TRANSPO Eastern Shipping Lines Inc. v. IAC, 150 SCRA 463

Eastern Shipping Lines Inc. v. IAC, 150 SCRA 463

Doctrine:
When a carrier fails to establish any caso fortuito, the presumption by law of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier applies.

FACTS:

Carrier – Eastern Shipping Lines Inc

Shipper/Consignee –Stresstek Post Tensioning Philippines Inc

Insurer - First Nationwide Assurance Corporation

Arrastre Operator – E. Razon Inc. (not significant)

Eastern Shipping Lines Inc shipped uncoated 7-wire stress relieved wire strand for prestressed concretewere shipped on board the vessel "Japri Venture,". Upon arrival at the port of Manila, it discharged thecargo to the custody of the defendant E. Razon, Inc. from whom the consignee's customs brokerreceived it for delivery to the consignee's warehouse. First Nationwide Assurance, indemnified theconsignee in the amount of P171,923.00 for damage and loss to the insured cargo, whereupon theformer was subrogated for the latter. The insurer now seeks to recover from the defendants what ithas indemnified the consignee. The petitioner protested alleging that it should not be hel liable to

answer for damages for the event that caused the rusting of the goods was due to the “encounteredvery rough seas and stormy weather” classified as force majeure, hence relieving them of any liability.

Aggrieved, respondent filed a case against petitioner.

RTC– dismissed the case

CA –set aside RTC’s decision and ordered petitioner to pay respondent

ISSUE:

W/N petitioner was negligent and should be held liable for the payment of damages.

HELD:

            YES. Plainly, the heavy seas and rains referred to in the master's report were not

caso fortuito, but normal occurrences that an ocean-going vessel, particularly in the month of September which, in our area, is a month of rains and heavy seas would encounter as a matter of routine. They are not unforeseen nor unforeseeable. These are conditions that ocean-going vessels would encounter and provide for, in the ordinary course of a voyage. That rain water (not sea water) found its way into the holds of the Jupri Venture is a clear indication that care and foresight did not attend the closing of the ship's hatches so that rainwater would not find its way into the cargo holds of the ship.

            Moreover, under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, common carriers are bound to observe "extra-ordinary vigilance over goods . . . .according to all circumstances of each case," and Article 1735 of the same Code states, to wit:

            Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733.

            Since the carrier has failed to establish any caso fortuito, the presumption by law of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier applies; and the carrier must present evidence that it has observed the extraordinary diligence required by Article 1733 of the Civil Code in order to escape liability for damage or destruction to the goods that it had admittedly carried in this case. No such evidence exists of record. Thus, the carrier cannot escape liability.

            The presumption, therefore, that the cargo was in apparent good condition when it was delivered by the vessel to the arrastre operator by the clean tally sheets has been overturned and traversed. The evidence is clear to the effect that the damage to the cargo was suffered while aboard petitioner's vessel.