Act of Shipper: Yes, But RFMC Is Also Liable For Contributory Negligence

ACT OF SHIPPER
Contention of North Front:
Tabacalera vs North Front (1997)
North Front Shipping Services, Inc., averred in

refutation that it could not be made culpable for the
loss and deterioration of the cargo as it was never
negligent. Captain Solomon Villanueva, master of the
vessel, reiterated that the barge was inspected prior to
the actual loading and was found adequate and
seaworthy. In addition, they were issued a permit to
sail by the Coast Guard. The tarpaulins were doubled
and brand new and the hatches were properly
sealed. They did not encounter big waves hence it was
not possible for water to seep in. He further averred
that the corn grains were farm wet and not properly
dried when loaded.
TABACALERA
INSURANCE
CO.,
PRUDENTIAL
GUARANTEE & ASSURANCE, INC., and NEW
ZEALAND INSURANCE CO., LTD., petitioners
NORTH FRONT SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., and
COURT OF APPEALS, respondents
Facts:
20, 234 sacks of corn grains were shipped on borad
North Front 777 which was owned by North Fron
Shipping. The cargo was consigned to Republic Flour
Mills Corp. in Manila and insured by petitioners.
The vessel left Cagayan de Oro City on 2 August 1990
and arrived Manila on 16 August 1990.
The consignee, Republic Flour Mills Corporation, was
advised of its arrival but it did not immediately
commence
the
unloading
operations.
The
unloading was delayed and the merchandise was
already moldy, rancid and deteriorating.
After examination, it was found out that the cause of
the deterioration was moisture content and the
wetting was due to contact with salt water. The
mold growth was only incipient and not sufficient to
make the corn grains toxic and unfit for
consumption. In fact the mold growth could still be
arrested by drying.
However, Republic Flour Mills Corporation rejected
the
entire
cargo
and
formally
demanded
from North Front Shipping Services, Inc., payment
for the damages suffered by it. The demands
however were unheeded. Hence, the insurance
companies were forced to pay Republic Flour Mills
Corporation.
By virtue of the payment made by the insurance
companies they were subrogated to the rights of
Republic Flour Mills Corporation.
Thusly, they lodged a complaint for damages against
North Front Shipping Services, Inc., claiming that the
loss was exclusively attributable to the fault and
negligence of the carrier. The Marine Cargo
Adjusters hired by the insurance companies conducted
a survey and found cracks in the bodega of the barge
and heavy concentration of molds on the tarpaulins
and wooden boards. They did not notice any seals in
the hatches. The tarpaulins were not brand new as
there were patches on them, contrary to the claim of
North Front Shipping Services, Inc., thus making it
possible for water to seep in. They also discovered that
the bulkhead of the barge was rusty.
Issue: WON North Front is liable for the deterioration.

Yes, but RFMC is also liable for contributory negligence.
Ruling:
The charter-party agreement between North Front
Shipping Services, Inc., and Republic Flour Mills
Corporation did not in any way convert the common
carrier into a private carrier.
xxx
North Front Shipping Services, Inc., is a
corporation
engaged
in
the
business of
transporting cargo and offers its services
indiscriminately to the public. It is without doubt
a common carrier. As such it is required to
observe extraordinary diligence in its vigilance over
the goods it transports.[3]. When goods placed in its
care are lost or damaged, the carrier is presumed to
have been at fault or to have acted negligently. [4] North
Front Shipping Services, Inc., therefore has the burden
of proving that it observed extraordinary diligence in
order to avoid responsibility for the lost cargo.
xxx
In fine, we find that the carrier failed to observe
the
required extraordinary
diligence in
the
vigilance over the goods placed in its
care. The proofs presented by NorthFront Shipping Ser
vices, Inc., were insufficient to rebut the prima
facie presumption
of
private respondent's
negligence, more so if we consider the evidence
adduced by petitioners.
It is not denied by the insurance companies that the
vessel was indeed inspected before actual loading and
that North Front 777 was issued a Permit to Sail. They
proved the fact of shipment and its consequent loss or
damage while in the actual possession of the
carrier. Notably, the carrier failed to volunteer any
explanation why there was spoilage and how it
occurred. On the other hand, it was shown during the
trial that the vessel had rusty bulkheads and the
wooden
boards
and
tarpaulins
bore
heavy
concentration of molds. The tarpaulins used were not
new, contrary to the claim of North Front Shipping
Services, Inc., as there were already several patches on
them, hence, making it highly probable for water to
enter.
Laboratory analysis revealed that the corn grains were
contaminated with salt water. North Front Shipping
Services, Inc., failed to rebut all these arguments. It did
not even endeavor to establish that the loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods was due to
the following: (a) flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or
other natural disaster or calamity; (b) act of the public
enemy in war, whether international or civil; (c) act or
omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; (d) the
character of the goods or defects in the packing or in
the containers; (e) order or act of competent public
authority.[6] This is a closed list. If the cause of
destruction, loss or deterioration is other than
the enumerated circumstances, then the carrier
is rightly liable therefor.
However, we cannot attribute the destruction,
loss or deterioration of the cargo solely to the
carrier. We find the consignee Republic Flour Mills
Corporation guilty of contributory negligence. It
was seasonably notified of the arrival of the barge
but did not immediately start the unloading
operations. No explanation was proffered by the
consignee as to why there was a delay of six (6)
days. Had
the
unloading
been
commenced
immediately the loss could have been completely
avoided or at least minimized. As testified to by the
chemist who analyzed the corn samples, the mold
growth was only at its incipient stage and could still be
arrested by drying. The corn grains were not yet toxic
or unfit for consumption. For its contributory
negligence, Republic Flour Mills Corporation should
share at least 40% of the loss.[7]
CHARACTER OF GOODS
Government vs Ynchausti (1919)
Facts:
The purpose of this action was to recover the sum of
P200 as damages to certain cargo of roofing tiles
shipped by the plaintiff Government from Manila to
Iloilo on a vessel belonging to the defendant Ynchausti
& Co.
The tiles were delivered by Ynchausti to the consignee
of the Government at Iloilo. Upon delivery it was found
that some of the tiles had been damaged; that the
damage amounted to about P200.
Contention of Ynchausti:
Ynchausti denied that the tiles were broken by reason

