Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc.
Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc.
Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc.
144
_______________
143
Culpa Aquiliana; If the injury to the plaintiff resulted from the act or the services of TMBI to facilitate, process, withdraw, and deliver the
omission of the defendant’s employee or servant, the defendant may absolve shipment from the port to its warehouse in Biñan, Laguna.2
himself by proving that he observed the diligence of a good father of a TMBI — who did not own any delivery trucks — subcontracted
family to prevent the damage.—The plaintiff in culpa aquiliana must clearly the services of Benjamin Manalastas’ company, BMT Trucking
establish the defendant’s fault or negligence because this is the very basis of Services (BMT), to transport the shipment from the port to the Biñan
the action. Moreover, if the injury to the plaintiff resulted from the act or warehouse.3 Incidentally, TMBI notified Sony who had no
omission of the defendant’s employee or servant, the defendant may absolve objections to the arrangement.4
himself by proving that he observed the diligence of a good father of a Four BMT trucks picked up the shipment from the port at about
family to prevent the damage. 11:00 a.m. of October 7, 2000. However, BMT could not
immediately undertake the delivery because of the truck ban and
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of because the following day was a Sunday. Thus, BMT scheduled the
Appeals. delivery on October 9, 2000.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. In the early morning of October 9, 2000, the four trucks left
Estela and Virtudazo Law Firm for petitioner. BMT’s garage for Laguna.5 However, only three trucks arrived at
Astorga and Repol Law Offices for FEB Mitsui Insurance Co., Sony’s Biñan warehouse.
Inc. At around 12:00 noon, the truck driven by Rufo Reynaldo
Tabaquero, Albano, Lopez & Associates for Benjamin P. Lapesura (NSF 391) was found abandoned along the Diversion Road
Manalastas. in Filinvest, Alabang, Muntinlupa City.6 Both the driver and the
shipment were missing.
Later that evening, BMT’s Operations Manager Melchor
BRION, J.: Manalastas informed Victor Torres, TMBI’s General Manager,
_______________
146
1 Penned by Associate Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by
Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Michael P. Elbinias.
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance
Co., Inc.
145
of the development.7 They went to Muntinlupa together to inspect
the truck and to report the matter to the police.8
VOL. 796, JULY 11, 2016 145
Victor Torres also filed a complaint with the National Bureau of
Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Investigation (NBI) against Lapesura for “hijacking.”9 The
Co., Inc. complaint resulted in a recommendation by the NBI to the Manila
City Prosecutor’s Office to prosecute Lapesura for qualified theft.10
Antecedents TMBI notified Sony of the loss through a letter dated October 10,
2000.11 It also sent BMT a letter dated March 29, 2001, demanding
On October 7, 2000, a shipment of various electronic goods from payment for the lost shipment. BMT refused to pay, insisting that the
Thailand and Malaysia arrived at the Port of Manila for Sony goods were “hijacked.”
Philippines, Inc. (Sony). Previous to the arrival, Sony had engaged
In the meantime, Sony filed an insurance claim with the Mitsui, On October 14, 2010, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision but
the insurer of the goods. After evaluating the merits of the claim, reduced the award of attorney’s fees to Php200,000.
Mitsui paid Sony Php7,293,386.23 corresponding to the value of the The CA held: (1) that “hijacking” is not necessarily a fortuitous
lost goods.12 event because the term refers to the general stealing of cargo during
After being subrogated to Sony’s rights, Mitsui sent TMBI a transit;15 (2) that TMBI is a common carrier engaged in the business
demand letter dated August 30, 2001 for payment of the lost goods. of transporting goods for the general public for a fee;16 (3) even if
TMBI refused to pay Mitsui’s claim. As a result, Mitsui filed a the “hijacking” were a fortuitous event, TMBI’s failure to observe
complaint against TMBI on November 6, 2001. extraordinary diligence in overseeing the cargo and adopting
TMBI, in turn, impleaded Benjamin Manalastas, the proprietor of security measures rendered it liable for the loss;17 and (4) even if
BMT, as a third party defendant. TMBI alleged that BMT’s driver, TMBI had not been negligent in the handling, transport and the
Lapesura, was responsible for the theft/hijacking of the lost cargo delivery of the
and claimed BMT’s negligence as the proximate cause of the loss.
TMBI prayed that in the event it is held liable to Mitsui for the loss, _______________
it should be reimbursed by BMT.
At the trial, it was revealed that BMT and TMBI have been doing 13 Id., at p. 48.
business with each other since the early 80’s. It also 14 Id., at p. 43.
15 Id., at p. 53.
16 Id., at p. 54.
_______________
17 Id., at p. 55.
7 Id., at pp. 47, 50.
8 Id., at pp. 48, 50.
9 Id., at pp. 48, 50, 97.
10 Id., at p. 98.
148
11 Id., at p. 48.
12 Id., at p. 46.
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance
Co., Inc.
