GR 150751; (September, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150751 ; September 20, 2004
CENTRAL SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Central Shipping Company, Inc. received 376 pieces of logs in Palawan for transport to Manila aboard its vessel, M/V Central Bohol. The cargo was insured by respondent. During the voyage, the vessel listed and sank, resulting in the total loss of the cargo. Respondent, as insurer, paid the consignee and was subrogated to its rights. It then filed a complaint against petitioner for the recovered amount.
Petitioner admitted the sinking but defended that it was due to a natural disaster—a tropical storm—which constituted a caso fortuito. It asserted the vessel was seaworthy, the logs were properly secured, and the captain exercised due diligence. The trial court found petitioner liable, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals with the modification of deleting the attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner, as a common carrier, is liable for the total loss of the cargo.
RULING
Yes, petitioner is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. A common carrier is presumed to be at fault or negligent for the loss of its cargo under Article 1733 of the Civil Code. To be exonerated, it must prove that the loss was due solely to a cause enumerated in Article 1734, such as a natural disaster, or that it exercised extraordinary diligence. Here, the weather condition encountered—a southwestern monsoon—was not an unforeseen “storm” but a known and foreseeable weather pattern for that season. The proximate cause of the loss was not this weather alone but the concurrent shifting of the logs in the hold, which indicated improper stowage. The carrier failed to secure the cargo adequately against the predictable rolling of the sea, taking a calculated risk. Since its own negligence contributed to the loss, it cannot invoke caso fortuito or the doctrine of limited liability. The Certificates of Inspection were not conclusive proof of seaworthiness under the specific circumstances, and findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry do not bind the courts on the issue of extraordinary diligence. Consequently, the presumption of negligence stands unrebutted, making petitioner solidarily liable for the value of the lost cargo.