Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    Saludo Jr. Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    jdg jdg
    The court held that: [1] A common carrier's extraordinary responsibility begins only upon delivery of the goods to the carrier, as explicitly stated in Article 1736 of the Civil Code. [2] For the carrier's duty to commence, there must be an actual delivery of the cargo that is the subject of the contract of carriage. [3] In this case, the facts show that the body was not delivered to the carrier on October 26, 1976 as claimed. Rather, the carrier took possession and control of the body on October 28, 1976. Therefore, the carrier's responsibility began from that date only, and they cannot be held liable for events prior to the actual delivery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Saludo Jr. Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    jdg jdg
    67 views3 pages
    The court held that: [1] A common carrier's extraordinary responsibility begins only upon delivery of the goods to the carrier, as explicitly stated in Article 1736 of the Civil Code. [2] For the carrier's duty to commence, there must be an actual delivery of the cargo that is the subject of the contract of carriage. [3] In this case, the facts show that the body was not delivered to the carrier on October 26, 1976 as claimed. Rather, the carrier took possession and control of the body on October 28, 1976. Therefore, the carrier's responsibility began from that date only, and they cannot be held liable for events prior to the actual delivery.

    Original Title

    38. Saludo Jr. vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court held that: [1] A common carrier's extraordinary responsibility begins only upon delivery of the goods to the carrier, as explicitly stated in Article 1736 of the Civil Code. [2] For the carrier's duty to commence, there must be an actual delivery of the cargo that is the subject of the contract of carriage. [3] In this case, the facts show that the body was not delivered to the carrier on October 26, 1976 as claimed. Rather, the carrier took possession and control of the body on October 28, 1976. Therefore, the carrier's responsibility began from that date only, and they cannot be held liable for events prior to the actual delivery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views3 pages

    Saludo Jr. Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    jdg jdg
    The court held that: [1] A common carrier's extraordinary responsibility begins only upon delivery of the goods to the carrier, as explicitly stated in Article 1736 of the Civil Code. [2] For the carrier's duty to commence, there must be an actual delivery of the cargo that is the subject of the contract of carriage. [3] In this case, the facts show that the body was not delivered to the carrier on October 26, 1976 as claimed. Rather, the carrier took possession and control of the body on October 28, 1976. Therefore, the carrier's responsibility began from that date only, and they cannot be held liable for events prior to the actual delivery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    38.

    G.R. No. 95536 March 23, 1992


    Saludo Jr. Vs CA

    Legal Concepts/Definitions:

    1. The hornbook rule on interpretation of contracts consecrates the primacy of the


    intention of the parties, the same having the force of law between them. When the
    terms of the agreement are clear and explicit, that they do not justify an attempt to read
    into any alleged intention of the parties, the terms are to be understood literally just as
    they appear on the face of the contract.
    2. Undertaking of a common carrier- A common carrier undertaking to transport property
    has the implicit duty to carry and deliver it within reasonable time, absent any particular
    stipulation regarding time of delivery, and to guard against delay. In case of any
    unreasonable delay, the carrier shall be liable for damages immediately and proximately
    resulting from such neglect of duty.
    3. A bill of lading is a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the goods and an
    agreement to transport and deliver them at a specified place to a person named or on
    his order. Such instrument may be called a shipping receipt, forwarder's receipt and
    receipt for transportation.
    4. The oft-repeated rule regarding a carrier's liability for delay is that in the absence of a
    special contract, a carrier is not an insurer against delay in transportation of goods.
    When a common carrier undertakes to convey goods, the law implies a contract that
    they shall be delivered at destination within a reasonable time, in the absence, of any
    agreement as to the time of delivery.  But where a carrier has made an express contract
    to transport and deliver property within a specified time, it is bound to fulfill its contract
    and is liable for any delay, no matter from what cause it may have arisen. 
    5. A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other
    contractual relation, and generates a relation attended with public duty. The operation
    of a common carrier is a business affected with public interest and must be directed to
    serve the comfort and convenience of passengers.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the duty of common carrier to observe extraordinary diligence already started
    even if they did not yet received the thing to be delivered

    Facts:

    After the death of plaintiffs' mother, in Chicago Illinois, Pomierski and Son Funeral Home of
    Chicago, made the necessary preparations and arrangements for the shipment, of the remains
    from Chicago to the Philippines. Pomierski brought the remains to C.M.A.S. (Continental
    Mortuary Air Services) at the airport (Chicago) which made the necessary arrangements such as
    flights, transfers, etc. C.M.A.S. booked the shipment with PAL thru the carrier's agent Air Care
    International, with Pomierski F.H. as the shipper and Mario (Maria) Saludo as the consignee.
    PAL Airway Bill No. 079-01180454 Ordinary was issued wherein the requested routing was from
    Chicago to San Francisco on board TWA Flight 131 of October 27, 1976 and from San Francisco
    to Manila on board PAL Flight No. 107 of the same date, and from Manila to Cebu on board PAL
    Flight 149.

    The remains (of Crispina Saludo) were taken to CMAS at the airport; that there were two bodies
    at the (Chicago Airport) terminal, and somehow they were switched, that the remains (of
    Crispina Saludo) were on a plane to Mexico City. The following day, the shipment or remains of
    Crispina Saludo arrived (in) San Francisco from Mexico on board American Airlines. This
    shipment was transferred to or received by PAL at 1945H or 7:45 p.m. This casket bearing the
    remains of Crispina Saludo, which was mistakenly sent to Mexico and was opened (there), was
    resealed by Crispin F. Patagas for shipment to the Philippines

    Held: NO

    Explicit is the rule under Article 1736 of the Civil Code that the extraordinary responsibility of
    the common carrier begins from the time the goods are delivered to the carrier. This
    responsibility remains in full force and effect even when they are temporarily unloaded or
    stored in transit, unless the shipper or owner exercises the right of stoppage in transitu, 29 and
    terminates only after the lapse of a reasonable time for the acceptance, of the goods by the
    consignee or such other person entitled to receive them. 30 And, there is delivery to the carrier
    when the goods are ready for and have been placed in the exclusive possession, custody and
    control of the carrier for the purpose of their immediate transportation and the carrier has
    accepted them. 31 Where such a delivery has thus been accepted by the carrier, the liability of
    the common carrier commences eo instanti. 32

    Hence, while we agree with petitioners that the extraordinary diligence statutorily required to
    be observed by the carrier instantaneously commences upon delivery of the goods thereto, for
    such duty to commence there must in fact have been delivery of the cargo subject of the
    contract of carriage. Only when such fact of delivery has been unequivocally established can
    the liability for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods in the custody of the carrier, absent
    the excepting causes under Article 1734, attach and the presumption of fault of the carrier
    under Article 1735 be invoked.

    As already demonstrated, the facts in the case at bar belie the averment that there was delivery
    of the cargo to the carrier on October 26, 1976. Rather, as earlier explained, the body intended
    to be shipped as agreed upon was really placed in the possession and control of PAL on October
    28, 1976 and it was from that date that private respondents became responsible for the agreed
    cargo under their undertakings in PAL Airway Bill No. 079-01180454. Consequently, for the
    switching of caskets prior thereto which was not caused by them, and subsequent events
    caused thereby, private respondents cannot be held liable.

    You might also like