Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/352656182/Planters-Products-vs-CA
Timestamp: 2019-07-22 02:42:48
Document Index: 3042856

Matched Legal Cases: ['arty1', 'In fine', 'Art.1732', 'Art.1732', 'Art.1733', 'Art.1735', 'Art.361', 'Art.362']

Planters Products vs CA | Negligence | Shipping
saveSave Planters Products vs CA For Later
ARMANDO JOSE y PAZ and MANILA CENTRAL BUS LINES .docx
8/18/2016 G.R.No.
TodayisThursday,August18,2016
G.R.No.101503September15,1993
PLANTERSPRODUCTS,INC.,petitioner,
COURTOFAPPEALS,SORIAMONTSTEAMSHIPAGENCIESANDKYOSEIKISENKABUSHIKIKAISHA,
Gonzales,Sinense,Jimenez&Associatesforpetitioner.
SiguionReyna,Montecillo&OngsiakoLawOfficeforprivaterespondents.
Doesacharterparty1 between a shipowner and a charterer transform a common carrier into a private one as to negate
thecivillawpresumptionofnegligenceincaseoflossordamagetoitscargo?
Planters Products, Inc. (PPI), purchased from Mitsubishi International Corporation (MITSUBISHI) of New York,
U.S.A., 9,329.7069 metric tons (M/T) of Urea 46% fertilizer which the latter shipped in bulk on 16 June 1974
aboard the cargo vessel M/V "Sun Plum" owned by private respondent Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha (KKKK)
fromKenai,Alaska,U.S.A.,toPoroPoint,SanFernando,LaUnion,Philippines,asevidencedbyBillofLadingNo.
KP1signedbythemasterofthevesselandissuedonthedateofdeparture.
On 17 May 1974, or prior to its voyage, a time charterparty on the vessel M/V "Sun Plum" pursuant to the
UniformGeneralCharter2 was entered into between Mitsubishi as shipper/charterer and KKKK as shipowner, in Tokyo,
Japan. 3 Riders to the aforesaid charterparty starting from par. 16 to 40 were attached to the preprinted agreement.
AddendaNos.1,2,3and4tothecharterpartywerealsosubsequentlyenteredintoonthe18th,20th,21stand27thofMay
1974,respectively.
Beforeloadingthefertilizeraboardthevessel,four(4)ofherholds4wereallpresumablyinspectedbythecharterer's
representativeandfoundfittotakealoadofureainbulkpursuanttopar.16ofthecharterpartywhichreads:
16. . . . At loading port, notice of readiness to be accomplished by certificate from National Cargo
Bureau inspector or substitute appointed by charterers for his account certifying the vessel's
readinesstoreceivecargospaces.Thevessel'sholdtobeproperlyswept,cleanedanddriedatthe
vessel's expense and the vessel to be presented clean for use in bulk to the satisfaction of the
inspectorbeforedaytimecommences.(emphasissupplied)
AftertheUreafertilizerwasloadedinbulkbystevedoreshiredbyandunderthesupervisionoftheshipper,the
bonds.Thehatchesremainedclosedandtightlysealedthroughouttheentirevoyage.5
Uponarrivalofthevesselatherportofcallon3July1974,thesteelpontoonhatcheswereopenedwiththeuse
ofthevessel'sboom.Petitionerunloadedthecargofromtheholdsintoitssteelbodieddumptruckswhichwere
parkedalongsidetheberth,usingmetalscoopsattachedtotheship,pursuanttothetermsandconditionsofthe
charterpartly (which provided for an F.I.O.S. clause). 6 The hatches remained open throughout the duration of the
Eachtimeadumptruckwasfilledup,itsloadofUreawascoveredwithtarpaulinbeforeitwastransportedtothe
consignee'swarehouselocatedsomefifty(50)metersfromthewharf.Midwaytothewarehouse,thetruckswere
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/sep1993/gr_101503_1993.html 1/7
8/18/2016 G.R.No.101503
madetopassthroughaweighingscalewheretheywereindividuallyweighedforthepurposeofascertainingthe
netweightofthecargo.Theportareawaswindy,certainportionsoftheroutetothewarehouseweresandyand
theweatherwasvariable,rainingoccasionallywhilethedischargewasinprogress.8Thepetitioner'swarehousewas
made of corrugated galvanized iron (GI) sheets, with an opening at the front where the dump trucks entered and unloaded
the fertilizer on the warehouse floor. Tarpaulins and GI sheets were placed inbetween and alongside the trucks to contain
spillagesoftheferilizer.9
Ittookeleven(11)daysforPPItounloadthecargo,from5Julyto18July1974(exceptJuly12th,14thand18th).
