Philam V PKS Shipping

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 401 20/01/2020, 5(57 PM
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine American General Insurance Company vs. PKS
Shipping Company
*
G.R. No. 149038. April 9, 2003.
PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, petitioner, vs. PKS SHIPPING COMPANY,
respondent.
Common Carriers; Actions; Appeals; Questions of Fact;

Questions of Law; Words and Phrases; Conclusions derived from
factual findings are not necessarily just matters of fact as when they
are so linked to, or inextricably intertwined with, a requisite
appreciation of the applicable law, in which instance, the
conclusions made could well be raised as being appropriate issues in
a petition for review before the Supreme Court; An issue whether a
carrier is private or common on the basis of the facts found by a trial
court or the appellate court can be a valid and reviewable question of
law.·The findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals,
particularly when such findings are consistent with those of the
trial court, may not at liberty be reviewed by this Court in a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The
conclusions derived from those factual findings, however, are not
necessarily just matters of fact as when they are so linked to, or
inextricably intertwined with, a requisite appreciation of the
applicable law. In such instances, the conclusions made could well
be raised as being appropriate issues in a petition for review before
this Court. Thus, an issue whether a carrier is private or common
on the basis
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc25bb30bed1b978a003600fb002c009e/p/APB658/?username=Guest Page 1 of 13
223
VOL. 401, APRIL 9, 2003 223

Shipping Company
of the facts found by a trial court or the appellate court can be a

valid and reviewable question of law.
Same; Article 1732 of the Civil Code carefully avoids making
any distinction between a person or enterprise offering
transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one
offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled
basis, and neither does it distinguish between a carrier offering its
services to the Âgeneral public,Ê i.e., the general community or
population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from
a narrow segment of the general population.·The prevailing
doctrine on the question is that enunciated in the leading case of De
Guzman vs. Court of Appeals Applying Article 1732 of the Code, in
conjunction with Section 13(b) of the Public Service Act, this Court
has held: „The above article makes no distinction between one
whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods
or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary
activity (in local idiom, as Âa sidelineÊ). Article 1732 also carefully
avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise
offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and
one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled
basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier
offering its services to the Âgeneral public,Ê i.e., the general
community or population, and one who offers services or solicits
business only from a narrow segment of the general population. We
think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such
distinctions. „So understood, the concept of Âcommon carrierÊ under
Article 1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of
Âpublic service,Ê under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act
No. 1416, as amended) which at least partially supplements the law
on common carriers set forth in the Civil Code.‰
Same; Words and Phrases; Much of the distinction between a
„common or public carrier‰ and a „private or special carrier‰ lies in
the character of the business, such that if the undertaking is an

isolated transaction, not a part of the business or occupation, and
the carrier does not hold itself out to carry the goods for the general
public or to a limited clientele, although involving the carriage of
goods for a fee, the person or corporation providing such service
could very well be just a private carrier; The concept of a common
carrier does not change merely because individual contracts are
executed or entered into with patrons of the carrier·such restrictive
interpretation would make it easy for a common carrier to escape
liability by the simple expedient of entering into those distinct
agreements with clients.·Much of the distinction between a
„common or public carrier‰ and a „private or special carrier‰ lies in
the character of the business, such that if the undertaking is an
isolated transaction, not a part of the business or occupation, and
the carrier does not hold itself out to carry the goods for the general
public or to a limited clientele, although involving the carriage of
goods for a fee, the person or corporation providing such service
could
224

Shipping Company
very well be just a private carrier. A typical case is that of a charter

party which includes both the vessel and its crew, such as in a
bareboat or demise, where the charterer obtains the use and service
of all or some part of a ship for a period of time or a voyage or
voyages and gets the control of the vessel and its crew. Contrary to
the conclusion made by the appellate court, its factual findings
indicate that PKS Shipping has engaged itself in the business of
carrying goods for others, although for a limited clientele,
undertaking to carry such goods for a fee. The regularity of its
activities in this area indicates more than just a casual activity on
its part. Neither can the concept of a common carrier change merely
because individual contracts are executed or entered into with
patrons of the carrier. Such restrictive interpretation would make it
easy for a common carrier to escape liability by the simple
expedient of entering into those distinct agreements with clients.
Same; Extraordinary Diligence; Article 1733 of the Civil Code

requires common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods they carry.·Addressing now the issue of
whether or not PKS Shipping has exercised the proper diligence
demanded of common carriers, Article 1733 of the Civil Code
requires common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods they carry. In case of loss, destruction or
deterioration of goods, common carriers are presumed to have been
at fault or to have acted negligently, and the burden of proving
otherwise rests on them. The provisions of Article 1733,
notwithstanding, common carriers are exempt from liability for loss,
destruction, or deterioration of the goods due to any of the following
causes: (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural
disaster or calamity; (2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether
international or civil; (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of
the goods; (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or
in the containers; and (5) Order or act of competent public
authority.
Evidence; Appeals; Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
generally conclude the Supreme Court; Exceptions.·Findings of fact
of the Court of Appeals generally conclude this Court; none of the
recognized exceptions from the rule·(1) when the factual findings
of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory; (2)
when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises, or conjectures; (3) when the inference made by the Court
of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd,
or impossible; (4) when there is a grave abuse of discretion in the
appreciation of facts; (5) when the appellate court, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and such findings are
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when
the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a
misapprehension of facts; (7) when the Court of Appeals failed to
notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion; (8) when
225
VOL. 401, APRIL 9, 2003 225

Shipping Company
the findings of fact are themselves conflicting; (9) when the findings
of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on
which they are based; and (10) when the findings of fact of the
Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such
findings are contradicted by the evidence on record·would appear
to be clearly extant in this instance.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Gerard M. Linsangan for petitioner.
Arthur D. Lim for respondent.
VITUG, J.:
The petition before the Court seeks a review of the decision

of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV No. 56470,
promulgated on 25 June 2001, which has affirmed in toto
the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65,
of Makati, dismissing the complaint for damages filed by
petitioner insurance corporation against respondent
shipping company.
Davao Union Marketing Corporation (DUMC)
contracted the services of respondent PKS Shipping
Company (PKS Shipping) for the shipment to Tacloban
City of seventy-five thousand (75,000) bags of cement worth
Three Million Three Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand
Pesos (P3,375,000.00). DUMC insured the goods for its full
value with petitioner Philippine American General
Insurance Company (Philamgen). The goods were loaded
aboard the dumb barge Limar I belonging to PKS Shipping.
On the evening of 22 December 1993, about nine oÊclock,
while Limar I was being towed by respondentÊs tugboat,
MT Iron Eagle, the barge sank a couple of miles off the
coast of Dumagasa Point, in Zamboanga del Sur, bringing
down with it the entire cargo of 75,000 bags of cement.
DUMC filed a formal claim with Philamgen for the full
amount of the insurance. Philamgen promptly made
payment; it then sought reimbursement from PKS
Shipping of the sum paid to DUMC but the shipping
company refused to pay, prompting Philamgen to file suit
against PKS Shipping with the Makati RTC.
The RTC dismissed the complaint after finding that the

total loss of the cargo could have been caused either by a
fortuitous event, in which case the ship owner was not
liable, or through the
226

Shipping Company
negligence of the captain and crew of the vessel and that,

under Article 587 of the Code of Commerce adopting the
„Limited Liability Rule,‰ the ship owner could free itself of
liability by abandoning, as it apparently so did, the vessel
with all her equipment and earned freightage.
Philamgen interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals
which affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. The
appellate court ruled that evidence to establish that PKS
Shipping was a common carrier at the time it undertook to
transport the bags of cement was wanting because the
peculiar method of the shipping companyÊs carrying goods
for others was not generally held out as a business but as a
casual occupation. It then concluded that PKS Shipping,
not being a common carrier, was not expected to observe
the stringent extraordinary diligence required of common
carriers in the care of goods. The appellate court, moreover,
found that the loss of the goods was sufficiently established
as having been due to fortuitous event, negating any
liability on the part of PKS Shipping to the shipper.
In the instant appeal, Philamgen contends that the
appellate court has committed a patent error in ruling that
PKS Shipping is not a common carrier and that it is not
liable for the loss of the subject cargo. The fact that
respondent has a limited clientele, petitioner argues, does
not militate against respondentÊs being a common carrier
and that the only way by which such carrier can be held
exempt for the loss of the cargo would be if the loss were
caused by natural disaster or calamity. Petitioner avers
that typhoon „APIANG‰ has not entered the Philippine
area of responsibility and that, even if it did, respondent
would not be exempt from liability because its employees,
particularly the tugmaster, have failed to exercise due

diligence to prevent or minimize the loss.
PKS Shipping, in its comment, urges that the petition
should be denied because what Philamgen seeks is not a
review on points or errors of law but a review of the
undisputed factual findings of the RTC and the appellate
court. In any event, PKS Shipping points out, the findings
and conclusions of both courts find support from the
evidence and applicable jurisprudence.
The determination of possible liability on the part of
PKS Shipping boils down to the question of whether it is a
private carrier or a common carrier and, in either case, to
the other question of whether or not it has observed the
proper diligence (ordinary, if a
227
VOL. 401, APRIL 9, 2003 227

