Case Summary (G.R. No. 194121)
Key Dates and Procedural History
• October 7–9, 2000: Arrival of cargo; pickup by four BMT trucks; one truck and its contents go missing en route to Binan, Laguna.
• March 29, 2001: TMBI demands payment from BMT; BMT refuses.
• November 6, 2001: Mitsui sues TMBI for subrogated claim of PHP 7,293,386.23. TMBI impleads BMT.
• August 5, 2008: RTC finds TMBI and Manalastas jointly and solidarily liable; awards actual damages, 25% attorney’s fees, and costs.
• October 14, 2010: CA affirms liability; reduces attorney’s fees to PHP 200,000.
• July 11, 2016: Supreme Court decision under the 1987 Constitution.
Facts and Contractual Relations
Sony engaged TMBI for customs brokerage and delivery to its Laguna warehouse. TMBI subcontracted trucking to BMT, a common‐carrier business owned by Manalastas. During transit, one BMT truck was found abandoned, both driver and goods missing. TMBI promptly notified Sony and filed a criminal complaint; Sony sought indemnity from Mitsui, which paid and was subrogated to Sony’s rights. Mitsui then demanded payment from TMBI, prompting litigation.
Legal Issues
- Whether TMBI qualifies as a common carrier bound to extraordinary diligence.
- Whether the theft/hijacking of the cargo constitutes a fortuitous event.
- Whether TMBI and BMT are jointly and solidarily liable to Mitsui.
- Whether Mitsui may directly recover from BMT absent privity of contract.
- Whether BMT breached its subcontractual obligation to TMBI and thus owes indemnity.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – applicable to decisions from 1990 onward.
• Civil Code of the Philippines (Articles 1732–1745, 2176–2194): common-carrier definition and duties, presumption of negligence, fortuitous events, contract versus quasi-delict, solidarity of obligation, subrogation.
Supreme Court Ruling
- TMBI is a common carrier. Although it did not own trucks, it held itself out to the public for transport services, including delivery, and subcontracted actual carriage to BMT. As a common carrier, TMBI was bound by extraordinary diligence over the cargo from pickup to delivery.
- Theft or “hijacking” is not per se a fortuitous event except when attended by grave or irresistible force. Neither TMBI nor BMT proved such force; their allegations were unsupported and contradicted by TMBI’s own admissions. The presumption of carrier negligence under Article 1735 thus applies.
- TMBI’s liability to Mitsui arises from breach of contract (culpa contractual), not quasi-delict; Article 2194 on solidarity of quasi-delict obligations does not apply.
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 194121)
Facts
- On October 7, 2000, electronic goods arrived at the Port of Manila for Sony Philippines, Inc.
- Sony engaged Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. (TMBI) to clear, withdraw, and deliver the shipment to its Binan, Laguna warehouse.
- TMBI subcontracted transportation to BMT Trucking Services (BMT), owned by Benjamin P. Manalastas; Sony had no objection.
- Four BMT trucks collected the cargo on October 7 but delayed delivery until October 9 due to truck bans and Sunday closures.
- On October 9, only three trucks reached Binan; the fourth was found abandoned in Muntinlupa City with driver and cargo missing.
- TMBI’s general manager and BMT’s operations manager inspected the scene and filed a hijacking complaint with the NBI, which recommended qualified theft charges.
- TMBI notified Sony by letter on October 10, 2000, and later demanded payment from BMT in March 2001; BMT refused, citing hijacking.
- Sony’s insurer, Mitsui, paid Sony ₱7,293,386.23 and, upon subrogation, demanded reimbursement from TMBI, which TMBI likewise refused.
Procedural History
- Mitsui sued TMBI on November 6, 2001, for reimbursement of the paid insurance claim; TMBI impleaded BMT as third-party defendant.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 01-1596 held TMBI and Benjamin Manalastas solidarily liable for ₱7,293,386.23, attorney’s fees (25%), and costs on August 5, 2008.
- Both TMBI and BMT appealed; the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed liability but reduced attorney’s fees to ₱200,000 on October 14, 2010.
- TMBI filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court on December 3, 2010.
Issues
- Whether TMBI is a common carrier bound to exercise extraordinary diligence.
- Whether the hijacking of the shipment constitutes a fortuitous event (force majeure).
- Whether TMBI and BMT are jointly and solidarily liable to Mitsui.
- Whether Mitsui may directly hold BMT liable absent privity of contract.
- Whether TMBI is entitled to reimbursement from BMT.
Petitioner’s (TMBI) Arguments
- The disappearance resulted from hijacking—a fortuitous event beyond TMBI’s control.
- TMBI is not a common carrier: it owns no trucks and merely processes customs paperwork.
- Delivery was never part