Digest By: Nicole Kristine Dagohoy: Presumption of Negligence

BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING AND SHIPPING N.V.
and handling and stowage, including such methods as their nature

JARDINE DAVIES TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. vs. PHILIPPINE requires." The extraordinary responsibility lasts from the time
FIRST INSURANCE CO., INC. the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of and
Digest by: Nicole Kristine Dagohoy received for transportation by the carrier until they are
delivered, actually or constructively, to the consignee or to the
Facts: On June 13, 1990, CMC Trading A.G. shipped on board person who has a right to receive them.
the M/V 'Anangel Sky' at Hamburg, Germany 242 coils of
various Prime Cold Rolled Steel sheets for transportation to This strict requirement is justified by the fact that, without a
Manila consigned to the Philippine Steel Trading Corporation. hand or a voice in the preparation of such contract, the riding
On July 28, 1990, M/V Anangel Sky arrived at the port of public enters into a contract of transportation with common
Manila and, within the subsequent days, discharged the subject carriers. Even if it wants to, it cannot submit its own stipulations
cargo. Four (4) coils were found to be in bad order B.O. Tally for their approval. Hence, it merely adheres to the agreement
sheet No. 154974. Finding the four (4) coils in their damaged prepared by them.
state to be unfit for the intended purpose, the consignee
Philippine Steel Trading Corporation declared the same as total Presumption of Negligence
loss. Owing to this high degree of diligence required of them,
common carriers, as a general rule, are presumed to have been
Despite receipt of a formal demand, defendants-appellees at fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated
refused to submit to the consignee's claim. Consequently, or got lost or destroyed. That is, unless they prove that they
plaintiff-appellant paid the consignee five hundred six exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods.19
thousand eighty six & 50/100 pesos (P506,086.50), and was In order to avoid responsibility for any loss or damage,
subrogated to the latter's rights and causes of action against therefore, they have the burden of proving that they observed
defendants-appellees. Subsequently, plaintiff-appellant such diligence.
instituted this complaint for recovery of the amount paid by
them, to the consignee as insured. Exception to the presumption of Negligence
However, the presumption of fault or negligence will not arise
Impugning the propriety of the suit against them, defendants- if the loss is due to any of the following causes: (1) flood,
appellees imputed that the damage and/or loss was due to storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or
pre-shipment damage, to the inherent nature, vice or defect of calamity; (2) an act of the public enemy in war, whether
the goods, or to perils, danger and accidents of the sea, or to international or civil; (3) an act or omission of the shipper or
insufficiency of packing thereof, or to the act or omission of the owner of the goods; (4) the character of the goods or defects in
shipper of the goods or their representatives. In addition the packing or the container; or (5) an order or act of
thereto, defendants-appellees argued that their liability, if there competent public authority. This is a closed list. If the cause of
be any, should not exceed the limitations of liability provided destruction, loss or deterioration is other than the enumerated
for in the bill of lading and other pertinent laws. Finally, circumstances, then the carrier is liable therefor.
defendants-appellees averred that, in any event, they exercised
due diligence and foresight required by law to prevent any Corollary to the foregoing, mere proof of delivery of the goods
damage/loss to said shipment. in good order to a common carrier and of their arrival in bad
order at their destination constitutes a prima facie case of fault
Issue: Whether or not petitioner have overcome the or negligence against the carrier. If no adequate explanation is
presumption of negligence of a common carrier. –NO. given as to how the deterioration, the loss or the destruction of
the goods happened, the transporter shall be held responsible.
Ruling: Petitioners contend that the presumption of fault
imposed on common carriers should not be applied on the Held: That petitioners failed to rebut the prima facie
basis of the lone testimony offered by private respondent. The presumption of negligence is revealed in the case at bar by a
contention is untenable. review of the records and more so by the evidence adduced by
respondent.
Well-settled is the rule that common carriers, from the nature
of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to 1. As stated in the Bill of Lading, petitioners received the
observe extraordinary diligence and vigilance with respect to subject shipment in good order and condition in
the safety of the goods and the passengers they transport.13 Hamburg, Germany.
Thus, common carriers are required to render service with the 2. Prior to the unloading of the cargo, an Inspection
greatest skill and foresight and "to use all reason[a]ble means Report prepared and signed by representatives of
to ascertain the nature and characteristics of the goods both parties showed the steel bands broken, the
tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the
metal envelopes rust-stained and heavily buckled, and
the contents thereof exposed and rusty.
3. Bad Order Tally Sheet No. 15497928 issued by Jardine
Davies Transport Services, Inc., stated that the four
coils were in bad order and condition. Normally, a
request for a bad order survey is made in case there is
an apparent or a presumed loss or damage.
4. The Certificate of Analysis30 stated that, based on the
sample submitted and tested, the steel sheets found
in bad order were wet with fresh water.
5. Petitioners -- in a letter addressed to the Philippine
Steel Coating Corporation and dated October 12,
1990 -- admitted that they were aware of the
condition of the four coils found in bad order and
condition.

Digest By: Nicole Kristine Dagohoy: Presumption of Negligence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest By: Nicole Kristine Dagohoy: Presumption of Negligence

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Digest By: Nicole Kristine Dagohoy: Presumption of Negligence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING AND SHIPPING N.V.

and handling and stowage, including such methods as their nature

You might also like