Title
Lea Mer Industries Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance Co. Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 161745
Decision Date
Sep 30, 2005
Lea Mer Industries failed to prove extraordinary diligence or fortuitous event as a common carrier, leading to liability for cargo loss due to barge unseaworthiness.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 69260)

Facts:

  • Parties and Contract
    • Ilian Silica Mining engaged Lea Mer Industries, Inc. (petitioner) to transport 900 metric tons of silica sand valued at ₱565,000, consigned to Vulcan Industrial and Mining Corporation.
    • Lea Mer chartered barge Judy VII (non-propelled) towed by its tugboat M/V Ayalit under an affreightment agreement; vessel cleared by the Philippine Coast Guard.
  • Voyage and Sinking
    • On October 25, 1991, the silica sand was loaded aboard Judy VII at Palawan with weather warnings at Signal No. 1; typhoon “Trining” was allegedly not imminent.
    • During the voyage to Manila, Judy VII sank—respondent proved holes in the hull that may have aggravated water ingress; no evidence of preventive measures by petitioner’s crew.
  • Insurance and Procedural History
    • Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (respondent), having indemnified Vulcan for ₱565,000, sued petitioner for reimbursement on September 4, 1992 (RTC Manila, Civil Case No. 92-63159).
    • RTC dismissed in December 1999 ruling loss due to fortuitous event (typhoon). Court of Appeals reversed in October 2002, finding unseaworthiness and petitioner’s fault; petition for review filed under Rule 45.

Issues:

  • Liability for Loss of Cargo
    • Whether petitioner, as a common carrier, is exempted by a fortuitous event or bound by extraordinary diligence, and if the sinking was proximately caused by natural forces alone.
    • Whether Judy VII was seaworthy at departure or unseaworthiness (holes in hull) renders petitioner negligent.
  • Admissibility of Cargo Surveyor’s Report
    • Whether the survey report by Jesus Cortez, whose affidavit was offered without his testimony, is hearsay and inadmissible to prove the truth of its findings.
    • Whether the report may be considered under the exception for independently relevant statements when referred to by testifying witnesses.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.