Planters Products Inc V CA

TRANSPORTATION LAW CONCEPT OF COMMON CARRIERS
Planters Products Inc v CA, SSA & KKKK (2) Whether the ship owner was able to
G.R. No. 101503 |Sep. 15, 1993 prove the exercise of the diligence required
Topic: Distinguished from Private Carrier under the circumstances
RULING: (1) NO. A common carrier does not

Planters Products, Inc. purchased from become a private carrier by reason of a
Mitsubishi International Corporation charter party.
9,329.7069 metric tons of Urea 46%
fertilizer, which the latter shipped aboard A charter-party is defined as a contract by
the cargo vessel M/V Sun Plum on June 16, which an entire ship, or some principal part
1974. Prior to its voyage, a time-charter thereof, is let by the owner to another
party was entered into between Mitsubishi person for a specified time or use; Charter
as shipper, and Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki parties are of two types: (a) contract of
Kaisha (KKKK) as shipowner. Before loading affreightment which involves the use of
the fertilizer aboard the vessel, four of her shipping space on vessels leased by the
holds were presumably inspected by the owner in part or as a whole, to carry goods
charterer’s representative and found it fit to for others; and, (b) charter by demise or
take the load. After loading the cargo, the bareboat charter, by the terms of which the
steel hatches were closed with heavy iron whole vessel is let to the charterer with a
lids, covered with 3 layers of tarpaulin then transfer to him of its entire command and
tied with steel bonds. It remained sealed possession and consequent control over its
throughout the entire voyage. navigation, including the master and the
crew, who are his servants. Contract of
Upon arrival of the vessel, petitioner affreightment may either be time charter,
unloaded the cargo, which took 11 days. A wherein the vessel is leased to the charterer
private marine and cargo surveyor, Cargo for a fixed period of time, or voyage charter,
Superintendents Company, Inc. (CSCI) was wherein the ship is leased for a single
hired by petitioner to determine the outturn voyage.
of the cargo shipped. CSCI reported shortage
of 106.726 metric tons, and contamination The term "common or public carrier" is
of 18 metric tons due to dirt. PPI sent a claim defined in Art. 1732 of the Civil Code which
letter against Soriamont Steamship Agencies extends to carriers either by land, air or
(SSA), the resident agent of KKKK. The water which hold themselves out as ready to
request was denied; hence, PPI filed an engage in carrying goods or transporting
action for damages before the Manila CFI. passengers or both for compensation as a
The lower court sustained the petitioner’s public employment and not as a casual
claim, but such decision was reversed by the occupation. The distinction between a
appellate court, which absolved the carrier "common or public carrier" and a "private or
from liability. The appellate court ruled that special carrier" lies in the character of the
the vessel was a private carrier and not a business, such that if the undertaking is a
common carrier by reason of the charter single transaction, not a part of the general
party. business or occupation, although involving
the carriage of goods for a fee, the person or
ISSUES: corporation offering such service is a private
carrier.
(1) Whether a common carrier becomes a
private carrier by reason of a charter party Article 1733 of the NCC, common carriers
should observe extraordinary diligence in
the vigilance over the goods they carry by
reason of the nature of their business while by law or that the loss, damage or
the exercise of ordinary diligence in the deterioration of the cargo was due to
carriage of goods will suffice for private fortuitous event, or some other
carriers. circumstances inconsistent with its liability.
In case of loss, destruction or deterioration Before the fertilizer was loaded, the four (4)
of the goods, common carriers are presumed hatches of the vessel were cleaned, dried and
to have been at fault or to have acted fumigated. After completing the loading of
negligently, and the burden of proving the cargo in bulk in the ship's holds, the steel
otherwise rests on them. On the contrary, no pontoon hatches were closed and sealed
such presumption applies to private with iron lids, then covered with three (3)
carriers. layers of serviceable tarpaulins which were
tied with steel bonds. The hatches remained
When petitioner chartered the vessel M/V close and tightly sealed while the ship was in
"Sun Plum", the ship captain, its officers and transit as the weight of the steel covers made
compliment were under the employ of the it impossible for a person to open without
shipowner and therefore continued to be the use of the ship's boom. It was also shown
under its direct supervision and control. during the trial that the hull of the vessel was
Hardly then can we charge the charterer, a in good condition, foreclosing the possibility
stranger to the crew and to the ship, with the of spillage of the cargo into the sea or
duty of caring for his cargo when the seepage of water inside the hull of the vessel.
charterer did not have any control of the When M/V "Sun Plum" docked at its berthing
means in doing so. This is evident in the place, representatives of the consignee
present case considering that the steering of boarded, and in the presence of a
the ship, the manning of the decks, the representative of the shipowner, the
determination of the course of the voyage foreman, the stevedores, and a cargo
and other technical incidents of maritime surveyor representing CSCI, opened the
navigation were all consigned to the officers hatches and inspected the condition of the
and crew who were screened, chosen and hull of the vessel. The stevedores unloaded
hired by the shipowner. It is only when the the cargo under the watchful eyes of the
charter includes both the vessel and its crew, shipmates who were overseeing the whole
as in a bareboat or demise that a common operation on rotation basis.
carrier becomes private, at least insofar as
the particular voyage covering the charter- The period during which private respondent
party is concerned. was to observe the degree of diligence
required of it as a public carrier began from
(2) YES. Respondent carrier has sufficiently the time the cargo was unconditionally
overcome, by clear and convincing proof, the placed in its charge after the vessel's holds
prima facie presumption of negligence. were duly inspected and passed scrutiny by
the shipper, up to and until the vessel
In an action for recovery of damages against reached its destination and its hull was re-
a common carrier on the goods shipped, the examined by the consignee, but prior to
shipper or consignee should first prove the unloading. A shipowner is liable for damage
fact of shipment and its consequent loss or to the cargo resulting from improper
damage while the same was in the stowage only when the stowing is done by
possession, actual or constructive, of the stevedores employed by him, and therefore
carrier. Thereafter, the burden of proof under his control and supervision, not when
shifts to respondent to prove that he has the same is done by the consignee or
exercised extraordinary diligence required stevedores under the employ of the latter.
Common carriers are not responsible for the

