Myline Cordial

Mauro Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals and Gelacio Tumambing
G.R. No. L-48757, May 30, 1988
161 SCRA 646

FACTS:
Gelacio Tumambing contracted the services of Mauro B. Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataan, to the port of Manila on board the lighter LCT “Batman”. He delivered the scrap iron to the captain of the lighter but during the loading of the cargo, an incident occurred. Tumambing, after his refusal to give P5000 and their heated argument, was shot by Mayor Jose Advincula.

Days after the incident, the loading of the scrap iron was resumed but Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, accompanied by three policemen, ordered the captain and his crew to dump the scrap iron where the lighter was docked and the rest was brought to the compound of NASSCO. Later on Acting Mayor Rub issued a receipt stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap iron.

ISSUE:
Was the loss of scraps due to an order or act of competent public authority?

RULING:
NO. Ganzon failed to establish that Acting Mayor Basilio Rub had the power to issue the disputed order, or that it was lawful, or that it was issued under legal process of authority. The order of the acting mayor did not constitute valid authority for appellee Mauro Ganzon and his representatives to carry out. Ganzon did not offer any evidence that the acting mayor had the authority or power to issue such order.

NOTES:
When does the responsibility of carrier for loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods commence and cease?
By the said act of delivery, the scraps were unconditionally placed in the possession and control of the common carrier, and upon their receipt by the carrier for transportation, the contract of carriage was deemed perfected. Consequently, the petitioner-carrier’s extraordinary responsibility for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods commenced. Pursuant to Art. 1736, such extraordinary responsibility would cease only upon the delivery, actual or constructive, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them. The fact that part of the shipment had not been loaded on board the lighter did not impair the said contract of transportation as the goods remained in the custody and control of the carrier, albeit still unloaded.

Presumption of negligence in case of loss of goods
Hence, the petitioner is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently.  By reason of this presumption, the court is not even required to make an express finding of fault or negligence before it could hold the petitioner answerable for the breach of the contract of carriage. Still, the petitioner could have been exempted from any liability had he been able to prove that he observed extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods in his custody, according to all the circumstances of the case, or that the loss was due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. As it was, there was hardly any attempt on the part of the petitioner to prove that he exercised such extraordinary diligence.

Full text: Ganzon vs. CA G.R. No. L-48757, May 30, 1988