Philamgen
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101426, May 17, 1993
Subject: Transportation Law
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 consigned to
the Bicol Union Center of Pasacao, Camarines Sur, with a certain Pedro Olivan
as the "Notify-Party."
The
cargo was insured by the Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc.
Upon
arrival, the shipmaster notified the consignee's "Notify-Party" that
the vessel was already (sic) to discharge the cargo. However, the discharging
could not be affected immediately and continuously because of certain reasons
one of which is that a super typhoon code-named "Saling" entered the
Philippine area of responsibility and was felt in the eastern coast of the
country; Pasacao was placed under Storm Signal No. 3. The discharging of the
cargo had to be suspended.
Because
of the storm, the vessel broke into two (2) parts and sank partially. The whole
barrio outnumbered the crew and the guards, making them 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.
Because
the cargo was insured by it the Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc.
paid the shipper Davao Union Marketing Corporation. As a subrogee, the insurer
made demands upon the Transpacific Towage, Inc. for the payment of said amount.
The latter refused, hence, the Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc.
filed the present complaint.
The
lower court found the defendant carrier had exposed the property to the
accident and that the plaintiff is also guilty of contributory negligence. On
appeal, CA reversed RTC’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether
or not the private respondent is liable for the loss of the said insured cargo.
RULING
No,
the private respondent is not liable for the loss of the said insured cargo.
Under the law, in order that the
common carrier may be exempted from responsibility, the natural disaster must
have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. However, the common carrier
must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before, during and after
the occurrence of flood, storm or other natural disaster in order that the
common carrier may be exempted from liability for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods.
In this case, it is that there was
indeed a delay in discharging the cargo from the vessel. However, neither of
the parties herein could be faulted for such delay, for the same (delay) was
due not to negligence, but to the natural conditions of the port of Pasacao and
several other factors. 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. The records also show that before, during
and after the occurrence of typhoon "Saling", private respondent
through its shipmaster exercised due negligence to prevent or minimize the loss
of the cargo. The diligence exercised by the shipmaster further supports the
exemption of private respondent from liability for the loss of the cargo, in
accordance with Article 1739 of the Civil Code.
No comments:
Post a Comment