COMMON CARRIERS 11.

Hence, YSC filed with the Supreme Court a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel
COMMON CARRIAGE OF GOODS – LIABILITY AND PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE Dexter and Unson to pay it the full amount of PHP 82.79 for its services.
GR. 15652 – YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP CO. v. DEXTER
Street, J. ISSUES AND HOLDING
SUMMARY 1. (a) Whether or not Ynchausti Steamship is entitled to the full amount for its services and
Ynchausti Steamship Company filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court to (b) whether or not Unson had the right to withhold part of the payment due to the
compel the Insular Auditor of the Philippines at that time, I. B. Dexter and the Purchasing Agent damage in the goods. – (a) NO. (b) YES.
of the Philippine Islands, C.E. Unson to deliver to Ynchausti the sum of PHP 82.79 due to the a. Court noted that the case at had was practically identical with the case of
Steamship Company for its service of transporting for the Government on consignment 'White Compañia General de Tabacos vs. French and Unson (39 Phil., 34) the only
Rose' mineral oil from Manila to two other ports in the Philippines. Dexter and Unson withheld difference was that in the present case, the allegation that the leakage of the
such amount as compensation for the oil that was lost during the shipment, allegedly due to the lost mineral oil was due to the fault or negligence of the petitioner was put into
negligence of Ynchausti. The Court held that Ynchausti was not entitled to the Mandamus as issue.
Auditor Dexter was entitled to withhold a sum sufficient to cover the value of the oil lost in transit b. The Court held that:
because there is a prima facie presumption that the common carrier is responsible for goods i. Nothing in the admitted statement of facts support the claim of YSC that
delivered in bad order if there is no explanation given as to how the injury occurred. they were not negligent in handling the goods.
DOCTRINE ii. The evidence shows that the petitioner admitted that at the time the oil
Proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination was delivered, there was in fact a shortage.
short, or in bad order, makes out a prima facie case; and it is incumbent on the carrier, in order iii. Since the petitioner admits that the oil was received by it for carriage and
to exonerate itself, to prove that the loss or injury was due to some circumstance other than its that there was indeed a loss, this results in a presumption that the
own fault or negligence. petitioner was to blame for the loss.
iv. Hence it is incumbent upon YSC, in order to entitle itself to relief in this
When Government property is transported by common carrier, it is the duty of the consignee, case to rebut that presumption by proving that the loss was not due to
under Section 646 of the Administrative code, to make notation of any loss, shortage, or damage any fault or negligence on its part.
upon the bill of lading, or receipt, before accomplishing it; and where in obedience to this precept v. The mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and
a shortage is noted by the consignee upon the bill of lading at the time of delivery, such notation their arrival at the place of destination in bad order makes out a prima
is competent evidence to show that the shortage in fact existed. facie case against the carrier.
vi. Hence, if there is no explanation given as to how the injury occurred,
A common carrier cannot maintain an action for the writ of mandamus to compel the the carrier must be held responsible.
Purchasing Agent to pay a bill for freight due to the carrier, under the doctrine enunciated in c. It is incumbent upon the carrier to prove that the loss was due to accident or
Compañia General de Tabacos vs. French and Unson (39 Phil., 34), without showing that the some other circumstance inconsistent with its liability. (Arts. 361-363)
loss, shortage, or damage suffered by the property while in the hands of the carrier for
transportation resulted from some other cause that its own fault or negligence. DISPOSITIVE PORTION
FACTS The petition will be dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.
1. Petitioner Ynchausti Steamship Company ("YSC") is a common carrier a steamship
named Venus. OTHER NOTES (From the Code of Commerce)
ARTICLE 361. The merchandise shall be transported at the risk and venture of the shipper, if the contrary has
2. YSC was employed by respondent Insular Purchasing Agent Unson ("Unson") to not been expressly stipulated. As a consequence, all the losses and deterioration which the goods may suffer
transport thirty (30) cases of 'White Rose' mineral oil of 2 five-gallon cans as well as the during the transportation by reason of fortuitous event, force majeure, or the inherent nature and defect of the
transport of 96 ten-gallon cases of 'Cock' brand mineral oil. goods, shall be for the account and risk of the shipper. Proof of these accidents is incumbent upon the carrier.
3. YSC was to transport the abovementioned cargo from Manila to Appari, Cagayan.
4. The goods were delivered to YSC which received them and duly executed a Bill of ARTICLE 362. Nevertheless, the carrier shall be liable for the losses and damages resulting from the causes
Lading ("BoL") indicating therein that YSC received the said goods in good condition mentioned in the preceding article if it is proved, as against him, that they arose through his negligence or by
and that YSC was obligated to carry said supplies. reason of his having failed to take the precautions which usage has established among careful persons, unless
the shipper has committed fraud in the bill of lading, representing the goods to be of a kind or quality different
5. Upon delivery of the 'Cock' brand oil, the consignee claimed that one case was from what they really were.
delivered empty, and the 'White Rose' brand oil also had one case which was
delivered empty. These facts were thereafter indicated in the BoL. If, notwithstanding the precautions referred to in this article, the goods transported run the risk of being lost, on
6. YSC claimed that the said shortages were due to causes unknown to it and the same account of their nature or by reason of unavoidable accident, there being no time for their owners to dispose of
were not due to its negligence or fault or of its agents or servants. them, the carrier may proceed to sell them, placing them for this purpose at the disposal of the judicial authority
7. Unson thereafter notified YSC that upon the investigation of the Insular Auditor Dexter or of the officials designated by special provisions.
("Dexter"), it was decided that the leakages of the two cases were due to YSC's
ARTICLE 363. Outside of the cases mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 361, the carrier shall be
negligence. obliged to deliver the goods shipped in the same condition in which, according to the bill of lading, they were
8. Unson also informed YSC that he was authorized to deduct the sum of PHP 22.53 – the found at the time they were received, without any damage or impairment, and failing to do so, to pay the value
invoice value of the goods lost – from the payment for its services. which those not delivered may have at the point and at the time at which their delivery should have been made.
9. YSC of course protested against the deduction and demanded that it be paid in full –
PHP 82.79 as shown by its voucher presented to the Court. If those not delivered form part of the goods transported, the consignee may refuse to receive the latter, when
10. Dexter stood firm in his decision and only tendered the payment of PHP 60.26 to YSC he proves that he cannot make use of them independently of the others.
which the latter has refused to accept.
DIGESTER:
1