TRANSPO Loadstar Shipping vs CA

8/21/2019 TRANSPO Loadstar Shipping vs CA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transpo-loadstar-shipping-vs-ca 1/6

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 131621 September 28, 1999

LOADSTAR SHPPNG CO., NC., petitioner,

vs.

COURT O! APPEALS "#$ THE MANLA NSURANCE CO., NC., respondents.

DA%DE, &R., C.J.:

Petitioner oadstar Shippin! "o., Inc. #hereafter O$DST$R%, in this petition for revie& on certiorari under Rule

'( of the )**+ Rules of "ivil Procedure, sees to reverse and set aside the follo&in!- #a% the / 0anuar1 )**+

decision 1 of the "ourt of $ppeals in "$23.R. "V No. 4'/), &hich affir5ed the decision of ' October

)**) 2 of the Re!ional Trial "ourt of Manila, 6ranch )4, in "ivil "ase No. 7(28*))/, orderin! O$DST$R

to pa1 private respondent Manila Insurance "o. #hereafter MI"% the a5ount of P4,/4+,)+7, &ith le!al

interest fro5 the filin! of the co5pliant until full1 paid, P7,/// as attorne19s fees, and the costs of the suit:

and #b% its resolution of )* Nove5ber )**+, 3 den1in! O$DST$R9s 5otion for reconsideration of said

decision.

The facts are undisputed. 1âwphi1.nêt

On )* Nove5ber )*7', O$DST$R received on board its M;V <"heroee< #hereafter, the vessel% the follo&in!!oods for ship5ent-

a% +/( bales of la&anit hard&ood:

b% 8+ bo=es and crates of tile&ood asse5blies and the others :and

c% '* bundles of 5ouldin!s R > ? #% $piton! 6olideni@ed.

The !oods, a5ountin! to P4,/4+,)+7, &ere insured for the sa5e a5ount &ith MI" a!ainst various riss

includin! <TOT$ OSS 6A TOT$ OF TBC OSS TBC VCSSC.< The vessel, in turn, &as insured b1

Prudential 3uarantee > $ssurance, Inc. #hereafter P3$I% for P' 5illion. On 8/ Nove5ber )*7', on its &a1 to

Manila fro5 the port of Nasipit, $!usan del Norte, the vessel, alon! &ith its car!o, san off i5asa&a Island. $s

a result of the total loss of its ship5ent, the consi!nee 5ade a clai5 &ith O$DST$R &hich, ho&ever, i!nored

the sa5e. $s the insurer, MI" paid P4,/+(,/// to the insured in full settle5ent of its clai5, and the latter

e=ecuted a subro!ation receipt therefor.

On ' Februar1 )*7(, MI" filed a co5plaint a!ainst O$DST$R and P3$I, alle!in! that the sinin! of the

vessel &as due to the fault and ne!li!ence of O$DST$R and its e5plo1ees. It also pra1ed that P3$I be



ordered to pa1 the insurance proceeds fro5 the loss the vessel directl1 to MI", said a5ount to be deducted

fro5 MI"9s clai5 fro5 O$DST$R.

In its ans&er, O$DST$R denied an1 liabilit1 for the loss of the shipper9s !oods and clai5ed that sinin! of its

vessel &as due to force majeure. P3$I, on the other hand, averred that MI" had no cause of action a!ainst it,

O$DST$R bein! the part1 insured. In an1 event, P3$I &as later dropped as a part1 defendant after it paid the

insurance proceeds to O$DST$R.

$s stated at the outset, the court a quo rendered ud!5ent in favor of MI", pro5ptin! O$DST$R to elevate

the 5atter to the court of $ppeals, &hich, ho&ever, a!reed &ith the trial court and affir5ed its decision in toto.

In dis5issin! O$DST$R9s appeal, the appellate court 5ade the follo&in! observations-

)% O$DST$R cannot be considered a private carrier on the sole !round that

there &as a sin!le shipper on that fateful vo1a!e. The court noted that the

charter of the vessel &as li5ited to the ship, but O$DST$R retained control

over its cre&. '

8% $s a co55on carrier, it is the "ode of "o55erce, not the "ivil "ode,

&hich should be applied in deter5inin! the ri!hts and liabilities of the

parties.

