SCHMITZ TRANSPORT & BROKERAGE CORP.
VS HELD:
TRANSPORT VENTURE, INC.
G.R. No. 150255, April 22, 2005
FACTS:
SYTCO Pte Ltd. Singapore shipped from the port of
Ilyichevsk, Russia on board M/V Alexander Saveliev hot
rolled steel sheets. The cargoes were to be discharged at
the port of Manila in favor of the consignee, Little Giant
Steel Pipe Corp. and were insured against all risks with
Industrial Insurance.
The vessel arrived at the port of Manila and the Philippine
Ports Authority assigned it a place of berth outside
breakwater at the Manila South Harbor.
Schmitz Transport, whose services the consignee
engaged to secure the requisite clearances, to receive the
cargoes from the shipside, and to deliver them to its Little
Giants warehouse at Cainta, Rizal, in turn engaged the
services of TVI to send a barge and tugboat at shipside.
The coils were then unloaded to the barge but there was
no tugboat to pull the barge to the pier. Due to the strong
waves caused by an approaching storm, the barge was
abandoned. Later, the barge capsized washing 37 coils
into the sea. Earnest efforts on the part of both the
consignee Little Giant and Industrial Insurance to recover
the lost cargoes proved futile.
Little Giant thus filed a formal claim against Industrial
Insurance. Little Giant thereupon executed a subrogation
receipt in favor of Industrial Insurance.
Industrial Insurance later filed a complaint against
Schmitz Transport, TVI, and Black Sea for the recovery of
the amount it paid to Little Giant plus adjustment fees,
attorneys fees, and litigation expenses.
SCHMITZS CONTENTIONS: that in chartering the barge
and tugboat of TVI, it was acting for its principal,
consignee Little Giant, hence, the transportation contract
was by and between Little Giant and TVI.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS: Black Sea argued
that the cargoes were received by the consignee through
petitioner in good order, hence, it cannot be faulted, it
having had no control and supervision thereover.
For its part, TVI maintained that it acted as a passive party
as it merely received the cargoes and transferred them
unto the barge upon the instruction of petitioner.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the loss of the cargoes was due to a
fortuitous event, independent of any act of
negligence on the part of Black Sea and TVI;
2. If there was negligence, W/N liability for the
loss may attach to Black Sea, Schmitz and TVI
1. NO.
In order, to be considered a fortuitous event, however, (1)
the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence,
or the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation,
must be independent of human will; (2) it must be
impossible to foresee the event which constitute the caso
fortuito, or if it can be foreseen it must be impossible to
avoid; (3) the occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in any
manner; and (4) the obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to
the creditor.
From a review of the records of the case, there is no
indication that there was greater risk in loading the
cargoes outside the breakwater. As the defendants
proffered, the weather on October 26, 1991 remained
normal with moderate sea condition such that port
operations continued and proceeded normally.
That no tugboat towed back the barge to the pier after the
cargoes were completely loaded by 12:30 in the morning
is, however, a material fact which the appellate court
failed to properly consider and appreciate the proximate
cause of the loss of the cargoes. Had the barge been
towed back promptly to the pier, the deteriorating sea
conditions notwithstanding, the loss could have been
avoided. But the barge was left floating in open sea until
big waves set in at 5:30 a.m., causing it to sink along with
the cargoes. The loss thus falls outside the "act of God
doctrine.
2. Schmitz Transport and TVI are jointly and
severally liable.
In the present case, Schmitz was the broker-agent of Little
Giant in securing the release of the cargoes. In effecting
the transportation of the cargoes from the shipside and
into Little Giants warehouse, however, petitioner was
discharging its own personal obligation under a contact of
carriage.
Scmitz, which did not have any barge or tugboat, engaged
the services of TVI as handler to provide the barge and
the tugboat. In their Service Contract, while Little Giant
was named as the consignee, petitioner did not disclose
that it was acting on commission and was chartering the
vessel for Little Giant. Little Giant did not thus
automatically become a party to the Service Contract and
was not, therefore, bound by the terms and conditions
therein.
Not being a party to the service contract, Little Giant
cannot directly sue TVI based thereon but it can maintain
a cause of action for negligence
In the case of TVI, while it acted as a private carrier for
which it was under no duty to observe extraordinary
diligence, it was still required to observe ordinary
diligence to ensure the proper and careful handling, care
and discharge of the carried goods.
TVIs failure to promptly provide a tugboat did not only
increase the risk that might have been reasonably
anticipated during the shipside operation, but was the
proximate cause of the loss.
As for petitioner, for it to be relieved of liability, it should,
following Article 1739 of the Civil Code, prove that it
exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss,
before, during and after the occurrence of the storm in
order that it may be exempted from liability for the loss of
the goods.
While petitioner sent checkers and a supervisor on board
the vessel to counter-check the operations of TVI, it failed
to take all available and reasonable precautions to avoid
