case transpo

8/13/2019 Case Transpo

1/36

G.R. No. 147246 August 19, 2003. ASIA LIGHTERAGE AND SHIPPING, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT O APPEALS !"#PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC., respondents.

On appeal is the Court of Appeals' May 11, 2000 Decision1in CA-G.. C! "o. #$1$% and &eruary 21, 2001 esolution2affir(in)*ith (odification the April +, 1$$# Decisionof the C of Manila *hich found petitioner liale to pay private respondent thea(ount of inde(nity and attorney's fees.

&irst, the facts. On une 1, 1$$0, ,1%0 (etric tons of /etter estern hite heat in ul, valued at 34#2,1$2.%#*asshipped y Marueni A(erican Corporation of 5ortland, Ore)on on oard the vessel M6! "7O C8M/9D9M !-2+ for delivery tothe consi)nee, General Millin) Corporation in Manila, evidenced y /ill of :adin) "o. 5D6Man-#.%he ship(ent *as insured y

the private respondent 5rudential Guarantee and Assurance, 9nc. a)ainst loss or da(a)e for 51#,+21,;;1.;% under Marine Car)ois "ote " 111$

1 B7 CO O& A557A:3 D7C9D7D B7 CA37 A EO 9" A A8 "O 9" ACCOD 9B :A A"D6O 9BB7 A55:9CA/:7 D7C939O"3 O& B7 357M7 CO B7" 9 B7:D BA 5799O"7 93 A COMMO"CA97.2 B7 CO O& A557A:3 D7C9D7D B7 CA37 A EO 9" A A8 "O 9" ACCOD 9B :A A"D6O 9B

B7 A55:9CA/:7 D7C939O"3 O& B7 357M7 CO B7" 9 A&&9M7D B7 &9"D9"G O& B7 :O7CO A EO BA O" B7 /A393 O& B7 5O!939O"3 O& B7 C9!9: COD7 A55:9CA/:7 O COMMO"CA973, FTHE LOSS OF THE CARGO IS, THEREFORE, BORNE BY THE CARRIER IN ALL CASES EXCEPT INTHE FIVE (5) CASES ENUMERATED.F B7 CO O& A557A:3 D7C9D7D B7 CA37 A EO 9" A A8 "O 9" ACCOD 9B :A A"D6O 9BB7 A55:9CA/:7 D7C939O"3 O& B7 357M7 CO B7" 9 7&&7C9!7:8 CO"C:D7D BA5799O"7 &A9:7D O 77C937 D7 D9:9G7"C7 A"D6O A3 "7G:9G7" 9" 93 CA7 A"D C3OD8 O&B7 CO"39G"77'3 CAGO.

he issues to e resolved are>1 hether the petitioner is a co((on carrierH and,2 Assu(in) the petitioner is a co((on carrier, *hether it e=ercised e=traordinary dili)ence in its care and custody of theconsi)nee's car)o.

O" t%& '()st (ssu&, *& )u+& t%!t &t(t(o"&) (s ! -oo" -!))(&).Article 1;2 of the Civil Code defines coo! c"##i$#%as persons,corporations, fir(s or associations en)a)ed in the usiness of carryin) or transportin) passen)ers or )oods or oth, y land, *ater,or air, for co(pensation, offerin) their services to the pulic.

5etitioner contends that it is not a co((on carrier ut a private carrier. Alle)edly, it has no fi=ed and pulicly no*n route,(aintains no ter(inals, and issues no ticets. 9t points out that it is not oli)ed to carry indiscri(inately for any person. 9t is notound to carry )oods unless it consents. 9n short, it does not hold out its services to the )eneral pulic.20 e disa)ree.


2/36

9n D& Gu/!" s. Cou)t o' A&!+s,21*e held that the definition of coo! c"##i$#%in Article 1;2 of the Civil Code (aes nodistinction et*een one *hose principal usiness activity is the carryin) of persons or )oods or oth, and one *ho does suchcarryin) only as an ancillary activity. e also did not distin)uish et*een a person or enterprise offerin) transportation service on are)ular or scheduled asis and one offerin) such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled asis. &urther, *e ruled thatArticle 1;2 does not distin)uish et*een a carrier offerin) its services to the &$!$#"' *'ic, and one *ho offers services or solicitsusiness only fro( a narro* se)(ent of the )eneral population.

9n the case at ar, the principal usiness of the petitioner is that of li)htera)e and draya)e22and it offers its ar)es to the pulic forcarryin) or transportin) )oods y *ater for co(pensation. 5etitioner is clearly a co((on carrier. 9n D& Gu/!", %#",2*e

considered private respondent 7rnesto CendaIa to e a co((on carrier even if his principal occupation *as not the carria)e of)oods for others, ut that of uyin) used ottles and scrap (etal in 5an)asinan and sellin) these ite(s in Manila.

e therefore hold that petitioner is a co((on carrier *hether its carryin) of )oods is done on an irre)ular rather than scheduled(anner, and *ith an only li(ited clientele. A co((on carrier need not have fi=ed and pulicly no*n routes. "either does it have to(aintain ter(inals or issue ticets.

o e sure, petitioner fits the test of a co((on carrier as laid do*n in !s-os s. Cou)t o' A&!+s.2#he test to deter(ine aco((on carrier is F*hether the )iven undertain) is a part of the usiness en)a)ed in y the carrier *hich he has held out to the)eneral pulic as his occupation rather than the Juantity or e=tent of the usiness transacted.F2%9n the case at ar, the petitionerad(itted that it is en)a)ed in the usiness of shippin) and li)htera)e,2+offerin) its ar)es to the pulic, despite its li(ited clientelefor carryin) or transportin) )oods y *ater for co(pensation.2;

On the second issue, *e uphold the findin)s of the lo*er courts that petitioner failed to e=ercise e=traordinary dili)ence in its careand custody of the consi)nee's )oods.

Co((on carriers are ound to oserve e=traordinary dili)ence in the vi)ilance over the )oods transported y the(.2

Art. 1;#. Co((on carriers are responsile for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the )oods, unless the sa(e is dueto any of the follo*in) causes only>

1 &lood, stor(, earthJuae, li)htnin), or other natural disaster or cala(ityH2 Act of the pulic ene(y in *ar, *hether international or civilH Act or o(ission of the shipper or o*ner of the )oodsH# he character of the )oods or defects in the pacin) or in the containersH% Order or act of co(petent pulic authority.

