[G.R.No.112287.

December12,1997]

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS AND

VLASONSSHIPPING,INC.,respondents.

[G.R.No.112350.December12,1997]

VLASONS SHIPPING, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND

NATIONALSTEELCORPORATION,respondents.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:

The Court finds occasion to apply the rules on the seaworthiness of a private carrier, its
owners responsibility for damage to the cargo and its liability for demurrage and attorneys
fees. The Court also reiterates the wellknown rule that findings of facts of trial courts, when
affirmedbytheCourtofAppeals,arebindingonthisCourt.
TheCase
BeforeusaretwoseparatepetitionsforreviewfiledbyNationalSteelCorporation(NSC)and
Vlasons Shipping, Inc. (VSI), both of which assail the August 12, 1993 Decision of the Court of
Appeals.[1]TheCourtofAppealsmodifiedthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofPasig,Metro
Manila,Branch163inCivilCaseNo.23317.TheRTCdisposedasfollows:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavorofdefendantandagainsttheplaintiffdismissingthe
complaintwithcostagainstplaintiff,andorderingplaintifftopaythedefendantonthecounterclaimas
follows:
1.ThesumofP75,000.00asunpaidfreightandP88,000.00asdemurragewithinterestatthelegal
rateonbothamountsfromApril7,1976untilthesameshallhavebeenfullypaid
2.AttorneysfeesandexpensesoflitigationinthesumofP100,000.00and
3.Costofsuit.

SOORDERED.[2]
Ontheotherhand,theCourtofAppealsruled:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thedecisionappealedfromismodifiedbyreducingtheawardfor
demurragetoP44,000.00anddeletingtheawardforattorneysfeesandexpensesoflitigation.Exceptasthus
modified,thedecisionisAFFIRMED.Thereisnopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.[3]
TheFacts

TheMVVlasonsIisavesselwhichrenderstrampingserviceand,assuch,doesnottransport
cargo or shipment for the general public. Its services are available only to specific persons who
enterintoaspecialcontractofcharterpartywithitsowner.Itisundisputedthattheshipisaprivate
carrier.And it is in this capacity that its owner, Vlasons Shipping, Inc., entered into a contract of
affreightmentorcontractofvoyagecharterhirewithNationalSteelCorporation.
ThefactsasfoundbyRespondentCourtofAppealsareasfollows:
(1)OnJuly17,1974,plaintiffNationalSteelCorporation(NSC)asChartereranddefendantVlasons
Shipping,Inc.(VSI)asOwner,enteredintoaContractofVoyageCharterHire(ExhibitBalsoExhibit1)
wherebyNSChiredVSIsvessel,theMVVLASONSItomakeone(1)voyagetoloadsteelproductsat
IliganCityanddischargethematNorthHarbor,Manila,underthefollowingtermsandconditions,viz:
1.xxxxxx.
2.Cargo:Fullcargoofsteelproductsofnotlessthan2,500MT,10%moreorlessatMastersoption.
3.xxxxxx
4.Freight/Payment:P30.00/metricton,FIOSTbasis.PaymentuponpresentationofBillofLadingwithin
fifteen(15)days.
5.Laydays/Cancelling:July26,1974/Aug.5,1974.
6.Loading/DischargingRate:750tonsperWWDSHINC.(WeatherWorkingDayof24consecutivehours,
SundaysandHolidaysIncluded).
7.Demurrage/Dispatch:P8,000.00/P4,000.00perday.
8.xxxxxx
9.CargoInsurance:Charterersand/orShippersmustinsurethecargoes.Shipownersnotresponsiblefor
losses/damagesexceptonprovenwillfulnegligenceoftheofficersofthevessel.
10.Otherterms:(a)Allterms/conditionsofNONYAZAIC/P[sic]orotherinternationallyrecognizedCharter
PartyAgreementshallformpartofthisContract.
xxxxxxxxx
ThetermsF.I.O.S.T.whichisusedintheshippingbusinessisastandardprovisionintheNANYOZAI
CharterPartywhichstandsforFreightInandOutincludingStevedoringandTrading,whichmeansthatthe
handling,loadingandunloadingofthecargoesaretheresponsibilityoftheCharterer.UnderParagraph5of
theNANYOZAICharterParty,itstates,Chartererstoload,stowanddischargethecargofreeofriskand
expensestoowners.xxx(Underscoringsupplied).
Underparagraph10thereof,itisprovidedthat(o)wnersshall,beforeandatthebeginningofthevoyage,
exerciseduediligencetomakethevesselseaworthyandproperlymanned,equippedandsuppliedandto
maketheholdsandallotherpartsofthevesselinwhichcargoiscarried,fitandsafeforitsreception,
carriageandpreservation.Ownersshallnotbeliableforlossofordamageofthecargoarisingorresulting
from:unseaworthinessunlesscausedbywantofduediligenceonthepartoftheownerstomakethevessel
seaworthy,andtosecurethatthevesselisproperlymanned,equippedandsuppliedandtomaketheholds
andallotherpartsofthevesselinwhichcargoiscarried,fitandsafeforitsreception,carriageand
preservationxxxperils,dangersandaccidentsoftheseaorothernavigablewatersxxxwastageinbulkor
weightoranyotherlossordamagearisingfrominherentdefect,qualityorviceofthecargoinsufficiencyof
packingxxxlatentdefectsnotdiscoverablebyduediligenceanyothercausearisingwithouttheactual
faultorprivityofOwnersorwithoutthefaultoftheagentsorservantsofowners.
Paragraph12ofsaidNANYOZAICharterPartyalsoprovidesthat(o)wnersshallnotberesponsibleforsplit,
chafingand/oranydamageunlesscausedbythenegligenceordefaultofthemasterandcrew.

(2)OnAugust6,7and8,1974,inaccordancewiththeContractofVoyageCharterHire,theMVVLASONS
IloadedatplaintiffspieratIliganCity,theNSCsshipmentof1,677skidsoftinplatesand92packagesofhot
rolledsheetsoratotalof1,769packageswithatotalweightofabout2,481.19metrictonsforcarriageto
Manila.Theshipmentwasplacedinthethree(3)hatchesoftheship.ChiefMateGonzaloSabando,actingas
agentofthevessel[,]acknowledgedreceiptofthecargoonboardandsignedthecorrespondingbilloflading,
B.L.P.P.No.0233(ExhibitD)onAugust8,1974.
(3)ThevesselarrivedwiththecargoatPier12,NorthHarbor,Manila,onAugust12,1974.Thefollowing
day,August13,1974,whenthevesselsthree(3)hatchescontainingtheshipmentwereopenedbyplaintiffs
agents,nearlyalltheskidsoftinplatesandhotrolledsheetswereallegedlyfoundtobewetandrusty.The
cargowasdischargedandunloadedbystevedoreshiredbytheCharterer.Unloadingwascompletedonlyon
August24,1974afterincurringadelayofeleven(11)daysduetotheheavyrainwhichinterruptedthe
unloadingoperations.(ExhibitE)
(4)Todeterminethenatureandextentofthewettingandrusting,NSCcalledforasurveyoftheshipmentby
theManilaAdjustersandSurveyorsCompany(MASCO).InalettertotheNSCdatedMarch17,1975
(ExhibitG),MASCOmadeareportofitsocularinspectionconductedonthecargo,bothwhileitwasstillon
boardthevesselandlaterattheNDCwarehouseinPurezaSt.,Sta.Mesa,Manilawherethecargowastaken
andstored.MASCOreportedthatitfoundwettingandrustingofthepackagesofhotrolledsheetsandmetal
coversofthetinplatesthattarpaulinhatchcoverswerenotedtornatvariousextentsthatcontainer/metal
casingsoftheskidswererustingallover.MASCOventuredtheopinionthatrustingofthetinplateswas
causedbycontactwithSEAWATERsustainedwhilestillonboardthevesselasaconsequenceoftheheavy
weatherandroughseasencounteredwhileenroutetodestination(ExhibitF).Itwasalsoreportedthat
MASCOssurveyorsdrewatrandomsamplesofbadorderpackingmaterialsofthetinplatesanddelivered
thesametotheM.I.T.TestingLaboratoriesforanalysis.OnAugust31,1974,theM.I.T.TestingLaboratories
issuedReportNo.1770(ExhibitI)whichinpart,states,Theanalysisofbadordersamplesofpacking
materialsxxxshowsthatwettingwascausedbycontactwithSEAWATER.
(5)OnSeptember6,1974,onthebasisoftheaforesaidReportNo.1770,plaintifffiledwiththedefendantits
claimfordamagessufferedduetothedowngradingofthedamagedtinplatesintheamount
ofP941,145.18.ThenonOctober3,1974,plaintiffformallydemandedpaymentofsaidclaimbutdefendant
VSIrefusedandfailedtopay.PlaintifffileditscomplaintagainstdefendantonApril21,1976whichwas
docketedasCivilCaseNo.23317,CFI,Rizal.
(6)Initscomplaint,plaintiffclaimedthatitsustainedlossesintheaforesaidamountofP941,145.18asa
resultoftheact,neglectanddefaultofthemasterandcrewinthemanagementofthevesselaswellasthe
wantofduediligenceonthepartofthedefendanttomakethevesselseaworthyandtomaketheholdsand
allotherpartsofthevesselinwhichthecargowascarried,fitandsafeforitsreception,carriageand
preservationallinviolationofdefendantsundertakingundertheirContractofVoyageCharterHire.
(7)Initsanswer,defendantdeniedliabilityfortheallegeddamageclaimingthattheMVVLASONSIwas
seaworthyinallrespectsforthecarriageofplaintiffscargothatsaidvesselwasnotacommon
carrierinasmuchasshewasundervoyagechartercontractwiththeplaintiffaschartererunderthecharter
partythatinthecourseofthevoyagefromIliganCitytoManila,theMVVLASONSIencounteredvery
roughseas,strongwindsandadverseweathercondition,causingstrongwindsandbigwavestocontinuously
poundagainstthevesselandseawatertooverflowonitsdeckandhatchcoversthatundertheContractof
VoyageCharterHire,defendantshallnotberesponsibleforlosses/damagesexceptonprovenwillful
negligenceoftheofficersofthevessel,thattheofficersofsaidMVVLASONSIexercisedduediligenceand
properseamanshipandwerenotwillfullynegligentthatfurthermoretheVoyageCharterPartyprovidesthat
loadinganddischargingofthecargowasonFIOSTtermswhichmeansthatthevesselwasfreeofriskand
expenseinconnectionwiththeloadinganddischargingofthecargothatthedamage,ifany,wasduetothe
inherentdefect,qualityorviceofthecargoortotheinsufficientpackingthereofortolatentdefectofthe
cargonotdiscoverablebyduediligenceortoanyothercausearisingwithouttheactualfaultorprivityof
defendantandwithoutthefaultoftheagentsorservantsofdefendantconsequently,defendantisnotliable
thatthestevedoresofplaintiffwhodischargedthecargoinManilawerenegligentanddidnotexercisedue
careinthedischargeofthecargoandthatthecargowasexposedtorainandseawaterspraywhileonthe
pierorintransitfromthepiertoplaintiffswarehouseafterdischargefromthevesselandthatplaintiffs
claimwashighlyspeculativeandgrosslyexaggeratedandthatthesmallstainmarksorsweatmarksonthe

