NDC vs CA Which laws govern loss or destruction of goods due to collision of vessels outside Philippine waters, and the

extent of liability as well as the rules of prescription provided thereunder? The main thrust of NDC's argument is to the effect that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act should apply to the case at bar and not the Civil Code or the Code of Commerce. Under Section 4 (2) of said Act, the carrier is not responsible for the loss or damage resulting from the "act, neglect or default of the master, mariner, pilot or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship." Thus, NDC insists that based on the findings of the trial court which were adopted by the Court of Appeals, both pilots of the colliding vessels were at fault and negligent, NDC would have been relieved of liability under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Instead, Article 287 of the Code of Commerce was applied and both NDC and MCP were ordered to reimburse the insurance company for the amount the latter paid to the consignee as earlier stated. This issue has already been laid to rest by this Court of Eastern Shipping Lines Inc. v. IAC (1 50 SCRA 469-470 [1987]) where it was held under similar circumstance "that the law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs the liability of the common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration" (Article 1753, Civil Code). Thus, the rule was specifically laid down that for cargoes transported from Japan to the Philippines, the liability of the carrier is governed primarily by the Civil Code and in all matters not regulated by said Code, the rights and obligations of common carrier shall be governed by the Code of commerce and by laws (Article 1766, Civil Code). Hence, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, a special law, is merely suppletory to the provision of the Civil Code.

In the case at bar, it has been established that the goods in question are transported from San Francisco, California and Tokyo, Japan to the Philippines and that they were lost or due to a collision which was found to have been caused by the negligence or fault of both captains of the colliding vessels. Under the above ruling, it is evident that the laws of the Philippines will apply, and it is immaterial that the collision actually occurred in foreign waters, such as Ise Bay, Japan. Under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, common carriers from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all circumstances of each case. Accordingly, under Article 1735 of the same Code, in all other than those mentioned is Article 1734 thereof, the common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negigently, unless it proves that it has observed the extraordinary diligence required by law. It appears, however, that collision falls among matters not specifically regulated by the Civil Code, so that no reversible error can be found in respondent courses application to the case at bar of Articles 826 to 839, Book Three of the Code of Commerce, which deal exclusively with collision of vessels. More specifically, Article 826 of the Code of Commerce provides that where collision is imputable to the personnel of a vessel, the owner of the vessel at fault, shall indemnify the losses and damages incurred after an expert appraisal. But more in point to the instant case is Article 827 of the same Code, which provides that if the collision is imputable to both vessels, each one shall suffer its own damages and both shall be solidarily responsible for the losses and damages suffered by their cargoes. Significantly, under the provisions of the Code of Commerce, particularly Articles 826 to 839, the shipowner or carrier, is not exempt from liability for damages arising from collision due to the fault or negligence of the captain. Primary liability is imposed on

the shipowner or carrier in recognition of the universally accepted doctrine that the shipmaster or captain is merely the representative of the owner who has the actual or constructive control over the conduct of the voyage (Y'eung Sheng Exchange and Trading Co. v. Urrutia & Co., 12 Phil. 751 [1909]). There is, therefore, no room for NDC's interpretation that the Code of Commerce should apply only to domestic trade and not to foreign trade. Aside from the fact that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Com. Act No. 65) does not specifically provide for the subject of collision, said Act in no uncertain terms, restricts its application "to all contracts for the carriage of goods by sea to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade." Under Section I thereof, it is explicitly provided that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as repealing any existing provision of the Code of Commerce which is now in force, or as limiting its application." By such incorporation, it is obvious that said law not only recognizes the existence of the Code of Commerce, but more importantly does not repeal nor limit its application. Ship owner x Agent LIABILITY As found by the trial court and by the Court of Appeals, the Memorandum Agreement of September 13, 1962 (Exhibit 6, Maritime) shows that NDC appointed MCP as Agent, a term broad enough to include the concept of Ship-agent in Maritime Law. In fact, MCP was even conferred all the powers of the owner of the vessel, including the power to contract in the name of the NDC (Decision, CA G.R. No. 46513, p. 12; Rollo, p. 40). Consequently, under the circumstances, MCP cannot escape liability. It is well settled that both the owner and agent of the offending vessel are liable for the damage done where both are impleaded (Philippine Shipping Co. v. Garcia Vergara, 96 Phil. 281 [1906]); that in case of collision, both the owner and the agent are civilly responsible for the acts of the captain (Yueng Sheng Exchange and Trading Co. v. Urrutia & Co., supra citing Article 586 of the Code of Commerce; Standard Oil

