST
BECAUSE IT WAS CUASED BY FORCE MAJEURE
TC: CANEDA AS COMMON CARRIER > LIABLE
CA: CANEDA IS NOT A COMMON CARRIER> LOAD FREIGHT AS A “CASUAL
OCCUPATION”
 Exception: fuve exceptions
 EXCLUSIVE LIST
o Those not falling under the list > falls within 1735
HIJACKING DOES NOT FALL UNDER 1734
 IT FOLLOWS THAT IT MUST BE DEALT UNDER 1735
 Thus Respodent is presumed to be at fault and acted negligently
o But such presumption can be overthrown by proof of
extraordinary diligence on the part of respondent
 Petitioner: respondent should have hired security guards
o COURT DOES NOT AGREE> security guard > not
extraordinary diligence
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN THE VIGILANCE OVER GOODS > in the
context of hijacking or armed robbery
 Under 1745 (6): common cariers are held responsible and not
allowed to diminish liability even when on acts of strnagers/thieves
o EXCEPT WEN ROOBERS ACTED WITH GRAVE OR
IRRISTIBLE THREAT,VIOLENCE
 COURT: THE LIMITS OF DUTY OF EXTRAORIDNARY DILIGENCE
IS REACHED WHER THE GOODS ARE LOST AS A RESULT OF A
ROBBERY ATTENDED BY GRAVE THREAT,VIOLENCE OR MORE
In the instant case: ARMED MEM HELD THE SECOND TRUCK> SHOWN IN
THE RECORDS
 Grave hthreat,violence or force were applied
 The roober not only took away the truck and cargo but also
KIDNAPPED The DRIVER and hleder for sevral days
 They were convicted
THE LOSS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE COMMON CARRIER> REGARDED
AS FORTUITOUS EVENT
 COMMON CARRIERS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE INSURERS AGAINST
ALL RISKS OF TRAVELS/TRASPORT OF GOODS
BASCOS v. CA DEFINITION OF COMMON CARRIER UNDER 1732
 TEST TO DETERMINE A COMMON CARRIER IS > WHETHER THE GIVEN
UNDERTAKIG IS A PART OF THE BUSINESS ENGAGED IN BY THE CARRIER
WHICH IS HELD OUT TO THE PUBLIC
o AS HIS OCCUPATION rather than the quantity or extent of the
business trasacted
o GIVEN UNDERTAKIG IS A PART OF THE BUSINESS ENGAGED IN
NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN PERSON OFFERINGS SERVICE ON REGUALR BASIS AND
THOSE ON OCCASSIONAL BASIS
OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE + PRESUMPTION OF
NEGLIGENCE
LIABILITY ARISING FROM HIJACKING
 In connection to 1745
CIPRIANO of CIPTRADE entered into a HAULING CONTRACT with JIBFAU SHIPPING
 CIPTRADE will haul JIBAFIR’200 m/tons of soya bean meal from Manula to
LAGUNA
 Ciptrade subcontracted petitioner Bascos to transport 400 sacks
worthP156k
 BASCOS FAILED TO DELIVER THE CARGO
 AS A CONSEQUCNCE, CIPRAINO PAID JIBFAIR THE VALUE OF LOST GOODS
CIPRIANO DEMANDED REIMBURSEMENT FROM BASCOS
 Bascos refused
 Bascos claimed > NO CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE since Ciptrade leased the
cargo truck
 The truck was HIJACKED> which was immediately reported to CIPTRADE
and the police
 Being force majeure> no liability to CIPTRADE
TC: Bascos liable
WON BASCOS IS A COMMON CARRIER; WON HIJACKING IS FORCE
MAJEURE
BASCOS IS A COMMON CARRIER
 Definition of Common Carrier under 1732
 TEST TO DETERMINE A COMMON CARRIER IS > WHETHER THE