loss, destruction or deterioration of the
goods if caused by the character of the goods
or defects in the packaging or in the
containers. The primary cause of these
spillages is the clamped shell which does not
seal very tightly. Also, the wind tends to
blow away some of the materials during the
unloading process. The probability of the
cargo being damaged or getting mixed or
contaminated with foreign particles was
made greater by the fact that the fertilizer
was transported in "bulk," thereby exposing
it to the inimical effects of the elements and
the grimy condition of the various pieces of
equipment used in transporting and hauling
it. If there was loss or contamination of the
cargo, it was more likely to have occurred
while the same was being transported from
the ship to the dump trucks and finally to the
consignee's warehouse.
Bulk shipment of highly soluble goods like

fertilizer carries with it the risk of loss or
damage, more so, with a variable weather
condition prevalent during its unloading, as
was the case at bar. This is a risk the shipper
or the owner of the goods has to face. Clearly,
respondent carrier has sufficiently proved
the inherent character of the goods which
makes it highly vulnerable to deterioration;
as well as the inadequacy of its packaging
which further contributed to the loss. On the
other hand, no proof was adduced by the
petitioner showing that the carrier was
remiss in the exercise of due diligence in
order to minimize the loss or damage to the
goods it carried.
Petition was DISMISSED.

Planters Products Inc V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planters Products Inc V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planters Products Inc V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRANSPORTATION LAW CONCEPT OF COMMON CARRIERS

RULING: (1) NO. A common carrier does not

Common carriers are not responsible for the

Bulk shipment of highly soluble goods like

Petition was DISMISSED.

You might also like