10 A private marine and cargo surveyor, Cargo Superintendents Company Inc. (CSCI), was hired by PPI to determine the
"outturn" of the cargo shipped, by taking draft readings of the vessel prior to and after discharge. 11 The survey report
submittedbyCSCItotheconsignee(PPI)dated19July1974revealedashortageinthecargoof106.726M/Tandthata
portion of the Urea fertilizer approximating 18 M/T was contaminated with dirt. The same results were contained in a
Certificate of Shortage/Damaged Cargo dated 18 July 1974 prepared by PPI which showed that the cargo delivered was
indeedshortof94.839M/Tandabout23M/Twererenderedunfitforcommerce,havingbeenpollutedwithsand,rustand
dirt.12
residentagentofthecarrier,KKKK,forP245,969.31representingthecostoftheallegedshortageinthegoods
shippedandthediminutioninvalueofthatportionsaidtohavebeencontaminatedwithdirt.13
accordingtothem,whattheyreceivedwasjustarequestforshortlandedcertificateandnotaformalclaim,and
thatthis"request"wasdeniedbythembecausethey"hadnothingtodowiththedischargeoftheshipment." 14
Hence, on 18 July 1975, PPI filed an action for damages with the Court of First Instance of Manila. The defendant carrier
argued that the strict public policy governing common carriers does not apply to them because they have become private
carriersbyreasonoftheprovisionsofthecharterparty.Thecourtaquohoweversustainedtheclaimoftheplaintiffagainst
thedefendantcarrierforthevalueofthegoodslostordamagedwhenitruledthus:15
...Prescindingfromtheprovisionofthelawthatacommoncarrierispresumednegligentincaseof
lossordamageofthegoodsitcontractstotransport,allthatashipperhastodoinasuittorecover
for loss or damage is to show receipt by the carrier of the goods and to delivery by it of less than
what it received. After that, the burden of proving that the loss or damage was due to any of the
causeswhichexempthimfromliabilityisshiptedtothecarrier,commonorprivatehemaybe.Evenif
the provisions of the charterparty aforequoted are deemed valid, and the defendants considered
private carriers, it was still incumbent upon them to prove that the shortage or contamination
sustained by the cargo is attributable to the fault or negligence on the part of the shipper or
consigneeintheloading,stowing,trimminganddischargeofthecargo.Thistheyfailedtodo.Bythis
omission, coupled with their failure to destroy the presumption of negligence against them, the
defendantsareliable(emphasissupplied).
value of the cargo that was lost or damaged. 16 Relying on the 1968 case of Home Insurance Co. v. American
SteamshipAgencies,Inc.,17theappellatecourtruledthatthecargovesselM/V"SunPlum"ownedbyprivaterespondent
KKKK was a private carrier and not a common carrier by reason of the time chartererparty. Accordingly, the Civil Code
provisionsoncommoncarrierswhichsetforthapresumptionofnegligencedonotfindapplicationinthecaseatbar.Thus
. . . In the absence of such presumption, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffappellee to adduce
sufficientevidencetoprovethenegligenceofthedefendantcarrierasallegedinitscomplaint.Itisan
old and well settled rule that if the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of
action,failstoshowinasatisfactorymannerthefactsuponwhichhebaseshisclaim,thedefendant
is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense (Moran, Commentaries on the Rules of
Court,Volume6,p.2,citingBelenv.Belen,13Phil.202).
