Fortuitous Event

Nature: Collection of Sum of Money

Transimex Co,. vs Mafre Asian Insurance Corp.

September 14, 2016
G. R. No. 190271
Ponente : Sereno CJ:
First Division

Facts:

The case involves a money claim filed by the insurance company against the shipment agent
of a common carrier. The dispute stemmed from alleged shortage in shipment of fertilizer delivered
by the carrier to consignee. The ship agent insist that the shortage was caused by bad weather which
may be considered as storm under Article 1734 of the Civil Code or in the Peril of the sea under
Carriage of Goods Sea Act ( COGSA)
On May 1996, M/V Meryem Ana received a shipment consisting of 21,857 metric tons of
Prilled Urea Fertilizer from Helm Duengemittel GMBH at Odessa Ukraine. The shipment was
covered by two separate bill of ladings and consigned for delivery in two ports , one in Poro Point La
Union, and the other in Tabaco Albay. Ferthipil insured the cargo against all risk under Marine Risk
Note.
The present controversy arose from the second delivery where it was alleged that when the
cargo was subsequently weighed, whenit reach Tobaco port, it was discovered that only 7,350.35
metric tons of fertilizer has been delivered. Because of the shortage of 349.65 metric tons , Fertiphil
filed a claim with respondent for 1,617,527.37 which was found compensable.

Issue:
Whether or not the loss or damage sustained by the cargo because of the bad weather was a
peril of the sea and a fortuitous event that can be considered as absolutory cause that will exempt
Transimex from liability?

Ruling:

The court ruled in the negative, Petitioner failed to prove the existence of the storm or peril
of the sea within the context of Article 1734 (1) of the Civil Code or section 4 (2) of COGSA. Further
there is no sufficient proof that damage to the shipment was solely and proximately caused by bad
weather.
It must be emphasized that not all instances of bad weather may be categorized as storms or
perils of the sea within the meaning of the provision of the Civil Code and COGSA on common
carriers. To be considered absolutory causes under either statute, bad weather conditions must reach
a certain threshold of severity.
We emphasized that common carriers are automatically presumed to have been at fault or
acted negligently if the goods they were transporting were lost, destroyed or damaged while in transit.
This presumption can be rebutted by proof that carrier exercised extraordinary diligence and caution
to ensure the protection of the shipment.