GR 153563; (February, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153563; February 07, 2005
NATIONAL TRUCKING AND FORWARDING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner National Trucking and Forwarding Corporation (NTFC), under a contract with the Department of Health, shipped 4,868 bags of non-fat dried milk via respondent Lorenzo Shipping Corporation (LSC), a common carrier. The bills of lading consigned the goods to NTFC’s branch supervisor, Abdurahman Jama, in Zamboanga City. Upon arrival, LSC’s agent, Efren Ruste Shipping Agency, unloaded and delivered the cargo to NTFC’s warehouse. The delivery checkers required the surrender of the original bills of lading before release, but Abdurahman Jama presented only certified true copies. Delivery receipts were signed either by Jama or his designated subordinates.
NTFC later claimed non-delivery of the goods and filed a formal claim against LSC. After LSC insisted the cargo had been delivered, NTFC, along with the DOH and CARE, filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint and awarded damages and attorney’s fees to LSC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) Whether the presumption of fault against LSC as a common carrier for the alleged loss of the goods was successfully rebutted; and (2) Whether the award of actual damages and attorney’s fees to LSC was proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled for the respondent, Lorenzo Shipping Corporation. On the first issue, the Court held that while common carriers are presumed negligent under Article 1735 of the Civil Code upon loss of goods, this presumption is disputable. LSC successfully overturned this presumption by presenting competent evidence that it exercised the required extraordinary diligence. The checkers from its agent verified the consignee’s identity through the certified true copies of the bills of lading and secured signed delivery receipts for each delivery. This procedure constituted the extreme measure of care demanded of common carriers. The petitioner’s failure to present its own supervisor, Abdurahman Jama, to refute the delivery, coupled with the positive testimonies of the checkers, bolstered the finding of due delivery and diligence.
On the second issue, the Court found the award of actual damages and attorney’s fees to LSC justified. The original complaint compelled LSC to incur litigation expenses to protect its interest, falling under Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code. The trial court’s factual findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, established that NTFC’s action was unfounded since the goods were duly delivered. Consequently, the awards were sustained as reasonable consequences of the baseless suit. The petition was denied for lack of merit.