edgesofthetinplatesweremagnifiedandconsideredtotallossofthecargo.Finally,defendantclaimedthatit
hadcompliedwithallitsdutiesandobligationsundertheVoyageCharterHireContractandhadno
responsibilitywhatsoevertoplaintiff.Inturn,itallegedthefollowingcounterclaim:
(a)ThatdespitethefullandproperperformancebydefendantofitsobligationsundertheVoyageCharter
HireContract,plaintifffailedandrefusedtopaytheagreedcharterhireofP75,000.00despitedemandsmade
bydefendant
(b)ThatundertheirVoyageCharterHireContract,plaintiffhadagreedtopaydefendantthesum
ofP8,000.00perdayfordemurrage.Thevesselwasondemurrageforeleven(11)daysinManilawaitingfor
plaintifftodischargeitscargofromthevessel.Thus,plaintiffwasliabletopaydefendantdemurrageinthe
totalamountofP88,000.00.
(c)Forfilingaclearlyunfoundedcivilactionagainstdefendant,plaintiffshouldbeorderedtopaydefendant
attorneysfeesandallexpensesoflitigationintheamountofnotlessthanP100,000.00.
(8)Fromtheevidencepresentedbybothparties,thetrialcourtcameoutwiththefollowingfindingswhich
weresetforthinitsdecision:
(a)TheMVVLASONSIisavesselofPhilippineregistryengagedinthetrampingserviceandisavailable
forhireonlyunderspecialcontractsofcharterpartyasinthisparticularcase.
(b)ThatforpurposesofthevoyagecoveredbytheContractofVoyageCharterHire(Exh.1),theMV
VLASONSIwascoveredbytherequiredseaworthinesscertificatesincludingtheCertificationof
Classificationissuedbyaninternationalclassificationsociety,theNIPPONKAIJIKYOKAI(Exh.4)
CoastwiseLicensefromtheBoardofTransportation(Exh.5)InternationalLoadlineCertificatefromthe
PhilippineCoastGuard(Exh.6)CargoShipSafetyEquipmentCertificatealsofromthePhilippineCoast
Guard(Exh.7)ShipRadioStationLicense(Exh.8)CertificateofInspectionbythePhilippineCoastGuard
(Exh.12)andCertificateofApprovalforConversionissuedbytheBureauofCustoms(Exh.9).Thatbeing
avesselengagedinbothoverseasandcoastwisetrade,theMVVLASONSIhasahigherdegreeof
seaworthinessandsafety.
(c)BeforeitproceededtoIliganCitytoperformthevoyagecalledforbytheContractofVoyageCharter
Hire,theMVVLASONSIunderwentdrydockinginCebuandwasthoroughlyinspectedbythePhilippine
CoastGuard.Infact,subjectvoyagewasthevesselsfirstvoyageafterthedrydocking.Theevidenceshows
thattheMVVLASONSIwasseaworthyandproperlymanned,equippedandsuppliedwhenitundertookthe
voyage.Ithadalltherequiredcertificatesofseaworthiness.
(d)Thecargo/shipmentwassecurelystowedinthree(3)hatchesoftheship.Thehatchopeningswere
coveredbyhatchboardswhichwereinturncoveredbytwoordoubletarpaulins.Thehatchcoverswere
watertight.Furthermore,underthehatchboardsweresteelbeamstogivesupport.
(e)Theclaimoftheplaintiffthatdefendantviolatedthecontractofcarriageisnotsupportedby
evidence.TheprovisionsoftheCivilCodeoncommoncarrierspursuanttowhichthereexistsapresumption
ofnegligenceincaseoflossordamagetothecargoarenotapplicable.Astothedamagetothetinplates
whichwasallegedlyduetothewettingandrustingthereof,thereisunrebuttedtestimonyofwitnessVicente
Angliongtothattinplatessweatbythemselveswhenpackedevenwithoutbeingincontract(sic)withwater
fromoutsideespeciallywhentheweatherisbadorraining.Therustcausedbysweatormoistureonthe
tinplatesmaybeconsideredasalossordamagebutthen,defendantcannotbeheldliableforitpursuantto
Article1734oftheCivilCasewhichexemptsthecarrierfromresponsibilityforlossordamagearisingfrom
thecharacterofthegoodsxxx.Allthe1,769skidsofthetinplatescouldnothavebeendamagedbywateras
claimedbyplaintiff.Itwasshownasclaimedbyplaintiffthatthetinplatesthemselveswerewrappedinkraft
paperliningandcorrugatedcardboardscouldnotbeaffectedbywaterfromoutside.
(f)Thestevedoreshiredbytheplaintifftodischargethecargooftinplateswerenegligentinnotclosingthe
hatchopeningsoftheMVVLASONSIwhenrainsoccurredduringthedischargingofthecargothus
allowingrainwatertoenterthehatches.Itwasproventhatthestevedoresmerelysetuptemporarytentsto
coverthehatchopeningsincaseofrainsothatitwouldbeeasyforthemtoresumeworkwhentherains
stoppedbyjustremovingthetentorcanvas.Becauseofthisimpropercoveringofthehatchesbythe

stevedoresduringthedischargingandunloadingoperationswhichwereinterruptedbyrains,rainwater
driftedintothecargothroughthehatchopenings.Pursuanttoparagraph5oftheNANYOSAI[sic]Charter
PartywhichwasexpresslymadepartoftheContractofVoyageCharterHire,theloading,stowingand
dischargingofthecargoisthesoleresponsibilityoftheplaintiffchartereranddefendantcarrierhasno
liabilityforwhateverdamagemayoccurormaybe[sic]causedtothecargointheprocess.
(g)ItwasalsoestablishedthatthevesselencounteredroughseasandbadweatherwhileenroutefromIligan
CitytoManilacausingseawatertosplashontheshipsdeckonaccountofwhichthemasterofthevessel
(Mr.AntonioC.Dumlao)filedaMarineProtestonAugust13,1974(Exh.15)whichcanbeinvokedby
defendantasaforcemajeurethatwouldexemptthedefendantfromliability.
(h)Plaintiffdidnotcomplywiththerequirementprescribedinparagraph9oftheVoyageCharterHire
contractthatitwastoinsurethecargobecauseitdidnot.Hadplaintiffcompliedwiththerequirement,thenit
couldhaverecovereditslossordamagefromtheinsurer.Plaintiffalsoviolatedthecharterpartycontract
whenitloadednotonlysteelproducts,i.e.steelbars,angularbarsandthelikebutalsotinplatesandhot
rolledsheetswhicharehighgradecargocommandingahigherfreight.Thusplaintiffwasabletoshiphigh
gradecargoatalowerfreightrate.
(I)Asregardsdefendantscounterclaim,thecontractofvoyagecharterhireunderparagraph4thereof,fixed
thefreightatP30.00permetrictonpayabletodefendantcarrieruponpresentationofthebillofladingwithin
fifteen(15)days.PlaintiffhasnotpaidthetotalfreightdueofP75,000.00despitedemands.Theevidence
alsoshowedthattheplaintiffwasrequiredandboundunderparagraph7ofthesameVoyageCharterHire
contracttopaydemurrageofP8,000.00perdayofdelayintheunloadingofthecargoes.Thedelay
amountedtoeleven(11)daystherebymakingplaintiffliabletopaydefendantfordemurrageintheamount
ofP88,000.00.
AppealingtheRTCdecisiontotheCourtofAppeals,NSCallegedsixerrors:
I

ThetrialcourterredinfindingthattheMVVLASONSIwasseaworthy,properlymanned,equipped
andsupplied,andthatthereisnoproofofwillfulnegligenceofthevesselsofficers.
II

ThetrialcourterredinfindingthattherustingofNSCstinplateswasduetotheinherentnatureor
characterofthegoodsandnotduetocontactwithseawater.
III

ThetrialcourterredinfindingthatthestevedoreshiredbyNSCwerenegligentintheunloadingof
NSCsshipment.
IV

ThetrialcourterredinexemptingVSIfromliabilityonthegroundofforcemajeure.
V

ThetrialcourterredinfindingthatNSCviolatedthecontractofvoyagecharterhire.
VI

ThetrialcourterredinorderingNSCtopayfreight,demurrageandattorneysfees,toVSI.[4]
Asearlierstated,theCourtofAppealsmodifiedthedecisionofthetrialcourtbyreducingthe
demurragefromP88,000.00toP44,000.00anddeletingtheawardofattorneysfeesandexpenses
of litigation.NSC and VSI filed separate motions for reconsideration. In a Resolution[5] dated
October 20, 1993, the appellate court denied both motions. Undaunted, NSC and VSI filed their
respectivepetitionsforreviewbeforethisCourt.OnmotionofVSI,theCourtorderedonFebruary
14,1994theconsolidationofthesepetitions.[6]
TheIssues

Initspetition[7]andmemorandum,[8]NSCraisesthefollowingquestionsoflawandfact:
QuestionsofLaw
1. Whether or not a charterer of a vessel is liable for demurrage due to cargo unloading delays
causedbyweatherinterruption
2.Whetherornottheallegedseaworthinesscertificates(Exhibits3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11and12)were
admissibleinevidenceandconstitutedevidenceofthevesselsseaworthinessatthebeginningof
thevoyagesand
3. Whether or not a charterers failure to insure its cargo exempts the shipowner from liability for
cargodamage.

