VOL.

796, JULY 11, 2016 143

Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance
Co., Inc.

stipulation diminishing or dispensing with the common carrier’s

liability for acts committed by thieves or robbers who do not act with grave
or irresistible threat, violence, or force is void under Article 1745 of the
Civil Code for being contrary to public policy. Jurisprudence, too, has
expanded Article 1734’s five exemptions. De Guzman v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 194121. July 11, 2016.*
168 SCRA 612 (1988), interpreted Article 1745 to mean that a robbery
attended by “grave or irresistible threat, violence or force” is a fortuitous
TORRES-MADRID BROKERAGE, INC., petitioner, vs. FEB
event that absolves the common carrier from liability.
MITSUI MARINE INSURANCE CO., INC. and BENJAMIN P.
MANALASTAS, doing business under the name of BMT Same; Same; Under Article 1736, a common carrier’s extraordinary
TRUCKING SERVICES, respondents. responsibility over the shipper’s goods lasts from the time these goods are
unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by, the carrier for
Civil Law; Common Carriers; Diligence of Common Carriers; By the transportation, until they are delivered, actually or constructively, by the
nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, they are bound to carrier to the consignee.—Under Article 1736, a common carrier’s
observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and in the extraordinary responsibility over the shipper’s goods lasts from the time
safety of their passengers.—Common carriers are persons, corporations, these goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by,
firms or associations engaged in the business of transporting passengers or the carrier for transportation, until they are delivered, actually or
goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their constructively, by the carrier to the consignee. That the cargo disappeared
services to the public. By the nature of their business and for reasons of during transit while under the custody of BMT — TMBI’s subcontractor —
public policy, they are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the did not diminish nor terminate TMBI’s responsibility over the cargo. Article
vigilance over the goods and in the safety of their passengers. 1735 of the Civil Code presumes that it was at fault. Instead of showing that
it had acted with extraordinary diligence, TMBI simply argued that it was
Same; Same; As long as an entity holds itself to the public for the not a common carrier bound to observe extraordinary diligence. Its failure to
transport of goods as a business, it is considered a common carrier successfully establish this premise carries with it the presumption of fault or
regardless of whether it owns the vehicle used or has to actually hire one.— negligence, thus rendering it liable to Sony/Mitsui for breach of contract.
That TMBI does not own trucks and has to subcontract the delivery of its
clients’ goods, is immaterial. As long as an entity holds itself to the public Same; Same; Culpa Contractual; The common carrier can only free
for the transport of goods as a business, it is considered a common carrier itself from liability by proving that it observed extraordinary diligence.—In
regardless of whether it owns the vehicle used or has to actually hire one. culpa contractual, the plaintiff only needs to establish the existence of the
contract and the obligor’s failure to perform his obligation. It is not
Same; Same; Fortuitous Events; The theft or the robbery of the goods necessary for the plaintiff to prove or even allege that the obligor’s
is not considered a fortuitous event or a force majeure.—Simply put, the noncompliance was due to fault or negligence because Article 1735 already
theft or the robbery of the goods is not considered a fortuitous event or a presumes that the common carrier is negligent. The common carrier can
force majeure. Nevertheless, a common carrier may absolve itself of liability only free itself from liability by proving that it observed extraordinary
for a resulting loss: (1) if it proves that it exercised extraordinary diligence diligence. It cannot discharge this liability by shifting the blame on its
in transporting and safekeeping the goods; or (2) if it stipulated with the agents or servants.
shipper/owner of the goods to limit its liability for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence.
However, a

144
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION. 144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance
Co., Inc.

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,

We resolve the petition for review on certiorari challenging the

Court of Appeals’ (CA) October 14, 2010 decision in C.A.-G.R. CV _______________
No. 91829.1
The CA affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) decision in 2 Rollo, pp. 44, 85, and 91.
Civil Case No. 01-1596, and found petitioner Torres-Madrid 3 Id., at pp. 43, 44.
Brokerage, Inc. (TMBI) and respondent Benjamin P. Manalastas 4 Id., at p. 13.
jointly and solidarily liable to respondent FEB Mitsui Marine 5 Id., at p. 50.
Insurance Co., Inc. (Mitsui) for damages from the loss of transported 6 Id., at p. 44.
cargo.

_______________
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.

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

149 Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance
Co., Inc.

