DEFENSES OF COMMON CARRIER
(FIRE AS CAUSE)
DSR-Senator Lines and CF Sharp and
Co., Inc. vs. Federal Phoenix
Assurance
The peril of fire is not comprehended
within the exceptions in Article 1734,
then 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
diligence required by law.
Berde Plants delivered 632 units of
artificial trees to CF Sharp and Company,
the General Ship Agent of DSR-Senator
Lines. The cardo is for delivery to Saudi
Arabia. Federal Phoenix Assurance –
insured the cargo. However, while in
transit, the vessel and all its cargo caught
fire.
ISSUE: Whether CF Sharp/DSR-Senator
Lines should be liable for the destruction
and loss of the cargo due to fire
STORM OR PERIL OF THE SEA
Transimex Co.
Insurance Corp.
vs.
Mafre
Asian
Facts: As soon as the vessel docketed in
Albay, the fertilizer was bagged and
stored insides a warehouse by
employees of the consignee. When it
was weighed, it was discovered that only
7,350 metric tons of fertilizer had been
delivered. Because of the alleged
shortage, Fertiphil filed a claim with
respondent
According to Transimex, the shortage in
the shipment was cause by inclement
weather encountered by vessel at sea.
ISSUE:
Is petitioner liable due to the bad weather
under Civil Code or COGSA? NO
RULING:
It must be emphasized that not all
instances of bad weather may be
categorized as "storms" or "perils of the
sea" within the meaning of the provisions
of the Civil Code and COGSA on
common carriers. To be considered
absolutory causes under either statute,
bad weather conditions must reach a
certain threshold of severity.
-
Central Shipping Co. Inc. v.
Insurance Company of North
America
According to PAGASA, a storm
has a wind force of 48 to 55 knots,
equivalent to 55 to 63 miles per
hour
The phrase "perils of the sea"
carries the same connotation. =
limit the application of the phrase
to weather that is "so unusual,
unexpected and catastrophic as to
be
beyond
reasonable
expectation."
In this case, the documentary and
testimonial evidence cited by petitioner
indicate that M/V Meryem Ana faced
winds of only up to 40 knots while at sea.
This wind force clearly fell short of the 48
to 55 knots required for "storms" under
Article 1734 (1) of the Civil Code based
on the threshold established by
PAGASA. Petitioner also failed to prove
that the inclement weather encountered
by the vessel was unusual, unexpected,
or catastrophic.
SHORE PASS REQUIREMENT
Japan Airlines vs. Asuncion
The power to admit or not an alien into
the country is a sovereign act which
cannot be interfered with even by JAL.
This is not within the ambit of the contract
of carriage entered into by JAL and
herein respondents.
Michael and Jeanette Asuncion left
Manila on board Japan Airlines (JAL)
Flight 742 bound for Los Angeles. Their
itinerary included a stop-over in Narita
and an overnight stay at Hotel Nikko
Narita.
vouch for the authenticity of a
passport and the correctness of the
entries therein. The power to admit or
not an alien into the country is a
sovereign act which cannot be
interfered with even by JAL. This is not
within the ambit of the contract of
carriage entered into by JAL and herein
respondents. As such, JAL should not be
faulted for the denial of respondents'
shore pass applications.
EXERCISE OF EXTRAORDINARY
DILIGENCE, INHERENT CHARACTER
OF GOODS AND INADEQUACY OF
PACKAGING
PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. vs. CA
Upon arrival at Narita, Mrs. Noriko EtouHiguchi
of
JAL
endorsed
their
applications for shore pass and directed
them to the Japanese immigration
official.
EXERCISE OF EXTRAORDINARY
DILIGENCE AND DOCTRINE OF LAST
CLEAR CHANCE
William Tiu vs. Pedro Arriesgado
During their interview, the Japanese
immigration official noted that Michael
appeared shorter than his height as
indicated in his passport. Because of this
inconsistency, respondents were denied
shore pass entries and were brought
instead to the Narita Airport Rest House
where they were billeted overnight.
ISSUE:
WON JAL breached its contract of
carriage
Ruling: No.
It may be true that JAL has the duty to
inspect whether its passengers have the
necessary travel documents, however,
such duty does not extend to
checking the veracity of every entry in
these documents. JAL could not
It is a common carriers duty to transport
a passenger to their destination safely,
failure to do so gives rise to a
presumption of negligence on the part of
the common carrier. Common carriers
must exercise extraordinary diligence,
such is not present when the driver of
the common carriers vehicle was
violating traffic rules.