BY THE CARRIER WHICH IS HELD OUT TO THE PUBLIC
o AS HIS OCCUPATION rather than the quantity or extent
of the business trasacted
 In this case, Basos had admitted that she is in the TRUCKING
BUSINESS
o JUDICIAL ADMISSION ARE CONCLUSIVE AND NO
EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED
 ARGUMEt: contract of lease> because they only offer service to a
select group of people
o LAW DOS NOT MAKE ANY DISTINTCION: REGUALR BASIS
OR OCCASIONAL BASIS/EPISODIC/UNSCHEDULED;
GENERAL VS SELECT GROUP
LOSS OF GOODS WERE NOT CAUSED BY FORCE MAJEURE
 IN HIJACKING> must be proven that the robbers acted with
GRAVE/IRRISTIBLE FORCE, THREAT, VIOLENCE, or MORE
 Under 1745> cannot diminish liability for acts committed by
thieve who do not act wth grave threat, etc.
ONLY EVIDENCE SHOWN > Affidavit of Bascos, and Slaysay of Morden
 Not enough to overcome the presumption of negligence
 NOT A FIRST HAND ACCOUNT
FIRST PH COMMON CARRIERS> HELD HIMSELF OUT TO THE PUBLIC AS ENGAED IN THE
INDUSTRIAL BUSNES OF TRANSPORTING PERSONS OR PROERTY FROM APLACE TO PLACE, FOR
CORP v. CA COMPENSATION , OFFERING HIS SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC GENERALLY
TEST OF DETERMINING A PARTY AS A COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS
1. MUST BE ENAGGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CARRYING GOODS FOR OTHERS AS
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
> HOLD HIMSLEF OUT AS READY TO ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF
GOODS/ NOT AS A CASUA OCCUPATION
2. MUST UNDERTAKE TO CARRY GOODSWHICH HIS BUSINESS IS CONFINED
3. Method
4. Be for HIRE
FACT OF LIMITED CIENTELE DOES NOT EXCLUDE ITFROM DEFINITION OF COMMON
CARRIER
DEFINITION UNDER NC MAKES NO DISTINCTION AS TO THE MEANS : LAND AIR
WATER
PETITIOENR FPIC IS A GRNATEE OF A PIPELINE CONCESSION > INSTALL AND
OPERATE OIL PIPELINE
 Paid local tax under protest
 Claimed it is exempt from Local taxes
 Claimed that Transportation contractors are not included in the
enumeration of contractors unde LGC
WON FPIC IS A COMMON CARIER OR A TRANSPORTATION CARRIER
COOMON CARRIER UNDER 1732
 ANY PERSON, CORPORATION, FIRM OR ASSOCAITION ENAGED
IN THE BUSINESS OF CARRYING OR TRANPORTING
PASSENGERS, GOODS OR BOTH BY LAND,AIR OR WATER, FOR
COMPENSATION, OFFERING THEIR SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC
TEST OF DETERMINING A COMMONC ARRIER
1. MUST BE ENAGGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CARRYING GOODS FOR
OTHERS AS PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
> holds himslef out as ready to engaged in the transportation of goods
generally as a business and not as a casua occupation
2. MUST UNDERTAKE TO CARRY GOODSWHICH HIS BUSINESS IS
CONFINED
3. Method
4. TRANSPO Be for HIRE
NO DOUBT THAT FPIC IS A COMMON CARRIER
 Engaged in the business of transporting/carrying petroleum
products for hire as a public employment
 Undertakes to carry for all person indifferently to al persons who
choose to employ its service
 Transports the goods by land
 For compensation

