Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

G.R. No.

162467 May 8, 2009 Phoenix and McGee instituted an action for damages7 against Mindanao
Terminal in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 12. After trial,
MINDANAO TERMINAL AND BROKERAGE SERVICE, INC. Petitioner,
the RTC,8 in a decision dated 20 October 1999, held that the only participation
vs. of Mindanao Terminal was to load the cargoes on board the M/V
PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK/MCGEE & CO., Mistrau under the direction and supervision of the ship’s officers, who would
INC., Respondent. not have accepted the cargoes on board the vessel and signed the foreman’s
DECISION report unless they were properly arranged and tightly secured to withstand
voyage across the open seas. Accordingly, Mindanao Terminal cannot be held
TINGA, J.: liable for whatever happened to the cargoes after it had loaded and stowed
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules them. Moreover, citing the survey report, it was found by the RTC that the
of Civil Procedure of the 29 October 20032 Decision of the Court of Appeals cargoes were damaged on account of a typhoon which M/V Mistrau had
and the 26 February 2004 Resolution3 of the same court denying petitioner’s encountered during the voyage. It was further held that Phoenix and McGee
motion for reconsideration. had no cause of action against Mindanao Terminal because the latter, whose
services were contracted by Del Monte, a distinct corporation from Del Monte
The facts of the case are not disputed.
Produce, had no contract with the assured Del Monte Produce. The RTC
Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (Del Monte) contracted petitioner Mindanao dismissed the complaint and awarded the counterclaim of Mindanao Terminal
Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. (Mindanao Terminal), a stevedoring in the amount of P83,945.80 as actual damages and P100,000.00 as attorney’s
company, to load and stow a shipment of 146,288 cartons of fresh green fees.9 The actual damages were awarded as reimbursement for the expenses
Philippine bananas and 15,202 cartons of fresh pineapples belonging to Del incurred by Mindanao Terminal’s lawyer in attending the hearings in the case
Monte Fresh Produce International, Inc. (Del Monte Produce) into the cargo wherein he had to travel all the way from Metro Manila to Davao City.
hold of the vessel M/V Mistrau. The vessel was docked at the port of Davao
Phoenix and McGee appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court
City and the goods were to be transported by it to the port of Inchon, Korea in
reversed and set aside10 the decision of the RTC in its 29 October 2003
favor of consignee Taegu Industries, Inc. Del Monte Produce insured the
decision. The same court ordered Mindanao Terminal to pay Phoenix and
shipment under an "open cargo policy" with private respondent Phoenix
McGee "the total amount of $210,265.45 plus legal interest from the filing of
Assurance Company of New York (Phoenix), a non-life insurance company, and
the complaint until fully paid and attorney’s fees of 20% of the claim."11 It
private respondent McGee & Co. Inc. (McGee), the underwriting
sustained Phoenix’s and McGee’s argument that the damage in the cargoes
manager/agent of Phoenix.4
was the result of improper stowage by Mindanao Terminal. It imposed on
Mindanao Terminal loaded and stowed the cargoes aboard the M/V Mistrau. Mindanao Terminal, as the stevedore of the cargo, the duty to exercise
The vessel set sail from the port of Davao City and arrived at the port of extraordinary diligence in loading and stowing the cargoes. It further held that
Inchon, Korea. It was then discovered upon discharge that some of the cargo even with the absence of a contractual relationship between Mindanao
was in bad condition. The Marine Cargo Damage Surveyor of Incok Loss and Terminal and Del Monte Produce, the cause of action of Phoenix and McGee
Average Adjuster of Korea, through its representative Byeong Yong Ahn could be based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code.12
(Byeong), surveyed the extent of the damage of the shipment. In a survey
Mindanao Terminal filed a motion for reconsideration,13 which the Court of
report, it was stated that 16,069 cartons of the banana shipment and 2,185
Appeals denied in its 26 February 200414 resolution. Hence, the present
cartons of the pineapple shipment were so damaged that they no longer had
petition for review.
commercial value.5
Mindanao Terminal raises two issues in the case at bar, namely: whether it was
Del Monte Produce filed a claim under the open cargo policy for the damages
careless and negligent in the loading and stowage of the cargoes onboard M/V
to its shipment. McGee’s Marine Claims Insurance Adjuster evaluated the claim
Mistrau making it liable for damages; and, whether Phoenix and McGee has a
and recommended that payment in the amount of $210,266.43 be made. A
cause of action against Mindanao Terminal under Article 2176 of the Civil Code
check for the recommended amount was sent to Del Monte Produce; the latter
on quasi-delict. To resolve the petition, three questions have to be answered:
then issued a subrogation receipt6 to Phoenix and McGee.
first, whether Phoenix and McGee have a cause of action against Mindanao imposing a higher degree of diligence,21 on Mindanao Terminal in loading and
Terminal; second, whether Mindanao Terminal, as a stevedoring company, is stowing the cargoes. The case ofSumma Insurance Corporation v. CA, which
under obligation to observe the same extraordinary degree of diligence in the involved the issue of whether an arrastre operator is legally liable for the loss
conduct of its business as required by law for common carriers15 and of a shipment in its custody and the extent of its liability, is inapplicable to the
warehousemen;16 and third, whether Mindanao Terminal observed the factual circumstances of the case at bar. Therein, a vessel owned by the
degree of diligence required by law of a stevedoring company. National Galleon Shipping Corporation (NGSC) arrived at Pier 3, South Harbor,
Manila, carrying a shipment consigned to the order of Caterpillar Far East Ltd.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the complaint filed by Phoenix and
with Semirara Coal Corporation (Semirara) as "notify party." The shipment,
McGee against Mindanao Terminal, from which the present case has arisen,
including a bundle of PC 8 U blades, was discharged from the vessel to the
states a cause of action. The present action is based on quasi-delict, arising
custody of the private respondent, the exclusive arrastre operator at the South
from the negligent and careless loading and stowing of the cargoes belonging
Harbor. Accordingly, three good-order cargo receipts were issued by NGSC,
to Del Monte Produce. Even assuming that both Phoenix and McGee have only
duly signed by the ship's checker and a representative of private respondent.
been subrogated in the rights of Del Monte Produce, who is not a party to the
When Semirara inspected the shipment at house, it discovered that the bundle
contract of service between Mindanao Terminal and Del Monte, still the
of PC8U blades was missing. From those facts, the Court observed:
insurance carriers may have a cause of action in light of the Court’s consistent
ruling that the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort.17 In fine, a x x x The relationship therefore between the consignee and the arrastre
liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which operator must be examined. This relationship is much akin to that existing
breaches the contract18 . In the present case, Phoenix and McGee are not between the consignee or owner of shipped goods and the common carrier, or
suing for damages for injuries arising from the breach of the contract of service that between a depositor and a warehouseman[22 ]. In the performance of its
but from the alleged negligent manner by which Mindanao Terminal handled obligations, an arrastre operator should observe the same degree of diligence
the cargoes belonging to Del Monte Produce. Despite the absence of as that required of a common carrier and a warehouseman as enunciated
contractual relationship between Del Monte Produce and Mindanao Terminal, under Article 1733 of the Civil Code and Section 3(b) of the Warehouse
the allegation of negligence on the part of the defendant should be sufficient Receipts Law, respectively. Being the custodian of the goods discharged from a
to establish a cause of action arising from quasi-delict.19 vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to take good care of the goods and to turn
them over to the party entitled to their possession. (Emphasis supplied)23
The resolution of the two remaining issues is determinative of the ultimate
result of this case. There is a distinction between an arrastre and a stevedore.24 Arrastre, a
Spanish word which refers to hauling of cargo, comprehends the handling of
Article 1173 of the Civil Code is very clear that if the law or contract does not
cargo on the wharf or between the establishment of the consignee or shipper
state the degree of diligence which is to be observed in the performance of an
and the ship's tackle. The responsibility of the arrastre operator lasts until the
obligation then that which is expected of a good father of a family or ordinary
delivery of the cargo to the consignee. The service is usually performed by
diligence shall be required. Mindanao Terminal, a stevedoring company which
longshoremen. On the other hand, stevedoring refers to the handling of the
was charged with the loading and stowing the cargoes of Del Monte Produce
cargo in the holds of the vessel or between the ship's tackle and the holds of
aboard M/V Mistrau, had acted merely as a labor provider in the case at bar.
the vessel. The responsibility of the stevedore ends upon the loading and
There is no specific provision of law that imposes a higher degree of diligence
stowing of the cargo in the vessel.1avvphi1
than ordinary diligence for a stevedoring company or one who is charged only
with the loading and stowing of cargoes. It was neither alleged nor proven by It is not disputed that Mindanao Terminal was performing purely stevedoring
Phoenix and McGee that Mindanao Terminal was bound by contractual function while the private respondent in the Summa case was performing
stipulation to observe a higher degree of diligence than that required of a good arrastre function. In the present case, Mindanao Terminal, as a stevedore, was
father of a family. We therefore conclude that following Article 1173, only charged with the loading and stowing of the cargoes from the pier to the
Mindanao Terminal was required to observe ordinary diligence only in loading ship’s cargo hold; it was never the custodian of the shipment of Del Monte
and stowing the cargoes of Del Monte Produce aboard M/V Mistrau. Produce. A stevedore is not a common carrier for it does not transport goods
or passengers; it is not akin to a warehouseman for it does not store goods for
profit. The loading and stowing of cargoes would not have a far reaching public arranged such that there were no spaces between cartons, the use of
ramification as that of a common carrier and a warehouseman; the public is cardboards as support system, and the use of small rope to tie the cartons
adequately protected by our laws on contract and on quasi-delict. The public together but not by the negligent conduct of Mindanao Terminal in loading and
policy considerations in legally imposing upon a common carrier or a stowing the cargoes. As admitted by Phoenix and McGee in their
warehouseman a higher degree of diligence is not present in a stevedoring Comment38 before us, the latter is merely a stevedoring company which was
outfit which mainly provides labor in loading and stowing of cargoes for its tasked by Del Monte to load and stow the shipments of fresh banana and
clients. pineapple of Del Monte Produce aboard the M/V Mistrau. How and where it
should load and stow a shipment in a vessel is wholly dependent on the
In the third issue, Phoenix and McGee failed to prove by preponderance of
shipper and the officers of the vessel. In other words, the work of the
evidence25 that Mindanao Terminal had acted negligently. Where the
stevedore was under the supervision of the shipper and officers of the vessel.
evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is any doubt on which side
Even the materials used for stowage, such as ropes, pallets, and cardboards,
the evidence preponderates the party having the burden of proof fails upon
are provided for by the vessel. Even the survey report found that it was
that issue. That is to say, if the evidence touching a disputed fact is equally
because of the boisterous stormy weather due to the typhoon Seth, as
balanced, or if it does not produce a just, rational belief of its existence, or if it
encountered by M/V Mistrau during its voyage, which caused the shipments in
leaves the mind in a state of perplexity, the party holding the affirmative as to
the cargo hold to collapse, shift and bruise in extensive extent.39 Even the
such fact must fail.261avvphi1
deposition of Byeong was not supported by the conclusion in the survey report
We adopt the findings27 of the RTC,28 which are not disputed by Phoenix and that:
McGee. The Court of Appeals did not make any new findings of fact when it
CAUSE OF DAMAGE
reversed the decision of the trial court. The only participation of Mindanao
Terminal was to load the cargoes on board M/V Mistrau.29 It was not disputed xxx
by Phoenix and McGee that the materials, such as ropes, pallets, and
From the above facts and our survey results, we are of the opinion that
cardboards, used in lashing and rigging the cargoes were all provided by M/V
damage occurred aboard the carrying vessel during sea transit, being caused by
Mistrau and these materials meets industry standard.30
ship’s heavy rolling and pitching under boisterous weather while proceeding
It was further established that Mindanao Terminal loaded and stowed the from 1600 hrs on 7th October to 0700 hrs on 12th October, 1994 as described
cargoes of Del Monte Produce aboard the M/V Mistrau in accordance with the in the sea protest.40
stowage plan, a guide for the area assignments of the goods in the vessel’s
As it is clear that Mindanao Terminal had duly exercised the required degree of
hold, prepared by Del Monte Produce and the officers of M/V Mistrau.31 The
diligence in loading and stowing the cargoes, which is the ordinary diligence of
loading and stowing was done under the direction and supervision of the ship
a good father of a family, the grant of the petition is in order.
officers. The vessel’s officer would order the closing of the hatches only if the
loading was done correctly after a final inspection.32 The said ship officers However, the Court finds no basis for the award of attorney’s fees in favor of
would not have accepted the cargoes on board the vessel if they were not petitioner.lawphil.net None of the circumstances enumerated in Article 2208
properly arranged and tightly secured to withstand the voyage in open seas. of the Civil Code exists. The present case is clearly not an unfounded civil
They would order the stevedore to rectify any error in its loading and stowing. action against the plaintiff as there is no showing that it was instituted for the
A foreman’s report, as proof of work done on board the vessel, was prepared mere purpose of vexation or injury. It is not sound public policy to set a
by the checkers of Mindanao Terminal and concurred in by the Chief Officer premium to the right to litigate where such right is exercised in good faith,
of M/V Mistrau after they were satisfied that the cargoes were properly even if erroneously.41 Likewise, the RTC erred in awarding P83,945.80 actual
loaded.33 damages to Mindanao Terminal. Although actual expenses were incurred by
Mindanao Terminal in relation to the trial of this case in Davao City, the lawyer
Phoenix and McGee relied heavily on the deposition of Byeong Yong
of Mindanao Terminal incurred expenses for plane fare, hotel accommodations
Ahn34 and on the survey report35 of the damage to the cargoes. Byeong,
and food, as well as other miscellaneous expenses, as he attended the trials
whose testimony was refreshed by the survey report,36 found that the cause
coming all the way from Manila. But there is no showing that Phoenix and
of the damage was improper stowage37 due to the manner the cargoes were
McGee made a false claim against Mindanao Terminal resulting in the Prior to the voyage, the consignee insured the shipment of cement with
protracted trial of the case necessitating the incurrence of expenditures.42 respondent Pioneer Asia Insurance Corporation for P1,400,000, for which
respondent issued Marine Open Policy No. MOP-006 dated September 17,
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in
1980, covering all shipments made on or after September 30, 1980.5
CA-G.R. CV No. 66121 is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Davao City, Branch 12 in Civil Case No. 25,311.97 is herebyREINSTATED At 12:50 in the afternoon of June 24, 1984, M/V Weasel left Iligan City for
MINUS the awards of P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P83,945.80 as actual Manila in good weather. However, at 4:31 in the morning of June 25, 1984,
damages. Captain Vicente C. Montera, master of M/V Weasel, ordered the vessel to be
forced aground. Consequently, the entire shipment of cement was good as
SO ORDERED.
gone due to exposure to sea water. Petitioner thus failed to deliver the goods
to the consignee in Manila.
The consignee demanded from petitioner full reimbursement of the cost of the
lost shipment. Petitioner, however, refused to reimburse the consignee despite
repeated demands.
Nonetheless, on March 11, 1985, respondent insurance company paid the
G.R. No. 157481 January 24, 2006 consignee P1,400,000 plus an additional amount of P500,000, the value of the
lost shipment of cement. In return, the consignee executed a Loss and
LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO., INC., Petitioner, Subrogation Receipt in favor of respondent concerning the latter’s subrogation
vs. rights against petitioner.
PIONEER ASIA INSURANCE CORP., Respondent.
Hence, on October 15, 1986, respondent filed a complaint docketed as Civil
DECISION Case No. 86-37957, against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
QUISUMBING, J.: Branch 8. It alleged that: (1) the M/V Weasel was not seaworthy at the
commencement of the voyage; (2) the weather and sea conditions then
For review on certiorari are (1) the Decision1 dated October 15, 2002 and (2) prevailing were usual and expected for that time of the year and as such, was
the Resolution2 dated February 27, 2003, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV an ordinary peril of the voyage for which the M/V Weasel should have been
No. 40999, which affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated February 15, normally able to cope with; and (3) petitioner was negligent in the selection
1993 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8 in Civil Case No. 86-37957. and supervision of its agents and employees then manning the M/V Weasel.
The pertinent facts are as follows: In its Answer, petitioner alleged that no fault nor negligence could be
Petitioner Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. (Loadstar for brevity) is the registered attributed to it because it exercised due diligence to make the ship seaworthy,
owner and operator of the vesselM/V Weasel. It holds office at 1294 as well as properly manned and equipped. Petitioner insisted that the failure to
Romualdez St., Paco, Manila. deliver the subject cargo to the consignee was due to force majeure. Petitioner
claimed it could not be held liable for an act or omission not directly
On June 6, 1984, Loadstar entered into a voyage-charter with Northern attributable to it.
Mindanao Transport Company, Inc. for the carriage of 65,000 bags of cement
from Iligan City to Manila. The shipper was Iligan Cement Corporation, while On February 15, 1993, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondent, to
the consignee in Manila was Market Developers, Inc. wit:
On June 24, 1984, 67,500 bags of cement were loaded on board M/V WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of
Weasel and stowed in the cargo holds for delivery to the consignee. The plaintiff and against defendant Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. ordering the latter to
shipment was covered by petitioner’s Bill of Lading4 dated June 23, 1984. pay as follows:
1. To pay plaintiff the sum of P1,900,000.00 with legal rate of interest per ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT PETITIONER IS A COMMON CARRIER, THE
annum from date of complaint until fully paid; HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF THE LOSS OF CARGO WAS NOT A FORTUITOUS EVENT BUT WAS
2. To pay the sum equal to 25% of the claim as and for attorney’s fees and
ALLEGEDLY DUE TO THE FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO EXERCISE EXTRAORDINARY
litigation expenses; and,
DILIGENCE.
3. To pay the costs of suit.
III
IT IS SO ORDERED.6
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE AWARD BY
The RTC reasoned that petitioner, as a common carrier, bears the burden of THE TRIAL COURT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES IN FAVOR
proving that it exercised extraordinary diligence in its vigilance over the goods OF HEREIN RESPONDENT.9
it transported. The trial court explained that in case of loss or destruction of
On the first and second issues, petitioner contends that at the time of the
the goods, a statutory presumption arises that the common carrier was
voyage the carrier’s voyage-charter with the shipper converted it into a private
negligent unless it could prove that it had observed extraordinary diligence.
carrier. Thus, the presumption of negligence against common carriers could
Petitioner’s defense of force majeure was found bereft of factual basis. The not apply. Petitioner further avers that the stipulation in the voyage-charter
RTC called attention to the PAG-ASA report that at the time of the incident, holding it free from liability is valid and binds the respondent. In any event,
tropical storm "Asiang" had moved away from the Philippines. Further, records petitioner insists that it had exercised extraordinary diligence and that the
showed that the sea and weather conditions in the area of Hinubaan, Negros proximate cause of the loss of the cargo was a fortuitous event.
Occidental from 8:00 p.m. of June 24, 1984 to 8:00 a.m. the next day were
With regard to the third issue, petitioner points out that the award of
slight and smooth. Thus, the trial court concluded that the cause of the loss
attorney’s fees and litigation expenses appeared only in the dispositive portion
was not tropical storm "Asiang" or any other force majeure, but gross
of the RTC Decision with nary a justification. Petitioner maintains that the
negligence of petitioner.
Court of Appeals thus erred in affirming the award.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
For its part, respondent dismisses as factual issues the inquiry on (1) whether
In its Decision dated October 15, 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC the loss of the cargo was due toforce majeure or due to petitioner’s failure to
Decision with modification that Loadstar shall only pay the sum of 10% of the exercise extraordinary diligence; and (2) whether respondent is entitled to
total claim for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. It ruled, recover attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated February 15, 1993, of Respondent further counters that the Court of Appeals was correct when it
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 8, in held that petitioner was a common carrier despite the charter of the whole
Civil Case No. 86-37957 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the vessel, since the charter was limited to the ship only.
appellant shall only pay the sum of 10% of the total claim as and for attorney’s
Prefatorily, we stress that the finding of fact by the trial court, when affirmed
fees and litigation expenses. Costs against the appellant.
by the Court of Appeals, is not reviewable by this Court in a petition for review
SO ORDERED.7 on certiorari. However, the conclusions derived from such factual finding are
not necessarily pure issues of fact when they are inextricably intertwined with
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied.8
the determination of a legal issue. In such instances, the conclusions made may
The instant petition is anchored now on the following assignments of error: be raised in a petition for review before this Court.10
I The threshold issues in this case are: (1) Given the circumstances of this case, is
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER IS petitioner a common or a private carrier? and (2) In either case, did petitioner
A COMMON CARRIER UNDER ARTICLE 1732 OF THE CIVIL CODE. exercise the required diligence i.e., the extraordinary diligence of a common
carrier or the ordinary diligence of a private carrier?
II
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a "common carrier" as follows: ...
Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or shipment requires the common carrier to know and to follow the required
both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the precaution for avoiding damage to, or destruction of the goods entrusted to it
public. for safe carriage and delivery. It requires common carriers to render service
with the greatest skill and foresight and "to use all reasonable means to
Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of transporting cargo by
ascertain the nature and characteristics of goods tendered for shipment, and
water and for compensation, offering its services indiscriminately to the public.
to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such methods as
Thus, without doubt, it is a common carrier. However, petitioner entered into a
their nature requires."16
voyage-charter with the Northern Mindanao Transport Company, Inc. Now,
had the voyage-charter converted petitioner into a private carrier? Article 1734 enumerates the instances when a carrier might be exempt from
liability for the loss of the goods. These are:
We think not. The voyage-charter agreement between petitioner and Northern
Mindanao Transport Company, Inc. did not in any way convert the common (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
carrier into a private carrier. We have already resolved this issue with finality
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
in Planters Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals11 where we ruled that:
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
It is therefore imperative that a public carrier shall remain as such,
notwithstanding the charter of the whole or portion of a vessel by one or more (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
persons, provided the charter is limited to the ship only, as in the case of a and
time-charter or voyage-charter. It is only when the charter includes both the (5) Order or act of competent public authority.17
vessel and its crew, as in a bareboat or demise that a common carrier becomes
private, at least insofar as the particular voyage covering the charter-party is Petitioner claims that the loss of the goods was due to a fortuitous event under
concerned. Indubitably, a shipowner in a time or voyage charter retains paragraph 1. Yet, its claim is not substantiated. On the contrary, we find
possession and control of the ship, although her holds may, for the moment, supported by evidence on record the conclusion of the trial court and the
be the property of the charterer.12 Court of Appeals that the loss of the entire shipment of cement was due to the
gross negligence of petitioner.