The doctrine of last chance only
applies in cases where two colliding
vehicle owners are the parties. It does
not apply against a passenger of a
common carrier WHO DEMANDS
RESPONSIBILITY
FROM
THE
CARRIER
TO
ENFORCE
ITS
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS.
FORTUITOUS EVENT
Central Shipping Co., Inc.
Insurance Co. of North America
ISSUE:
vs.
1. 1) Whether the carrier is liable for
the loss of the cargo;
A common carrier is presumed to be at
fault or negligent. It shall be liable for the
loss, destruction or deterioration of its
cargo, unless it can prove that the sole
and proximate cause of such event is one
of the causes enumerated in Article 1734
of the Civil Code, or that it exercised
extraordinary diligence to prevent or
minimize the loss. In the present case,
the weather condition encountered by
petitioners vessel was not a storm or a
natural disaster comprehended in the
law. Given the known weather condition
prevailing during the voyage, the manner
of stowage employed by the carrier was
insufficient to secure the cargo from the
rolling action of the sea. The carrier took
a calculated risk in improperly securing
the cargo. Having lost that risk, it cannot
now disclaim any liability for the loss.
YES. The evidence indicated that
strong southwest monsoons were
common occurrences during the
month of July. Thus, the officers
and crew of M/V Central Bohol
should
have
reasonably
anticipated heavy rains, strong
winds and rough seas. They
should then have taken extra
precaution in stowing the logs in
the hold, in consonance with their
duty of observing extraordinary
diligence in safeguarding the
goods. But the carrier took a
calculated risk in improperly
securing the cargo. Having lost
that risk, it cannot now escape
responsibility for the loss.
After the listing of the vessel had
increased to 15 degrees, the ship captain
ordered his men to abandon ship and at
the same day the vessel completely
sank. Due to the sinking of the vessel, the
cargo was totally lost.
Petitioner: the vessel was fully manned,
fully equipped and in all respects
seaworthy; that all the logs were properly
loaded and secured; that the vessels
master exercised due diligence to
prevent or minimize the loss before,
during and after the occurrence of the
storm. The proximate and only cause of
the sinking of its vessel and the loss of its
cargo was a natural disaster, a tropical
storm which neither petitioner nor the
captain of its vessel could have
foreseen.]
Bernales vs. Northwest Airlines
-Japan – fortuitous event
he and several other
personalities from Bicol
prominent
were on their way to Honolulu, Hawaii, as
the delegates of a trade and tourism
mission for the province. They were
economy class passengers of Northwest
Airlines Flight No. 10 from Manila to
Honolulu via Narita, Japan.
The delegates opted to be wait-listed for
Flight No. 22. The petitioner was placed
last in the wait-list as he was the last
economy class passenger to check in for
Flight No. 10. To ensure departure before
the 1:00 a.m. curfew, NWA gave out
"dummy" boarding passes to the wait-
listed passengers even before the priority
passengers boarded the plane.
proximate cause of NWA's breach of
contract was a fortuitous event.
The passengers of Flight 22 were called
for boarding at around 11:00 p.m. and the
delegates boarded the shuttle taking
them to the airplane. But before the
shuttle bus could leave, NWA Customer
Service Agent Tsuruki Ohashi entered
the shuttle and informed the petitioner
that he could not take Flight 22 as no
available seat was left for him.
NOTICE OF CLAIM
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bernales is entitled to
damages because of the alleged incident
RULING:
NO. Moral damages predicated upon a
breach of a carriage contract is only
recoverable in instances where the
mishap results in the death of a
passenger, or where the carrier is guilty
of fraud or bad faith. Bad faith is not
simple negligence or bad judgment; it
involves ill intentions and a conscious
design to do a wrongful act for a
dishonest purpose.
The primary cause of NWA's delay in the
fulfillment of its obligation was the
unusually strong typhoon that struck
Japan that evening. We take notice that
this was Typhoon Higos, one of the most
powerful typhoons to hit Japan as of that
date. Typhoon Higos resulted in the
cancellation of more than 200 flights.
