Presumption of Negligence
SOMETIME in July 1994, GP Trucking Co. (GP) undertook
delivery of 30 units of refrigerators from the
plant site of Carnation Industries to a dealer
of appliances in Dagupan City. But while the truck
loaded with refrigerators was traversing the North
Expressway, it collided with another truck causing
the destruction of all refrigerators.
As the insurer, LGU Insurance Co. (LGU) paid
Carnation Industries the value of the damaged
refrigerators. LGU as the subrogee sought reimbursement
from GP. GP refused to pay LGU, prompting the
latter to file a complaint for damages with the
Regional Trial Court of Makati.
Trial on the merits ensued. After LGU concluded
the presentation of its evidence, GP filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint by way of demurrer to
evidence on the ground that LGU has failed to
prove that GP was a common carrier.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss
on the ground that LGU failed to adduce evidence
that GP was a common carrier whereby the presumption
of fault or negligence may apply. LGU’s
motion for reconsideration was denied. Thus, it
interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals upheld the order of dismissal
of the trial court. And it likewise denied the
motion for reconsideration by LGU.
LGU elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court ruled in the following tenor:
Ò x x x. Indeed, agreements can accomplish
little, either for their makers or for society,
unless they are made the basis for action. The
effect of every infraction is to create a new
duty, that is, to make recompense to the one who
has been injured by the failure of another to
observe his contractual obligation unless he can
show extenuating circumstances, like proof of
his exercise of due diligence (normally that of
the diligence of a good father of a family or,
exceptionally by stipulation or by law such as
in the case of common carriers, that of extraordinary
diligence) or of the attendance of fortuitous
event, to excuse him from his ensuing liability.
Respondent trucking corporation (GP) recognizes
the existence of the contract of carriage between
it and petitioner’s assured (Carnation Industries),
and admits that the cargoes it has assumed to
deliver have been lost or damaged while in its
custody. In such a situation, a default on, or
failure of compliance with, the obligation –
in this case, the delivery of the goods in its
custody to the place of destination – gives
rise to a presumption of lack of care and corresponding
liability on the part of the contractual obligor
the burden being on him to establish otherwise.
x x xÓ.
If a trucking company acts as a common carrier,
the presumption of fault or negligence may therefore
apply. Otherwise, the presumption would not arise.
Consequently, the negligence of the trucking company
must be duly proven.
For questions or comments, email the writer at
jtb@pac-atlantic.com.ph.
Back to top
Loss or Damage to Goods
Under Sec 3(6) of the COGSA
SOMETIME in 1991, LL Manufacturing
Corporation entered into a contract of carriage
with MOSK Lines Ltd for the transportation of
its goods from Manila to Le Havre, France. The
latter undertook to deliver the goods to Le Havre,
France within a period of 28 days from initial
loading.
However, in Kaoshiung, Taiwan, the goods were
not transshipped immediately and these arrived
in Le Havre, France not within the period committed
by the carrier. The consignee allegedly paid only
half of the value of the said goods on the ground
that these arrived in France during the "off
season". Thus, LL Manufacturing Corporation
demanded the payment of the remaining half from
MOSK Lines, Ltd.
MOSK Lines Ltd denied the claim of LL Manufacturing
Corporation. And the latter filed a complaint
with the Regional Trial Court.
MOSK Lines Ltd filed a motion to dismiss alleging
that the claim against it had prescribed under
the Carriage of Goods By Sea Act (COGSA). The
Regional Trial Court denied the carrier's motion
as well as its motion for reconsideration. And
the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's
orders.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court. And
the Supreme Court ruled in the following tenor:
As defined in the Civil Code and applied to Section
3(6), paragraph 4 of the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Act, "loss" contemplates merely
a situation where no delivery at all was made
by the shipper of the goods because the same had
perished, gone out of commerce or disappeared
in such a way that their existence is unknown
or they cannot be recovered.
Indeed, what is in issue in this petition is
not the liability of petitioner (MOSK Lines, Ltd.)
for its handling of the goods as provided by Sec.
3(6) of the COGSA, but its liability under its
contract of carriage with private respondent (LL
Manufacturing Corporation) as covered by laws
of more general application.
Precisely, the question before the trial court
is not the particular sense of "damages"
as it refers to the physical loss or damage of
a shipper's goods as specifically covered by Sec.
3(6) of COGSA but petitioner's potential liability
for the damages it has caused in the general sense
and as such, the matter is governed by the Civil
Code.
We conclude by holding that as the suit below
is not for "loss or damage" to goods
contemplated in Sec. 3(6), the question of prescription
of action is not governed by COGSA but by Art.
1144 of the Civil Code which provides a prescriptive
period of ten years."
Thus, if the losses or damages suffered by the
shipper or the consignee were due to the arrival
of the goods in damaged or deteriorated condition,
the action must be filed within the period of
one year from the delivery or receipt as provided
by the COGSA.
Back to top
Carrier's Liability for Backflow
SOMETIME in 1991, LL Manufacturing
Corporation entered into a contract of carriage
with MOSK Lines Ltd for the transportation of
its goods from Manila to Le Havre, France. The
latter undertook to deliver the goods to Le Havre,
France within a period of 28 days from initial
loading.
However, in Kaoshiung, Taiwan, the goods were
not transshipped immediately and these arrived
in Le Havre, France not within the period committed
by the carrier. The consignee allegedly paid only
half of the value of the said goods on the ground
that these arrived in France during the "off
season". Thus, LL Manufacturing Corporation
demanded the payment of the remaining half from
MOSK Lines, Ltd.
MOSK Lines Ltd denied the claim of LL Manufacturing
Corporation. And the latter filed a complaint
with the Regional Trial Court.
MOSK Lines Ltd filed a motion to dismiss alleging
that the claim against it had prescribed under
the Carriage of Goods By Sea Act (COGSA). The
Regional Trial Court denied the carrier's motion
as well as its motion for reconsideration. And
the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's
orders.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court. And
the Supreme Court ruled in the following tenor:
As defined in the Civil Code and applied to Section
3(6), paragraph 4 of the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Act, "loss" contemplates merely
a situation where no delivery at all was made
by the shipper of the goods because the same had
perished, gone out of commerce or disappeared
in such a way that their existence is unknown
or they cannot be recovered.
Indeed, what is in issue in this petition is
not the liability of petitioner (MOSK Lines, Ltd.)
for its handling of the goods as provided by Sec.
3(6) of the COGSA, but its liability under its
contract of carriage with private respondent (LL
Manufacturing Corporation) as covered by laws
of more general application.
Precisely, the question before the trial court
is not the particular sense of "damages"
as it refers to the physical loss or damage of
a shipper's goods as specifically covered by Sec.
3(6) of COGSA but petitioner's potential liability
for the damages it has caused in the general sense
and as such, the matter is governed by the Civil
Code.
We conclude by holding that as the suit below
is not for "loss or damage" to goods
contemplated in Sec. 3(6), the question of prescription
of action is not governed by COGSA but by Art.
1144 of the Civil Code which provides a prescriptive
period of ten years."
Thus, if the losses or damages suffered by the
shipper or the consignee were due to the arrival
of the goods in damaged or deteriorated condition,
the action must be filed within the period of
one year from the delivery or receipt as provided
by the COGSA.
For comment or inquiries, contact
the writer at jtb@pac-atlantic.com.ph.
You are now in: Narrow
Channel Archive : 2006 Q3
Back to top |
