Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48757) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Mauro Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals and Gelacio E. Tumambing (244 Phil. 664, May 30, 1988), private respondent Gelacio Tumambing engaged petitioner Mauro B. Ganzon to transport 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataan, to Manila aboard the lighter LCT “Batman.” On December 1, 1956, Tumambing delivered the scrap to Captain Filomeno Niza, Ganzon’s agent, who commenced loading. When half the cargo was aboard, Mayor Jose Advincula of Mariveles demanded ₱5,000 from Tumambing and, upon resistance, shot him, necessitating hospital treatment. Loading eventually resumed but on December 4, 1956 Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, with three policemen, ordered the crew to dump the scrap into the sea at the dock. The remainder was moved to the NASSCO compound. Rub later issued a receipt purporting that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap. The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of Tumambing, awarding actual damages of ₱5,895, exemplary damages of ₱5,000, an Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48757) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Carriage contract and initial loading
- On November 28, 1956, Gelacio E. Tumambing contracted Mauro B. Ganzon to transport 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataan, to the port of Manila aboard the lighter LCT “Batman.”
- On December 1, 1956, Tumambing delivered the scrap iron to Captain Filomeno Niza; loading began the same day under the captain’s supervision and proceeded until about half of the cargo was on board.
- Interference by municipal authorities
- While loading was in progress, Mayor Jose Advincula demanded a P5,000 “shakedown” from Tumambing; upon resistance, the mayor fired at Tumambing, who was wounded and hospitalized. Loading later resumed.
- On December 4, 1956, Acting Mayor Basilio Rub accompanied by three policemen ordered the captain and crew to dump the scrap iron into the sea where the lighter was docked; the remaining scrap was deposited at the NASSCO compound, and the municipality later issued a receipt acknowledging custody of the goods.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner-carrier is liable for breach of the contract of carriage from the moment the scrap iron was unconditionally placed in his possession and control.
- Whether the petitioner can be held responsible for the acts of his employees in dumping the scrap iron into the sea upon the order of a municipal official in whose act he did not participate.
- Whether the loss of the scrap iron resulted from a fortuitous event or from the act of a competent public authority, thereby exonerating the petitioner from liability.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)