Co. of New York v. Lopez Castelo, 42 Phil. 256, 262 [1921]); that while it is true that the liability of the naviero in the sense of charterer or agent, is not expressly provided in Article 826 of the Code of Commerce, it is clearly deducible from the general doctrine of jurisprudence under the Civil Code but more specially as regards contractual obligations in Article 586 of the Code of Commerce. Moreover, the Court held that both the owner and agent (Naviero) should be declared jointly and severally liable, since the obligation which is the subject of the action had its origin in a tortious act and did not arise from contract (Verzosa and Ruiz, Rementeria y Cia v. Lim, 45 Phil. 423 [1923]). Consequently, the agent, even though he may not be the owner of the vessel, is liable to the shippers and owners of the cargo transported by it, for losses and damages occasioned to such cargo, without prejudice, however, to his rights against the owner of the ship, to the extent of the value of the vessel, its equipment, and the freight (Behn Meyer Y Co. v. McMicking et al. 11 Phil. 276 [1908]). As to the extent of their liability, MCP insists that their liability should be limited to P200.00 per package or per bale of raw cotton as stated in paragraph 17 of the bills of lading. Also the MCP argues that the law on averages should be applied in determining their liability. MCP's contention is devoid of merit. The declared value of the goods was stated in the bills of lading and corroborated no less by invoices offered as evidence ' during the trial. Besides, common carriers, in the language of the court in Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. v. Barrette et al., (51 Phil. 90 [1927]) "cannot limit its liability for injury to a loss of goods where such injury or loss was caused by its own negligence." Negligence of the captains of the colliding vessel being the cause of the collision, and the cargoes not being jettisoned to save some of the cargoes and the vessel, the trial court and the Court of Appeals acted correctly in not applying the law on averages (Articles 806 to 818, Code of Commerce).

MCP's claim that the fault or negligence can only be attributed to the pilot of the vessel SS Yasushima Maru and not to the Japanese Coast pilot navigating the vessel Dona Nati need not be discussed lengthily as said claim is not only at variance with NDC's posture, but also contrary to the factual findings of the trial court affirmed no less by the Court of Appeals, that both pilots were at fault for not changing their excessive speed despite the thick fog obstructing their visibility. Finally on the issue of prescription, the trial court correctly found that the bills of lading issued allow trans-shipment of the cargo, which simply means that the date of arrival of the ship Dona Nati on April 18,1964 was merely tentative to give allowances for such contingencies that said vessel might not arrive on schedule at Manila and therefore, would necessitate the trans-shipment of cargo, resulting in consequent delay of their arrival. In fact, because of the collision, the cargo which was supposed to arrive in Manila on April 18, 1964 arrived only on June 12, 13, 18, 20 and July 10, 13 and 15, 1964. Hence, had the cargoes in question been saved, they could have arrived in Manila on the above-mentioned dates. Accordingly, the complaint in the instant case was filed on April 22, 1965, that is, long before the lapse of one (1) year from the date the lost or damaged cargo "should have been delivered" in the light of Section 3, sub-paragraph (6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the subject petitions are DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed decision of the respondent Appellate Court is AFFIRMED. #2. Are CC s obliged o accep Cargo? PAL vs. CA The main issue posed for resolution is whether petitioner airlines acted in bad faith when it failed and refused to provide hotel accommodations for respondent Pantejo or

