YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP CO. V.

DEXTER
Facts:
The Government employed Ynchausti, a common carrier, for the transportation of 30 cases of White
Rose mineral oil and 96 cases of Cock Brand mineral oil on board the steamship Venus, which
would journey from Manila to Aparri.
The carrier received the goods, and to evidence the contract of transportation, the parties duly
executed and delivered a bill of lading.
The bill of lading stipulated that the carrier received the supplies in apparent good condition,
obligating itself to carry said supplies to the place agreed upon, in accordance with the authorized
and prescribed rates and classifications, and subject to the law of common carriers in force on the
date of the shipment, and to the conditions prescribed by the Insular Collector of Customs in
Philippine Marine Regulations.
Upon delivery, the consignee claimed that one case of White Rose and one case of Cock were
delivered empty. The consignee noted these claims on the bill of lading.
The Insular Purchasing Agent notified Ynchausti that:
o The Insular Auditor had investigated the matter and decided that the leakages of the 2 cases
were due to the carriers negligence, and
o He had authorized the deduction of P22.53 from the amount due to the carrieran amount
equivalent to the estimated value of the goods lost.
Ynchausti protested and demanded payment of the full amount due them. The Insular Auditor
refused the same and tendered a warrant only for the reduced sum of P60.26.
Ynchausti filed this case (a petition for a writ of mandamus) to compel the Government to pay the
full amount of P82.79.
Ynchausti alleges that the shortages were due to causes unknown to it, and that there was no fault
or negligence on their part or on the part of any of their agents or servants.
Issue: Who bears the loss?
Ruling: Ynchausti bears the loss.
Competent evidence was provided to show that the shortage existed.
Under Sec. 646 of the Administrative Code, it is the duty of the consignee to make a full notation of
any loss, evidence or damage on the bill of lading. The consignee did exactly what was required by
the law.
Presumption that Ynchausti is to blame for the loss.
Ynchausti admits that it received the oil, and the fact of loss was proved in the proper manner.
Doctrine: the presumption of negligence / liability
General rule: mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and proof of their arrival at
the place of destination in bad order, makes a prima facie case against the carrier.
o Exception: if there is an explanation given. The carrier must prove the loss is due to
accident or some other circumstance inconsistent with its liability.
Dispositive: The Insular Auditor is entitled to withhold the amount equivalent to the value of the lost oil.

MIRASOL V. DOLLAR
Facts:
Mirasol is the owner and consignee of two cases of books, shipped in good order and condition at
New York, U.S.A., on board the Robert Dollar Company's steamship President Garfield, for
transport and delivery to Mirasol in the City of Manila.
The two cases arrived in Manila in bad order and damaged condition, resulting in the total loss of
one case and a partial loss of the other.
Mirasol filed claims but Dollar Company has refused and neglected to pay, reasoning that the
damage "was caused by sea water."
Mirasol alleges that he never entered into any contract with Dollar Company limiting the latter's
liability as a common carrier. When the other case was found, Mirasol filed a claim for the real
damage of the books in the sum of $375.
Dollar Company raises the following defenses:
o The steamship President Garfield was seaworthy and properly manned, equipped and
supplied, and fit for the voyage;
o The damage to Mirasol's merchandise, if any, was not caused through their negligence, "but
that such damage, if any, resulted from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of
said vessel";
o In the bill of lading issued by the Dollar Co., it was agreed in writing that Dollar Co. should
not be "held liable for any loss of, or damage to, any of said merchandise resulting from any
of the following causes, to wit: Acts of God, perils of the sea or other waters," and that
Mirasol's damage, if any, was caused by "Acts of God" or "perils of the sea";
o The bill of lading stated that in no case shall it be held liable "for or in respect to said
merchandise or property beyond the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars for any piece,
package or any article not enclosed in a package, unless a higher value is stated herein and
ad valorem freight paid or assessed thereon";
And that Mirasol had written Dollar Co. a letter saying: I wish to file claim of damage
to the meager maximum value that your bills of lading will indemnify me, that is $250
as per condition 13.
o The damage, if any, was caused by "sea water," and that the bill of lading exempts Dollar
Co. from liability for that cause, as damage by "sea water" is a shipper's risk.
The lower court ruled in favor of Mirasol, awarding him P2,080.
Ruling: Mirasol wins!
On the limitation of carriers liability
There is no claim or pretense that Mirasol signed the bill of lading or that he knew of his contents at
the time that it was issued. In that situation he was not legally bound by the clause that purports to
limit Dollar Co.'s liability.
On the carriers duty, liability and the burden of proof to be exempted from liability
Shippers who are forced to ship goods on a ship have some legal rights, and when goods are
delivered on board ship in good order and condition, and the shipowner delivers them to the shipper
in bad order and condition, it then devolves upon the shipowner to both allege and prove that the
goods were damaged by the reason of some fact which legally exempts him from liability; otherwise,
the shipper would be left without any redress, no matter what may have caused the damage.
Dollar Co. having received the two boxes in good condition, its legal duty was to deliver them to
Mirasol in the same condition in which it received them. From the time of their delivery to Dollar Co.
in New York until they are delivered to Mirasol in Manila, the boxes were under the control and
supervision of the carrier and beyond the control of Mirasol.
Dollar Co. having admitted that the boxes were damaged while in transit and in its possession, the
burden of proof then shifted, and it devolved upon the carrier to both allege and prove that the
damage was caused by reason of some fact which exempted it from liability. As to how the boxes
were damaged, when or where, was a matter peculiarly and exclusively within the knowledge of the
carrier.
The fact that the cases were damaged by "sea water," standing alone and within itself, is not
evidence that they were damaged by force majeure or for a cause beyond the carrier's control. The

carrier must prove that the cases were damaged by sea water, as per Art. 361 of the Code of
Commerce.