Transimex vs. Mafre Asian

4/12/22, 4:21 PM G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016 - TRANSIMEX CO., Petitioner, v. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP.
RANCE CORP., Respondent. : Sep…
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
Search

ChanRobles Professional
Review, Inc.

September 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > September 2016 Decisions >
G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016 - TRANSIMEX CO., Petitioner, v. MAFRE ASIAN
INSURANCE CORP., Respondent.:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar

Review
G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016 - TRANSIMEX CO., Petitioner, v. MAFRE ASIAN
INSURANCE CORP., Respondent.
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016
TRANSIMEX CO., Petitioner, v. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP., Respondent.
DECISION
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016septemberdecisions.php?id=799 1/18
4/12/22, 4:21 PM G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016 - TRANSIMEX CO., Petitioner, v. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP., Respondent. : Sep…

SERENO, C.J.:
This case involves a money claim filed by an insurance company against the ship
agent of a common carrier. The dispute stemmed from an alleged shortage in a
shipment of fertilizer delivered by the carrier to a consignee. Before this Court, the
ship agent insists that the shortage was caused by bad weather, which must be
considered either a storm under Article 1734 of the Civil Code or a peril of the sea
under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA).1

chanrobleslaw
In the Decision2 and the Resolution3 assailed in this Petition for Review on
Certiorari,4 the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Decision5 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC). The RTC ordered petitioner Transimex Co. (Transimex) to pay
respondent Mafre Asian Insurance Corp.6 the amount of P1,617,527.37 in addition to
ChanRobles CPA Review attorney's fees and costs. Petitioner is the local ship agent of the vessel, while
Online
respondent is the subrogee of Fertiphil Corporation (Fertiphil),7 the consignee of a

shipment of Prilled Urea Fertilizer transported by M/V Meryem Ana.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
On 21 May 1996, M/V Meryem Ana received a shipment consisting of 21,857 metric
tons of Prilled Urea Fertilizer from Helm Duengemittel GMBH at Odessa, Ukraine.8 The
shipment was covered by two separate bills of lading and consigned to Fertiphil for
delivery to two ports - one in Poro Point, San Fernando, La Union; and the other in
Tabaco, Albay.9 Fertiphil insured the cargo against all risks under Marine Risk Note
Nos. MN-MAR-HO-0001341 and MN-MAR-HO-0001347 issued by respondent.10

chanrobleslaw
On 20 June 1996, M/V Meryem Ana arrived at Poro Point, La Union, and discharged
ChanRobles Special Lecture 14,339.507 metric tons of fertilizer under the first bill of lading.11 The ship sailed on
Series
to Tabaco, Albay, to unload the remainder of the cargo. The fertilizer unloaded at

Albay appeared to have a gross weight of 7,700 metric tons.12 The present
controversy involves only this second delivery.
As soon as the vessel docked at the Tabaco port, the fertilizer was bagged and stored
inside a warehouse by employees of the consignee.13 When the cargo was

subsequently weighed, it was discovered that only 7,350.35 metric tons of fertilizer
had been delivered.14 Because of the alleged shortage of 349.65 metric tons,
Fertiphil filed a claim with respondent for P1,617,527.37,15 which was found
compensable.16
chanrobleslaw
After paying the claim of Fertiphil, respondent demanded reimbursement from

petitioner on the basis of the right of subrogation. The claim was denied, prompting
respondent to file a Complaint with the RTC for recovery of sum of money.17 In
support of its claim, respondent presented a Report of Survey18 and a Certification19

from David Cargo Survey Services to prove the shortage. In addition, respondent
submitted an Adjustment Report20 prepared by Adjustment Standards Corporation

(ASC) to establish the outturn quantity and condition of the fertilizer discharged from
the vessel at the Tabaco port.21 In the report, the adjuster also stated that the
shortage was attributable to the melting of the fertilizer while inside the hatches,
when the vessel took on water because of the bad weather experienced at sea.22 Two
witnesses were then presented by respondent to buttress its documentary
evidence.23
chanrobleslaw
Petitioner, on the other hand, denied that there was loss or damage to the cargo.24 It
submitted survey certificates and presented the testimony of a marine surveyor to
prove that there was, in fact, an excess of 3.340 metric tons of fertilizer delivered to
the consignee.25 Petitioner also alleged that defendants had exercised extraordinary
cralawred
diligence in the transport and handling of the cargo.26

chanrobleslaw
THE RTC RULING
The RTC ruled in favor of respondent and ordered petitioner to pay the claim of
P1,617,527.37. In its Decision,27 the trial court found that there was indeed a
shortage in the cargo delivered, for which the common carrier must be held
responsible under Article 1734 of the Civil Code. The RTC also refused to give
credence to petitioner's claim of overage and noted that the presumption of fault
and/or negligence on the part of the carrier remained unrebutted. The trial court
explained:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The defendants' defense is that there was no loss/damage to the cargo

because instead of a shortage there was an overage of 3.340, invoking
the findings of Raul Pelagio, a marine surveyor connected with Survey
Specialists, Inc. whose services were engaged by the defendants.
However, the Court notes that what was loaded in the vessel M/V Meryem
Ana at Odessa, Ukraine on May 21, 1996 was 21,857 metric tons of prilled
urea fertilizer (Draft Survey Report, Exhibit F). How the quantity loaded
had increased to 21,860.34 has not been explained by the defendants.
Thus, the Court finds incredible the testimony of Raul Pelagio that he
found an overage of 3.340 metric tons. The Court is inclined to give
credence to the testimonies of witness Jaime David, the cargo surveyor
engaged by consignee Fertiphil Corporation, and witness Fabian Bon, a
cargo surveyor of Adjustment Standards Corporation, whose services were
engaged by plaintiff Mafre Asian Insurance Corporation, there being no
reason for the Court to disregard their findings which jibe with one
another.
Thus, it appears crystal clear that on the vessel M/V Meryem Ana was
loaded in bulk on May 21, 1996 at Odessa, Ukraine a cargo consisting of
21,857 metric tons of prilled urea fertilizer bound for delivery at Poro
Point, San Fernando, La Union and at Tabaco, Albay; that the cargo
unloaded at said ports of destination had a shortage of 349.65 metric
tons.
x x x x
As to the defense that defendants had supposedly exercised extraordinary

care and diligence in the transport and handling of the cargo, the Court
finds that the evidence presented by the defendants is absolutely and
completely bereft of anything to support their claim of having exercised
extraordinary care and diligence.
Hence, the presumption of fault and/or negligence as provided in Art.

1735 of the Civil Code on the part of the defendants stands unrebutted as
against the latter.28
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
THE CA RULING
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC and denied petitioner's appeal.29 After
evaluating the evidence presented during trial, the appellate court found no reason to
disturb the trial court's conclusion that there was indeed a shortage in the
shipment.30
chanrobleslaw
The CA also rejected the assertion that petitioner was not a common carrier.31
Because the latter offered services to the public for the transport of goods in
exchange for compensation, it was considered a common carrier in accordance with
Article 1732 of the Civil Code. The CA further noted that petitioner had already
admitted this fact in the Answer32 and even raised the defenses usually invoked by
common carriers during trial and on appeal, i.e., the exercise of extraordinary care
and diligence, and fortuitous event.33 These defenses were, however, found
unmeritorious:
Defendants-appellants claim that the loss was due to a fortuitous event as

the Survey Report of Jaime David stated that during its voyage, the vessel
encountered bad weather. But to excuse a common carrier fully of any
liability, Article 1739 of the Civil Code requires that the fortuitous event
must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. Moreover, it
should have exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss
before, during and after the occurrence of the fortuitous event.
x x x x
In the present case, defendants-appellants did not present proof that the
"bad weather" they encountered was a "storm" as contemplated by Article
1734(1). String winds are the ordinary vicissitudes of a sea voyage. Even
if the weather encountered by the ship was to be deemed a natural
disaster under Article 1739 of the Civil Code, defendants-appellants failed

to show that such natural disaster or calamity was the proximate and only

cause of the loss. The shortage must not have been caused or worsened
September-2016 Jurisprudence by human participation. The defense of fortuitous event or natural disaster

cannot be successfully made when the injury could have been avoided by

human precaution.34
G.R. No. 211608, September

07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the CA Decision, but the motion was
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. denied.35 Not only did the Motion for Reconsideration lack meit according to the
MENARDO BOMBASI Y VERGARA, appellate court; it was also filed out of time.36
chanrobleslaw
Accused-Appellant.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

05, 2016 - TAINA MANIGQUE-

On 3 December 2009, Transimex filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari37 before this
STONE, Petitioner, v. CATTLEYA
Court praying for the reversal of the CA Decision and Resolution.38 Petitioner asserts
LAND, INC., AND SPOUSES
that the lower courts erred in holding it liable for the alleged shortage in the
TROADIO B. TECSON AND
shipment of fertilizer. While it no longer questions the existence of the shortage, it
ASUNCION ORTALIZ-TECSON,
Respondents. claims that the loss or damage was caused by bad weather.39 It then insists that the

dispute is governed by Section 4 of COGSA, which exempts the carrier from liability
G.R. No. 212171, September for any loss or damage arising from "perils, dangers and accidents of the sea.40
chanrobleslaw
07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
In its Comment,41 respondent maintains that petitioner was correctly held liable for
MERCURY DELA CRUZ ALIAS
the shortage of the cargo in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on common
"DEDAY," Accused-Appellant.
carriers.42 It insists that the factual findings of the lower courts must be respected43

particularly in this case, since petitioner failed to timely appeal the Decision of the
A.C. No. 10565, September
07, 2016 - PROSECUTOR CA.44
chanrobleslaw
RHODNA A. BACATAN,
Complainant, v. ATTY. MERARI D. Petitioner, in its Reply,45 takes a position different from its initial stance as to the law
DADULA, Respondent. applicable to the dispute. It concedes that the Civil Code primarily governs its liability

as a carrier, with COGSA as a suppletory source.46 Under both laws, petitioner
A.C. No. 7045, September 05, contends that it is exempt from liability, because damage to the cargo was caused by
2016 - THE LAW FIRM OF the bad weather encountered by the vessel while at sea. This kind of weather
CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEOCHE supposedly qualifies as a violent storm under the Civil Code; or as a peril, danger or
REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING accident of the sea under COGSA.47

chanrobleslaw
PARTNER, ATTY. FRANCISCO I.

CHAVEZ, Complainant, v. ATTYS.

ISSUES
RESTITUTO S. LAZARO AND

RODEL R. MORTA, Respondents.

The following issues are presented for resolution by this Court:
G.R. No. 204423, September 1. Whether the CA Decision has become final and executory
14, 2016 - PHILIPPINE SCIENCE
HIGH SCHOOL-CAGAYAN VALLEY 2. Whether the transaction is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on
CAMPUS, Petitioner, v. PIRRA common carriers or by the provisions of COGSA
CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES,
Respondent. 3. Whether petitioner is liable for the loss or damage sustained by the cargo

because of bad weather
I.P.I. No. 16-244-CA-J,

OUR RULING
September 06, 2016 - Re:

VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF
We DENY the Petition.
CATALINA Z. ALILING AGAINST

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MA. LUISA

This Court finds that the CA Decision has become final because of the failure of
C. QUIJANO-PADILLA, COURT OF
petitioner to timely file a motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, contrary to the
APPEALS, MANILA RELATIVE TO
argument raised by the latter, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the loss
CA-G.R. CV NO. 103042
or damage to the cargo was caused by a storm or a peril of the sea.

The CA Decision has become final and executory.
14, 2016 - NAGA CENTRUM, INC.,

REPRESENTED BY AIDA KELLY

In the assailed Resolution, in which the CA ruled that petitioner's Motion for
YUBUCO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
Reconsideration was filed late, it explained:
RAMON J. ORZALES AND NENITA

F. ORZALES, Respondent. Defendants-appellants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's Decision

dated August 7, 2009 was filed out of time, as based on the reply letter
G.R. No. 192754, September dated October 13, 2009 of the Chief, Administrative Unit, Office of the
07, 2016 - LEONIS NAVIGATION Postmaster, Makati City, copy of said Decision was received by
CO., INC. AND WORLD MARINE defendants-appellants' counsel on September 4, 2009, not September 14,
PANAMA S.A., Petitioners, v. 2009 as alleged in the motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the
EDUARDO C. OBRERO AND subject Decision dated August 27, 2009 had become final and executory
MERCEDITA P. OBRERO, considering that the motion for reconsideration was filed only on
Respondents. September 29, 2009, beyond the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period

which lasted until September 19, 2009.48

05, 2016 - CAMERON GRANVILLE The Court agrees. The Certification issued by the Office of the Postmaster of Makati,
3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., which states that the Decision was received by respondent's counsel on 4 September
Petitioner, v. UE MONTHLY 2009, is entitled to full faith and credence. In the absence of contradictory evidence,
ASSOCIATES, UEAMI WORKERS
the presumption is that the postmaster has regularly performed his duty.49 In this
UNION NFL AND ALFREDO BASI,
case, there is no reason to doubt his statement as to the date respondent received
Respondent.
the CA Decision.

G.R. No. 206808-09,

Significantly, Transimex failed to address this matter in its Petition. While it continued
September 07, 2016 - LOCAL
to allege that it received the CA Decision on 14 September 2009, it did not refute the
WATER UTILITIES
finding of the appellate court that the former's Motion for Reconsideration had been
ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES
filed late. It was only after respondent again asserted the finality of the CA Decision
ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS
in its Comment did petitioner attempt to explain the discrepancy:
(LEAP), MELANIO B. CUCHAPIN

II, GREARDO* G. PERU, ROLAND x x x Apparently, the said Decision dated 27 August 2009 was delivered
S. CABAHUG, GLORIA P. by the postman to the guard on duty at the ground floor of the building
VELASQUEZ, ERLINDA G. where undersigned counsel's office is located. It was the guard on duty
VILLANUEVA, TEODORO M. who received the said decision on 4 September 2009 but it was only on 14
REYNOSO, FERNANDO L. September 2009 that undersigned counsel actually received the said
NICANDRO, JOSEPHINE P. decision. Hence, the date of receipt of the decision should be reckoned
SIMENE, LAMBERTO R. RIVERA, from the date of receipt by the counsel of the decision and not from the
REYNALDO M. VIDA, and date of receipt of the guard who is not an employee of the law office of
RUCTICO** B. TUTOL, the undersigned counsel.
Petitioners, v. LOCAL WATER

This Court notes that the foregoing account remains unsupported by evidence. The
UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION
guard on duty or any employee of the law firm could have easily substantiated the
(LWUA) and DEPARTMENT OF
explanation offered by counsel for petitioner, but no statement from any of them was
BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,
ever submitted. Since petitioner was challenging the official statement of the Office of
Respondents.
the Postmaster of Makati on the matter, the former had the burden of proving its

assertions and presenting countervailing evidence. Unfounded allegations would not

suffice.

In any event, this Court has decided to review the merits of this case in the interest
BEVERLY VILLANUEVA Y
of justice. After a judicious evaluation of the arguments interposed by the parties, we
MANALILI @ BEBANG, Accused-
find no reason to reverse the CA Decision and Resolution.
Appellant.

The provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers are applicable.
G.R.No. 186199, September

07, 2016 - EDGARDO A. QUILO

As previously discussed, petitioner initially argued that the CA erred in applying the
AND ADNALOY VILLAHERMOSA,
provisions of the Civil Code to this case. It insisted that the contract of carriage
Petitioners, v. TEODULA BAJAO,
between the parties was governed by COGSA,50 the law applicable to "all contracts
Respondent.

for the carriage of goods by sea to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade."51 This
G.R. No. 187942, September assertion is bereft of merit.
07, 2016 - THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC BISHOP OF This Court upholds the ruling of the CA with respect to the applicable law. As
TUGUEGARAO, Petitioner, v. expressly provided in Article 1753 of the Civil Code, "[t]he law of the country to
FLORENTINA PRUDENCIO, NOW which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier
DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED BY for their loss, destruction or deterioration." Since the cargo in this case was
HER HEIRS, NAMELY: EXEQUIEL, transported from Odessa, Ukraine, to Tabaco, Albay, the liability of petitioner for the
LORENZO, PRIMITIVO, alleged shortage must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Civil
MARCELINO, JULIANA, ALFREDO Code on common carriers. In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp.,
AND ROSARIO, ALL SURNAMED the Court declared: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
DOMINGO; AVELINA PRUDENCIO,

According to the New Civil Code, the law of the country to which the
ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND
goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common
VICTORIANO DIMAYA; ERNESTO
carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration. The Code takes
PENALBER AND RODRIGO
precedence as the primary law over the rights and obligations of common
TALANG; SPOUSES ISIDRO
carriers with the Code of Commerce and COGSA applying
CEPEDA AND SALVACION DIVINI,
NOW DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED suppletorily.52
BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY:

Besides, petitioner itself later conceded in its Reply that the Civil Code provisions on
MARCIAL, PEDRO AND LINA, ALL
common carriers are primarily applicable to the present dispute, while COGSA only
SURNAMED CEPEDA,
applies in a suppletory manner.53
Respondents.
chanrobleslaw
A.C. No. 10574 (Formerly CBD Petitioner is liable for the shortage incurred by the shipment.
Case No. 11-3047), September
20, 2016 - PATRICK R. FABIE, Having settled the foregoing preliminary issues, the only argument left for this Court
Complainant, v. ATTY. LEONARDO to resolve is petitioner's assertion that it is exempt from liability for the loss or
M. REAL, Respondents. damage to the cargo. As grounds for this exemption, petitioner cites both the Civil

Code and COGSA, particularly the provisions absolving a carrier from loss or damage
G.R. No. 192132, September sustained as the result of a "storm" or a "peril of the sea."
14, 2016 - HEIRS OF ZOSIMO Q.
MARAVILLA, NAMELY, ZOSIMO W. In its Petition, Transimex summarizes the testimony of one witness for respondent
MARAVILLA, JR., YVETTE supposedly proving that the shortage in the shipment was caused by inclement
MARAVILLA AND RICHARD weather encountered by the vessel at sea. Petitioner claims that this testimony
MARAVILLA, REPRESENTED BY proves that damage to the cargo was the result of the melting of the fertilizer after
ZOSIMO W. MARAVILLA, JR., seawater entered Hatch No. 1 of the vessel as a result of the bad weather conditions
Petitioners, v. PRIVALDO TUPAS, at sea:
Respondent.

The evidence for the respondent clearly proves that the
G.R. No. 206629, September loss/damage/shortage [suffered by] the cargo was caused by the bad
14, 2016 - NARCISO T. MATIS, weather encountered by the vessel during the voyage from Odessa,
Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC Ukraine to Poro Point, San Fernando, La Union, wherein due to bad
COMPANY, Respondent. weather[,] sea water found its way inside Hatch No. 1 resulting in the

wetting, melting and discoloration of the prilled urea fertilizer. The fact
G.R. No. 210940, September that sea water found its way inside Hatch No. 1 was clearly testified to by
06, 2016 - SOCIAL SECURITY the witness for the respondent. Jaime R. Davis testified that:
SYSTEM, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, "He was present during the discharging operation, that he saw
Respondent. the hatches opened whereupon he noticed the presence

of water thereat; accordingly, he informed the master of
G.R. No. 201320, September the vessel of the presence of water at the hatches to
14, 2016 - WILSON T. LIM, which the master of the vessel replied that on the way
Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE they encountered bad weather."54 (Emphasis in the

DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE original)
MILITARY AND OTHER LAW

Petitioner also cites a portion of the Adjustment Report submitted by respondent
ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO)
during trial as proof that damage to the cargo was caused by a storm:
AND P/S INSP. EUSTIQUIO

FUENTES, Respondents. How the sea water found its way inside Hatch No. 1 was clearly explained

by another witness for the respondent by the name of Fabian Bon who
G.R. No. 219815, September stated in his Adjustment as follows:
14, 2016 - J.O.S. MANAGING

BUILDERS, INC. AND EDUARDO Our inquiries disclosed that the master of the vessel
B. OLAGUER, Petitioners, v. interviewed by the consignee's surveyor (David Cargo Survey
UNITED OVERSEAS BANK Services) that during sailing from Odessa (Ukraine) bound to
PHILIPPINES (FORMERLY KNOWN Poro Point, San Fernando, La Union, Philippines, the vessel
AS WESTMONT BANK), encountered bad weather on June 3, 1996 and was
EMMANUEL T. MANGOSING AND rolling from starboard to portside top of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
DAVID GOH CHAI ENG, 6 & 7 hatch covers and sea water were washing over all
Respondents. main deck.
G.R. No. 220732, September On the following day, June 4, 1996, wind reading up to
06, 2016 - ELMER G. SINDAC @ 40 knots and very high swells were coming from south
"TAMER," Petitioner, v. THE west direction. The vessel was rolling and pitching
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, heavily. Heavy sea water were washing all main deck
Respondent. and were jumping from main deck to top of the seven

(7) hatch covers. As a result, the master filed a Marine
G.R. Nos. 190015 & 190019, Note of Protest on June 19, 1996 at the Port of Poro
September 14, 2016 - Point, San Fernando, La Union, Philippines.55 (Emphases
GERALDINE MICHELLE B. in the original)
FALLARME AND ANDREA

The question before this Court therefore comes down to whether there is sufficient
MARTINEZ-GACOS, Petitioners, v.
proof that the loss or damage incurred by the cargo was caused by a "storm" or a
SAN JUAN DE DIOS
"peril of the sea."
EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,

INC., CHONA M. HERNANDEZ,

VALERIANO ALEJANDRO III, We rule in the negative. As will be discussed, petitioner failed to prove the existence
of a storm or a peril of the sea within the context of Article 1734(1) of the Civil Code
SISTER CONCEPTION GABATINO,
or Section 4(2)(c) of COGSA. Furthermore, there was no sufficient proof that the
D.C., AND SISTER JOSEFINA
damage to the shipment was solely and proximately caused by bad weather.
QUIACHON, D.C., Respondent.

The presence of a "storm" or a "peril of the sea" was not established.


It must be emphasized that not all instances of bad weather may be categorized as
"storms" or "perils of the sea" within the meaning of the provisions of the Civil Code
ESMAEL ZACARIA Y WAGAS,
and COGSA on common carriers. To be considered absolutory causes under either
Accused-Appellant.
statute, bad weather conditions must reach a certain threshold of severity.
With respect to storms, this Court has explained the difference between a storm and
G.R. No. 191170, September ordinary weather conditions in Central Shipping Co. Inc. v. Insurance Company of
14, 2016 - CAMERON GRANVILLE North America:56
3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Nonetheless, to our mind it would not be sufficient to categorize the
Petitioner, v. FIDEL O. CHUA AND
weather condition at the time as a "storm" within the absolutory causes
FILIDEN REALTY AND
enumerated in the law. Significantly, no typhoon was observed within the
DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
Philippine area of responsibility during that period.
Respondent.