9n the case at ar, the ar)e co(pletely san after its to*in) its roe, resultin) in the total loss of its car)o. 5etitioner clai(s thatthis *as caused y a typhoon, hence, it should not e held liale for the loss of the car)o. Bo*ever, petitioner failed to prove thatthe typhoon is the pro=i(ate and only cause of the loss of the )oods, and that it has e=ercised due dili)ence efore, durin) andafter the occurrence of the typhoon to prevent or (ini(iKe the loss.0he evidence sho* that, even efore the to*in) its of thear)e roe, it had already previously sustained da(a)e *hen it hit a sunen o?ect *hile doced at the 7n)ineerin) 9sland. 9teven suffered a hole. Clearly, this could not e solely attriuted to the typhoon. he partly-su(er)ed vessel *as refloated ut itshole *as patched *ith only clay and ce(ent. he patch *or *as (erely a provisional re(edy, not enou)h for the ar)e to sailsafely. hus, *hen petitioner persisted to proceed *ith the voya)e, it reclessly e=posed the car)o to further da(a)e. A portion ofthe cross-e=a(ination of Alfredo Cunanan, car)o-surveyor of an-Gatue Ad?ust(ent Co., 9nc., states>

CO33-7AM9"A9O" /8 A8. DO"" :77>1

= = = = = = = = =J - Can you tell us *hat else transpired after that incidentLa - After the first accident, throu)h the initiative of the ar)e o*ners, they tried to pull out the ar)e fro( the place ofthe accident, and rin) it to the anchor ter(inal for safety, then after decidin) if the vessel is stailiKed, they tried to pull it

to the consi)nee's *arehouse, no* *hile on route another accident occurred, no* this ti(e the ar)e totally hittin)so(ethin) in the course.J - 8ou said there *as another accident, can you tell the court the nature of the second accidentLa - he sinin), sir.J - Can you tell the nature . . . can you tell the court, if you no* *hat caused the sinin)La - Mostly it *as related to the first accident ecause there *as already a *hole (%ic)on the otto( part of the ar)e.= = = = = = = = =

his is not all. 5etitioner still headed to the consi)nee's *harf despite no*led)e of an inco(in) typhoon. Durin) the ti(e that thear)e *as headin) to*ards the consi)nee's *harf on 3epte(er %, 1$$0, typhoon F:olen)F has already entered the 5hilippine areaof responsiility.2A part of the testi(ony of oert /oyd, Car)o Operations 3upervisor of the petitioner, reveals>

D97C-7AM9"A9O" /8 A8. :77>

= = = = = = = = =J - "o*, Mr. itness, did it not occur to you it (i)ht e safer to ?ust allo* the /ar)e to lie *here she *as instead ofto*in) itLa - 3ince that ti(e that the /ar)e *as refloated, GMC General Millin) Corporation, the consi)nee as 9 have said*as in a hurry for their )oods to e delivered at their harf since they needed adly the *heat that *as loaded in 5339-. 9t *as needed adly y the consi)nee.J - And this is the reason *hy you to*ed the /ar)e as you didLa - 8es, sir.= = = = = = = = =


3/36

CO33-7AM9"A9O" /8 A8. 9G"AC9O>#

= = = = = = = = =J - And then fro( 93:O&& er(inal you proceeded to the pre(ises of the GMCL A( 9 correctLa - he ne=t day, in the (ornin), *e hired for additional t*o 2 tu)oats as 9 have stated.J - Despite of the threats of an inco(in) typhoon as you testified a *hile a)oLa - 9t is already in an inner portion of 5asi) iver. he typhoon *ould e co(in) and it *ould e dan)erous if *e arein the vicinity of Manila /ay.J - /ut the fact is, the typhoon *as inco(in)L 8es or noLa - 8es.J - And yet as a standard operatin) procedure of your Co(pany, you have to secure a sort of Certification to

deter(ine the *eather condition, a( 9 correctLa - 8es, sir.J - 3o, (ore or less, you had the no*led)e of the inco(in) typhoon, ri)htLa - 8es, sir.J - And yet you proceeded to the pre(ises of the GMCLa - 93:O&& er(inal is far fro( Manila /ay and anyti(e even *ith the typhoon if you are already inside the vicinity orinside 5asi) entrance, it is a safe place to to* upstrea(.

Accordin)ly, the petitioner cannot invoe the occurrence of the typhoon as force (a?eure to escape liaility for the loss sustainedy the private respondent. 3urely, (eetin) a typhoon head-on falls short of due dili)ence reJuired fro( a co((on carrier. Morei(portantly, the officers6e(ployees the(selves of petitioner ad(itted that *hen the to*in) its of the vessel roe that caused itssinin) and the total loss of the car)o upon reachin) the 5asi) iver, it *as no lon)er affected y the typhoon. he typhoon then isnot the pro=i(ate cause of the loss of the car)oH a hu(an factor, i+$+, ne)li)ence had intervened.

IN IE$ THEREO, the petition is D7"97D. he Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.. C! "o. #$1$% dated May 11, 2000and its esolution dated &eruary 21, 2001 are herey A&&9M7D. Costs a)ainst petitioner. 3O OD77D.


4/36

G.R. No. 19636 No&&) 2, 2004. ICTOR5 LINER, INC.,petitioner, vs. ROSALITO GAAD, APRIL ROSSAN P.GAAD, ROI ROANO P. GAAD !"# DIANA RANCES P. GAAD,respondents.

5NARES8SANTIAGO,J.Assailed in this petition for revie* on certiorari is the April 11, 200 decision1of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.. C! "o. +2$0*hich affir(ed *ith (odification the "ove(er +, 1$$< decision2of the e)ional rial Court of u)ue)arao, Ca)ayan, /ranch %findin) petitioner !ictory :iner, 9nc. liale for reach of contract of carria)e in Civil Case "o. %02.

he facts as testified y respondent osalito Ga((ad sho* that on March 1#, 1$$+, his *ife Marie Grace 5a)ulayan-

Ga((ad,

*as on oard an air-conditioned !ictory :iner us ound for u)ue)arao, Ca)ayan fro( Manila. At aout >00 a.(., theus *hile runnin) at a hi)h speed fell on a ravine so(e*here in /aran)ay /alilin), 3ta. &e, "ueva !iKcaya, *hich resulted in thedeath of Marie Grace and physical in?uries to other passen)ers.# On May 1#, 1$$+, respondent heirs of the deceased filed aco(plaint%for da(a)es arisin) fro( culpa contractual a)ainst petitioner. 9n its ans*er,+the petitioner clai(ed that the incident *aspurely accidental and that it has al*ays e=ercised e=traordinary dili)ence in its %0 years of operation. After several re-settin)s,;pre-trial *as set on April 10, 1$$;.

1. Actual Da(a)es in the a(ount of 5


5/36

respondents *itness and to present evidence, he nevertheless, filed a ti(ely appeal *ith the Court of Appeals assailin) thedecision of the trial court. Bence, petitioners clai( that it *as denied due process lacs asis.