From this perspective, we cannot
attribute bad faith or ill motives on NWA
for cancelling Flight No. 10. Pushing
through
would
have
recklessly
endangered the lives of the passengers
and the crew. Evidently, the real and
8. Phil. Charter Insurance Corp. vs.
Chemoil Lighterage
Art. 366. Within twenty-four hours
following
the
receipt
of
the
merchandise a claim may be made
against the carrier on account of
damage or average found upon opening
the packages, provided that the
indications of the damage or average
giving rise to the claim cannot be
ascertained from the exterior of said
packages, in which case said claim shall
only be admitted at the time of the receipt
of the packages.
After the periods mentioned have
elapsed, or after the transportation
charges have been paid, no claim
whatsoever shall be admitted against the
carrier with regard to the condition in
which the goods transported were
delivered.
Chemical company in Korea shipped
liquid chemicals to Plastic Group Phils,
Inc (PGP) thru Chemoil in Manila,
insured by PCIC. Upon inspection by
PGP, the samples taken from the
shipment showed discoloration from
yellowish to amber, demonstrating that it
was damaged.
CA dismissed claims of PCIC against
Chemoil and ruled that the notice of claim
was not filed within the required period.
ISSUE:
WON NOTICE OF CLAIM was filed
within the required period
RULING:
Athough a telephone call was made by
Alfredo Chan (employee of PGP) to
Abastillas (VP for Operations of Chemoil)
informing the latter of the contamination,
the court having examined the entire
records of the case, they cannot find a
shred of evidence that will precisely and
ultimately point to the conclusion that the
notice of claim was timely relayed or filed
The filing of a claim with the carrier within
the time limitation therefore actually
constitutes a condition precedent to the
accrual of a right of action against a
carrier for loss of, or damage to, the
goods. The shipper or consignee must
allege and prove the fulfillment of the
condition. If it fails to do so, no right of
action against the carrier can accrue in
favor
of
the
former.
The
aforementioned requirement is a
reasonable condition precedent; it
does not constitute a limitation of
action
TORRES-MADRID BROKERAGE, INC.
VS. FEB MITSUI MARINE INSURANCE
CO., INC., ET AL
Sony had engaged Torres-Madrid
Brokerage Inc (TMBI) in facilitating,
processing, withdrawing and delivering
the shipment of various electronic goods
(from Thailand and Malaysia) from the
port of Manila to its warehouse in Binan,
Laguna.
TMBI subcontracted BMT Trucking
services since it did not own any delivery
truck which Sony did not object to the
arrangement.
� trucks left BMT’s garage but only �
arrived at the warehouse. One truck was
found abandoned. Both the driver and
the shipment were missing. TMBI filed a
complaint for “hijacking”.
ISSUE:
Whether or not TMBI is liable for the loss
of goods. YES.
For all other cases- such as theft or
robbery- a common carrier is presumed
to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless it can prove that it
observed extraordinary diligence. Simply
put theft or robbery is not considered
fortuitous event.
A common carrier to be absolved of its
liability for a resulting loss:
1. If it proves that it exercised
extraordinary
diligence
in
transporting and safekeeping the
goods;
2. If it stipulated with the shipper or
owner of the goods to limit its
liability for the loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods to a
degree less than extraordinary
diligence.
However, a robbery attended by
“grave or irresistible force” is a
fortuitous event that absolves the
common carrier from liability.
TMBI failed to successfully establish that
it had acted with extraordinary diligence
and TMBI’s current theory that hijacking
was attended by force is untenable.
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
9. Diaz vs. CA
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.
pe�i�ioner�s �a�i, dri�en b� Arman
Re�es, �as mo�ing a� an e�cessi�e
speed when it rammed into the rear
portion of a Hino cargo truck owned by
Lantoria and Francisco. As a result, 9
passengers of taxi died including Sherly
Moneno
̃ .
1. 2) Whether petitioner is liable for
breach of contract?
Yes.
BURDEN ON COMMON CARRIER
10. Regional Container Lines (RCL) of
Singapore, et al vs. The Netherlands
Insurance Co. (Philippines), Inc.
In all other cases not specified under
Article 1734 of the Civil Code, common
carriers are presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently, unless
they observed extraordinary diligence.
Temic received the shipment and found
the cargo completely damaged. Temic
filed a claim for cargo loss against
Netherlands Insurance, with supporting
claims documents.
Whether the CA correctly held RCL and
EDSA Shipping liable as common
carriers under the theory of presumption
of negligence
RULING:
YES.
ACTS OF STRANGERS AND OTHER
PASSENGERS (ART. 1763, NCC)
GV Florida Transport, Inc. vs. Heirs of
Romeo L. Battung, Jr.