QuestionsofFact
1.Whetherornotthevesselwasseaworthyandcargoworthy
2.WhetherornotvesselsofficersandcrewwerenegligentinhandlingandcaringforNSCscargo
3.WhetherornotNSCscargooftinplatesdidsweatduringthevoyageand,hence,rustedontheir
ownand
(4) Whether or not NSCs stevedores were negligent and caused the wetting[/]rusting of NSCs
tinplates.

Initsseparatepetition, [9]VSIsubmitsfortheconsiderationofthisCourtthefollowingalleged
errorsoftheCA:
A.TherespondentCourtofAppealscommittedanerroroflawinreducingtheawardofdemurrage
fromP88,000.00toP44,000.00.
B.TherespondentCourtofAppealscommittedanerroroflawindeletingtheawardofP100,000for
attorneysfeesandexpensesoflitigation.
Amplifyingtheforegoing,VSIraisesthefollowingissuesinitsmemorandum:[10]
I.WhetherornottheprovisionsoftheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesoncommoncarrierspursuanttowhich
thereexist[s]apresumptionofnegligenceagainstthecommoncarrierincaseoflossordamagetothecargo
areapplicabletoaprivatecarrier.
II.WhetherornotthetermsandconditionsoftheContractofVoyageCharterHire,includingtheNanyozai
Charter,arevalidandbindingonbothcontractingparties.
Theforegoingissuesraisedbythepartieswillbediscussedunderthefollowingheadings:
1.QuestionsofFact
2.EffectofNSCsFailuretoInsuretheCargo
3.AdmissibilityofCertificatesProvingSeaworthiness
4.DemurrageandAttorneysFees.

TheCourtsRuling
The Court affirms the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, except in respect of the
demurrage.

PreliminaryMatter:CommonCarrierorPrivateCarrier?
Attheoutset,itisessentialtoestablishwhetherVSIcontractedwithNSCasacommoncarrier
orasaprivatecarrier.Theresolutionofthispreliminaryquestiondeterminesthelaw,standardof
diligenceandburdenofproofapplicabletothepresentcase.
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as persons, corporations, firms or
associationsengagedinthebusinessofcarryingortransportingpassengersorgoodsorboth,by
land,water,orair,forcompensation,offeringtheirservicestothepublic.Ithasbeenheldthatthe
true test of a common carrier is the carriage of passengers or goods, provided it has space,
forallwhoopttoavailthemselvesofitstransportationserviceforafee. [11]A carrier which does
not qualify under the above test is deemed a private carrier.Generally, private carriage is
undertakenbyspecialagreementandthecarrierdoesnotholdhimselfouttocarrygoodsforthe
generalpublic.Themosttypical,althoughnottheonlyformofprivatecarriage,isthecharterparty,
amaritimecontractbywhichthecharterer,apartyotherthantheshipowner,obtainstheuseand
serviceofallorsomepartofashipforaperiodoftimeoravoyageorvoyages.[12]
Intheinstantcase,itisundisputedthatVSIdidnotofferitsservicestothegeneralpublic.As
foundbytheRegionalTrialCourt,itcarriedpassengersorgoodsonlyforthoseitchoseundera
special contract of charter party. [13] As correctly concluded by the Court of Appeals, the MV
VlasonsIwas not a common but a private carrier. [14]Consequently, the rights and obligations of
VSIandNSC,includingtheirrespectiveliabilityfordamagetothecargo,aredeterminedprimarily
by stipulations in their contract of private carriage or charter party. [15] Recently, in Valenzuela
Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals and Seven Brothers Shipping
Corporation,[16]theCourtruled:
xxxinacontractofprivatecarriage,thepartiesmayfreelystipulatetheirdutiesandobligationswhich
perforcewouldbebindingonthem.Unlikeinacontractinvolvingacommoncarrier,privatecarriagedoes
notinvolvethegeneralpublic.Hence,thestringentprovisionsoftheCivilCodeoncommoncarriers
protectingthegeneralpubliccannotjustifiablybeappliedtoashiptransportingcommercialgoodsasa
privatecarrier.Consequently,thepublicpolicyembodiedthereinisnotcontravenedbystipulationsina
charterpartythatlessenorremovetheprotectiongivenbylawincontractsinvolvingcommoncarriers.[17]
ExtentofVSIsResponsibilityandLiabilityOverNSCsCargo
ItisclearfromthepartiesContractofVoyageCharterHire,datedJuly17,1974,thatVSIshall
notberesponsibleforlossesexceptonprovenwillfulnegligenceoftheofficersofthevessel.The
NANYOZAICharterParty,whichwasincorporatedinthepartiescontractoftransportation,further
provided that the shipowner shall not be liable for loss of or damage to the cargo arising or
resultingfromunseaworthiness,unlessthesamewascausedbyitslackofduediligencetomake
the vessel seaworthy or to ensure that the same was properly manned, equipped and supplied,
andtomaketheholdsandallotherpartsofthevesselinwhichcargo[was]carried,fitandsafefor
its reception, carriage and preservation. [18] The NANYOZAI Charter Party also provided that
[o]wners shall not be responsible for split, chafing and/or any damage unless caused by the
negligenceordefaultofthemasterorcrew.[19]
BurdenofProof
Inviewoftheaforementionedcontractualstipulations,NSCmustprovethatthedamagetoits
shipmentwascausedbyVSIswillfulnegligenceorfailuretoexerciseduediligenceinmakingMV
VlasonsIseaworthyandfitforholding,carryingandsafekeepingthecargo.Ineluctably,theburden
ofproofwasplacedonNSCbythepartiesagreement.
ThisviewfindsfurthersupportintheCodeofCommercewhichpertinentlyprovides:

