GR 112287 Dec. 12, 1997 National Steel Corp (p) v. CA and Vlasons Shipping Inc (r) GR112350 Dec.

12, 1997 Vlasons Shipping, Inc. (p) v. CA and NSC (r) FACTS: Defendant VSI owns MV Vlasons I, a vessel which renders tramping service, and as such, does not transport cargo for the general public. Its services are available only to specific persons who enter into a special contract of charter party with its owner. It is undisputed that the ship is a private carrier and not a common carrier. It is in this capacity that it entered into a contract of affreightment or contract of voyage charter hire with plaintiff, National Steel Corporation. Before the vessel set sail, it was dry-docked for inspection and was given the green light to travel by the Philippine Coast Guard by providing a seaworthiness certificate. The ship encountered rough weather during its voyage from plaintiffs pier at Iligan City to the North Harbor in Manila. Pursuant to par. 5 of the NANYOZAI Charter Party agreement which was expressly made part of the Contract of Voyage Charter Hire entered into by plaintiff and defendant, the loading, stowing and discharging of the cargo is the sole responsibility of the plaintiff charterer and defendant carrier has no liability for whatever damage that may occur or may be caused to the cargo in the process. Upon the ships arrival at the North Harbor pier, the stevedores hired by the plaintiff to discharge the cargo of tinplates were negligent in not closing the hatch openings of the MV VLASONS I when rains occurred during the discharging of the cargo, thus allowing rainwater to enter the hatches. They merely setup tents to cover the hatch openings in case of rain so it would be easy for them to resume work when the rains stopped by just removing the tent or canvass. Because of this, rain and seawater drifted into the cargo through the hatch openings, exposing the metal sheets to water which caused it to rust and sustain damage. The ship owners representative inspected the unloading process and advised the stevedores of the negligence but no action was done. It was then reported to the companys representatives who likewise did nothing to remedy the situation. Lastly, due to the owners concern for the cargo, the owners representative then made a letter to the National Steel Corporation regarding the matter. Plaintiff however put the blame on the defendant. A case was filed at the lower court, to which a decision was made in favor of defendant, requiring plaintiff to pay for unpaid freight, demurrage and attorneys fees.

An appeal was made by plaintiff to the CA. The CA affirmed the lower courts decision but modified the demurrage to half and deleting attorneys fees and expenses for litigation. Both plaintiff and defendant then appealed the CAs decision to the Supreme Court. ISSUE: When, How, and Who caused the damage to the cargo? HELD: Both the lower courts found that such damage was brought about during the unloading process when rain and seawater seeped through the cargo due to the FAULT or NEGLIGENCE of the STEVEDORES employed by the plaintiff. Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the SC. Although there are settled exceptions, plaintiff has not satisfactorily shown that this case is one of them.

GR101503 Sept. 15, 1993 Planters Products, Inc. (P) v. CA, Soriamont Steamship Agencies, and Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha (r) Plaintiff Planters Products, Inc. (PPI) purchased Urea fertilizer from Mitsubishi Intl. Corp of New York, which was shipped in bulk (bulk cargo not packaged in bundles or containers.) aboard the M/V Sun Plum, owned by Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha (KKKK) of Japan, herein represented by its resident agent Soriamont Steamship Agencies (SSA), from Kenai, Alaska, U.S.A to Poro Point, La Union, Philippines. Before loading the fertilizer aboard the vessel, 4 of her holds were all presumably inspected by the charterers representative and found fit to take a load of urea in bulk. After the Urea was loaded in bulk by stevedores hired by and under the supervision of the shipper, the steel hatches were closed with heavy iron lids, covered with 3 layers of tarpaulin, then tied with steel bonds. The hatches remained closed and tightly sealed throughout the entire voyage. Upon arrival, petitioner unloaded the cargo from the holds into its dump trucks. It took 11 days for the unloading to finish, after which, it was learned that the cargo was lacking in weight. A case was filed for recovery of damages corresponding to the loss incurred. The defendant carrier argued that the strict public policy governing common carriers does not apply to them since they have become private carriers by reason of the provisions of the charter-party. The court a quo however sustained the claim of the plaintiff by assessing payment of damages for the value of the goods lost. On appeal, the CA reversed the lower court decision and absolved the carrier from liability, hence, this appeal by PPI to the SC. ISSUE: Whether a common carrier becomes a private carrier by reason of a charter-party. (NO) HELD: A public carrier shall remain as such, notwithstanding the charter of the whole or portion of a vessel by one or more persons, provided the charter is limited to the ship only, as in the case of a time-charter or voyage-charter. 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 charterparty is concerned. Indubitably, a shipowner in a time or voyage charter retains possession and control of the ship, although her holds may, for the moment be the property of the charterer.

However, the presumption of negligence has been overcome by the carrier in the care of the cargo. Bulk shipment of highly soluble goods like fertilizer carries with it risk of loss or damage, which a shipper 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 PPI showing that the carrier was remise in the exercise of due diligence in order to minimized the loss or damage to the goods it carried.

GR47822 Dec. 22, 1988 Pedro De Guzman (p) v. CA and Ernesto Cendana (r) FACTS: Respondent Cendena is a junk dealer who utilizes 2 six-wheeler trucks to haul scrap materials from his place in Pangasinan to Manila for resale. On the return trip, he would load his trucks with cargoes of other merchants who want their goods delivered in Pangasinan. Petitioner De Guzman contracted respondent to pick up 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from Makati, Rizal for delivery to Urdaneta Pangasinan. He drives the first truck containing 150 cartons of milk, and his driver drives the other one containing 600 cartons. Only 150 cartons of milk reached the petitioner since the second truck containing the 600 cartons were hijacked along Mc Arthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac. A case was filed by petitioner for the recovery of the lost goods. In his answer, respondent denied he was a common carrier and argued that he could not be held responsible for the value of the lost goods, such loss being due to force majeure. The trial court held that respondent was a common carrier and liable for the undelivered portion of the goods. On appeal, the CA reversed the judgment of the lower court and held that respondent had been engaged in transporting return loads of freight as a casual occupation an ancillary activity to his scrap iron business and not as a common carrier, hence, this appeal by petitioner. ISSUE: Whether respondent is a common carrier. (YES) HELD: Private respondent is properly characterized as a common carrier even though he merely back-hauled goods for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner, and although his main occupation was not the carriage of goods for others. The law (Art. 1732) makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity.