Ynchausti Steamship Co. vs. Dexter and Unson., 41 Phil. 289, No.

15652 December 14, 1920

ID.; LOSS OR DAMAGE TO GOODS IN TRANSIT; LIABILITY OF CARRIER.—Proof of the delivery of goods in
good order to a carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination short or in bad order, makes out a
prima facie case; and it is incumbent on the carrier, in order to exonerate itself, to prove that the loss or
injury was due to some circumstance inconsistent with its liability

Mirasol vs. Robert Dollar Co., 53 Phil. 124, No. 29721 March 27, 1929

WHEN BURDEN OF PROOF IS SHIFTED.—Shippers who are forced to ship goods on an ocean liner, 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, in an action for damages, the burden
of proof is then shifted, and it devolves upon the shipowner to both allege and prove that the goods
were damaged by reason of some act which legally exempts him from liability. Mirasol vs. Robert Dollar
Co., 53 Phil. 124, No. 29721 March 27, 1929

De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 612, No. L-47822 December 22, 1988

Same; Same; Same; Liability of common carriers in case of loss, destruction or deterioration or
destruction of goods they carry; Extraordinary diligence, required; Exceptions.—Common carriers, “by
the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,” are held to a very high degree of care and
diligence (“extraordinary diligence”) in the carriage of goods as well as of passengers. The specific import
of extraordinary diligence in the care of goods transported by a common carrier is, according to Article
1733, “further expressed in Articles 1734, 1735 and 1745, numbers 5, 6 and 7” of the Civil Code. Article
1734 establishes the general rule that common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods which they carry, “unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity; (2) Act of the public enemy
in war, whether international or civil; (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; (4) The
character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers; and (5) Order or act of competent
public authority.” It is important to point out that the above list of causes of loss, destruction or
deterioration which exempt the common carrier for responsibility therefor, is a closed list. Causes falling
outside the foregoing list, even if they appear to constitute a species of force majeure, fall within the
scope of Article 1735.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The hijacking of the carriers truck does not fall within any of the five (5)
categories of exempting causes in Art. 1734.—Applying the above-quoted Articles 1734 and 1735, we
note firstly that the specific cause alleged in the instant case—the hijacking of the carrier’s truck—does
not fall within any of the five (5) categories of exempting causes listed in Article 1734. It would follow,
therefore, that the hijacking of the carrier’s vehicle must be dealt with under the provisions of Article
1735, in other words, that the private respondent as common carrier is presumed to have been at fault
or to have acted negligently. This presumption, however, may be overthrown by proof of extraordinary
diligence on the part of private respondent.

Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (10th Division, 280 SCRA 58, G.R. No. 108897
October 2, 1997

Common Carriers; Damages; 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 transported
by them, and this liability “lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of,
and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by
the carrier to the person who has a right to receive them.”—Petitioner’s receipt of Fatima’s personal
luggage having been thus established, it must now be determined if, as a common carrier, it is
responsible for their loss. Under the Civil Code, “(c)ommon 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 x x x transported by them,” and this liability “lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally
placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered,
actually or constructively, by the carrier to x x x the person who has a right to receive them,” unless the
loss is due to any of the excepted causes under Article 1734 thereof.

Coastwise Lighterage Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 796, G.R. No. 114167 July 12, 1995

Same; Evidence; Presumption of negligence of common carriers; Mere proof of delivery of goods in good
order to a carrier and the subsequent arrival of the same goods at the place of destination in bad order
makes for a prima facie case against the carrier.—The law and jurisprudence on common carriers both
hold that the mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier and the subsequent arrival of the
same goods at the place of destination in bad order makes for a prima facie case against the carrier. It
follows then that the presumption of negligence that attaches to common carriers, once the goods it
transports are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, applies to the petitioner. This presumption, which is
overcome only by proof of the exercise of extraordinary diligence, remained unrebutted in this case.

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Simon Enterprises, Inc., 692 SCRA 87, G.R. No. 177116 February 27, 2013

Civil Law; Common Carriers; Extraordinary Diligence; Though it is true that common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods transported by them are lost,
destroyed, or deteriorated, and that the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary
diligence in order to overcome the presumption, the plaintiff must still, before the burden is shifted to
the defendant, prove that the subject shipment suffered actual shortage.―Though it is true that
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods
transported by them are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated, and that the common carrier must prove that it
exercised extraordinary diligence in order to overcome the presumption, the plaintiff must still, before
the burden is shifted to the defendant, prove that the subject shipment suffered actual shortage. This
can only be done if the weight of the shipment at the port of origin and its subsequent weight at the
port of arrival have been proven by a preponderance of evidence, and it can be seen that the former
weight is considerably greater than the latter weight, taking into consideration the exceptions provided
in Article 1734 of the Civil Code.

Tan Chiong Sian vs. Inchausti & Co., 22 Phil. 152, No. 6092 March 8, 1912

ID.; ID.; ID.; EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY.—Under article 361 of the Code of Commerce transportation of
merchandise is for account, risk and hazard of the shipper, unless the contrary has been expressly
stipulated. The carrier is exempt from liability if he prove, as it is incumbent upon him to do, that the loss
or destruction of the merchandise was due to accident and force majeure and not to fraud, fault, or
negligence on the part of the captain or owners of the ship.

G. Martini, Ltd. vs. Macondray & Co., 39 Phil., 934, No. 13972 July 28, 1919

SHIPPING; DECK CARGO; DAMAGE RESULTING FROM ACTION OF ELEMENTS.—Where cargo is, with the
owner's consent, transported on the deck of a sea-going vessel upon a bill of lading exempting the ship's
company from liability for damage, the risk of any damage resulting from carriage on deck, such as the
damage caused by rain or the splashing aboard of sea water, must be borne by the owner.

G.R. No. L-69044 May 29, 1987

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner,

vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and DEVELOPMENT INSURANCE & SURETY
CORPORATION, respondents.

No. 71478 May 29, 1987

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner,

vs.
THE NISSHIN FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., and DOWA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE
CO., LTD., respondents.

Under 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 goods, according to all the
circumstances of each case. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
8

deterioration of the goods unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity

And even if fire were to be considered a "natural disaster" within the meaning of Article 1734 of the
Civil Code, it is required under Article 1739 of the same Code that the "natural disaster" must have
been the "proximate and only cause of the loss," and that the carrier has "exercised due diligence to
prevent or minimize the loss before, during or after the occurrence of the disaster. " This Petitioner
Carrier has also failed to establish satisfactorily.

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE NISSHIN FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., and
DOWA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD., Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 150 SCRA 464, No. L-71478 May 29, 1987

Same; Same; Same; Common Carriers bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
goods according to all the circumstances of each case; Fire not considered a natural disaster or calamity;
Common carrier presumed at fault or acted negligently in cases other than those mentioned in Article
1734.—Under 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 goods, according to all
the circumstances of each 'case. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: "(1) Flood, storm,
earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity "x x x x x x x" Petitioner Carrier claims that the
loss of the vessel by fire exempts it from liability under the phrase "natural disaster or calamity."
However, we are of the opinion that fire may not be considered a natural disaster or calamity. This must
be so as it arises almost invariably from some act of man or by human means. It does not fall within the
category of an act of God unless caused by lightning or by other natural disaster or calamity. It may even
be caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier. Article 1680 of the Civil Code, which considers fire
as an extraordinary fortuitous event refers to leases of rural lands where a reduction of the rent is
allowed when more than one-half of the f ruits have been lost due to such event, considering that the
law adopts a protective policy towards agriculture. As the peril of fire is not comprehended within the
exceptions in Article 1734, supra, Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that in all cases other than
those mentioned in Article 1734, the common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently, unless it proves that it has observed the extraordinary diligence required by law.

Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 409 SCRA 340, G.R. No. 147246 August 19,
2003

Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Negligence; Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or
to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated.—Common carriers are bound
to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. They are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or
deteriorated. To overcome the presumption of negligence in the case of loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence.
There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Article 1734 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances
when the presumption of negligence does not attach.

Transimex Co. vs. Mafre Asian Insurance Corp., 802 SCRA 667, G.R. No. 190271 September 14, 2016

Same; Same; Same; Common carriers are automatically presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently if the goods they were transporting were lost, destroyed or damaged while in transit.—We
emphasize that common carriers are automatically presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently if the goods they were transporting were lost, destroyed or damaged while in transit. This
presumption can only be rebutted by proof that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence and caution
to ensure the protection of the shipment in the event of foul weather.

Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. UCPB General Insurance Company, Inc., 404 SCRA 706, G.R. No.
146018 June 25, 2003

Civil Law; Damages; Force Majeure; Broadly speaking, force majeure generally applies to a natural
accident, such as that caused by a lightning, an earthquake, a tempest or a public enemy.—Having
originated from an unchecked crack in the fuel oil service tank, the fire could not have been caused by
force majeure. Broadly speaking, force majeure generally applies to a natural accident, such as that
caused by a lightning, an earthquake, a tempest or a public enemy. Hence, fire is not considered a
natural disaster or calamity.

Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 262, G.R. No. 116940
June 11, 1997

Same; Same; Same; Same; Presumptions; In the event of loss of goods, common carriers are presumed
to have acted negligently.—Under Art. 1733 of the Civil Code, “(c)ommon 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 the
circumstances of each case x x x x” In the event of loss of goods, common carriers are presumed to have
acted negligently. FELMAN, the shipowner, was not able to rebut this presumption.

Tabacalera Insurance Co. vs. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., 272 SCRA 527, G.R. No. 119197 May
16, 1997
However, we cannot attribute the destruction, loss or deterioration of the cargo solely to the carrier. We
find the consignee Republic Flour Mills Corporation guilty of contributory negligence. It was seasonably
notified of the arrival of the barge but did not immediately start the unloading operations. No
explanation was proffered by the consignee as to w hy there was a delay of six (6) days. Had the
unloading been commenced immediately, the loss could have been completely avoided or at least
minimized. As testified to by the chemist who analyzed the corn samples, the mold growth was only at
its incipient stage and could still be arrested by drying. The corn grains were not yet toxic or unfit for
consumption. For its contributory negligence, Republic Flour Mills Corporation should share at least 40%
of the loss.7