Balgos & Perez Law Office For Private Respondent in Both Cases
Balgos & Perez Law Office For Private Respondent in Both Cases
Balgos & Perez Law Office For Private Respondent in Both Cases
Balgos & Perez Law Office for private respondent in both cases.
PARAS, J.:
NDC, for its part, filed its answer to DISC's complaint on May
27, 1965 (Record on Appeal, pp. 22-24). It also filed an answer
to MCP's cross-claim on July 16, 1965 (Record on Appeal, pp. 39-
40). However, on October 16, 1965, NDC's answer to DISC's
complaint was stricken off from the record for its failure to
answer DISC's written interrogatories and to comply with the
trial court's order dated August 14, 1965 allowing the
inspection or photographing of the memorandum of agreement it
executed with MCP. Said order of October 16, 1965 likewise
declared NDC in default (Record on Appeal, p. 44). On August 31,
1966, NDC filed a motion to set aside the order of October 16,
1965, but the trial court denied it in its order dated September
21, 1966.
MCP interposed its appeal on December 20, 1969, while NDC filed
its appeal on February 17, 1970 after its motion to set aside
the decision was denied by the trial court in its order dated
February 13,1970.
NDC's appeal was docketed as G.R. No. 49407, while that of MCP
was docketed as G.R. No. 49469. On July 25,1979, this Court
ordered the consolidation of the above cases (Rollo, p. 103). On
August 27,1979, these consolidated cases were given due course
(Rollo, p. 108) and submitted for decision on February 29, 1980
(Rollo, p. 136).
II
II
III
IV
VI
Under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, common carriers from the
nature of their business and for reasons of public policy are
bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
them according to all circumstances of each case. Accordingly,
under Article 1735 of the same Code, in all other than those
mentioned is Article 1734 thereof, the common carrier shall be
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negigently,
unless it proves that it has observed the extraordinary
diligence required by law.
MCP next contends that it can not be liable solidarity with NDC
because it is merely the manager and operator of the vessel Dona
Nati not a ship agent. As the general managing agent, according
to MCP, it can only be liable if it acted in excess of its
authority.
SO ORDERED.