Loadmasters Customs Services v. Glodel Brokerage
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: R&B Insurance Corporation issued a marine policy to Columbia Wire and Cable Corporation (Columbia) to insure 132 bundles of electric copper cathodes. The cargoes were shipped and arrived in Manila. Columbia engaged Glodel Brokerage Corporation (Glodel) for the release and delivery of the cargoes. Glodel, in turn, engaged Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. (Loadmasters) for the transportation of the cargoes using its delivery trucks. Six truckloads were delivered to Lawang Bato, Valenzuela City. However, of the six trucks destined for Balagtas, Bulacan, only five reached the destination; one truck carrying 11 bundles of copper cathodes failed to deliver its cargo and was later recovered without the goods. Columbia filed a claim with R&B Insurance, which paid Columbia P1,896,789.62 as insurance indemnity. R&B Insurance then filed a complaint for damages against Glodel and Loadmasters, seeking reimbursement for the amount paid, claiming subrogation to Columbia's rights. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held Glodel liable for damages and ordered it to pay R&B Insurance the indemnity amount, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The RTC dismissed Loadmasters' counterclaim. Both R&B Insurance and Glodel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA modified the RTC decision, holding Loadmasters also liable to Glodel for the insurance indemnity amount, finding Loadmasters to be an agent of Glodel. The CA dismissed Glodel's appeal to be absolved from liability. The Petition: Loadmasters filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning its liability to Glodel despite Glodel not filing a cross-claim and challenging the CA's finding of an agency relationship. Glodel argued that Loadmasters was grossly negligent and that it could still file a cross-claim even on appeal. R&B Insurance contended that Glodel had effectively interposed a cross-claim and that an agency existed. The Supreme Court clarified the liabilities of both parties.
Issue(s)
Whether Petitioner Loadmasters can be held liable to Respondent Glodel despite the latter not filing a cross-claim against it. Whether Petitioner Loadmasters can be legally considered an agent of Respondent Glodel. Who between Glodel and Loadmasters is liable to R&B Insurance for the lost cargo. Whether Glodel and Loadmasters are common carriers. Whether Loadmasters and Glodel are jointly and severally liable to R&B Insurance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, modifying the Court of Appeals' decision. It declared Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. and Glodel Brokerage Corporation jointly and severally liable to R&B Insurance Corporation for the insurance indemnity paid to Columbia Wire & Cable Corporation. Both parties were ordered to pay R&B Insurance the indemnity amount, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The cross-claim belatedly prayed for by Glodel against Loadmasters was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Loadmasters can be held liable to Glodel despite the absence of a cross-claim: The Court ruled that Glodel could not succeed in seeking judicial sanction against Loadmasters for breach of contract of service because it failed to properly interpose a cross-claim against Loadmasters. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a cross-claim not set up shall be barred and cannot be set up for the first time on appeal. Therefore, Glodel's claim against Loadmasters was denied. On the issue of whether Loadmasters is an agent of Glodel: The Court clarified that there exists no principal-agent relationship between Glodel and Loadmasters, contrary to the CA's finding. The Court explained that the elements of a contract of agency, particularly representation and mutual intent, were absent. Loadmasters never represented Glodel, nor was it authorized to do so. The basis for agency is representation, which was not established in this case. On the issue of who between Glodel and Loadmasters is liable to R&B Insurance: The Court held that both Loadmasters and Glodel are jointly and severally liable to R&B Insurance. R&B Insurance, as subrogee of Columbia's rights, has the right to seek reimbursement from either or both parties. The Court found both to be common carriers, mandated to observe extraordinary diligence. Loadmasters, as a trucking service, and Glodel, as a customs broker whose business includes transportation, are both considered common carriers. Their failure to observe extraordinary diligence makes them liable for the loss of the cargo. On the issue of whether Loadmasters and Glodel are common carriers: The Court affirmed that both are common carriers. Loadmasters is engaged in the business of transporting goods by land through its trucking service, offering its services to the public. Glodel, as a customs broker, is also considered a common carrier because the transportation of goods is an integral part of its business, as established in prior jurisprudence. The distinction between a common carrier and a private carrier is significant, with common carriers being held to a higher standard of care. On the issue of joint and several liability: The Court ruled that Loadmasters and Glodel are jointly and severally liable to R&B Insurance under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, which states that the responsibility of two or more persons liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. The Court emphasized that even in the absence of a contractual relationship between R&B Insurance and Loadmasters, Loadmasters is liable for tort under Article 2176 (quasi-delicts). The loss of the cargo while in Loadmasters' custody, due to the actions of its employees, makes Loadmasters liable for the damages caused by its employees acting within the scope of their tasks. Glodel is also liable for failing to exercise extraordinary diligence in ensuring Loadmasters complied with its undertaking and for not taking precautionary measures like providing escorts. The Court cited Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. v. Phoenix Assurance Company of New York/McGee & Co., Inc. to support the principle that a tort may arise despite the absence of a contractual relationship, and that the act that breaks a contract may also be a tort. The Court further stated that where concurrent negligent acts of two or more persons cause a single injury, each is responsible for the whole injury, making them joint tortfeasors and solidarily liable.
Main Doctrine
Both common carriers, a customs broker and a trucking service, are jointly and severally liable for the loss of goods due to their failure to observe extraordinary diligence, even in the absence of a direct contractual relationship between them and the subrogated insurer, as the act of breaching the contract may also constitute a tort.