But, the record shows that the plaintiffappellee dismally failed to prove the basis of its cause of
action, i.e. the alleged negligence of defendant carrier. It appears that the plaintiff was under the
impressionthatitdidnothavetoestablishdefendant'snegligence.Bethatasitmay,contrarytothe
trialcourt'sfinding,therecordoftheinstantcasedisclosesampleevidenceshowingthatdefendant
carrierwasnotnegligentinperformingitsobligation...18(emphasissupplied).
Petitioner PPI appeals to us by way of a petition for review assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals.
PetitionertheorizesthattheHomeInsurancecasehasnobearingonthepresentcontroversybecausetheissue
raisedthereinisthevalidityofastipulationinthecharterpartydelimitingtheliabilityoftheshipownerforlossor
damagetogoodscausebywantofduedeligenceonitspartorthatofitsmanagertomakethevesselseaworthy
in all respects, and not whether the presumption of negligence provided under the Civil Code applies only to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/sep1993/gr_101503_1993.html 2/7
commoncarriersandnottoprivatecarriers. 19 Petitioner further argues that since the possession and control of the
vessel remain with the shipowner, absent any stipulation to the contrary, such shipowner should made liable for the
negligence of the captain and crew. In fine, PPI faults the appellate court in not applying the presumption of negligence
againstrespondentcarrier,andinsteadshiftingtheonusprobandiontheshippertoshowwantofduedeligenceonthepart
ofthecarrier,whenhewasnotevenathandtowitnesswhattranspiredduringtheentirevoyage.
Asearlierstated,theprimordialissuehereiswhetheracommoncarrierbecomesaprivatecarrierbyreasonofa
charterpartyinthenegative,whethertheshipownerintheinstantcasewasabletoprovethathehadexercised
thatdegreeofdiligencerequiredofhimunderthelaw.
It is said that etymology is the basis of reliable judicial decisions in commercial cases. This being so, we find it
fittingtofirstdefineimportanttermswhicharerelevanttoourdiscussion.
A "charterparty" is defined as a contract by which an entire ship, or some principal part thereof, is let by the
ownertoanotherpersonforaspecifiedtimeoruse20acontractofaffreightmentbywhichtheownerofashiporother
vesselletsthewholeorapartofhertoamerchantorotherpersonfortheconveyanceofgoods,onaparticularvoyage,in
considerationofthepaymentoffreight 21Charterpartiesareoftwotypes:(a)contractofaffreightmentwhichinvolvesthe
useofshippingspaceonvesselsleasedbytheownerinpartorasawhole,tocarrygoodsforothersand,(b)charterby
demiseorbareboatcharter,bythetermsofwhichthewholevesselislettothechartererwithatransfertohimofitsentire
command and possession and consequent control over its navigation, including the master and the crew, who are his
servants. Contract of affreightment may either be time charter, wherein the vessel is leased to the charterer for a fixed
period of time, or voyage charter, wherein the ship is leased for a single voyage. 22 In both cases, the charterparty
provides for the hire of vessel only, either for a determinate period of time or for a single or consecutive voyage, the
shipowner to supply the ship's stores, pay for the wages of the master and the crew, and defray the expenses for the
maintenanceoftheship.
Upontheotherhand,theterm"commonorpubliccarrier"isdefinedinArt.1732oftheCivilCode.23Thedefinition
extends to carriers either by land, air or water which hold themselves out as ready to engage in carrying goods or
transportingpassengersorbothforcompensationasapublicemploymentandnotasacasualoccupation.Thedistinction
betweena"commonorpubliccarrier"anda"privateorspecialcarrier"liesinthecharacterofthebusiness,suchthatifthe
undertakingisasingletransaction,notapartofthegeneralbusinessoroccupation,althoughinvolvingthecarriageofgoods
forafee,thepersonorcorporationofferingsuchserviceisaprivatecarrier.24
Article 1733 of the New Civil Code mandates that common carriers, by reason of the nature of their business,
shouldobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoodstheycarry.25 In the case of private carriers,
however,theexerciseofordinarydiligenceinthecarriageofgoodswillsuffice.Moreover,inthecaseofloss,destructionor
deteriorationofthegoods,commoncarriersarepresumedtohavebeenatfaultortohaveactednegligently,andtheburden
of proving otherwise rests on them. 26 On the contrary, no such presumption applies to private carriers, for whosoever
alleges damage to or deterioration of the goods carried has the onus of proving that the cause was the negligence of the
It is not disputed that respondent carrier, in the ordinary course of business, operates as a common carrier,
transportinggoodsindiscriminatelyforallpersons.WhenpetitionercharteredthevesselM/V"SunPlum",theship
captain,itsofficersandcomplimentwereundertheemployoftheshipownerandthereforecontinuedtobeunder
itsdirectsupervisionandcontrol.Hardlythencanwechargethecharterer,astrangertothecrewandtotheship,
withthedutyofcaringforhiscargowhenthechartererdidnothaveanycontrolofthemeansindoingso.Thisis
evidentinthepresentcaseconsideringthatthesteeringoftheship,themanningofthedecks,thedetermination
ofthecourseofthevoyageandothertechnicalincidentsofmaritimenavigationwereallconsignedtotheofficers
andcrewwhowerescreened,chosenandhiredbytheshipowner.27
timecharterorvoyagecharter.Itisonlywhenthecharterincludesboththevesselanditscrew,asinabareboat
ordemisethatacommoncarrierbecomesprivate,atleastinsofarastheparticularvoyagecoveringthecharter
party is concerned. Indubitably, a shipowner in a time or voyage charter retains possession and control of the
ship,althoughherholdsmay,forthemoment,bethepropertyofthecharterer.28
Respondentcarrier'sheavyrelianceonthecaseofHomeInsuranceCo.v.AmericanSteamshipAgencies,supra,
ismisplacedforthereasonthatthemeatofthecontroversythereinwasthevalidityofastipulationinthecharter
partyexemptingtheshipownersfromliabilityforlossduetothenegligenceofitsagent,andnottheeffectsofa
special charter on common carriers. At any rate, the rule in the United States that a ship chartered by a single
shipper to carry special cargo is not a common carrier, 29 does not find application in our jurisdiction, for we have
observedthatthegrowingconcernforsafetyinthetransportationofpassengersand/orcarriageofgoodsbysearequiresa
moreexactinginterpretationofadmiraltylaws,moreparticularly,therulesgoverningcommoncarriers.
WequotewithapprovaltheobservationsofRaoulColinvaux,thelearnedbarristeratlaw30
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/sep1993/gr_101503_1993.html 3/7
Asamatterofprinciple,itisdifficulttofindavaliddistinctionbetweencasesinwhichashipisusedto
conveythegoodsofoneandofseveralpersons.Wheretheshipherselfislettoacharterer,sothat
hetakesoverthechargeandcontrolofher,thecaseisdifferenttheshipownerisnotthenacarrier.
But where her services only are let, the same grounds for imposing a strict responsibility exist,
whetherheisemployedbyoneormany.Themasterandthecrewareineachcasehisservants,the
freighterineachcaseisusuallywithoutanyrepresentativeonboardtheshipthesameopportunities
forfraudorcollusionoccurandthesamedifficultyindiscoveringthetruthastowhathastakenplace
Inanactionforrecoveryofdamagesagainstacommoncarrieronthegoodsshipped,theshipperorconsignee
shouldfirstprovethefactofshipmentanditsconsequentlossordamagewhilethesamewasinthepossession,
exercisedextraordinarydiligencerequiredbylaworthattheloss,damageordeteriorationofthecargowasdue
tofortuitousevent,orsomeothercircumstancesinconsistentwithitsliability.31
To our mind, respondent carrier has sufficiently overcome, by clear and convincing proof, the prima facie
presumptionofnegligence.