While the law requires the highest degree
of diligence from common carriers in the
safe transport of their passengers and
creates a presumption of negligence
against them, it does not, however, make
the carrier an insurer of the absolute
safety of its passengers.
Battung boarded the bus of petitioner in
Delfin Albano, Isabela, bound for Manila.
He was seated at the first row behind the
driver and slept during the ride.
At this point, a man who was seated at
the fourth row of the bus stood up, shot
Battung at his head, and then left with a
companion.
The
bus
conductor,
Daraoay, notified Duplio of the incident
and thereafter, brought Romeo to the
hospital, but the latter was pronounced
dead on arrival.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner is liable for damages
arising from culpa contractual
No. Where, as in the instant case, the
injury sustained by the petitioner was in
no way due to any defect in the means of
transport or in the method of transporting
or to the negligent or wilful acts of [the
common carrier'sl employees, and
therefore involving no issue of
negligence in its duty to provide safe and
suitable [care] as well as competent
employees, with the injury arising wholly
from causes created by strangers over
which the carrier had no control or even
knowledge or could not have prevented,
the presumption is rebutted and the
carrier is not and ought not to be held
liable. To rule otherwise would make the
common carrier the insurer of the
absolute safety of its passengers which is
not the intention of the lawmakers.
ABSENCE
OR
PRESENCE
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
OF
Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co.
, Cangco was riding the train on his way
home. When it reached the San Mateo
station (where he lives) he stood up and
positioned himself near the exit. A person
gets off before him. When he was about
to come down, he was suppose to step
on a certain platform. However, that day,
there were watermelons piled in that
platform and he stepped on them. The
watermelons are there because it was
harvest season. It was ready for
shipment to the market.
Since �he place �as ligh�ed diml�, he
co�ldn�� properl� see if �he
watermelons were there or not. Also,
when he got off, the train was still moving.
As a consequence of his fall, he was
drawn to the platform and was crushed
by a moving car. He was taken to a
hospital where his arms were amputated.
Afterwards, he was taken to another
hospital where his shoulders were also
amputated. All in all, the expenses had a
total of Php 790. 25.
Is Cangco barred from recovering
damages against MRR because of his
own CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE?
RULING:
NO, he is not barred from recovering
damages. SC reversed the decision of
the CFI.
SC
said
that
the
PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY of MRR should be
examined
separately
from
the
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE of
Cangco. On the one hand, there is the
contract of carriage on the part of MRR to
bring Cangco safely to his destination.
There is the presumption of responsibility
on the part of MRR to make sure that in
order to bring Cangco and other
passengers safely to their destination,
MRR should have exercised the proper
discretion in selecting and directing its
employees and workers. MRR is deemed
negligent if is proven that they failed in
their discretion in selecting and directing
its employees. To prove that MRR
exercised DILIGENCE in this area would
exonerate MRR from liability.
However, in the case at bar, there were
circumstances to prove that MRR did
no� e�ercise diligence. FIRST, ��he
place, as �e ha�e alread� s�a�ed, 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 �heir presence �o�ld
be re�ealed.� SECOND, �i� ma� be
no�ed �ha� �he place was perfectly
familiar to the plaintiff as it was his daily
custom to get on and off the train at this
station.
As a conclusion, 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. With this, MRR should pay
the damages. They are ordered to pay
Php 3, 290. 25 to Cangco.
PNR vs. CA, et al
Contributory negligence, while not
exempting
PNR
from
liability,
nevertheless justified the deletion of the
amount adjudicated as moral damages.
Winifredo Tupang boarded a train in
Camarines Sur that was bound for
Manila. Due to overcrowding, Winifredo
Tupang opted to sit on the open platform.
Upon passing the Iyam Bridge, Winifredo
Tupang fell off the train res�l�ing �o his
dea�h. The �rain didn�� s�op despi�e
kno�ing �ha� a passenger fell from the
train. Instead the conductor requested for
the verification of the information by the
police. The police found the body of
Winifredo Tupang.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was contributory
negligence on the part of Winifredo
Tupang
RULING:
Yes. There was. It appears that the
deceased
was
chargeable
with
contributory negligence. Since he opted
to sit on the open platform between the
coaches of the train, he should have held
tightly and tenaciously on the upright
metal bar found at the side of the said
platform to avoid falling off from the
speeding train. Such contributory
negligence, while not exempting PNR
from liability, nevertheless justified the
deletion of the amount adjudicated as
moral damages.