VOL. 796, JULY 11, 2016 149

Mitsui invokes as well the legal presumption of negligence
Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance against TMBI, pointing out that TMBI simply entrusted the cargo to
Co., Inc. BMT without adopting any security measures despite: (1) a previous
hijacking incident, when TMBI lost Sony’s cargo; and (2) TMBI’s
was a fortuitous event — a force majeure — that exonerates it from knowledge that the cargo was worth more than 10 million pesos.31
liability.24 It points out that Lapesura has never been seen again and Mitsui affirms that TMBI breached the contract of carriage
his fate remains a mystery. BMT likewise argues that the loss of the through its negligent handling of the cargo, resulting in its loss.
cargo necessarily showed that the taking was with the use of force or
intimidation.25 The Court’s Ruling
If there was any attendant negligence, BMT points the finger on
TMBI who failed to send a representative to accompany the A brokerage may be considered
shipment.26 BMT further blamed TMBI for the latter’s failure to a common carrier if it also un-
adopt security measures to protect Sony’s cargo.27 dertakes to deliver the goods
for its customers
Mitsui’s Comment
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations
Mitsui counters that neither TMBI nor BMT alleged or proved engaged in the business of transporting passengers or goods or both,
during the trial that the taking of the cargo was accompanied with by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the
grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force.28 Hence, the incident public.32 By the nature of their business and for reasons of public
cannot be considered “force majeure” and TMBI remains liable for policy, they are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
breach of contract. vigilance over the goods and in the safety of their passengers.33
Mitsui emphasizes that TMBI’s theory — that force or In A.F. Sanchez Brokerage, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,34 we held
intimidation must have been used because Lapesura was never that a customs broker — whose principal business is the preparation
found — was only raised for the first time before this Court.29 It also of the correct customs declaration and the proper shipping
discredits the theory as a mere conjecture for lack of supporting documents — is still considered a common carrier if it also
evidence. undertakes to deliver the goods for its customers. The law does not
Mitsui adopts the CA’s reasons to conclude that TMBI is a distinguish between one whose principal business activity is the
common carrier. It also points out Victor Torres’ admission during carrying of goods and one who undertakes
_______________ 40 TSN dated October 17, 2005, p. 9; Rollo, p. 77.
41 Westwind Shipping Corporation v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., supra
31 Id., at p. 75.
at p. 559.
32 Civil Code, Art. 1732.
33 Id., Art. 1733.
34 488 Phil. 430, 441; 447 SCRA 427, 437-438 (2004).

152

151 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance
VOL. 796, JULY 11, 2016 151 Co., Inc.

Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance

Lastly, TMBI’s customs brokerage services — including the
Co., Inc.
transport/delivery of the cargo — are available to anyone willing to
pay its fees. Given these circumstances, we find it undeniable that
this task only as an ancillary activity.35 This ruling has been TMBI is a common carrier.
reiterated in Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v. Consequently, TMBI should be held responsible for the loss,
Transport Venture, Inc.,36 Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. v. destruction, or deterioration of the goods it transports unless it
Glodel Brokerage Corporation,37 and Westwind Shipping results from:
Corporation v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.38
Despite TMBI’s present denials, we find that the delivery of the (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
goods is an integral, albeit ancillary, part of its brokerage services. (2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
TMBI admitted that it was contracted to facilitate, process, and clear (3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
the shipments from the customs authorities, withdraw them from the (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
pier, then transport and deliver them to Sony’s warehouse in (5) Order or act of competent public authority.42
Laguna.39
Further, TMBI’s General Manager Victor Torres described the
nature of its services as follows: For all other cases — such as theft or robbery — a common
carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
ATTY. VIRTUDAZO: Could you please tell the court what is the nature of the unless it can prove that it observed extraordinary diligence.43
business of [TMBI]? Simply put, the theft or the robbery of the goods is not
Witness MR. Victor Torres of Torres Madrid: We are engaged in customs considered a fortuitous event or a force majeure. Nevertheless, a
brokerage business. We acquire the release documents from the Bureau of common carrier may absolve itself of liability for a resulting loss:
Customs and eventually deliver the cargoes to the consignee’s warehouse and (1) if it proves that it exercised extraordinary diligence in
we are engaged in that kind of business, sir.40 transporting and safekeeping the goods;44 or (2) if it stipulated with
the shipper/owner of the goods to limit its liability for the loss,
That TMBI does not own trucks and has to subcontract the destruction, or deterioration of the goods to a degree less than
delivery of its clients’ goods, is immaterial. As long as an entity extraordinary diligence.45
holds itself to the public for the transport of goods as a business, it is However, a stipulation diminishing or dispensing with the
considered a common carrier regardless of whether it owns the common carrier’s liability for acts committed by thieves or
vehicle used or has to actually hire one.41
_______________