5etitioner too is not entirely la(eless. 5rior to the issuance of the order declarin) it as in default for not appearin) at the pre-trial,three notices dated Octoer 2, 1$$+,2%anuary 0, 1$$;,2+and March 2+, 1$$;,2; reJuirin) attendance at the pre-trial *ere sentand duly received y petitioner. Bo*ever, it *as only on April 2;, 1$$;, after the issuance of the April 10, 1$$; order of default forfailure to appear at the pre-trial *hen petitioner, throu)h its finance and ad(inistrative (ana)er, e=ecuted a special po*er ofattorney2 1 inde(nity for death, 2 inde(nity for loss of earnin) capacity, and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_159636_2004.html#fnt36


6/36

(oral da(a)es. 9n the present case, respondent heirs of the deceased are entitled to inde(nity for the death of Marie Grace *hichunder current ?urisprudence is fi=ed at 5%0,000.00.;

he a*ard of co(pensatory da(a)es for the loss of the deceaseds earnin) capacity should e deleted for lac of asis. As a rule,docu(entary evidence should e presented to sustantiate the clai( for da(a)es for loss of earnin) capacity. /y *ay ofe=ception, da(a)es for loss of earnin) capacity (ay e a*arded despite the asence of docu(entary evidence *hen 1 thedeceased is self-e(ployed earnin) less than the (ini(u( *a)e under current laor la*s, and ?udicial notice (ay e taen of thefact that in the deceaseds line of *or no docu(entary evidence is availaleH or 2 the deceased is e(ployed as a daily *a)e*orer earnin) less than the (ini(u( *a)e under current laor la*s.9t is therefore i(perative that a pulic carrier shall re(ain as such, not*ithstandin) the charter of the *hole or portion of a vessel yone or (ore persons, provided the charter is li(ited to the ship only, as in the case of a ti(e-charter or voya)e-charter. 9t is only*hen the charter includes oth the vessel and its cre*, as in a areoat or de(ise that a co((on carrier eco(es private, at leastinsofar as the particular voya)e coverin) the charter-party is concerned. 9nduitaly, a shipo*ner in a ti(e or voya)e charterretains possession and control of the ship, althou)h her holds (ay, for the (o(ent, e the property of the charterer.12

Confor(aly, petitioner re(ains a co((on carrier not*ithstandin) the e=istence of the charter a)ree(ent *ith the "orthernMindanao ransport Co(pany, 9nc. since the said charter is li(ited to the ship only and does not involve oth the vessel and itscre*. As elucidated in P'"!0$#% P#o1c0%, its charter is only a voya)e-charter, not a areoat charter.

As a co((on carrier, petitioner is reJuired to oserve e=traordinary dili)ence in the vi)ilance over the )oods it transports.1henthe )oods placed in its care are lost, petitioner is presu(ed to have een at fault or to have acted ne)li)ently. 5etitioner thereforehas the urden of provin) that it oserved e=traordinary dili)ence in order to avoid responsiility for the lost car)o.1#

9nCo"!i" M"#i0i" v+ Co#0 o. A$"'%,1% *e said>R it is incu(ent upon the co((on carrier to prove that the loss,deterioration or destruction *as due to accident or so(e other circu(stances inconsistent *ith its liaility.. . .

he e=traordinary dili)ence in the vi)ilance over the )oods tendered for ship(ent reJuires the co((on carrier to no* and to

follo* the reJuired precaution for avoidin) da(a)e to, or destruction of the )oods entrusted to it for safe carria)e and delivery. 9treJuires co((on carriers to render service *ith the )reatest sill and foresi)ht and Fto use all reasonale (eans to ascertain thenature and characteristics of )oods tendered for ship(ent, and to e=ercise due care in the handlin) and sto*a)e, includin) such(ethods as their nature reJuires.F1+

Article 1;# enu(erates the instances *hen a carrier (i)ht e e=e(pt fro( liaility for the loss of the )oods. hese are>1 &lood, stor(, earthJuae, li)htnin), or other natural disaster or cala(ityH2 Act of the pulic ene(y in *ar, *hether international or civilH Act or o(ission of the shipper or o*ner of the )oodsH# he character of the )oods or defects in the pacin) or in the containersH and% Order or act of co(petent pulic authority.1;

5etitioner clai(s that the loss of the )oods *as due to a fortuitous event under para)raph 1. 8et, its clai( is not sustantiated. Onthe contrary, *e find supported y evidence on record the conclusion of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the loss of the

entire ship(ent of ce(ent *as due to the )ross ne)li)ence of petitioner. ecords sho* that in the evenin) of une 2#, 1$


10/36

the countries of 7n)land, Bolland, Ger(any, Austria, :iechstenstein, 3*itKerland and &rance at a total cost of 5;#,22.;0.5etitioner *as )iven a % discount on the a(ount, *hich included airfare, and the ooin) fee *as also *aived ecausepetitioners niece, Meria( Menor, *as respondent co(panys ticetin) (ana)er.

5ursuant to said contract, Menor *ent to her aunts residence on une 12, 1$$1 P a ednesday P to deliver petitioners traveldocu(ents and plane ticets. 5etitioner, in turn, )ave Menor the full pay(ent for the paca)e tour. Menor then told her to e at the"inoy AJuino 9nternational Airport "A9A on 3aturday, t*o hours efore her fli)ht on oard /ritish Air*ays.

ithout checin) her travel docu(ents, petitioner *ent to "A9A on 3aturday, une 1%, 1$$1, to tae the fli)ht for the first le) of her?ourney fro( Manila to Bon)on). o petitioners dis(ay, she discovered that the fli)ht she *as supposed to tae had already

departed the previous day. 3he learned that her plane ticet *as for the fli)ht scheduled on une 1#, 1$$1. 3he thus called upMenor to co(plain.

3useJuently, Menor prevailed upon petitioner to tae another tour P the F/ritish 5a)eantF P *hich included 7n)land, 3cotland andales in its itinerary. &or this tour paca)e, petitioner *as ased ane* to pay 34;


11/36

pon denial of her (otion for reconsideration,;petitioner filed the instant petition under ule #% on the follo*in) )rounds>9 9t is respectfully su(itted that the Bonorale Court of Appeals co((itted a reversile error in reversin) and settin)aside the decision of the trial court y rulin) that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund of the cost of unavailed Fe*els of7uropeF tour she ein) eJually, if not (ore, ne)li)ent than the private respondent, for in the contract of carria)e theco((on carrier is oli)ed to oserve ut(ost care and e=tra-ordinary dili)ence *hich is hi)her in de)ree than the ordinarydili)ence reJuired of the passen)er. hus, even if the petitioner and private respondent *ere oth ne)li)ent, the petitionercannot e considered to e eJually, or *orse, (ore )uilty than the private respondent. At est, petitioners ne)li)ence isonly contriutory *hile the private respondent Nis )uilty of )ross ne)li)ence (ain) the principle of pari delictoinapplicale in the caseH99 he Bonorale Court of Appeals also erred in not rulin) that the Fe*els of 7uropeF tour *as not indivisile and the

a(ount paid therefor refundaleH999 he Bonorale Court erred in not )rantin) to the petitioner the conseJuential da(a)es due her as a result of reach ofcontract of carria)e. did the defendant in doin) the alle)ed ne)li)ent act use that reasonale care and caution *hich

an ordinarily prudent person *ould have used in the sa(e situationL 9f not, then he is )uilty of ne)li)ence.

