Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 505 views

    Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    quasideliks
    This case involved the sinking of a barge carrying wheat cargo during transport to its destination. Asia Lighterage and Shipping Inc. (ALSI), who was contracted to deliver the cargo, claimed it was not a common carrier and not liable for the lost cargo. The Court ruled that ALSI was a common carrier as transporting cargo was part of its business, and it is presumed liable for lost or damaged goods. ALSI failed to prove the typhoon was the sole cause of the sinking or that it exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent loss. Thus, ALSI was held liable for the lost cargo.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    quasideliks
    505 views2 pages
    This case involved the sinking of a barge carrying wheat cargo during transport to its destination. Asia Lighterage and Shipping Inc. (ALSI), who was contracted to deliver the cargo, claimed it was not a common carrier and not liable for the lost cargo. The Court ruled that ALSI was a common carrier as transporting cargo was part of its business, and it is presumed liable for lost or damaged goods. ALSI failed to prove the typhoon was the sole cause of the sinking or that it exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent loss. Thus, ALSI was held liable for the lost cargo.

    Original Description:

    DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved the sinking of a barge carrying wheat cargo during transport to its destination. Asia Lighterage and Shipping Inc. (ALSI), who was contracted to deliver the cargo, claimed it was not a common carrier and not liable for the lost cargo. The Court ruled that ALSI was a common carrier as transporting cargo was part of its business, and it is presumed liable for lost or damaged goods. ALSI failed to prove the typhoon was the sole cause of the sinking or that it exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent loss. Thus, ALSI was held liable for the lost cargo.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    505 views2 pages

    Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    quasideliks
    This case involved the sinking of a barge carrying wheat cargo during transport to its destination. Asia Lighterage and Shipping Inc. (ALSI), who was contracted to deliver the cargo, claimed it was not a common carrier and not liable for the lost cargo. The Court ruled that ALSI was a common carrier as transporting cargo was part of its business, and it is presumed liable for lost or damaged goods. ALSI failed to prove the typhoon was the sole cause of the sinking or that it exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent loss. Thus, ALSI was held liable for the lost cargo.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ASIA LIGHTERAGE AND SHIPPING, INC. VS.

    COURT OF APPEALS
    G.R. No. 147246
    August 19, 2003
    Puno, J.

    Facts:
    Better Western White Wheat was shipped by Marubeni American
    Corporation of Oregon for delivery to General Milling Corporation (GMC).
    The shipment was insured by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc.
    (private respondent)
    When the cargo arrived at Manila it was transferred to the custody of Asia
    Lighterage and Shipping Inc. (ALSI)
    ALSI was contracted by GMC to deliver the cargo to GMCs warehouse at
    Pasig City.
    The shipment was loaded on a barge for delivery to GMC.
    The transport of cargo was suspended due to incoming typhoon.
    While weathering out the storm the cargo was tied into other barges.
    After few days, the barges developed a list because of a hole it sustained.
    ALSI secured the servises of Gaspar Salvaging Corporation to refloat the
    barge.
    While transporting and before it arrived at GMC wharf, the goods was
    transferred to 3 other barges because of strong current and to avoid
    complete sinking.
    On the next day, the towing bits of the barge broke and it completely sank.
    The cargo had never reached GMC.
    GMC seek from ALSI and private respondent the payment for the lost
    cargo.
    Private respondent indemnified GMC.
    Private respondent sought recovery from ALSI but to no avail.
    Priate respondent filed a case with RTC and the trial court ruled in favor of
    private respondent.
    Upon appeal by ALSI, CA affirmed the decision of RTC.
    Motion for Reconsideration was filed but denied.
    Hence, this case.
    ALSI contends that:
    o It is not a common carrier
    o It is not liable for the lost of the cargo.

    Issue:
    WON ALSI is a common carrier and can be held liable. YES/YES

    Held:
    The definition of common carriers in Article 1732 of the Civil Code makes
    no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the
    carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying
    only as an ancillary activity.
    We also did not distinguish between a person or enterprise offering
    transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering
    such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis.
    we ruled that Article 1732 does not distinguish between a carrier offering
    its services to the general public, and one who offers services or solicits
    business only from a narrow segment of the general population.
    The test to determine a common carrier is
    o WHETHER THE GIVEN UNDERTAKING IS A PART OF THE
    BUSINESS ENGAGED IN BY THE CARRIER WHICH HE HAS
    HELD OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS HIS OCCUPATION
    RATHER THAN THE QUANTITY OR EXTENT OF THE
    BUSINESS TRANSACTED.
    Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
    vigilance over the goods transported by them.
    They are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the
    goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated.
    To overcome the presumption of negligence in the case of loss,
    destruction or deterioration of the goods, the common carrier must prove
    that it exercised extraordinary diligence.

    Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
    deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes
    only:
    1. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or
    calamity;
    xxx
    In the case at bar, the barge completely sank after its towing bits broke,
    resulting in the total loss of its cargo. Petitioner claims that this was
    caused by a typhoon; hence, it should not be held liable for the loss of the
    cargo. However, petitioner failed to prove that the typhoon is the
    proximate and only cause of the loss of the goods, and that it has
    exercised due diligence before, during and after the occurrence of the
    typhoon to prevent or minimize the loss.
    this could not be solely attributed to the typhoon. The partly-submerged
    vessel was refloated but its hole was patched with only clay and cement.

    You might also like