to reimburse him for hotel expenses incurred by reason of the cancellation of its connecting flight to Surigao City due to force majeure. To begin with, it must be emphasized that a contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation, and this is because of the relation which an air carrier sustain with the public. Its business is mainly with the travelling public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees naturally could give ground for an action for damages. 3 In ruling for respondent Pantejo, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that herein petitioner acted in bad faith in refusing to provide hotel accommodations for respondent Pantejo or to reimburse him for hotel expenses incurred despite and in contrast to the fact that other passengers were so favored. In declaring that bad faith existed, respondent court took into consideration the following factual circumstances: 1. Contrary to petitioner's claim that cash assistance was given instead because of non-availability of rooms in hotels where petitioner had existing tie-ups, the evidence shows that Sky View Hotel, where respondent Pantejo was billeted, had plenty of rooms available. 2. It is not true that the P300.00 Paid to Ernesto Gonzales, a co-passenger of respondent, was a refund for his plane ticket, the truth being that it was a reimbursement for hotel and meal expenses. 3. It is likewise not denied that said Gonzales and herein respondent came to know about the reimbursements only because another passenger, Mrs. Rocha, informed them that she was able to obtain the refund for her own hotel expenses.

4. Petitioner offered to pay P300.00 to private respondent only after he had confronted the airline's manager about the discrimination committed against him, which the latter realized was an actionable wrong. 5. Service Voucher No. 199351, presented by petitioner to prove that it gave cash assistance to its passengers, was based merely on the list of passengers already given cash assistance and was purportedly prepared at around 10:00 A.M. of October 23, 1988. This was two hours before respondent came to know of the cancellation of his flight to Surigao, hence private respondent could not have possibly refused the same. 4 More importantly, it has been sufficiently established that it is petitioner's standard company policy, whenever a flight has been cancelled, to extend to its hapless passengers cash assistance or to provide them accommodations in hotels with which it has existing tie-ups. In fact, petitioner's Mactan Airport Manager for departure services, Oscar Jereza, admitted that PAL has an existing arrangement with hotels to accommodate stranded passengers, were reimbursed
6 5

and that the hotel bills of Ernesto Gonzales

obviously pursuant to that policy.

#3. Are Common Carriers obliged to deliver cargo immediately? We have carefully reviewed the decisions of respondent court and the trial court and both of them show that, in finding petitioner liable for damages for the delay in the delivery of goods, reliance was made on the rule that contracts of adhesion are void. Added to this, the lower court stated that the exemption against liability for delay is against public policy and is thus, void. Besides, private respondent's action is anchored on Article 1170 of the New Civil Code and not under the law on Admiralty (AC-GR CV No. 10340, Rollo, p. 14).

The bill of lading covering the subject shipment among others, reads: 6. GENERAL (1) The Carrier does not undertake that the goods shall arive at the port of discharge or the place of delivery at any particular time or to meet any particular market or use and save as is provided in clause 4 the Carrier shall in no circumstances be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage caused by delay. If the Carrier should nevertheless be held legally liable for any such direct or indirect or consequential loss or damage caused by delay, such liability shall in no event exceed the freight paid for the transport covered by this Bill of Lading. (Exh. "1-A"; AC-G.R. CV No. 10340, Folder of Exhibits, p. 41)

It is not disputed that the aforequoted provision at the back of the bill of lading, in fine print, is a contract of adhesion. Generally, contracts of adhesion are considered void since almost all the provisions of these types of contracts are prepared and drafted only by one party, usually the carrier (Sweet Lines v. Teves, 83 SCRA 361 [1978]). The only participation left of the other party in such a contract is the affixing of his signature thereto, hence the term "Adhesion" (BPI Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 601 [1991]; Angeles v. Calasanz, 135 SCRA 323 [1985]). Nonetheless, settled is the rule that bills of lading are contracts not entirely prohibited (Ong Yiu v. Court of Appeals, et al., 91 SCRA 223 [1979]; Servando, et al. v. Philippine Steam Navigation Co., 117 SCRA 832 [1982]). One who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it in its entirety; if he adheres, he gives his consent (Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al., 201 SCRA 102 [1991]).