1

9n the case at ar, the lo*er court found Menor ne)li)ent *hen she alle)edly infor(ed petitioner of the *ron) day of departure.5etitioners testi(ony *as accepted as induitale evidence of Menors alle)ed ne)li)ent act since respondent did not call Menorto the *itness stand to refute the alle)ation. he lo*er court applied the presu(ption under ule 11, 3ection e 1#of the ulesof Court that evidence *illfully suppressed *ould e adverse if produced and thus considered petitioners uncontradicted testi(onyto e sufficient proof of her clai(.

On the other hand, respondent has consistently denied that Menor *as ne)li)ent and (aintains that petitioners assertion is eliedy the evidence on record. he date and ti(e of departure *as le)ily *ritten on the plane ticet and the travel papers *eredelivered t*o days in advance precisely so that petitioner could prepare for the trip. 9t perfor(ed all its oli)ations to enalepetitioner to ?oin the tour and e=ercised due dili)ence in its dealin)s *ith the latter. e a)ree *ith respondent.

espondents failure to present Menor as *itness to reut petitioners testi(ony could not )ive rise to an inference unfavorale tothe for(er. Menor *as already *orin) in &rance at the ti(e of the filin) of the co(plaint,1%therey (ain) it physically i(possile

for respondent to present her as a *itness. hen too, even if it *ere possile for respondent to secure Menors testi(ony, thepresu(ption under ule 11, 3ection e *ould still not apply. he opportunity and possiility for otainin) Menors testi(onyelon)ed to oth parties, considerin) that Menor *as not ?ust respondents e(ployee, ut also petitioners niece. 9t *as thus errorfor the lo*er court to invoe the presu(ption that respondent *illfully suppressed evidence under ule 11, 3ection e. 3aidpresu(ption *ould lo)ically e inoperative if the evidence is not intentionally o(itted ut is si(ply unavailale, or *hen the sa(ecould have een otained y oth parties.1+
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_138334_2003.html#fnt16


12/36

9n su(, *e do not a)ree *ith the findin) of the lo*er court that Menors ne)li)ence concurred *ith the ne)li)ence of petitioner andresultantly caused da(a)e to the latter. Menors ne)li)ence *as not sufficiently proved, considerin) that the only evidencepresented on this score *as petitioners uncorroorated narration of the events. 9t is *ell-settled that the party alle)in) a fact hasthe urden of provin) it and a (ere alle)ation cannot tae the place of evidence.1;9f the plaintiff, upon *ho( rests the urden ofprovin) his cause of action, fails to sho* in a satisfactory (anner facts upon *hich he ases his clai(, the defendant is under nooli)ation to prove his e=ception or defense.1ETING CORP. !"# S>5LAND

RO>ERAGE, INC., espondents.

his is a petition for revie* on certiorari of the uly +, 2000 Decision1of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.. C! "o. %%++#, *hichaffir(ed the ?ud)(ent2of the e)ional rial Court of Caloocan City, /ranch 121, in Civil Case "o. C-1+120 in so far as it foundpetitioner Car)olift 3hippin), 9nc. FCar)oliftF liale, as third-party defendant, for actual da(a)es in the su( of 5$;,021.20, as *ellas the "ove(er 2


13/36

he antecedent facts of the case are as follo*s> 3o(eti(e in March 1$$, respondent :. Acuario Maretin) Corp., FAcuarioF andrespondent 3yland /roera)e, 9nc., F3ylandF entered into a ti(e charter a)ree(ent#*herey Acuario leased to 3yland its :.Acuario 99 ar)e for use y the latter in transportin) electrical posts fro( Manila to :i(ay, /ataan. At the sa(e ti(e, 3yland alsoentered into a separate contract%*ith petitioner Car)olift, for the latters tu)oats to to* the aforesaid ar)e.

9n accordance *ith the fore)oin) contracts, petitioners tu)oat M6 /ee?ay left the Manila 3outh Baror on April 1, 1$$ *ithAcuarios ar)e in to*. 9t reached the port of :i(ay, /ataan on April , 1$$, *hereupon M6 /ee?ay disen)a)ed and once a)ainset sail for Manila. 5etitioners other tu)oat, the M6 Count, re(ained in /ataan to secure the ar)e for unloadin). Off-loadin)operations *ent under*ay until April ;, 1$$, *hen operations *ere interrupted for the ne=t t*o days to )ive *ay to the oservance

of the lenten season. he unloadin) of the car)o *as concluded on April 12, 1$$, y *hich ti(e M6 /ee?ay had )one ac to/ataan for the return trip. he M6 /ee?ay and the ar)e returned to the port of Manila on April 1, 1$$.

On the sa(e day, the ar)e *as rou)ht to Acuarios shipyard *here it *as alle)edly discovered y Acuarios dry-docin) officer,Guiller(o "acu, r., that the ar)e *as listin) due to a lea in its hull. Accordin) to "acu, he *as infor(ed y the sipper of thetu)oat that the da(a)e *as sustained in /ataan. o confir( the sa(e, "acu ordered an under*ater survey of the ar)e andprepared a da(a)e report dated April 1#, 1$$. "o representative of 3yland *as present durin) the inspection althou)h it *asfurnished *ith a copy of the said report. he ar)e *as conseJuently dry-doced for repairs at the estern 3hipyard fro( April 1+to April 2+, 1$$. Acuario spent the total su( of 5$;,021.20 for the repairs.+

5ursuant to its contract *ith 3yland *hich provided that Fany da(a)e or loss on the ar)e due to the fault or ne)li)ence ofcharterers shall e the responsiility of the charterer or his representative,F;Acuario *rote 3yland seein) rei(urse(ent of itsrepair costs, failin) *hich, it filed a co(plaint for da(a)es a)ainst 3yland efore the e)ional rial Court of Caloocan City, *herethe case *as doceted as Civil Case "o. C-1+120 and raffled to /ranch 121. 3yland, in turn, filed a third-party co(plaintB77&O7, pre(ises considered, ?ud)(ent is herey rendered as follo*s>

1. Orderin) the defendant 3yland /roera)e to pay to the plaintiff :. Acuario Maretin) Corporation the cost of repairs ofthe ar)e :. Acuario 99 in the a(ount of 5$;,021.20 and to see rei(urse(ent fro( the third-party defendant Car)olift3hippin)H2. Orderin) the defendant to pay attorneys fees in the a(ount of 52#,2%%.0 and to see rei(urse(ent thereof fro( thethird-party defendantH and. Orderin) the defendant to pay the costs of suit su?ect to rei(urse(ent fro( the third-party defendant. 3OOD77D.11

he trial court )ave credence to the testi(onies of Acuarios *itnesses that the ar)e sustained da(a)e *hile it *as ein)chartered y 3yland. 9t held that the positive testi(onies of Acuarios *itnesses, coupled *ith docu(entary evidence detailin) thenature and e=tent of the da(a)e as *ell as the repairs done on the ar)e, should prevail over the are denials of 3yland andpetitioner. 9t also noted that t*o of the latters three *itnesses *ere not in :i(ay, /ataan *hen the incident happened.he trial court further held that 3yland *as liale under its ti(e charter a)ree(ent *ith Acuario pursuant to Article 11%$ of theCivil Code *hich states that Fcontracts have the force of la* et*een the contractin) parties.F 3yland (ust ear the

conseJuences of the tu)oats incapacity to respond to the ar)es reJuest for assistance ecause Acuario had no control in theselection of the tu)oats used y 3yland. /ut since the ulti(ate fault lies *ith petitioner, ?ustice de(ands that the latter rei(urse3yland for *hatever it (ay e ad?ud)ed to pay Acuario.12

