1

Facts: 1. Article 1736 of the CC imposes upon common carriers the duty to
observe extraordinary diligence from the moment the goods are
1. Clara UyBico and AmparoServando loaded on board a vessel of
unconditionally placed in their possession "until the same are delivered,
Philippine Steam Navigation Co. for carriage from Manila to Negros
actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee or to the person
Occidental 1,528 cavans of rice and 44 cartons of colored paper, toys and
who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of
general merchandise.
Article 1738. The court a quo held that the delivery of the shipment in
question to the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs is not the delivery
2. The contract of carriage of cargo was evidenced by a Bill of Lading
contemplated by Article 1736; and since the burning of the warehouse
(B/L). There was a stipulation limiting the responsibility of the carrier for
occurred before actual or constructive delivery of the goods to the appellees,
loss or damage that may be caused to the shipment
the loss is chargeable against the appellant.
a. carrier shall not be responsible for loss or damage to shipments
billed owners risk unless such loss or damage is due to the negligence of
2. It should be pointed out, however, that in the bills of lading issued for
the carrier. Nor shall the carrier be responsible for loss or damage caused
the cargoes in question, the parties agreed to limit the responsibility of the
by force majeure, dangers or accidents of the sea, war, public enemies, fire.
carrier. The stipulation is valid not being contrary to law, morals or public
policy.
3. Upon arrival of the vessel at its destination, the cargoes were discharged
in good condition and placed inside the warehouse of the Bureau of
3. The petitioners however, contend that the stipulation does not bind them
Customs.
since it was printed at the back of the B/L and that they did not sign the
same. However, as the Court held in OngYiu vs. CA, while it may be true
4. UyBico was able to take delivery of 907 cavans of rice.
that a passenger had not signed the plane ticket, he is nevertheless bound by
the provisions thereof. Such provisions have been held to be a part of the
5. Unfortunately, the warehouse was razed by fire of unknown origin later
contract of carriage, and valid and binding upon the passenger regardless of
that same day destroying the remaining cargoes.
the latter's lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation.
6. UyBico and Servando filed a claim for the value of the goods against
4. Also, where fortuitous event is the immediate and proximate cause of
the carrier.
the loss, the obligor is exempt from liability for non-performance.In the case
at bar, the burning of the customs warehouse was an extraordinary event
7. The lower court ruled in their favor. It held that the delivery of the
which happened independently of the will of the appellant. The latter could
shipment to the warehouse is not the delivery contemplated by Art. 1736 of
not have foreseen the event.
the CC. And since the burning of the warehouse occurred prior to the actual
or constructive delivery of the goods, the loss is chargeable against the
5. There is nothing in the record to show that the carrier incurred in delay
vessel.
in the performance of its obligation. It appears that it had not only notified
Issue:Whether or not the carrier is liable for the loss of the goods.
UyBico and Servando of the arrival of their shipment, but had demanded
that the same be withdrawn. In fact, pursuant to such demand, UyBico had
taken delivery of 907 cavans of rice before the burning of the warehouse.
Held:No. 6. Nor can the carrier or its employees be charged with negligence. The
storage of the goods in the Customs warehouse pending withdrawal thereof
by UyBico and Servando was undoubtedly made with their knowledge and
 2

consent. Since the warehouse belonged to and was maintained by the

government, it would be unfair to impute negligence to the carrier, the latter
having no control whatsoever over the same