the loss. After noting that TVI failed to arrange for the
prompt towage of the barge despite the deteriorating sea
conditions, it should have summoned the same or another
tugboat to extend help, but it did not.
As for Black Sea, its duty as a common carrier extended
only from the time the goods were surrendered or
unconditionally placed in its possession and received for
transportation until they were delivered actually or
constructively to consignee Little Giant. Thus, no liability
may attach to Black Sea.
PHILAMGEN VS CA AND TRANSPACIFIC TOWAGE
G.R. No. 101426, May 17, 1993
FACTS:
On September 4, 1985 the Davao Union Marketing
Corporation of Davao City shipped on board the vessel
M/V "Crazy Horse" operated by the Transpacific Towage,
Inc. cargo consisting of 9,750 sheets of union brand GI
sheets and 86,860 bags of union Pozzolan and union
Portland Cement. The cargo was insured by the
Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc.
The vessel M/V "Crazy Horse" arrived on September 7,
1985 as scheduled at the port of Pasacao, Camarines
Sur. Upon arrival the shipmaster notified the consignee's
"Notify-Party" that the vessel was already to discharge the
cargo. The discharging could not be affected immediately
and continuously because of certain reasons. First, the
buoys were installed only on September 11, 1985;
second, the discharge permit was secured by the
consignee only on September 13, 1985; third a wooden
catwalk had to be installed and extension of the wharf had
to be made, which was completed only on September 26,
1985; fourth, the discharging was not continuous because
there were intermittent rains and the stevedores supplied
by the consignee did not work during the town fiesta.
On October 16, 1985, a super typhoon code named
"Saling" entered the Philippine area of responsibility. The
discharging of the cargo had to be suspended at 11:40
A.M. on October 17, 1985 due to the heavy downpour,
strong winds, and turbulent sea. To prevent damage to
the cargo all hatches of the vessel were closed and
secured.
At the time the discharging of the cargo was suspended,
a total of 59,625 bags of cement and 26 crates of GI
sheets had already been discharged.
It was at about 5:20 A.M. of October 18, 1985 when the
shipmaster ordered the maneuvering of the vessel but it
could not be steered on account of the strong winds and
rough seas. The vessel's lines snapped, causing her to
be dragged against the rocks, and the anchor chain
stopper gave way. The vessel sustained holes in the
engine room and there was a power failure in the vessel.
Water started to fill the engine room and at about 6:15
A.M. the engine broke down.
The shipmaster had no choice but to order the ship to be
abandoned. He told the crew to secure the vessel while
he went to the Municipal Mayor of Pasacao to request for
police assistance to prevent pilferage of the vessel and its
cargo. He was, however, unable to get any assistance.
When he returned to the vessel he found that it was being
continuously pounded by the strong sea waves against
the rocks. This caused the vessel to break into two (2)
parts and to sink partially. The shipmaster reported the
incident to the Philippine Coast Guard but inspite the
presence of three (3) coast guards, nothing could be done
about the pilferage done on the vessel and its cargo.
Almost the whole barrio and because there were so many
of them the crew and the guards were helpless to stop the
pilferage and looting. As a result of the incident the cargo
of cement was damaged while the GI sheets were looted
and nothing was left of the undischarged pieces.
The total number of cement bags damaged and/or lost
was 26,424 costing P1,056,960.00 while there were 4,000
pieces of the GI sheets unrecovered, the cost of which
was P454,250.00.
Philamgen paid Davao Union the amount pertaining to the
lost cargo. Philamgen then made demands upon
Transpacific for the payment of said amount, claiming that
the loss of the cargo was directly and exclusively brought
about by the fault and negligence of the shipmaster and
crew of M/V Crazy Horse. However, the latter refused to
pay said amount.
PHILAMGENS CONTENTIONS: It contends that
Transpacific is liable for the loss of the insured cargo and
could not be exempt from liability by reason of a fortuitous
event.
ISSUE: W/N Transpacific is exempt from liability by
reason of a fortuitous event. YES
principal question, in determining which of the parties in
the present case should bear the loss of the goods, is
whether the delay involved in the unloading of the goods
is deemed negligently incurred in, so as not to free private
respondent from liability, notwithstanding the fact that the
ultimate cause of the loss of the goods was the sinking of
the vessel brought about by typhoon "Saling."
Indeed, from the time the vessel arrived at port Pasacao
on 7 September 1985 up to 17 October 1985 when the
Pasacao area was placed under storm signal No. 3 due
to typhoon "Saling", forty (40) days had passed. Under
normal conditions, a period of forty (40) days is
undoubtedly more than enough time within which the
unloading of the cargo (given its nature) from the vessel
could be completed. Hence, the question boils down
further to which party should be faulted for this delay.
While it is true that there was indeed delay in discharging
the cargo from the vessel, we agree with the Court of
Appeals that neither of the parties herein could be faulted
for such delay, for the same (delay) was due not to
negligence, but to several factors earlier discussed. The
cargo having been lost due to typhoon "Saling", and the
delay incurred in its unloading not being due to
negligence, private respondent is exempt from liability for
the loss of the cargo, pursuant to Article 1740 of the Civil
Code.

