8/9/2019 TRANSPO 80 Eastern Shipping Lines vs IAC

1/1

80 Eastern Shipping Lines vs. IAC

FactsA vessel owned by Eastern Shipping Lines(Carrier) was enrolee for Kobe, Japan to anila!"he vessel ca#ght fire and san$! %t res#lted tototal loss of the ship and cargo! "he %ns#rers

(&evelop'ent %ns#rance and S#rety Corporation,isshin Fire and arine %ns#rance Co, and &owaFire and arine %ns#rance Co!) paid thecorresponding 'arine ins#rance val#es to theconsignees and were s#rrogated #nto the rightsof the latter as the ins#red!

pon de'and, Carrier denied liability on thegro#nd that the loss was d#e to an e*traordinaryfort#ito#s event and was not liable #nder the law!Carrier clai's that the loss of the vessel by firee*e'pts it fro' liability!

(Contents of the vessel)

Eastern Shipping Lines loaded its vessel +SAS%A"%CA with ,--- pieces of calori.ed lancepipes in /0 pac$ages val#ed at 1/2,-34!--consigned to 1hilippine 5loo'ing ills Co!, %nc!,and 6 cases of spare parts val#ed at 14/,327!6,consigned to Central "e*tile ills, %nc! "he sa'evessel too$ on board 7/0 cartons of gar'entfabrics and accessories, in two (/) containers,consigned to ariveles Apparel Corporation, andtwo cases of s#rveying instr#'ents consigned toA'an Enterprises and 8eneral erchandise! "he7/0 cartons were ins#red for their stated val#e byrespondent isshin Fire 9 arine %ns#rance Co!,

for S :;2,03!--, and the / cases byrespondent &owa Fire 9 arine %ns#rance Co!,Ltd!, for S :77,30!--!

%ss#e, Carrier did not e*ercise e*traordinarydiligence! Carrier is liable!

?atio

Co''on carriers are responsible for the loss,destr#ction, or deterioration of the goods #nless itis d#e to any of the following ca#ses only@

(7) Flood, stor', earth#a$e, lightning or othernat#ral disaster or cala'ityB ***

Fire 'ay not be considered a nat#ral disaster orcala'ity! "his '#st be so as it arises al'ostinvariably fro' so'e act of 'an or by h#'an'eans! %t does not fall within the category of anact of 8od #nless ca#sed by lightning or by other

nat#ral disaster or cala'ity! %t 'ay even beca#sed by the act#al fa#lt or privity of the carrier!

Article 720- of the Civil Code, which considers fireas an e*traordinary fort#ito#s event refers toleases of r#ral lands where a red#ction of the rentis allowed when 'ore than onehalf of the fr#its

have been lost d#e to s#ch event, consideringthat the law adopts a protection policy towardsagric#lt#re!

Article 763 of the Civil Code provides that allcases than those 'ention in Article 763;, theco''on carrier shall be pres#'ed to have beenat fa#lt or to have acted negligently, #nless itproves that it has observed the e*traordinarydiligence re#ired by law!

%ns#rers as s#brogees of the cargo shippers, haveproven that the transported goods have been lost!Carrier has also proved that the loss was ca#sed

by fire! "he b#rden then is #pon the Carrier toprove that it has e*ercised the e*traordinarydiligence re#ired by law!

"he evidence of the defendant did not show thate*traordinary vigilance was observed by thevessel to prevent the occ#rrence of fire at thehatches! &efendantDs evidence did not show thea'o#nt of diligence 'ade by the crew, on orders,in the care of the cargoes! o reg#lar inspectionwas 'ade as to the condition of the cargo d#ringthe voyage!"he crew co#ld not even e*plain whatco#ld ca#sed the fire! "he defendant failed to

satisfactorily show that e*traordinary vigilanceand care had been 'ade by the crew to preventthe occ#rrence of the fire! "he defendant, as aco''on carrier, is liable to the consignees forsaid lac$ of diligence re#ired of it!

Even if fire were to be considered a nat#raldisaster within the 'eaning of Article 763; ofthe Civil Code, it is re#ired #nder Article 7634 ofthe sa'e Code that the nat#ral disaster '#sthave been the pro*i'ate and only ca#se of theloss, and that the carrier has e*ercised d#ediligence to prevent or 'ini'i.e the loss before,

d#ring or after the occ#rrence of the disaster!