147
shipment, TMBI still breached its contractual obligation to Sony
when it failed to deliver the shipment.18
VOL. 796, JULY 11, 2016 147
TMBI disagreed with the CA’s ruling and filed the present
Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance petition on December 3, 2010.
Co., Inc.
The Arguments
came out that there had been a previous hijacking incident involving
Sony’s cargo in 1997, but neither Sony nor its insurer filed a TMBI’s Petition
complaint against BMT or TMBI.13
On August 5, 2008, the RTC found TMBI and Benjamin Mana‐ TMBI insists that the hijacking of the truck was a fortuitous
lastas jointly and solidarily liable to pay Mitsui Php7,293,386.23 as event. It contests the CA’s finding that neither force nor intimidation
actual damages, attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of the amount was used in the taking of the cargo. Considering Lapesura was never
claimed, and the costs of the suit.14 The RTC held that TMBI and found, the Court should not discount the possibility that he was a
Manalastas were common carriers and had acted negligently. victim rather than a perpetrator.19
Both TMBI and BMT appealed the RTC’s verdict. TMBI denies being a common carrier because it does not own a
TMBI denied that it was a common carrier required to exercise single truck to transport its shipment and it does not offer transport
extraordinary diligence. It maintains that it exercised the diligence services to the public for compensation.20 It emphasizes that Sony
of a good father of a family and should be absolved of liability knew TMBI did not have its own vehicles and would subcontract the
because the truck was “hijacked” and this was a fortuitous event. delivery to a third party.
BMT claimed that it had exercised extraordinary diligence over Further, TMBI now insists that the service it offered was limited
the lost shipment, and argued as well that the loss resulted from a to the processing of paperwork attendant to the entry of Sony’s
fortuitous event.
goods. It denies that delivery of the shipment was a part of its the trial that TMBI’s brokerage service includes the eventual
obligation.21 delivery of the cargo to the consignee.30
TMBI solely blames BMT as it had full control and custody of
the cargo when it was lost.22 BMT, as a common carrier, is presumed _______________
negligent and should be responsible for the loss.
23 Id., at p. 143.
BMT’s Comment 24 Id.
25 Id., at p. 145.
BMT insists that it observed the required standard of care.23 Like 26 Id., at p. 146.
the petitioner, BMT maintains that the hijacking 27 Id., at p. 147.
28 Id., at p. 73.
29 Id., at p. 74.
_______________
30 Id., at p. 77.
18 Id., at p. 57.
19 Id., at p. 24.
20 Id., at p. 26.
21 Id., at p. 33.
150
22 Id., at p. 36.
152
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED A third party may recover from a
common carrier for quasi-delict
Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance
but must prove actual negligence
Co., Inc.
We likewise disagree with the finding that BMT is directly liable
to Sony/Mitsui for the loss of the cargo. While it is undisputed that BMT is liable to TMBI for breach
the cargo was lost under the actual custody of BMT (whose of their contract of carriage
employee is the primary suspect in the hijacking or robbery of the
shipment), no direct contractual relationship existed between We do not hereby say that TMBI must absorb the loss. By
Sony/Mitsui and BMT. If at all, Sony/Mitsui’s cause of action subcontracting the cargo delivery to BMT, TMBI entered into its
against BMT could only arise from quasi-delict, as a third party own contract of carriage with a fellow common carrier.
suffering damage from the action of another due to the latter’s fault The cargo was lost after its transfer to BMT’s custody based on
or negligence, pursuant to Article 2176 of the Civil Code.51 its contract of carriage with TMBI. Following Article 1735, BMT is
We have repeatedly distinguished between an action for breach of presumed to be at fault. Since BMT failed to prove that it observed
contract (culpa contractual) and an action for quasi-delict (culpa extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation to
aquiliana). TMBI, it is liable to TMBI for breach of their contract of carriage.
In culpa contractual, the plaintiff only needs to establish the In these lights, TMBI is liable to Sony (subrogated by Mitsui) for
existence of the contract and the obligor’s failure to perform his breaching the contract of carriage. In turn, TMBI is entitled to
obligation. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove or even allege reimbursement from BMT due to the latter’s own breach of its
that the obligor’s noncompliance was due to fault or negligence contract of carriage with TMBI. The proverbial buck stops with
because Article 1735 already presumes that the common carrier is BMT who may either: (a) absorb the loss, or (b) proceed after its
negligent. The common carrier can only free itself from liability by missing driver, the suspected culprit, pursuant to Article 2181.55
proving that it observed extraordinary diligence. It cannot discharge
this liability by shifting the blame on its agents or servants.52
On the other hand, the plaintiff in culpa aquiliana must clearly _______________
establish the defendant’s fault or negligence because this is the very
basis of the action.53 Moreover, if the injury to the plaintiff resulted 54 Art. 2180, C C .
from the act or omission of the defendant’s employee or servant, the 55 Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or
defendant may absolve him- employees may recover from the later what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of
the claim.
_______________
158