Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

1

Servando v Phil Stream Navigation held that the delivery of the shipment in question
Facts: to the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs is not
1. Clara UyBico and AmparoServando loaded on the delivery contemplated by Article 1736; and
board a vessel of Philippine Steam Navigation Co. since the burning of the warehouse occurred
for carriage from Manila to Negros Occidental before actual or constructive delivery of the goods
1,528 cavans of rice and 44 cartons of colored to the appellees, the loss is chargeable against the
paper, toys and general merchandise. appellant.
2. The contract of carriage of cargo was 2. It should be pointed out, however, that in the
evidenced by a Bill of Lading (B/L). There was a bills of lading issued for the cargoes in question,
stipulation limiting the responsibility of the carrier the parties agreed to limit the responsibility of the
for loss or damage that may be caused to the carrier. The stipulation is valid not being contrary
shipment to law, morals or public policy.
a. carrier shall not be responsible for loss or 3. The petitioners however, contend that the
damage to shipments billed owners risk unless stipulation does not bind them since it was printed
such loss or damage is due to the negligence of the at the back of the B/L and that they did not sign the
carrier. Nor shall the carrier be responsible for same. However, as the Court held in OngYiu vs.
loss or damage caused by force majeure, dangers CA, while it may be true that a passenger had not
or accidents of the sea, war, public enemies, fire. signed the plane ticket, he is nevertheless bound
3. Upon arrival of the vessel at its destination, the by the provisions thereof. Such provisions have
cargoes were discharged in good condition and been held to be a part of the contract of carriage,
placed inside the warehouse of the Bureau of and valid and binding upon the passenger
Customs. regardless of the latter's lack of knowledge or
4. UyBico was able to take delivery of 907 cavans assent to the regulation.
of rice. 4. Also, where fortuitous event is the immediate
5. Unfortunately, the warehouse was razed by and proximate cause of the loss, the obligor is
fire of unknown origin later that same day exempt from liability for non-performance. In the
destroying the remaining cargoes. case at bar, the burning of the customs warehouse
6. UyBico and Servando filed a claim for the value was an extraordinary event which happened
of the goods against the carrier. independently of the will of the appellant. The
7. The lower court ruled in their favor. It held that latter could not have foreseen the event.
the delivery of the shipment to the warehouse is 5. There is nothing in the record to show that the
not the delivery contemplated by Art. 1736 of the carrier incurred in delay in the performance of its
CC. And since the burning of the warehouse obligation. It appears that it had not only notified
occurred prior to the actual or constructive UyBico and Servando of the arrival of their
delivery of the goods, the loss is chargeable shipment, but had demanded that the same be
against the vessel. withdrawn. In fact, pursuant to such demand,
UyBico had taken delivery of 907 cavans of rice
Issue: Whether or not the carrier is liable for the before the burning of the warehouse.
loss of the goods. 6. Nor can the carrier or its employees be charged
with negligence. The storage of the goods in the
Held: No. Customs warehouse pending withdrawal thereof
by UyBico and Servando was undoubtedly made
1. Article 1736 of the CC imposes upon common with their knowledge and consent. Since the
carriers the duty to observe extraordinary warehouse belonged to and was maintained by the
diligence from the moment the goods are government, it would be unfair to impute
unconditionally placed in their possession "until negligence to the carrier, the latter having no
the same are delivered, actually or constructively, control whatsoever over the same.
by the carrier to the consignee or to the person
who has a right to receive them, without prejudice
to the provisions of Article 1738. The court a quo
2

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen