Loadstar Shipping Co. v. CA

Facts:

On November 19, 1984, Loadstar received on board its vessel M/V Cherokee the following goods for shipment:

1. 705 bales of lawanit hardwood

2. 27 boxes and crates of tilewood assemblies and others

3. 49 bundles of mouldings R & W (3) Apitong Bolidenized

The goods, amounting to P6,067,178, were insured by Manila Insurance Co. The vessel is insured by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. On November 20, 1984, on its way to Manila from Agusan, the vessel sank off Limasawa Island. MIC paid the consignee P6,075,000 for the value of the goods lost, and filed a complaint against Loadstar and PGAI, claiming subrogation into the rights of the consignee. When PGAI paid Loadstar, it was dropped from the complaint. The trial court ruled against Loadstar, and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Loadstar submits that the vessel was a private carrier because it was not issued a certificate of public convenience, it did not have a regular trip or schedule nor a fixed route, and there was only "one shipper, one consignee for a special cargo." In refutation, MIC argues that the issue as to the classification of the M/V "Cherokee" was not timely raised below; hence, it is barred by estoppel. While it is true that the vessel had on board only the cargo of wood products for delivery to one consignee, it was also carrying passengers as part of its regular business. Moreover, the bills of lading in this case made no mention of any charter party but only a statement that the vessel was a "general cargo carrier." Neither was there any "special arrangement" between LOADSTAR and the shipper regarding the shipment of the cargo. The singular fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for one shipper is not sufficient to convert the vessel into a private carrier.

LOADSTAR argues that as a private carrier, it cannot be presumed to have been negligent, and the burden of proving otherwise devolved upon MIC. It also maintains that the vessel was seaworthy, and that the loss was due to force majeure. LOADSTAR goes on to argue that, being a private carrier, any agreement limiting its liability, such as what transpired in this case, is valid. Since the cargo was being shipped at "owner’s risk," LOADSTAR was not liable for any loss or damage to the same. Finally, LOADSTAR avers that MIC’s claim had already prescribed, the case having been instituted beyond the period stated in the bills of lading for instituting the same — suits based upon claims arising from shortage, damage, or non-delivery of shipment shall be instituted within sixty days from the accrual of the right of action. MIC, on the other hand, claims that LOADSTAR was liable, notwithstanding that the loss of the cargo was due to force majeure, because the same concurred with LOADSTAR’s fault or negligence. Secondly, LOADSTAR did not raise the issue of prescription in the court below; hence, the same must be deemed waived. Thirdly, the "limited liability" theory is not applicable in the case at bar because LOADSTAR was at fault or negligent, and because it failed to maintain a seaworthy vessel. Authorizing the voyage notwithstanding its knowledge of a typhoon is tantamount to negligence.

Issues:

(1) Whether Loadstar was a common carrier or a private carrier

(2) Whether Loadstar exercised the degree of diligence required under the circumstances

(3) Whether the stipulation that the goods are at “the owner’s risk” is valid

(4) Whether the action has prescribed

Held:

(1) We hold that LOADSTAR is a common carrier. It is not necessary that the carrier be issued a certificate of public convenience, and this public character is not altered by the fact that the carriage of the goods in question was periodic, occasional, episodic or unscheduled. There was no charter party. The bills of lading failed to show any special arrangement, but only a general provision to the effect that the M/V "Cherokee" was a "general cargo carrier." Further, the bare fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for one shipper, which appears to be purely coincidental, is not reason enough to convert the vessel from a common to a private carrier, especially where, as in this case, it was shown that the vessel was also carrying passengers.

(2) The doctrine of limited liability does not apply where there was negligence on the part of the vessel owner or agent. LOADSTAR was at fault or negligent in not maintaining a seaworthy vessel and in having allowed its vessel to sail despite knowledge of an approaching typhoon. In any event, it did not sink because of any storm that may be deemed as force majeure, inasmuch as the wind condition in the area where it sank was determined to be moderate. Since it was remiss in the performance of its duties, LOADSTAR cannot hide behind the "limited liability" doctrine to escape responsibility for the loss of the vessel and its cargo.

(3) Three kinds of stipulations have often been made in a bill of lading. The first is one exempting the carrier from any and all liability for loss or damage occasioned by its own negligence. The second is one providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed valuation. And the third is one limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight. According to an almost uniform weight of authority, the first and second kinds of stipulations are invalid as being contrary to public policy, but the third is valid and enforceable. Since the stipulation in question is null and void, it follows that when MIC paid the shipper, it was subrogated to all the rights which the latter has against the common carrier, LOADSTAR.

(4) MIC’s cause of action had not yet prescribed at the time it was concerned. Inasmuch as neither the Civil Code nor the Code of Commerce states a specific prescriptive period on the matter, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) — which provides for a one-year period of limitation on claims for loss of, or damage to, cargoes sustained during transit — may be applied suppletorily to the case at bar. This one-year prescriptive period also applies to the insurer of the goods. In this case, the period for filing the action for recovery has not yet elapsed. Moreover, a stipulation reducing the one-year period is null and void; it must, accordingly, be struck down.

Coastwise Lighterage Corporation v. CA

Facts:

Pag-asa Sales Inc. entered into a contract to transport molasses from the province of Negros to Manila with Coastwise Lighterage Corporation (Coastwise for brevity), using the latter's dumb barges. The barges were towed in tandem by the tugboat MT Marica, which is likewise owned by Coastwise. Upon reaching Manila Bay, one of the barges, "Coastwise 9", struck an unknown sunken object. The forward buoyancy compartment was damaged, and water gushed in through a hole "two inches wide and twenty-two inches long". As a consequence, the molasses at the cargo tanks were contaminated. Pag-asa filed a claim against Philippine General Insurance Company, the insurer of its cargo. Philgen paid P700,000 for the value of the molasses lost.

Philgen then filed an action against Coastwise to recover the money it paid, claiming to be subrogated to the claims which the consignee may have against the carrier. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled against Coastwise.

Issues:

(1) Whether Coastwise was transformed into a private carrier by virtue of the contract it entered into with Pag-asa, and whether it exercised the required degree of diligence

(2) Whether Philgen was subrogated into the rights of the consignee against the carrier

Held:

(1) Pag-asa Sales, Inc. only leased three of petitioner's vessels, in order to carry cargo from one point to another, but the possession, command mid navigation of the vessels remained with petitioner Coastwise Lighterage. Coastwise Lighterage, by the contract of affreightment, was not converted into a private carrier, but remained a common carrier and was still liable as such. The law and jurisprudence on common carriers both hold that the mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier and the subsequent arrival of the same goods at the place of destination in bad order makes for a prima facie case against the carrier. It follows then that the presumption of negligence that attaches to common carriers, once the goods it is sports are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, applies to the petitioner. This presumption, which is overcome only by proof of the exercise of extraordinary diligence, remained unrebutted in this case. Jesus R. Constantino, the patron of the vessel "Coastwise 9" admitted that he was not licensed. Coastwise Lighterage cannot safely claim to have exercised extraordinary diligence, by placing a person whose navigational skills are questionable, at the helm of the vessel which eventually met the fateful accident. It may also logically, follow that a person without license to navigate, lacks not just the skill to do so, but also the utmost familiarity with the usual and safe routes taken by seasoned and legally authorized ones. Had the patron been licensed he could be presumed to have both the skill and the knowledge that would have prevented the vessel's hitting the sunken derelict ship that lay on their way to Pier 18. As a common carrier, petitioner is liable for breach of the contract of carriage, having failed to overcome the presumption of negligence with the loss and destruction of goods it transported, by proof of its exercise of extraordinary diligence.

(2) Article 2207 of the Civil Code is founded on the well-settled principle of subrogation. If the insured property is destroyed or damaged through the fault or negligence of a party other than the assured, then the insurer, upon payment to the assured will be subrogated to the rights of the assured to recover from the wrongdoer to the extent that the insurer has been obligated to pay. Payment by the insurer to the assured operated as an equitable assignment to the former of all remedies which the latter may have against the third party whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss. The right of subrogation is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any private of contract or upon written assignment of, claim. It accrues simply upon payment of the insurance claim by the insurer.

Planters Products, Inc. v. CA

Facts:

Planters Products, Inc. purchased from Mitsubishi International Corporation 9,329.7069 metric tons of Urea 46% fertilizer, which the latter shipped aboard the cargo vessel M/V Sun Plum on June 16, 1974. Prior to its voyage, a time-charter party was entered into between Mitsubishi as shipper, and Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha as shipowner. Before loading the fertilizer aboard the vessel, four of her holds were presumably inspected by the charterer’s representative and found it fit to take the load. After loading the cargo, the steel hatches were closed with heavy iron lids, covered with 3 layers of tarpaulin then tied with steel bonds. It remained sealed throughout the entire voyage.

Upon arrival of the vessel, petitioner unloaded the cargo, which took 11 days. A private marine and cargo surveyor, Cargo Superintendents Company, Inc. (CSCI) was hired by petitioner to determine the outturn of the cargo shipped. CSCI reported shortage of 106.726 metric tons, and contamination of 18 metric tons due to dirt. PPI sent a claim letter against Soriamont Steamship Agencies, the resident agent of KKKK. The request was denied, hence, PPI filed an action for damages before the CFI Manila. The lower court sustained the petitioner’s claim, but such decision was reversed by the appellate court, which absolved the carrier from liability. The appellate court ruled that the vessel was a private carrier and not a common carrier by reason of the charter party.

Issues:

(1) Whether a common carrier becomes a private carrier by reason of a charter party

(2) Whether the ship owner was able to prove the exercise of the diligence required under the circumstances

Held:

(1) A "charter-party" is defined as a contract by which an entire ship, or some principal part thereof, is let by the owner to another person for a specified time or use; Charter parties are of two types: (a) contract of affreightment which involves the use of shipping space on vessels leased by the owner in part or as a whole, to carry goods for others; and, (b) charter by demise or bareboat charter, by the terms of which the whole vessel is let to the charterer with a transfer to him of its entire command and possession and consequent control over its navigation, including the master and the crew, who are his servants. Contract of affreightment may either be time charter, wherein the vessel is leased to the charterer for a fixed period of time, or voyage charter, wherein the ship is leased for a single voyage.

Upon the other hand, the term "common or public carrier" is defined in Art. 1732 of the Civil Code. The definition extends to carriers either by land, air or water which hold themselves out as ready to engage in carrying goods or transporting passengers or both for compensation as a public employment and not as a casual occupation. The distinction between a "common or public carrier" and a "private or special carrier" lies in the character of the business, such that if the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of the general business or occupation, although involving the carriage of goods for a fee, the person or corporation offering such service is a private carrier. Article 1733 of the New Civil Code mandates that common carriers, by reason of the nature of their business, should observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods they carry. In the case of private carriers, however, the exercise of ordinary diligence in the carriage of goods will suffice. Moreover, in case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, and the burden of proving otherwise rests on them. On the contrary, no such presumption applies to private carriers, for whosoever alleges damage to or deterioration of the goods carried has the onus of proving that the cause was the negligence of the carrier.

When petitioner chartered the vessel M/V "Sun Plum", the ship captain, its officers and compliment were under the employ of the shipowner and therefore continued to be under its direct supervision and control. Hardly then can we charge the charterer, a stranger to the crew and to the ship, with the duty of caring for his cargo when the charterer did not have any control of the means in doing so. This is evident in the present case considering that the steering of the ship, the manning of the decks, the determination of the course of the voyage and other technical incidents of maritime navigation were all consigned to the officers and crew who were screened, chosen and hired by the shipowner. It is only when the charter includes both the vessel and its crew, as in a bareboat or demise that a common carrier becomes private, at least insofar as the particular voyage covering the charter-party is concerned.

(2) In an action for recovery of damages against a common carrier on the goods shipped, the shipper or consignee should first prove the fact of shipment and its consequent loss or damage while the same was in the possession, actual or constructive, of the carrier. Thereafter, the burden of proof shifts to respondent to prove that he has exercised extraordinary diligence required by law or that the loss, damage or deterioration of the cargo was due to fortuitous event, or some other circumstances inconsistent with its liability. To our mind, respondent carrier has sufficiently overcome, by clear and convincing proof, the prima facie presumption of negligence.

Before the fertilizer was loaded, the four (4) hatches of the vessel were cleaned, dried and fumigated. After completing the loading of the cargo in bulk in the ship's holds, the steel pontoon hatches were closed and sealed with iron lids, then covered with three (3) layers of serviceable tarpaulins which were tied with steel bonds. The hatches remained close and tightly sealed while the ship was in transit as the weight of the steel covers made it impossible for a person to open without the use of the ship's boom. It was also shown during the trial that the hull of the vessel was in good condition, foreclosing the possibility of spillage of the cargo into the sea or seepage of water inside the hull of the vessel. When M/V "Sun Plum" docked at its berthing place, representatives of the consignee boarded, and in the presence of a representative of the shipowner, the foreman, the stevedores, and a cargo surveyor representing CSCI, opened the hatches and inspected the condition of the hull of the vessel. The stevedores unloaded the cargo under the watchful eyes of the shipmates who were overseeing the whole operation on rotation basis.

The period during which private respondent was to observe the degree of diligence required of it as a public carrier began from the time the cargo was unconditionally placed in its charge after the vessel's holds were duly inspected and passed scrutiny by the shipper, up to and until the vessel reached its destination and its hull was re-examined by the consignee, but prior to unloading. A shipowner is liable for damage to the cargo resulting from improper stowage only when the stowing is done by stevedores employed by him, and therefore under his control and supervision, not when the same is done by the consignee or stevedores under the employ of the latter.

Common carriers are not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods if caused by the character of the goods or defects in the packaging or in the containers. The primary cause of these spillages is the clamped shell which does not seal very tightly. Also, the wind tends to blow away some of the materials during the unloading process. The probability of the cargo being damaged or getting mixed or contaminated with foreign particles was made greater by the fact that the fertilizer was transported in "bulk," thereby exposing it to the inimical effects of the elements and the grimy condition of the various pieces of equipment used in transporting and hauling it. If there was loss or contamination of the cargo, it was more likely to have occurred while the same was being transported from the ship to the dump trucks and finally to the consignee's warehouse.

Bulk shipment of highly soluble goods like fertilizer carries with it the risk of loss or damage, more so, with a variable weather condition prevalent during its unloading, as was the case at bar. This is a risk the shipper or the owner of the goods has to face. Clearly, respondent carrier has sufficiently proved the inherent character of the goods which makes it highly vulnerable to deterioration; as well as the inadequacy of its packaging which further contributed to the loss. On the other hand, no proof was adduced by the petitioner showing that the carrier was remiss in the exercise of due diligence in order to minimize the loss or damage to the goods it carried.