Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6195)
Facts:
N. T. Hashim & Co. v. Rocha & Co., G.R. No. 6195, January 17, 1911, the Supreme Court, Moreland, J., writing for the Court (Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, and Trent, JJ., concurring).The plaintiff-appellant, N. T. Hashim & Co., sued the defendant-appellee, Rocha & Co., for the value of a shipment of potatoes alleged to have been spoiled through the defendant's mishandling. The potatoes had been discharged from a ship into a small vessel (a lorcha) and subsequently were found rotted and worthless.
Evidence at trial showed that, immediately after being discharged into the lorcha, the potatoes were left for two days in the hot sun with the lorcha tightly closed and without ventilation. Testimony from the ship’s captain, the ship’s first officer, the customs inspector who had been aboard during discharge, and other witnesses indicated that the potatoes were in good condition when transferred into the lorcha. Multiple cascos discharged from the same ship and hold at the same time likewise contained potatoes in good condition.
A witness for the defendant, Villanueva—an employee of the plaintiff who had been on the vessel and was later discharged by the plaintiff—testified that the potatoes were already badly rotted when discharged into the lorcha; however, his contemporaneous written report to his employer stated that of 1,085 crates discharged into the lorcha only 54 crates were in bad condition and a few were damp. Uncontradicted proof showed that the worthless potatoes comprised about 5% of the entire cargo, a percentage the Court accepted as the usual loss in transporting potatoes at that season.
The trial court entered judgment adverse to the plaintiff (the decision under review). The plaintiff ap...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the judgment below correct in holding the defendant not liable for the loss of the potatoes, or should it be reversed because the defendant’s employees were grossly negligent in their handling of the cargo?
- If the defendant is liable, what amount of damages should th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)