G.R. No. 185565 . April 26, 2017
LOADSTAR SHIPPING COMPANY, INC. AND LOADSTAR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., PETITIONERS, V. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case involves a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. Malayan, as subrogee of the insured consignee PASAR, sought to recover damages from petitioner Loadstar Shipping for contaminated copper concentrates shipped aboard M/V Bobcat. The Court’s Decision dated November 26, 2014, had granted Loadstar’s petition, reversing lower court rulings that held Loadstar liable. The ponencia found that while the cargo was contaminated with seawater, the subsequent repurchase of the damaged cargo by PASAR from Malayan for US$90,000 indicated the loss was not total, and Malayan failed to sufficiently prove the actual amount of loss for which it indemnified PASAR.
Justice Peralta, in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, disagrees with this conclusion. He emphasizes that the Court of Appeals correctly found Loadstar to be a common carrier that breached its contract of affreightment and failed to prove it exercised extraordinary diligence or that the damage was due to a calamity. The evidence, including a final adjustment report from independent surveyor Elite, established that 777.29 wet metric tons were damaged, with a recommended insured value payment of over P32 million. The repurchase at a drastically lower price demonstrates significant depreciation, not the absence of damage.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held petitioners liable as common carriers for the damaged cargo, and whether respondent sufficiently proved the actual damages incurred.

RULING

Justice Peralta votes to grant the Motion for Reconsideration and hold petitioners liable. The legal logic is anchored on the applicable provisions and presumptions governing common carriers. Under Articles 1732, 1733, and 1735 of the Civil Code, petitioners are common carriers bound to observe extraordinary diligence. Since the cargo was damaged, a presumption of negligence arises, shifting the burden to petitioners to prove they exercised such diligence or that the loss was due to an excepted cause. The CA correctly found petitioners failed to meet this burden, as they did not present evidence, such as crew testimony, to prove a natural calamity exculpating them.
Contrary to the ponencia’s view, the repurchase of the cargo by PASAR for US$90,000 does not negate liability but instead quantifies the residual value after severe damage, confirming a substantial loss. The Elite survey report is competent evidence of the damage and its valuation. Following precedent, such independent adjuster reports are sufficient to establish actual damages. Therefore, the CA did not err in awarding actual damages, adjusted by the cargo’s residual value. Justice Peralta concludes that the loss from the significant diminution in value should be borne by the negligent carrier.