G.R. No. 219855, September According to PAGASA, a storm has a wind force of 48 to 55 knots,
equivalent to 55 to 63 miles per hour or 10 to 11 in the Beaufort
Scale. The second mate of the vessel stated that the wind was blowing
around force 7 to 8 on the Beaufort Scale. Consequently, the strong
ROMEO LINTAG Y LAUREOLA,
winds accompanying the southwestern monsoon could not be
Accused-Appellant.
classified as a "storm." Such winds are the ordinary vicissitudes of

G.R. No. 199397, September a sea voyage.57 (Emphases supplied; citations omitted)

The phrase "perils of the sea" carries the same connotation. Although the term has
not been definitively defined in Philippine jurisprudence, courts in the United States of
DARWIN GITO Y CORLIN,
America generally limit the application of the phrase to weather that is "so unusual,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.,
unexpected and catastrophic as to be beyond reasonable expectation."58 Accordingly,
Respondent.
strong winds and waves are not automatically deemed perils of the sea, if these

conditions are not unusual for that particular sea area at that specific time, or if they
14, 2016 - DRUGSTORES could have been reasonably anticipated or foreseen.59 While cases decided by U.S.
ASSOCIATION OF THE courts are not binding precedents in this jurisdiction, the Court considers these
PHILIPPINES, INC. AND pronouncements persuasive60 in light of the fact that COGSA was originally an
NORTHERN LUZON DRUG American statute61 that was merely adopted by the Philippine Legislature in 1936.62
chanrobleslaw
CORPORATION, Petitioners, v.

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON
In this case, the documentary and testimonial evidence cited by petitioner indicate
DISABILITY AFFAIRS;
that M/V Meryem Ana faced winds of only up to 40 knots while at sea. This wind force
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH;
clearly fell short of the 48 to 55 knots required for "storms" under Article 1734(1) of
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE;
the Civil Code based on the threshold established by PAGASA.63 Petitioner also failed
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE;
to prove that the inclement weather encountered by the vessel was unusual,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
unexpected, or catastrophic. In particular, the strong winds and waves, which
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT; AND
allegedly assaulted the ship, were not shown to be worse than what should have
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
been expected in that particular location during that time of the year. Consequently,
WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT,
this Court cannot consider these weather conditions as "perils of the sea" that would
Respondent.
absolve the carrier from liability.

As a side note, we observe that there are no definite statutory standards for
14, 2016 - TRANSIMEX CO.,
determining the existence of a "storm" or "peril of the sea" that would exempt a
Petitioner, v. MAFRE ASIAN
common carrier from liability. Hence, in marine insurance cases, courts are
INSURANCE CORP., Respondent.
constrained to rely upon their own understanding of these terms of art, or upon

imprecise accounts of the speed of the winds encountered and the strength of the
waves experienced by a vessel. To obviate uncertainty, it may be time for Congress to
27, 2016 - DR. ROLANDO B.
lay down specific rules to distinguish "storms" and other "perils of the sea" from the
MANGUNE, DR. RENE A. ARCE
ordinary action of the wind and waves. While uniform measures of severity may
AND EMMA E. TAÑAFRANCA, IN
prove difficult to establish, the legislature may consider providing more detailed
THEIR RESPECTIVE PERSONAL
standards to be used by the judiciary in resolving maritime cases. These may include
CAPACITIES AND AS ATTORNEYS-
wind velocity, violence of the seas, the height of the waves, or even the expected
IN-FACT FOR AND IN BEHALF OF
weather conditions in the area involved at the time of the incident.
DR. VIRGINIA M. AGUILAS,

ROLANDO R. ANATALIO, DR. LEA

Petitioner failed to prove the other requisites for exemption from liability
M. DE LEON-ASI, CATALINO N.
under Article 1734 of the Civil Code.
ATANACIO, JR., JULIANA M.

BATALLER, MA. LUISA B.

Even assuming that the inclement weather encountered by the vessel amounted to a
CAÑEZA, LILIAN C. CANILAO,
"storm" under Article 1734(1) of the Civil Code, there are two other reasons why this
RANIEL S. CAPADA, FLORENDO A.
Court cannot absolve petitioner from liability for loss or damage to the cargo under
DAYUS, JENNIFER D. PAGULAYAN,
the Civil Code. First, there is no proof that the bad weather encountered by M/V
BIENVENIDO C. DE VILLA, JOSE Meryem Ana was the proximate and only cause of damage to the shipment. Second,
A. DELOS REYES, CYNTHIA A. petitioner failed to establish that it had exercised the diligence required from common
DIAZ, ANNA LEAH D. DIPATUAN, carriers to prevent loss or damage to the cargo.
MADELAINE M. ESTOCAPIO, DR.
MARIA SONIA YEE-FESTIN, We emphasize that common carriers are automatically presumed to have been at
MARIO E. FLORENDO, RUEL E. fault or to have acted negligently if the goods they were transporting were lost,
FORTUNADO, NATIVIDAD A. destroyed or damaged while in transit.64 This presumption can only be rebutted by
GAMIAO, IRMA Q. ANDAL, proof that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence and caution to ensure the
CHARITO C. LAZAM, AGNES R.
protection of the shipment in the event of foul weather.65 As this Court explained in
LOVINDINO, EVELYN M. MABAG,
Fortune Sea Carrier, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp.:
RECHILDA B. MACAFE, ZENAIDA

