SECOND DIVISION question, limiting the responsibility of the carrier for the lost or damage that

may be caused to the shipment is valid where there is nothing therein that is
[G.R. Nos. L-36481-2. October 23, 1982.] contrary to law, moral or public policy, and is binding upon the parties even
if written on the back of the bill of lading and not signed by the parties.
AMPARO C. SERVANDO, CLARA UY BICO , plaintiffs-appellees , 3. ID.; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; FORTUITOUS EVENT (FORCE
vs. PHILIPPINE STEAM NAVIGATION CO., defendant-appellant. MAJEURE); EFFECT THEREOF WHERE SAME IS IMMEDIATE AND PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF LOSS; OBLIGOR IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY FOR NON-
PERFORMANCE. — Where fortuitous event or force majeure is the immediate
Zoilo de la Cruz, Jr. & Associate for plaintiff-appellee Amparo Servando.
and proximate cause of the loss, the obligor is exempt from liability for non-
Benedicto, Sumbingco & Associate for appellee Clara Uy Bico. performance. (See Art. 1174 of the New Civil Code.)

Ross, Salcedo, del Rosario, Bito & Misa for defendant-appellant. 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; DEFINITION. — The Partidas(Law II, Title 33, Partida 7),
the antecedent of Article 1174 of the Civil Code, defines "caso fortuito" as
"an event that takes place by accident and could not been have foreseen.
SYNOPSIS Examples of this are destruction of houses, unexpected fire, shipwreck,
violence of robbers."
Appellees Clara Uy Bico and Amparo Servando loaded their respective
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS. — In the dissertation of
cargoes on board appellant's vessel for carriage from Manila to Negros
the phrase "caso fortuito" the Encyclopedia Juridicada Española says: "In a
Occidental. Upon arrival of the vessel at the place of destination, the cargoes
legal sense and consequently, also in relation to contracts, caso fortuito
were discharged, complete and in good order, into the warehouse of the
presents the following essential characteristics: (1) the cause of the
Bureau of Customs. After appellee Uy Bico had taken delivery of aportion of
unforseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to
her cargoes, the warehouse was rated by fire of unknown origin, destroying
comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will; (2) it
the rest of the two appellees' cargoes. Appellees filed their claims from
must be impossible to forsee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito,
appellant for the recovery of the value of the goods destroyed by fire.
or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (3) the occurrence
Appellant rejected the claims but the trial court ruled in favor of appellees
must be such as to render it imposible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation
and ordered payment of their claims, stating that since the burning of the
in a normal manner; and (4) the obligor must be free from any participation
warehouse occurred before actual or constructive delivery of the goods to
in the aggravation of the injury resulting to creditor."
the appellees, the loss is chargeable against the appellant.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; INSTANT CASE. — In the case at bar, the burning of the
On review, the Supreme Court held that appellant, as obligor, is
customs warehouse was an extraordinary event which happened
exempt from liability for non-performance because the burning of the
independently of the will of the appellant. The latter could not have foreseen
warehouse containing appellees' goods, which is the immediate and
the event.
proximate cause of the loss, is a fortuitous event or force majeure which
could not have been forseen by appellant. 7. ID.; ID.; ID.; RULING IN YU BIAO SONTUA VS. OSSORIO, 43 PHIL. 511,
NOT APPLICABLE TO CASE AT BAR. — The lower court in its decision relied on
Judgment appealed from, set aside.
the ruling laid down in Yu Biao Sontua vs. Ossorio, 43 Phil. 511, where this
Court held the defendant liable for damages arising from a fire caused by
SYLLABUS the negligence of the defendant's employees while loading cases of gasoline
and petroleum products. But unlike in the said case, there is not a shred of
1. CIVIL CODE; COMMON CARRIERS; DUTY TO OBSERVE proof in the present case that the cause of the fire that broke out in the
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE. — Article 1736 of the Civil Code imposes upon Custom's warehouse was in any way attributable to the negligence of the
common carriers the duty to observe extraordinary diligence from the appellant or its employees. Under the circumstances, the appellant is plainly
moment the goods are unconditionally placed in their possession "until the not responsible.
same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the AQUINO, J. concurring:
consignee or to the person who has a right to receive them, without
prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738." 1. CIVIL LAW; COMMON CARRIERS; EXTENT OF EXTRAORDINARY
LIABILITY. — Under Article 1738 of the Civil Code "the extraordinary liability
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; STIPULATION LIMITING LIABILITY OF THE COMMON of the common carrier continues to be operative even during the time the
CARRIER FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE OR CARGOES, HELD VALID IN CASE AT BAR. goods are stored in the warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination,
— A stipulation by the parties in the bills of lading issued for the cargoes in until the consignee has been advised of the arrival of the goods and has had
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 reasonable opportunity thereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of Upon arrival of the vessel at Pulupandan in the morning of November
them.'' 18, 1963, the cargoes were discharged, complete and in good order, unto
2. ID.; ID.; NON-LIABILITY FOR LOSS OF GOODS DUE TO FORTUITOUS the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs. At about 2:00 in the afternoon of
EVENT; CASE AT BAR. — It would not be legal and just to hold the carrier the same day, said warehouse was razed by a fire of unknown origin,
liable to the consignee for the loss of the goods, where from the time the destroying appellees cargoes. Before the fire, however, appellee Uy Bico was
goods in question were deposited in the Bureau of Customs' warehouse in able to take delivery of 907 cavans of rice. 2 Appellees' claims for the value
the morning of their arrival up to two o'clock in the afternoon of the same of said goods were rejected by the appellant.
day, when the warehouse was burned, Amparo C. Servando and Clara Uy On the bases of the foregoing facts, the lower court rendered a
Bico, the consignees, had reasonable opportunity to remove the goods. Clara decision, the decretal portion of which reads as follows:
had removed more than one-half of the rice consigned to her. Moreover, the
"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:
shipping company had no more control and responsibility over the goods
after they were deposited in the customs warehouse by the arrastre and "1. In case No. 7354, the defendant is hereby ordered to pay the
stevedoring operator. No amount of extraordinary diligence on the part of plaintiff Amparo C. Servando the aggregate sum of P1,070.50 with
the carrier could have prevented the loss of the goods by fire which was of legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until
accidental origin. The consignee should bear the loss which was due to a fully paid, and to pay the costs.
fortuitous event. "2. In case No. 7428, the defendant is hereby ordered to pay to
plaintiff Clara Uy Bico the aggregate sum of P16,625.00 with legal
interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully
DECISION paid, and to pay the costs."