Art.361.Merchandiseshallbetransportedattheriskandventureoftheshipper,ifthecontraryhasnotbeen
expresslystipulated.
Therefore,thedamageandimpairmentsufferedbythegoodsduringthetransportation,duetofortuitous
event,forcemajeure,orthenatureandinherentdefectofthethings,shallbefortheaccountandriskofthe
shipper.
Theburdenofproofoftheseaccidentsisonthecarrier.
Art.362.Thecarrier,however,shallbeliablefordamagesarisingfromthecausementionedinthepreceding
articleifproofsagainsthimshowthattheyoccurredonaccountofhisnegligenceorhisomissiontotakethe
precautionsusuallyadoptedbycarefulpersons,unlesstheshippercommittedfraudinthebilloflading,
makinghimtobelievethatthegoodswereofaclassorqualitydifferentfromwhattheyreallywere.
BecausetheMVVlasonsIwasaprivatecarrier,theshipownersobligationsaregovernedby
theforegoingprovisionsoftheCodeofCommerceandnotbytheCivilCodewhich,asageneral
rule, places the prima facie presumption of negligence on a common carrier. It is a hornbook
doctrinethat:
Inanactionagainstaprivatecarrierforlossof,orinjuryto,cargo,theburdenisontheplaintifftoprovethat
thecarrierwasnegligentorunseaworthy,andthefactthatthegoodswerelostordamagedwhileinthe
carrierscustodydoesnotputtheburdenofproofonthecarrier.
Sincexxxaprivatecarrierisnotaninsurerbutundertakesonlytoexerciseduecareintheprotectionofthe
goodscommittedtoitscare,theburdenofprovingnegligenceorabreachofthatdutyrestsonplaintiffand
proofoflossof,ordamageto,cargowhileinthecarrierspossessiondoesnotcastonittheburdenofproving
propercareanddiligenceonitspartorthatthelossoccurredfromanexceptedcauseinthecontractorbillof
lading.However,indischargingtheburdenofproof,plaintiffisentitledtothebenefitofthepresumptions
andinferencesbywhichthelawaidsthebailorinanactionagainstabailee,andsincethecarrierisina
betterpositiontoknowthecauseofthelossandthatitwasnotoneinvolvingitsliability,thelawrequires
thatitcomeforwardwiththeinformationavailabletoit,anditsfailuretodosowarrantsaninferenceor
presumptionofitsliability.However,suchinferencesandpresumptions,whiletheymayaffecttheburdenof
comingforwardwithevidence,donotaltertheburdenofproofwhichremainsonplaintiff,and,wherethe
carriercomesforwardwithevidenceexplainingthelossordamage,theburdenofgoingforwardwiththe
evidenceisagainonplaintiff.
Wheretheactionisbasedontheshipownerswarrantyofseaworthiness,theburdenofprovingabreach
thereofandthatsuchbreachwastheproximatecauseofthedamagerestsonplaintiff,andproofthatthe
goodswerelostordamagedwhileinthecarrierspossessiondoesnotcastonittheburdenofproving
seaworthiness.xxxWherethecontractofcarriageexemptsthecarrierfromliabilityforunseaworthinessnot
discoverablebyduediligence,thecarrierhasthepreliminaryburdenofprovingtheexerciseofduediligence
tomakethevesselseaworthy.[20]
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals correctly found that NSC has not taken the correct
position in relation to the question of who has the burden of proof.Thus, in its brief (pp. 1011),
after citing Clause 10 and Clause 12 of the NANYOZAI Charter Party (incidentally plaintiff
appellants [NSCs] interpretation of Clause 12 is not even correct), it argues that a careful
examination of the evidence will show that VSI miserably failed to comply with any of these
obligationsasifdefendantappellee[VSI]hadtheburdenofproof.[21]
FirstIssue:QuestionsofFact
Based on the foregoing, the determination of the following factual questions is manifestly
relevant: (1) whether VSI exercised due diligence in making MV Vlasons I seaworthy for the
intended purpose under the charter party (2) whether the damage to the cargo should be
attributedtothewillfulnegligenceoftheofficersandcrewofthevesselorofthestevedoreshired

by NSC and (3) whether the rusting of the tinplates was caused by its own sweat or by contact
withseawater.
These questions of fact were threshed out and decided by the trial court, which had the
firsthand opportunity to hear the parties conflicting claims and to carefully weigh their respective
evidence.ThefindingsofthetrialcourtweresubsequentlyaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals.Where
thefactualfindingsofboththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealscoincide,thesamearebinding
onthisCourt.[22]Westressthat,subjecttosomeexceptionalinstances,[23]onlyquestionsoflaw
notquestionsoffactmayberaisedbeforethisCourtinapetitionforreviewunderRule45ofthe
RulesofCourt.Afterathoroughreviewofthecaseatbar,wefindnoreasontodisturbthelower
courts factual findings, as indeed NSC has not successfully proven the application of any of the
aforecitedexceptions.
WasMVVlasonsISeaworthy?
Inanyevent,therecordsrevealthatVSIexercisedduediligencetomaketheshipseaworthy
andfitforthecarriageofNSCscargoofsteelandtinplates.Thisisshownbythefactthatitwas
drydocked and inspected by the Philippine Coast Guard before it proceeded to Iligan City for its
voyagetoManilaunderthecontractofvoyagecharterhire. [24]ThevesselsvoyagefromIliganto
Manilawasthevesselsfirstvoyageafterdrydocking.ThePhilippineCoastGuardStationinCebu
cleared it as seaworthy, fitted and equipped it met all requirements for trading as cargo
vessel. [25]TheCourtofAppealsitselfsustainedtheconclusionofthetrialcourtthatMV Vlasons
I was seaworthy. We find no reason to modify or reverse this finding of both the trial and the
appellatecourts.
WhoWereNegligent:SeamenorStevedores?
Asnotedearlier,theNSChadtheburdenofprovingthatthedamagetothecargowascaused
bythenegligenceoftheofficersandthecrewofMVVlasonsIin making their vessel seaworthy
andfitforthecarriageoftinplates.NSCfailedtodischargethisburden.
Beforeus,NSCreliesheavilyonitsclaimthatMVVlasonsIhadusedanoldandtorntarpaulin
or canvas to cover the hatches through which the cargo was loaded into the cargo hold of the
ship. It faults the Court of Appeals for failing to consider such claim as an uncontroverted
fact[26]anddeniesthatMVVlasonsIwasequippedwithnewcanvascoversintandemwiththeold
onesasindicatedintheMarineProtestxxx.[27]Wedisagree.
The records sufficiently support VSIs contention that the ship used the old tarpaulin, only in
addition to the new one used primarily to make the ships hatches watertight. The foregoing are
clear from the marine protest of the master of the MV Vlasons I, Antonio C. Dumlao, and the
depositionoftheshipsboatswain,JosePascua.Thesalientportionsofsaidmarineprotestread:
xxxThattheM/VVLASONSIdepartedIliganCityororabout0730hoursofAugust8,1974,loadedwith
approximately2,487.9tonsofsteelplatesandtinplatesconsignedtoNationalSteelCorporationthatbefore
departure,thevesselwasrigged,fullyequippedandclearedbytheauthoritiesthatonoraboutAugust9,
1974,whileinthevicinityofthewesternpartofNegrosandPanay,weencounteredveryroughseasand
strongwindsandManilaofficewasadvisedbytelegramoftheadverseweatherconditionsencounteredthat
inthemorningofAugust10,1974,theweatherconditionchangedtoworseandstrongwindsandbigwaves
continuedpoundingthevesselatherportsidecausingseawatertooverflowondeckandhatch(sic)covers
andwhichcausedthefirstlayerofthecanvasscoveringtogivewaywhilethenewcanvasscoveringstill
holdingon
ThattheweatherconditionimprovedwhenwereachedDumaliPointprotectedbyMindorothatwere
securedthecanvasscoveringbacktopositionthatintheafternoonofAugust10,1974,whileentering
MaricabanPassage,wewereagainexposedtomoderateseasandheavyrainsthatwhileapproaching