Conformably, petitioner remains a common carrier notwithstanding the
existence of the charter agreement with the Northern Mindanao Transport Records show that in the evening of June 24, 1984, the sea and weather
Company, Inc. since the said charter is limited to the ship only and does not conditions in the vicinity of Negros Occidental were calm. The records reveal
involve both the vessel and its crew. As elucidated in Planters Products, its that petitioner took a shortcut route, instead of the usual route, which exposed
charter is only a voyage-charter, not a bareboat charter. the voyage to unexpected hazard. Petitioner has only itself to blame for its
misjudgment.
As a common carrier, petitioner is required to observe extraordinary diligence
in the vigilance over the goods it transports.13 When the goods placed in its Petitioner heavily relies on Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship
care are lost, petitioner is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted Agencies, Inc.18 and Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Court
negligently. Petitioner therefore has the burden of proving that it observed of Appeals.19 The said cases involved a private carrier, not a common carrier.
extraordinary diligence in order to avoid responsibility for the lost cargo.14 Moreover, the issue in both cases is not the effect of a voyage-charter on a
common carrier, but the validity of a stipulation absolving the private carrier
In Compania Maritima v. Court of Appeals,15 we said: from liability in case of loss of the cargo attributable to the negligence of the
… it is incumbent upon the common carrier to prove that the loss, private carrier.
deterioration or destruction was due to accident or some other circumstances Lastly, on the third issue, we find consistent with law and prevailing
inconsistent with its liability. jurisprudence the Court of Appeals’ award of attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total claim. The contract On October 20, 1995, 405 cartons of Epoxy Molding Compound were
between the parties in this case contained a stipulation that in case of suit, consigned to be shipped from Singapore to Manila for Temic Telefunken
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation shall be limited to only ten percent Microelectronics Philippines (Temic). U-Freight Singapore PTE Ltd.3 (U-Freight
(10%) of the total monetary award. Given the circumstances of this case, we Singapore), a forwarding agent based in Singapore, contracted the services of
deem the said amount just and equitable. Pacific Eagle Lines PTE. Ltd. (Pacific Eagle) to transport the subject cargo. The
cargo was packed, stored, and sealed by Pacific Eagle in its Refrigerated
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 15,
Container No. 6105660 with Seal No. 13223. As the cargo was highly
2002 and the Resolution dated February 27, 2003, of the Court of Appeals in
perishable, the inside of the container had to be kept at a temperature of 0º
CA-G.R. CV No. 40999, are AFFIRMED.
Celsius. Pacific Eagle then loaded the refrigerated container on board the M/V
Costs against petitioner. Piya Bhum, a vessel owned by RCL, with which Pacific Eagle had a slot charter
SO ORDERED. agreement. RCL duly issued its own Bill of Lading in favor of Pacific Eagle.
To insure the cargo against loss and damage, Netherlands Insurance issued a
Marine Open Policy in favor of Temic, as shown by MPO-21-05081-94 and
Marine Risk Note MRN-21 14022, to cover all losses/damages to the shipment.
On October 25, 1995, the M/V Piya Bhum docked in Manila. After unloading
the refrigerated container, it was plugged to the power terminal of the pier to
keep its temperature constant. Fidel Rocha (Rocha), Vice-President for
G.R. No. 168151 September 4, 2009 Operations of Marines Adjustment Corporation, accompanied by two
surveyors, conducted a protective survey of the cargo. They found that based
REGIONAL CONTAINER LINES (RCL) OF SINGAPORE and EDSA SHIPPING
on the temperature chart, the temperature reading was constant from October
AGENCY, Petitioners, 18, 1995 to October 25, 1995 at 0º Celsius. However, at midnight of October
vs. 25, 1995 – when the cargo had already been unloaded from the ship – the
THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE CO. (PHILIPPINES), INC., Respondent. temperature fluctuated with a reading of 33º Celsius. Rocha believed the
DECISION fluctuation was caused by the burnt condenser fan motor of the refrigerated
container.
BRION, J.:
On November 9, 1995, Temic received the shipment. It found the cargo
For our resolution is the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners completely damaged. Temic filed a claim for cargo loss against Netherlands
Regional Container Lines of Singapore (RCL) and EDSA Shipping Agency (EDSA Insurance, with supporting claims documents. The Netherlands Insurance paid
Shipping) to annul and set aside the decision1 and resolution2 of the Court of Temic the sum of P1,036,497.00 under the terms of the Marine Open Policy.
Appeals (CA) dated May 26, 2004 and May 10, 2005, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV Temic then executed a loss and subrogation receipt in favor of Netherlands
No. 76690. Insurance.
RCL is a foreign corporation based in Singapore. It does business in the Seven months from delivery of the cargo or on June 4, 1996, Netherlands
Philippines through its agent, EDSA Shipping, a domestic corporation organized Insurance filed a complaint for subrogation of insurance settlement with the
and existing under Philippine laws. Respondent Netherlands Insurance Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Manila, against "the unknown owner of M/V
Company (Philippines), Inc. (Netherlands Insurance) is likewise a domestic Piya Bhum" and TMS Ship Agencies (TMS), the latter thought to be the local
corporation engaged in the marine underwriting business. agent of M/V Piya Bhum’s unknown owner.4 The complaint was docketed as
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS Civil Case No. 96-78612.
The pertinent facts, based on the records are summarized below. Netherlands Insurance amended the complaint on January 17, 1997 to implead
EDSA Shipping, RCL, Eagle Liner Shipping Agencies, U-Freight Singapore, and U-
Ocean (Phils.), Inc. (U-Ocean), as additional defendants. A third amended Civil Procedure, defendants Regional Container Lines and EDSA Shipping
complaint was later made, impleading Pacific Eagle in substitution of Eagle Agency are deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.