% The vessel &as not sea&orth1 because it &as under5anned on the da1 of

the vo1a!e. If it had been sea&orth1, it could have &ithstood the <natural and

inevitable action of the sea< on 8/ Nove5ber )*7', &hen the condition of the

sea &as 5oderate. The vessel san, not because of force majeure, but

because it &as not sea&orth1. O$DST$R9S alle!ation that the sinin! &as

probabl1 due to the <conver!ence of the &inds,< as stated b1 a P$3$S$

e=pert, &as not dul1 proven at the trial. The <li5ited liabilit1< rule, therefore, is

not applicable considerin! that, in this case, there &as an actual findin! of

ne!li!ence on the part of the carrier. (

'% 6et&een MI" and O$DST$R, the provisions of the 6ill of adin! do

not appl1 because said provisions bind onl1 the shipper;consi!nee and

the carrier. ?hen MI" paid the shipper for the !oods insured, it &as

subro!ated to the latter9s ri!hts as a!ainst the carrier, O$DST$R. 6

(% There &as a clear breach of the contract of carria!e &hen the

shipper9s !oods never reached their destination. O$DST$R9s defense

of <dili!ence of a !ood father of a fa5il1< in the trainin! and selection of

its cre& is unavailin! because this is not a proper or co5plete defense

in culpa contractual .

4% <$rt. 4) #of the "ode of "o55erce% has been udiciall1 construed to

5ean that &hen !oods are delivered on board a ship in !ood order and

condition, and the shipo&ner delivers the5 to the shipper in bad order and

condition, it then devolves upon the shipo&ner to both alle!e and prove that

the !oods &ere da5a!ed b1 reason of so5e fact &hich le!all1 e=e5pts hi5

fro5 liabilit1.< Transportation of the 5erchandise at the ris and venture of

the shipper 5eans that the latter bears the ris of loss or deterioration of his



!oods arisin! fro5 fortuitous events, force majeure, or the inherent nature

and defects of the !oods, but not those caused b1 the presu5ed ne!li!ence

or fault of the carrier, unless other&ise proved. )

The errors assi!ned b1 O$DST$R boil do&n to a deter5ination of the follo&in! issues-

#)% Is the M;V <"heroee< a private or a co55on carrierE

#8% Did O$DST$R observe due and;or ordinar1 dili!ence in these pre5ises.

Re!ardin! the first issue, O$DST$R sub5its that the vessel &as a private carrier because it &as not issued

certificate of public convenience, it did not have a re!ular trip or schedule nor a fi=ed route, and there &as onl1

<one shipper, one consi!nee for a special car!o.<

In refutation, MI" ar!ues that the issue as to the classification of the M;V <"heroee< &as not ti5el1 raised

belo&: hence, it is barred b1 estoppel. ?hile it is true that the vessel had on board onl1 the car!o of &ood

products for deliver1 to one consi!nee, it &as also carr1in! passen!ers as part of its re!ular business.

Moreover, the bills of ladin! in this case 5ade no 5ention of an1 charter part1 but onl1 a state5ent that the

vessel &as a <!eneral car!o carrier.< Neither &as there an1 <special arran!e5ent< bet&een O$DST$R and

the shipper re!ardin! the ship5ent of the car!o. The sin!ular fact that the vessel &as carr1in! a particular t1pe

of car!o for one shipper is not sufficient to convert the vessel into a private carrier.

$s re!ards the second error, O$DST$R ar!ues that as a private carrier, it cannot be presu5ed to have been

ne!li!ent, and the burden of provin! other&ise devolved upon MI". 8

O$DST$R also 5aintains that the vessel &as sea&orth1. 6efore the fateful vo1a!e on )* Nove5ber )*7',

the vessel &as alle!edl1 dr1 doced at eppel Philippines Ship1ard and &as dul1 inspected b1 the 5ariti5e

safet1 en!ineers of the Philippine "oast 3uard, &ho certified that the ship &as fit to undertae a vo1a!e. Its

cre& at the ti5e &as e=perienced, licensed and unGuestionabl1 co5petent. ?ith all these precautions, there

could be no other conclusion e=cept that O$DST$R e=ercised the dili!ence of a !ood father of a fa5il1 in

ensurin! the vessel9s sea&orthiness.