Article 1736 of the Civil Code imposes upon common carriers the duty
ESCOLIN, J : p
to observe extraordinary diligence from the moment the goods are
unconditionally placed in their possession "until the same are delivered,
This appeal, originally brought to the Court of Appeals, seeks to set actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee or to the person
aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental in Civil who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of Article
Cases Nos. 7354 and 7428, declaring appellant Philippine Steam Navigation 1738."
liable for damages for the loss of the appellees' cargoes as a result of a fire The court a quo held that the delivery of the shipment in question to
which gutted the Bureau of Customs' warehouse in Pulupandan, Negros the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs is not the delivery contemplated by
Occidental. Article 1736; and since the burning of the warehouse occurred before actual
The Court of Appeals certified the case to Us because only pure or constructive delivery of the goods to the appellees, the loss is chargeable
questions of law are raised therein. against the appellant.
The facts culled from the pleadings and the stipulations submitted by It should be pointed out, however, that in the bills of lading issued for
the parties are as follows: the cargoes in question, the parties agreed to limit the responsibility of the
carrier for the loss or damage that may be caused to the shipment by
On November 6, 1963, appellees Clara Uy Bico and Amparo Servando
inserting therein the following stipulation:
loaded on board the appellant's vessel, FS-176, for, carriage from Manila to
Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, the following cargoes, to wit: "Clause 14. Carrier shall not be responsible for loss or damage to
shipments billed 'owner's risk' unless such loss or damage is due to
Clara Uy Bico —
negligence of carrier. Nor shall carrier be responsible for loss or
1,528 cavans of rice valued damage caused by force majeure, dangers or accidents of the sea or
other waters; war; public enemies; . . . fire . . . "
at P40,907.50;
We sustain the validity of the above stipulation; there is nothing therein
Amparo Servando — that is contrary to law, morals or public policy.
44 cartons of colored paper,

toys and general merchandise valued at P1,070.50; Appellees would contend that the above stipulation does not bind them
as evidenced by the corresponding bills of lading issued by the appellant.1 because it was printed in fine letters on the back of the bills of lading; and
that they did not sign the same. This argument overlooks the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 pronouncement of this Court in Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals, promulgated warehouse.
June 29, 1979 3 , where the same issue was resolved in this wise: LibLex
Nor can the appellant or its employees be charged with negligence.
"While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane The storage of the goods in the Customs warehouse pending withdrawal
ticket (Exh. ' 12 '), he is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. thereof by the appellees was undoubtedly made with their knowledge and
'Such provisions have been held to be a part of the contract of consent. Since the warehouse belonged to and was maintained by the
carriage, and valid and binding upon the passenger regardless of the government, it would be unfair to impute negligence to the appellant, the
latter's lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation'. It is what is latter having no control whatsoever over the same. cdrep

known as a contract of 'adhesion', in regards which it has been said

that contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready made The lower court in its decision relied on the ruling laid down in Yu Biao
form of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in the case at bar are Sontua vs. Ossorio 6 , where this Court held the defendant liable for damages
contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract arising from a fire caused by the negligence of the defendant's employees
is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his while loading cases of gasoline and petroleum products. But unlike in the
consent." (Tolentino, Civil Code, Vol. IV, 1962 Ed., p. 462 citing Mr. said case, there is not a shred of proof in the present case that the cause of
Justice J.B.L. Reyes, Lawyer's Journal, Jan. 31, 1951; p. 49). the fire that broke out in the Custom's warehouse was in any way
Besides, the agreement contained in the above quoted Clause 14 is a attributable to the negligence of the appellant or its employees. Under the
mere iteration of the basic principle of law written in Article 1174 of the Civil circumstances, the appellant is plainly not responsible.
Code: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby set aside. No
costs.
"Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or
when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the SO ORDERED.
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
Makasiar, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ.,
responsible for those events which should not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable."
concur.

Thus, where fortuitous event or force majeure is the immediate and

proximate cause of the loss, the obligor is exempt from liability for non- Separate Opinions
performance. The Partidas 4 , the antecedent of Article 1174 of the Civil
Coda, defines 'caso fortuito' as 'an event that takes place by accident and AQUINO, J., concurring:
could not have been foreseen. Examples of this are destruction of houses,
unexpected fire, shipwreck, violence of robbers.' I concur. Under article 1738 of the Civil Code "the extraordinary liability
of the common carrier continues to be operative even during the time the
In its dissertation of the phrase 'caso fortuito' the Enciclopedia goods are stored in the warehouse of the carrier at the place of destination,
Juridicada Española 5 says: "In a legal sense and, consequently, also in until the consignee has been advised of the arrival of the goods and has had
relation to contracts, a 'caso fortuito' presents the following essential reasonable opportunity thereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of
characteristics (1) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, them".
or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be
independent of the human will; (2) it must be impossible to foresee the From the time the goods in question were deposited in the Bureau of
event which constitutes the 'caso fortuito', or if it can be foreseen, it must be Customs' warehouse in the morning of their arrival up to two o'clock in the
impossible to avoid; (3) the occurrence must be such as to render it afternoon of the same day when the warehouse was burned, Amparo C.
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) Servando and Clara Uy Bico, the consignees, had reasonable opportunity to
the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the remove the goods. Clara had removed more than one-half of the rice
injury resulting to the creditor." In the case at bar, the burning of the consigned to her. prcd

customs warehouse was an extraordinary event which happened Moreover, the shipping company had no more control and
independently of the will of the appellant. The latter could not have foreseen responsibility over the goods after they were deposited in the customs
the event. warehouse by the arrastre and stevedoring operator.
There is nothing in the record to show that appellant carrier incurred in No amount of extraordinary diligence on the part of the carrier could
delay in the performance of its obligation. It appears that appellant had not have prevented the loss of the goods by fire which was of accidental origin.
only notified appellees of the arrival of their shipment, out had demanded
Under those circumstances, it would not be legal and just to hold the
that the same be withdrawn. In fact, pursuant to such demand, appellee Uy
carrier liable to the consignees for the loss of the goods. The consignees
Bico had taken delivery of 907 cavans of rice before the burning of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com