PhilippineConsulandLegalAttacheinthePhilippineEmbassyinTokyo,Japan,testifiedthatbeforethefertilizer
wasloaded,thefour(4)hatchesofthevesselwerecleaned,driedandfumigated.Aftercompletingtheloadingof
the cargo in bulk in the ship's holds, the steel pontoon hatches were closed and sealed with iron lids, then
covered with three (3) layers of serviceable tarpaulins which were tied with steel bonds. The hatches remained
close and tightly sealed while the ship was in transit as the weight of the steel covers made it impossible for a
persontoopenwithouttheuseoftheship'sboom.32
It was also shown during the trial that the hull of the vessel was in good condition, foreclosing the possibility of
spillageofthecargointotheseaorseepageofwaterinsidethehullofthevessel.33WhenM/V"SunPlum"docked
atitsberthingplace,representativesoftheconsigneeboarded,andinthepresenceofarepresentativeoftheshipowner,the
foreman, the stevedores, and a cargo surveyor representing CSCI, opened the hatches and inspected the condition of the
hull of the vessel. The stevedores unloaded the cargo under the watchful eyes of the shipmates who were overseeing the
wholeoperationonrotationbasis.34
the showing of extraordinary zeal and assiduity exercised by the carrier in the care of the cargo. This was
confirmedbyrespondentappellatecourtthus
. . . Be that as it may, contrary to the trial court's finding, the record of the instant case discloses
ample evidence showing that defendant carrier was not negligent in performing its obligations.
Particularly, the following testimonies of plaintiffappellee's own witnesses clearly show absence of
negligence by the defendant carrier that the hull of the vessel at the time of the discharge of the
cargowassealedandnobodycouldopenthesameexceptinthepresenceoftheownerofthecargo
andtherepresentativesofthevessel(TSN,20July1977,p.14)thatthecoverofthehatcheswas
made of steel and it was overlaid with tarpaulins, three layers of tarpaulins and therefore their
contents were protected from the weather (TSN, 5 April 1978, p. 24) and, that to open these
hatches,thesealswouldhavetobebroken,allthesealswerefoundtobeintact(TSN,20July1977,
pp.1516)(emphasissupplied).
The period during which private respondent was to observe the degree of diligence required of it as a public
carrierbeganfromthetimethecargowasunconditionallyplacedinitschargeafterthevessel'sholdswereduly
inspectedandpassedscrutinybytheshipper,uptoanduntilthevesselreacheditsdestinationanditshullwas
reexaminedbytheconsignee,butpriortounloading.Thisisclearfromthelimitationclauseagreeduponbythe
partiesintheAddendumtothestandard"GENCON"timecharterpartywhichprovidedforanF.I.O.S.,meaning,
thattheloading,stowing,trimminganddischargeofthecargowastobedonebythecharterer,freefromallrisk
andexpensetothecarrier. 35 Moreover, a shipowner is liable for damage to the cargo resulting from improper stowage
only when the stowing is done by stevedores employed by him, and therefore under his control and supervision, not when
thesameisdonebytheconsigneeorstevedoresundertheemployofthelatter.36
Article1734oftheNewCivilCodeprovidesthatcommoncarriersarenotresponsiblefortheloss,destructionor
deteriorationofthegoodsifcausedbythechartererofthegoodsordefectsinthepackagingorinthecontainers.
