LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs.
GLODEL BROKERAGE
CORPORATION and R&B INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondents.
2011-01-10 | G.R. No. 179446
MENDOZA, J.:
R&B Insurance issued Marine Policy in favor of Columbia to insure the shipment of 132 bundles of electric
copper cathodes against All Risks. The cargoes were shipped on board the vessel. They arrived on the same
date. Columbia engaged the services of Glodel for the release and withdrawal of the cargoes from the pier
and the subsequent delivery to its warehouses/plants. Glodel, in turn, engaged the services of Loadmasters
for the use of its delivery trucks to transport the cargoes to Columbia’s warehouses/plants in Bulacan and
Valenzuela City.
The goods were loaded on board twelve (12) trucks owned by Loadmasters, driven by its employed drivers
and accompanied by its employed truck helpers. Six (6) truckloads of copper cathodes were to be delivered to
Bulacan, while the other six (6) truckloads were destined to Valenzuela City. The cargoes in six truckloads for
Valenzuela were duly delivered in Columbia’s warehouses there. Of the six (6) trucks en route to Bulacan,
only five (5) reached the destination. One (1) truck failed to deliver its cargo.
Later on, the said truck was recovered but without the copper cathodes. Because of this incident, Columbia
filed with R&B Insurance a claim for insurance indemnity. R&B Insurance paid Columbia the insurance
indemnity. R&B Insurance, thereafter, filed a complaint for damages against both Loadmasters and Glodel. It
sought reimbursement of the amount it had paid to Columbia for the loss of the subject cargo. It claimed that it
had been subrogated "to the right of the consignee to recover from the party/parties who may be held legally
liable for the loss."
The RTC rendered a decision holding Glodel liable for damages for the loss of the subject cargo and
dismissing Loadmasters’ counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees against R&B Insurance.
Both R&B Insurance and Glodel appealed the RTC decision to the CA. The CA rendered the assailed
decision: considering that appellee is an agent of appellant Glodel, whatever liability the latter owes to
appellant R&B Insurance Corporation as insurance indemnity must likewise be the amount it shall be paid by
appellee Loadmasters.
Issue
Whether Glodel and Loadmaster shall be held jointly and severally liable
Ruling
Yes, Glodel is jointly and severally liable.
The Supreme Court held that both Loadmasters and Glodel are jointly and severally liable to R & B Insurance
for the loss of the subject cargo. Under Article 2194 of the New Civil Code, "the responsibility of two or more
persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary." Loadmasters’ claim that it was never privy to the contract
entered into by Glodel with the consignee Columbia or R&B Insurance as subrogee, is not a valid defense. It
may not have a direct contractual relation with Columbia, but it is liable for tort under the provisions of Article
2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts which expressly provide:
ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged
to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
In connection therewith, Article 2180 provides:
ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions,
but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused
by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry.
It is not disputed that the subject cargo was lost while in the custody of Loadmasters whose employees (truck
driver and helper) were instrumental in the hijacking or robbery of the shipment. As employer, Loadmasters
should be made answerable for the damages caused by its employees who acted within the scope of their
assigned task of delivering the goods safely to the warehouse.
Whenever an employee’s negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a
presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection (
culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its employees. To avoid liability for a quasi-delict
committed by its employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof that
he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his
employee. In this regard, Loadmasters failed.
Glodel is also liable because of its failure to exercise extraordinary diligence. It failed to ensure that
Loadmasters would fully comply with the undertaking to safely transport the subject cargo to the designated
destination. It should have been more prudent in entrusting the goods to Loadmasters by taking precautionary
measures, such as providing escorts to accompany the trucks in delivering the cargoes. Glodel should,
therefore, be held liable with Loadmasters. Its defense of force majeure is unavailing.
Each wrongdoer is liable for the total damage suffered by R&B Insurance. Where there are several causes for
the resulting damages, a party is not relieved from liability, even partially. It is sufficient that the negligence of
a party is an efficient cause without which the damage would not have resulted. It is no defense to one of the
concurrent tortfeasors that the damage would not have resulted from his negligence alone, without the
negligence or wrongful acts of the other concurrent tortfeasor.