O$DST$R further clai5s that it &as not responsible for the loss of the car!o, such loss bein! due to force

majeure. It points out that &hen the vessel left Nasipit, $!usan del Norte, on )* Nove5ber )*7', the &eather

&as fine until the ne=t da1 &hen the vessel san due to stron! &aves. M"I9s &itness, 3racelia Tapel, full1

established the e=istence of t&o t1phoons, <?CFRIN3< and <AOIN3,< inside the Philippine area of

responsibilit1. In fact, on 8/ Nove5ber )*7', si!nal no. ) &as declared over Castern Visa1as, &hich includes

i5asa&a Island. Tapel also testified that the conver!ence of &inds brou!ht about b1 these t&o t1phoons

stren!thened &ind velocit1 in the area, naturall1 producin! stron! &aves and &inds, in turn, causin! the vessel

to list and eventuall1 sin.

O$DST$R !oes on to ar!ue that, bein! a private carrier, an1 a!ree5ent li5itin! its liabilit1, such as &hat

transpired in this case, is valid. Since the car!o &as bein! shipped at <o&ner9s ris,< O$DST$R &as not liable

for an1 loss or da5a!e to the sa5e. Therefore, the "ourt of $ppeals erred in holdin! that the provisions of the

bills of ladin! appl1 onl1 to the shipper and the carrier, and not to the insurer of the !oods, &hich conclusion

runs counter to the Supre5e "ourt9s rulin! in the case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Co. v. Macondray & Co.,

Inc., 9 and ational !nion Fire "n#urance Company of Pitt#$ur%h v. Stoltiel#en Phil#.' "nc . 1*

Finall1, O$DST$R avers that MI"9s clai5 had alread1 prescribed, the case havin! been instituted be1ond the

period stated in the bills of ladin! for institutin! the sa5e H suits based upon clai5s arisin! fro5 shorta!e,



da5a!e, or non2deliver1 of ship5ent shall be instituted &ithin si=t1 da1s fro5 the accrual of the ri!ht of action.

The vessel san on 8/ Nove5ber )*7': 1et, the case for recover1 &as filed onl1 on ' Februar1 )*7(.

MI", on the other hand, clai5s that O$DST$R &as liable, not&ithstandin! that the loss of the car!o &as due

toforce majeure, because the sa5e concurred &ith O$DST$R9s fault or ne!li!ence.

Secondl1, O$DST$R did not raise the issue of prescription in the court belo&: hence, the sa5e 5ust be

dee5ed &aived.

Thirdl1, the < li5ited liabilit1 < theor1 is not applicable in the case at bar because O$DST$R &as at fault or

ne!li!ent, and because it failed to 5aintain a sea&orth1 vessel. $uthori@in! the vo1a!e not&ithstandin! its

no&led!e of a t1phoon is tanta5ount to ne!li!ence.

?e find no 5erit in this petition.

$nent the first assi!ned error, &e hold that O$DST$R is a co55on carrier. It is not necessar1 that the carrier

be issued a certificate of public convenience, and this public character is not altered b1 the fact that the

carria!e of the !oods in Guestion &as periodic, occasional, episodic or unscheduled.

In support of its position, O$DST$R relied on the )*47 case of (ome "n#urance Co. v. )merican Steam#hip

)%encie#' "nc ., 11 &here this "ourt held that a co55on carrier transportin! special car!o or charterin! the

vessel to a special person beco5es a private carrier that is not subect to the provisions of the "ivil "ode.

$n1 stipulation in the charter part1 absolvin! the o&ner fro5 liabilit1 for loss due to the ne!li!ence of its

a!ent is void onl1 if the strict polic1 !overnin! co55on carriers is upheld. Such polic1 has no force &here

the public at is not involved, as in the case of a ship totall1 chartered for the use of a sin!le part1.

O$DST$R also cited *alen+uela (ardwood and "ndu#trial Supply' "nc. v. Court of

)ppeal# 12 and ational Steel Corp. v. Court of )ppeal#, 13 both of &hich upheld the Bo5e Insurance

doctrine.

These cases invoed b1 O$DST$R are not applicable in the case at bar for the si5ple reason that the factualsettin!s are different. The records do not disclose that the M;V <"heroee,< on the date in Guestion, undertoo

to carr1 a special car!o or &as chartered to a special person onl1. There &as no charter part1. The bills of

ladin! failed to sho& an1 special arran!e5ent, but onl1 a !eneral provision to the effect that the

M;V<"heroee< &as a <%eneral car%o carrier .< 1' Further, the bare fact that the vessel &as carr1in! a

particular t1pe of car!o for one shipper, &hich appears to be purel1 coincidental, is not reason enou!h to

convert the vessel fro5 a co55on to a private carrier, especiall1 &here, as in this case, it &as sho&n that

the vessel &as also carr1in! passen!ers.

nder the facts and circu5stances obtainin! in this case, O$DST$R fits the definition of a co55on carrier

under $rticle )+8 of the "ivil "ode. In the case of ,e -u+man v. Court of )ppeal#, 1( the "ourt u=taposed

the statutor1 definition of <co55on carriers< &ith the peculiar circu5stances of that case, vi+ .-

The "ivil "ode defines <co55on carriers< in the follo&in! ter5s-

$rt. )+8. "o55on carriers are persons, corporations, fir5s or associations

en!a!ed in the business of carr1in! or transportin! passen!ers or !oods or

both, b1 land, &ater, or air for co5pensation, offerin! their services to the

public.



The above article 5aes no distinction bet&een one &hose principal business activit1 is the

carr1in! of persons or !oods or both, and one &ho does such carr1in! onl1

as ancillary activit1 #in local idio5, as <a sideline<. $rticle )+8 also carefull1 avoids 5ain!

an1 distinction bet&een a person or enterprise offerin! transportation service on a re%ular or

#cheduled $a#i# and one offerin! such service on an occa#ional' epi#odic or un#cheduled

$a#i#. Neither does $rticle )+8 distin!uish bet&een a carrier offerin! its services to the

<!eneral public,< i .e., the !eneral co55unit1 or population, and one &ho offers services orsolicits business onl1 fro5 a narro& #e%ment of the !eneral population. ?e thin that $rticle

)+ deliberatel1 refrained fro5 5ain! such distinctions.

=== === ===

It appears to the "ourt that private respondent is properl1 characteri@ed as a co55on carrier

even thou!h he 5erel1 <bac2hauled< !oods for other 5erchants fro5 Manila to Pan!asinan,

althou!h such bachaulin! &as done on a periodic or occasional rather than re!ular or

scheduled 5anner, and eventhou!h private respondent9s principal occupation &as not the

carria!e of !oods for others. There is no dispute that private respondent char!ed his

custo5ers a fee for haulin! their !oods: that fee freGuentl1 fell belo& co55ercial frei!ht rates

is not relevant here.

The "ourt of $ppeals referred to the fact that private respondent held no certificate of public

convenience, and concluded he &as not a co55on carrier. This is palpable error. $ certificate

of public convenience is not a reGuisite for the incurrin! of liabilit1 under the "ivil "ode

provisions !overnin! co55on carriers. That liabilit1 arises the 5o5ent a person or fir5 acts

as a co55on carrier, &ithout re!ard to &hether or not such carrier has also co5plied &ith the

reGuire5ents of the applicable re!ulator1 statute and i5ple5entin! re!ulations and has been

!ranted a certificate of public convenience or other franchise. To e=e5pt private respondent

fro5 the liabilities of a co55on carrier because he has not secured the necessar1 certificate

of public convenience, &ould be offensive to sound public polic1: that &ould be to re&ard

private respondent precisel1 for failin! to co5pl1 &ith applicable statutor1 reGuire5ents The

business of a co55on carrier i5pin!es directl1 and inti5atel1 upon the safet1 and &ell bein!and propert1 of those 5e5bers of the !eneral co55unit1 &ho happen to deal &ith such

carrier. The la& i5poses duties and liabilities upon co55on carriers for the safet1 and

protection of those &ho utili@e their services and the la& cannot allo& a co55on carrier to

render such duties and liabilities 5erel1 facultative b1 si5pl1 failin! to obtain the necessar1

per5its and authori@ations.

Movin! on to the second assi!ned error, &e find that the M;V <"heroee< &as not sea&orth1 &hen it e5bared

on its vo1a!e on )* Nove5ber )*7'. The vessel &as not even sufficientl1 5anned at the ti5e. <For a vessel to

be sea&orth1, it 5ust be adeGuatel1 eGuipped for the vo1a!e and 5anned &ith a sufficient nu5ber of

co5petent officers and cre&. The failure of a co55on carrier to 5aintain in sea&orth1 condition its vessel

involved in a contract of carria!e is a clear breach of its dut1 prescribed in $rticle )+(( of the "ivil "ode.< 16

Neither do &e a!ree &ith O$DST$R9s ar!u5ent that the <li5ited liabilit1< theor1 should be applied in this

case. The doctrine of li5ited liabilit1 does not appl1 &here there &as ne!li!ence on the part of the vessel o&ner

or a!ent. 1) O$DST$R &as at fault or ne!li!ent in not 5aintainin! a sea&orth1 vessel and in havin!

allo&ed its vessel to sail despite no&led!e of an approachin! t1phoon. In an1 event, it did not sin

because of an1 stor5 that 5a1 be dee5ed as force majeure, inas5uch as the &ind condition in the

perfor5ance of its duties, O$DST$R cannot hide behind the <li5ited liabilit1< doctrine to escape

responsibilit1 for the loss of the vessel and its car!o.



