SECOND DIVISION
|
DELSAN
TRANSPORT LINES, INC., Petitioner, - versus - AMERICAN
HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 149019
Present: PUNO, J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: August
15, 2006 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
GARCIA, J.:
By
this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
petitioner Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. (Delsan hereafter) assails and seeks to set aside the Decision,[1]
dated July 16, 2001, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 40951 affirming
an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch IX, in two
separate complaints for damages docketed as Civil Case No. 85-29357 and Civil Case
No. 85-30559.
The
facts:
Delsan
is a domestic corporation which owns and operates the vessel MT Larusan. On the other hand, respondent
American Home Assurance Corporation (AHAC for brevity) is a foreign insurance
company duly licensed to do business in the
On
On
As
a result of spillage and backflow of diesel oil, Caltex sought recovery of the
loss from Delsan, but the latter refused to pay. As insurer, AHAC paid Caltex
the sum of P479,262.57 for spillage, pursuant to Marine Risk Note No.
34-5093-6, and P1,939,575.37 for backflow of the diesel oil pursuant to
Inland Floater Policy No. AH-1F64-1011549P.
On
P652,432.57 plus legal interest thereon.
Also,
on P1,939,575.37
for damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. As counterclaim in both cases, AHAC
prayed for attorney’s fees in the amount of P200,000.00 and P500.00
for every court appearance.
Since
the cause of action in both cases arose out of the same incident and involved
the same issues, the two were consolidated and assigned to Branch 9 of the court.
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
A). In Civil
Case No. 85-30559:
(1) Ordering the defendant (petitioner
Delsan) to pay plaintiff (respondent AHAC) the sum of P1,939,575.37 with
interest thereon at the legal rate from November 21, 1984 until fully paid and
satisfied; and
(2) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the
sum of P10,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees.
For lack of merit, the
counterclaim is hereby dismissed.
B). In Civil Case No. 85-29357:
(1) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the
sum of P479,262.57 with interest thereon at the legal rate from
(2) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the
sum of P5,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees.
For lack of merit, the
counterclaim is hereby dismissed.
Costs against the
defendant.
SO
ORDERED.
In
time, Delsan appealed to the CA whereat its recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CV
No. 40951.
In
the herein challenged decision,[3]
the CA affirmed the findings of the trial court. In so ruling, the CA declared
that Delsan failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence of a good father of
a family in the handling of its cargo. Applying Article 1736[4]
of the Civil Code, the CA ruled that since the discharging of the diesel oil
into Caltex bulk depot had not been completed at the time the losses occurred,
there was no reason to imply that there was actual delivery of the cargo to
Caltex, the consignee. We quote the fallo
of the CA decision:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 09 in Civil Case Nos.
85-29357 and 85-30559 is hereby AFFIRMED with a modification that attorney’s
fees awarded in Civil Case Nos. 85-29357 and 85-30559 are hereby DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
Delsan
is now before the Court raising substantially the same issues proffered before
the CA.
Principally,
Delsan insists that the CA committed reversible error in ruling that Article
1734 of the Civil Code cannot exculpate it from liability for the loss of the
subject cargo and in not applying the rule on contributory negligence against
Caltex, the shipper-owner of the cargo, and in not taking into consideration
the fact that the loss due to backflow occurred when the diesel oil was already
completely delivered to Caltex.
We
are not persuaded.
In
resolving this appeal, the Court reiterates the oft-stated doctrine that
factual findings of the CA, affirmatory of those of the trial court, are
binding on the Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are
tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[5]
Delsan
would have the Court absolve it from liability for the loss of its cargo on two
grounds. First, the loss through
spillage was partly due to the contributory negligence of Caltex; and Second, the loss through backflow should
not be borne by Delsan because it was already delivered to Caltex’s shore tank.
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.[6] To overcome the presumption of negligence in
case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the common carrier
must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence. There are, however, exceptions to this
rule. Article 1734 of the Civil Code
enumerates the instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach:
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;
2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether
international or civil;
3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner
of the goods;
4) The character of the goods or defects
in the packing or in the containers;
5) Order or act of competent public
authority.
