G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993.

ESTRELITA M. BASCOS, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO A. CIPRIANO, respondents.

Facts:

Rodolfo A. Cipriano representing Cipriano Trading Enterprise (CIPTRADE) entered into

a hauling contract with Jibfair Shipping Agency Corporation whereby the former bound itself to
haul the latter's 2,000 m/tons of soya bean meal from Magallanes Drive, Del Pan, Manila to the
warehouse of Purefoods Corporation in Calamba, Laguna. CIPTRADE subcontracted with
Estrellita Bascos (petitioner) to transport and to deliver 400 sacks of soya bean meal worth
P156,404.00 from the Manila Port Area to Calamba, Laguna. Petitioner failed to deliver the said
cargo. As a consequence of that failure, Cipriano paid Jibfair Shipping Agency the amount of the
lost goods in accordance with their contract.

Cipriano demanded reimbursement from petitioner but the latter refused to pay.
Eventually, Cipriano filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages with writ of preliminary
attachment for breach of a contract of carriage.

The trial court granted the writ of preliminary attachment.

In her answer, petitioner interposed the defense that there was no contract of carriage
since CIPTRADE leased her cargo truck to load the cargo from Manila Port Area to Laguna and
that the truck carrying the cargo was hijacked and being a force majeure, exculpated petitioner
from any liability

After trial, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Cipriano and against Bascos
ordering the latter to pay the former for actual damages for attorneys fees and cost of suit.

The Urgent Motion To Dissolve/Lift preliminary Attachment is DENIED for being

moot and academic.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but respondent Court affirmed the trial courts
judgment.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is a common carrier

Ruling:

Yes.

Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as "(a) person, corporation or
firm, or association 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."

The Supreme Court held that 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.

In this case, petitioner herself has made the admission that she was in the trucking
business, offering her trucks to those with cargo to move. Judicial admissions are conclusive and
no evidence is required to prove the same.
G.R. No. 122494 October 8, 1998

EVERETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and HERNANDEZ TRADING CO. INC., respondents.

Facts:

Private respondent imported three crates of bus spare parts marked as MARCO C/No. 12,
MARCO C/No. 13 and MARCO C/No. 14, from its supplier, Maruman Trading Company, Ltd.
(Maruman Trading), a foreign corporation based in Inazawa, Aichi, Japan. The crates were
shipped from Nagoya, Japan to Manila on board "ADELFAEVERETTE," a vessel owned by
petitioner's principal, Everett Orient Lines. The said crates were covered by Bill of Lading No.
NGO53MN.

Upon arrival at the port of Manila, it was discovered that the crate marked MARCO
C/No. 14 was missing. Petitioner made a formal claim upon petitioner for the value of the lost
cargo amounting to One Million Five Hundred Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred
(Y1,552,500.00) Yen, the amount shown in an Invoice No. MTM-941, dated November 14,
1991. However, petitioner offered to pay only One Hundred Thousand (Y100,000.00) Yen, the
maximum amount stipulated under Clause 18 of the covering bill of lading which limits the
liability of petitioner.

Private respondent rejected the offer and thereafter instituted a suit for collection against
petitioner before the Regional Trial Court.

The trial court rendered a decision in favor of private respondents which was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

Whether or not the consent of the consignee to the terms and conditions of
the bill of lading is necessary to make such terms binding upon it

Ruling:

Yes.

In Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Supreme Court held that
even if the consignee was not a signatory to the contract of carriage between the shipper and the
carrier, the consignee can still be bound by the contract.

The Supreme Court further held that when private respondent formally claimed
reimbursement for the missing goods from petitioner and subsequently filed a case against the
latter based on the very same bill of lading, private respondent accepted the provisions of the
contract and thereby made itself a party thereto, or at least has come to court to enforce it.
G.R. No. 84680 February 5, 1996

SUMMA INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and METRO PORT SERVICE, INC., respondents.

Facts:

On November 22, 1981, the S/S "Galleon Sapphire", a vessel owned by the National
Galleon Shipping Corporation (NGSC), arrived at Pier 3, South Harbor, Manila, carrying a
shipment consigned to the order of Caterpillar Far East Ltd. with Semirara Coal Corporation
(Semirara) as "notify party". The shipment, including a bundle of PC 8 U blades, was covered by
marine insurance under Certificate No. 82/012-FEZ issued by petitioner and Bill of Lading No.
SF/MLA 1014. The shipment was discharged from the vessel to the custody of private
respondent, formerly known as E. Razon, Inc., the exclusive arrastre operator at the South
Harbor. Accordingly, three good-order cargo receipts were issued by NGSC, duly signed by the
ship's checker and a representative of private respondent.

On February 24, 1982, the forwarder, Sterling International Brokerage Corporation,

withdrew the shipment from the pier and loaded it on the barge "Semirara 8104". The barge
arrived at its port of destination, Semirara Island, on March 9, 1982. When Semirara inspected
the shipment at its warehouse, it discovered that the bundle of PC8U blades was missing.

On March 15, 1982, private respondent issued a short-landed certificate-stating that the
bundle of PC8U blades was already missing when it received the shipment from the NGSC
vessel. Semirara then filed with petitioner, private respondent and NGSC its claim for
P280,969.68, the alleged value of the lost bundle.

On September 29, 1982, petitioner paid Semirara the invoice value of the lost shipment.
Semirara thereafter executed a release of claim and subrogation receipt. Consequently, petitioner
filed its claims with NGSC and private respondent but it was unsuccessful.

Petitioner filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXIV, Manila, against
NGSC and private respondent for collection of a sum of money, damages and attorney's fees.

The trial court rendered a decision absolving NGSC from any liability but finding private
respondent liable to petitioner.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court and reduced
private respondent's liability.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the said decision but the Court of Appeals denied
the same. Hence, the instant petition.
Issue:

Whether or not an arrastre operator is legally liable for the loss of shipment in its
custody

Ruling:

Yes.

The Supreme Court held that the relationship between the consignee and the arrastre
operator is akin to that existing between the consignee or owner of shipped goods and the
common carrier, or that between a depositor and a warehouseman. In the performance of its
obligations, an arrastre operator should observe the same degree of diligence as that required of a
common carrier and a warehouseman as enunciated under Article 1733 of the Civil Code and
Section 3(8) of the Warehouse Receipts Law, respectively. Being the custodian of the goods
discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to take good care of the goods and to turn
them over to the party entitled to their possession.

In this case, it has been established that the shipment was lost while in the custody of
private respondent.