8/8/2015

G.R.No.L16629

TodayisSaturday,August08,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L16629January31,1962
SOUTHERNLINES,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandCITYOFILOILO,respondents.
JoseMa.LopezVito,Jr.forpetitioner.
TheCityFiscalforrespondents.
DELEON,J.:
ThisisapetitiontoreviewoncertiorarithedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.No.15579Raffirmingthat
oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofIloilowhichsentencedpetitionerSouthernLines,Inc.topayrespondentCityof
IloilotheamountofP4,931.41.
Sometimein1948,theCityofIloilorequisitionedforricefromtheNationalRiceandCornCorporation(hereafter
referredtoasNARIC)inManila.OnAugust24ofthesameyear,NARIC,pursuanttotheorder,shipped1,726
sacksofriceconsignedtotheCityofIloiloonboardtheSS"GeneralWright"belongingtotheSouthernLines,Inc.
Eachsackofriceweighed75kilosandtheentireshipmentasindicatedinthebillofladinghadatotalweightof
129,450kilos.Accordingtothebilloflading,thecostoftheshipmentwasP63,115.50itemizedandcomputedas
follows:.
UnitPriceperbagP36.25

P62,567.50

HandlingatP0.13perbag

224.38

TruckingatP2.50perbag

323.62

Total...........

63,115.50

OnSeptember3,1948,theCityofIloiloreceivedtheshipmentandpaidtheamountofP63,115.50.However,it
was noted that the foot of the bill of lading that the City of Iloilo 'Received the above mentioned merchandise
apparentlyinsameconditionaswhenshipped,saveasnotedbelow:actuallyreceived1685sackswithagross
weight of 116,131 kilos upon actual weighing. Total shortage ascertained 13,319 kilos." The shortage was
equivalentto41sacksofricewithanetweightof13,319kilos,theproportionatevalueofwhichwasP6,486.35.
OnFebruary14,1951theCityofIloilofiledacomplaintintheCourtofFirstInstanceofIloiloagainstNARICand
theSouthernLines,Inc.fortherecoveryoftheamountofP6,486.35representingthevalueoftheshortageofthe
shipment of rice. After trial, the lower court absolved NARIC from the complaint, but sentenced the Southern
Lines,Inc.topaytheamountofP4,931.41whichisthedifferencebetweenthesumofP6,486.35andP1,554.94
representingthelatter'scounterclaimforhandlingandfreight.
TheSouthernLines,Inc.appealedtotheCourtofAppealswhichaffirmedthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Hence,
thispetitionforreview.
Theonlyquestiontobedeterminedinthispetitioniswhetherornotthedefendantcarrier,thehereinpetitioner,is
liableforthelossorshortageofthericeshipped.
Article361oftheCodeofCommerceprovides:.
ART.361.Themerchandiseshallbetransportedattheriskandventureoftheshipper,ifthecontrary
hasnotbeenexpresslystipulated.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1962/jan1962/gr_l16629_1962.html

1/3

8/8/2015

G.R.No.L16629

Asaconsequence,allthelossesanddeteriorationswhichthegoodsmaysufferduringthetransportation
byreasonoffortuitousevent,forcemajeure,ortheinherentnatureanddefectofthegoods,shallbeforthe
accountandriskoftheshipper.
1 w p h 1 . t

