G.R. No. 179446; January 10, 2011
LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. GLODEL BROKERAGE CORPORATION and R&B INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondents.

FACTS

On August 28, 2001, R&B Insurance issued a marine insurance policy to Columbia Wire and Cable Corporation (Columbia) for a shipment of 132 bundles of electric copper cathodes. The cargo arrived in Manila on the same day. Columbia engaged Glodel Brokerage Corporation for the release and delivery of the cargo to its warehouses. Glodel, in turn, engaged Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. to transport the cargo using its trucks. While six truckloads were successfully delivered to Valenzuela City, one of the six trucks bound for Balagtas, Bulacan, failed to deliver its cargo of 11 bundles. The truck was later recovered but the cargo was missing. Columbia claimed and was paid ₱1,896,789.62 in insurance indemnity by R&B Insurance. R&B Insurance, as subrogee, filed a complaint for damages against both Glodel and Loadmasters. The Regional Trial Court held Glodel liable to R&B Insurance and dismissed Loadmasters’ counterclaim. Both R&B Insurance and Glodel appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed Glodel’s liability and additionally held Loadmasters liable to Glodel for the same amount. Loadmasters filed this petition, arguing it cannot be held liable to Glodel due to the latter’s failure to file a cross-claim and that it was not Glodel’s agent.

ISSUE

1. Whether Loadmasters can be held liable to Glodel despite Glodel’s failure to file a cross-claim against it.
2. Whether Loadmasters is an agent of Glodel and the nature of their liability for the lost cargo.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the Cross-Claim: The Court held that while Glodel did not formally file a cross-claim against Loadmasters, the issue of Loadmasters’ liability to Glodel was fully litigated. Both parties presented evidence and argued their positions on their relationship and respective liabilities throughout the trial and on appeal. A cross-claim is not the exclusive remedy for claiming contribution from a co-party; a separate action can be filed. Since the matter was thoroughly tried without objection, the absence of a formal cross-claim did not bar the court from ruling on Loadmasters’ liability to Glodel.
2. On the Relationship and Liability: The Court ruled that Loadmasters is a common carrier, as it admitted it was engaged in the trucking business. Glodel is also considered a common carrier in the context of its customs brokerage business, which includes the undertaking to deliver the goods. The contract between Glodel and Loadmasters was one of carriage, not agency. As common carriers, both are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods they transport. They are presumed to be at fault or negligent if the goods are lost (Articles 1735 and 1736, Civil Code). Loadmasters failed to rebut this presumption. It did not prove it exercised extraordinary diligence, as it could not explain how the truck and cargo went missing while under the control of its employed driver and helper. Therefore, Loadmasters was negligent and liable for the loss. Since Glodel is liable to R&B Insurance (the subrogee) for the loss, and Loadmasters was the party directly and primarily negligent in performing the carriage, Loadmasters is consequently liable to reimburse Glodel for the amount Glodel was adjudged to pay. The Court found no reversible error in the CA’s decision.