FortuneIsland,weencounteredagainroughseas,strongwindsandbigwaveswhichcausedthesame
canvasstogivewayandleavingthenewcanvassholdingon
xxxxxxxxx[28]
AndtherelevantportionsofJosePascuasdepositionareasfollows:
Q:Whatisthepurposeofthecanvascover?
A:Sothatthecargowouldnotbesoakedwithwater.
A:Andwillyoudescribehowthecanvascoverwassecuredonthehatchopening?
WITNESS
A: It was placed flat on top of the hatch cover, with a little canvas flowing over the sides and we
place[d]aflatbaroverthecanvasonthesideofthehatchesandthenweplace[d]astopperso
thatthecanvascouldnotberemoved.
ATTYDELROSARIO
Q:Andwillyoutellusthesizeofthehatchopening?Thelengthandthewidthofthehatchopening.
A:Fortyfivefeetbythirtyfivefeet,sir.

xxxxxxxxx
Q:Howwasthecanvassupportedinthemiddleofthehatchopening?
A:Thereisahatchboard.
ATTYDELROSARIO
Q:Whatisthehatchboardmadeof?
A:Itismadeofwood,withahandle.
Q:Andasidefromthehatchboard,isthereanyothermaterialtheretocoverthehatch?
A:Thereisabeamsupportingthehatchboard.
Q:Whatisthisbeammadeof?
A:Itismadeofsteel,sir.
Q:Isthebeamthatwasplacedinthehatchopeningcoveringthewholehatchopening?
A:No,sir.
Q:Howmanyhatchbeamswerethereplacedacrosstheopening?
A:Therearefivebeamsinonehatchopening.
ATTYDELROSARIO
Q:Andontopofthebeamsyousaidthereisahatchboard.Howmanypiecesofwoodareputon
top?
A:Plenty,sir,becausethereareseveralpiecesontopofthehatchbeam.
Q:Andisthereaspacebetweenthehatchboards?
A:Thereisnone,sir.
Q:Theyaretighttogether?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Howtight?
A:Verytight,sir.
Q: Now, on top of the hatch boards, according to you, is the canvas cover. How many canvas
covers?
A:Two,sir.[29]

ThatduediligencewasexercisedbytheofficersandthecrewoftheMVVlasonsIwasfurther
demonstratedbythefactthat,despiteencounteringroughweathertwice,thenewtarpaulindidnot
givewayandtheshipshatchesandcargoholdsremainedwaterproof.AsaptlystatedbytheCourt
of Appeals, xxx we find no reason not to sustain the conclusion of the lower court based on
overwhelmingevidence,thattheMVVLASONSIwasseaworthywhenitundertookthevoyageon
August 8, 1974 carrying on board thereof plaintiffappellants shipment of 1,677 skids of tinplates
and 92 packages of hot rolled sheets or a total of 1,769 packages from NSCs pier in Iligan City
arrivingsafelyatNorthHarbor,PortArea,Manila,onAugust12,1974xxx.[30]
Indeed,NSCfailedtodischargeitsburdentoshownegligenceonthepartoftheofficersand
thecrewofMVVlasonsI.Onthecontrary,therecordsrevealthatitwasthestevedoresofNSC
whowerenegligentinunloadingthecargofromtheship.
The stevedores employed only a tentlike material to cover the hatches when strong rains
occasioned by a passing typhoon disrupted the unloading of the cargo. This tentlike covering,
however, was clearly inadequate for keeping rain and seawater away from the hatches of the
ship.VicenteAngliongto,anofficerofVSI,testifiedthus:
ATTYZAMORA:
Q:Now,duringyourtestimonyonNovember5,1979,youstatedonAugust14youwentonboard
thevesseluponnoticefromtheNationalSteelCorporationinordertoconducttheinspectionof
the cargo. During the course of the investigation, did you chance to see the discharging
operation?
WITNESS:
A:Yes,sir,uponmyarrivalatthevessel,Isawsomeofthetinplatesalreadydischargedonthepier
butmajorityofthetinplateswereinsidethehall,allthehatcheswereopened.
Q:Inconnectionwiththesecargoeswhichwereunloaded,whereistheplace.
A:AtthePier.
Q:Whatwasusedtoprotectthesamefromweather?
ATTYLOPEZ:
Weobject,yourHonor,thisquestionwasalreadyasked.Thisparticularmatter...thetranscriptof
stenographicnotesshowsthesamewascoveredinthedirectexamination.
ATTYZAMORA:
Precisely,yourHonor,wewouldliketogoondetail,thisistheseriouspartofthetestimony.
COURT:
Allright,witnessmayanswer.
ATTYLOPEZ:
Q:Whatwasusedinordertoprotectthecargofromtheweather?
A:Abaseofcanvaswasusedascoverontopofthetinplates,andtentswerebuiltattheopeningof
thehatches.
Q:Youalsostatedthatthehatcheswerealreadyopenedandthatthereweretentsconstructedat
the opening of the hatches to protect the cargo from the rain. Now, will you describe [to] the
Courtthetentsconstructed.
A:ThetentsarejustabaseofcanvaswhichlooklikeatentofanIndiancampraise[d]highatthe
middlewiththewholesideseparateddowntothehatch,thesizeofthehatchanditissoaks[sic]
at the middle because of those weather and this can be used only to temporarily protect the
cargofromgettingwetbyrains.
Q:Now,isthisprocedureadoptedbythestevedoresofcoveringtentsproper?
A:No,sir,atthetimetheyweredischargingthecargo,therewasatyphoonpassingbyandthehatch
tentwasnotgoodenoughtoholdallofittopreventthewatersoakingthroughthecanvasand
enterthecargo.

Q:Inthecourseofyourinspection,Mr.Anglingto[sic],didyouseeinfactthewaterenterandsoak
intothecanvasandtinplates.
A:Yes,sir,thesecondtimeIwentthere,Isawit.
Q: As owner of the vessel, did you not advise the National Steel Corporation [of] the procedure
adopted by its stevedores in discharging the cargo particularly in this tent covering of the
hatches?
A:Yes,sir,IdidthefirsttimeIsawit,Icalledtheattentionofthestevedoresbutthestevedoresdid
notmindatall,so,IcalledtheattentionoftherepresentativeoftheNationalSteelbutnothing
wasdone,justthesame.Finally,Iwrotealettertothem.[31]

NSC attempts to discredit the testimony of Angliongto by questioning his failure to complain
immediately about the stevedores negligence on the first day of unloading, pointing out that he
wrote his letter to petitioner only seven days later. [32] The Court is not persuaded. Angliongtos
candidanswerinhisaforequotedtestimonysatisfactorilyexplainedthedelay.Sevendayslapsed
because he first called the attention of the stevedores, then the NSCs representative, about the
negligent and defective procedure adopted in unloading the cargo. This series of actions
constitutes a reasonable response in accord with common sense and ordinary human
experience.Vicente Angliongto could not be blamed for calling the stevedores attention first and
thentheNSCsrepresentativeonlocationbeforeformallyinformingNSCofthenegligencehehad
observed,becausehewasnotresponsibleforthestevedoresortheunloadingoperations.Infact,
hewasmerelyexpressingconcernforNSCwhichwasultimatelyresponsibleforthestevedoresit
hadhiredandtheperformanceoftheirtasktounloadthecargo.
Weseenoreasontoreversethetrialandtheappellatecourtsfindingsandconclusionsonthis
point,viz:
IntheTHIRDassignederror,[NSC]claimsthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthatthestevedoreshiredby
NSCwerenegligentintheunloadingofNSCsshipment.Wedonotthinkso.Suchnegligenceaccordingto
thetrialcourtisevidentinthestevedoreshiredby[NSC],notclosingthehatchofMVVLASONSIwhen
rainsoccurredduringthedischargingofthecargothusallowingrainwaterandseawaterspraytoenterthe
hatchesandtodrifttoandfallonthecargo.Itwasproventhatthestevedoresmerelysetuptemporarytents
orcanvastocoverthehatchopeningswhenitrainedduringtheunloadingoperationssothatitwouldbe
easierforthemtoresumeworkaftertherainsstoppedbyjustremovingsaidtentsorcanvass.Ithasalsobeen
shownthatonAugust20,1974,VSIPresidentVicenteAngliongtowrote[NSC]callingattentiontothe
mannerthestevedoreshiredby[NSC]weredischargingthecargoonrainydaysandtheimproperclosingof
thehatcheswhichallowedcontinuousheavyrainwatertoleakthroughanddriptothetinplatescoversand
[VicenteAngliongto]alsosuggestingthatduetofour(4)dayscontinuosrainswithstrongwindsthatthe
hatchesbetotallycloseddownandcoveredwithcanvasandthehatchtentslowered.(Exh13).Thisletter
wasreceivedby[NSC]on22August1974whiledischargingoperationswerestillgoingon(Exhibit13
A).[33]
ThefactthatNSCactuallyacceptedandproceededtoremovethecargofromtheshipduring
unfavorableweatherwillnotmakeVSIliableforanydamagecausedthereby.Inpassing,itmaybe
noted that the NSC may seek indemnification, subject to the laws on prescription, from the
stevedoring company at fault in the discharge operations. A stevedore company engaged in
dischargingcargoxxxhasthedutytoloadthecargoxxxinaprudentmanner,anditisliablefor
injuryto,orlossof,cargocausedbyitsnegligencexxxandwheretheofficersandmembersand
crewofthevesseldonothingandhavenoresponsibilityinthedischargeofcargobystevedores
xxx the vessel is not liable for loss of, or damage to, the cargo caused by the negligence of
thestevedoresxxx[34]asintheinstantcase.
DoTinplatesSweat?
ThetrialcourtreliedonthetestimonyofVicenteAngliongtoinfindingthatxxxtinplatessweat
bythemselveswhenpackedevenwithoutbeingincontactwithwaterfromoutsideespeciallywhen
theweatherisbadorrainingxxx.[35]TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourtsfinding.

Adiscussionofthisissueappearsinconsequentialandunnecessary.Aspreviouslydiscussed,
thedamagetothetinplateswasoccasionednotbyairbornemoisturebutbycontactwithrainand
seawaterwhichthestevedoresnegligentlyallowedtoseepinduringtheunloading.
SecondIssue:EffectofNSCsFailuretoInsuretheCargo
TheobligationofNSCtoinsurethecargostipulatedintheContractofVoyageCharterHireis
totallyseparateanddistinctfromthecontractualorstatutoryresponsibilitythatmaybeincurredby
VSIfordamagetothecargocausedbythewillfulnegligenceoftheofficersandthecrewofMV
VlasonsI.Clearly,therefore,NSCsfailuretoinsurethecargowillnotaffectitsright,asownerand
real party in interest, to file an action against VSI for damages caused by the latters willful
negligence. We do not find anything in the charter party that would make the liability of VSI for
damage to the cargo contingent on or affected in any manner by NSCs obtaining an insurance
overthecargo.
ThirdIssue:AdmissibilityofCertificatesProvingSeaworthiness
NSCs contention that MV Vlasons I was not seaworthy is anchored on the alleged
inadmissibilityofthecertificatesofseaworthinessofferedinevidencebyVSI.Thesaidcertificates
includethefollowing:
1.CertificateofInspectionofthePhilippineCoastGuardatCebu
2.CertificateofInspectionfromthePhilippineCoastGuard
3.InternationalLoadLineCertificatefromthePhilippineCoastGuard
4.CoastwiseLicensefromtheBoardofTransportation
5.CertificateofApprovalforConversionissuedbytheBureauofCustoms.[36]

