Case Summary (G.R. No. 162267)
Petitioner, Respondent, and Procedural History
Petitioner: Mauro B. Ganzon (common carrier)
Private Respondent: Gelacio E. Tumambing (shipper)
Lower Courts: Court of First Instance of Manila (judgment for damages in favor of Tumambing); Court of Appeals (affirmed liability and awarded P5,895.00 actual, P5,000.00 exemplary damages, plus P2,000.00 attorney’s fees)
Supreme Court Decision Date: May 30, 1988 (under the 1973 Philippine Constitution)
Key Dates
– November 28, 1956: Service contract executed.
– December 1, 1956: Delivery of scrap to LCT “Batman” and commencement of loading.
– December 1, 1956: Mayor Advincula’s armed demand and assault on Tumambing.
– December 4, 1956: Acting Mayor Rub’s order to dump scrap into the sea and subsequent municipal seizure.
Applicable Law
– Civil Code of the Philippines (1950), Articles 1733-1736 on common carriers’ extraordinary responsibility and exceptions.
– Code of Commerce (1916), Articles 361-362 on carrier’s risk and diligence.
– Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (1973), as in force at decision.
Contract of Carriage and Perfection
Upon unconditional delivery on December 1, 1956, and physical receipt by petitioner’s crew, the contract of carriage was perfected. Under Civil Code Art. 1736, extraordinary responsibility commenced from such receipt until delivery to the consignee.
Presumption of Fault and Burden of Proof
Civil Code Art. 1735 presumes carrier fault where goods are lost or deteriorated, unless the carrier proves observance of extraordinary diligence (Art. 1733) or that the loss resulted from enumerated excepted causes (Art. 1734): (1) natural calamities; (2) act of public enemy; (3) shipper’s act; (4) inherent defect in goods; (5) order of competent public authority.
Intervention by Municipal Officials
Loading was first interrupted by Mayor Advincula’s armed shakedown attempt. After resumption, Acting Mayor Rub, without proving lawful authority, ordered the crew to dump scrap into the sea. He later issued a receipt acknowledging municipal custody of the remaining cargo.
Court of Appeals’ Findings on Public Authority
The appellate court held that Acting Mayor Rub lacked lawful power to order dumping or seizure under legal process. The order formed part of extortionary conduct by municipal officers, not a valid exercise of public authority. Consequently, the event did not qualify as an excepted cause under Civil Code Art. 1734(5).
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision:
– Liability attached from receipt of the scrap.
– Petitioner failed to pro
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 162267)
Procedural History
- Private respondent Gelacio E. Tumambing filed an action for damages based on culpa contractual in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Mauro B. Ganzon.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the decision appealed from and ordered Ganzon to pay P5,895.00 as actual damages, P5,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees, with costs.
- Ganzon filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, alleging errors in the Court of Appeals’ decision.
- The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and declared the decision immediately executory.
Facts
- On November 28, 1956, Tumambing contracted Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataan, to Manila aboard the lighter LCT “Batman.”
- The lighter docked in Mariveles in three feet of water; on December 1, Tumambing delivered the scrap to Captain Filomeno Niza for loading, which commenced under his supervision.
- When about half the scrap was loaded, Mayor Jose Advincula demanded P5,000, and upon resistance he fired at Tumambing, wounding him.
- After Tumambing’s hospitalization, loading resumed; on December 4, 1956, Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, with three policemen, ordered the crew to dump the scrap into the sea.
- The remainder of the cargo was brought to the NASSCO compound, and Rub issued a receipt stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap.
Issues
- Whether Ganzon breached the contract of carriage by incurring liability from the time he unconditionally received the scrap iron.
- Whether Ganzon is liable for his employees’ compliance with orders of municipal officials, or whether such acts constitute an exception under “order or act of competent public authority.”
- Whether the lo