Planters Products, Inc (PPI)

Facts: Planters Products Inc. (PPI) purchased 9,329.7069 M/T of Urea 46% fertilizer
from Mitsubishi of New York USA which they shipped in bulk on June 16 1974 aboard
the cargo vessel M/V Sun Plum owned by Private Respondent Kyosei Kisen
Kabushiki Kaisha (KKKK) from Alaska to La Union which was evidenced by a bill of
lading signed by the master of the vessel and issued on the date of the departure.
Prior to this, a time charter-party on the vessel M/V "Sun Plum" pursuant to the
Uniform General Charter was entered into between Mitsubishi as shipper/charterer
and KKKK as shipowner, in Tokyo, Japan. Before loading the fertilizer aboard the
vessel, 4 of her holds were all presumably inspected by the charterer's
representative and found fit. The hatches remained closed and tightly sealed
throughout the entire voyage.
On July 3, 1974 PPI unloaded the cargo from the holds into its steelbodied dump
trucks which were parked alongside the berth, using metal scoops attached to the
ship, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the charter-partly The hatches
remained open throughout the duration of the discharge and each time a dump
truck was filled up, its load of Urea was covered with tarpaulin before it was
transported to the consignee's warehouse located some 50 meters from the wharf.

Midway to the warehouse, the trucks were made to pass through a weighing scale
where they were individually weighed for the purpose of ascertaining the net weight
of the cargo. The port area was windy, certain portions of the route to the
warehouse were sandy and the weather was variable, raining occasionally while the
discharge was in progress. Tarpaulins and GI sheets were placed in-between and
alongside the trucks to contain spillages of the fertilizer. It took 11 days for PPI to
unload the cargo.

Cargo Superintendents Company Inc. (CSCI), private marine and cargo

surveyor, was hired by PPI to determine the "outturn" of the cargo shipped, by
taking draft readings of the vessel prior to and after discharge. They found a
shortage in the cargo of 106.726 M/T and that a portion of the Urea fertilizer
approximating 18 M/T was contaminated with dirt. Soon after, a certificate of
Shortage/Damaged Cargo was prepared by PPI indicating that they were short of
94.839 M/T and about 23 M/T were rendered unfit for commerce, having been
polluted with sand, rust and dirt.

PPI then sent a claim letter 1974 to Soriamont Steamship Agencies (SSA), the
resident agent of the carrier, KKKK, for P245,969.31 representing the cost of the
alleged shortage in the goods shipped and the diminution in value of that portion
said to have been contaminated with dirt. SSA on the other hand claimed that what
they received was just a request for shortlanded certificate and not a formal claim,
and that they "had nothing to do with the discharge of the shipment.

On July 18, 1975, PPI filed an action for damages with CFI (RTC) of Manila.

Ruling in the RTC: In favor of PPI because respondent is a common carrier hence
there is a presumption of negligence and it is up to them to prove otherwise.

Respondent appealed.
Ruling in CA: CA reversed and claimed that respondent was a private carrier by
reason of the time charter-party and with that, burden of proof is shifted to PPI to
prove there was indeed negligence on the part of Respondent.

ISSUE: W/N a time charter between a shipowner and a charterer transforms a

common carrier into a private one as to negate the civil law presumption of
negligence in case of loss or damage to its cargo.

Held: No. When PPI chartered the vessel M/V "Sun Plum", the ship captain, its
officers and compliment were under the employ of the shipowner and therefore
continued to be under its direct supervision and control. Hardly then can they
charge the charterer, a stranger to the crew and to the ship, with the duty of caring
for his cargo when the charterer did not have any control of the means in doing so.
Respondent was still a common carrier hence presumption of negligence is not
negated.

However, respondent carrier has sufficiently overcome, by clear and convincing

proof, the prima facie presumption of negligence. The hatches remained close and
tightly sealed while the ship was in transit as the weight of the steel covers made it
impossible for a person to open without the use of the ship's boom. Bulk shipment
of highly soluble goods like fertilizer carries with it the risk of loss or damage. More
so, with a variable weather condition prevalent during its unloading.

This is a risk the shipper or the owner of the goods has to face. Clearly, KKKK has
sufficiently proved the inherent character of the goods which makes it highly
vulnerable to deterioration; as well as the inadequacy of its packaging which further
contributed to the loss.

On the other hand, no proof was adduced by the petitioner showing that the carrier
was remise in the exercise of due diligence in order to minimize the loss or damage
to the goods it carried.

LRTS vs Navidad

Facts: At around 7:30 pm on October 14, 1993. A drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor)
entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token. While Nicanor was
standing at the platform near the LRT tracks, the guard Junelito Escartin approached
him and due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight. Nicanor fell on the tracks
and was killed instantaneously upon being hit by a moving train operated by
Rodolfo Roman.

On December 8, 1994, the widow of Nicanor, along with her children, filed a
complaint for damages against Escartin, Roman, LRTA, Metro Transit Org. Inc. and
Prudent (agency of security guards) for the death of her husband. LRTA and Roman
filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and a cross-claim against Escartin and
Prudent.

Prudent denied liability and averred that it had exercised due diligence in the
selection and surpervision of its security guards. LRTA and Roman on the other
hand, presented evidence. Prudent and Escartin filed a demurrer contending that
Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task.

Ruling in the RTC: In favor of widow and against Prudent and Escartin, complaint
against LRT and Roman were dismissed for lack of merit.

Ruling in the CA: Reversed by exonerating Prudent and Escartin and holding LRTA
and Roman liable as a contract of carriage had already existed when the victim
entered the place where the passengers were supposed to be after paying the fare
and getting the corresponding token therefor.

ISSUE: W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable for the death according to the
contract of carriage

Held: Yes. The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of carriage and its
obligation to indemnify the victim arising from the breach of that contract by reason
of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of a common carrier. - Affirmed
with Modification [nominal damage is DELETED (CANNOT co-exist w/
compensatory damages); Roman is absolved]

Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its
business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty off exercising
utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers Under the Civil Code:
Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very
cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances
Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they
prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles
1733 and 1755
Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to
passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the formers employees,
although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their
authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers

This liability of the common carriers does NOT cease upon proof that they exercised
all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their
employees:
o Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a
passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or
of strangers, if the common carriers employees through the exercise of the
diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the
act or omission.

Carriers are presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple proof of injury,
the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the
carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the
injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. Where it hires its own
employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to
undertake the task, the common carrier is NOT relieved of its responsibilities under
the contract of carriage.

According to the factual finding of the CA, there was no link between Prudent and
the death of Nicanor for the reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOT proven.
Also, there was no showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or
omission, he must also be absolved from liability. The contractual tie between LRT
and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relation between Nicanor and Roman; thus,
Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence.