Lu do v.
Binamira or deterioration takes place while the goods are in the
- plaintiff led action to recover amount of certain
shpment and for damages incurred
-TC ordered payment
-CA affirmed
- Delta photo supply co. of New York shipped cases of
photographic supplies consigned to BINAMIRA; bill of
lading was issued
- arrived at the port of Cebu, discharged, placed in the
possession of the arrastre operator- VISAYAN CEBU
TERMINAL COMPANY
- pet hired Cebu Stevedoring Co. to unload cargo, good
and bad cargo separated, list of bad order cargo was
made by checker of SD
-all cargo- recd by arrastre, they also had a checker- also
recorded good from bad.
- cargo in question was not included in both bad order
reports of checker- meaning discharged in good
condition
- Binamira took delivery of the six cases and discovered
that the cases showed signs of pilferage- hired marine
surveyors to examine, made the countin front of the
representatives of the parties involved.
- Appears that as the cases were checked by both the
arrastre and SD- is the carrier responsible
ISSUE: Is the carrier responsible for the loss considering
that the same occurred after the shipment was
discharged from the ship and placed in the possession
and custody of the customs authorities
RATIO:
It is now contended that the Court of Appeals erred in
its nding not only because it made a wrong
interpretation of the law on the matter, but also
because it ignored the provisions of the bill of lading
covering the shipment wherein it was stipulated that
the responsibility of the carrier is limited only to losses
that may occur while the cargo is still under its custody
and control.
We believe this contention is well taken. It is true that,
as a rule, a common carrier is responsible for the loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods it assumes to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
carry from one place to another unless the same is due
to any of the causes mentioned in Article 1734 but
these provisions only apply when the loss, destruction
possession of the carrier, and not after it has lost
control of them.
because in such case the goods are still in the hands of
the Government and the owner cannot exercise
dominion over them- This is a situation where we may
say that the carrier loses control of the goods because
of a custom regulation and it is unfair that it be made
responsible for what may happen during the
interregnum. And this is precisely what was done by the
parties herein. In the bill of lading that was issued
covering the shipment in question, both the carrier and
the consignee have stipulated to limit the responsibility
of the carrier for the loss or damage that may be caused
to the goods before they are actually delivered
It therefore appears clear that the carrier does not
assume liability for any loss or damage to the goods
once they have been "taken into the custody of customs
or other authorities", or when they have been delivered
at ship's tackle. These stipulations are clear. They have
been adopted precisely to mitigate the responsibility of
the carrier considering the present law on the matter,
and we nd nothing therein that is contrary to morals or
public policy
Republic v. Lorenzo Shipping
- Republic of the Philippines, through the
Department of Health (DOH), and the Cooperative
for American Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE) signed
an agreement wherein CARE
- donations of non-fat dried milk and other food
products
- Philippines would transport and distribute the
donated commodities to the intended
beneficiaries in the country.
- government entered into a contract of carriage of
goods with herein petitioner National Trucking
and Forwarding Corporation (NTFC).
through herein respondent Lorenzo Shipping
Corporation (LSC) from September to December
1988. The consignee named in the bills of lading
issued by the respondent was Abdurahman Jama,
branch supervisor in Zamboanga City.
- On reaching the port of Zamboanga City, delivered
the goods to petitioner's warehouse. Before each
delivery, Rogelio Rizada and Ismael Zamora, both
delivery checkers
- requested Abdurahman to surrender the original
bills of lading, but the latter merely presented
 certi ed true copies thereof. Upon completion of
each delivery, Rogelio and Ismael asked
Abdurahman to sign the delivery receipts.
However, at times when Abdurahman had to
attend to other business before a delivery was
completed, he instructed his subordinates to sign
- petitioner allegedly did not receive the subject
goods.
- the respondent explained that the cargo had
already been delivered to Abdurahman Jama. The
petitioner then decided to investigate the loss of
the goods. But before the investigation was over,
Abdurahman Jama resigned as branch supervisor of
petitioner.
- NTFC as plaintiffs led an action for breach of
contract of carriage, against respondent as
defendant
RTC: dismissed complaint
CA: found no reversible error
ISSUE: Is respondent presumed at fault or negligent as
common carrier for the loss or deterioration of the
goods
RATIO:
- we agree with the court a quo that the respondent
adequately proved that it exercised extraordinary
diligence. Although the original bills of lading
remained with petitioner, respondent's agents
demanded from Abdurahman the certi ed true
copies of the bills of lading. They also asked the
latter and in his absence, his designated
subordinates, to sign the cargo delivery receipts.
- After the contract has been complied with, the bill
of lading which the carrier has issued shall be
returned to him, and by virtue of the exchange of
this title with the thing transported, the respective
obligations and actions shall be considered
cancelled (ART 353)
- the surrender of the original bill of lading is not a
condition precedent for a common carrier to be
discharged of its contractual obligation. If surrender
of the original bill of lading is not possible,
acknowledgment of the delivery by signing the
delivery receipt suffices
- were signed by Abdurahman's subordinates
- Abdurahman was always present at the initial phase
- although on the few occasions when Abdurahman
could not stay to witness the complete delivery of
the shipment, he authorized his subordinates to
sign
- This, to our mind, is su cient and substantial
compliance with the requirements.
LRTA v Navidad
- Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT
tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard assigned to
the area approached Navidad.
- A misunderstanding or an altercation between the two
apparently ensued that led to a fight. No evidence,
however, was adduced to indicate how the ght started
or who, between the two, delivered the rst blow or how
Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks.
- At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train,
operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in.
Navidad was struck by the moving train, and he was
killed instantaneously.
- widow of Nicanor, herein respondent Marjorie
Navidad, along with her children, led a complaint for
damages against Junelito Escartin, Rodolfo Roman, the
LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro
Transit), and Prudent for the death of her husband.
- LRTA and Roman led a counterclaim against Navidad
and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent. Prudent,
in its answer, denied liability and averred that it had
exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision
of its security guards.
RTC: decision against prudent and escartin
CA: the appellate court promulgated its now assailed
decision exonerating Prudent from any liability for the
death of Nicanor Navidad and, instead, holding the
LRTA and Roman jointly and severally liable
ISSUE: w/n respondents are guilty
RATIO: Nope
- The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of
carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim
arises from the breach of that contract by reason of
its failure to exercise the high diligence required of
the common carrier.
- In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the
safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its
own employees or avail itself of the services of an
outsider or an independent rm to undertake the
task. In either case, the common carrier is not
relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of
carriage.
- Should Prudent be made likewise liable? If at all,
that liability could only be for tort under the
provisions of Article 2176; The premise, however,
for the employer's liability is negligence or fault on
 the part of the employee. Once such fault is
established, the employer can then be made liable
- Absent such a showing, one might ask further, how
then must the liability of the common carrier, on
the one hand, and an independent contractor, on
the other hand, be described? It would be solidary.
A contractual obligation can be breached by tort
and when the same act or omission causes the
injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the
other in culpa aquiliana,
- no showing that petitioner Rodolfo Roman himself
is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must
also be absolved from liability

Dangwa v CA
-