RESPONDENT BATANGAS CONTENDS
 Petitioner cannot be exmept from local taxes
 exemption only applies to “TRANPORTATION CONTRACTORS AND
PERSONS ENGAGED N TRANSPORTATION FOR HIRE AND COMMON
CARRIERS BY AIR,LAND WATER
o pipelines are not included in “common carriers”
THE FACT THAT IT HAS LIMITED CLIENTELE DOES NOT EXCLUDE IT
FROM THE DEFINITION PF COMMON CARRIER
 De Guzman v. CA: LAW MAKES NO DISNTINCTION
o Offers to the general public v. limited or specific group of
people
COMMON CARRIERS UNDER CC MAKES NO DISTINCTIO AS TO THE
MEANS OF TRANPORATION
 By land water air
 Does not provide that the transportation of passengers or goods
should be by motor vehicle
o IN the US, pipelines are considered common carriers
 BIR ALSO CONSIDERES FPIC as COMMON CARRIERS > eneged in the
transpo of petroleum

THEREFORE, EXEMPT FROM TAXES UNDER LGC

ANNOTATION:
OIL PIPELINE
OWNER,
COMMON
CARRIER?
CALVO v. UCPB CUSTOMS BROKER IS A COMMON CARRIER
INSURANCE  DEFINITION UNDER 1732 COINCIDES WITH NOTION OF “PUBLIC SERVICE”
UNDER PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
GREATER REASON TO HOLD C/B AS C/C = TRASPORTATION OF GOODS IS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESS
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE> FROM NATURE OF BUSINESS AND REAOSN OF PUBLIC
POLICY
 FOR C/B TO PROVE> must be more than merely showing the possibility that
some other party could be responsible for damages
IMPROPER PACKING OR DEFECTS IN CONTAINER ARE KNOWN TO THE
CARRIER/EMPLOYEE OR APPARENT UPON ORDINARY OBSERVATION >BUT
NEVERTHELESS ACCPETS WITHOUT PROTEST = C/C IS NOT RELIEVED FROM
LIABILITY
CALVO IS THE OWNER OF TRANSORIENT CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICE
 A SOLE PROPERIETOR CUSTOMS BROKER
 Contract with San Miguel > transfer of 144 reels of semi chemical fluting
apper and 124 reels of kraft liner board > Manila Prt to Ermita Manila SMC
warehouse
30 METAL VANS ARRIVED IN MANILA VIA MV HAYAKAWA MARU
 Unloaded after 24 hours> to the custody of Manila Port Service, arraster
 From july 23 to 25, 1990 > CLAO WITHDREW THE CARGO FROM MANILA
PORT
 Upon inspection of Marine Cargo Surveyors> 15 reels of fluting paper were
“wet/stained/torn” and 3 reels of kraft line likewise wre torn
 Damage of P93k
SMC COLLECTED PAYMENT FROM UCPB > UNDER THE INSURANCE CONTRACT
 In tunr UCPB brought suit against CALVO
 According to the Surveyor: the DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE SHIPMENT>
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE IMPROER HANDLING IN TRANSIT PRESUMABLY
WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE BROKER
RTC AND CA: C/B IS A C/C
 IF CC> GREATER DILIGENCE> EXTRAORRDINARY DILIGNENCE IN THE
VIGILANCE OVER THE GOODS
CALVO: CLAIMS SHE IS NOT A COMMON CARRIER, BBUT A PRIVATE CARRIER AS A
CUSTOMS BROKER AND WAREHOUSEMAN
 She does not indiscriminately hold her service out to the public
 But only offers to select parties
WON CALVO IS A COMMON CARRIER
[YES]
CALVO IS A CMMON CARRIER
 Her contention has no merit
 In De Guzman v. CA
o 1732 makes no distinction
 Principal activity v. Ancillary activity
 Regular basis v. Occasional basis
 General Public v. Narrow Segment of the
Population
 DEFINITION UNDER 1732 COINCIDES WITH NOTION OF “PUBLIC
SERVICE” UNDER PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