Proofoftheseaccidentsisincumbentuponthecarrier.
Article362ofthesameCodeprovides:.
ART.362.Nevertheless,thecarriershallbeliableforthelossesanddamagesresultingfromthecauses
mentionedintheprecedingarticleifitisproved,asagainsthim,thattheyarosethroughhisnegligenceor
byreasonofhishavingfailedtotaketheprecautionswhichusagehisestablisbedamongcarefulpersons,
unlesstheshipperhascommittedfraudinthebilloflading,representingthegoodstobeofakindorquality
differentfromwhattheyreallywere.
If,notwithstandingtheprecautionsreferredtointhisarticle,thegoodstransportedruntheriskofbeinglost,
on account of their nature or by reason of unavoidable accident, there being no time for their owners to
disposeofthem,thecarriermayproceedtosellthem,placingthemforthispurposeatthedisposalofthe
judicialauthorityoroftheofficialsdesignatedbyspecialprovisions.
UndertheprovisionsofArticle361,thedefendantcarrierinordertofreeitselffromliability,wasonlyobligedto
provethatthedamagessufferedbythegoodswere"byvirtueofthenatureordefectofthearticles."Underthe
provisionsofArticle362,theplaintiff,inordertoholdthedefendantliable,wasobligedtoprovethatthedamages
tothegoodsbyvirtueoftheirnature,occurredonaccountofitsnegligenceorbecausethedefendantdidnottake
theprecautionadoptedbycarefulpersons.(Governmentv.Ynchausti&Co.,40Phil.219,223).
Petitionerclaimsexemptionfromliabilitybycontendingthattheshortageintheshipmentofricewasduetosuch
factorsastheshrinkage,leakageorspillageofthericeonaccountofthebadconditionofthesacksatthetimeit
received the same and the negligence of the agents of respondent City of Iloilo in receiving the shipment. The
contention is untenable, for, if the fact of improper packing is known to the carrier or his servants, or apparent
uponordinaryobservation,butitacceptsthegoodsnotwithstandingsuchcondition,itisnotrelievedofliabilityfor
loss or injury resulting thereform. (9 Am Jur. 869.) Furthermore, according to the Court of Appeals, "appellant
(petitioner) itself frankly admitted that the strings that tied the bags of rice were broken some bags were with
holes and plenty of rice were spilled inside the hull of the boat, and that the personnel of the boat collected no
lessthan26sacksofricewhichtheyhaddistributedamongthemselves."Thisfinding,whichisbindinguponthis
Court,showsthattheshortageresultedfromthenegligenceofpetitioner.
InvokingtheprovisionsofArticle366oftheCodeofCommerceandthoseofthebilloflading,petitionerfurther
contends that respondent is precluded from filing an action for damages on account of its failure to present a
claimwithin24hoursfromreceiptoftheshipment.ItalsocitesthecasesofGovernmentv.Ynchausti&Co.,24
Phil.315andTritonInsuranceCo.v.Jose,33Phil.194,rulingtotheeffectthattherequirementthattheclaimfor
damagesmustbemadewithin24hoursfromdeliveryisaconditionprecedenttotheaccrualoftherightofaction
torecoverdamages.Thesetwocasesabovecitedarenotapplicabletothecaseatbar.Inthefirstcitedcase,the
plaintiff never presented any claim at all before filing the action. In the second case, there was payment of the
transportationchargeswhichprecludesthepresentationofanyclaimagainstthecarrier.(SeeArticle366,Code
ofCommerce.)ItissignificanttonotethatintheAmericancaseofHoyev.PennsylvaniaRailroadCo., 13 Ann.
Case.414,ithasbeensaid:.
... "It has been held that a stipulation in the contract of shipment requiring the owner of the goods to
present a notice of his claim to the carrier within a specified time after the goods have arrived at their
destinationisinthenatureofaconditionprecedenttotheowner'srighttoenforcearecovery,thathemust
showinthefirstinstancethatbehascompliedwiththecondition,orthatthecircumstancesweresuchthat
to have complied with it would have required him to do an unreasonable thing. The weight of authority,
however,sustainstheviewthatsuchastipulationismoreinthenatureofalimitationupontheowner'sright
to recovery, and that the burden of proof is accordingly on the carrier to show that the limitation was
reasonableandinproperformorwithinthetimestated."(HutchinsononCarrier,3ded.,par.44)Emphasis
supplied.
In the case at bar, the record shows that petitioner failed to plead this defense in its answer to respondent's
complaintand,therefore,thesameisdeemedwaived(Section10,Rule9,RulesofCourt),andcannotberaised
forthefirsttimeatthetrialoronappeal.(Maxilomv.Tabotabo,9Phil.390.)Moreover,astheCourtofAppeals
hassaid:.
...therecordsrevealthattheappellee(respondent)filedthepresentaction,withinareasonabletimeafter
theshortdeliveryintheshipmentofthericewasmade.Itshouldberecalledthatthepresentactionisone
for the refund of the amount paid in excess, and not for damages or the recovery of the shortage for
admittedly the appellee (respondent) had paid the entire value of the 1726 sacks of rice, subject to
subsequentadjustment,astoshortagesorlosses.Thebillofladingdoesnotatalllimitthetimeforfilingan
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1962/jan1962/gr_l16629_1962.html

2/3

8/8/2015

G.R.No.L16629

actionfortherefundofmoneypaidinexcess.
WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisherebyaffirmedinallrespectsandthepetitionforcertiorari
denied.
Withcostsagainstthepetitioner.
Padilla,Labrador,Concepcion,Reyes,J.B.L.,Barrera,andDizon,JJ.,concur.
Bengzon,C.J.,BautistaAngeloandParedes,JJ.,tooknopart.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1962/jan1962/gr_l16629_1962.html

3/3