You are on page 1of 4

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 101503 September 15, 1993 PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC.

, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SORIAMONT STEAMS IP AGENCIES AND !"OSEI !ISEN !A#US I!I !AIS A, respondents. Gonzales, Sinense, Jimenez & Associates for petitioner. Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako Law Office for pri ate respon!ents.

#ELLOSILLO, J.: Does a charter part! 1 bet"een a shipo"ner and a charterer transfor# a co##on carrier into a private one as to ne$ate the civil la" presu#ption of ne$li$ence in case of loss or da#a$e to its car$o% Planters Products, Inc. &PPI', purchased fro# Mitsubishi International (orporation &MITS)*IS+I' of Ne" ,or-, ).S..., /,01/.234/ #etric tons &M5T' of )rea 647 fertili8er "hich the latter shipped in bul- on 94 :une 9/26 aboard the car$o vessel M5V ;Sun Plu#; o"ned b! private respondent <!osei <isen <abushi-i <aisha &<<<<' fro# <enai, .las-a, ).S..., to Poro Point, San Fernando, =a )nion, Philippines, as evidenced b! *ill of =adin$ No. <P 9 si$ned b! the #aster of the vessel and issued on the date of departure. On 92 Ma! 9/26, or prior to its vo!a$e, a ti#e charter part! on the vessel M5V ;Sun Plu#; pursuant to the )nifor# >eneral (harter $ "as entered into bet"een Mitsubishi as shipper5charterer and <<<< as shipo"ner, in To-!o, :apan. 3 Riders to the aforesaid charter part! startin$ fro# par. 94 to 63 "ere attached to the pre printed a$ree#ent. .ddenda Nos. 9, 1, 0 and 6 to the charter part! "ere also subse?uentl! entered into on the 9@th, 13th, 19st and 12th of Ma! 9/26, respectivel!. *efore loadin$ the fertili8er aboard the vessel, four &6' of her holds % "ere all presu#abl! inspected b! the chartererAs representative and found fit to ta-e a load of urea in bul- pursuant to par. 94 of the charter part! "hich readsB 94. . . . .t loadin$ port, notice of readiness to be acco#plished b! certificate fro# National (ar$o *ureau inspector or substitute appointed b! charterers for his account certif!in$ the vesselAs readiness to receive car$o spaces. "#e essel$s #ol! to %e properly swept, cleane! an! !rie! at t#e essel$s e&pense an! t#e essel to %e presente! clean for use in %ulk to t#e satisfaction of t#e inspector %efore !aytime commences. &e#phasis supplied' .fter the )rea fertili8er "as loaded in bul- b! stevedores hired b! and under the supervision of the shipper, the steel hatches "ere closed "ith heav! iron lids, covered "ith three &0' la!ers of tarpaulin, then tied "ith steel bonds. The hatches re#ained closed and ti$htl! sealed throu$hout the entire vo!a$e. 5 )pon arrival of the vessel at her port of call on 0 :ul! 9/26, the steel pontoon hatches "ere opened "ith the use of the vesselAs boo#. Petitioner unloaded the car$o fro# the holds into its steelbodied du#p truc-s "hich "ere par-ed alon$side the berth, usin$ #etal scoops attached to the ship, pursuant to the ter#s and conditions of the charter partl! &"hich provided for an F.I.O.S. clause'. & The hatches re#ained open throu$hout the duration of the dischar$e. ' Cach ti#e a du#p truc- "as filled up, its load of )rea "as covered "ith tarpaulin before it "as transported to the consi$neeAs "arehouse located so#e fift! &D3' #eters fro# the "harf. Mid"a! to the "arehouse, the truc-s "ere #ade to pass throu$h a "ei$hin$ scale "here the! "ere individuall! "ei$hed for the purpose of ascertainin$ the net "ei$ht of the car$o. The port area "as "ind!, certain portions of the route to the "arehouse "ere sand! and the "eather "as variable, rainin$ occasionall! "hile the dischar$e "as in pro$ress. ( The petitionerAs "arehouse "as #ade of corru$ated $alvani8ed iron &>I' sheets, "ith an openin$ at the front "here the du#p truc-s entered and unloaded the fertili8er on the "arehouse floor. Tarpaulins and >I sheets "ere placed in bet"een and alon$side the truc-s to contain spilla$es of the ferili8er. 9 It too- eleven &99' da!s for PPI to unload the car$o, fro# D :ul! to 9@ :ul! 9/26 &eEcept :ul! 91th, 96th and 9@th'. 10 . private #arine and car$o surve!or, (ar$o Superintendents (o#pan! Inc. &(S(I', "as hired b! PPI to deter#ine the ;outturn; of the car$o shipped, b! ta-in$ draft readin$s of the vessel prior to and after dischar$e. 11 The surve! report sub#itted b! (S(I to the consi$nee &PPI' dated 9/ :ul! 9/26 revealed a shorta$e in the car$o of 934.214 M5T and that a portion of the )rea fertili8er approEi#atin$ 9@ M5T "as conta#inated "ith dirt. The sa#e results "ere contained in a (ertificate of Shorta$e5Da#a$ed (ar$o dated 9@ :ul! 9/26 prepared b! PPI "hich sho"ed that the car$o delivered "as indeed short of /6.@0/ M5T and about 10 M5T "ere rendered unfit for co##erce, havin$ been polluted "ith sand, rust and dirt. 1$ (onse?uentl!, PPI sent a clai# letter dated 9@ Dece#ber 9/26 to Soria#ont Stea#ship .$encies &SS.', the resident a$ent of the carrier, <<<<, for P16D,/4/.09 representin$ the cost of the alle$ed shorta$e in the $oods shipped and the di#inution in value of that portion said to have been conta#inated "ith dirt. 13 Respondent SS. eEplained that the! "ere not able to respond to the consi$neeAs clai# for pa!#ent because, accordin$ to the#, "hat the! received "as Fust a re?uest for shortlanded certificate and not a for#al clai#, and that this ;re?uest; "as denied b! the# because the! ;had nothin$ to do "ith the dischar$e of the ship#ent.; 1% +ence, on 9@ :ul! 9/2D, PPI filed an action for da#a$es "ith the (ourt of First Instance of Manila. The defendant carrier ar$ued that the strict public polic! $overnin$ co##on carriers does not appl! to the# because the! have beco#e private carriers b! reason of the provisions of the charter part!. The court a 'uo ho"ever sustained the clai# of the plaintiff a$ainst the defendant carrier for the value of the $oods lost or da#a$ed "hen it ruled thusB 15

destruction or deterioration of the $oods. 19Petitioner further ar$ues that since the possession and control of the vessel re#ain "ith the shipo"ner. . to carr! $oods for othersH and. the deter#ination of the course of the vo!a$e and other technical incidents of #ariti#e navi$ation "ere all consi$ned to the officers and cre" "ho "ere screened.Sun Plu#. not"ithstandin$ the charter of the "hole or portion of a vessel b! one or #ore persons. lies in the character of the business.ccordin$l!. in the ordinar! course of business.. p. In the absence of such presu#ption. is defined as a contract b! "hich an entire ship. "hether the shipo"ner in the instant case "as able to prove that he had eEercised that de$ree of dili$ence re?uired of hi# under the la". includin$ the #aster and the cre". not a part of the $eneral business or occupation. the #annin$ of the dec-s. This bein$ so. for "hosoever alle$es da#a$e to or deterioration of the $oods carried has the onus of provin$ that the cause "as the ne$li$ence of the carrier. the defendants are liable &e#phasis supplied'. PPI faults the appellate court in not appl!in$ the presu#ption of ne$li$ence a$ainst respondent carrier.e. upon "ho# rests the burden of provin$ his cause of action. b! the ter#s of "hich the "hole vessel is let to the charterer "ith a transfer to hi# of its entire co##and and possession and conse?uent control over its navi$ation. 1( &e#phasis supplied'. and defra! the eEpenses for the #aintenance of the ship. the record of the instant case discloses a#ple evidence sho"in$ that defendant carrier "as not ne$li$ent in perfor#in$ its obli$ation . t#e allege! negligence of !efen!ant carrier. the eEercise of ordinar! dili$ence in the carria$e of $oods "ill suffice. 9201 of the (ivil (ode. Moreover.ppeals. stowing. on a particular vo!a$e.Sun Plu#. a stran$er to the cre" and to the ship. American Steams#ip Agencies. . all t#at a s#ipper #as to !o in a suit to reco er for loss or !amage is to s#ow receipt %y t#e carrier of t#e goo!s an! to !eli ery %y it of less t#an w#at it recei e! . "ith the dut! of carin$ for his car$o "hen the charterer did not have an! control of the #eans in doin$ so. as in the case of a ti#e charter or vo!a$e charter. chosen and hired b! the shipo"ner. and a . or vo!a$e charter. should observe eEtraordinar! dili$ence in the vi$ilance over the $oods the! carr!. either for a deter#inate period of ti#e or for a sin$le or consecutive vo!a$e. pa! for the "a$es of the #aster and the cre". "e find it fittin$ to first define i#portant ter#s "hich are relevant to our discussion.charter part!. . fails to sho" in a satisfactor! #anner the facts upon "hich he bases his clai#. 1' the appellate court ruled that the car$o vessel M5V . citin$ *elen v. coupled "ith their failure to destro! the presu#ption of ne$li$ence a$ainst the#. its officers and co#pli#ent "ere under the e#plo! of the shipo"ner and therefore continued to be under its direct supervision and control. "herein the ship is leased for a sin$le vo!a$e. $3 The definition eEtends to carriers either b! land. . it was incum%ent upon t#e plaintiff+appellee to a!!uce sufficient e i!ence to pro e t#e negligence of t#e !efen!ant carrier as alle$ed in its co#plaint. $% . co##on carriers are presu#ed to have been at fault or to have acted ne$li$entl!. transportin$ $oods indiscri#inatel! for all persons. After t#at. the (ivil (ode provisions on co##on carriers "hich set forth a presu#ption of ne$li$ence do not find application in the case at or public carrier. provided the charter is li#ited to the ship onl!. *e that as it #a!.rticle 9200 of the Ne" (ivil (ode #andates that co##on carriers. the person or corporation offerin$ such service is a private carrier. b! reason of the nature of their business. such shipo"ner should #ade liable for the ne$li$ence of the captain and cre". 90 Phil. the ter# . respondent (ourt of . it was still incum%ent upon t#em to pro e t#at t#e s#ortage or contamination sustaine! %y t#e cargo is attri%uta%le to t#e fault or negligence on t#e part of t#e s#ipper or consignee in t#e loa!ing. This the! failed to do. 131'. the ship captain. is let b! the o"ner to another person for a specified ti#e or useH $0 a contract of affrei$ht#ent b! "hich the o"ner of a ship or other vessel lets the "hole or a part of her to a #erchant or other person for the conve!ance of $oods.. "hen he "as not even at hand to "itness "hat transpired durin$ the entire vo!a$e. . i . )pon the other hand. . $& On the contrar!. at least insofar as the particular vo!a$e coverin$ the charter . t#e recor! s#ows t#at t#e plaintiff+appellee !ismally faile! to pro e t#e %asis of its cause of action.s earlier stated. Ihen petitioner chartered the vessel M5V . +ardl! then can "e char$e the charterer. It is said that et!#olo$! is the basis of reliable Fudicial decisions in co##ercial cases. the defendant is under no obli$ation to prove his eEception or defense & Moran. "ho are his servants. t#e %ur!en of pro ing t#at t#e loss or !amage was !ue to any of t#e causes w#ic# e&empt #im from lia%ility is s#ipte! to t#e carrier. in the case of loss. the shipo"ner to suppl! the shipAs stores. the pri#ordial issue here is "hether a co##on carrier beco#es a private carrier b! reason of a charter part!H in the ne$ative. Cven if the provisions of the charter part! afore?uoted are dee#ed valid. . 1. is defined in . In fine. o"ned b! private respondent <<<< "as a private carrier and not a co##on carrier b! reason of the ti#e charterer part!. air or "ater "hich hold the#selves out as read! to en$a$e in carr!in$ $oods or transportin$ passen$ers or both for co#pensation as a public e#plo!#ent and not as a casual occupation. althou$h involvin$ the carria$e of $oods for a fee. It appears that the plaintiff "as under the i#pression that it did not have to establish defendantAs ne$li$ence. *ut. This is evident in the present case considerin$ that the steerin$ of the ship. *! this o#ission. and not "hether the presu#ption of ne$li$ence provided under the (ivil (ode applies onl! to co##on carriers and not to private carriers. or so#e principal part thereof. the charter part! provides for the hire of vessel onl!. such that if the underta-in$ is a sin$le transaction. contrar! to the trial courtAs findin$. On appeal. "herein the vessel is leased to the charterer for a fiEed period of ti#e. Prescindin$ fro# the provision of the la" that a co##on carrier is presu#ed ne$li$ent in case of loss or da#a$e of the $oods it contracts to transport. Petitioner PPI appeals to us b! "a! of a petition for revie" assailin$ the decision of the (ourt of . . It is an old and "ell settled rule that if the plaintiff. *ommentaries on t#e Rules of *ourt . absent an! stipulation to the contrar!. no such presu#ption applies to private carriers. The distinction bet"een a . in consideration of the pa!#ent of frei$htH $1 (harter parties are of t"o t!pesB &a' contract of affrei$ht#ent "hich involves the use of shippin$ space on vessels leased b! the o"ner in part or as a "hole. and the defendants considered private carriers. &b' charter b! de#ise or bareboat charter. trimming an! !isc#arge of t#e cargo . operates as a co##on carrier. *elen. and instead shiftin$ the onus pro%an!i on the shipper to sho" "ant of due deli$ence on the part of the carrier. . $$ In both cases. Thus G . $5 In the case of private carriers. )nc. .ppeals reversed the lo"er court and absolved the carrier fro# liabilit! for the value of the car$o that "as lost or da#a$ed. . 1& Rel!in$ on the 9/4@ case of (ome )nsurance * or public carrier.private or special carrier. $' It is therefore i#perative that a public carrier shall re#ain as such. Volu#e 4. ho"ever.rt.. common or pri ate #e may %e . It is onl! "hen the charter includes both the vessel and its cre". (ontract of affrei$ht#ent #a! either be ti#e charter. as in a bareboat or de#ise that a co##on carrier beco#es private. and the burden of provin$ other"ise rests on the#. Petitioner theori8es that the (ome )nsurance case has no bearin$ on the present controvers! because the issue raised therein is the validit! of a stipulation in the charter part! deli#itin$ the liabilit! of the shipo"ner for loss or da#a$e to $oods cause b! "ant of due deli$ence on its part or that of its #ana$er to #a-e the vessel sea"orth! in all respects. It is not disputed that respondent carrier.

. up to and until the vessel reached its destination and its hull "as reeEa#ined b! the consi$nee. foreclosin$ the possibilit! of spilla$e of the car$o into the sea or seepa$e of "ater inside the hull of the vessel. and not the effects of a special charter on co##on carriers.pril 9/2@. as a$ainst hi#. (hupun$co further added that in unloadin$ fertili8er in bul. p. 3' The carrier. losses due to spilla$e durin$ such operation a#ountin$ to one percent &97' a$ainst the bill of ladin$ is dee#ed . of the carrier. da#a$e or deterioration of the car$o "as due to fortuitous event. pp. The (ode of (o##erce also provides that all losses and deterioration "hich the $oods #a! suffer durin$ the transportation b! reason of fortuitous event. .t an! rate. 13 :ul! 9/22. . the four &6' hatches of the vessel "ere cleaned.pril 9/22 before the Philippine (onsul and =e$al . 16'H and. respondent carrier has sufficientl! overco#e. the seals "ould have to be bro-en. Cstanislao (hupun$co. that to open these hatches. representatives of the consi$nee boarded. but prior to unloadin$.. *ut "here her services onl! are let. supra . is #isplaced for the reason that the #eat of the controvers! therein "as the validit! of a stipulation in the charter part! eEe#ptin$ the shipo"ners fro# liabilit! for loss due to the ne$li$ence of its a$ent. and that proof of these accidents is incu#bent upon the carrier. . force ma. the learned barrister at la" 30 G . The #aster and the cre" are in each case