/oth 3yland and petitioner elevated the (atter to the Court of Appeals *hich, on uly +, 2000, rendered the assailed Decisionaffir(in) the trial court, ut deletin) the a*ard of attorneys fees. pon denial of its (otion for reconsideration,1petitioner rou)htthe instant petition raisin) the follo*in) issues>9 B7B7 B7 CO O& A557A:3 77D 9" A&&9M9"G B7 &9"D9"G O& B7 9A: CO BA :. ACA9O 9933A9"7D DAMAG7 A"D BA 9 A3 33A9"7D D9"G 93 CBA7 O 735O"D7" 3S8:A"D.99 A33M9"G BA :. ACA9O 99 3&&77D DAMAG7, B7B7 B7 CO O& A557A:3 77D 9" 5BO:D9"G B79A: CO D7C939O" BO:D9"G 5799O"7 :9A/:7 B77&O.1#

he petition lacs (erit.On the first assi)ned error, petitioner is asin) this Court to resolve factual issues that have already een settled y the courtselo*. he Juestion of *hether the ar)e had een da(a)ed durin) its charter to 3yland is a factual (atter, the deter(ination of*hich (ay not e )enerally distured on appeal. Euestions of fact are not revie*ale y this Court e=cept under certain

e=ceptional circu(stances.1%"o such e=ceptional circu(stance e=ists in the case at ar.

On the contrary, the factual conclusions reached y the courts elo* are consistent *ith the evidence on record. Acuarios*itnesses testified that stron) *inds and *aves caused the ar)e to u(p into the *alls of the pier *here it *as erthed forunloadin). 5etitioners tu)oat failed to to* it farther a*ay due to en)ine reado*n, thus causin) the ar)e to sustain a hole in its
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_146426_2006.html#fnt15


14/36

hull. hese testi(onies *ere duly supported and corroorated y docu(entary evidence detailin) the da(a)e and repairs done onthe ar)e.1+

On the other hand, petitioner and 3ylands denial that there *as incle(ent *eather in the early hours of April ;, 1$$ and that thear)e sustained no da(a)e on this occasion *ere not supported y evidence to overco(e the positive alle)ations of Acuarios*itnesses *ho *ere present at the place and ti(e of the incident. he cate)orical declaration of Acuarios *itnesses re)ardin) theevents *hich led to the da(a)e on the ar)e shifted the urden of evidence on petitioner and 3yland. hey could have easilydisproved Acuarios clai(s y presentin) co(petent proof that there *as no *eather disturance on that day or, y presentin) thetesti(ony of individuals *ho have personal no*led)e of the events *hich transpired.

Moreover, the inaility of petitioners and 3ylands *itnesses to uneJuivocally declare that it *as still the M6 Count that securedthe ar)e durin) the resu(ption of off-loadin) operations casts suspicion on their crediility. As aptly oserved y the trial court,such hesitation on the part of its *itnesses is indicative of uncertainty, if not a propensity to *ithhold infor(ation that could eunfavorale to their cause.1;o our (ind, therefore, the trial court ri)htly concluded that petitioners M6 Count indeed encountered(echanical troule, as asserted y Acuario. he fact that petitioner did not cate)orically deny the alle)ation of (echanical trouleonly serves to stren)then the trial courts conclusion.

5etitioners assertion that it is contrary to hu(an e=perience for the ar)e to have (ade the return trip to Manila if it sustained thealle)ed da(a)e deserves short shrift. he trial court found that the da(a)e on the ar)e *as not too e=tensive as to render itincapale of stayin) afloat and ein) used in operation. "either *as it i(possile for the ar)es car)o to re(ain intact andunda(a)ed durin) the *eather disturance. Apart fro( the fact that the car)o *hich consisted of *ooden electric poles are, ynature, not easily da(a)ed y adverse *eather,1


15/36


16/36

in anuary 1$$%, petitioner applied for a (ayor's per(it *ith the Office of the Mayor of /atan)as City. Bo*ever, efore the (ayor'sper(it could e issued, the respondent City reasurer reJuired petitioner to pay a local ta= ased on its )ross receipts for the fiscalyear 1$$ pursuant to the :ocal Govern(ent Code. he respondent City reasurer assessed a usiness ta= on the petitionera(ountin) to 5$%+,0;+.0# payale in four install(ents ased on the )ross receipts for products pu(ped at G53-1 for the fiscalyear 1$$ *hich a(ounted to 51. . . 5laintiff is either a contractor or other independent contractor.

. . . the e=e(ption to ta= clai(ed y the plaintiff has eco(e unclear. 9t is a rule that ta= e=e(ptions are to e strictlyconstrued a)ainst the ta=payer, ta=es ein) the lifelood of the )overn(ent. 7=e(ption (ay therefore e )ranted only yclear and uneJuivocal provisions of la*.5laintiff clai(s that it is a )rantee of a pipeline concession under epulic Act

1. hat the e=e(ption )ranted under 3ec. 1 ? enco(passes onlycoo! c"##i$#% so as not to overurden theridin) pulic or co((uters *ith ta=es.P'"i!0i.. is not a co((on carrier, ut a special carrier e=tendin) itsservices and facilities to a sin)le specific or Fspecial custo(erF under a Fspecial contract.F2. he :ocal a= Code of 1$$2 *as asically enacted to )ive (ore and effective local autono(y to local)overn(ents than the previous enact(ents, to (ae the( econo(ically and financially viale to serve the

people and dischar)e their functions *ith a conco(itant oli)ation to accept certain devolution of po*ers, . . . 3o,consistent *ith this policy even franchise )rantees are ta=ed 3ec. 1; and contractors are also ta=ed under3ec. 1# e and 1%1 of the Code.$

5etitioner assailed the aforesaid decision efore this Courtvi" a petition for revie*. On &eruary 2;, 1$$%, *e referred the case tothe respondent Court of Appeals for consideration and ad?udication. 10On "ove(er 2$, 1$$%, the respondent court rendered adecision 11affir(in) the trial court's dis(issal of petitioner's co(plaint. 5etitioner's (otion for reconsideration *as denied on uly1


17/36

. Be (ust undertae to carry y the (ethod y *hich his usiness is conducted and over his estalished roadsH and#. he transportation (ust e for hire. 1%

/ased on the aove definitions and reJuire(ents, there is no dout that petitioner is a co((on carrier. 9t is en)a)ed in theusiness of transportin) or carryin) )oods,i.$. petroleu( products, for hire as a pulic e(ploy(ent. 9t undertaes to carry for allpersons indifferently, that is, to all persons *ho choose to e(ploy its services, and transports the )oods y land and forco(pensation. he fact that petitioner has a li(ited clientele does not e=clude it fro( the definition of a co((on carrier. 9nD$Gz"! v%+ Co#0 o. A$"'% 1+*e ruled that>

he aove article Art. 1;2, Civil Code (aes no distinction et*een one *hose principal usiness activity is thecarryin) of persons or )oods or oth, and one *ho does such carryin) only as an ancillary activity in local idio(, as a