Liner Shipping Agencies.
As such, defendants Regional Container Lines and EDSA Shipping Agency are
TMS filed its answer to the original complaint. RCL and EDSA Shipping filed ordered to reimburse plaintiff in the sum of P1,036,497.00 with interest from
their answers with cross-claim and compulsory counterclaim to the second date hereof until fully paid.
amended complaint. U-Ocean likewise filed an answer with compulsory
No costs.
counterclaim and cross-claim. During the pendency of the case, U-Ocean,
jointly with U-Freight Singapore, filed another answer with compulsory SO ORDERED. [Emphasis supplied.]
counterclaim. Only Pacific Eagle and TMS filed their answers to the third
The CA dismissed Netherland Insurance’s complaint against the other
amended complaint. defendants after finding that the claim had already been barred by
The defendants all disclaimed liability for the damage caused to the cargo, prescription.5
citing several reasons why Netherland Insurance’s claims must be rejected. Having been found liable for the damage to the cargo, RCL and EDSA Shipping
Specifically, RCL and EDSA Shipping denied negligence in the transport of the filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA maintained its original
cargo; they attributed any negligence that may have caused the loss of the conclusions.
shipment to their co-defendants. They likewise asserted that no valid
subrogation exists, as the payment made by Netherlands Insurance to the The sole issue for our resolution is whether the CA correctly held RCL and EDSA
consignee was invalid. By way of affirmative defenses, RCL and EDSA Shipping Shipping liable as common carriers under the theory of presumption of
averred that the Netherlands Insurance has no cause of action, and is not the negligence.
real party-in-interest, and that the claim is barred by laches/prescription. THE COURT’S RULING
After Netherlands Insurance had made its formal offer of evidence, the The present case is governed by the following provisions of the Civil Code:
defendants including RCL and EDSA Shipping sought leave of court to file their
respective motions to dismiss based on demurrer to evidence. ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
RCL and EDSA Shipping, in their motion, insisted that Netherlands Insurance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them
had (1) failed to prove any valid subrogation, and (2) failed to establish that according to all the circumstances of each case.
any negligence on their part or that the loss was sustained while the cargo was
in their custody. Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further
expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the
On May 22, 2002, the trial court handed down an Order dismissing Civil Case extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in
No. 96-78612 on demurrer to evidence. The trial court ruled that while there articles1755 and 1756.
was valid subrogation, the defendants could not be held liable for the loss or
damage, as their respective liabilities ended at the time of the discharge of the ART. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
cargo from the ship at the Port of Manila. deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following
causes only:
Netherlands Insurance seasonably appealed the order of dismissal to the CA.
1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
On May 26, 2004, the CA disposed of the appeal as follows:
2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the dismissal of the complaint against
defendants Regional Container Lines and Its local agent, EDSA Shipping Agency, 3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The dismissal of the complaint against the other 4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
defendants is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 33 of the 1997 Rules of
5) Order or act of competent public authority.
ART. 1735. In all cases other that those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of custody of the arrastre operator (International Container Terminal Services,
the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated, common Inc. or ICTSI), RCL and EDSA Shipping posit that the presumption of negligence
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless provided in Article 1735 of the Civil Code should not apply. What applies in this
they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required by article case is Article 1734, particularly paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof, which exempts
1733. the carrier from liability for loss or damage to the cargo when it is caused
either by an act or omission of the shipper or by the character of the goods or
ART. 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from
defects in the packing or in the containers. Thus, RCL and EDSA Shipping seek
the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and
to lay the blame at the feet of other parties.
received by the carrier for transportation until the sane are delivered, actually
or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a We do not find the arguments of RCL and EDSA Shipping meritorious.
right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of articles 1738.
A common carrier is presumed to have been negligent if it fails to prove that it
ART. 1738. The extraordinary liability of the common carrier continues to be exercised extraordinary vigilance over the goods it transported.8 When the
operative even during the time the goods are stored in a warehouse of the goods shipped are either lost or arrived in damaged condition, a presumption
carrier at the place of destination, until the consignee has been advised of the arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that diligence, and there need
arrival of the goods and has had reasonable opportunity thereafter to remove not be an express finding of negligence to hold it liable.91avvphi1
them or otherwise dispose of them.
To overcome the presumption of negligence, the common carrier must
ART. 1742. Even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods should establish by adequate proof that it exercised extraordinary diligence over the
be caused by the character of the goods, or the faulty nature of the packing or goods. It must do more than merely show that some other party could be
of the containers, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall responsible for the damage.10
or lessen the loss.
In the present case, RCL and EDSA Shipping failed to prove that they did
In Central Shipping Company, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North exercise that degree of diligence required by law over the goods they
America,6 we reiterated the rules for the liability of a common carrier for lost transported. Indeed, there is sufficient evidence showing that the fluctuation
or damaged cargo as follows: of the temperature in the refrigerated container van, as recorded in the
temperature chart, occurred after the cargo had been discharged from the
(1) Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence over the
vessel and was already under the custody of the arrastre operator, ICTSI. This
goods they transport, according to all the circumstances of each case;
evidence, however, does not disprove that the condenser fan – which caused
(2) In the event of loss, destruction, or deterioration of the insured goods, the fluctuation of the temperature in the refrigerated container – was not
common carriers are responsible, unless they can prove that such loss, damaged while the cargo was being unloaded from the ship. It is settled in
destruction, or deterioration was brought about by, among others, "flood, maritime law jurisprudence that cargoes while being unloaded generally
storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity"; and remain under the custody of the carrier;11 RCL and EDSA Shipping failed to
(3) In all other cases not specified under Article 1734 of the Civil Code, dispute this.1avvphi1
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted RCL and EDSA Shipping could have offered evidence before the trial court to
negligently, unless they observed extraordinary diligence.7 show that the damage to the condenser fan did not occur: (1) while the cargo
In the present case, RCL and EDSA Shipping disclaim any responsibility for the was in transit; (2) while they were in the act of discharging it from the vessel;
loss or damage to the goods in question. They contend that the cause of the or (3) while they were delivering it actually or constructively to the consignee.