his servants. a shipo"ner in a ti#e or vo!a$e charter retains possession and control of the ship. t#e recor! of t#e instant case !iscloses ample e i!ence s#owing t#at !efen!ant carrier was not negligent in performing its o%ligations . the frei$hter in each case is usuall! "ithout an! representative on board the shipH the sa#e opportunities for fraud or collusion occurH and the sa#e difficult! in discoverin$ the truth as to "hat has ta-en place arises ."ith the use of a cla#ped shell. The period durin$ "hich private respondent "as to observe the de$ree of dili$ence re?uired of it as a public carrier be$an fro# the ti#e the car$o "as unconditionall! placed in its char$e after the vesselAs holds "ere dul! inspected and passed scrutin! b! the shipper. 33 Ihen M5V . testified that before the fertili8er "as loaded. .of the shipper. shall be liable for the loss and da#a$e resultin$ fro# the precedin$ causes if it is proved. that the! arose throu$h his ne$li$ence or b! reason of his havin$ failed to ta-e the precautions "hich usa$e has established a#on$ careful persons. b! clear and convincin$ proof. p. and in the presence of a representative of the shipo"ner. #ore particularl!. 3& . The #aster of the carr!in$ vessel. tri##in$ and dischar$e of the car$o "as to be done b! the charterer.s a #atter of principle.and eEpense to the carrier. althou$h her holds #a!. opened the hatches and inspected the condition of the hull of the vessel. be the propert! of the charterer. The pri#ar! cause of these spilla$es is the cla#ped shell "hich does not seal ver! ti$htl!. . 3( Respondent carrier presented a "itness "ho testified on the characteristics of the fertili8er shipped and the eEpected ris-s of bul.rticle 9206 of the Ne" (ivil (ode provides that co##on carriers are not responsible for the loss. all the seals "ere found to be intact &TSN. or . 13 :ul! 9/22.S. In an action for recover! of da#a$es a$ainst a co##on carrier on the $oods shipped. dried and fu#i$ated. )rea also contains 647 nitro$en and is hi$hl! soluble in "ater.ddendu# to the standard . nonetheless. 35 Moreover. ti#e charter part! "hich provided for an F. destruction or deterioration of the $oods if caused b! the charterer of the $oods or defects in the pac-a$in$ or in the containers. the steel pontoon hatches "ere closed and sealed "ith iron lids. durin$ stora$e.I. provided that the te#perature inside the hull does not eEceed ei$ht! &@3' de$rees centi$rade. the shipper or consi$nee should first prove the fact of ship#ent and its conse?uent loss or da#a$e "hile the sa#e "as in the possession. the follo"in$ testi#onies of plaintiff appelleeAs o"n "itnesses clearl! sho" absence of ne$li$ence b! the defendant carrierH that the hull of the vessel at the ti#e of the dischar$e of the car$o "as sealed and nobod! could open the sa#e eEcept in the presence of the o"ner of the car$o and the representatives of the vessel &TSN.O. the presu#ption of ne$li$ence on the part of the respondent carrier has been efficaciousl! overco#e b! the sho"in$ of eEtraordinar! 8eal and assiduit! eEercised b! the carrier in the care of the car$o. or the inherent defect of the $oods. for the #o#ent.Sun Plu#. American Steams#ip Agencies. shall be for the account and ris. 3$ It "as also sho"n durin$ the trial that the hull of the vessel "as in $ood condition.lso. and therefore under his control and supervision. D . the burden of proof shifts to respondent to prove that he has eEercised eEtraordinar! dili$ence re?uired b! la" or that the loss. #eanin$. a shipo"ner is liable for da#a$e to the car$o resultin$ fro# i#proper sto"a$e onl! "hen the sto"in$ is done b! stevedores e#plo!ed b! hi#. 