Title
Republic vs. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation
Case
G.R. No. 153563
Decision Date
Feb 7, 2005
The Philippines, CARE, and NTFC sued LSC for breach of carriage after NTFC claimed non-delivery of goods. Courts ruled LSC exercised due diligence, dismissing claims but removing damages and fees awarded to LSC.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 70648)

Applicable Law

The applicable law in this case is primarily rooted in the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly provisions concerning common carriers and contracts of carriage, specifically Articles 1733, 1735, and 2208.

Background of the Case

The case involves agreements signed on June 5, 1987, between the Department of Health (DOH) of the Philippines and Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE) for the transport of donated food products. NTFC entered into a contract of carriage with the government to transport 4,868 bags of non-fat dried milk via LSC. The goods were delivered to the designated consignee, Abdurahman Jama, in Zamboanga City, but discrepancies emerged regarding the actual receipt of the goods by NTFC.

Court Proceedings and Initial Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila found in favor of LSC, dismissing NTFC’s complaint and ordering NTFC to pay damages to LSC based on a counterclaim. NTFC appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, asserting that the RTC erred in not finding LSC liable for the non-delivery of the goods and in granting damages to LSC.

Key Issues for Resolution

The issues presented for resolution included: (1) whether LSC was presumed to be at fault or negligent regarding the loss of goods as a common carrier; and (2) whether actual damages and attorney’s fees were rightly awarded to LSC.

Legal Presumption of Negligence

Under Article 1735 of the Civil Code, common carriers are presumed to be at fault unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence. NTFC posited that Jama’s failure to testify and the inconsistencies in LSC's agents’ accounts did not negate the legal presumption of negligence on LSC’s part. However, LSC demonstrated adherence to proper procedures, including requiring certified true copies of bills of lading and obtaining delivery receipts.

Conclusion on Negligence

The Court found that LSC satisfactorily proved that it exercised extraordinary diligence in the delivery process, absolving it from the presumption of negligence. Abdurahman’s instructions to his subordinates to sign delivery receipts further supported this finding. The absence of Jama's testimony was not detrimental to LSC’s defense as the evidence presented indicated compliance with standard practices for a common carrier.

Damages and Attorney’s Fees

On the issue of damages, NTFC argued against the validity of the awarded actual damages and attorney's fees to LSC. The Court recognized that the right to litigate should not incur a premium and found no malicious intent in NTFC’s filing of the suit, as it sought t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.