GR 147246; (August, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147246; August 19, 2003
ASIA LIGHTERAGE AND SHIPPING, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. was contracted by consignee General Milling Corporation to transport 900 metric tons of wheat from Manila to Pasig City. The cargo, insured by respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., was loaded onto barge PSTSI III on August 15, 1990. Due to an incoming typhoon warning, transport was suspended. On August 22, the petitioner towed the barge to Engineering Island for shelter. During the storm, the barge was tied to other barges. It later developed a list after hitting an unseen underwater object, sustaining a hole. After temporary repairs, the barge resumed its journey on September 5 but ran aground at the Sta. Mesa spillways. A portion of the cargo was transferred to other barges. The following day, the barge’s towing bits broke, causing it to sink and resulting in the total loss of the remaining cargo.
ISSUE
The issues are: (1) Whether the petitioner is a common carrier; and (2) Assuming it is, whether it exercised the required extraordinary diligence to be exempt from liability for the loss of the cargo.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner is a common carrier. Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as entities engaged in transporting goods for compensation, offering services to the public. The Court, citing De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, held that the law makes no distinction based on whether transportation is a main or ancillary activity, nor does it require a fixed route or terminal. Since the petitioner held itself out as offering cargo transport services to the public for a fee, it falls under this classification.
As a common carrier, the petitioner is bound by law to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported. Under Article 1735, the carrier is presumed negligent if goods are lost, unless it proves it exercised such extraordinary diligence. The petitioner claimed the loss was due to a fortuitous event (the typhoon). However, the Court found that the loss was not solely caused by the natural disaster. The evidence showed that the barge hit an unseen protuberance, and the petitioner failed to adequately prove it exercised due diligence before, during, and after the typhoon as required by Article 1739. Specifically, the act of tying the barge to others during the storm and the subsequent grounding indicated a lack of necessary precautions to prevent or minimize the loss. Therefore, the presumption of negligence was not overcome. The petitioner was correctly held liable for the value of the lost cargo, minus the salvage proceeds.