of its negligence. It proved, and the Government did
not attempt to dispute, that the roofing tiles in
question were of a brittle and fragile nature; that
they were delivered by the Government to Ynchausti in
bundles of ten each, tied with bejuco [rattan], without
any packing or protective covering. The Government
did not even attempt to prove any negligence on the
part of the defendant.
ISSUE: WON Ynchausti is negligent and should be held
liable for the broken tiles. Yes.
Ruling:
The defendant Ynchausti herein proved, and the
plaintiff Government did not attempt to dispute, that
the tiles in question were of a brittle and fragile nature
and that they were delivered by the plaintiff to the
defendant without any packing or protective covering.
Ynchausti also offered proof to show that there was no
negligence on its part, by showing that the tiles were
loaded, stowed, and discharged in a careful and
diligent manner.
In this jurisdiction there is no presumption of
negligence on the part of the carriers in case like the
present. The plaintiff Govt, not having proved
negligence on the part of the defendant Ynchausti, is
not entitled to recover damages.
Southern Lines vs CA, City of Iloilo (1962)
Facts:
NARIC (National Rice and Corn Corp.) shipped 1,726
sacks of rice consigned to the City of Iloilo on board the
SS "General Wright" belonging to the Southern Lines,
Inc.
On September 3, 1948, the City of Iloilo received the
shipment and paid. However, there was a shortage.
The shortage was equivalent to 41 sacks of rice with a
net weight of 13,319 kilos.
On February 14, 1951 the City of Iloilo filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against NARIC and
the Southern Lines, Inc. for the recovery of the amount
of P6,486.35 representing the value of the shortage
of the shipment of rice.
Contention of Southern Lines:
Petitioner
claims
exemption
from
liability by
contending that the shortage in the shipment of rice
was due to such factors as the shrinkage, leakage or
spillage of the rice on account of the bad condition of
the sacks at the time it received the same and the
negligence of the agents of respondent City of Iloilo in
receiving the shipment.
ISSUE: WON Southern Lines should be exempted from

liability. No.
Ruling:
The contention is untenable, for, if the fact of improper
packing is known to the carrier or his servants, or
apparent upon ordinary observation, but it accepts the
goods notwithstanding such condition, it is not relieved
of liability for loss or injury resulting therefrom.
Furthermore, according to the Court of Appeals,

"appellant (petitioner) itself frankly admitted that the
strings that tied the bags of rice were broken; some
bags were with holes and plenty of rice were spilled
inside the hull of the boat, and that the personnel of
the boat collected no less than 26 sacks of rice which
they had distributed among themselves." This finding,
which is binding upon this Court, shows that the
shortage resulted from the negligence of petitioner.

Act of Shipper: Yes, But RFMC Is Also Liable For Contributory Negligence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Act of Shipper: Yes, But RFMC Is Also Liable For Contributory Negligence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Act of Shipper: Yes, But RFMC Is Also Liable For Contributory Negligence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACT OF SHIPPER

Contention of North Front:

Tabacalera vs North Front (1997)

North Front Shipping Services, Inc., averred in

Issue: WON North Front is liable for the deterioration.

Ynchausti denied that the tiles were broken by reason

ISSUE: WON Southern Lines should be exempted from

Furthermore, according to the Court of Appeals,

You might also like