Shipping Company
private carrier, or extraordinary, if a common carrier)

required of it given the circumstances.
The findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals,
particularly when such findings are consistent with those
of the trial court, may not at liberty be reviewed by this
Court 1in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. The conclusions derived from those factual findings,
however, are not necessarily just matters of fact as when
they are so linked to, or inextricably intertwined with, a
requisite appreciation of the applicable law. In such
instances, the conclusions made could well be raised as
being appropriate issues in a petition for review before this
Court. Thus, an issue whether a carrier is private or
common on the basis of the facts found by a trial court or
the appellate court can be a valid and reviewable question
of law.
The Civil Code defines „common carriers‰ in the
following terms:
„Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or

associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation,

offering their services to the public.‰
Complementary to the codal definition is Section 13,

paragraph (b), of the Public Service Act; it defines „public
service‰ to be·
„x x x every person that now or hereafter may own, operate,

manage, or control in the Philippines, for hire or compensation,
with general or limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional or
accidental, and done for general business purposes, any common
carrier, railroad, street railway, subway motor vehicle, either for
freight or passenger, or both, with or without fixed route and
whatever may be its classification, freight or carrier service of any
class, express service, steamboat, or steamship, or steamship line,
pontines, ferries and water craft, engaged in the transportation of
passengers or freight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop, wharf
or dock, ice plant, ice refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation system,
gas, electric light, heat and power, water supply and power
petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless communication
systems, wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other similar
public services. x x x. (Italics supplied).‰
_______________
1 National Steel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 45 (1997).
228

Shipping Company
The prevailing doctrine on the question is that enunciated2

in the leading case of De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals
Applying Article 1732 of the Code, in conjunction with
Section 13(b) of the Public Service Act, this Court has held:
„The above article makes no distinction between one whose

principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or
both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity
(in local idiom, as Âa sidelineÊ). Article 1732 also carefully avoids
making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering
transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one

offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled
basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier
offering its services to the Âgeneral public,Ê i.e., the general
community or population, and one who offers services or solicits
business only from a narrow segment of the general population. We
think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such
distinctions.
„So understood, the concept of Âcommon carrierÊ under Article
1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of Âpublic
service,Ê under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416,
as amended) which at least partially supplements the law on
common carriers set forth in the Civil Code.‰
Much of the distinction between a „common or public

carrier‰ and a „private or special carrier‰ lies in the
character of the business, such that if the undertaking is
an isolated transaction, not a part of the business or
occupation, and the carrier does not hold itself out to carry
the goods for the general public or to a limited clientele,
3
although involving the carriage of goods for a fee, the
person or corporation providing such service could very
well be just a private carrier. A typical case is that of a
charter party which includes both the vessel and its crew,
such as in a bareboat or demise, where the charterer
obtains the use and service of all or some
4
part of a ship for
a period of time or a voyage
5
or voyages and gets the control
of the vessel and its crew. Contrary to the conclusion made
by the appellate court, its factual findings indicate that
PKS
_______________
2 168 SCRA 612 (1993).

3 Planters Products, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101503, 15
September 1993, 226 SCRA 476.
4 National Steel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112287, 12
December 1997, 283 SCRA 45.
5 National Steel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112287, 12
December 1997, 283 SCRA 45.
229
VOL. 401, APRIL 9, 2003 229

Shipping Company
Shipping has engaged itself in the business of carrying

goods for others, although for a limited clientele,
undertaking to carry such goods for a fee. The regularity of
its activities in this6area indicates more than just a casual
activity on its part. Neither can the concept of a common
carrier change merely because individual contracts are
executed or entered into with patrons of the carrier. Such
restrictive interpretation would make it easy for a common
carrier to escape liability by the simple expedient of
entering into those distinct agreements with clients.
Addressing now the issue of whether or not PKS
Shipping has exercised the proper diligence demanded of
common carriers, Article 1733 of the Civil Code requires
common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods they carry. In case of loss,
destruction or deterioration of goods, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
7
and the burden of proving otherwise rests on them. The
provisions of Article 1733, notwithstanding, common
carriers are exempt from liability for loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods due to any of the following
causes:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other

natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether
international or civil;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing
or in the containers; and
8
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.
The appellate court ruled, gathered from the testimonies

and sworn marine protests of the respective vessel masters
of Limar I and MT Iron Eagle, that there was no way by
which the bargeÊs or the tugboatÊs crew could have
prevented the sinking of Limar I. The vessel was suddenly
tossed by waves of extraordinary height of six (6) to eight

