Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila Fifth Division

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
FIFTH DIVISION
ALLIED SHIPPING CORPORATION

Defendant-Appellee,
CA GR No. XXXXX
-versus- Civil Case No. 62709
For: DAMAGES
NATIONAL SUPPLIES AUTHORITY

and NATIONAL TRUCKING AUTHORITY
Plaintiff-Appellants,
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Appellant, NATIONAL SUPPLIES AUTHORITY and NATONAL

TRUCKING AUTHORITY, by undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court,
respectfully submit that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. Appellants, NATIONAL SUPPLIES AUTHORITY and NATONAL

TRUCKING AUTHORITY filed with the RTC branch 86, Manila a
complaint for damages arising from the alleged breach of contract of
carriage against Appellee, ALLIED SHIPPING CORPORATION for its
alleged failure to deliver to plaintiff National Supplies Authority’s consignee
4,868 bags of non-fat dried milk worth P2,794,232.00 plus freight prepaid in
the amount of P8,707.65 for a total of P2,862,939.64.
2. Subsequently on May 14,2008, the RTC ruled in favor of Appellee, the
dispositive part of which states:
“WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered in favor of the

defendant against the plaintiffs, dismissing the latter’s
complaint, and ordering the plaintiffs, pursuant to the
defendant’s counterclaims, to pay, jointly and solidarily, to the
defendant:
1. The actual damages in the amount of P50,000.00.

2. The attorney’s fees in the amount of P70,000.00 plus the
costs
of suit.
SO ORDERED.”
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
3. Appellants engaged the services of Appellee to ship commodities.
4. Appellants tasked and assigned Mr. Hassan Salim as a consignee and

receiver of the package.
5. Mr. Hassan Salim reported through telephone call the non-delivery of the
commodities.
6. Appellee failed to present a proof of delivery of the cargoes in the absence

of the signed delivery receipt or produce the bill of landing containing the
authenticated signature of the consignee.
THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
7. The Honorable Court erred in failing to appreciate and sustain Appellant’s

causes of action against Appellee with clear preponderance of evidence that
the Appellee failed to execute its duties bounded by their contract to deliver
the goods.
8. The Honorable Court erred in disregarding a very important fact that the
Appellee failed to present a delivery receipt and bill of landing signed by
any of the authorized representative from the National Trucking Corporation
as a proof of delivery.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
9. The issue in the case at bar is whether Appellee was able to deliver the cargo
involved herein, which it carried on board its vessel, to the consignee Mr.
Hassan Salim of plaintiff National Trucking Corporation in Zamboanga;
10.Whether or not Appellee exercised the extraordinary diligence required of

common carriers in connection with the cargo subject matter of this case;
11.Whether or not the Appellee is liable to pay for actual, exemplary and moral
damages.
ARGUMENT
12.The Honorable Court erred in failing to appreciate and sustain Appellant’s

cause of action against Appellee for its failure to present clear evidence that
the goods carried by their vessel was delivered to the consignee. Moreover,
Article 1734 of the Civil Code provides that:
“Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of

the goods unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
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;
5) Order or act of competent public authority”
13.Thus, it can be seen from the provision of the law on common carriers that
the common carrier is held responsible for any loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods except for the five (5) aforementioned causes.
14.In the case at bar, the cargoes that are subject to this proceeding was never
situated in any of the five (5) aforementioned circumstances that would
exempt the Defendant-Appellee for any liabilities.
15.Moreover, Article 1735 of the Civil Code states that:

“In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 of the
preceding articles, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common
carriers are presumed to have at fault or to have acted negligently, unless
they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article
1733”.
16. Thus, Article 1733 provides that:

“Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for the reason of
public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them,
according to all the circumstances of each case.
Such extraordinary diligence in vigilance over the goods is further expressed

in Article 1734, 1735, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for
the safety of the passengers is further set forth in Articles 1755 and 1756.”
17. Furthermore, Article 1736 of the Civil Code states that:
“The extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts from the time
the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, received by the
carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or
constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a
right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738.”
18. In the case at bar, there was no actual delivery that took place as the
Defendant-Appellee cannot establish a clear evidence of delivery as it failed
provide a copy of the signed delivery receipt.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly prayed of this Honorable

Court that the Decision dated 14 May 2008 of the lower court be REVERSED with
costs against the appellee.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Manila, 4 January 2021.

Atty. Juan Dela Cruz
Counsel for Appellant
Copy furnished, in accordance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of
Court, by registered mail, in view of far distance making personal service not
practicable, to:
ATTY. HWANITA D. PHURITAH

Assistant Solicitor General
341 Muralla Street,
Mandaluyong City

Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila Fifth Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila Fifth Division

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila Fifth Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ALLIED SHIPPING CORPORATION

NATIONAL SUPPLIES AUTHORITY

Appellant, NATIONAL SUPPLIES AUTHORITY and NATONAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Appellants, NATIONAL SUPPLIES AUTHORITY and NATONAL

“WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered in favor of the

1. The actual damages in the amount of P50,000.00.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

3. Appellants engaged the services of Appellee to ship commodities.

4. Appellants tasked and assigned Mr. Hassan Salim as a consignee and

6. Appellee failed to present a proof of delivery of the cargoes in the absence

THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

7. The Honorable Court erred in failing to appreciate and sustain Appellant’s

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

10.Whether or not Appellee exercised the extraordinary diligence required of

12.The Honorable Court erred in failing to appreciate and sustain Appellant’s

“Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of

1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or

15.Moreover, Article 1735 of the Civil Code states that:

16. Thus, Article 1733 provides that:

Such extraordinary diligence in vigilance over the goods is further expressed

17. Furthermore, Article 1736 of the Civil Code states that:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly prayed of this Honorable

Manila, 4 January 2021.

ATTY. HWANITA D. PHURITAH

You might also like