The Code of Commerce also provides that all losses and deterioration which the goods may suffer during the
transportationbyreasonoffortuitousevent,forcemajeure,ortheinherentdefectofthegoods,shallbeforthe
account and risk of the shipper, and that proof of these accidents is incumbent upon the carrier. 37 The carrier,
nonetheless,shallbeliableforthelossanddamageresultingfromtheprecedingcausesifitisproved,asagainsthim,that
they arose through his negligence or by reason of his having failed to take the precautions which usage has established
amongcarefulpersons.38
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/sep1993/gr_101503_1993.html 4/7
Respondent carrier presented a witness who testified on the characteristics of the fertilizer shipped and the
expected risks of bulk shipping. Mr. Estanislao Chupungco, a chemical engineer working with Atlas Fertilizer,
describedUreaasachemicalcompoundconsistingmostlyofammoniaandcarbonmonoxidecompoundswhich
are used as fertilizer. Urea also contains 46% nitrogen and is highly soluble in water. However, during storage,
nitrogen and ammonia do not normally evaporate even on a long voyage, provided that the temperature inside
thehulldoesnotexceedeighty(80)degreescentigrade.Mr.Chupungcofurtheraddedthatinunloadingfertilizer
in bulk with the use of a clamped shell, losses due to spillage during such operation amounting to one percent
(1%) against the bill of lading is deemed "normal" or "tolerable." The primary cause of these spillages is the
clampedshellwhichdoesnotsealverytightly.Also,thewindtendstoblowawaysomeofthematerialsduringthe
unloadingprocess.
The dissipation of quantities of fertilizer, or its daterioration in value, is caused either by an extremely high
temperature in its place of storage, or when it comes in contact with water. When Urea is drenched in water,
eitherfreshorsaline,someofitsparticlesdissolve.Butthesalvagedportionwhichisinliquidformstillremains
potentandusablealthoughnolongersaleableinitsoriginalmarketvalue.
The probability of the cargo being damaged or getting mixed or contaminated with foreign particles was made
greater by the fact that the fertilizer was transported in "bulk," thereby exposing it to the inimical effects of the
elementsandthegrimyconditionofthevariouspiecesofequipmentusedintransportingandhaulingit.
The evidence of respondent carrier also showed that it was highly improbable for sea water to seep into the
vessel'sholdsduringthevoyagesincethehullofthevesselwasingoodconditionandherhatchesweretightly
closed and firmly sealed, making the M/V "Sun Plum" in all respects seaworthy to carry the cargo she was
charteredfor.Iftherewaslossorcontaminationofthecargo,itwasmorelikelytohaveoccurredwhilethesame
wasbeingtransportedfromtheshiptothedumptrucksandfinallytotheconsignee'swarehouse.Thismaybe
gleaned from the testimony of the marine and cargo surveyor of CSCI who supervised the unloading. He
explained that the 18 M/T of alleged "bar order cargo" as contained in their report to PPI was just an
approximationorestimatemadebythemafterthefertilizerwasdischargedfromthevesselandsegregatedfrom
therestofthecargo.
TheCourtnotesthatitwasinthemonthofJulywhenthevesselarrivedportandunloadedhercargo.Itrained
fromtimetotimeattheharborareawhilethecargowasbeingdischargedaccordingtothesupplyofficerofPPI,
who also testified that it was windy at the waterfront and along the shoreline where the dump trucks passed
enroutetotheconsignee'swarehouse.
Indeed,weagreewithrespondentcarrierthatbulkshipmentofhighlysolublegoodslikefertilizercarrieswithitthe
riskoflossordamage.Moreso,withavariableweatherconditionprevalentduringitsunloading,aswasthecase
atbar.Thisisarisktheshipperortheownerofthegoodshastoface.Clearly,respondentcarrierhassufficiently
proved the inherent character of the goods which makes it highly vulnerable to deterioration as well as the
inadequacyofitspackagingwhichfurthercontributedtotheloss.Ontheotherhand,noproofwasadducedby
thepetitionershowingthatthecarrierwasremiseintheexerciseofduediligenceinordertominimizethelossor
damagetothegoodsitcarried.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSED.TheassaileddecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,whichreversedthetrial
court,isAFFIRMED. Consequently, Civil Case No. 98623 of the then Court of the First Instance, now Regional
TrialCourt,ofManilashouldbe,asitisherebyDISMISSED.