HELD:

It is not disputed that private respondent is a common

carrier as defined in Article 1732 of the Civil Code. The
following facts are also not contested: (1) that the cargo-
carrying vessel was wrecked and partially sank on 18
October 1985 due to typhoon "Saling"; (2) that typhoon
"Saling" was a fortuitous event; and (3) that at the time
said vessel sank, the remaining undischarged cargo,
consisting of 26,424 cement bags and 4,000 pieces of G.I.
sheets, were still on board the vessel.

However, the Court notes the fact that as of 17 October

1985, the time when the Pasacao area was placed under
storm signal No. 3 due to "Saling", the unloading of the
cargo from the vessel was still unfinished, notwithstanding
the lapse of forty (40) days from the time the vessel
arrived in Pasacao on 7 September 1985, or the lapse of
thirty-four (34) days from the time actual discharge of the
cargo commenced on 13 September 1985.

The appellate court ruled that the los of cargo in the

present case was due solely to typhoon "Saling" and that
private respondent had shown that it had observed due
diligence before, during and after the occurrence of
"Saling"; hence, it should not be liable under Article 1739.

Considering the disputed fact that there really was delay

in completing the unloading of the goods from the vessel,
the Court believes that the real issue at bar centers on the
application of Article 1740 of the Civil Code. In short, the
 COMPANIA MARITIMA VS. CA | 1988
FACTS
Vicente Concepcion of Consolidated Construction had a
contract with the Civil Aeronautics Administration for the
construction of the airport in Cagayan de Oro.
Being a Manila-based contractor, Concepcion had to ship
his construction equipment to CDO City. Concepcion
negotiated with petitioner Compania for the shipment of
one (1) unit payloader. A Bill of Lading was issued to him.
The equipment was loaded aboard the MV. It arrived
safely in CDO City. While the payloader was about two (2)
meters above the pier in the course of unloading, the
swivel pin of the heel block Hatch No. 2 gave way, causing
the payloader to fall. The payloader was completely
damaged.
Meanwhile, petitioner Compania shipped the payloader to
Manila where it was weighed at the SMC. Finding that the
payloader weighed 7.5 tons and not 2.5 tons as declared
in the Bill of Lading, petitioner denied the claim for
damages, contending that had Concepcion declared the
actual weight of the payloader, damage to the payloader
could have been prevented.
Concepcion filed an action for damages.
COMPANIA MARITIMA argues: The loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods was due to an act or omission
of the shipper or owner of the goods (Art. 1734).
ISSUE:
WON the act of private respondent Concepcion in
furnishing petitioner Compaia Maritima with an
inaccurate weight was the proximate cause of the
damage, as would absolutely exempt petitioner from
liability for damages. NO.
HELD:
SC: Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to
a common carrier, and of their arrival at the place of
destination in bad order, makes out prima facie case
against the common carrier, so that if no explanation is
given as to how the loss, deterioration or destruction of
the goods occurred, the common carrier must be held
responsible.
The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods
requires common carriers to render service with the
greatest skill and foresight and "to use all reasonable
means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods
tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the
handling and stowage.
In the case at bar: Compania Maritima, upon the
testimonies of its own crew, failed to take the necessary
and adequate precautions for avoiding damage to the
payloader.
CA found that Compania Maritima used a 5-ton capacity
lifting apparatus to lift and unload a visibly heavy cargo
like a payloader. There was laxity and carelessness of its
crew in their methods of ascertaining the weight of heavy
cargoes offered for shipment before loading and
unloading them.
The weight submitted by Concepcion was entered into the
bill of lading by Compania Maritimas company collector,
without seeing the equipment to be shipped.
Mr. Mariano Gupana, assistant traffic manager of
Compania Maritima, confirmed in his testimony that the
company never checked the information entered in the bill
of lading.
The Chief Officer took the bill of lading on its face value
and presumed the same to be correct by merely "seeing"
it.
Acknowledging that there was a "jumbo" in the MV Cebu
(w/ a 20-25 ton capacity), The Chief Officer chose not to
use it. Extraordinary care and diligence compel the use of
the "jumbo" lifting apparatus as the most prudent course
for petitioner.
While the act of private respondent in furnishing petitioner
with an inaccurate weight of the payloader cannot
successfully be used as an excuse by petitioner to avoid
liability to the damage thus caused, said act constitutes a
contributory circumstance to the damage caused on the
payloader, which mitigates the liability for damages of
petitioner in accordance with Article 1741 of the Civil
Code, to wit:
Art. 1741. If the shipper or owner merely contributed to
the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the
proximate cause thereof being the negligence of the
common carrier, the latter shall be liable in damages,
which however, shall be equitably reduced.