Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. v. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 194121, (July 11, 2016), 789 PHIL 413-429

Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. v. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No.
194121, [July
11, 2016], 789 PHIL 413-429
FACTS:
On October 7, 2000, a shipment of various electronic goods from Thailand and Malaysia arrived
at the Port of Manila for Sony Philippines, Inc. (Sony).
Sony had engaged the services of TMBI to facilitate, process, withdraw, and deliver the
shipment from the port to its warehouse in Binan, Laguna.
TMBI did not own any delivery trucks - subcontracted the services of Benjamin Manalastas'
company, BMT Trucking Services (BMT), to transport the shipment from the port to the Binan
warehouse.3 Incidentally, TMBI notified Sony who had no objections to the arrangement.
Four BMT trucks picked up the shipment from the port at about 11:00 a.m. of October 7, 2000.
However, BMT could not immediately undertake the delivery because of the truck ban and
because the following day was a Sunday. Thus, BMT scheduled the delivery on October 9, 2000.
In the early morning of October 9, 2000, the four trucks left BMT's garage for
Laguna.5 However, only three trucks arrived at Sony's Binan warehouse.
At around 12:00 noon, the truck driven by Rufo Reynaldo Lapesura (NSF-391) was found
abandoned along the Diversion Road in Filinvest, Alabang, Muntinlupa City.6 Both the driver and
the shipment were missing.
TMBI General Manager Victor Torres also filed a complaint with the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) against Lapesura for "hijacking."
Insurer Mitsui paid Sony PHP7,293,386.23 corresponding to the value of the lost goods.
ISSUE:
1. Is TBMI/BMT a common carrier?

2. Is the hijacking a fortuitous event?
HELD:
1. a customs broker - whose principal business is the preparation of the correct customs
declaration and the proper shipping documents - is still considered a common carrier if
it also undertakes to deliver the goods for its customers. The law does not distinguish
between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of goods and one who
undertakes this task only as an ancillary activity.
2. 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 for the transport of goods as
a business, it is considered a common carrier regardless of whether it owns the vehicle
used or has to actually hire one.
3. TMBI's customs brokerage services - including the transport/delivery of the cargo - are
available to anyone willing to pay its fees. Given these circumstances, we find it
undeniable that TMBI is a common carrier.
4. TMBI should be held responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods
it transports unless it results from:
(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 of 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.
5. the theft or the robbery of the goods is not considered a fortuitous event or a force
majeure. a common carrier may absolve itself of liability for a resulting loss: (1) if it
proves that it exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting and safekeeping the
goods; or (2) if it stipulated with the 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.
6. a 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.
7. Article 1745 to mean that a robbery attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence
or force" is a fortuitous event that absolves the common carrier from liability.
8. TMBI's liability to Mitsui does not stem from a quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) but from its
breach of contract (culpa contractual). The tie that binds TMBI with Mitsui is
contractual, albeit one that passed on to Mitsui. The legal reality that results from this
contractual tie precludes the application of quasi-delict based Article 2194.
9. TMBI is liable to Sony (subrogated by Mitsui) for breaching the contract of carriage. In
turn, TMBI is entitled to reimbursement from BMT due to the latter's own breach of its
contract of carriage with TMBI. The proverbial buck stops with BMT who may either: (a)
absorb the loss, or (b) proceed after its missing driver, the suspected culprit, pursuant to
Article 2181.

Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. v. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 194121, (July 11, 2016), 789 PHIL 413-429

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

Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. v. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 194121, (July 11, 2016), 789 PHIL 413-429

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. v. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No.

Insurer Mitsui paid Sony PHP7,293,386.23 corresponding to the value of the lost goods.

1. Is TBMI/BMT a common carrier?

You might also like