Anda di halaman 1dari 1

[INSURABLE INTEREST IN MARINE INSURANCE] and obligations of the parties to a contract of private carriage are governed

09 LEA MER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. MALAYAN INSURANCE principally by their stipulations, not by the law on common carriers.
September 30, 2005 | Panganiban, J. | ○ The Contract in the present case was one of affreightment, as
shown by the fact that it was petitioner's crew that manned the
Facts: tugboat M/V Ayalit and controlled the barge Judy VII.
● Ilian Silica Mining entered into a contract of carriage with the petitioner, Lea ● Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in their
Mer Industries Inc. for the shipment of 900 metric tons of silica sand worth vigilance over the goods and the safety of the passengers they transport, as
P565,000. required by the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy.
● The cargo was consigned to Vulcan Industrial and Mining Corporation and Extraordinary diligence requires rendering service with the greatest skill and
was to be shipped from Palawan to Manila. The silica sand was boarded to foresight to avoid damage and destruction to the goods entrusted for
Judy VII, the vessel leased by Lea Mer. However, during the course of its carriage and delivery.
voyage, the vessel sank which led to the loss of the cargo. ● Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
● Consequently, the respondent, as the insurer, paid Vulcan the value of the negligently for loss or damage to the goods that they have transported. This
lost cargo. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. then collected from the petitioner the presumption can be rebutted only by proof that they observed extraordinary
amount it paid to Vulcan as reimbursement and as its exercise on the right of diligence, or that the loss or damage was occasioned by any of the following
subrogation. causes:
● Lea Mer refused to pay which led Malayan to institute a complaint with the ○ Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or
RTC. calamity;
● The RTC dismissed the complaint stating that the loss was due to a ○ Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
fortuitous event, Typhoon Trining. Petitioner did not know that a typhoon was ○ Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
coming and that it has been cleared by the Philippine Coast Guard to travel ○ The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the
from Palawan to Manila. containers;
● The CA reversed the ruling of the trial court for the reason that said vessel ○ Order or act of competent public authority.
was not seaworthy when it sailed to Manila. ● Jurisprudence defines the elements of a "fortuitous event" as follows: (a) the
cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the
Issue: debtors to comply with their obligations, must have been independent of
W/N the petitioner is liable for the loss of the cargo. human will; (b) the event that constituted the caso fortuito must have been
impossible to foresee or, if foreseeable, impossible to avoid; (c) the
Held: occurrence must have been such as to render it impossible for the debtors to
YES. fulfill their obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the obligor must have been
● Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged free from any participation in the aggravation of the resulting injury to the
in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods, or both — creditor.
by land, water, or air — when this service is offered to the public for ○ To excuse the common carrier fully of any liability, the fortuitous
compensation. event must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss.
○ Petitioner is clearly a common carrier, because it offers to the ○ Moreover, it should have exercised due diligence to prevent or
public its business of transporting goods through its vessels. Thus, minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of the
the Court corrects the trial court's finding that petitioner became a fortuitous event.
private carrier when Vulcan chartered it. Charter parties are ○ As required by the pertinent law, it was not enough for the common
classified as contracts of demise (or bareboat) and affreightment, carrier to show that there was an unforeseen or unexpected
which are distinguished as follows: occurrence. It had to show that it was free from any fault — a fact it
"Under the demise or bareboat charter of the vessel, the miserably failed to prove.
charterer will generally be considered as owner for the voyage
or service stipulated. The charterer mans the vessel with his Dispositive
own people and becomes, in effect, the owner pro hac vice, WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution are
subject to liability to others for damages caused by negligence. AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
To create a demise, the owner of a vessel must completely and
exclusively relinquish possession, command and navigation
thereof to the charterer; anything short of such a complete
transfer is a contract of affreightment (time or voyage charter
party) or not a charter party at all."
● The distinction is significant, because a demise or bareboat charter indicates
a business undertaking that is private in character. Consequently, the rights

Anda mungkin juga menyukai