Monalisa G.

Cayabyab
Trasportation Law (Section B) Saturday 6:00-8:00PM
Digested Case:
Alejandro Arada, doing business under the name and style South Negros
Enterprises versus Honorable Court of Appeals, (210 SCRA 624, July 1,
1992)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner Arada, who was the owner of M/L Maya, a common carrier,
entered into contract on March 24, 1982 with the private respondent San
Miguel Corporation to transport its 9,824 cases of beer empties valued at
P176,824.80 from the port of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental to Mandaue
City.
On the day of its departure he was not given clearance by the Philippine
Coast Guard due to a typhoon but was allowed to leave on the next day as
there was no storm and the sea was calm. While navigating towards Cebu,
a storm developed and the vessel capsized along with its cargo. The crew
was rescued and brought to Palompon, Leyte where Vivencio Babao, its crew
captain, filed a marine protest.
The Board and Marine Inquiry and the Commandant of the Philippine Coast
Guard both exonerated and absolved the owner/operator officers and crew of
the ill-fated M/L Maya from any administrative liability on account of said
incident.
The private respondent filed a complaint in the RTC, Branch 12 of Cebu City
for recovery of the value of the cargoes anchored on breach of contract of
carriage, and after due hearing, said court rendered decision dismissing the
plaintiffs claim with respect to the first cause of action. The counterclaim
was also dismissed.
Private respondent appealed to the CA and said court reversed RTCs
decision ruling that petitioner failed to observe extraordinary diligence over
the cargoes, ordering him to pay San Miguel Corporation the amount of
P176,824.80 representing the value of the cargoes lost with interest at legal
rate from the date of filing of the complaint.
Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for the value of the lost cargoes?
Ruling of the Court:
There is no doubt that petitioner was exercising its functions as a common
carrier when it entered into a contract with private respondent to carry and
transport the latters cargoes. He is burdened by law with the duty of
exercising extraordinary diligence not only in ensuring the safety of
passengers, but in caring for the goods transported by it.
The loss or destruction or deterioration of goods turned over to the common
carrier for the conveyance to a designated destination raises instantly a
presumption of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier, save only where
such loss, destruction or damage arises from extreme circumstances such as
a natural disaster or calamity.
In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility, the
natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss.
However, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or
minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of flood, storm or
other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be exempted
from liability for the destruction or deterioration of the goods.
Records show that Babao knew of the coming of a typhoon but did not check
where it was headed by using his vessels barometer and radio. Neither did
he monitor and record the weather conditions everyday. Had he done so,
while navigating for 31 hours, he could have anticipated the strong winds
and big waves and had taken shelter. For failing to do this, it constitute lack
of foresight and minimum vigilance over its cargoes taking into account the
surrounding circumstances of the case.
The decision was affirmed.