13.

VICENTE VERGARA VS. THE COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. 77679, Sept. 30 1987

FACTS:
The cargo truck was travelling on the right side of the road going to Manila and then it crossed to the center line to overtake
the tricycle and the car on the other side of the road tried to avoid the collision but unfortunately the driver of the car lost
control of his car causing it to collide with a private jeep and the cargo truck went to the left side of the highway; it then
bumped a tricycle; and then another bicycle; and then the cargo truck rammed the store warehouse of the plaintiff. The driver
of the cargo truck applied the brakes but the latter did not work due to mechanical defect. Contrary to the claim of the
petitioner, a mishap caused by defective breaks cannot be considered as fortuitous in character. Certainly, the defects were
curable and the accident preventable.

ISSUE:
Whether or not this act or omission can be considered as a negligent? (NO)

HELD:
It was established by competent evidence that the requisites of a quasi-delict are present in the case at
bar. These requisites are: (1) damages to the plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of which
defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond, was guilty; and (3) the connection of cause
and effect between such negligence and the damages.
The petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to overcome the disputable presumption of negligence on
his part in the selection and supervision of his driver.
It is undisputed that private respondent suffered damages as a result of an act or omission of petitioner.
Certainly, the defects were curable and the accident preventable.

14.
G.R. No. 150751, September 20, 2004
Central Shipping Company, Inc.
vs Insurance Company of North America

FACTS:
July 25, 1990, Central Shipping received on board its vessel 276 pieces of round logs and undertook to
transport said shipment to Manila for delivery to Alaska Lumber Co. The cargo was insured for P3m
against total loss. While on voyage, the vessel completely sank.

Insurance Company alleged that the total loss of the shipment was caused by the fault and negligence
of the petitioner. The consignee, Alaska presented a claim for the value of the shipment against the
petitioner but the latter failed and refused to settle the claim, hence being the insurer, Insurance company
paid and now seeks to be subrogated by the shipping company.

The shipping company argues that the ship was seaworthy and properly manned, putting defense that
the proximate cause of the sinking vessel and the loss was a natural disaster which could have not been
foreseen. RTC was unconvinced and favoured the insurance company.

CA affirmed the RTC finding that the south western monsoon encountered by the vessel was not
unforeseeable.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether the carrier is liable for the loss of the cargo; and (2) whether the doctrine of limited liability
is applicable. These issues involve a determination of factual questions of whether the loss of the cargo
was due to the occurrence of a natural disaster; and if so, whether its sole and proximate cause was such
natural disaster or whether petitioner was partly to blame for failing to exercise due diligence in the
prevention of that loss.

RULING:
Petition is devoid of merit.

(1) Liability for lost cargo: From the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, common
carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence over the goods they transport, according to all the
circumstances of each case. In the event of loss, destruction or deterioration of the insured goods,
common carriers are responsible; that is, unless they can prove that such loss, destruction or
deterioration was brought about -- among others -- by flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other
natural disaster or calamity. 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 prove that
they observed extraordinary diligence.

In the present case, petitioner has not given the Court sufficient cogent reasons to disturb the conclusion
of the CA that the weather encountered by the vessel was not a storm as contemplated by Article
1734(1). Established is the fact that between 10:00 p.m. on July 25, 1990 and 1:25 a.m. on July 26,
1990, M/V Central Bohol encountered a south western monsoon in the course of its voyage.

(2) Doctrine of Limited Liability: The doctrine of limited liability under Article 587 of the Code of
Commerce is not applicable to the present case. This rule does not apply to situations in which the loss
or the injury is due to the concurrent negligence of the ship owner and the captain. It has already been
established that the sinking of M/V Central Bohol had been caused by the fault or negligence of the
ship captain and the crew, as shown by the improper stowage of the cargo of logs. Closer supervision
on the part of the ship owner could have prevented this fatal miscalculation. As such, the ship owner
was equally negligent. It cannot escape liability by virtue of the limited liability rule.

16.

Compania Maritima vs CA
(162 SCRA 685)

FACTS:
Vicente Concepcion is doing business under the name of Consolidated Construction. Being a Manila
based contractor, Concepcion had to ship his construction equipment to Cagayan de Oro. On August
28, 1964, Concepcion shipped 1 unit pay loader, 4 units of 6x6 Roe trucks, and 2 pieces of water tanks.
The aforementioned equipment was loaded aboard the MV Cebu, which left Manila on August 30, 1964
and arrived at Cagayan de Oro on September 1, 1964. The Reo trucks and water tanks were safely
unloaded however the pay loader suffered damage while being unloaded. The damaged pay loader was
taken to the petitioner’s compound in Cagayan de Oro.