NSCarguesthatthecertificatesarehearsayfornothavingbeenpresentedinaccordancewith
theRulesofCourt.ItpointsoutthatExhibits3,4and11allegedlyarenotwrittenrecordsoractsof
publicofficerswhileExhibits5,6,7,8,9,11and12arenotevidencedbyofficialpublicationsor
certifiedtruecopiesasrequiredbySections25and26,Rule132,oftheRulesofCourt.[37]
Afteracarefulexaminationoftheseexhibits,theCourtrulesthatExhibits3,4,5,6,7,8,9and
12 are inadmissible, for they have not been properly offered as evidence. Exhibits 3 and 4 are
certificatesissuedbyprivateparties,buttheyhavenotbeenprovenbyonewhosawthewriting
executed,orbyevidenceofthegenuinenessofthehandwritingofthemaker,orbyasubscribing
witness.Exhibits5,6,7,8,9,and12arephotocopies,buttheiradmissionunderthebestevidence
rulehavenotbeendemonstrated.
Wefind,however,thatExhibit11isadmissibleunderawellsettledexceptiontothehearsay
rule per Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides that (e)ntries in official
recordsmadeintheperformanceofadutybyapublicofficerofthePhilippines,orbyapersonin
theperformanceofadutyspeciallyenjoinedbylaw,areprimafacieevidenceofthefactstherein
stated. [38] Exhibit 11 is an original certificate of the Philippine Coast Guard in Cebu issued by
LieutenantJuniorGradeNoliC.FlorestotheeffectthatthevesselVLASONSIwasdrydockedxx
xandPCGInspectorsweresentonboardforinspectionxxx.Aftercompletionofdrydockingand
duly inspected by PCG Inspectors, the vessel VLASONS I, a cargo vessel, is in seaworthy
condition,meetsallrequirements,fittedandequippedfortradingasacargovesselwasclearedby
thePhilippineCoastGuardandsailedforCebuPortonJuly10,1974.(sic)NSCsclaim,therefore,
isobviouslymisleadinganderroneous.
Atanyrate,it should be stressed that that NSC has the burden of proving that MV Vlasons
Iwasnotseaworthy.Asobservedearlier,thevesselwasaprivatecarrierand,assuch,itdidnot
havetheobligationofacommoncarriertoshowthatitwasseaworthy.Indeed,NSCglaringlyfailed
todischargeitsdutyofprovingthewillfulnegligenceofVSIinmakingtheshipseaworthyresulting

indamagetoitscargo.Assailingthegenuinenessofthecertificateofseaworthinessisnotsufficient
proofthatthevesselwasnotseaworthy.
FourthIssue:DemurrageandAttorneysFees
Thecontractofvoyagecharterhireprovidesinteralia:
xxxxxxxxx
2.Cargo:Fullcargoofsteelproductsofnotlessthan2,500MT,10%moreorlessatMastersoption.
xxxxxxxxx
6.Loading/DischargingRate:750tonsperWWDSHINC.
7.Demurrage/Dispatch:P8,000.00/P4,000.00perday.[39]
The Court defined demurrage in its strict sense as the compensation provided for in the
contractofaffreightmentforthedetentionofthevesselbeyondthelaytimeorthatperiodoftime
agreedonforloadingandunloadingofcargo. [40]Itisgiventocompensatetheshipownerforthe
nonuseofthevessel.Ontheotherhand,thefollowingiswellsettled:
Laytimerunsaccordingtotheparticularclauseofthecharterparty.xxxIflaytimeisexpressedinrunning
days,thismeansdayswhentheshipwouldberuncontinuously,andholidaysarenotexcepted.A
qualificationofweatherpermittingexceptsonlythosedayswhenbadweatherreasonablypreventsthework
contemplated.[41]
Inthiscase,thecontractofvoyagecharterhireprovidedforafourdaylaytimeitalsoqualified
laytimeasWWDSHINCorweatherworkingdaysSundaysandholidaysincluded. [42]Therunning
oflaytimewasthusmadesubjecttotheweather,andwouldceasetorunintheeventunfavorable
weatherinterferedwiththeunloadingofcargo. [43]Consequently, NSC may not be held liable for
demurrage as the fourday laytime allowed it did not lapse, having been tolled by unfavorable
weather condition in view of the WWDSHINC qualification agreed upon by the parties.Clearly, it
waserrorforthetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealstohavefoundandaffirmedrespectivelythat
NSCincurredelevendaysofdelayinunloadingthecargo.Thetrialcourtarrivedatthiserroneous
findingbysubtractingfromthetwelvedays,specificallyAugust13,1974toAugust24,1974,the
only day of unloading unhampered by unfavorable weather or rain which was August 22,
1974. Based on our previous discussion, such finding is a reversible error. As mentioned, the
respondentappellatecourtalsoerredinrulingthatNSCwasliabletoVSIfordemurrage,evenifit
reducedtheamountbyhalf.
AttorneysFees
VSIassignsaserroroflawtheCourtofAppealsdeletionoftheawardofattorneysfees. We
disagree.WhileVSIwascompelledtolitigatetoprotectitsrights,suchfactbyitselfwillnotjustify
anawardofattorneysfeesunderArticle2208oftheCivilCodewhenxxxnosufficientshowingof
badfaithwouldbereflectedinapartyspersistenceinacaseotherthananerroneousconvictionof
therighteousnessofhiscausexxx. [44]Moreover,attorneysfeesmaynotbeawardedtoaparty
forthereasonalonethatthejudgmentrenderedwasfavorabletothelatter,asthisistantamountto
imposingapremiumononesrighttolitigateorseekjudicialredressoflegitimategrievances.[45]
Epilogue

At bottom, this appeal really hinges on a factual issue: when, how and who caused the
damage to the cargo? Ranged against NSC are two formidable truths. First, both lower courts
foundthatsuchdamagewasbroughtaboutduringtheunloadingprocesswhenrainandseawater
seepedthroughthecargoduetothefaultornegligenceofthestevedoresemployedbyit.Basicis
therulethatfactualfindingsofthetrialcourt,whenaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals,arebinding
on the Supreme Court. Although there are settled exceptions, NSC has not satisfactorily shown
thatthiscaseisoneofthem.Second,theagreementbetweenthepartiestheContractofVoyage
CharterHireplacedtheburdenofproofforsuchlossordamageupontheshipper,notuponthe
shipowner.Such stipulation, while disadvantageous to NSC, is valid because the parties entered
intoacontractofprivatecharter,notoneofcommoncarriage.Basictooisthedoctrinethatcourts
cannotrelieveapartyfromtheeffectsofaprivatecontractfreelyenteredinto,onthegroundthatit
isallegedlyonesidedorunfairtotheplaintiff.Thecharterpartyisanormalcommercialcontract
anditsstipulationsareagreeduponinconsiderationofmanyfactors,nottheleastofwhichisthe
transportpricewhichisdeterminednotonlybytheactualcostsbutalsobytherisksandburdens
assumedbytheshipperinregardtopossiblelossordamagetothecargo.Inrecognitionofsuch
factors,thepartiesevenstipulatedthattheshippershouldinsurethecargotoprotectitselffromthe
risksitundertookunderthecharterparty.ThatNSCfailedorneglectedtoprotectitselfwithsuch
insuranceshouldnotadverselyaffectVSI,whichhadnothingtodowithsuchfailureorneglect.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant consolidated petitions are hereby
DENIED.ThequestionedDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisAFFIRMEDwiththeMODIFICATION
thatthedemurrageawardedtoVSIisdeleted.Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.