Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
*
G.R. No. 150255. April 22, 2005.
* THIRD DIVISION.
558
559
560
561
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
1
On petition for review is the June 27, 2001 Decision2
of the
Court of Appeals, as well as its Resolution dated
September 28, 2001 denying the motion for
reconsideration, which affirmed that of Branch 21 of the
Regional
3
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Civil Case No. 92-
63132 holding petitioner Schmitz Transport Brokerage
Corporation (Schmitz Transport), together with Black Sea
Shipping Corporation (Black Sea), represented by its ship
agent Inchcape Shipping Inc. (Inchcape), and Transport
Venture Inc. (TVI), solidarily liable for the loss of 37 hot
rolled steel sheets in coil that were washed overboard a
barge.
On September 25, 1991, SYTCO Pte Ltd. Singapore
shipped from the port of Ilyichevsk, Russia on board M/V
“Alexander Saveliev” (a vessel of Russian registry and
owned by Black Sea) 545 hot rolled steel sheets in coil
weighing 6,992,450 metric tons.
The cargoes, which were to be discharged at the port of
Manila in favor of the consignee,
4
Little Giant Steel Pipe
Corporation (Little Giant), were insured against all risks
with Industrial Insurance Company Ltd. (Industrial 5
Insurance) under Marine Policy No. M-91-3747-TIS.
The vessel arrived at the port of Manila on October 24,
1991 and the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) assigned it
a
_______________
562
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation vs. Transport
Venture, Inc.
_______________
6 Rollo at p. 195.
7 Id., at p. 32.
8 Records at p. 472.
9 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), July 18, 1996 at p. 18.
10 Records at p. 333.
11 Id., at pp. 332, 464.
12 Rollo at p. 125.
13 TSN, July 18, 1996 at p. 19.
563
_______________
14 Rollo at p. 125.
15 Records at p. 317.
16 Id., at pp. 1-6.
17 Id., at pp. 318-321.
18 Rollo at p. 176.
19 Id., at p. 177.
564
_______________
565
_______________
566
_______________
567
the cargoes at
36
an unsafe place and while a typhoon was
approaching.
From a review of the records of the case, there is no
indication that there was greater risk in loading the
cargoes outside the breakwater. As the defendants
proffered, the weather on October 26, 1991 remained
normal with moderate sea condition such 37
that port
operations continued and proceeded
38
normally.
The weather data report, furnished and verified by the
Chief of the Climate Data Section of PAG-ASA and marked
as a common exhibit of the parties, states that while
typhoon signal No. 1 was hoisted over Metro Manila on
October 23-31, 1991, the sea condition at the port of Manila
at 5:00 p.m. -11:00 p.m. of October 26, 1991 was moderate.
It cannot, therefore, be said that the defendants were
negligent in not unloading the cargoes upon the barge on
October 26, 1991 inside the breakwater.
That no tugboat towed back the barge to the pier after
the cargoes were completely loaded by 12:30 in the
39
39
morning is, however, a material fact which the appellate
40
court failed to properly consider and appreciate —the
proximate cause of the loss of the cargoes. Had the barge
been towed back promptly to the pier, the deteriorating sea
conditions notwithstanding, the loss could have been
avoided. But the barge was left floating in open sea until
big waves set in at 5:30 a.m., causing it to
_______________
36 Id., at p. 61.
37 Id., at pp. 33, 225; CA Rollo at p. 33.
38 Records at pp. 318-321.
39 TSN, July 18, 1996 at p. 19.
40 In Philippine American General Insurance Company v. PKS
Shipping Company, 401 SCRA 222, 230 (2003), this Court has held that
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive but one of
the exceptions is when the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain
relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion.
568
41
sink along with the cargoes. The loss thus falls outside the
“act of God doctrine.”
The proximate cause of the loss having been determined,
who among the parties is/are responsible therefor?
Contrary to petitioner’s insistence, this Court, as did the
appellate court, finds that petitioner is a common carrier.
For it undertook to transport the cargoes from the shipside
of “M/V Alexander Saveliev” to the consignee’s warehouse
at Cainta, Rizal. As the appellate court put it, “as long as a
person or corporation holds [itself] to the public for the
purpose of transporting goods as [a] business, [it] is already
considered a common carrier regardless 42
if [it] owns the
vehicle to be used or has to hire one.” That petitioner is a
common carrier, the testimony of its own Vice-President
and General Manager Noel Aro that part of the services it
offers to its clients as a brokerage firm includes the
transportation of cargoes reflects so.
_______________
569
570
_______________
571
_______________
47 Calvo v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., 379 SCRA 510, 517
(2002).
48 Records at p. 521.
49 Rollo at p. 90.
50 Article 652 (5) of the Code of Commerce provides that the charter
party shall contain the name, surname, and domicile of the charterer; and
if he states that he is acting by commission, that of the person for whose
account he makes the contract.
51 T. SCHOENBAUM, ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW 330 (1987).
572
_______________
573
_______________
ing and after the occurrence of flood, storm or other natural disaster in order
that the common carrier may be exempted from liability for the loss, destruction,
or deterioration of the good. x x x
54 TSN, February 4, 1997 at pp. 14-15.
55 Id., at p. 22.
56 CIVIL CODE, Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are
liable for a quasi-delict is solidary.
574
aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a
liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that
which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an act which
constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the
source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed
between the parties, the contract can be said to have57
been breached
by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
_______________
57 Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad, 397 SCRA 75, 82-83 (2003).
58 CIVIL CODE, Art. 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the
common carriers lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally laced
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. Vide Eastern Shipping Lines
Inc. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 78 (1994).
59 Records at p. 7.
60 Vide A/S Dampskibsselskabet Torm v. McDermott, Inc., 788 F.2d
1103, 1987 A.M.C. 353 (May 5, 1986). Vide Proctor and Gamble,
575
_______________
Limited v. M/T Stolt Llandaff, 664 F.2d 1285, 1982 A.M.C. 2517
(January 4, 1982).
61 National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 45, 78-79
(1997).
62 Id., at pp. 45, 79.
63 Iron Bulk Shipping Philippines, Cp. Ltd. v. Remington Industrial
Sales Corporation, 417 SCRA 229, 240 (2003).
64 234 SCRA 78 (1994).
65 Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra at pp. 78, 96-
97.
576
Judgment modified.
——o0o——
577
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.