_______________ 42 Civil Code, Art. 1734.

43 Id., Art. 1735.
35 De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 250 Phil. 613, 618; 168 SCRA 612, 617-618
44 Id.
(1988).
45 Id., Art. 1744.
36 496 Phil. 437, 450; 456 SCRA 557, 570 (2005).
37 654 Phil. 67; 639 SCRA 69 (2011).
38 G.R. No. 200289, 25 November 2013, 710 SCRA 544, 558-559.
39 See TMBI’s Answer to the Complaint at Rollo, p. 91 in relation to p. 85.
 153 Specifically, TMBI’s current theory — that the hijacking was
attended by force or intimidation — is untenable.
First, TMBI alleged in its Third Party Complaint against BMT
VOL. 796, JULY 11, 2016 153
that Lapesura was responsible for hijacking the shipment.49 Further,
Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Victor Torres filed a criminal complaint against Lapesura with the
Co., Inc. NBI.50 These actions constitute direct and binding admissions that
Lapesura stole the cargo. Justice and fair play dictate that TMBI
robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or should not be allowed to change its legal theory on appeal.
force is void under Article 1745 of the Civil Code for being Second, neither TMBI nor BMT succeeded in substantiating this
contrary to public policy.46 Jurisprudence, too, has expanded theory through evidence. Thus, the theory remained an unsupported
Article 1734’s five exemptions. De Guzman v. Court of Appeals47 allegation no better than speculations and conjectures. The CA
interpreted Article 1745 to mean that a robbery attended by “grave therefore correctly disregarded the defense of force majeure.
or irresistible threat, violence or force” is a fortuitous event that
absolves the common carrier from liability. TMBI and BMT are not
In the present case, the shipper, Sony, engaged the services of solidarily liable to Mitsui
TMBI, a common carrier, to facilitate the release of its shipment and
deliver the goods to its warehouse. In turn, TMBI subcontracted a We disagree with the lower courts’ ruling that TMBI and BMT
portion of its obligation — the delivery of the cargo — to another are solidarily liable to Mitsui for the loss as joint tortfeasors. The
common carrier, BMT. ruling was based on Article 2194 of the Civil Code:
Despite the subcontract, TMBI remained responsible for the
cargo. Under Article 1736, a common carrier’s extraordinary Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for
responsibility over the shipper’s goods lasts from the time these quasi-delict is solidary.
goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received
by, the carrier for transportation, until they are delivered, actually Notably, TMBI’s liability to Mitsui does not stem from a quasi-
or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee.48 delict (culpa aquiliana) but from its breach of contract (culpa
That the cargo disappeared during transit while under the custody contractual). The tie that binds TMBI with Mitsui is contractual,
of BMT — TMBI’s subcontractor — did not diminish nor terminate albeit one that passed on to Mitsui as a result of TMBI’s contract of
TMBI’s responsibility over the cargo. Article 1735 of the Civil Code carriage with Sony to which Mitsui had been subrogated as an
presumes that it was at fault. insurer who had paid Sony’s insurance claim. The legal reality that
Instead of showing that it had acted with extraordinary diligence, results from this contractual tie precludes the application of quasi-
TMBI simply argued that it was not a common carrier bound to delict based Article 2194.
observe extraordinary diligence. Its failure to successfully establish
this premise carries with it the presumption of fault or negligence,
_______________
thus rendering it liable to Sony/Mitsui for breach of contract.
49 Rollo, pp. 109-110.
50 Id., at pp. 48, 50, 97.
_______________

46 Id., Art. 1745.

47 Supra note 35.
48 Art. 1737, Civil Code. 155

VOL. 796, JULY 11, 2016 155

Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance
154 Co., Inc.

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.

_______________

51 Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. v. Glodel Brokerage Corporation, supra

note 37 at p. 79; p. 82.
157
52 Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil. 768, 777 (1918).
53 Id., at p. 776, citing Manresa, Vol. 8, p. 71 [1907 ed., p. 76].
VOL. 796, JULY 11, 2016 157
Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance
Co., Inc.
156
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby ORDERS petitioner Torres-
Madrid Brokerage, Inc. to pay the respondent FEB Mitsui Marine
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Insurance Co., Inc. the following:
Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance a. Actual damages in the amount of Php7,293,386.23 plus
Co., Inc. legal interest from the time the complaint was filed until it is
fully paid;
self by proving that he observed the diligence of a good father of a b. Attorney’s fees in the amount of Php200,000.00; and
family to prevent the damage.54 c. Costs of suit.
In the present case, Mitsui’s action is solely premised on TMBl’s Respondent Benjamin P. Manalastas is in turn ORDERED to
breach of contract. Mitsui did not even sue BMT, much less prove REIMBURSE Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. of the above
any negligence on its part. If BMT has entered the picture at all, it is mentioned amounts.
because TMBI sued it for reimbursement for the liability that TMBI SO ORDERED.
might incur from its contract of carriage with Sony/Mitsui.
Accordingly, there is no basis to directly hold BMT liable to Mitsui Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo and Leonen, JJ., concur.
for quasi-delict. Mendoza, J., On Official Leave
 Petitioner Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. ordered to pay
respondent FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc. actual damages
in the amount of P7,293,386.23 plus legal interest, attorney’s fees in
the amount of P200,000.00 and costs of suit. Respondent Benjamin
P. Manalastas is in turn ordered to reimburse Torres-Madrid
Brokerage, Inc. the above mentioned amounts.

Notes.—From the nature of their business and for reasons of

public policy, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary
diligence over the goods they transport according to the
circumstances of each case. (Cebu Salvage Corporation vs.
Philippine Home Assurance Corporation, 512 SCRA 667 [2007])

158

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance
Co., Inc.

To overcome the presumption of negligence, the common carrier

must establish by adequate proof that it exercised extraordinary
diligence over the goods — it must do more than merely show that
some other party could be responsible for the damage. (Regional
Container Lines [RCL] of Singapore vs. Netherlands Insurance Co.
[Philippines], Inc., 598 SCRA 304 [2009])
——o0o——

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