G.R. No. 83613 February 21, 1990
FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO., petitioner, vs. METRO PORT SERVICE, INC., (Formerly E. Razon, Inc.), respondent.

FACTS

Vulcan Industrial and Mining Corporation imported machinery and equipment from the United States, which arrived in Manila on June 3, 1979. The shipment was discharged complete and in good order to the arrastre operator, Metro Port Service, Inc. (formerly E. Razon, Inc.). On June 8, 1979, Danilo Librando, a tractor operator employed by Metro Port, was tasked to transfer the cargo. While maneuvering, the cargo fell from the chassis, causing heavy damage valued at P187,500.00. Investigation revealed the absence of twist locks at the rear end of the chassis, which was owned by the carrier, Maersk Line. The petitioner, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., as subrogee after indemnifying the consignee, filed a complaint for damages against Maersk Line and Metro Port. The trial court held them jointly and severally liable.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision insofar as Metro Port was concerned, absolving it from liability. The appellate court ruled that Librando, though a Metro Port employee, was technically performing a duty for Maersk Line at the time, as he was driving Maersk’s tractor under its instructions pursuant to a management contract. It held the proximate cause of the damage was solely Maersk Line’s failure to provide twist locks on the chassis. The petitioner sought review, arguing the appellate court erred in not holding Metro Port solidarily liable.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in absolving Metro Port Service, Inc. from solidary liability for the damage to the cargo.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment, holding Metro Port solidarily liable. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the arrastre operator’s responsibility and the proven negligence of its employee. The relationship between the consignee and the arrastre operator is akin to that of a depositor and warehouseman, imposing upon the arrastre the obligation to exercise due diligence in the handling and custody of goods. The Court found the appellate court’s findings contradicted the evidence on record. Crucially, the accident occurred while the cargo was in the custody of the arrastre operator, and Librando was indisputably its employee. Testimony established that Librando admitted it was his usual practice to inspect the chassis for twist locks but failed to do so on this occasion. Further, a Metro Port supervisor testified that a diligent operator could have detected the absence of twist locks even with the cargo loaded. This failure to perform a routine safety inspection constituted negligence, which contributed to the loss. While Maersk Line was concurrently negligent for not providing the twist locks, Metro Port’s employee’s omission in ensuring the cargo was securely fastened breached its duty of care. Consequently, both parties’ concurrent negligence resulted in the damage, making them solidarily liable under Article 2194 of the Civil Code. The arrastre operator cannot evade liability by claiming its employee was acting under the carrier’s instructions, as the employee’s primary negligence in failing to inspect fell within the scope of his duties for Metro Port.