Scribd
Upload
552 views1 page

Philippine Home Assurance vs. CA, Et. Al. GR No. 106999

Eastern Shipping Lines loaded cargo onto its ship SS Eastern Explorer bound for Manila and Cebu. While at sea off Okinawa, Japan, a small flame was detected that quickly exploded, killing and injuring crew and setting the superstructure ablaze. The salvaged cargo was transferred to another ship. Eastern Shipping Lines charged additional freight and salvage fees, which PHAC paid under protest on behalf of the consignees. PHAC sued Eastern Shipping Lines to recover the paid fees, arguing they resulted from Eastern Shipping Lines' negligence. The court ruled fire does not qualify as an act of God unless caused by lightning or natural disaster, and the evidence indicated the fire started due to negligent storage of an acetylene cylinder near

Uploaded by

Evander Arcenal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
552 views1 page

Philippine Home Assurance vs. CA, Et. Al. GR No. 106999

Eastern Shipping Lines loaded cargo onto its ship SS Eastern Explorer bound for Manila and Cebu. While at sea off Okinawa, Japan, a small flame was detected that quickly exploded, killing and injuring crew and setting the superstructure ablaze. The salvaged cargo was transferred to another ship. Eastern Shipping Lines charged additional freight and salvage fees, which PHAC paid under protest on behalf of the consignees. PHAC sued Eastern Shipping Lines to recover the paid fees, arguing they resulted from Eastern Shipping Lines' negligence. The court ruled fire does not qualify as an act of God unless caused by lightning or natural disaster, and the evidence indicated the fire started due to negligent storage of an acetylene cylinder near

Uploaded by

Evander Arcenal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PHIL. HOME ASSURANCE (PHAC) vs. Court of Appeals et al.

GR No. 106999; June 20, 1996


FACTS
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. (ESLI) loaded on board its SS Eastern Explorer, shipments for
carriage to Manila and Cebu, consigned to William Lines, Inc., and Ding Velayo under their
respective Bills of Lading.
While the vessel was off Okinawa, Japan, a small flame was detected and suddenly exploded
thus causing death and severe injuries to the crew and instantly setting fire to the whole
superstructure of the vessel. The cargoes which were saved were loaded to another vessel. ESLI
charged the consignees several amounts corresponding to additional freight and salvage charges.
The charges were all paid by PHAC under protest for and in behalf of the consignees. PHAC
thereafter filed a complaint against ESLI to recover the sum paid under protest on the ground that
the same were actually damages directly brought about by the fault, negligence, illegal act and/or
breach of contract of ESLI.

ISSUE
Whether or not the carrier is liable for the loss, damage, or deterioration of the goods transported
by them

RULING
Fire may not be considered a natural disaster or calamity since it almost always arises from some
act of man or by human means. It cannot be an act of God unless caused by lightning or a natural
disaster or casualty not attributable to human agency.
In the case at bar, it is not disputed that a small flame was detected and the same exploded
despite efforts to extinguish the fire. Neither is there any doubt that the acetylene cylinder,
obviously fully loaded, was stored in the accommodation area near the engine room and not in a
storage area considerably far, and in a safe distance, from the engine room. Moreover, there was
no showing, and none was alleged by the parties, that the fire was caused by a natural disaster or
calamity not attributable to human agency. On the contrary, there is strong evidence indicating
that the acetylene cylinder caught fire because of the fault and negligence of respondent ESLI, its
captain and its crew.
Prescinding from the foregoing premises, it indubitably follows that the cargo consignees cannot
be made liable to respondent carrier for additional freight and salvage charges. Consequently,
respondent carrier must refund to herein petitioner the amount it paid under protest for additional
freight and salvage charges in behalf of the consignees.

You might also like