AF SANCHEZ BROKERAGE VS CA

GR 147079, DECEMBER 21, 2004

FACTS:

Wyeth-Pharma GMBH shipped on board an aircraft of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines at Dusseldorf,
Germany oral contraceptives. Wyeth-Suaco insured the shipment against all risks with FGU Insurance
which issued Marine Risk Note No. 4995 pursuant to Marine Open Policy No. 138.
In order to secure the release of the cargoes from the PSI and the Bureau of Customs, Wyeth-Suaco
engaged the services of Sanchez Brokerage which had been its licensed broker since 1984. As its customs
broker, Sanchez Brokerage calculates and pays the customs duties, taxes and storage fees for the cargo
and thereafter delivers it to Wyeth-Suaco.
Upon the delivery of the cargoes to Hizon laboratories, Inc they inspected the cargoes and discovered
that the 44 cartons containing Femenal and Nordiol tablets were in bad order.
Wyeth-Suaco then demanded from Sanchez Brokerage the payment of the damaged tablets.
However, the latter refused to heed the demand. Hence, Wyeth-Suaco filed an insurance claim against
FGU Insurance which paid the amount of Php 181,431.49 in the settlement of its claim. FGU then
demanded Sanchez Brokerage which refused the payment of its liability and claimed that the posting of
the damage was due to the improper and insufficient export packaging. FGU filed a complaint for
damages against Sanchez Brokerage which was dismissed by the RTC. However, the CA reversed the
decision of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether AF Sanchez Brokerage as customs broker is liable for the damage of the cargo as a
common carrier.
RULING: Yes. AF Sanchez Broker is liable for the damage of the cargo as a common carrier.

Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations 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.

Anacleto F. Sanchez, Jr., the Manager and Principal Broker of Sanchez Brokerage, himself testified
that the services the firm offers include the delivery of goods to the warehouse of the consignee or
importer.
Article 1732 does not distinguish between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of
goods and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity. The contention, therefore, of
petitioner that it is not a common carrier but a customs broker whose principal function is to prepare the
correct customs declaration and proper shipping documents as required by law is bereft of merit. It
suffices that petitioner undertakes to deliver the goods for pecuniary consideration.
In this light, petitioner as a common carrier is mandated to observe, under Article 1733 of the Civil
Code, extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods it transports according to all the
circumstances of each case. In the event that the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, it is presumed
to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed extraordinary
diligence
 SALUDO JR. VS CA

GR NO. 95536, MARCH 23, 1992

FACTS:

After the death of plaintiffs' mother, Crispina Galdo Saludo, in Chicago Illinois, on October 23,
1976, Pomierski and Son Funeral Home of Chicago, made the necessary preparations and arrangements
for the shipment, of the remains from Chicago to the Philippines. October 26, 1976, Pomierski brought
the remains to C.M.A.S. (Continental Mortuary Air Services) at the airport (Chicago) which made the
necessary arrangements such as flights, transfers, etc. Plaintiffs Maria Salvacion Saludo and Saturnino
Saludo, thru a travel agent, were booked with United Airlines from Chicago to California, and with PAL
from California to Manila. She then went to the funeral director of Pomierski Funeral Home who had her
mother's remains and she told the director that they were booked with United Airlines. But the director
told her that the remains were booked with TWA flight to California.

On October 28, 1976, the shipment or remains of Crispina Saludo arrived in San Francisco from
Mexico on board American Airlines. This shipment was transferred to or received by PAL. This casket
bearing the remains of Crispina Saludo, which was mistakenly sent to Mexico and was opened there, was
resealed by Crispin F. Patagas for shipment to the Philippines. The shipment was immediately loaded on
PAL flight for Manila that same evening and arrived in Manila on October 30, 1976, a day after its
expected arrival on October 29, 1976. Both private respondents denied liability. Thus, a damage suit was
filed by petitioners.

ISSUE: Whether respondents are liable for the delay.

RULING: No. TWA is not liable for the delay.

A common carrier undertaking to transport property has the implicit duty to carry and deliver it
within reasonable time, absent any particular stipulation regarding time of delivery, and to guard against
delay. In case of any unreasonable delay, the carrier shall be liable for damages immediately and
proximately resulting from such neglect of duty. 64 As found by the trial court, the delay in the delivery of
the remains of Crispina Saludo, undeniable and regrettable as it was, cannot be attributed to the fault,
negligence or malice of private respondents, a conclusion concurred in by respondent court and which we
are not inclined to disturb.