G.R. No. 232968 - Marina P. Clarete vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Field Investigation Unit a Mindanao Area Office ~~Arthur Cua Yap vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Field Investigation Unit a Mindanao Area Office ~~Arthur Cua Yap vs. Sandiganbayan and People

On July 23, 1918, the Government of the Philippine Islands, through its Insular Purchasing Agent, employed the services of the Ynchausti Steamship Company, a common carrier, for the transportation of a consignment of mineral oil.
The consignment was comprised of thirty (30) cases of “White Rose” mineral oil, with each case containing two five-gallon cans, and was shipped aboard the steamship Venus from Manila to Aparri, Cagayan.

On September 18, 1918, a further consignment involving ninety-six cases of “Cock” brand mineral oil (ten gallons per case) was similarly transported from Manila to Aparri, Cagayan by the same steamship.
To evidence the contract of carriage, the shipper and the carrier executed a Government bill of lading (General Form 9-A), which contained stipulated conditions for the transportation based on the prescribed rates, common carrier law, and the Philippine Marine Regulations (as specified on page 16 under “Bill of Lading Conditions”).

Upon delivery of both shipments, the consignee noted a shortage in each bill of lading, stating that one case from each shipment was delivered empty.
Despite the carrier’s protestations that the shortage was due to causes unknown and not attributable to any negligence or fault on its part (or that of its agents or servants), the Acting Insular Purchasing Agent, after investigation, notified that the Insular Auditor determined the leakage of the two cases was attributable to the carrier’s negligence.
The Auditor authorized a deduction of P22.53 from the freight charges (the invoice value of the lost goods) and tendered a warrant for only P60.26 against the full claimed amount of P82.79 as shown in the petitioner’s transportation voucher.
The petitioner, the Ynchausti Steamship Company, refused to accept the partial warrant and sought a writ of mandamus directing the Auditor to issue a warrant for the full freight due.

The issue mirrors a similar factual scenario in Compania General de Tabacos vs. French and Unson (39 Phil. 34), though that case was decided on demurrer while the present case proceeds on full evidence and admitted facts.
Section 646 of the Administrative Code requires that upon shipment of Government property by a carrier, any evidence of loss, shortage, or damage must be duly noted on the bill of lading by the consignee or his representative. The petitioner admitted that such notation appeared on the bill of lading for both consignments, establishing the existence of the shortage.

The carrier’s acceptance of the goods in good order at the point of shipment, contrasted with their arrival in damaged condition, establishes a prima facie case against the carrier.
It is incumbent on the carrier to rebut the presumption of negligence by proving that the loss was due to an accident or another circumstance non-attributable to its fault as provided under Articles 361-363 of the Code of Commerce.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the full amount of freight charges (P82.79) despite the noted shortage on the bills of lading.
Whether the notation of the loss by the consignee, as mandated by Section 646 of the Administrative Code, constitutes sufficient evidence to establish a presumption of the carrier’s negligence.
Whether the petitioner’s allegation that the shortage was due to causes “entirely unknown” and not due to its negligence is material and can rebut the presumption of fault arising from the proper notation of loss.
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the Insular Auditor to issue a warrant for the full freight amount in light of the findings that the carrier may have been at fault.