damage to the cargo was the "fluctuation of the temperature in the reefer They could have presented proof to show that they exercised extraordinary
van," which fluctuation occurred after the cargo had already been discharged care and diligence in the handling of the goods, but they opted to file a
from the vessel; no fluctuation, they point out, arose when the cargo was still demurrer to evidence. As the order granting their demurrer was reversed on
on board M/V Piya Bhum. As the cause of the damage to the cargo occurred appeal, the CA correctly ruled that they are deemed to have waived their right
after the same was already discharged from the vessel and was under the to present evidence,12 and the presumption of negligence must stand.
It is for this reason as well that we find RCL and EDSA Shipping’s claim that the met her death. Respondent Ildefonso C. Callejas is the registered owner of
loss or damage to the cargo was caused by a defect in the packing or in the Celyrosa Express, while respondent Edgar de Borja was the driver of the bus on
containers. To exculpate itself from liability for the loss/damage to the cargo which the deceased was a passenger.
under any of the causes, the common carrier is burdened to prove any of the
At around 6:30 p.m. on November 12, 1991, along Aguinaldo Highway, San
causes in Article 1734 of the Civil Code claimed by it by a preponderance of
Agustin, Dasmariñas, Cavite, the Celyrosa Express bus, carrying Dr. Mariano as
evidence. If the carrier succeeds, the burden of evidence is shifted to the
its passenger, collided with an Isuzu truck with trailer bearing plate numbers
shipper to prove that the carrier is negligent.13 RCL and EDSA Shipping,
PJH 906 and TRH 531. The passenger bus was bound for Tagaytay while the
however, failed to satisfy this standard of evidence and in fact offered no
trailer truck came from the opposite direction, bound for Manila. The trailer
evidence at all on this point; a reversal of a dismissal based on a demurrer to
truck bumped the passenger bus on its left middle portion. Due to the impact,
evidence bars the defendant from presenting evidence supporting its
the passenger bus fell on its right side on the right shoulder of the highway and
allegations.
caused the death of Dr. Mariano and physical injuries to four other passengers.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Dr. Mariano was 36 years old at the time of her death. She left behind three
Regional Container Lines of Singapore and EDSA Shipping Agency. The decision minor children, aged four, three and two years.
of the Court of Appeals dated May 26, 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No. 76690 is
Petitioner filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages
AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against the petitioners.
against respondents for their failure to transport his wife and mother of his
SO ORDERED. three minor children safely to her destination. Respondents denied liability for
the death of Dr. Mariano. They claimed that the proximate cause of the
accident was the recklessness of the driver of the trailer truck which bumped
their bus while allegedly at a halt on the shoulder of the road in its rightful
lane. Thus, respondent Callejas filed a third-party complaint against Liong Chio
Chang, doing business under the name and style of La Perla Sugar Supply, the
owner of the trailer truck, for indemnity in the event that he would be held
liable for damages to petitioner.lavvph!l
Other cases were filed. Callejas filed a complaint,4 docketed as Civil Case No.
G.R. No. 166640 July 31, 2009 NC-397 before the RTC of Naic, Cavite, against La Perla Sugar Supply and
HERMINIO MARIANO, JR., Petitioner, Arcadio Arcilla, the truck driver, for damages he incurred due to the vehicular
vs. accident. On September 24, 1992, the said court dismissed the complaint
ILDEFONSO C. CALLEJAS and EDGAR DE BORJA, Respondents. against La Perla Sugar Supply for lack of evidence. It, however, found Arcilla
liable to pay Callejas the cost of the repairs of his passenger bus, his lost
DECISION earnings, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.5
PUNO, C.J.: A criminal case, Criminal Case No. 2223-92, was also filed against truck driver
On appeal are the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Arcilla in the RTC of Imus, Cavite. On May 3, 1994, the said court convicted
CV No. 66891, dated May 21, 2004 and January 7, 2005 respectively, which truck driver Arcadio Arcilla of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to
reversed the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, dated homicide, multiple slight physical injuries and damage to property.6
September 13, 1999, which found respondents jointly and severally liable to In the case at bar, the trial court, in its Decision dated September 13, 1999,
pay petitioner damages for the death of his wife. found respondents Ildefonso Callejas and Edgar de Borja, together with Liong
First, the facts: Chio Chang, jointly and severally liable to pay petitioner damages and costs of
suit. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
Petitioner Herminio Mariano, Jr. is the surviving spouse of Dr. Frelinda Mariano
who was a passenger of a Celyrosa Express bus bound for Tagaytay when she ACCORDINGLY, the defendants are ordered to pay as follows:
1. The sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the loss of life; THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL FOURTEENTH
DIVISION IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE CASE.10
2. The sum of P40,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages;
The following are the provisions of the Civil Code pertinent to the case at bar:
3. The sum of P1,829,200.00 as foregone income;
ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons
4. The sum of P30,000.00 as moral damages;
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
5. The sum of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages; over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them,
6. The costs of suit. according to all the circumstances of each case.

SO ORDERED.7 ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very
Respondents Callejas and De Borja appealed to the Court of Appeals, cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
contending that the trial court erred in holding them guilty of breach of
contract of carriage. ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove
On May 21, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and
It reasoned: 1755.
. . . the presumption of fault or negligence against the carrier is only a In accord with the above provisions, Celyrosa Express, a common carrier,
disputable presumption. It gives in where contrary facts are established through its driver, respondent De Borja, and its registered owner, respondent
proving either that the carrier had exercised the degree of diligence required Callejas, has the express obligation "to carry the passengers safely as far as
by law or the injury suffered by the passenger was due to a fortuitous event. human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very
Where, as in the instant case, the injury sustained by the petitioner was in no cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances,"11 and to
way due to any defect in the means of transport or in the method of observe extraordinary diligence in the discharge of its duty. The death of the
transporting or to the negligent or wilful acts of private respondent's wife of the petitioner in the course of transporting her to her destination gave
employees, and therefore involving no issue of negligence in its duty to provide rise to the presumption of negligence of the carrier. To overcome the
safe and suitable cars as well as competent employees, with the injury arising presumption, respondents have to show that they observed extraordinary
wholly from causes created by strangers over which the carrier had no control diligence in the discharge of their duty, or that the accident was caused by a
or even knowledge or could not have prevented, the presumption is rebutted fortuitous event.
and the carrier is not and ought not to be held liable. To rule otherwise would
make the common carrier the insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers This Court interpreted the above quoted provisions in Pilapil v. Court of
which is not the intention of the lawmakers.8 Appeals.12 We elucidated:

The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: While the law requires the highest degree of diligence from common carriers in
the safe transport of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from, insofar as it found defendants- against them, it does not, however, make the carrier an insurer of the absolute
appellants Ildefonso Callejas and Edgar de Borja liable for damages to plaintiff- safety of its passengers.
appellee Herminio E. Mariano, Jr., is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one
entered absolving them from any liability for the death of Dr. Frelinda Cargo Article 1755 of the Civil Code qualifies the duty of extraordinary care, vigilance
Mariano.9 and precaution in the carriage of passengers by common carriers to only such
as human care and foresight can provide. What constitutes compliance with
The appellate court also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by said duty is adjudged with due regard to all the circumstances.
petitioner.
Article 1756 of the Civil Code, in creating a presumption of fault or negligence
Hence, this appeal, relying on the following ground: on the part of the common carrier when its passenger is injured, merely
relieves the latter, for the time being, from introducing evidence to fasten the q Why did you say that the truck has no brakes?
negligence on the former, because the presumption stands in the place of
a I tested it.
evidence. Being a mere presumption, however, the same is rebuttable by proof
that the common carrier had exercised extraordinary diligence as required by q And you found no brakes?
law in the performance of its contractual obligation, or that the injury suffered a Yes, sir.
by the passenger was solely due to a fortuitous event.
xxx
In fine, we can only infer from the law the intention of the Code Commission
and Congress to curb the recklessness of drivers and operators of common q When you went to the scene of accident, what was the position of Celyrosa
carriers in the conduct of their business. bus?
Thus, it is clear that neither the law nor the nature of the business of a a It was lying on its side.
transportation company makes it an insurer of the passenger's safety, but that COURT:
its liability for personal injuries sustained by its passenger rests upon its
negligence, its failure to exercise the degree of diligence that the law requires. q Right side or left side?

In the case at bar, petitioner cannot succeed in his contention that a Right side.
respondents failed to overcome the presumption of negligence against them. ATTY. ESTELYDIZ:
The totality of evidence shows that the death of petitioner’s spouse was
caused by the reckless negligence of the driver of the Isuzu trailer truck which q On what part of the road was it lying?
lost its brakes and bumped the Celyrosa Express bus, owned and operated by a On the shoulder of the road.
respondents.
COURT:
First, we advert to the sketch prepared by PO3 Magno S. de Villa, who
investigated the accident. The sketch13shows the passenger bus facing the q How many meters from the point of impact?
direction of Tagaytay City and lying on its right side on the shoulder of the a Near, about 5 meters.14
road, about five meters away from the point of impact. On the other hand, the
trailer truck was on the opposite direction, about 500 meters away from the His police report bolsters his testimony and states:
point of impact. PO3 De Villa stated that he interviewed De Borja, respondent Said vehicle 1 [passenger bus] was running from Manila toward south direction
driver of the passenger bus, who said that he was about to unload some when, in the course of its travel, it was hit and bumped by vehicle 2 [truck with
passengers when his bus was bumped by the driver of the trailer truck that lost trailer] then running fast from opposite direction, causing said vehicle 1 to fall
its brakes. PO3 De Villa checked out the trailer truck and found that its brakes on its side on the road shoulder, causing the death of one and injuries of some
really failed. He testified before the trial court, as follows: passengers thereof, and its damage, after collission (sic), vehicle 2
ATTY. ESTELYDIZ: continiously (sic) ran and stopped at approximately 500 meters away from the
piont (sic) of impact.15
q You pointed to the Isuzu truck beyond the point of impact. Did you
investigate why did (sic) the Isuzu truck is beyond the point of impact? In fine, the evidence shows that before the collision, the passenger bus was
cruising on its rightful lane along the Aguinaldo Highway when the trailer truck
a Because the truck has no brakes. coming from the opposite direction, on full speed, suddenly swerved and
COURT: encroached on its lane, and bumped the passenger bus on its left middle
portion. Respondent driver De Borja had every right to expect that the trailer
q What is the distance between that circle which is marked as Exh. 1-c to the truck coming from the opposite direction would stay on its proper lane. He was
place where you found the same? not expected to know that the trailer truck had lost its brakes. The swerving of
a More or less 500 meters. the trailer truck was abrupt and it was running on a fast speed as it was found
500 meters away from the point of collision. Secondly, any doubt as to the
culpability of the driver of the trailer truck ought to vanish when he pleaded
guilty to the charge of reckless imprudence resulting to multiple slight physical
injuries and damage to property in Criminal Case No. 2223-92, involving the
same incident.1avvph!1
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 21, 2004
and the Resolution dated January 7, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 66891 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi