1
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for
ARADA V CA reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary
210 SCRA 624, July 01, 1992 diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by
them. Subject to certain exceptions enumerated under Article
1734 of the Civil Code, common carriers are responsible for
the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The
extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from
FACTS:
the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the
Alejandro Arada, herein petitioner, is the proprietor and
operator of the firm South Negros Enterprises which has been possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation
organized and established for more than ten (10) years. It is until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the
engaged in the business of small scale shipping as a common carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to
carrier, servicing the hauling of cargoes of different receive them.
corporations and companies with the five (5) vessels it was
operating. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or
associations engaged in the business of carrying or
March 24, 1982 - petitioner entered into a contract with San transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water or air,
Miguel Corporation to safely transport as a common carrier, for compensation offering their services to the public (Art. 1732
cargoes of the latter from San Carlos City, Negros Occidental of the New Civil Code).
to Mandaue City using one of petitioner's vessels, M/L Maya.
The cargoes of private respondent consisted of 9,824 cases of
beer empties valued at P176,824.80. In the case at bar, there is no doubt that petitioner was
exercising its function as a common carrier when it entered into
Petitioner thru its crew master, Mr. Vivencio Babao, applied for a contract with private respondent to carry and transport the
a clearance with the Philippine Coast Guard for M/L Maya to latter's cargoes. This fact is best supported by the admission of
leave the port of San Carlos City, but due to a typhoon, it was petitioner's son, Mr. Eric Arada, who testified as the officer-in-
denied clearance. charge for operations of South Negros Enterprises in Cebu
City.
March 25, 1982 - M/L Maya was given clearance as there was
no storm and the sea was calm. Hence, said vessel left for A common carrier, both from the nature of its business
Mandaue City. While it was navigating towards Cebu, a and for insistent reasons of public policy is burdened by
typhoon developed and said vessel was buffeted on all its law with the duty of exercising extraordinary diligence not
sides by big waves. Its rudder was destroyed and it drifted for only in ensuring the safety of passengers, but in caring for
sixteen (16) hours although its engine was running. the goods transported by it. The loss or destruction or
deterioration of goods turned over to the common carrier
March 27, 1982 - at about 4:00 a.m., the vessel sank with for the conveyance to a designated destination raises
whatever was left of its cargoes. The crew was rescued. Later
instantly a presumption of fault or negligence on the part
in the afternoon, they were brought to Palompon, Leyte, where
of the carrier, save only where such loss, destruction or
Vivencio Babao filed a marine protest. The Board of Marine
Inquiry exonerated Arada and his crew from administrative damage arises from extreme circumstances such as a
liability. natural disaster or calamity ... (Benedicto v. IAC, G.R. No.
70876, July 19, 1990, 187 SCRA 547)
March 25, 1983 - Private respondent filed a complaint in the
Regional Trial Court its first cause of action being for the In order that the common carrier may be exempted from
recovery of the value of the cargoes anchored on breach of responsibility, the natural disaster must have been
contract of carriage. the proximate and only cause of the loss. However, the
common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or
Petitioner contends that it was not in the exercise of its function minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of
as a common carrier when it entered into a contract with flood, storm or other natural disaster in order that the common
private respondent,but was then acting as a private carrier not carrier may be exempted from liability for the destruction or
bound by the requirement of extraordinary diligence. deterioration of the goods (Article 1739, New Civil Code).
Private respondent counters that M/L Maya was in the exercise PETITONER FAILED TO OBSERVE EXTRAORDINARY
of its function as a common carrier and its failure to observe DILIGENCE
the extraordinary diligence required of it in the vigilance over
their cargoes makes Petitioner liable for the value of said
cargoes. In the instant case, the appellate court was correct in finding
that petitioner failed to observe the extraordinary diligence over
the cargo in question and he or the master in his employ was
ISSUE 1:
negligent previous to the sinking of the carrying vessel.
Whether or not petitioner is liable for the value of the lost
cargoes- YES It will be noted that Vivencio Babao knew of the impending
typhoon on March 24, 1982 when the Philippine Coast Guard
RULING:
denied M/L Maya the issuance of a clearance to sail. Less than
24 hours elapsed since the time of the denial of said clearance
PETITONER WAS EXERCISING ITS FUNCTION AS A
COMMON CARRIER and the time a clearance to sail was finally issued on March
25, 1982.
2
A common carrier is obliged to observe extraordinary diligence
and the failure of Babao to ascertain the direction of the storm
and the weather condition of the path they would be traversing,
constitute lack of foresight and minimum vigilance over its
cargoes taking into account the surrounding circumstances of
the case.
While the goods are in the possession of the carrier, it is but
fair that it exercises extraordinary diligence in protecting them
from loss or damage, and if loss occurs, the law presumes that
it was due to the carrier's fault or negligence; that is necessary
to protect the interest of the shipper which is at the mercy of
the carrier.
THE CREW DID NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED
QUALIFICATIONS PROVIDED FOR IN PD NO. 97
Furthermore, the records show that the crew of M/L Maya did
not have the required qualifications provided for in P.D. No. 97
or the Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Law, all of whom
were unlicensed. While it is true that they were given special
permit to man the vessel, such permit was issued at the risk
and responsibility of the owner.
EXONERATION FROM ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY DOES
NOT MEAN EXONERATION FROM LIABILITY AS A
COMMON CARRIER
"such exoneration was but with respect to the administrative
liability of the owner/operator, officers and crew of the ill-fated"
vessel. It could not have meant exoneration of appellee from
liability as a common carrier for his failure to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods it was
transporting and for the negligent acts or omissions of his
employees. Such is the function of the Court, not the Special
Board of Marine Inquiry."
