Servando v. Philippine Steam Navigation Co.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellees Clara Uy Bico and Amparo Servando loaded cargoes of rice and general merchandise, respectively, on board appellant Philippine Steam Navigation's vessel, FS-176, for carriage from Manila to Pulupandan, Negros Occidental. The cargoes were discharged in good order unto the Bureau of Customs' warehouse. Subsequently, a fire of unknown origin destroyed the warehouse and the appellees' cargoes, except for a portion of rice already delivered to appellee Uy Bico. Procedural History: The lower court declared the appellant liable for damages for the loss of the cargoes, holding that delivery to the Customs warehouse was not the delivery contemplated by law and that the loss occurred before actual or constructive delivery to the appellees. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals and subsequently certified to the Supreme Court due to pure questions of law, seeking to set aside the decision of the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether the delivery of the cargoes to the Bureau of Customs warehouse constituted delivery contemplated by law, thereby releasing the carrier from liability. Whether the stipulation in the bill of lading limiting the carrier's responsibility for loss or damage due to fire is valid and binding. Whether the fire that destroyed the warehouse and the cargoes was a fortuitous event or force majeure exempting the carrier from liability.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is hereby set aside. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of delivery: The Court noted that the lower court held that delivery to the Bureau of Customs warehouse was not the delivery contemplated by Article 1736 of the Civil Code. However, the Supreme Court's decision hinges on the validity of the stipulation in the bill of lading and the nature of the fire as a fortuitous event, rendering the specific nature of the delivery to the warehouse a secondary consideration in the final ruling. On the validity of the stipulation in the bill of lading: The Court sustained the validity of Clause 14 of the bills of lading, which stipulated that the carrier shall not be responsible for loss or damage caused by fire. The Court found no provision in the stipulation that is contrary to law, morals, or public policy. It further held that even if the stipulation was printed in fine letters and not signed by the appellees, they are bound by it, citing the principle established in Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals regarding contracts of adhesion, where the party adhering is free to reject the contract entirely. On the nature of the fire as a fortuitous event and the absence of negligence: The Court held that the fire that gutted the customs warehouse was an extraordinary event which happened independently of the will of the appellant, and it could not have been foreseen or avoided. This aligns with the definition of 'caso fortuito' or force majeure under Article 1174 of the Civil Code and its antecedent, Law 11, Title 33, Partida 7. The Court emphasized that the proximate cause of the loss was the fortuitous event, exempting the obligor from liability. The Court found no proof that the cause of the fire was attributable to the negligence of the appellant or its employees. The storage of goods in the Customs warehouse pending withdrawal was with the knowledge and consent of the appellees. Since the warehouse was government-maintained and the appellant had no control over it, it would be unfair to impute negligence to the carrier. This distinguishes the case from Yu Biao Sontua vs. Ossorio, where negligence was proven.
Main Doctrine
A common carrier is exempt from liability for loss or damage to cargo caused by fire, provided that the bill of lading contains a stipulation to that effect and the fire is considered a fortuitous event or force majeure, independent of the carrier's will, unforeseeable, and unavoidable, and not caused by the negligence of the carrier or its employees.