Myline Cordial

Compania Maritima vs Court of Appeals and Vicente Concepcion
G.R. No. L-31379, August 29, 1988
164 SCRA 685

FACTS:
Vicente Concepcion, a contractor, had his construction equipment shipped from Manila to Cagayan de Oro. His equipment were loaded aboard MV Cebu, a vessel owned by Compania Maritima. During unloading, the payloader fell and was damaged. The carrier had the payloader weighed in Manila and found that it weighed 7.5 tons not 2.5 tons as declared in the Bill of Lading. Concepcion demanded a replacement of the payloader but to no avail. The shipper denied the claim for damages.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the furnishing of an inaccurate weight of 2.5 tons was the proximate and only cause of the damage on the payloader.

RULING:
NO. The furnishing of an inaccurate weight of 2.5 tons is only a contributory circumstance to the damaged cause. It mitigates the liability making the recoverable amount reduced to 80%. The standard diligence required for the carrier in handling the goods is EXTRAORDINARY. The carrier failed to establish that it exercised the necessary diligence when they did not check the equipment and accepted the bill of lading on its face value. Moreover, they did not use the jumbo lifter (20-25 tons capacity) but the 5-ton capacity lifting apparatus to lift and unload a visibly heavy cargo like a payloader. The crew were careless in ascertaining the weight of heavy cargoes. The extraordinary diligence 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.