Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 160 views

    Sulpicio Lines v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Loi Villarin
    A stevedore died of gas poisoning after entering the storeroom of a barge transporting timber. The barge was chartered by ALC to transport its timber. Although the stevedore was hired by ALC and not a passenger of the carrier, the court ruled the carrier was still liable as a common carrier. The carrier knew the stevedores' presence was necessary to load the cargo as per its contract with ALC. However, the carrier failed to ensure the barge was safe and its employees were properly trained, so it was liable for damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sulpicio Lines v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Loi Villarin
    160 views1 page
    A stevedore died of gas poisoning after entering the storeroom of a barge transporting timber. The barge was chartered by ALC to transport its timber. Although the stevedore was hired by ALC and not a passenger of the carrier, the court ruled the carrier was still liable as a common carrier. The carrier knew the stevedores' presence was necessary to load the cargo as per its contract with ALC. However, the carrier failed to ensure the barge was safe and its employees were properly trained, so it was liable for damages.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A stevedore died of gas poisoning after entering the storeroom of a barge transporting timber. The barge was chartered by ALC to transport its timber. Although the stevedore was hired by ALC and not a passenger of the carrier, the court ruled the carrier was still liable as a common carrier. The carrier knew the stevedores' presence was necessary to load the cargo as per its contract with ALC. However, the carrier failed to ensure the barge was safe and its employees were properly trained, so it was liable for damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    160 views1 page

    Sulpicio Lines v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Loi Villarin
    A stevedore died of gas poisoning after entering the storeroom of a barge transporting timber. The barge was chartered by ALC to transport its timber. Although the stevedore was hired by ALC and not a passenger of the carrier, the court ruled the carrier was still liable as a common carrier. The carrier knew the stevedores' presence was necessary to load the cargo as per its contract with ALC. However, the carrier failed to ensure the barge was safe and its employees were properly trained, so it was liable for damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DIGEST, SY 2016-2017 Transporta Atty.

    Norianne Tan
    tion Law

    SULPICIO LINES v. CA, PAMALARAN (VILLARIN, L.)


    G.R. No. 106279, July 14, 1995
    (Common Carrier- Carriage of Passengers)

    FACTS

    A contract of carriage was entered into between petitioner and ALC for the transport of the latters timber from
    Pugad, Lianga, Surigao del Sur. On March 17, 1976, petitioner sent its tugboat MT Edmund and barge Solid
    VI to Lianga to pick up ALCs timber. However, no loading could be made because of the heavy downpour.

    The next morning, several stevedores of CBL, who were hired by ALC, boarded the Solid VI and opened its
    storeroom. The stevedores were warned of the gas and heat generated by the copra stored in the holds of the
    ship. Not heeding the warning, a stevedore entered the storeroom and fell unconscious. Two other stevedores
    followed, one of whom was Leoncio L. Pamalaran. He also lost consciousness and eventually died of gas
    poisoning.

    In a case for damages, the trial court ruled in favor of respondent. The CA affirmed the same.

    ISSUE/S

    Whether respondent is liable for the death of the stevedore YES

    Whether a stevedore is considered a passenger YES

    HELD

    The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that although Pamalaran was never a passenger of petitioner, still
    the latter is liable as a common carrier for his death. ALC had a contract of carriage with petitioner. The presence
    of the stevedores sent by ALC on board the barge of petitioner was called for by the contract of carriage. For
    how else would its lumber be transported unless it is placed on board? And by whom? Of course, the
    stevedores. Definitely, petitioner could not expect the shipper itself to load the lumber without the aid of the
    stevedores. Furthermore, petitioner knew of the presence and role of the stevedores in its barge and thus
    consented to their presence. Hence, petitioner was responsible for their safety while on board the barge.

    Petitioner claims that its employees even warned the stevedores and tried to prevent their entry into the
    storeroom. Such argument, again, is demolished by the findings of the Court of Appeals, thus: x x x. However,
    appellant failed to prove that its employees were actually trained or given specific instructions to see to it that the
    barge is fit and safe not only in transporting goods but also for people who would be loading the cargo into the
    bodega of the barge. It is not enough that appellants employees have warned the laborers not to enter the
    barge after the hatch was opened. Appellants employees should have been sufficiently instructed to see to it
    that the hatch of the barge is not opened by any unauthorized person and that the hatch is not easily opened by
    anyone. At the very least, precautionary measures should have been observed by appellants employees to see
    to it that no one could enter the bodega of the barge until after they have made sure that it is safe for anyone to
    enter the same. Failing to exercise due diligence in the supervision of its employees, the lower court was correct
    in holding appellant liable for damages.

    Arcaina Austria Baadera Cheng Coloquio Diploma Fajardo Layno Lim, J. Villarin, L. Villarin, P. 1

    You might also like