In Magellan, (supra), we ruled: It is a long standing jurisprudential rule that a bill of lading operates both as a receipt and as contract to transport and deliver the same a therein stipulated. As a contract, it names the parties, which includes the consignee, fixes the route, destination, and freight rates or charges, and stipulates the rights and obligations assumed by the parties. Being a contract, it is the law between the parties who are bound by its terms and conditions provided that these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy. A bill of lading usually becomes effective upon its delivery to and acceptance by the shipper. It is presumed that the stipulations of the bill were, in the absence of fraud, concealment or improper conduct, known to the shipper, and he is generally bound by his acceptance whether he reads the bill or not. (Emphasis supplied) However, the aforequoted ruling applies only if such contracts will not create an absurd situation as in the case at bar. The questioned provision in the subject bill of lading has the effect of practically leaving the date of arrival of the subject shipment on the sole determination and will of the carrier. While it is true that common carriers are not obligated by law to carry and to deliver merchandise, and persons are not vested with the right to prompt delivery, unless such common carriers previously assume the obligation to deliver at a given date or time (Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836 [1952]), delivery of shipment or cargo should at least be made within a reasonable time. In Saludo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals (207 SCRA 498 [1992]) this Court held:

The oft-repeated rule regarding a carrier's liability for delay is that in the absence of a special contract, a carrier is not an insurer against delay in transportation of goods. When a common carrier undertakes to convey goods, the law implies a contract that they shall be delivered at destination within a reasonable time, in the absence, of any agreement as to the time of delivery. But where a carrier has made an express contract to transport and deliver properly within a specified time, it is bound to fulfill its contract and is liable for any delay, no matter from what cause it may have arisen. This result logically follows from the wellsettled rule that where the law creates a duty or charge, and the default in himself, and has no remedy over, then his own contract creates a duty or charge upon himself, he is bound to make it good notwithstanding any accident or delay by inevitable necessity because he might have provided against it by contract. Whether or not there has been such an undertaking on the part of the carrier is to be determined from the circumstances surrounding the case and by application of the ordinary rules for the interpretation of contracts. An examination of the subject bill of lading (Exh. "1"; AC GR CV No. 10340, Folder of Exhibits, p. 41) shows that the subject shipment was estimated to arrive in Manila on April 3, 1977. While there was no special contract entered into by the parties indicating the date of arrival of the subject shipment, petitioner nevertheless, was very well aware of the specific date when the goods were expected to arrive as indicated in the bill of lading itself. In this regard, there arises no need to execute another contract for the purpose as it would be a mere superfluity. In the case before us, we find that a delay in the delivery of the goods spanning a period of two (2) months and seven (7) days falls was beyond the realm of reasonableness. Described as gelatin capsules for use in pharmaceutical products,

subject shipment was delivered to, and left in, the possession and custody of petitioner-carrier for transport to Manila via Oakland, California. But through petitioner's negligence was mishipped to Richmond, Virginia. Petitioner's insitence that it cannot be held liable for the delay finds no merit. Saludo vs CA In other words, on October 26, 1976 the cargo containing the casketed remains of Crispina Saludo was booked for PAL Flight Number PR-107 leaving San Francisco for Manila on October 27, 1976, PAL Airway Bill No. 079-01180454 was issued, not as evidence of receipt of delivery of the cargo on October 26, 1976, but merely as a confirmation of the booking thus made for the San Francisco-Manila flight scheduled on October 27, 1976. Actually, it was not until October 28, 1976 that PAL received physical delivery of the body at San Francisco, as duly evidenced by the Interline Freight Transfer Manifest of the American Airline Freight System and signed for by Virgilio Rosales at 1945H, or 7:45 P.M. on said date. 28 Explicit is the rule under Article 1736 of the Civil Code that the extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier begins from the time the goods are delivered to the carrier. This responsibility remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, unless the shipper or owner exercises the right of stoppage in transitu,
29

and terminates only after the lapse of a reasonable

time for the acceptance, of the goods by the consignee or such other person entitled to receive them.
30

