HomeRequest for Case DigestAbout the AuthorContact

UsPrivacy Policy
Asia Lighterage Shipping Inc vs CA

Facts: Wheat in bulk, was shipped by Marubeni American Corporation of Portland, Oregon on
board the vessel M/V NEO for delivery to the consignee, General Milling Corporation in Manila.
The shipment was insured by the private respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc.
against loss or damage. The carrying vessel arrived in Manila and the cargo was transferred to
the custody of the petitioner Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. The petitioner was contracted
by the consignee as carrier to deliver the cargo to consignee's warehouse. On, 900 metric tons
of the shipment was loaded on barge PSTSI III for delivery to consignee. The cargo did not reach
its destination.

It appears that the transport of said cargo was suspended due to a warning of an incoming
typhoon. The petitioner proceeded to pull the barge to Engineering Island off Baseco to seek
shelter from the approaching typhoon. A few days after, the barge developed a list because of a
hole it sustained after hitting an unseen protuberance underneath the water. The barge was
then towed to ISLOFF terminal before it finally headed towards the consignee's wharf. Upon
reaching the Sta. Mesa spillways, the barge again ran aground due to strong current. To avoid
the complete sinking of the barge, a portion of the goods was transferred to three other barges.

The next day, the towing bits of the barge broke. It sank completely, resulting in the total loss of
the remaining cargo. Private respondent indemnified the consignee.15Thereafter, as subrogee,
it sought recovery of said amount from the petitioner, but to no avail.

The private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of
indemnity, attorney's fees and cost of suit.

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the private respondent.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals insisting that it is not a common carrier.

Issue: Whether the petitioner is a common carrier

Held: Common Carrier. Petitioner is a common carrier whether its carrying of goods is done on
an irregular rather than scheduled manner, and with an only limited clientele. A common carrier
need not have fixed and publicly known routes. Neither does it have to maintain terminals or
issue tickets. To be sure, petitioner fits the test of a common carrier as laid down in Bascos vs.
Court of Appeals. The test to determine a common carrier is "whether the given undertaking is
a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general public as
his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted." In the case at bar,
the petitioner admitted that it is engaged in the business of shipping and lighterage, offering its
barges to the public, despite its limited clientele for carrying or transporting goods by water for
compensation.

ChatGPT

CASE DIGEST

Title: Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Prudential Guarantee and
Assurance, Inc.

G.R. No.: 147246

Date: August 19, 2003

Ponente: Puno, J.

Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals
affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

Facts:

Wheat in bulk was shipped by Marubeni American Corporation on board the vessel M/V NEO
CYMBIDIUM V-26 for delivery to the consignee, General Milling Corporation in Manila.
The shipment was insured by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. (respondent) against
loss or damage.

The carrying vessel arrived in Manila and the cargo was transferred to the custody of Asia
Lighterage and Shipping, Inc. (petitioner).

The petitioner was contracted by the consignee as a carrier to deliver the cargo to the
consignee's warehouse.

On August 15, 1990, 900 metric tons of the shipment were loaded on barge PSTSI III for delivery
to the consignee, but the cargo did not reach its destination.

The transport of the cargo was suspended due to an incoming typhoon. The petitioner pulled
the barge to Engineering Island off Baseco to seek shelter from the typhoon.

The barge sustained damage and developed a list due to hitting an unseen protuberance
underwater.

The barge was towed to ISLOFF terminal and later headed towards the consignee's wharf. It ran
aground due to a strong current, and a portion of the goods was transferred to other barges to
prevent complete sinking.

The next day, the barge's towing bits broke, causing it to sink completely and resulting in the
total loss of the remaining cargo.

Prudential Guarantee indemnified the consignee and sought recovery from Asia Lighterage but
was unsuccessful.

Prudential Guarantee filed a complaint against Asia Lighterage for recovery of indemnity,
attorney's fees, and costs of suit.

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Prudential Guarantee, and the Court of Appeals
affirmed with modification.

Issue:

Whether Asia Lighterage is a common carrier.

Held:

Asia Lighterage is a common carrier. Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as
persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying passengers or
goods by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public. Even if Asia
Lighterage's principal business is lighterage and drayage, and its services are offered to a limited
clientele, it still fits the definition of a common carrier. The law does not distinguish between
the extent or regularity of the business. The test to determine a common carrier is "whether the
given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to
the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business
transacted."

Note: This combined case digest includes the additional details you provided and combines
them with the previous case digest for a more comprehensive understanding of the case.