(8) feet and buffeted by strong winds of 1.5 knots
_______________
6 The testimony of respondentÊs own witness, Capt. Andres Elbena, is

quite revealing. He testified that he had been working for respondent as
tugmaster for the past twenty-five (25) years and that the company owns
several vessels.
7 Article 1735, Civil Code of the Philippines.
8 Article 1734, Civil Code of the Philippines.
230

Shipping Company
resulting in the entry of water into the bargeÊs hatches. The

official Certificate of Inspection of the barge issued by the
Philippine Coastguard and the Coastwise Load Line
Certificate would attest to the seaworthiness of Limar I
and should strengthen the factual findings of the appellate
court.
Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals generally
conclude this Court; none of the recognized exceptions from
the rule·(1) when the factual findings of the Court of
Appeals and the trial court are contradictory; (2) when the
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises, or conjectures; (3) when the inference made by
the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly
mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (4) when there is a grave
abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) when the
appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the
issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the
judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a
misapprehension of facts; (7) when the Court of Appeals
failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) when
the findings of fact are themselves conflicting; (9) when the
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the
specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) when

the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on
the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted
by the evidence on record·would appear to be clearly
extant in this instance.
All given then, the appellate court did not err in its
judgment absolving PKS Shipping from liability for the loss
of the DUMC cargo.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Ynares-Santiago,

Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
Notes.·The question whether certain persons were in

open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of
ownership under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least
thirty years prior to 1973 is a question of fact, the finding
thereon by the trial court and the Court of Appeals being
generally binding upon the Supreme
231
VOL. 401, APRIL 9, 2003 231

Shipping Company
Court; There is a question of law where there is a doubt

raised concerning the correct application of law and
jurisprudence on the matter. (Director of Lands vs. Court of
Appeals, 308 SCRA 317 [1999])
There is a question of law in a given case when the
doubt or difference arises as to what the law is pertaining
to a certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact
when the doubt arises as to the truth or the falsity of
alleged facts. (Serna vs. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 527
[1999])
··o0o··
232
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Philam V PKS Shipping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philam V PKS Shipping

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Philam V PKS Shipping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 401 20/01/2020, 5(57 PM

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE

Common Carriers; Actions; Appeals; Questions of Fact;

VOL. 401, APRIL 9, 2003 223

Philippine American General Insurance Company vs. PKS

of the facts found by a trial court or the appellate court can be a

the character of the business, such that if the undertaking is an

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine American General Insurance Company vs. PKS

very well be just a private carrier. A typical case is that of a charter

Same; Extraordinary Diligence; Article 1733 of the Civil Code

VOL. 401, APRIL 9, 2003 225

Philippine American General Insurance Company vs. PKS

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The petition before the Court seeks a review of the decision

The RTC dismissed the complaint after finding that the

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

negligence of the captain and crew of the vessel and that,

particularly the tugmaster, have failed to exercise due

VOL. 401, APRIL 9, 2003 227

private carrier, or extraordinary, if a common carrier)

„Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or

passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation,

Complementary to the codal definition is Section 13,

„x x x every person that now or hereafter may own, operate,

1 National Steel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 45 (1997).

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The prevailing doctrine on the question is that enunciated2

„The above article makes no distinction between one whose

transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one

Much of the distinction between a „common or public

2 168 SCRA 612 (1993).

VOL. 401, APRIL 9, 2003 229

Shipping has engaged itself in the business of carrying

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other

The appellate court ruled, gathered from the testimonies

tossed by waves of extraordinary height of six (6) to eight

6 The testimony of respondentÊs own witness, Capt. Andres Elbena, is

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

resulting in the entry of water into the bargeÊs hatches. The

specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) when

Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Ynares-Santiago,

Notes.·The question whether certain persons were in

VOL. 401, APRIL 9, 2003 231

Court; There is a question of law where there is a doubt

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like