Case Digest (G.R. No. 11318) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In March 1914, the steamship Alicante, owned by La Compania Trasatlantica de Barcelona (hereafter Steamship Company), arrived in Manila carrying two locomotive boilers belonging to The Manila Railroad Company (plaintiff/appellant). Finding its own gear inadequate to unload such heavy machinery, the Steamship Company engaged The Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Company (hereafter Atlantic Co.) as an independent contractor, believed to possess the city’s best floating crane. Atlantic Co.’s foreman, Leyden, first slung a boiler too centrally, raising it almost horizontally so that one end caught under the hatch’s edge. The sudden extra strain—estimated at fifteen tons—snapped the sling cable and sent the boiler crashing into the hold. After re-rigging the sling near one end, Leyden made a second lift, but a bolt at the derrick boom’s head—likely weakened by the initial shock—failed and the boiler fell again. Although Atlantic Co. eventually discharged the boiler, it was so badly damaged th Case Digest (G.R. No. 11318) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Arrival of locomotive boilers and engagement of lifting services
- March 1914: Steamship Alicante (Compania Trasatlantica) arrives at Manila carrying two locomotive boilers owned by The Manila Railroad Company; ship’s own gear is inadequate for heavy cargo.
- Steamship Company engages Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co. to bring its floating crane alongside, lift the boilers, and transfer them to a barge.
- Lifting operations and accidents
- First hoisting: sling placed near boiler’s mid-length, boiler raised nearly horizontal, one end caught under hatch edge, added strain (~15 tons) breaks sling cable, boiler falls into ship’s hold.
- Second hoisting: sling repositioned near an end, shock from first accident weakened derrick-boom bolt, bolt breaks, boiler falls again; after repairs, boiler discharged but badly damaged.
- Damage and litigation
- Boiler re-shipped to England for reconstruction, then returned; Railroad Company’s proven loss (repairs, expenses, loss of use) = P 22,343.29.
- Railroad Co. sues Steamship Co.; Steamship Co. impleads Atlantic Co. as codefendant, contending independent-contractor liability. Trial court finds gross negligence of Atlantic Co.’s foreman (Leyden), absolves Steamship Co., holds Atlantic Co. liable; both appeal.
Issues:
- Is the Steamship Company liable to the Railroad Company for delivering the boiler in a damaged condition under their contract of carriage?
- Is the Atlantic Company liable to indemnify the Steamship Company under their contract for lifting services, despite an alleged exemption clause?
- Can the Atlantic Company be held directly liable to the Railroad Company in absence of contractual privity?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)