Davide,Jr.andQuiason,JJ.,concur.
Cruz,J.,tooknopart.
GrioAquino,J.,isonleave.
1Acharterpartyisacontractbywhichanentireshiporsomeprincipalpartthereof,isletbythe
ownertoanotherpersonforaspecifiedtimeoruse(70AmJur2d,
p.580,citingWardv.Thompson,63US330,16LEd249acontractinwhichtheownerofavessel
letsforconsiderationthewholeorpartthereoffortheconveyanceofgoodsand/orpassengersona
particularvoyagetooneormoreplacesoruntiltheexpirationofaspecifiedtimeandsurrenderunto
thelesseeorchartererthecontrol,byvestinguponthelattertherighttoappointthecaptain,officers
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/sep1993/gr_101503_1993.html 5/7
andmembersofthecrew,ofthevesselleasedorcharteredduringthedurationofthecontract(R.A.
2TheBalticandInternationalMaritimeUniformGeneralCharter(AsRevised1922and1976),
Including"F.I.O.S."Alternative,etc.,CodeName:"GENCON"AdoptedbytheDocumentary
CommitteeoftheGeneralCouncilofBritishShipping,London,andtheDocumentaryCommitteeof
theJapanShippingExchange,Inc.,Tokyo.
3Rollo,pp.105,128.
4Althoughpar.40oftheRider(Descriptionof"SunPlum")statesthatthevesselhas3holds/3
hatches,HatchNo.4whichusuallywasnotusedforcargo,wasconvertedforsuchpurpose.The
timesheetfor12July1974showsthatHatch
No.4wasfirsttobedischargeofcargo.Thiswasalsotestifiedbythemasterofthevessel,Captain
LeeTaeBo.
5Id.,p.129.
6Underthetermsandconditionsofthecharterparty,F.I.O.S.(FreeInandOut
Shipping/Stevedoring)meansthattheshippertakescareoftheloading,whiletheunloadingisthe
soleresponsibilityoftheconsignee(Rollo,pp.128,184).
7TSN,20July1977,p.17.
8TSN,20July1977,p.18.
9Rollo,p.130.
10Id.,p.129ADDENDUMNo.4dated17May1974provides:"Thecargotobedischargedatthe
averagerateof1,000metrictonsperdayof24hoursweatherworkingdays,Sundays,holidays
excludedunlessused,assumingfour(4)setsofvessel'sgearsimultaneouslyworkableavessel's
bearthingside."
11TSN,5April1978,pp.78."Dropsurvey"isthedropofthevesselshowingcertainmetersor
centimetersofthevessel.Intheshipthereisadraftfromonemeterupward.Whenthevessel
arrives,(CSCI)conductedinitialdraftsurveybeforedischarging,togetherwiththeship's
representativebygettingthedraftforwardandaft.Theydivideditby2togetthemeandraftandthe
averagedraft.Aftergettingthemeandraft,theygotthedisplacementscaleofthevesseltoshow
certaintonsoftheship,thendeductedthenoncargoweight,likethefueloil,thefreshwater.Finally,
thetotalloadoftheshipistaken.Afterdischarging,CSCIwentoversameproceduretogetthe
weightofthevessel.Thesefigureswerethensubtractedfromthetotalloadoftheshipstogetthe
weightofthecargo.
12Id.,p.106.
13Id.,pp.49,68.
14TSN,28Aug.1979,pp.910.
15Id.,p.68"PlantersProducts,Inc.v.SoriamontSteamshipAgencies,etal.,"CivilCaseNo.98623,
CFIofManila,Br.27,decisionpennedbyJudgeE.L.Peralta,24March1980.
