GR L 15652; (December, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15652, December 14, 1920
THE YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP COMPANY, petitioner, vs. I. B. DEXTER, as Auditor of the Philippine Islands, and C. E. UNSON, as Acting Purchasing Agent of the Philippine Islands, respondents.
FACTS:
The Ynchausti Steamship Company, a common carrier, transported two consignments of mineral oil for the Government of the Philippine Islands from Manila to Aparri, Cagayan, in July and September 1918. Upon delivery, the consignee noted on the bills of lading that one case from each shipment was empty. The petitioner claimed the shortages were due to unknown causes and not due to its fault or negligence. The Acting Insular Purchasing Agent, upon the Insular Auditor’s decision, deducted ₱22.53 (the invoice value of the lost oil) from the total freight charges of ₱82.79, tendering only ₱60.26. The petitioner refused the reduced payment and filed a petition for mandamus to compel the respondents to issue a warrant for the full amount.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel payment of the full freight charges, despite the loss of part of the cargo during transit, without proving that the loss was not due to its fault or negligence.
RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the case. The Court held that under the law governing common carriers, proof of delivery of goods in good condition to the carrier and their arrival at the destination in damaged or lost condition establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the carrier. The burden then shifts to the carrier to prove that the loss was due to accident or other circumstances exempting it from liability. In this case, the consignee’s notation of the loss on the bills of lading, as required by Section 646 of the Administrative Code, constituted competent evidence of the shortage. The petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of negligence, as the agreed statement of facts did not support its allegation that the loss occurred without its fault. Therefore, the Insular Auditor was justified in withholding the value of the lost goods from the freight charges. A writ of mandamus requires a clear right to relief, which the petitioner did not establish. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.