O$DST$R also clai5s that the "ourt of $ppeals erred in holdin! it liable for the loss of the !oods, in utter

disre!ard of this "ourt9s pronounce5ents in St. Paul Fire & Marine "n#. Co. v. Macondray & Co.'

"nc ., 18 andational !nion Fire "n#urance v. Stoltiel#en Phil#.' "nc . 19 It &as ruled in these t&o cases that

after pa1in! the clai5 of the insured for da5a!es under the insurance polic1, the insurer is subro!ated

5erel1 to the ri!hts of the assured, that is, it can recover onl1 the a5ount that 5a1, in turn, be recovered

b1 the latter. Since the ri!ht of the assured in case of loss or da5a!e to the !oods is li5ited or restricted

b1 the provisions in the bills of ladin!, a suit b1 the insurer as subro!ee is necessaril1 subect to the sa5e

li5itations and restrictions. ?e do not a!ree. In the first place, the cases relied on b1 O$DST$R

involved a li5itation on the carrier9s liabilit1 to an a5ount fi=ed in the bill of ladin! &hich the parties 5a1

enter into, provided that the sa5e &as freel1 and fairl1 a!reed upon #$rticles )+'*2)+(/%. On the other

hand, the stipulation in the case at bar effectivel1 reduces the co55on carrier9s liabilit1 for the loss or

destruction of the !oods to a de!ree less than e=traordinar1 #$rticles )+'' and )+'(%, that is, the carrier

is not liable for an1 loss or da5a!e to ship5ents 5ade at <o&ner9s ris.< Such stipulation is obviousl1 null

and void for bein! contrar1 to public polic1.< 2* It has been said-

Three inds of stipulations have often been 5ade in a bill of ladin!. The fir#t one e=e5ptin!

the carrier fro5 an1 and all liabilit1 for loss or da5a!e occasioned b1 its o&n ne!li!ence. The

second is one providin! for an unGualified li5itation of such liabilit1 to an a!reed valuation.

$nd the third is one li5itin! the liabilit1 of the carrier to an a!reed valuation unless the shipper

declares a hi!her value and pa1s a hi!her rate of. frei!ht. $ccordin! to an al5ost unifor5

&ei!ht of authorit1, the first and second inds of stipulations are invalid as bein! contrar1 to

public polic1, but the third is valid and enforceable. 21

Since the stipulation in Guestion is null and void, it follo&s that &hen MI" paid the shipper, it &as

subro!ated to all the ri!hts &hich the latter has a!ainst the co55on carrier, O$DST$R.

Neither is there 5erit to the contention that the clai5 in this case &as barred b1 prescription. MI"9s cause of

action had not 1et prescribed at the ti5e it &as concerned. Inas5uch as neither the "ivil "ode nor the "ode of

"o55erce states a specific prescriptive period on the 5atter, the "arria!e of 3oods b1 Sea $ct #"O3S$% H

&hich provides for a one21ear period of li5itation on clai5s for loss of, or da5a!e to, car!oes sustained durin!transit H 5a1 be applied suppletoril1 to the case at bar. This one21ear prescriptive period also applies to the

insurer of the !oods. 22 In this case, the period for filin! the action for recover1 has not 1et elapsed.

Moreover, a stipulation reducin! the one21ear period is null and void: 23 it 5ust, accordin!l1, be struc

do&n.

?BCRCFORC, the instant petition is DCNICD and the challen!ed decision of / 0anuar1 )**+ of the "ourt of

$ppeals in "$23.R. "V No. 4'/) is $FFIRMCD. "osts a!ainst petitioner.1âwphi1.nêt

SO ORDCRCD.

Puno' apunan' Pardo and /nare#Santia%o' 00.' concur.

TRANSPO Loadstar Shipping vs CA

Documents

Transcript of TRANSPO Loadstar Shipping vs CA