GANZON v.
CA and control of the common carrier, and upon their receipt
Topic: Common Carriers; Contract of Transportation; Carriage of
Goods
FACTS:
 Tumambing hired the services of Ganzon to haul 305 tons of
scrap iron from Bataan to the Port of Manila
 Ganzon then sent his lighter “Batman” to Mariveles (Bataan)
where it docked in three feet of water
 Tumambing delivered the scrap iron to Niza, the captain of the
lighter Batman. Loading of the said scrap iron began that day
 However, the Mayor of Bataan, Mayor Advincula arrived in the
loading site and demanded Php 5,000 from Tumambing
 Tumambing resisted which led to an altercation. The
altercation made the Mayor pull out his gun and fire at
Tumambing – the gunshot wound was not fatal
 After sometime, the loading of scrap iron continued
 Acting Mayor Basilo Rub and three policemen arrived in the
loading site and ordered the crew to dump the scrap iron
 The remaining scrap iron was taken by the acting mayor and
was kept in the Municipality
 This led to the filing of the case against petitioner based on
culpa contractual
 RTC: Ganzon to pay Tumambing Php 5,895.00
 Petitioner argues that the said scrap iron was not yet put in
his custody, therefore he is not liable for damages
 However, he agrees with the respondent that the scraps was
delivered to Captain Niza for loading in the lighter Batman –
basically, petitioner received the scraps through his
employees
ISSUE: WON Ganzon should be held liable for damages for the
scrap iron
HELD:
 YES
 By the said delivery, the Supreme Court held that the
scraps were unconditionally placed in the possession
by the carrier for transportation, the contract of carriage
was deemed perfected.
o Article 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the
common carrier lasts from the time the goods are
unconditionally placed 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.
 The fact that part of the shipment had not been loaded on
board the lighter did not impair the said contract of
transportation as the goods remained in the custody and
control of the carrier, albeit still unloaded.
 Petitioner is presumed to have acted negligently. The Court is
not even required to make an express finding of fault or
negligence before it could hold the petitioner answerable for
the breach of contract of carriage. The only exception is if the
petitioner observed extraordinary diligence or the loss was
caused by foce majeure.
o Article 1734. Common carriers are responsible for
the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods,
unless the same is due to any of the following causes
only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other
natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether
international or civil;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of
the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the
packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.