DEFENSES IN CARRIAGE OF CARGO

Compania Maritima vs CA Case Digest

Compania Maritima vs Court of Appeals and Vicente Concepcion
(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.
TABACALERA INSURANCE CO., PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE & ASSURANCE, INC., and NEW
ZEALAND INSURANCE CO., LTD., vs.NORTH FRONT SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., and COURT
OF APPEALS,
G.R. No. 119197. May 16, 1997

Facts:

Sacks of grains were loaded on board a vessel owned by North Front Shipping (common carrier);
the consignee: Republic Floor Mills. The vessel was inspected by representatives of the shipper
prior to the transport and was found fitting to carry the cargo; it was also issued a Permit to Sail.
The goods were successfully delivered but it was not immediately unloaded by the consignee.
There were a shortage of 23.666 metric tons and some of the merchandise was already moldy and
deteriorating. Hence, the consignee rejected all the cargo and demanded payment of damages
from the common carrier. Upon refusal, the insurance companies (petitioners) were obliged to pay.
Petitioners now allege that there was negligence on the part of the carrier. The trial court ruled that
only ordinary diligence was required since the charter-party agreement converted North Front
Shipping into a private carrier.

Issues:

WON North Front Shipping is a common carrier. If indeed, did it fail to exercise the required
diligence and thus should be held liable?

Held:

North Front Shipping is a common carrier. Thus, it has the burden of proving that it
observed extraordinary diligence in order to avoid responsibility for the lost cargo.
The charter-party agreement between North Front Shipping Services, Inc., and Republic Flour Mills
Corporation did not in any way convert the common carrier into a private carrier. A “charter-party”
is defined as a contract by which an entire ship, or some principal part thereof, is let by the owner
to another person for a specified time or usex x x

Having been in the service since 1968, the master of the vessel would have known at the outset
that corn grains that were farm wet and not properly dried would eventually deteriorate when stored
in sealed and hot compartments as in hatches of a ship. Equipped with this knowledge, the master
of the vessel and his crew should have undertaken precautionary measures to avoid or lessen the
cargo’s possible deterioration as they were presumed knowledgeable about the nature of such
cargo.
But none of such measures was taken.
It did not even endeavor to establish that the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods was
due to the following: (a) flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(b) act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; © act or omission of the shipper or
owner of the goods; (d) the character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(e) 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 rightly liable
therefor.

However, the destruction, loss or deterioration of the cargo cannot be attributed solely to the carrier.
The consignee Republic Flour Mills Corporation is guilty of contributory negligence. It was
seasonably notified of the arrival of the barge but did not immediately start the unloading
operations.