Both
the trial court
and the CA uniformly ruled that Delsan failed to prove its
claim that there
was a contributory
negligence on the part of the owner of the goods – Caltex. We see no reason to depart therefrom. As
aptly pointed out by the CA, it had been established that
the proximate cause of the spillage and
backflow of the diesel oil was due to the severance of the port bow mooring
line of the vessel and the failure of the shore tender to close the storage
tank gate valve even as a check on the drain cock showed that there was still a
product on the pipeline. To the two courts below, the actuation of the gauger
and the escort surveyor, both personnel from the Caltex Bulk Depot, negates the
allegation that Caltex was remiss in its
duties. As we see it, the
crew of the vessel should have promptly informed the shore tender that the port
mooring line was cut off. However, Delsan did not do so on the lame excuse that
there was no available banca. As it is, Delsan’s personnel signaled a “red light” which was not a sufficient
warning because such signal
only meant that the pumping of diesel
oil had been finished. Neither did the
blowing of whistle suffice considering the distance of more than 2 kilometers
between the vessel and the Caltex Bulk Depot, aside from the fact that it was
not the agreed signal. Had the gauger
and the escort surveyor from Caltex Bulk Depot not gone aboard the vessel to make
inquiries, the shore tender would have not known what really happened. The crew of the vessel should have exerted utmost
effort to immediately inform the shore tender that the port bow mooring line
was severed.
To
be sure, Delsan, as the owner of the vessel, was obliged to prove that the loss
was caused by one of the excepted causes if it were to seek exemption from
responsibility.[7] Unfortunately,
it miserably failed to discharge this burden by the required quantum of proof.
Delsan’s
argument that it
should not be held liable
for the loss of diesel oil due
to backflow because the same had already been actually and legally
delivered to Caltex at the time it
entered the shore tank holds no water.
It had been settled that the subject cargo was still in the custody of Delsan
because the discharging thereof has not yet been finished when the backflow
occurred. Since the discharging of the
cargo into the depot has
not yet been
completed at the time of the spillage when the backflow
occurred, there is
no reason to
imply that there was actual delivery of the cargo to
the consignee. Delsan is straining the
issue by insisting that when the diesel oil entered into the tank of Caltex on
shore, there was legally, at that moment, a complete delivery thereof to
Caltex. To be sure,
the extraordinary responsibility of common carrier lasts from the time the
goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by, the
carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively,
by the carrier
to the consignee, or to a person who has the
right to receive them.[8] The discharging of oil products to Caltex Bulk
Depot has not
yet been finished,
Delsan still has the duty to guard and to
preserve the cargo. The carrier still
has in it the responsibility to guard and preserve the goods, a duty incident
to its having the goods transported.
To
recapitulate, common carriers,
from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound
to observe extraordinary diligence in vigilance over the goods and for the
safety of the passengers transported by them, according
to all the circumstances of each case.[9] The mere proof
of delivery of goods in good order to the carrier, and
their arrival in the place of
destination in bad order, make out a prima
facie case against the carrier, so
that if no explanation is given as to how the injury occurred, the carrier must
be held responsible. It is incumbent
upon the carrier to prove that the loss was due to accident or some other
circumstances inconsistent with its liability.[10]
All
told, Delsan, being a
common carrier, should have
exercised extraordinary diligence in the performance of its duties. Consequently, it is obliged
to prove that
the damage to
its cargo was
caused by one of the excepted
causes if it were to seek exemption from responsibility.[11]
Having failed to do so, Delsan must bear
the consequences.
WHEREFORE,
petition is DENIED and the assailed
decision of the CA is AFFIRMED in toto.
Cost against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution,
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Marina L. Buzon, concurring; Rollo, pp. 51-66.
[2] Rollo, pp. 103-107.
[3] Supra note 1.
[4] Art. 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738.
[5]
Maximino
Fuentes v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Thirteenth Division, and Virgilio Uy,
Brigido
Saguindang, Leoncio Caligang, et al., G.R. No. 109849, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 703.
[6]
[7] Martini Limited v. Macondray and Co., 39 Phil. 934 (1919).
[8] Article 1736, Civil Code.
[9] Article 1733, Civil Code.
[10] Ynchausti Steamship v. Dexter & Unson, 41 Phil. 289 (1920).
[11] Supra note 6.