G.R. No. 197886 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. De Guzman

Petitioner: Compania Maritima, a common carrier engaged in the shipment of construction equipment.
Respondent: Vicente E. Concepcion, a civil engineer operating under the name Consolidated Construction, who contracted for the construction of the Cagayan de Oro City airport.
The transaction involved Compania Maritima shipping various equipment (one payloader, four 6×6 Reo trucks, and two water tanks) to Cagayan de Oro City.

On August 28, 1964, Vicente E. Concepcion negotiated with Compania Maritima through its collector, Pacifico Fernandez, for the shipment.
A Bill of Lading (No. 113) was issued on the same day upon the delivery of the equipment at the Manila North Harbor.
The equipment was loaded aboard MV Cebu on Voyage No. 316, which departed on August 30, 1964 and arrived on the afternoon of September 1, 1964.

Upon arrival, the trucks and water tanks were safely unloaded; however, during the unloading process of the payloader, while it was approximately two meters above the pier, the swivel pin of the heel block of Hatch No. 2 gave way, causing the payloader to fall and sustain damage.
The payloader, declared abandoned in favor of petitioner, was taken to the petitioner’s compound in Cagayan de Oro City for assessment.

Consolidated Construction, through Vicente E. Concepcion, communicated its demand for a replacement of the payloader by notifying Compania Maritima on September 7, 1964, later reiterating the demand on October 2, 1964.
Compania Maritima responded by denying the claim in a letter dated October 7, 1964, contending that the misrepresentation of the payloader’s weight (declared as 2.5 tons, whereas it actually weighed 7.5 tons) led to improper handling.
To cover the damage, Consolidated Construction replaced the payloader by purchasing a new one for P45,000.00 and subsequently filed an action for damages on July 6, 1965, seeking recovery for:

Loss of use of the payloader (calculated at P450.00 per day for 97 days).
The cost difference between the damaged and the new payloader, along with other related damages and attorneys’ fees.

The trial court (Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VII) initially dismissed the complaint on April 24, 1968, attributing the proximate cause of the accident to the respondent’s misrepresentation of the payloader’s weight.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision on December 5, 1965, condemning Compania Maritima to pay damages amounting to P24,652.07 (plus legal interest and costs) and declaring the payloader abandoned to petitioner.
Compania Maritima then filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the misrepresented weight exempted it from liability under Article 1734 of the Civil Code.

Whether Vicente E. Concepcion’s misrepresentation of the payloader’s weight (declaring it as 2.5 tons instead of its actual 7.5 tons) was the proximate and exclusive cause of the damage sustained during unloading.
Whether such misrepresentation falls within the “act or omission” of the shipper or owner as mentioned in paragraph 3 of Article 1734 of the Civil Code, and if it absolves the common carrier of liability.

Whether Compania Maritima, as a common carrier, failed to exercise the required extraordinary diligence in the handling, verification, and unloading of heavy cargo, thereby contributing to the damage.
Whether the selection of a 5-ton lifting apparatus instead of the more appropriate jumbo lift (with a capacity of 20 to 25 tons) constituted negligence on the part of the petitioner’s crew.

Whether the contribution of the misrepresentation by the respondent justifies a mitigation (20% reduction) of the damages awarded against the carrier.
Whether the subsequent deductions (unpaid freight charges and additional freight charges for the undeclared weight) appropriately reduced the recoverable amount.