Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=28773:g-r-no-l-31379-august-29,-1988-compania-maritima-v-court-of-appeals&amp;catid=1240&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:05:43+00:00

Document:
COMPANIA MARITIMA, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE CONCEPCION, Respondents.
Benjamin J. Molina for Private Respondent.
1.	CIVIL CODE; CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; PRESUMPTION OF LIABILITY OF THE COMMON CARRIER; OVERCOME BY PROOF OF OBSERVANCE OF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE. — The general rule under Articles 1735 and 1752 of the Civil Code is that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently in case the goods transported by them are lost, destroyed or had deteriorated. To overcome the presumption of liability for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods under Article 1735, the common carriers must prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733 of the Civil Code. The responsibility of observing extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in Article 1734 of the same Code, the article invoked by petitioner to avoid liability for damages.
2.	ID.; ID.; ID.; COMMON CARRIER MUST PROVE THAT THE LOSS, DETERIORATION OR DESTRUCTION WAS DUE TO ACCIDENT OR TO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES INCONSISTENT WITH ITS LIABILITY. — Corollary is the rule that mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination in bad order, makes out prima facie case against the common carrier, so that if no explanation is given as to how the loss, deterioration or destruction of the goods occurred, the common carrier must be held responsible. 10 Otherwise stated, it is incumbent upon the common carrier to prove that the loss, deterioration or destruction was due to accident or some other circumstances inconsistent with its liability.
4.	ID.; ID.; RESPONSIBILITY ATTACHES WHEN CARRIER HAS POSSESSION OF GOODS AND CEASES WHEN THE SAME ARE DELIVERED. — Under Article 1736 of the Civil Code, the responsibility to observe extraordinary diligence commences and lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has the right to receive them without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738.
5.	ID.; ID.; FACT THAT WEIGHING OF CARGOES WAS DONE BY ANOTHER DOES NOT EXEMPT CARRIER FROM LIABILITY. — The weights stated in a bill of lading are prima facie evidence of the amount received and the fact that the weighing was done by another will not relieve the common carrier where it accepted such weight and entered it on the bill of lading. Besides, common carriers can protect themselves against mistakes in the bill of lading as to weight by exercising diligence before issuing the same.
6.	ID.; ID.; COMMON CARRIER STILL LIABLE EVEN IF SHIPPER FURNISHED IT WITH INACCURATE WEIGHT; CASE AT BAR. — While petitioner has proven that private respondent Concepcion did furnish it with an inaccurate weight of the payloader, petitioner is nonetheless liable, for the damage caused to the machinery could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable skill and attention on its part in overseeing the unloading of such a heavy equipment. And circumstances clearly show that the fall of the payloader could have been avoided by petitioner’s crew. Evidence on record sufficiently show that the crew of petitioner had been negligent in the performance of its obligation by reason of their having failed to take the necessary precaution under the circumstances.
7.	ID.; ID.; ID.; SHIPPER’S ACT OF MISREPRESENTATION MITIGATES LIABILITY OF PETITIONER. — While the act of private respondent in furnishing petitioner with an inaccurate weight of the payloader cannot successfully be used as an excuse by petitioner to avoid liability to the damage thus caused, said act constitutes a contributory circumstance to the damage caused on the payloader, which mitigates the liability for damages of petitioner in accordance with Article 1741 of the Civil Code.
8.	REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; A PARTY WHO DID NOT APPEAL MAY NOT ASK FOR THE MODIFICATION OR REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT. — It is well-settled that an appellee, who is not an appellant, may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the judgment on other grounds, but he may not do so if his purpose is to have the judgment modified or reversed, for, in such case, he must appeal. Since private respondent did not appeal from the judgment insofar as it limited the award of damages due him, the reduction of 20% or 1/5 of the value of the payloader stands.
Private respondent Vicente E. Concepcion, a civil engineer doing business under the name and style of Consolidated Construction with office address at Room 412, Don Santiago Bldg., Taft Avenue, Manila, had a contract with the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) sometime in 1964 for the construction of the airport in Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental.
These equipment were loaded aboard the MV Cebu in its Voyage No. 316, which left Manila on August 30, 1964 and arrived at Cagayan de Oro City in the afternoon of September 1, 1964. The Reo trucks and water tanks were safely unloaded within a few hours after arrival, but while the payloader was about two (2) meters above the pier in the course of unloading, the swivel pin of the heel block of the port block of Hatch No. 2 gave way, causing the payloader to fall. 3 The payloader was damaged and was thereafter taken to petitioner’s compound in Cagayan de Oro City.
The general rule under Articles 1735 and 1752 of the Civil Code is that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently in case the goods transported by them are lost, destroyed or had deteriorated. To overcome the presumption of liability for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods under Article 1735, the common carriers must prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733 of the Civil Code. The responsibility of observing extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in Article 1734 of the same Code, the article invoked by petitioner to avoid liability for damages.
Corollary is the rule that mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination in bad order, makes out prima facie case against the common carrier, so that if no explanation is given as to how the loss, deterioration or destruction of the goods occurred, the common carrier must be held responsible. 10 Otherwise stated, it is incumbent upon the common carrier to prove that the loss, deterioration or destruction was due to accident or some other circumstances inconsistent with its liability.
"Art. 1733.	Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reason of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each case.
The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires the common carrier to know and to follow the required precaution for avoiding damage to, or destruction of the goods entrusted to it for safe carriage and delivery. It requires common carriers to render service with the greatest skill and foresight and "to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such methods as their nature requires." 11 Under Article 1736 of the Civil Code, the responsibility to observe extraordinary diligence commences and lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has the right to receive them without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738.
We find equitable the conclusion of the Court of Appeals reducing the recoverable amount of damages by 20% or 1/5 of the value of the payloader, which at the time the instant case arose, was valued at P34,000.00, thereby reducing the recoverable amount at 80% or 4/5 of P34,000.00 or the sum of P27,200.00. Considering that the freight charges for the entire cargoes shipped by private respondent amounting to P2,318.40 remained unpaid, the same would be deducted from the P27,000.00 plus an additional deduction of P228.63 representing the freight charges for the undeclared weight of 5 tons (difference between 7.5 and 2.5 tons) leaving, therefore, a final recoverable amount of damages of P24,652.97 due to private respondent Concepcion.
We find private respondent’s submission erroneous. It is well-settled that an appellee, who is not an appellant, may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the judgment on other grounds, but he may not do so if his purpose is to have the judgment modified or reversed, for, in such case, he must appeal. 22 Since private respondent did not appeal from the judgment insofar as it limited the award of damages due him, the reduction of 20% or 1/5 of the value of the payloader stands.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects with costs against petitioner. In view of the length of time this case has been pending, this decision is immediately executory.
1.	Penned by Justice Magno S. Gatmaitan and concurred in by Justices Julio Villamor and Ruperto G. Martin.
2.	Exhibit "A", p. 1, Records.
3.	Exhibit "4", p. 25, Records.
4.	Exhibit "D", p. 4, Records.
5.	Exhibit "E", p. 5, Records.
6.	Exhibit "F", p. 7, Records.
7.	pp. 1-7, Record on Appeal, p. 28, Rollo.
10.	Mirasol v. Robert Dollar Co., 53 Phil. 129; Ynchausti Steamship Co. v. Dexter and Unson, 41 Phil. 289.
11.	The Ensley City DC, Ma; 71 F. Suppl. 444, citing Schnell v. The Vallescura, 293 U.S. 296, 55 Sct. 194, 79 L. Ed. 373; The Nichiyo Maru, 4 Cri, 89 F. 2d 539; Bank Line v. Porter, 4 Cir., 25 F. 2d. 843.
13.	TSN, December 16, 1966, pp. 111-113.
14.	TSN, January 19, 1967, pp. 119-120.
15.	TSN, September 29, 1968, pp. 84-85.
16.	Baker v. H. Dittinger Roller Mills, Co., Tex. Civ. Appl. 203 SW 798.
18.	TSN, September 29, 1966, p. 57.
22.	Gorospe, Et. Al. v. Peñaflorida, Et Al., 101 Phil. 886, citing Pineda & Ampil Mfg. Co., Et. Al. v. Arsenio Bartolome, Et Al., 95 Phil. 930; Saenz v. Mitchell, 60 Phil. 69; Mendoza v. Mendiola, 53 Phil. 267.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.