Scribd
Upload
261 views1 page

Compania Maritima Vs CA Case Digest

Vicente Concepcion shipped construction equipment from Manila to Cagayan de Oro aboard a vessel owned by Compania Maritima. A payloader was damaged during unloading. Compania Maritima denied liability, arguing Concepcion misrepresented the payloader's weight. The Court of First Instance agreed. However, the Court of Appeals found Compania Maritima liable, as common carriers are presumed at fault for damaged goods unless extraordinary diligence is proven. The Supreme Court affirmed this, noting common carriers have a duty to verify weights and protect themselves from mistakes in bills of lading.

Uploaded by

Ayme So
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
261 views1 page

Compania Maritima Vs CA Case Digest

Vicente Concepcion shipped construction equipment from Manila to Cagayan de Oro aboard a vessel owned by Compania Maritima. A payloader was damaged during unloading. Compania Maritima denied liability, arguing Concepcion misrepresented the payloader's weight. The Court of First Instance agreed. However, the Court of Appeals found Compania Maritima liable, as common carriers are presumed at fault for damaged goods unless extraordinary diligence is proven. The Supreme Court affirmed this, noting common carriers have a duty to verify weights and protect themselves from mistakes in bills of lading.

Uploaded by

Ayme So
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Compania Maritima vs CA Case Digest

Compania Maritima vs Court of Appeals and Vicente Concepcion


(162 SCRA 685)

Facts: Vicente Concepcion is doing business under the name of Consolidated Construction. Being a
Manila based contractor, Concepcion had to ship his construction equipment to Cagayan de Oro. On
August 28, 1964, Concepcion shipped 1 unit pay loader, 4 units of 6x6 Roe trucks, and 2 pieces of
water tanks. The aforementioned equipment was loaded aboard the MV Cebu, which left Manila on
August 30, 1964 and arrived at Cagayan de Oro on September 1, 1964. The Reo trucks and water
tanks were safely unloaded however the pay loader suffered damage while being unloaded. The
damaged pay loader was taken to the petitioner’s compound in Cagayan de Oro.

Consolidated Construction thru Vicente Concepcion wrote Compania Maritima to demand a


replacement of the broken pay loader and also asked for damages. Unable to get a response,
Concepcion sent another demand letter. Petitioner meanwhile, sent the damaged payloader to Manila,
it was weighed at San Miguel Corporation, where it was found that the payloader actually weighed 7.5
tons and not 2.5 tons as declared in its bill of lading. Due to this, petitioner denied the claim for
damages of Consolidated Construction. Consolidated then filed an action for damages against
petitioner with the Court of First Instance of Manila. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint
stating that the proximate cause of the fall of the payloader which caused its damage was the act or
omission of Vicente Concepcion for misrepresenting the weight of the payloader as 2.5 tons instead
of its true weight of 7.5 tons. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, reversed the decision of the Court of
First Instance and ordered the plaintiff to pay Concepcion damages. Hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the act of respondent Concepcion of misdeclaring the true weight of the
payloader the proximate and only cause of the damage of the payloader?

Held: No, Compania Maritima is liable for the damage to the payloader. The General rule under
Articles 1735 and 1752 of the Civil Code is that common carriers are presumed to be at fault or to
have acted negligently in case the goods transported by them are lost, destroyed, or had deteriorated.
To overcome the presumption of liability for the loss destruction or deterioration common carriers must
prove that they have exercised extraordinary diligence as required by Article 1733 of the Civil Code.

Extraordinary Diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires the common
carrier to know and follow the required precaution fro avoiding damage or destruction of the goods
entrusted to it for safe carriage and delivery. It requires common carriers to render service with the
greatest skill and foresight and to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristics
of goods tendered for shipment and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage including such
methods as their nature requires.

The Supreme Court further held that the weight in a bill of lading are prima facie evidence of the
amount received and the fact that the weighing was done by another will not relieve the common
carrier where it accepted such weight and entered it in on the bill of lading. The common carrier can
protect themselves against mistakes in the bill of lading as to weight by exercising extraordinary
diligence before issuing such.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy