The Supreme Court ruled against Tumambing and held Mauro Ganzon liable for the loss of scrap iron under their contract of carriage. While loading was initially stopped by the mayor demanding a bribe, and later the acting mayor ordered the scraps dumped, these acts did not absolve Ganzon of responsibility as a common carrier. As the carrier, extraordinary responsibility for the goods commenced once they were received for transport. The loss was not shown to be due to a legal cause beyond the carrier's control listed in the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court ruled against Tumambing and held Mauro Ganzon liable for the loss of scrap iron under their contract of carriage. While loading was initially stopped by the mayor demanding a bribe, and later the acting mayor ordered the scraps dumped, these acts did not absolve Ganzon of responsibility as a common carrier. As the carrier, extraordinary responsibility for the goods commenced once they were received for transport. The loss was not shown to be due to a legal cause beyond the carrier's control listed in the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court ruled against Tumambing and held Mauro Ganzon liable for the loss of scrap iron under their contract of carriage. While loading was initially stopped by the mayor demanding a bribe, and later the acting mayor ordered the scraps dumped, these acts did not absolve Ganzon of responsibility as a common carrier. As the carrier, extraordinary responsibility for the goods commenced once they were received for transport. The loss was not shown to be due to a legal cause beyond the carrier's control listed in the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court ruled against Tumambing and held Mauro Ganzon liable for the loss of scrap iron under their contract of carriage. While loading was initially stopped by the mayor demanding a bribe, and later the acting mayor ordered the scraps dumped, these acts did not absolve Ganzon of responsibility as a common carrier. As the carrier, extraordinary responsibility for the goods commenced once they were received for transport. The loss was not shown to be due to a legal cause beyond the carrier's control listed in the Civil Code.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
Ganzon v.
CA CA: Ganzon could not be absolved from responsibility on the ground that he was ordered by G.R. No. No. L-48757. / May 30, 1988 / SARMIENTO, J. competent public authority to unload the scrap iron, it must be shown that Acting Mayor Basilio Rub had the power to issue the disputed order, or that it was lawful, or that it was NATURE : Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals issued under legal process of authority. PETITIONERS: MAURO GANZON CA:The order of the acting mayor did not constitute valid authority for appellee Mauro RESPONDENTS: COURT OF APPEALS and GELACIO E. TUMAMBING Ganzon and his representatives to carry out.
SUMMARY. Tumambing contracted the services of Mauro B. Ganzon to haul 305 tons of ISSUES & RATIO. scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataan, to the port of Manila on the board the lighter LCT 1. WON Ganzon should be held liable under the contract of carriage– YES. “Batman.” Ganzon sent his lighter “Batman” and Tumambing delivered the scrap iron to The petitioner is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. Niza (captain of lighter Batman) for loading under his supervision. However, the loading was stopped by Mayor Advincula (for when he demanded P5,000, Tumambing resisted). (By reason of this presumption, the court is not even required to make an Later on, loading of scraps commenced which was then stopped by Mayor Rub. The crew express finding of fault or negligence before it could hold the petitioner was instructed to dump the scraps where Batman was docked and the rest were brought to answerable for the breach of the contract of carriage.) the compound of NASSCO. Tumambing avers that scraps were destroyed due to an act or The petitioner, thru his employees, actually received the scraps is freely admitted. order of a competent public authority and that the part of the shipment was not loaded in Soon after the scraps were delivered to and received by the petitioner common the lighter LCT Batman. SC ruled against Tumambing. The petitioner, thru his employees, carrier, loading was commenced. actually received the scraps is freely admitted. The scraps were unconditionally placed in By the said act of delivery, the scraps were unconditionally placed in the possession the possession and control of the common carrier, and upon their receipt by the carrier for and control of the common carrier, and upon their receipt by the carrier for transportation, the contract of carriage was deemed perfected. transportation, the contract of carriage was deemed perfected. Consequently, the petitioner-carrier’s extraordinary responsibility for the loss, DOCTRINE. Pursuant to Art. 1736, extraordinary responsibility (of common carriers) destruction, or deterioration of the goods commenced, Pursuant to Art. 1736, such would cease only upon the delivery, actual or constructive, by the carrier to the consignee, extraordinary responsibility would cease only upon the delivery, actual or or to the person who has a right to receive them. constructive, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them. FACTS. The fact that part of the shipment had not been loaded on board the lighter did not On November 28, 1956, Gelacio Tumambing contracted the services of Mauro B. impair the said contract of transportation as the goods remained in the custody and Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataan, to the port of Manila on control of the carrier, albeit still unloaded. board the lighter LCT “Batman” Pursuant to this agreement, Mauro B. Ganzon sent his lighter “Batman” to Mariveles where it docked in three feet of water DECISION. On December 1, 1956, Gelacio Tumambing delivered the scrap iron to defendant Petition granted. CA decision reversed. Filomeno Niza, captain of the lighter, for loading which was actually begun on the same date by the crew of the lighter under the captain’s supervision. NOTES. When about half of the scrap iron was already loaded, Mayor Jose Advincula of The petitioner has failed to show that the loss of the scraps was due to any of the Mariveles, Bataan, arrived and demanded P5,000.00 from Gelacio Tumambing. following causes enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code, namely: The latter resisted the shakedown and after a heated argument between them, Mayor Jose o Flood, Advincula drew his gun and fired at Gelacio Tumambing. o storm, The gunshot was not fatal but Tumambing had to be taken to a hospital in Balanga, o earthquake, Bataan, for treatment. o lightning, or After sometime, the loading of the scrap iron was resumed. o other natural disaster or calamity; But on December 4, 1956, Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, accompanied by three policemen, o Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; ordered captain Filomeno Niza and his crew to dump the scrap iron where the lighter was o Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; docked. o The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers; The rest was brought to the compound of NASSCO. o Order or act of competent public authority. Later on Acting Mayor Rub issued a receipt stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap iron RTC: in favor of Gelacio Tumambing DISSENT: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J. CA: reversed RTC ruling The loading of the scrap iron on the lighter had to be suspended because of Municipal Mayor Jose Advincula’s intervention, who was a “competent public authority.” Petitioner had no control over the situation as, in fact, Tumambing himself, the owner of the cargo, was impotent to stop the “act” of said official and even suffered a gunshot wound on the occasion. When loading was resumed, this time it was Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, accompanied by three policemen, who ordered the dumping of the scrap iron into the sea right where the lighter was docked in three feet of water. Again, could the captain of the lighter and his crew have defied said order? Through the “order” or “act” of “competent public authority,” therefore, the performance of a contractual obligation was rendered impossible. The scrap iron that was dumped into the sea was “destroyed” while the rest of the cargo was “seized.”
