Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    NATIONAL STEEL CORP v. CA, TRANSPO CASE DIGEST, 4BLM - GROUP TWO

    Uploaded by

    MALALA MALALA
    This document summarizes a court case between National Steel Corporation and Vlasons Shipping regarding damaged cargo. National Steel chartered Vlasons Shipping's vessel, the MV Vlasons I, to transport steel products, but the cargo was found damaged upon arrival. National Steel alleged negligence while Vlasons Shipping denied liability. The court held that MV Vlasons I was a private carrier, not a common carrier, so the Civil Code provisions presuming negligence for common carriers did not apply. As a private carrier, the parties were bound by the duties and obligations stipulated in their private carriage contract. To be considered a common carrier, a ship must carry passengers or goods and have space available for the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    NATIONAL STEEL CORP v. CA, TRANSPO CASE DIGEST, 4BLM - GROUP TWO

    Uploaded by

    MALALA MALALA
    44 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between National Steel Corporation and Vlasons Shipping regarding damaged cargo. National Steel chartered Vlasons Shipping's vessel, the MV Vlasons I, to transport steel products, but the cargo was found damaged upon arrival. National Steel alleged negligence while Vlasons Shipping denied liability. The court held that MV Vlasons I was a private carrier, not a common carrier, so the Civil Code provisions presuming negligence for common carriers did not apply. As a private carrier, the parties were bound by the duties and obligations stipulated in their private carriage contract. To be considered a common carrier, a ship must carry passengers or goods and have space available for the

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between National Steel Corporation and Vlasons Shipping regarding damaged cargo. National Steel chartered Vlasons Shipping's vessel, the MV Vlasons I, to transport steel products, but the cargo was found damaged upon arrival. National Steel alleged negligence while Vlasons Shipping denied liability. The court held that MV Vlasons I was a private carrier, not a common carrier, so the Civil Code provisions presuming negligence for common carriers did not apply. As a private carrier, the parties were bound by the duties and obligations stipulated in their private carriage contract. To be considered a common carrier, a ship must carry passengers or goods and have space available for the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    44 views2 pages

    NATIONAL STEEL CORP v. CA, TRANSPO CASE DIGEST, 4BLM - GROUP TWO

    Uploaded by

    MALALA MALALA
    This document summarizes a court case between National Steel Corporation and Vlasons Shipping regarding damaged cargo. National Steel chartered Vlasons Shipping's vessel, the MV Vlasons I, to transport steel products, but the cargo was found damaged upon arrival. National Steel alleged negligence while Vlasons Shipping denied liability. The court held that MV Vlasons I was a private carrier, not a common carrier, so the Civil Code provisions presuming negligence for common carriers did not apply. As a private carrier, the parties were bound by the duties and obligations stipulated in their private carriage contract. To be considered a common carrier, a ship must carry passengers or goods and have space available for the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 2

    Page 1 of 2

    CASE NO. 15

    NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner,


    v. COURT OF APPEALS AND VLASONS SHIPPING, INC., Respondents.

    FACTS:
    Plaintiff National Steel Corporation (NSC) as Charterer and defendant
    Vlasons Shipping, Inc. (VSI) as Owner, entered into a Contract of Voyage
    Charter Hire whereby NSC hired VSI’s vessel, the MV Vlasons I to make one
    voyage to load steel products at Iligan City and discharge them at North Harbor,
    Manila. The handling, loading and unloading of the cargoes were the
    responsibility of the Charterer.

    The skids of tinplates and hot rolled sheets shipped were allegedly found
    to be wet and rusty. Plaintiff, alleging negligence, filed a claim for damages
    against the defendant who denied liability claiming that the MV Vlasons I was
    seaworthy in all respects for the carriage of plaintiff’s cargo; that said vessel
    was not a “common carrier” inasmuch as she was under voyage charter contract
    with the plaintiff as charterer under the charter party; that in the course its
    voyage, the vessel encountered very rough seas.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers
    pursuant to which there exists a presumption of negligence against the common
    carrier in case of loss or damage to the cargo are applicable to a private
    carrier.

    HELD:
    No. In a contract of private carriage, the parties may freely stipulate their
    duties and obligations which perforce would be binding on them. Unlike in a
    contract involving a common carrier, private carriage does not involve the
    general public. Hence, the stringent provisions of the Civil Code on common
    carriers protecting the general public cannot justifiably be applied to a ship
    transporting commercial goods as a private carrier.

    It has been held that the true test of a common carrier is the carriage of
    passengers or goods, provided it has space, for all who opt to avail themselves
    of its transportation service for a fee [Mendoza vs. Philippine Airlines]. A
    carrier which does not qualify under the above test is deemed a private carrier.
    “Generally, private carriage is undertaken by special agreement and the carrier
    does not hold himself out to carry goods for the general public.
    Page 2 of 2

    Because the MV Vlasons I was a private carrier, the ship owner’s


    obligations are governed by the foregoing provisions of the Code of Commerce
    and not by the Civil Code which, as a general rule, places the prima facie
    presumption of negligence on a common carrier.

    You might also like