M. MADIANGKIT, ANGELICA T. While the records of this case clearly establish that M/V Sea Merchant was
MALAZARTE, DOMINGO P. MANAY, damaged as result of extreme weather conditions, petitioner cannot be
DR. EDGAR ORVEN M. MORTEL, absolved from liability. As pointed out by this Court in Lea Mer Industries,
SATURNINO E. QUIBAN, MARITES Inc. v. Malayan Insurance, Inc., a common carrier is not liable for loss
J. RAMOS, DR. MELINDA S.L. A. only when (1) the fortuitous event was the only and proximate cause of
RAZALAN, BAITONGGAL L. the loss and (2) it exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss.
SAUDAGAL, DR. JOHN ALBERT V. The second element is absent here. As a common carrier, petitioner
TABLIZO, JULIETA T. TERANIA, should have been more vigilant in monitoring weather disturbances within
ANNIE B. TRINIDAD, JUDY T. the country and their (possible) effect on its routes and destination. More
AVNER, DR. ROMEO F. UY, specifically, it should have been more alert on the possible attenuating
AVELONA A. VEA, MINVILUZ G. and dysfunctional effects of bad weather on the parts of the ship. It
VERA CRUZ, PEÑAFLOR M. should have foreseen the likely prejudicial effects of the strong waves and
VILLAFLOR, JR., AND DR. winds on the ship brought about by inclement weather and should have
LEOPOLDO P. SISON, JR., ALL OF taken the necessary precautionary measures through extraordinary
TAGUIG-PATEROS DISTRICT diligence to prevent the weakening or dysfunction of the parts of the ship
HOSPITAL, Petitioners, v. to avoid or prune down the loss to cargo.66 (citations omitted)
HONORABLE SECRETARY
EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence that petitioner satisfied the two
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS requisites. Before the trial court, petitioner limited itself to the defense of denial. The
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, latter refused to admit that the shipment sustained any loss or damage and even
HONORABLE SECRETARY alleged overage of the cargo delivered.67 As a result, the evidence it submitted was
FRANCISCO DUQUE III, IN HIS severely limited, i.e., the testimony of a witness that supposedly confirmed the
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS alleged excess in the quantity of the fertilizer delivered to the consignee in Albay.68
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT No other evidence was presented to demonstrate either the proximate and exclusive
OF HEALTH, THE CITY cause of the loss or the extraordinary diligence of the carrier.
GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG AS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR, Under these circumstances, the Court cannot absolve petitioner from liability for the
HONORABLE SIGFRIDO R. TINGA, shortage incurred by the shipment.
AND THE MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT OF PATEROS, AS WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution
REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR, dated 27 August 2009 and 10 November 2009, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED.
HONORABLE ROSENDO CAPCO,
Respondent. SO ORDERED.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
13, 2016 - JULIET B. DANO,

Bersamin, J., on official leave.
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND MARIE KAREN Endnotes:
JOY B. DIGAL, Respondents.;

MARIA EMILY D. DAGAANG, 1 Commonwealth Act No. 65, Public Act No. 521 (1936).
Petitioner-Intervenor.

2 Dated 27 August 2009, and penned by Associate Justice Fernanda
A.C. No. 11095 [Formerly CBD
Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Portia Alino-
Case No. 11-3140], September
Hormachuelos and Ramon R. Garcia; rollo, pp. 19-36.
20, 2016 - EUFEMIA A. CAMINO,

Complainant, v. ATTY. RYAN REY

3 Dated 10 November 2009; id. at 38-39.
L. PASAGUI, Respondent.


4 Id. at 3-18.
21, 2016 - PEÑAFRANCIA 5 Dated 16 February 1999 and penned by Judge Teofilo L. Guadiz, Jr.; id
SHIPPING CORPORATION AND
at 56-62.
SANTA CLARA SHIPPING

CORPORATION, Petitioners, v.
6 "Mapfre Asian Insurance Corporation" in some parts of the record.
168 SHIPPING LINES, INC.,

Respondent.
7 The appeal before the Court of Appeals case was docketed as CA-G.R.

CV No. 64482.

21, 2016 - ATTY. MYLENE S.

8Rollo, p. 20.
YUMUL-ESPINA, Complainant, v.
ATTY. BENEDICTO D.
9 Id.
TABAQUERO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 187922, September 10 Id.
21, 2016 - MARPHIL EXPORT
CORPORATION AND IRENEO LIM, 11 Id.
Petitioners, v. ALLIED BANKING

CORPORATION, SUBSTITUTED BY 12 Id. at 20-21.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,

Respondent.
13 Id. at 21.

14 Id.
21, 2016 - GEORGE C. CORDERO,

Petitioner, v. BOARD OF
15 Id.
NURSING, Respondent.

A.C. No. 10150, September 16 Id.
21, 2016 - GINA E. ENDAYA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. EDGARDO 17 The case was filed with the RTC of Makati, Branch 147, and docketed as
O. PALAY, Respondent. Civil Case No. 97-1300.
G.R. No. 185765, September 18Rollo, pp. 53-55.
28, 2016 - PHILIPPINE

ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,

19 Id. at 44.
Petitioner, v. PILHINO SALES

CORPORATION, Respondent.
20 Id. at 45-52.
21 Id. at 49.
21, 2016 - HENRY H. TENG,

Petitioner, v. LAWRENCE C. TING,
EDMUND TING AND ANTHONY 22 Id. at 52.
TING, Respondent.

23 Id. at 60.
28, 2016 - ST. LUKE'S COLLEGE 24 Id.
OF MEDICINE-WILLIAM H.

QUASHA MEMORIAL
25 Id.
FOUNDATION, DR. BRIGIDO L.

cralawred
CARANDANG, AND DR.

26 Id. at 61.
ALEJANDRO P. ORTIGAS
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES MANUEL
AND ESMERALDA PEREZ AND 27 Dated 16 February 1999; id. at 56-62.
SPOUSES ERIC AND JURISITA
QUINTOS, Respondents. 28 Id. at 60-61.
29 Decision dated 27 August 2009; id. at 19-36.
21, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE 30 Id. at 25-30.
PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v.
BELBAN SIC-OPEN Y DIMAS, 31 Id. at 30-32.
Appellant.

32 Id. at 31.


33 Id. at 32.

RENATO M. PANGAN, Accused-

34 Id. at 33-34.
Appellant.

35 Resolution dated 10 November 2009; id. at 38-39.

21, 2016 - EFREN R. LEYNES,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE 36 Id.
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

37 Id. at 3-18
07, 2016 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL 38 Id. at 14.
BANK, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF

THE LATE IRENEO AND CARIDAD

39 Id. at 13-14
ENTAPA, NAMELY: ROSARIO

ENTAPA-ORPEZA, JULIANNE E.
40 Id.
HAMM,1 CERINA G. ENTAPA,

WINSTON G. ENTAPA
41 Dated 23 March 2010; id. at 68-77.
(DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY
HIS SPOUSE, NINFA LAMISTOZA-
ENTAPA, FRANKLIN G. ENTAPA, 42 Id. at 70-73.
MARINA E. SCHACHT, AND
ELVIRA G. ENTAPA, Respondents. 43 Id. at 74-75.
G.R. No. 201354, September 44 Id. at 75-76.
21, 2016 - PABLO M. PADILLA,

JR. AND MARIA LUISA P.

45 Dated 26 June 2010; id. at 79-95.
PADILLA, Petitioners, v.

LEOPOLDO MALICSI, LITO

46 Id. at 81-82.
CASINO, AND AGRIFINO

GUANES, Respondents.
47 Id. at 82-91.
21, 2016 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL 48 Id. at 38.
BANKING CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. TEODORO G. 49 See Aportadera, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 242 Phil. 420 (1988).
BERNARDINO, Respondent.

50Rollo, p. 10.


51 Section 1 of CA No. 65 states:
REYNALDO ABAYON Y APONTE,

Section 1. That the provisions of Public Act Numbered Five
Appellant.
hundred and twenty-one of the Seventy-fourth Congress of the

United States, approved on April sixteenth, nineteen hundred

and thirty-six, be accepted, as it is hereby accepted to be
27, 2016 - BIENVENIDA FLOR
made applicable to all contracts for the carriage of goods by
SUAREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY.
sea to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade: Provided,
ELEONORA. MARAVILLA-ONA,
That nothing in the Act shall be construed as repealing any
Respondent.
existing provision of the Code of Commerce which is now in

force, or as limiting its application.
A.M. No. P-09-2621 [Formerly 52 G.R. No. 182864, 12 January 2015, 745 SCRA 98.
OCA-I.P.I. No. 08-2939-P],
September 20, 2016 - OFFICE OF 53Rollo, pp. 81-82.
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,

Complainant, v. EDUARDO T.
54 Id. at 11-12.
UMBLAS, LEGAL RESEARCHER,

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,

55 Id. at 12.
BRANCH 33, BALLESTEROS,

CAGAYAN, Respondent.
56 481 Phil. 868 (2004).
57 Id. at 877-878.
21, 2016 - GOVERNMENT

SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM,
Petitioner, v. ROGELIO F. 58 13 A.L.R. Fed. 323 (originally published in 1972) citing, among others,
MANALO, Respondent. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. The Motorship Marilyn L., 331 F Supp 776 (1971);

New Rotterdam Ins. Co. v. The Loppersum, 215 F Supp 563 (1963);
A.C. No. 11099, September Freedman & Slater, Inc. v. M. V. Tofevo, 222 F Supp 964 (1963); R. T.
27, 2016 - LILY FLORES-SALADO, Jones Lumber Co. v. Roen S.S. Co., 270 F2d 456 (1959); R. T. Jones
MINDA FLORES LURA, AND FE V. Lumber Co. v. Roen S.S. Co., 213 F2d 370 (1954); Waterman S.S. Corp.
FLORES, Complainants, v. ATTY. v. United States Smelting, Ref. & Min. Co., 155 F2d 687 (1946).
ROMAN A. VILLANUEVA, JR.
Respondent. 59 13 A.L.R. Fed. 323 (originally published in 1972) citing, among others,

Gerber & Co. v. S.S. Sabine Howaldt, 437 F2d 580 (1971); Nichimen Co.
A.C. No. 7348, September 27,
v. MV Farland, 333 F Supp 691 (1971); New Rotterdam Ins. Co. v. The
2016 - ROUEL YAP PARAS,
Loppersum, 215 F Supp 563 (1963); Freedman & Slater, Inc. v. M. V.
Complainant, v. ATTY. JUSTO P.
Tofevo, 222 F Supp 964 (1963); R. T. Jones Lumber Co. v. Roen S.S. Co.,
PARAS, Respondent.
270 F2d 456 (1959); Pakistan, Ministry of Food & Agriculture v. The

Ionian Trader, 173 F Supp 29 (1959); Petition of Moore-McCormack Lines,

Inc., 164 F Supp 198 (1958); Palmer Distributing Corp. v. S.S. American
Counselor, 158 F Supp 264 (1957); State S.S. Co. v. United States, 259 F
2d 458 (1957); Dielhelm & Co. v. The Flying Trader, 141 F Supp 271
RONNIE R. LIBRIAS, Appellant.
(1956); Establissements Edouard Materne v The Leerdam, 143 F Supp

367 (1956); R. T. Jones Lumber Co. v. Roen S.S. Co., 213 F2d 370
(1954); Continex, Inc. v. The Flying Independent, 106 F Supp 319
13, 2016 - LEANDRO B.
(1952); Artemis Maritime Co. v. Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co., 189
VERCELES, JR., Petitioner, v.
F2d 488 (1951); Middle East Agency, Inc. v. John B. Waterman, 86 F
COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
Supp 487 (1949); The Norte, 69 F Supp 881 (1947); The Vizcava, 63 F
Respondent.
Supp 898 (1945); S.S. Corp. v. D/S A/S Hassel, 137 F2d 326 (1943); The

Schickshinny, 45 F Supp 813 (1942).

28, 2016 - PHILIPPINE 60 A similar approach has been taken by this Court with respect to
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC.,
Philippine law on: (a) corporations (See Ponce v. Legaspi, 284 Phil. 517
STEALTH MARITIME
[1992]; Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc. v. Hartigan, 145 Phil. 310
CORPORATION AND CARLOS
[1970]); and (b) income taxes (See Chamber of Real Estate and Builders'
SALINAS, Petitioners, v. CASIANO
Association, Inc. v. Romulo, 628 Phil. 508 [2010]; Commissioner of
F. SALADAS, JR., Respondent.
Internal Revenue v. Baler-Nickel, 531 Phil. 480 [2006]).

61 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 1300-1315.
07, 2016 - DOROTEO C.

