Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 205 views

    G.R. No. 114167 Coastwise V CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ojie Santillan
    The Supreme Court ruled that Coastwise Lighterage Corporation remained a common carrier and was liable for the damaged cargo, despite entering into a contract of affreightment with the consignee Pag-asa Sales, Inc. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Coastwise was presumed negligent once the cargo of molasses was lost, as common carriers must prove they exercised extraordinary diligence to avoid liability. This presumption was not rebutted, as Coastwise used an unlicensed vessel captain, violating regulations and indicating a lack of skill that could have prevented the accident causing the damage. The insurer Philippine General Insurance Company, who paid Pag-asa Sales for the lost cargo, could thus recover damages from Coastwise as the liable common

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 114167 Coastwise V CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ojie Santillan
    205 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Coastwise Lighterage Corporation remained a common carrier and was liable for the damaged cargo, despite entering into a contract of affreightment with the consignee Pag-asa Sales, Inc. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Coastwise was presumed negligent once the cargo of molasses was lost, as common carriers must prove they exercised extraordinary diligence to avoid liability. This presumption was not rebutted, as Coastwise used an unlicensed vessel captain, violating regulations and indicating a lack of skill that could have prevented the accident causing the damage. The insurer Philippine General Insurance Company, who paid Pag-asa Sales for the lost cargo, could thus recover damages from Coastwise as the liable common

    Original Description:

    Case Digest Coastwise v CA

    Original Title

    G.R. No. 114167 Coastwise v CA - 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?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Coastwise Lighterage Corporation remained a common carrier and was liable for the damaged cargo, despite entering into a contract of affreightment with the consignee Pag-asa Sales, Inc. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Coastwise was presumed negligent once the cargo of molasses was lost, as common carriers must prove they exercised extraordinary diligence to avoid liability. This presumption was not rebutted, as Coastwise used an unlicensed vessel captain, violating regulations and indicating a lack of skill that could have prevented the accident causing the damage. The insurer Philippine General Insurance Company, who paid Pag-asa Sales for the lost cargo, could thus recover damages from Coastwise as the liable common

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 114167 Coastwise V CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ojie Santillan
    The Supreme Court ruled that Coastwise Lighterage Corporation remained a common carrier and was liable for the damaged cargo, despite entering into a contract of affreightment with the consignee Pag-asa Sales, Inc. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Coastwise was presumed negligent once the cargo of molasses was lost, as common carriers must prove they exercised extraordinary diligence to avoid liability. This presumption was not rebutted, as Coastwise used an unlicensed vessel captain, violating regulations and indicating a lack of skill that could have prevented the accident causing the damage. The insurer Philippine General Insurance Company, who paid Pag-asa Sales for the lost cargo, could thus recover damages from Coastwise as the liable common

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    114167 July 12, 1995

    COASTWISE LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION, petitioner,


    vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS and the PHILIPPINE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, respondents.

    FRANCISCO, R., J.:

    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, while approaching Pier 18, one of the barges, "Coastwise 9", struck an unknown sunken object causing
    a hole in the forward compartment. As a consequence, the molasses at the cargo tanks were contaminated
    and rendered unfit for the use it was intended. This prompted the consignee, Pag-asa Sales, Inc. to reject the
    shipment of molasses as a total loss. Thereafter, Pag-asa Sales, Inc. filed a formal claim with the insurer of its
    lost cargo, herein private respondent, Philippine General Insurance Company (PhilGen, for short) and against
    the carrier, herein petitioner, Coastwise Lighterage. Coastwise Lighterage denied the claim and it was
    PhilGen which paid the consignee, Pag-asa Sales, Inc., the amount of P700,000.00, representing the value of
    the damaged cargo of molasses;
     In turn, PhilGen then filed an action against Coastwise Lighterage before the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
    seeking to recover the amount of P700,000.00 which it paid to Pag-asa Sales, Inc. for the latter's lost cargo.
    PhilGen now claims to be subrogated to all the contractual rights and claims which the consignee may have
    against the carrier, which is presumed to have violated the contract of carriage;
     The RTC awarded the amount prayed for by PhilGen. On Coastwise Lighterage's appeal to the Court of
    Appeals, the award was affirmed.

    ISSUE:

    Whether petitioner was transformed into a private carrier, by virtue of the contract of affreightment which it
    entered into with the consignee. (NO)

    RULING:
    Petitioner admits that the contract it entered into with the consignee was one of affreightment .5 We agree.
    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 and navigation of the vessels remained with petitioner Coastwise Lighterage.

    Pursuant therefore to the ruling in the Puromines case, 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
    transports 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.

    It was found that the patron of the vessel "Coastwise 9" admitted that he was not licensed. Clearly,
    petitioner Coastwise Lighterage's embarking on a voyage with an unlicensed patron violates this rule. It 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.

    You might also like