GREATER REASON TO HOLD C/B AS C/C = TRASPORTATION OF GOODS IS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESS
Under 1733> CC LIABILITY
 By nature of business and for reasons of public policy>
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IS REQUIRED> vigilance over the
goods and safety of passengers trabsported by them
In COMPANIA MARITIMA V. CA CASE: “extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods” EXPLAINED
 Common carrier to know and follow the required precaution
for avoiding damage or destruction of goods
 CC to render service with GREATEST SKILL and FORESIGHT,
and to USE ALL REASONABLE MEANS to ASCERTAIN the
NATURE and CHARACTERISTICS of GOODS
 And EXERCISE DUE CARE in HANDLING and STOWAGE, as the
nature of good requires
In the Case at bar, CALVO caims the damge happened when the goods
are in MV Hayakawa
 But contrary to Clavo’s clams> the SURVEY REPORT INDICATES
THAT WHEN THE SHIPPER TRANSFERRED THE CARDO TO
ARRATER, THEY WERE COVERED BY CLEAN EQUIPMENT
INTERCHANGE REPORT
 Cthe shipment was discharged in good order and condition
evidenced by the calen EQIOPMENT INTERCHANGE REPORTS
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE> FROM NATURE OF BUSINESS AND REAOSN OF
PUBLIC POLICY
 FOR C/B TO PROVE> must be more than merely showing the
possibility that some other party could be responsible for damages
HOME CIVIL CODE ON COMMON CARIERS DOES NOT APLY TO CHARTER PARTY WON THE STIPULATION S OF THE CHARTER PARTY PFOF OWNER’S NON
INSURANCE v.  Where the common carrier is acting as private carrier LIABILITY VALID [YES]
AM.  Special cargo or chartered to a special person only > becomes a provate
STEAMSHIP carrier BILL OF LADING SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE TERMS AND CONDITION
 As a private carrier> exmpt from liability fir negligence of agent OF THE CHARTER PARTY
 on the face of the Bill of Lading > stamped”freight prepaid as per
STIPULATION ABSOLVING OWNER FROM LIBAILITY FOR LOSS DUE TO NEGLIGENCE chartr part. Subject to all terms and condition of charter party
OF AGNET> VALID
UNDER THE CHARTER PARTY
CONSORCIO PESQUERO DEL PERU SHIPPED FREIGHT> BAGS OF PERUVIAN FISH  while the possession and control of the ship were not entirely
MEAL transferred to the charterer> The vessel was chartered to its full
 Consigned to San Miguel Brewery and complete capacity
 Insured by Home Insurance  the contract is affraignemnt of the whole vessel> as such the
 Arrived in Manila, liability of the shipowner for acts of captain and crew, would ramin
 When reahec San Miguel> TEHRE WAS A SHORTAGE OF 12K in the absnce of stipulation
o NOW AGAINST LUZON STEVEDORING, HOME INSURANCE
SECTION 2, PAR 2 OF CHARTER PARTY
HOME INSURANC PAID SMB  owner is liable for loss/damage
 Subrogated  exempts the owner of vessel from any loss/damges arising
from any other source
LUZON STEVEDORING CLAIMS o even though the neglect or fault of captiian
 It delivered with due diligence> same quality and quantity
under 1744> stipulation less than extraordinary diligence is valid> as
AMERICAN STEEAMSHIP DENIED LIABILITY long as reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy
 Claiming that under the provisions of Charter Party > the charterer, no the  but in this case, the release from liability is UNREASONABLE and
shipowner, was responsible for any loss or damage of the crago CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY

RTC: American Steampship liable doctrine:

 Where the common carrier is acting as private carrier
 Special cargo or chartered to a special person only > becomes a
provate carrier
 As a private carrier> exmpt from liability fir negligence of agent

CIVIL CODE PROVISION IN COMMON CARRIERS NOT BE APPLIED WHEN

COMMON CARRIER ACTED AS PRIVATE CARRIER
 The stipulation absolving the owner from liability for loss due to
neglect of agent > would only be void if the strict public poliy
governing common carriers is applied
 Such policy has no force on a totally chartered ship
VALENZUELA AS PROVATE CARRIER, ART 1745 AND OTHER PROVISIONS ON COMMON CARRIER DO
HARDWOOD v. NO APPLY
CA  UNLESSS BY EXPRESS STIPULATION OF PARTIES
IN CONTRACT OF PRIVATE CARRIEGE: PARTIES MAY FREELY STIPULATE THEIR
DUTIES AND OBLIAGTIONS > BINDING
 UBLIKE COMMON CARIER> IT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE GENERAL PUBLIC
STIPULATION EXEMPTING THE ONWER FROM NEGLIGENCE OF AGNET IS NOT
AGAINST PUBLIC POLICT> VALID
CHARTERER MAY OPT TO SET ASIDE THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW ON COMMON
CARRIER> in exchange for convenience and economy
VALENZUELA HARDOOD AHD AGREMENT WITH SEVEN BROTHER SHIPPING
 7 BROTHER’S VESSEL> MV 7 AMBSAADOR to load the ROUND LOGS of
VALENZUELA HARDWOORD
 Form Isabela to Mnila
MV 7 AMBSASOR SUNK
 TC: due to negligence of the captain in stowing> iron chains snap and logs
rolled to the portside
 TC: non liability clause of 7 Borthers is VOID
 CA AFFIRMED, but 7 Cargo was not liable based on the stipulations in teir
CONTRACT> private carriers > such exemption from liability is valid
WON THE STIPULATION> ABSOLVING THE LIABILTY OF OWNER IS
VALID [YES]
STIPULATION :
 “he onwers shall not be responsible for loss, split, shortlanding,
breakage, and any kind of damge
FACT: negligence of captain in stowing> sapping of iron and rolling of
logs
 Not due to a fortuitous event
FACT: 7 bortehr status> PRIAVTE CARRIER> when contract by
Valenzuela
 TC ruled that their stipulation is contrary to public policy>
citng Art 1745
COURT: BEING A PRIAVTE CARRIER > PROVISIONS ON COMMON
CARRIERS DOS NOT APPLY
 Unless by express stipulation
IN CONTRACT OF PRIVATE CARRIEGE: PARTIES MAY FREELY STIPULATE
THEIR DUTIES AND OBLIAGTIONS > BINDING
 UNLIKE COMMON CARIER> IT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE GENERAL
PUBLIC
 Pursuant to art 1306> stipulation is valid because it was freely
ented b the aprty and not contray to L,M,PP,GC.PO
 Not a contract of Adhesion
UNLIKE COMMON CARRIER> IT DOES NOT INLVOLVE THE GENERAL PUBLIC
 Hence the stringent provision on common carriers protecting
the general public cannot be justifiably applied
 Also cited: Home Insurance v. Amrican Steamship
Where the REASON FOR THE RULE CEASES, THE RULE ITSELF DOES NOT
APPLY
 ON COMMON CARRIERS> the riding public merely adheres to the
contart, it cannot submit its won stipulation> THUS THE LAW ON
COMMON CARRIERS EXTENDS PROTECTIVE MANTLE AGAINST
ONE SIDE STIPULATIONS
 For CHARTERER in a contract of PRIVATE CARIGE> charterer can
enter into a free and voluntary contract
o Can stipukate obligations and liabilities
FGU TRUCKING COMPANY > RENDERING EXCLUSIVE SERVICE TO ANOTHER COMPANY AND WON GPS IS NOT A COMMON CARRIER [YES]
INSURANCE v. TO NO OTHER, CANNOT BE CONSIDERD AS COMMON CARRIER
GP GPS IS NOT A COMMON CARRIER
SARMIENTO GP SARMIENTO TRUCKING> deliver 30 units of refrigerators abrord  Being an EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTOR and HAULER of CONCEPTION
TRUCKING  One of its truck, while on mAcarthur Highway collided with another truck> INDUSTRIES
DAMAGE TO THE CARGOES  Renders no service to any other individual or entity
 THUS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMMON CARRIER
FGU INSURANCE PAID CONCEPCION INDUSTRIES
 FGU filed a complaint agaist GPS DEFINITION OF COMMON CARRIER UNDER ART 1732
 ANSWER OF GPS> it was the EXCLUSIVE HAULER OF CONCEPCION
INDUSTRIES SINCE 198 AND ENEGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COMMON TRUE TEST IN DETERMINING A COMMON CARRIER
CARRIERS  CARRIAGE OF GOODS OR PASSENGERS
o Filed a Demurrer to evidence> failure o prove that it was a  PROVIDING SPACE FOR THOSE WHO OPT ITS TRANSPO SERVICE
common carrier  FOR A FEE

TC: GRANTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS GPS SCARCELY FALLSS WITHIN THE TERM OF COMMON CARRIER
 Not a common carrier thus the provisions on common carrier is not
warranted But notwhithstanding this conclusion, GPS CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY
 The presumption of negligence is not to be applied  Under culpa contractual> by existence of a contract

CA: rueld in favor of GPS

LOADSTAR LAW IMPOSES DUTIES AND LIABILITIES UPON COMMON CARRIER FOR THESAFETY
SHIPPING v. CA AND PROTECTION OF THOSE WHO UTILIZE THEIR SRVICE
 CANNOT ALLOW COMMON CARRIERS TO RENDER DUTIES MERELY
FACULATTIVE by simply faling to obtain necessary permits and authorization
LOADSTAR SHIPPING,, ITS VESSEL ,V CHEROKEE:
 GOODS> HARWORD, crates of tilewood, moulding
 MV Cherokee going from AGusan Del NOrte to Mnila > SANK along
Limasawa Island
 TOTAL LOSS OF SHIPMENT
MANILA INSUANCE CLIAMS> NEGLIGENC OF LOADSTAR
 LOADSTAR CLAIMS> FORCE MAJEURE
TC: RULED IN FAVOR OF MIC
CA: AFFIRMED:
 Loadstar cannot be considered as private carrier> on the sole ground that
there was a sigle shipper
 the charter of the vessel was not limited to the ship> LOADSTAR
RETAINED CONTROL OVER ITS CREW
WON LOADSTAR IS A COMMON CARRIER
WON LOADSTAR OBSERVE DUE DILIGENCE
LOADSTAR IS A COMMON CARRIER; even in the absnce of CoPC
 not necessary that carrier be issued y a certificate of public
convenience
 this public character is not altered by he fact that the carriage
was periodic, or unscheduled, episodic
LOADSTAR misapplied Home Insurance Case and Valenzuela Hardwood
 not the same factual setting
 records do not show that MV Cherokee carry a special cargo or was
chartered to a special person only
 NO CHARTER PARTY
 Bill of Lading shows that MV Cherokee was a GENRAL CARGO
CARRIER
 Bare fact that the ship was carrying cargo for one shipper is not
enough for it to be considered as private carrier
ARADA v. CA COMMON CARRIERS DEFINITION
NATURAL DISASTER MUST BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE AND ONLY CUASE OF THE
LOSS> TO EXEMPT THE CARRIER FROM LIABILITY
FAILURE OF THE SHIP CAPTAIN TO ASCERTAIN BEFOREHAND THE DIRECTION OF
THE REPORTED STORM AND WEATHER CONDITION ALONG HIS
ROUTE>CONSTITUTES AS NEGLIGECE OF LACK OF FORESIGHT
ARADA IS THE OPERATOR OF SOYTH NEGROS ENTERPRISE
 Engaged in the business of small scale shipping as a COMMON CARRIER
o Hauling cargoes of different corporations
o With 5 vessles
SMC entered into a agreement
 Transfer cargos of SMC from Negros Occidental to Mandaue City
 In MV MAYA
 9.8k of beer worth P176k 6
DENIED: CLEARNACE TO LEAVE PORT FROM PH COAST GUARD
 Due to a typhoon
 Following day, it was given clearance> the sea was already calm
 WHILE AVIGATING TOWARDS CEBU, A TYPHOON DEVELOP > LEAD TO
SINKING OF THE SHIP
ACCORDING TO THE BOARD OF MARINE INQUIRY
 Owner and officers are absolved from any admin liability
 Also affirmed by Ph Coast Guard
SMC filed a COMPLAINT before the RTC> recovery of value of cargo dues to breach of
contract of carriage
 RTC: ARADA NOT liable
 CA: REVERSED
o Failure to observe extraordinary diligence > cargo were lost
WON ARADA IS LIABLE FOR THE VALUE OF LOST CARGO [YES]
ARADA CONTENTIONS: NOT A COMMON CARRIER, BUT AS A PRIVATE
CARIER
 Hus not bound by the requirement of extraordinary diligence
COURT DOES NOT AGREE
 IT IS A COMMON CARRIER
 IT WAS EXERCISING THE FUCTION OF A COMMON CARRIER
o Admitted by OIC of South Negors enterprise
LOSS , DESTRUCTION OR DETRIORATION> INSTANTLY RAISES THE
PRESUMTPION OF FAULT OR NEGLIGANCE ON THE APRT OF CARRIER
 except the exemption under the alw
 NATURAL DISATER
NATURAL DISASTER MUST BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE AND ONLY CUASE OF
THE LOSS> TO EXEMPT THE CARRIER FROM LIABILITY
 Common carrier myst exercise due diligence to prevent or
inimize the loss DURING AND AFTER THE OCCURRENCE OF THE
NATURAL DISASTER
o To be exempted
In he case: ARADA FAILED TO OBERSVE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
 Although the sea was already calm, BUT THAT MIGHT BE THE
CALM BEFORE THE STOR<
 PRUDENCE DICTATES THE CAPTAIN, BABAO, SHOULD HAVE
ASCERTAINED FIRSTW HERE THE STORM WAS BEFORE
DEPARTING
BABAO KNEW ABOUT THE IMPENDING STORM
 Records shows> BABAO failed to ascertain where the typhoon
was headed
 He did not monitor the weather conditions
 LACK OF FORESIGHT ON HIS PARTfai
ACCORDING TO PAGASA> THE SEA WAS SLIGHTLY ROUGHWITH
CLOUDY SKIES WITH RAINSHOWER
EASTERN COMMON CARRIER BOUND TO OBSERVE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN THE WON EASTERN SHIPPING IS LIABLE
SHIPPING v. CA VIGILANCE OVER GOODS [yes]

PRESUMTPTION OF NEGLIGENCE APPLIES, WHILE TRUE THAT THE CARGO WAS DELIVERED TO THE ARRATER
OPERATOR IN GOOD CONIDTION
WIRE STRANDS WERE SHIPPED BY MV JAPRI VENTURE  It was undisputed that the Vessel encountered a stormy weather
 Owned by Eastern Shipping  The cargo were found wet based
 From Japan to Manila  Flooded by fresh water> one foot deep
 Delivered to Stresstek Post tensioning  BASED IN THE SURVEY CONDUCTED

JAPRI VENTURE ARRIVED IN AMNILA SINCE THE CARRIER FAILED TO ESTBALISHED ANY CASO FORTUITO, THE
 DISCHARGED the cargo to E. RAZON INc RPESUMTPTION BY LAW OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF CARRIER
 First Nationwide Assurance indemnified the consignee P171k loss and APPLIES
damage to the cargo
THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE GOODSWAS IN APPARENT GOOD
JAPRI VENTUR ENCOUNTERED VERY ROUGH SEA and STORMY WEATHER CONIDTION EVIDENCE BY CLEAN TALLY SHEET> WAS OVERTURNED
 From KOBE to MANILA  EVIDENCE SHO THAT THE DAMAGE WAS SUFFERED WHILE
 FOR 3 DAYS ONBOARD OF THE VESSEL
 WATER ENTERED THE VESSEL
 Upon arrival> survey of bad order was conducted> cargo were wett

EASTERN SHIPING CLAIMS THAT IT IS NOT LIABLE FOR SHIPMENT ALREADY

DISCHARGED AND DELIVERED COMPLETELY INTO THE CUSTODY OF ARRASTRE
OPERATOR, under clean tally sheets

DELSAN v. CA IN EVENT OF LOSS, DESTRUCTION OR DETERIORATION OF INSURED GOODS, WON DELSAN IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES
COMMONC ARRIER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE
 UNLESS CAUSED BY NATURAL DISASTER THE PAYMENT MADE BY AMREICAN ASSURANCE CANNOT be
INTERPRETED AS AN AUTOMATIC ADMISSION OF VESSEL SEAWORTINESS
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE BY AMERICAN ASSUANCE
 UNLESS THERE IS PROOF OF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE  As to foreclose the recourse against Delsan
 Payment only grant subrogatory rights
CALTEX CONTRACTED DELSAN TRANSPORT
 Delsan will transport fule oil from Batangas refnery to different aprts of the EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
country  EVENT OF LOSS, DESTRUCTION OR DETERIORATION OF INSURED
 MT Maysun delivered fuel oil to Zamboanga City GOODS, COMMONC ARRIER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE
o UNLESS CAUSED BY NATURAL DISASTER
MT MAYSUN SANK NEAR PANAY GULF
DELSAN CALIMS THE SINKING WA CAUSED BY FORCE MAJEURE
RESPONDENT AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE PAID CALTEX  According to the captain> there was a SUDDEN and UNEXPECTED
 Then filed a complaint of sum of money CHANGE IN WEATHER CONDITION
 Strong winds, 30 KNOTS PER HOUR VELOCITY AND 20 FEET HIGH
TC: MT MAYSUN WAS SEAWORTHY WAVES
 Determined by a Sruvey Certificate Report by Ph Coast Guard  BUT THIS WAS BELIED BY THE pagasa reports
 The incident was FORCE MAJEURE o ONLY 10 TO 20 KNOTS PER HOUR
 Exempting Delsan from liability o WAVES WERE ONLY .7 TO 2 METERS
 Thus PROVES THAT THE VESSEL IS NOT SEAWORTHY
CA: REVERSED o There was no bad weather
 PAGASA REPORT> BAD WEATHER EXONERATION OF LIABILITY OF OFFICER DOES NOT ABSOLVE DELSAN
BANKERS & THE 2 SUBJECT CONTAINERS WERE NOT STRIPPED OF ITS CONTENTS IN
MANU. 108 CASES OF COPPER TUBING IMPORTED BY ALI TRADING THE PIER
ASSURANCE v.  Arrived in Manila  unstripped when received by the consignees broker
CA  Boarding SS Oriental Ambassdor  if there were irregularities> theft> then broker should have noted
 Turned over to E. Razon> arraster the same> should have protested
 yet no step was taken
UPON INPECTION> CARGO FOUND TO HAVE SUSTAINED LOSS BY THEFT AND
PILFERAGE
 Thus Bankers Assurance compensated Ali Tarding