Consolidated Construction thru Vicente Concepcion wrote Compania Maritima to demand a

replacement of the broken pay loader and also asked for damages. Unable to get a response, Concepcion
sent another demand letter. Petitioner meanwhile, sent the damaged payloader to Manila, it was weighed
at San Miguel Corporation, where it was found that the payloader actually weighed 7.5 tons and not 2.5
tons as declared in its bill of lading. Due to this, petitioner denied the claim for damages of Consolidated
Construction. Consolidated then filed an action for damages against petitioner with the Court of First
Instance of Manila. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint stating that the proximate cause
of the fall of the payloader which caused its damage was the act or omission of Vicente Concepcion for
misrepresenting the weight of the payloader as 2.5 tons instead of its true weight of 7.5 tons. On appeal,
the Court of Appeals, reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and ordered the plaintiff to
pay Concepcion damages. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the act of respondent Concepcion of misdeclaring the true weight of the payloader the
proximate and only cause of the damage of the payloader?

HELD:
No, Compania Maritima is liable for the damage to the payloader. The General rule under Articles 1735
and 1752 of the Civil Code is that common carriers are presumed to be at fault or to have acted
negligently in case the goods transported by them are lost, destroyed, or had deteriorated. To overcome
the presumption of liability for the loss destruction or deterioration common carriers must prove that
they have exercised extraordinary diligence as required by Article 1733 of the Civil Code.

Extraordinary Diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires the common
carrier to know and follow the required precaution fro avoiding damage or destruction of the goods
entrusted to it for safe carriage and delivery. It requires common carriers to render service with the
greatest skill and foresight and to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristics of
goods tendered for shipment and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage including such
methods as their nature requires.

The Supreme Court further held that the weight in a bill of lading are prima facie evidence of the amount
received and the fact that the weighing was done by another will not relieve the common carrier where
it accepted such weight and entered it in on the bill of lading. The common carrier can protect
themselves against mistakes in the bill of lading as to weight by exercising extraordinary diligence
before issuing such.

17.
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 143133. June 5, 2002]
BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING AND SHIPPING N.V. and JARDINE DAVIES
TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE CO., INC.,
respondent.

FACTS:
CMC Trading A.G. shipped on board the MN ‘Anangel Sky’ at Hamburg, Germany 242 coils of various
Prime Cold Rolled Steel sheets for transportation to Manila consigned to the Philippine Steel Trading
Corporation. On July 28, 1990, MN Anangel Sky arrived at the port of Manila and, within the
subsequent days, discharged the subject cargo. Four (4) coils were found to be in bad order B.O. Tally
sheet No. 154974. Finding the four (4) coils in their damaged state to be unfit for the intended purpose,
the consignee Philippine Steel Trading Corporation declared the same as total loss.

Despite receipt of a formal demand, Phil. First insurance refused to submit to the consignee’s claim.
Consequently, Belgian Overseas paid the consignee P506,086.50, and was subrogated to the latter’s
rights and causes of action against defendants-appellees. Subsequently, plaintiff-appellant instituted this
complaint for recovery of the amount paid by them, to the consignee as insured.

Impugning the propriety of the suit against them, defendants-appellees imputed that the damage and/or
loss was due to pre-shipment damage, to the inherent nature, vice or defect of the goods, or to perils,
danger and accidents of the sea, or to insufficiency of packing thereof, or to the act or omission of the
shipper of the goods or their representatives. In addition thereto, defendants-appellees argued that their
liability, if there be any, should not exceed the limitations of liability provided for in the bill of lading
and other pertinent laws. Finally, defendants-appellees averred that, in any event, they exercised due
diligence and foresight required by law to prevent any damage/loss to said shipment.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners have overcome the presumption of negligence of a common carrier

HELD:
No.
Petitioners contend that the presumption of fault imposed on common carriers should not be applied on
the basis of the lone testimony offered by private respondent. The contention is untenable.
Well-settled is the rule that common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public
policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence and vigilance with respect to the safety of the
goods and the passengers they transport. Thus, common carriers are required to render service with the
greatest skill and foresight and “to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristics
of the goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including
such methods as their nature requires.” The extraordinary responsibility lasts from the time the goods
are unconditionally placed in the possession of and received for transportation by the carrier until they
are delivered, actually or constructively, to the consignee or to the person who has a right to receive
them.

Owing to this high degree of diligence required of them, common carriers, as a general rule, are
presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or
destroyed. That is, unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the
goods. In order to avoid responsibility for any loss or damage, therefore, they have the burden of proving
that they observed such diligence.

However, the presumption of fault or negligence will not arise if the loss is due to any of the following
causes: (1) flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity; (2) an act of the
public enemy in war, whether international or civil; (3) an act or omission of the shipper or owner of
the goods; (4) the character of the goods or defects in the packing or the container; or (5) an order or
act of competent public authority. This is a closed list. If the cause of destruction, loss or deterioration
is other than the enumerated circumstances, then the carrier is liable therefor.
Corollary to the foregoing, mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier and
of their arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes a prima facie case of fault or negligence
against the carrier. If no adequate explanation is given as to how the deterioration, the loss or the
destruction of the goods happened, the transporter shall be held responsible.

That petitioners failed to rebut the prima facie presumption of negligence is revealed in the case at bar
by a review of the records and more so by the evidence adduced by respondent.