G.R. No. L-31379 August 29, 1988
COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE CONCEPCION, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Vicente Concepcion, a contractor, shipped construction equipment, including a payloader, from Manila to Cagayan de Oro City via petitioner Compañia Maritima’s vessel. The Bill of Lading declared the payloader’s weight as 2.5 tons. Upon arrival, while the payloader was being unloaded, the swivel pin of the heel block of the ship’s hatch gave way, causing the payloader to fall and sustain damage. Investigation revealed the payloader’s actual weight was 7.5 tons. Compañia Maritima denied Concepcion’s claim for damages, arguing that the shipper’s misdeclaration of weight was the proximate cause of the accident, as it led the ship’s officer to use equipment (the heel block) with a 5-ton capacity for a heavier load. Concepcion filed an action for damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling the shipper’s act was the proximate cause. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the carrier liable.

ISSUE

Whether the shipper’s act of misdeclaring the weight of the cargo constitutes the sole and proximate cause of the damage, thereby absolutely exempting the common carrier from liability under Article 1734(3) of the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The shipper’s misdeclaration did not absolutely exempt the carrier from liability. While Article 1734(3) exempts a carrier for loss due to the “act or omission of the shipper,” this exemption applies only if such act is the sole and proximate cause. The Court found the carrier concurrently negligent. The carrier’s crew failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers under Articles 1733 and 1735 of the Civil Code. The evidence showed the heel block’s swivel pin was already worn out, and the crew proceeded with the unloading despite noticing the block was straining under the load. This failure to ensure the soundness of their equipment and to cease operations upon observing danger constituted contributory negligence. Consequently, the damage resulted from the combined negligence of both parties. The shipper’s misdeclaration contributed to the cause but did not absolve the carrier of its primary duty to exercise extraordinary diligence. The appellate court’s apportionment of liability—awarding damages to Concepcion but deducting 20% (one-fifth) of the payloader’s value due to his contributory fault—was upheld. Since Concepcion did not appeal this reduction, the modified award stands.