FsidelineF. Article 1;2 . . . avoids (ain) any distinction et*een a person or enterprise offerin) transportation serviceon a#$&'"# or%c2$1'$1 *"%i%and one offerin) such service on anocc"%io!"', $i%o1ic o# !%c2$1'$1 *"%i%. "eitherdoes Article 1;2 distin)uish et*een a carrier offerin) its services to the F&$!$#"' *'ic,F i.$., the )eneral co((unity orpopulation, and one *ho offers services or solicits usiness only fro( a narro* se)(ent of the )eneral population. ethin that Article 1


18/36


19/36

yeth-3uaco insured the ship(ent a)ainst all riss *ith &G 9nsurance *hich issued Marine is "ote "o. #$$% pursuant toMarine Open 5olicy "o. 1

1. he Appellee is herey ordered to pay the Appellant the principal a(ount of 51


20/36

co((ission of )rave ause of discretion a(ountin) to lac or e=cess of ?urisdiction and does not include correction of the appellatecourts evaluation of the evidence and factual findin)s thereon.On the (erits, respondent &G 9nsurance contends that petitioner, as a co((on carrier, failed to overco(e the presu(ption ofne)li)ence, it ein) docu(ented that petitioner *ithdre* fro( the *arehouse of 539 the su?ect ship(ent entirely in )ood orderand condition.$

he petition fails.ule #% is clear that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i+$+,re)ardless of the nature of theaction or proceedin)s involved, (ay e appealed to this Court y filin) a petition for revie*, *hich *ould e ut a continuation ofthe appellate process over the ori)inal case.#0

he esolution of the Court of Appeals dated Dece(er As custo(s roer, *e calculate the ta=es that has to e paid in car)os, and those upon approval of the i(porter, *eprepare the entry to)ether for processin) and clai(s fro( custo(s and finally deliver the )oods to the *arehouse of thei(porter.#

Article 1;2 does not distin)uish et*een one *hose principal usiness activity is the carryin) of )oods and one *ho does suchcarryin) only as an ancillary activity.##he contention, therefore, of petitioner that it is not a co((on carrier ut a custo(s roer*hose principal function is to prepare the correct custo(s declaration and proper shippin) docu(ents as reJuired y la* is ereftof (erit. 9t suffices that petitioner undertaes to deliver the )oods for pecuniary consideration.

9n this li)ht, petitioner as a co((on carrier is (andated to oserve, under Article 1;#%

of the Civil Code, e=traordinary dili)ence inthe vi)ilance over the )oods it transports accordin) to all the circu(stances of each case. 9n the event that the )oods are lost,destroyed or deteriorated, it is presu(ed to have een at fault or to have acted ne)li)ently, unless it proves that it oservede=traordinary dili)ence.#+

he concept of Fe=tra-ordinary dili)enceF *as e=plained in Co"!i" M"#i0i" v+ Co#0 o. A$"'%>#;

he e=traordinary dili)ence in the vi)ilance over the )oods tendered for ship(ent reJuires the co((on carrier to no*and to follo* the reJuired precaution for avoidin) da(a)e to, or destruction of the )oods entrusted to it for sale, carria)eand delivery. 9t reJuires co((on carriers to render service *ith the )reatest sill and foresi)ht and Fto use all reasonale(eans to ascertain the nature and characteristics of )oods tendered for ship(ent, and to e=ercise due care in thehandlin) and sto*a)e, includin) such (ethods as their nature reJuires.F#E> as there any instance that a ship(ent of this nature, oral contraceptives, that arrived at the "A9A *ere da(a)ed and

clai(ed y the yeth-3uaco *ithout any JuestionL9"733>A> 8es sir, there *as an instance that one cartoon %ic *ere *etted %ic ut yeth-3uaco did not clai( anythin) a)ainstus.A8. &:O73>E> BO 93 9L9"733>A> e e=perienced, there *as a ti(e that *e e=perienced that there *as a cartoon %ic*etted %ic up to the otto( are*et specially durin) rainy season.+2

3ince petitioner received all the car)oes in )ood order and condition at the ti(e they *ere turned over y the 539 *arehouse(an,and upon their delivery to BiKon :aoratories, 9nc. a portion thereof *as found to e in ad order, it *as incu(ent on petitioner toprove that it e=ercised e=traordinary dili)ence in the carria)e of the )oods. 9t did not, ho*ever. Bence, its presu(ed ne)li)enceunder Article 1;% of the Civil Code re(ains unreutted.B77&O7, the Au)ust 10, 2000 Decision of the Court of Appeals is herey A&&9M7D.Costs a)ainst petitioner. 3O OD77D.

G.R. No. 13:060 S&t&&) 1, 2004. $ILLIA TIU, #o("g us("&ss u"#&) t%& "!& !"# st


22/36

passen)er us *ith plate nu(er 5/5-;2# driven y !ir)ilio e :aspiIas *as cruisin) alon) the national hi)h*ay of 3itio A))ies,5olacion, Co(postela, Ceu. he passen)er us *as also ound for Ceu City, and had co(e fro( Maya, Daanantayan, Ceu.A(on) its passen)ers *ere the 3pouses 5edro A. Arries)ado and &elisa 5epito Arries)ado, *ho *ere seated at the ri)ht side ofthe us, aout or # places fro( the front seat. As the us *as approachin) the rid)e, :aspiIas sa* the stalled truc, *hich *asthen aout 2%( a*ay.%Be applied the reas and tried to s*erve to the left to avoid hittin) the truc. /ut it *as too lateH the usra((ed into the trucs left rear. he i(pact da(a)ed the ri)ht side of the us and left several passen)ers in?ured. 5edroArries)ado lost consciousness and suffered a fracture in his ri)ht colles.+Bis *ife, &elisa, *as rou)ht to the Danao City Bospital.3he *as later transferred to the 3outhern 9sland Medical Center *here she died shortly thereafter.;

espondent 5edro A. Arries)ado then filed a co(plaint for reach of contract of carria)e, da(a)es and attorneys fees efore the

e)ional rial Court of Ceu City, /ranch 20, a)ainst the petitioners, D ou)h iders us operator illia( iu and his driver,!ir)ilio e :aspiIas on May 2;, 1$


23/36

Arries)ado, as such clai( *as *ay eyond scheduled inde(nity as contained in the contract of insurance.1# After parties presentedtheir respective evidence, the trial court ruled in favor of respondent Arries)ado. he dispositive portion of decision reads>

B77&O7, in vie* of the fore)oin), ?ud)(ent is herey rendered in favor of plaintiff as a)ainst defendant illia( iuorderin) the latter to pay the plaintiff the follo*in) a(ounts>

1 - he su( of &9&8 BO3A"D 573O3 5%0,000.00 as (oral da(a)esH2 - he su( of &9&8 BO3A"D 573O3 5%0,000.00 as e=e(plary da(a)esH - he su( of B98-79GB BO3A"D &O B"D7D &O8-O"7 573O3 59. B7 BO"OA/:7 CO O& A557A:3 77D 9" "O D7C:A9"G 735O"D7"3 /7"AM9" CO"DO A"D37G9O 57DA"O G9:8 O& "7G:9G7"C7 A"D B7"C7, :9A/:7 O 735O"D7" 57DO A. A973GADO

O O 5799O"73 &O BA7!7 :9A/9:98 BA MA8 /7 ADDG7D AGA9"3 B7M.99. B7 BO"OA/:7 CO O& A557A:3 77D 9" &9"D9"G 5799O"73 G9:8 O& "7G:9G7"C7 A"DB7"C7, :9A/:7 O 735O"D7" 57DO A. A973GADO.999. B7 BO"OA/:7 CO O& A557A:3 77D 9" &9"D9"G 5799O"7 9::9AM 9 :9A/:7 &O77M5:A8 DAMAG73, AO"783 &773 A"D :99GA9O" 757"373.9!. B7 BO"OA/:7 CO O& A557A:3 77D 9" "O &9"D9"G 735O"D7" 5B9:9559"7 5BO7"9378 A"D 9"3A"C7, 9"C. :9A/:7 O 735O"D7" 57DO A. A973GADO O O 5799O"7 9::9AM9.1$

Accordin) to the petitioners, the appellate court erred in failin) to appreciate the asence of an early *arnin) device and6or uilt-inreflectors at the front and ac of the car)o truc, in clear violation of 3ection #, par. ) of the :and ransportation and rafficCode. hey aver that such violation is only a proof of respondent 5edranos ne)li)ence, as provided under Article 21


24/36

selection and supervision of his drivers. he petitioners further alle)e that there is no le)al and factual asis to reJuire petitioner iuto pay e=e(plary da(a)es as no evidence *as presented to sho* that the latter acted in a fraudulent, recless and oppressive(anner, or that he had an active participation in the ne)li)ent act of petitioner :aspiIas. &inally, the petitioners contend thatrespondent 55399 ad(itted in its ans*er that *hile it had attended to and settled the clai(s of the other in?ured passen)ers,respondent Arries)ados clai( re(ained unsettled as it *as eyond the scheduled inde(nity under the insurance contract. hepetitioners ar)ue that said respondent 55399 should have settled the said clai( in accordance *ith the scheduled inde(nity insteadof ?ust denyin) the sa(e.

On the other hand, respondent Arries)ado ar)ues that t*o of the issues raised y the petitioners involved Juestions of fact, notrevie*ale y the 3upre(e Court> the findin) of ne)li)ence on the part of the petitioners and their liaility to hi(H and the a*ard of

e=e(plary da(a)es, attorneys fees and liti)ation e=penses in his favor. 9nvoin) the principle of eJuity and ?ustice, respondentArries)ado pointed out that if there *as an error to e revie*ed in the CA decision, it should e )eared to*ards the restoration ofthe (oral and e=e(plary da(a)es to5%0,000 each, or a total of 5100,000 *hich *as reduced y the Court of Appeals to 52%,000each, or a total of only 5%0,000.

espondent Arries)ado also alle)ed that respondents Condor and 5edrano, and respondent 5hoeni= 3urety, are parties *ith*ho( he had no contract of carria)e, and had no cause of action a)ainst. 9t *as pointed out that only the petitioners needed to esued, as driver and operator of the ill-fated us, on account of their failure to rin) the Arries)ado 3pouses to their place ofdestination as a)reed upon in the contract of carria)e, usin) the ut(ost dili)ence of very cautious persons *ith due re)ard for allcircu(stances.

espondents Condor and 5edrano point out that, as correctly ruled y the Court of Appeals, the pro=i(ate cause of the unfortunateincident *as the fast speed at *hich petitioner :aspiIas *as drivin) the us o*ned y petitioner iu. Accordin) to the respondents,the alle)ation that the truc *as not eJuipped *ith an early *arnin) device could not in any *ay have prevented the incident fro(happenin). 9t *as also pointed out that respondent Condor had al*ays e=ercised the due dili)ence reJuired in the selection andsupervision of his e(ployees, and that he *as not a party to the contract of carria)e et*een the petitioners and respondentArries)ado.

espondent 55399, for its part, alle)es that contrary to the alle)ation of petitioner iu, it settled all the clai(s of those in?ured inaccordance *ith the insurance contract. 9t further avers that it did not deny respondent Arries)ados clai(, and e(phasiKes that itsliaility should e *ithin the scheduled li(its of inde(nity under the said contract. he respondent concludes that *hile it is truethat insurance contracts are contracts of inde(nity, the (easure of the insurers liaility is deter(ined y the insureds co(pliance*ith the ter(s thereof.

T%& Cou)t@s Ru+("gAt the outset, it (ust e stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts.20&actual findin)s of the Court of Appeals are final and (aynot e revie*ed on appeal y this Court, e=cept *hen the lo*er court and the CA arrived at diverse factual findin)s. 21hepetitioners in this case assail the findin) of oth the trial and the appellate courts that petitioner :aspiIas *as drivin) at a very fastspeed efore the us o*ned y petitioner iu collided *ith respondent Condors stalled truc. his is clearly one of fact, not

revie*ale y the Court in a petition for revie* under ule #%.22 On this )round alone, the petition is destined to fail. Bo*ever,considerin) that novel Juestions of la* are lie*ise involved, the Court resolves to e=a(ine and rule on the (erits of the case.

Petitioner Laspias was negligent in driving the Ill-fated bus9n his testi(ony efore the trial court, petitioner :aspiIas clai(ed that he *as traversin) the t*o-lane road at Co(postela, Ceu ata speed of only forty #0 to fifty %0 ilo(eters per hour efore the incident occurred.2Be also ad(itted that he sa* the truc*hich *as pared in an FoliJue positionF at aout 2% (eters efore i(pact,2#and tried to avoid hittin) it y s*ervin) to the left.Bo*ever, even in the asence of e=pert evidence, the da(a)e sustained y the truc2%itself supports the findin) of oth the trialcourt and the appellate court, that the D ou)h ider us driven y petitioner :aspiIas *as travelin) at a fast pace. 3ince he sa*the stalled truc at a distance of 2% (eters, petitioner :aspiIas had (ore than enou)h ti(e to s*erve to his left to avoid hittin) itHthat is, if the speed of the us *as only #0 to %0 ilo(eters per hour as he clai(ed. As found y the Court of Appeals, it is easier toelieve that petitioner :aspiIas *as drivin) at a very fast speed, since at #>#% a.(., the hour of the accident, there *ere noonco(in) vehicles at the opposite direction. 5etitioner :aspiIas could have s*erved to the left lane *ith proper clearance, and,thus, could have avoided the truc.2+9nstinct, at the very least, *ould have pro(pted hi( to apply the reas to avert the i(pendin)

disaster *hich he (ust have foreseen *hen he cau)ht si)ht of the stalled truc. As *e had occasion to reiterate>A (an (ust use co((on sense, and e=ercise due reflection in all his actsH it is his duty to e cautious, careful and prudent, ifnot fro( instinct, then throu)h fear of recurrin) punish(ent. Be is responsile for such results as anyone (i)ht foresee and foracts *hich no one *ould have perfor(ed e=cept throu)h culpale aandon. Other*ise, his o*n person, ri)hts and property,and those of his fello* ein)s, *ould ever e e=posed to all (anner of dan)er and in?ury.2;

e a)ree *ith the follo*in) findin)s of the trial court, *hich *ere affir(ed y the CA on appeal>A close study and evaluation of the testi(onies and the docu(entary proofs su(itted y the parties *hich have direct earin)on the issue of ne)li)ence, this Court as sho*n y preponderance of evidence that defendant !ir)ilio e :aspiIas failed tooserve e=traordinary dili)ence as a driver of the co((on carrier in this case. 9t is Juite hard to accept his version of theincident that he did not see at a reasonale distance ahead the car)o truc that *as pared *hen the ou)h ider N/us ?ustca(e out of the rid)e *hich is on an sic N(ore elevated position than the place *here the car)o truc *as pared. ith itsheadli)hts fully on, defendant driver of the ou)h ider *as in a vanta)e position to see the car)o truc ahead *hich *aspared and he could ?ust easily have avoided hittin) and u(pin) the sa(e y (aneuverin) to the left *ithout hittin) the saidcar)o truc. /esides, it is sic sho*n that there *as still (uch roo( or space for the ou)h ider to pass at the left lane of thesaid national hi)h*ay even if the car)o truc had occupied the entire ri)ht lane thereof. 9t is not true that if the ou)h ider*ould proceed to pass throu)h the left lane it *ould fall into a canal considerin) that there *as (uch space for it to pass*ithout hittin) and u(pin) the car)o truc at the left lane of said national hi)h*ay. he records, further, sho*ed that there*as no inco(in) vehicle at the opposite lane of the national hi)h*ay *hich *ould have prevented the ou)h ider fro( nots*ervin) to its left in order to avoid hittin) and u(pin) the pared car)o truc. /ut the evidence sho*ed that the ou)h ider


25/36

instead of s*ervin) to the still spacious left lane of the national hi)h*ay plo*ed directly into the pared car)o truc hittin) thelatter at its rear portionH and thus, the sic causin) da(a)es not only to herein plaintiff ut to the car)o truc as *ell.2 1 *here the in?ury or death to a passen)er isdue either to the fault of the shipo*ner, or to the concurrin) ne)li)ence of the shipo*ner and the captainH %22 *here the vessel isinsuredH and in *or(en's co(pensation clai(s.%

e have cate)orically stated that Article %. . . althou)h the shipo*ner (ay e held civilly liale for the captain's fault . . . havin) aandoned the vessel in Juestion, even ifthe vessel *as unsea*orthy due to the captain's fault, AoitiK is still entitled to the enefit under the rule of li(ited liailityaccorded to shipo*ners y the Code of Co((erce. %;

Civil Case "o. 1


35/36

the findin)s of the Court of Appeals that the M6! 5. AoitiK san y reason of.o#c$ "/$#$, and that there *as no ne)li)ence onthe part of its officers and cre*. 9n direct contradiction is this Court's cate)orical declaration inA*oi0iz S2ii!& Co#o#"0io! v+ Co#0o. A$"'%,F ;0to *it>

he trial court and the appellate court found that the sinin) of the M6! 5. AoitiK *as not due to the *aves caused y tropicalstor( F8onin)F *0 1$ 0o 02$ ."'0 "!1 !$&'i&$!c$ o. $0i0io!$#, i0% "%0$# "!1 c#$3+ T2$ co#0 #$#o1c$% 3i02 "#ov"' %"i1.i!1i!&% . . . .;1

Bo*ever, in the suseJuent case ofA*oi0iz S2ii!& Co#o#"0io! v+ G$!$#"' Acci1$!0 Fi#$ "!1 Li.$ A%%#"!c$ Co#o#"0io!,L01., ;2this Court e=culpated AoitiK fro( fault and6or ne)li)ence *hile holdin) that the unsea*orthiness of the M6! 5. AoitiK *asonly attriutale to the ne)li)ence of its captain and cre*. hus,

On this point, it should e stressed that unsea*orthiness is not a fault that can e laid sJuarely on petitioner's lap, asent afactual asis for such conclusion. he unsea*orthiness found in so(e cases *here the sa(e has een ruled to e=ist is directlyattriutale to the vessel's cre* and captain, (ore so on the part of the latter since Article +12 of the Code of Co((erceprovides that a(on) the inherent duties of a captain is to e=a(ine a vessel efore sailin) and to co(ply *ith the la*s ofnavi)ation. 3uch a construction *ould also put (atters to rest relative to the decision of the /oard of Marine 9nJuiry. hile theconclusion therein e=oneratin) the captain and cre* of the vessel *as not sustained for lac of asis, the findin) thereincontained to the effect that the vessel *as sea*orthy deserves (erit. Despite appearances, it is not totally inco(patile *iththe findin)s of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, *hose findin) of Funsea*orthinessF clearly did not pertain to thestructural condition of the vessel *hich is the asis of the /M9's findin)s, ut to the condition it *as in at the ti(e of the sinin),*hich condition *as a result of the acts of the captain and the cre*. ;

9t therefore eco(es incu(ent upon this Court to ans*er *ith finality the na))in) Juestion of *hether or not it *as the concurrentfault and6or ne)li)ence of AoitiK and the captain and cre* of the ill-fated vessel that had caused it to )o under *ater.

Guided y our previous pronounce(ents and illu(inated y the evidence no* on record, *e reiterate our findin)s inA*oi0izS2ii!& Co#o#"0io! v+ G$!$#"' Acci1$!0 Fi#$ "!1 Li.$ A%%#"!c$ Co#o#"0io!, L01.;#,that the unsea*orthiness of the M6! 5.AoitiK had caused it to founder. e, ho*ever, tae e=ception to the pronounce(ent therein that said unsea*orthiness could note attriuted to the ship o*ner ut only to the ne)li)ent acts of the captain and cre* of the M6! 5. AoitiK. On the (atter of AoitiK'ne)li)ence, *e adhere to our rulin) inA*oi0iz S2ii!& Co#o#"0io! v+ Co#0 o. A$"'%, ;%that found AoitiK, and the captain andcre* of the M6! 5. AoitiK to have een concurrently ne)li)ent.

Durin) the trial of Civil Case "os.


36/36

ad(iralty court *ithin 1% days fro( finality of this decision, and thereafter deposit *ith it the proceeds fro( the insuranceco(pany and pendin) frei)hta)e in order to safe)uard the sa(e pendin) final resolution of all incidents, for final pro-ratin) andsettle(ent thereof.

case transpo

Documents