 Compania Maritima vs. CA, GR No.

L-31379, August 29, 1988; 164 SCRA 685

Facts:

Vicente Concepcion, a contractor, had his construction equipment shipped from Manila to Cagayan de Oro. His
equipment were loaded aboard MV Cebu, a vessel owned by Compania Maritima. During unloading, the
payloader fell and was damaged. The carrier had the payloader weighed in Manila and found that it weighed 7.5
tons not 2.5 tons as declared in the Bill of Lading. Concepcion demanded a replacement of the payloader but to
no avail. The shipper denied the claim for damages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the furnishing of an inaccurate weight of 2.5 tons was the proximate and only cause of the
damage on the payloader.

RULING:

NO. The furnishing of an inaccurate weight of 2.5 tons is only a contributory circumstance to the damaged cause.
It mitigates the liability making the recoverable amount reduced to 80%. The standard diligence required for the
carrier in handling the goods is EXTRAORDINARY. The carrier failed to establish that it exercised the necessary
diligence when they did not check the equipment and accepted the bill of lading on its face value. Moreover,
they did not use the jumbo lifter (20-25 tons capacity) but the 5-ton capacity lifting apparatus to lift and unload a
visibly heavy cargo like a payloader. The crew were careless in ascertaining the weight of heavy cargoes. The
extraordinary diligence requires common carriers to render service with the greatest skill and foresight and “to
use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for shipment, and to
exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such methods as their nature requires.

 Aboitiz Shipping Corp. vs. CA, GR No. 84458, November 6, 1989, 179 SCRA 95

Facts:

Anacleto Viana boarded the vessel M/V Antonia owned by petitioner Aboitiz Shipping Corp at the port at San
Jose, Occidental Mindoro, bound for Manila. The vessel arrived at Pier 4, North Harbor, Manila and was taken
over by Pioneer Stevedoring for the latter to unload the cargoes from the said vessel pursuant to their
Memorandum of Agreement. An hour after the passengers and Viana had disembarked the vessel the crane
operator began its unloading operation. While the crane was being operated, Viana who had already
disembarked the vessel remembered that some of his cargoes were still loaded there. He went back and while he
was pointing to the crew where his cargoes were, the crane hit him pinning him between the side of the vessel
and the crane resulting to his death. A complaint for damages was filed against petitioner for breach of contract
of carriage. Petitioner contends that Viana ceased to be a passenger when he disembarked the vessel and that
consequently his presence there was no longer reasonable. CA affirmed the trial court’s order holding Aboitiz
liable. Hence the petition.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is still responsible as a carrier to Viana after the latter had already disembarked the
vessel.

Ruling: YES.
The rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has been landed at the port of
destination and has left the vessel owner’s dock or premises. Once created, the relationship will not ordinarily
terminate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carrier’s conveyance or
had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises. All persons who remain on the premises a
reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable time or a
reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances, and includes a reasonable time
to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure. The carrier-passenger relationship is not terminated
merely by the fact that the person transported has been carried to his destination if, for example, such person
remains in the carrier’s premises to claim his baggage.

The primary factor to be considered is the existence of a reasonable cause as will justify the presence of the
victim on or near the petitioner’s vessel. We believe there exists such a justifiable cause. When the accident
occurred, the victim was in the act of unloading his cargoes, which he had every right to do, from petitioner’s
vessel. As earlier stated, a carrier is duty bound not only to bring its passengers safely to their destination but
also to afford them a reasonable time to claim their baggage.

Consequently, under the foregoing circumstances, the victim Anacleto Viana is still deemed a passenger of said
carrier at the time of his tragic death.