16TheCourtofAppeals(TwelfthDivision)rendereditsdecisionon13August1991inCAG.R.CV
No.02736entitled"PlantersProducts,Inc.vs.KyoseiKisenKabushikiKaisha&SoriamontSteamship
Agencies."DecisionpennedbyJusticeAlfredoL.Benipayo,concurredinbyJusticesManuelC.
HerreraandCancioC.Garcia,Rollo,pp.1324.
17No.L25599,4April1968,23SCRA24.
18Rollo,p.109.
19Rollo,pp.8&9.
20CharterPartisChartersofDemiseandContractsofAffreightment70AmJur2d,p.580citing
Wardv.Thompson,63US330,16Ld249E.R.HarveyIvamy,CarriageofGoodsbySea,13thEd.,
Chap.2,pp.5,810.ThetermisalsodefinedunderR.A.No.913,knownas"AnActDefining'Lease'
or'Charter'ofVessels"astomeana"contractinwhichtheownerofavesselletsforconsideration
thewholeorprincipalpartthereoffortheconveyanceofgoodsand/orpassengersonaparticular
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/sep1993/gr_101503_1993.html 6/7
voyagetooneormoreplacesoruntiltheexpirationofaspecifiedtimeandsurrendersuntothe
lesseeorchartererthecontrol,byvestinguponthelattertherighttoappointthecaptain,officersand
membersofthecrew,ofthevesselleasedorcharteredduringthedurationofthecontract."
21Bouvier'sLawDictionary,ThirdRev.,Vol.I,p.470.
22Id.,pp.581582.
23Art.1732.Commoncarriersarepersons,corporations,firmsorassociationsengagedinthe
businessofcarryingortransportingpassengersorgoodsorboth,byland,waterorair,for
compensation,offeringtheirservicestothepublic.
24SeeDeGuzmanv.CourtofAppeals,No.L47822,22December1988,168SCRA612U.S.v.
Quinajon,No.8686,30July1915.
25Art.1733.Commoncarriers,fromthenatureoftheirbusinessandforreasonsofpublicpolicy,are
boundtoobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoodsandforthesafetyofthe
passengerstransportedbythem,accordingtoallthecircumstancesofeachcase.
SuchextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoodsisfurtherexpressedinArts.1734,1735
and1745,Nos.5,6and7,whiletheextraordinarydiligenceforthesafetyofthepassengersis
furthersetforthinArts.1755and1756.
26Art.1735.InallcasesotherthanthosementionedinNos.1,2,3,4and5oftheprecedingarticle,
ifthegoodsarelost,destroyedordeteriorated,commoncarriersarepresumedtohavebeenatfault
ortohaveactednegligently,unlesstheyprovethattheyobservedextraordinarydiligenceasrequired
inarticle1733.
27E.R.HarveyIvamy,pp.810.
2870AmJur2nd,P,608S238,citingGracev.Palmer,21US605,5LEd696,andKerryv.Pacific
MarineCo.,12CAL564,54,p.89.
2930C.J.S.,pp.269693.
30BritishShippingLaws,Vol.2,"Carver'sCarriagebySea,"ByRaoulColinvaux,Vol.1,12thEd.,
PublishedbyStevens&SonsLimitedofLondon,PrintedinGreatBritain,1971.
31SeeYnchaustiSteamshipCo.v.Dexter,No.15652,41Phil.289,14Dec.1920Mirasolv.Robert
Dollar,Co.,No.29721,53Phil.124,27March1929.
32DepositionofCapt.LeeTaeBo,Exh."4",pp.2223.
33TSN,20July1977,p.14.
34TSN,5April1978,pp.2425.
35SeeNote6.
3670AmJur2d,p.603S230,citingOxfordPaperCo.v.TheNidarholm,282US681,75Led614,
51SCt266.
37Art.361,par.4,CodeofCommerce.
38Art.362,par.1,id.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/sep1993/gr_101503_1993.html 7/7
Documents Similar To Planters Products vs CA
Final High Octane Vendor Application