Case Digest: Mirasol v. The Robert Dollar Co., G.R. No. L-29721

 

Mirasol v. The Robert Dollar Co., G.R. No. L-29721, March 27, 1929

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Plaintiff alleges that he is the owner and consignee of two cases of books, shipped in good order and condition at New York, U.S.A., on board the defendant's steamship President Garfield, for transport and delivery to the plaintiff in the City of Manila.

The two cases arrived in Manila on September 1, 1927, in bad order and damaged condition, resulting in the total loss of one case and a partial loss of the other. Hence, plaintiff filed his claims, and defendant has refused and neglected to pay, giving as its reason that the damage in question "was caused by sea water."

Defendant made a general and specific denial and alleged the following: 

1. that the steamship President Garfield at all the times alleged was in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped and supplied, and fit for the voyage; hence they are not liable on the grounds of being unseaworthy.

2. that in the bill of lading issued by the defendant to plaintiff, it was agreed in writing that defendant should not be "held liable for any loss of, or damage to, any of said merchandise resulting from “Acts of God, perils of the sea or other waters," and that plaintiff's damage, if any, was caused by "Acts of God" or "perils of the sea."

3. defendant quoted clause 13 of the bill of lading, in which it is stated that in no case shall it be held liable "for or in respect to said merchandise or property beyond the sum of $250 for any piece, package or any article not enclosed in a package, unless a higher value is stated herein and ad valorem freight paid or assessed thereon," and that there was no other agreement.

4. defendant alleges that the damage, if any, was caused by "sea water," and that the bill of lading exempts defendant from liability for that cause. That damage by "sea water" is a shipper's risk, and that defendant is not liable.

After trial, RTC rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff.

ISSUE

Whether or not defendant has presented sufficient evidence to prove its exercise of extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier to merit its exemption from liability given the conditions stated on the bill of lading.

RULING

No, there was no sufficient proof to merit defendant’s exemption from liability.

Under the law, even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration.

In this case, there is no claim or pretense that the two cases were not in good order when received on board the ship, and it is admitted that they were in bad order on their arrival at Manila. Hence, they must have been damaged in transit. In the very nature of things, if they were damaged by reason of a tempest, rocks, icebergs, foundering, stranding or the perils of the sea, that would be a matter exclusively within the knowledge of the officers of defendant's ship, and in the very nature of things would not be within plaintiff's knowledge, and upon all such questions, there is a failure of proof. Hence, defendant shall not be exempt from liability.