Schmitz Transport and Brokerage Corp. vs. Transport Venture Inc. (Gr. No. 15 !

55" Facts: On September 25, 1991, SYTCO Pte Ltd. Singapore shipped rom the port o !"#iche$s%, &'ssia on board ()* +,"e-ander Sa$e"ie$. /a $esse" o &'ssian registr# and o0ned b# 1"ac% Sea2 535 hot ro""ed stee" sheets in coi" 0eighing 4,992,355 metric tons. The cargoes, 0hich 0ere to be discharged at the port o (ani"a in a$or o the consignee, Litt"e 6iant Stee" Pipe Corporation /Litt"e 6iant2,0ere ins'red against a"" ris%s 0ith !nd'stria" !ns'rance Compan# Ltd. /!nd'stria" !ns'rance2 'nder (arine Po"ic# 7o. (8918 9:3:8T!S.;5< The $esse" arri$ed at the port o (ani"a on October 23, 1991 and the Phi"ippine Ports ,'thorit# /PP,2 assigned it a p"ace o berth at the o'tside brea%0ater at the (ani"a So'th =arbor. Schmit> Transport, 0hose ser$ices the consignee engaged to sec're the re?'isite c"earances, to recei$e the cargoes rom the shipside, and to de"i$er them to its /the consignee@s2 0areho'se at Cainta, &i>a", in t'rn engaged the ser$ices o T*! to send a barge and t'gboat at shipside. ,t aro'nd 5:95 a.m. o October 2:, 1991, d'e to strong 0a$es,;11< the cre0 o the barge abandoned it and trans erred to the $esse". The barge pitched and ro""ed 0ith the 0a$es and e$ent'a""# capsi>ed, 0ashing the 9: coi"s into the sea. ,t ::55 a.m., a t'gboat ina""# arri$ed to p'"" the a"read# empt# and damaged barge bac% to the pier. !ss'es: /12 Ahether the "oss o the cargoes 0as d'e to a ort'ito's e$ent, independent o an# act o neg"igence on the part o petitioner 1"ac% Sea and T*!.

occ'rrence is then h'mani>ed and remo$ed rom the r'"es app"icab"e to the acts o 6od. That no t'gboat to0ed bac% the barge to the pier a ter the cargoes 0ere comp"ete"# "oaded b# 12:95 in the morning is, ho0e$er, a materia" act 0hich the appe""ate co'rt ai"ed to proper"# consider and appreciate B the pro-imate ca'se o the "oss o the cargoes. =ad the barge been to0ed bac% prompt"# to the pier, the deteriorating sea conditions not0ithstanding, the "oss co'"d ha$e been a$oided. 1't the barge 0as "e t "oating in open sea 'nti" big 0a$es set in at 5:95 a.m., ca'sing it to sin% a"ong 0ith the cargoes. The "oss th's a""s o'tside the +act o 6od doctrine.. This Co'rt ho"ds then that petitioner and T*! are so"idari"# "iab"e or the "oss o the cargoes. The o""o0ing prono'ncement o the S'preme Co'rt is instr'cti$e: The o'ndation o L&T,@s "iabi"it# is the contract o carriage and its ob"igation to indemni # the $ictim arises rom the breach o that contract b# reason o its ai"'re to e-ercise the high di"igence re?'ired o the common carrier. !n the discharge o its commitment to ens're the sa et# o passengers, a carrier ma# choose to hire its o0n emp"o#ees or a$ai" itse" o the ser$ices o an o'tsider or an independent irm to 'nderta%e the tas%. !n either case, the common carrier is not re"ie$ed o its responsibi"ities 'nder the contract o carriage. Parties to a contract o carriage ma#, ho0e$er, agree 'pon a de inition o de"i$er# that e-tends the ser$ices rendered b# the carrier. !n the case at bar, 1i"" o Lading 7o. 2 co$ering the shipment pro$ides that de"i$er# be made +to the port o discharge or so near thereto as she ma# sa e"# get, a"0a#s a "oat..;59< The de"i$er# o the goods to the consignee 0as not rom +pier to pier. b't rom the shipside o +()* ,"e-ander Sa$e"ie$. and into barges, or 0hich reason the consignee contracted the ser$ices o petitioner. Since 1"ac% Sea had constr'cti$e"# de"i$ered the cargoes to Litt"e 6iant, thro'gh petitioner, it had discharged its d't#. !n ine, no "iabi"it# ma# th's attach to 1"ac% Sea.

/22 ! there 0as neg"igence, 0hether "iabi"it# or the "oss ma# attach to 1"ac% Sea, petitioner and T*!. =e"d: ;T<he princip"e embodied in the act o 6od doctrine strict"# re?'ires that the act m'st be occasioned so"e"# b# the $io"ence o nat're. ='man inter$ention is to be e-c"'ded rom creating or entering into the ca'se o the mischie . Ahen the e ect is o'nd to be in part the res'"t o the participation o man, 0hether d'e to his acti$e inter$ention or neg"ect or ai"'re to act, the 0ho"e