SHIPMENT WRE “CONTAINARIZED”

 Stuffed packed and loaded by the shipper, usaually ath warehouse, in the
absence of the carrier
 Container is sealed by the hsipper and picked up by the carrier
 Under this arrangement> the shipment is not insected by the Carrier
o Carrier duty is only to transport

In the case at bar> 3 CONTAINERS of COOPER TUBING

 discharged from the pier in good condition
 shifted to Pier 3 for safekeeping
 3 week later one of the container was “stripped” in presence of the surveyor
and 3 cases were in bad condition
 2 other container were not “stripped”
 RSG, consignee authorized broker> accepted the shipment without
exception as to the bad order
o It was at that place that the contents of the 2 containers wrer
removed> short of 7 cases

SARKIES EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE “LAST FROM THE TIME THE GOODS ARE WON SAKRIES IS LIABLE
TOURS v. CA UNCODITIONALLY PPLACED IN HE POSSESSION OF AND RECEIVED BY THE CARRIER [YES]
FOR TRANSPORTATION
 UNTIL THE SAME IS DELIVERED, ACTUALLY OR CONSTRUCTIVELY, BY THEC BASED ON DOCUMENTARY AND TESTIMONIAL EVIENCE
ARRIER, TO THE PERSON WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THEM  It was established that Fatima indeed boarded the bus and she
brought 3 pieces of luggage
REPSONDENTS FORTADES FILED A DAMAGE SUIT AGAISNT SARKIES TOURS o 1 was even recovered by Philtranco bus
 Fatima Fortades boarded bus no.5 from Manila to Legazpi  Respondents exerted effort to salvage their loss
 Her belonging were kept in the baggage compartment of the bus > 3 PIECES o Reported to the police, NBI and Offices of Sakries
OF LUGGAGE o Went to radio station
o Had important document  Clearly they would not have gone through all the trouble if it was
 Green card only a fancied loss
 Passport
 Visa EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE “LAST FROM THE TIME THE GOODS ARE
 books UNCODITIONALLY PPLACED IN HE POSSESSION OF AND RECEIVED BY THE
 STOPOVER AT DAET CARRIER FOR TRANSPORTATION
o IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT ONLY ONE BAG REMAINED  UNTIL THE SAME IS DELIVERED, ACTUALLY OR CONSTRUCTIVELY,
o FATIMA’S LUGGAE WERE MISSING, might have dropped along the BY THEC ARRIER, TO THE PERSON WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO
way RECEIVE THEM
o Passengers suggested to retrace the lost items, but the driver
ignored SAKRIES’ NEGLIGENC IS HE CAUSE OF THE LOSS
FATIMA REPORTED IT TO SARKIES OFFICE
 SAKRIES MERELY OFFERED P1K, she turned it down
 Field a formal demand
o Sarkies apologized and sent a team to recover the luggage
 After 9 months of fruitless waiting> RESPODENT FILED A CASE TO
RECOVER THE VALUE OF LOST ITEMS
RESPONDENTS CLAIM THAT SAKRIES FAILED TO OBSERVE EXTRAORIDINARY
DILIGENCE
 BY NOT ENSURING THAT THE DOORS OF THE COMPARTMENT
WERE SECURELY FASTENED
 AS A RESULT> LUGGAGE WERE LOST
WHEN COMMON CARRIERS ACCEPTED ITS PASSENGER BAGGAGE and place
in the vehicle
 ITS FAILURE TO COLLECT THE FREIGHT IS THE COMMON
CARRIER’S OWN LOOKOUT
 IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENT LOSS

TC: SAKRIES LIABLE

CA: AFFIRMED