9D 94' &e#phasis supplied'. the stevedores. The hatches re#ained close and ti$htl! sealed "hile the ship "as in transit as the "ei$ht of the steel covers #ade it i#possible for a person to open "ithout the use of the shipAs boo#. then covered "ith three &0' la!ers of serviceable tarpaulins "hich "ere tied "ith steel bonds. the prima facie presu#ption of ne$li$ence. Ie ?uote "ith approval the observations of Raoul (olinvauE. a che#ical en$ineer "or-in$ "ith . :apan. . sto"in$. .tlas Fertili8er.nor#al.eure. so that he ta-es over the char$e and control of her.. (aptain =ee Tae *o. doc-ed at its berthin$ place. the sa#e $rounds for i#posin$ a strict responsibilit! eEist.>CN(ON.shippin$. and a car$o surve!or representin$ (S(I.part! is concerned. $9 does not find application in our Furisdiction. 96'H that the cover of the hatches "as #ade of steel and it "as overlaid "ith tarpaulins. "hether he is e#plo!ed b! one or #an!. . +o"ever. the rules $overnin$ co##on carriers. contrar! to the trial courtAs findin$. for "e have observed that the $ro"in$ concern for safet! in the transportation of passen$ers and 5or carria$e of $oods b! sea re?uires a #ore eEactin$ interpretation of ad#iralt! la"s. $( Respondent carrierAs heav! reliance on the case of (ome )nsurance *o. nitro$en and a##onia do not nor#all! evaporate even on a lon$ vo!a$e. actual or constructive.fter co#pletin$ the loadin$ of the car$o in the shipAs holds. Indubitabl!. the rule in the )nited States that a ship chartered b! a sin$le shipper to carr! special car$o is not a co##on carrier. that the loadin$. described )rea as a che#ical co#pound consistin$ #ostl! of a##onia and carbon #onoEide co#pounds "hich are used as fertili8er. This "as confir#ed b! respondent appellate court thus G . The stevedores unloaded the car$o under the "atchful e!es of the ship#ates "ho "ere overseein$ the "hole operation on rotation basis. This is clear fro# the li#itation clause a$reed upon b! the parties in the .tolerable. Ihere the ship herself is let to a charterer. Mr. the "ind tends to blo" a"a! so#e of the #aterials durin$ the unloadin$ process. 31 To our #ind. or so#e other circu#stances inconsistent "ith its liabilit!. 3% Veril!. the fore#an. *e that as it #a!. it is difficult to find a valid distinction bet"een cases in "hich a ship is used to conve! the $oods of one and of several persons. Thereafter.ttache in the Philippine C#bass! in To-!o. the case is differentH the shipo"ner is not then a carrier. Particularl!. free fro# all ris. in his deposition ta-en on 9/ . three la!ers of tarpaulins and therefore their contents "ere protected fro# the "eather &TSN. not "hen the sa#e is done b! the consi$nee or stevedores under the e#plo! of the latter. Mr.

respondent carrier has sufficientl! proved the inherent character of the $oods "hich #a-es it hi$hl! vulnerable to deteriorationH as "ell as the inade?uac! of its pac-a$in$ "hich further contributed to the loss.of loss or da#a$e. "herein the ship is leased to the charterer for a fiEed period of ti#e or vo!a$e charter.. the steel hatches "ere closed "ith heav! iron lids. not"ithstandin$ the charter of the "hole or part of the vessel b! one or #ore persons.fter the )rea fertili8er "as loaded in bul. . a shipo"ner in a ti#e or vo!a$e charter retains in possession and control of the ship. Ihether or not the charter part! contract bet"een the ship o"ner and the charterer transfor#s a co##on carrier into a private carrier% e. The probabilit! of the car$o bein$ da#a$ed or $ettin$ #iEed or conta#inated "ith forei$n particles "as #ade $reater b! the fact that the fertili8er "as transported in .. *efore loadin$ the fertili8er aboard the vessel. in all respects sea"orth! to carr! the car$o she "as chartered for. It is therefor i#perative that such co##on carrier shall re#ain as such. &6' of her holds "ere presu#abl! inspected b! the chartererJs representative and found fit to ta-e a load of urea in bul-. the petitioner unloaded the car$o pursuant to the ter#s and conditions of the charter part!. The hatches re#ained open throu$hout the duration of the dischar$e. or its daterioration in value. Planters Product Inc. is A//)RM. the charter part! provides for the hire of the vessel onl!. as contained in their report to PPI "as Fust an approEi#ation or esti#ate #ade b! the# after the fertili8er "as dischar$ed fro# the vessel and se$re$ated fro# the rest of the car$o. as it is hereb! -)SM)SS. charter part! #a! either her be ti#e charter "herein the vessel is leased to the charterer. More so. It is onl! "hen the charter includes both ship and its cre" as in bareboat or de#ise that it beco#es a private carrier.Sun Plu#.ppeals. This is a ris. . Prior to its vo!a$e. )pon arrival of vessel at port. (osts a$ainst petitioner.s such. purchased fro# Mitsubishi international corporation #etric tons of )rea fertili8er. althou$h her holds #a! be the propert! of the charterer. The assailed decision of the (ourt of . a ti#e charter part! on the vessel respondent entered into bet"een Mitsubishi as shipper5charterer and <<<< as ship o"ner.ship#ent of hi$hl! soluble $oods li-e fertili8er carries "ith it the ris. either fresh or saline. In both cases. The (ourt notes that it "as in the #onth of :ul! "hen the vessel arrived port and unloaded her car$o. either for a deter#inate ti#e or for a sin$le or consecutive vo!a$e. If there "as loss or conta#ination of the car$o./. or "hen it co#es in contact "ith "ater. It rained fro# ti#e to ti#e at the harbor area "hile the car$o "as bein$ dischar$ed accordin$ to the suppl! officer of PPI. The evidence of respondent carrier also sho"ed that it "as hi$hl! i#probable for sea "ater to seep into the vesselAs holds durin$ the vo!a$e since the hull of the vessel "as in $ood condition and her hatches "ere ti$htl! closed and fir#l! sealed. the petition is -)SM)SS. :apan. no" Re$ional Trial (ourt. This #a! be $leaned fro# the testi#on! of the #arine and car$o surve!or of (S(I "ho supervised the unloadin$. is caused either b! an eEtre#el! hi$h te#perature in its place of stora$e. no proof "as adduced b! the petitioner sho"in$ that the carrier "as re#ise in the eEercise of due dili$ence in order to #ini#i8e the loss or da#a$e to the $oods it carried.The dissipation of ?uantities of fertili8er. provided the charter is li#ited to the ship onl!.. "ith a variable "eather condition prevalent durin$ its unloadin$. . Indeed. "ho also testified that it "as "ind! at the "aterfront and alon$ the shoreline "here the du#p truc-s passed enroute to the consi$neeAs "arehouse. in To-!o. of Manila should be. /@410 of the then (ourt of the First Instance.the shipper or the o"ner of the $oods has to face. Case digest F)*t+. "hich the latter shipped aboard the car$o vessel M5V Sun Plu# o"ned b! private respondent <!osei <isen <abushi-i <aisha. Ihen )rea is drenched in "ater. order car$o. "e a$ree "ith respondent carrier that bul. so#e of its particles dissolve. as in the case of a ti#e charter or vo!a$e charter. (learl!. "herein the ship is leased for a sin$le vo!a$e. it "as #ore li-el! to have occurred "hile the sa#e "as bein$ transported fro# the ship to the du#p truc-s and finall! to the consi$neeAs "arehouse. Planters filed an action for da#a$es. . +e eEplained that the 9@ M5T of alle$ed . SO ORDCRCD. (onse?uentl!. #a-in$ the M5V . (ivil (ase No.bul-. "hich reversed the trial court.. as "as the case at bar. The defendant ar$ued that the public polic! $overnin$ co##on carriers do not appl! to the# because the! have beco#e private carriers b! reason of the provisions of the charter part!. *ut the salva$ed portion "hich is in li?uid for# still re#ains potent and usable althou$h no lon$er saleable in its ori$inal #ar-et value..b! stevedores hired b! and under the supervision of the shipper.-. )ndoubtedl!. )pon arrival at petitionerJs "arehouse a surve! conducted over the car$o revealed a shorta$e and the #ost of the fertili8er "as conta#inated "ith dirt. thereb! eEposin$ it to the ini#ical effects of the ele#ents and the $ri#! condition of the various pieces of e?uip#ent used in transportin$ and haulin$ it. I+CRCFORC. On the other hand.