GAERLAN, (DECEASED)
62 Public Act No. 521 or the "Carriage of Goods by Sea Act" was enacted
SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SON,
RAYMOND G. GAERLAN, by Seventy-fourth Congress of the United States on 16 April 1936. It was
Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE adopted by the National Assembly and made applicable to the Philippines
NATIONAL BANK, Respondent. through Commonwealth Act No. 65 enacted on 22 October 1936. (See

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, Commonwealth Act No. 65, Public Act No.
G.R. No. 222424, September 521, [1936]).
21, 2016 - FONTANA
63 Supra note 56.
DEVELOPMENT CORP., DENNIS
PAK AS GENERAL MANAGER,
PASTOR ISAAC AS DIRECTOR OF 64Unsworth Transport International (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 639
HUMAN RESOURCES, CHRIS Phil. 371, 380 (2010).
CHENG* AS DEPUTY GROUP
FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, JESUS 65Fortune Sea Carrier, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 209118
CHUA, REPRESENTATIVE
(Notice), 24 November 2014.
MICHAEL FELICIANO, ALMA

EREDIANO, LEILANI VALIENTE,

66 Id.
MAN CHOI AS GROUP FINANCIAL

CONTROLLER, AND JAIME

67Rollo, p. 22, 60.
VILLAREAL AS CHIEF ENGINEER,

Petitioners, v. SASCHA
68 Id.
VUKASINOVIC, Respondent.


14, 2016 - CELERNA CALAYAG,

AMELIA ORFIANO, MARILYN

HIBE, ERNESTO CLARIN, Back to Home | Back to Main
NARCISO UNGSOD, BONIFACIO
TORIDA, BOB ILLUT, EVELYN
BAJET, ELORDE ILUSTRISIMO,
ENRICO DETIQUEZ, JAIME
CASTRO, JOSEFINA DAMALERIO,
CARIDAD LERUM, NOVA
FAJARDO, DANILO DELA CRUZ,
ALBERTO FAUSTO, ESTELLA
GELLI, KATHERINE DELA CRUZ,
HEIDEE LAUREL, NISSAN
LAUREL, VICENTE CHUA, ARMELA
MARTIN, MELINDA BATIANCILA,
GEMMA REBAYA, PRECIOUS
ILUSTRISIMO, SOSAN LISBO,
MARLON TRABALLO, NIMFA
DANNUG, MARILYN LABORTE,
SONIA MANZANILLA, LOURDES
PARBA, ADELINA ALIPIN,
JONATHAN BASA, MARIA LIZA
CABARQUIL, RICHARD
FAJICULAY, RICARDO HILARIO
AND JONATHAN TESSLER,
Petitioners, v. SULPICIO LINES,
INC. (NOW KNOWN AS
PHILIPPINE SPAN ASIA CARRIER
CORPORATION, DOING
BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME
AND STYLE OF "SPAN ASIA
CARRIER") [FORMERLY: SULPICIO
LINES, INC.], Respondent.


14, 2016 - MICHAEL A. ONSTOTT,
Petitioner, v. UPPER TAGPOS
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION,
INC., Respondent.


14, 2016 - NICOLAS ROBERT
MARTIN EGGER, Complainant, v.

Transimex vs. Mafre Asian

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transimex vs. Mafre Asian

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/12/22, 4:21 PM G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016 - TRANSIMEX CO., Petitioner, v. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP.

RANCE CORP., Respondent. : Sep…

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

September 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

ChanRobles On-Line Bar

G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016

TRANSIMEX CO., Petitioner, v. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP., Respondent.

under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA).1

respondent Mafre Asian Insurance Corp.6 the amount of P1,617,527.37 in addition to

Nos. MN-MAR-HO-0001341 and MN-MAR-HO-0001347 issued by respondent.10

inside a warehouse by employees of the consignee.13 When the cargo was

After paying the claim of Fertiphil, respondent demanded reimbursement from

support of its claim, respondent presented a Report of Survey18 and a Certification19

submitted an Adjustment Report20 prepared by Adjustment Standards Corporation

diligence in the transport and handling of the cargo.26

THE RTC RULING

The defendants' defense is that there was no loss/damage to the cargo

As to the defense that defendants had supposedly exercised extraordinary

Hence, the presumption of fault and/or negligence as provided in Art.

against the latter.28

Defendants-appellants claim that the loss was due to a fortuitous event as

G.R. No. 211608, September

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

G.R. No. 195975, September

05, 2016 - TAINA MANIGQUE-

07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING accident of the sea under COGSA.47

PARTNER, ATTY. FRANCISCO I.

CHAVEZ, Complainant, v. ATTYS.

RESTITUTO S. LAZARO AND

RODEL R. MORTA, Respondents.

14, 2016 - PHILIPPINE SCIENCE

I.P.I. No. 16-244-CA-J,

September 06, 2016 - Re:

CATALINA Z. ALILING AGAINST

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MA. LUISA

G.R. No. 203576, September

14, 2016 - NAGA CENTRUM, INC.,

REPRESENTED BY AIDA KELLY

RAMON J. ORZALES AND NENITA

which lasted until September 19, 2009.48

G.R. No. 181387, September

G.R. No. 206808-09,

(LEAP), MELANIO B. CUCHAPIN

Petitioners, v. LOCAL WATER

assertions and presenting countervailing evidence. Unfounded allegations would not

14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

The provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers are applicable.

G.R.No. 186199, September

07, 2016 - EDGARDO A. QUILO

G.R. No. 187942, September assertion is bereft of merit.

07, 2016 - THE ROMAN

AND ROSARIO, ALL SURNAMED the Court declared: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

DOMINGO; AVELINA PRUDENCIO,

BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY:

Case No. 11-3047), September

14, 2016 - HEIRS OF ZOSIMO Q.

Respondent. the hatches opened whereupon he noticed the presence

Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE they encountered bad weather."54 (Emphasis in the

MILITARY AND OTHER LAW

AND P/S INSP. EUSTIQUIO

14, 2016 - J.O.S. MANAGING

FALLARME AND ANDREA