And, there is delivery to the carrier when the goods are ready for

and have been placed in the exclusive possession, custody and control of the carrier for the purpose of their immediate transportation and the carrier has accepted them.
31

Where such a delivery has thus been accepted by the carrier, the liability of
32

the common carrier commences eo instanti.

Hence, while we agree with petitioners that the extraordinary diligence statutorily required to be observed by the carrier instantaneously commences upon delivery of the goods thereto, for such duty to commence there must in fact have been delivery of the cargo subject of the contract of carriage. Only when such fact of delivery has been unequivocally established can the liability for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods in the custody of the carrier, absent the excepting causes under Article 1734, attach and the presumption of fault of the carrier under Article 1735 be invoked. As already demonstrated, the facts in the case at bar belie the averment that there was delivery of the cargo to the carrier on October 26, 1976. Rather, as earlier explained, the body intended to be shipped as agreed upon was really placed in the possession and control of PAL on October 28, 1976 and it was from that date that private respondents became responsible for the agreed cargo under their undertakings in PAL Airway Bill No. 079-01180454. Consequently, for the switching of caskets prior thereto which was not caused by them, and subsequent events caused thereby, private respondents cannot be held liable.
The consequent duty to conduct an inspection thereof arises in the event that there should be reason to doubt the veracity of such representations. Therefore, to be subjected to unusual search, other than the routinary inspection procedure customarily undertaken, there must exist proof that would justify cause for apprehension that the baggage is dangerous as to warrant exhaustive inspection, or even refusal to accept carriage of the same; and it is the failure of the carrier to act accordingly in the face of such proof that constitutes the basis of the common carrier's liability. 44
In the case at bar, private respondents had no reason whatsoever to doubt the truth of the shipper's representations. The airway bill expressly providing that "carrier certifies goods received below were received for carriage," and that the cargo contained "casketed human remains of Crispina Saludo," was issued on the basis of such representations. The reliance thereon by private respondents was reasonable and, for so doing, they cannot be said to have acted negligently. Likewise, no evidence was adduced to suggest even an iota of suspicion that the cargo presented for transportation was anything other than what it was declared to be, as would require more than routine inspection or call for the carrier to insist that the same be opened for scrutiny of its contents per declaration. Neither can private respondents be held accountable on the basis of petitioners' preposterous proposition that whoever brought the cargo to the airport or loaded it on the airplane did so as agent of private respondents, so that even if CMAS whose services were engaged for the transit arrangements for the remains was indeed at fault, the liability therefor would supposedly still be attributable to private respondents. While we agree that the actual participation of CMAS has been sufficiently and correctly established, to hold that it acted as agent for private respondents would be both an inaccurate appraisal and an unwarranted categorization of the legal position it held in the entire transaction.

It bears repeating that CMAS was hired to handle all the necessary shipping arrangements for the transportation of the human remains of Crispina Saludo to Manila. Hence, it was to CMAS that the Pomierski & Son Funeral Home, as shipper, brought the remains of petitioners' mother for shipment, with Maria Saludo as consignee. Thereafter, CMAS booked the shipment with PAL through the carrier's agent, Air Care International. 45 With its aforestated functions, CMAS may accordingly be classified as a forwarder which, by accepted commercial practice, is regarded as an agent of the shipper and not of the carrier. As such, it merely contracts for the transportation of goods by carriers, and has no interest in the freight but receives compensation from the shipper as his agent. 46