Case Digest (G.R. No. 98243)
Facts:
Alejandro Arada v. Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98243, July 01, 1992, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Alejandro Arada, doing business as South Negros Enterprises, operated a small shipping business with five vessels and contracted on March 24, 1982 to carry respondent San Miguel Corporation’s cargo (9,824 cases of beer empties valued at P176,824.80) from San Carlos City, Negros Occidental to Mandaue City aboard the M/L Maya.On March 24, 1982 the Philippine Coast Guard denied the vessel clearance because of a typhoon; clearance was granted March 25, 1982 and the vessel sailed. While en route a typhoon developed, the vessel’s rudder was destroyed, it drifted for some sixteen hours, and on March 27, 1982 the M/L Maya sank; the crew survived and filed a marine protest. The Board of Marine Inquiry conducted an investigation and on November 7, 1983 recommended exoneration of the owner/operator, officers and crew; the Commandant of the Philippine Coast Guard issued a December 21, 1984 administrative decision exonerating them from administrative liability.
On March 25, 1983 San Miguel Corporation filed civil suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Seventh Judicial Region, Branch XII, Cebu City, for (1) recovery for breach of contract of carriage (value of cargo), and other causes of action. By decision dated July 18, 1988 the RTC dismissed the first cause of action and awarded various smaller sums under other causes; the first cause (loss of cargo) was dismissed. San Miguel appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision promulgated April 8, 1991 (CA-G.R. CV No. 20597) the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and ordered petitioner to pay P176,824.80 (the value of the lost cargo) with legal interest from the filing of the complaint and costs.
Petitioner sought review by filing a petition for review on certiorari with this Court (Rule 45). On November 20, 1991 the Supreme Court gave ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner acting as a common carrier and therefore bound to exercise extraordinary diligence over the cargo, making him civilly liable for its loss?
- Are the factual findings and administrative exoneration of the Board of Marine Inquiry binding and conclusive on the civil courts so a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)