Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > January 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6195 January 17, 1911 - N.T. HASHIM and CO. v. ROCHA and CO.

018 Phil 315:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6195. January 17, 1911.]

N.T. HASHIM and CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCHA and CO., Defendant-Appellee.

O’Brien and De Witt, for Appellant.

Chicote and Miranda, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. NEGLIGENCE; DAMAGES. — The defendant company discharged a part of a large shipment of potatoes into a lorcha, which was then left for two days in the sum, tightly closed and without ventilation. At the same time several thousand crates of potatoes from the same shipment were discharged into numerous cascos. The latter were delivered in the usual condition under the circumstances, but those in the lorcha were rotted and of no use of value. Held, That the defendant was guilty of gross negligence with respect to the car of the potatoes on board the lorcha and is liable for the loss resulting therefrom.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J.:


There is presented in this appeal simply a question of fact. A careful study of the evidence presented on the trial leads us to the conclusion that the judgment should be reversed. We are of the opinion that it is against the great preponderance of the evidence. That the lorcha containing the potatoes, the value of which is in controversy, was left for two days in the hot sun, tightly closed and without ventilation, was due entirely to the wrongful acts and to the gross carelessness of the employees by the evidence. The captain of the ship from which the potatoes were being discharged, the first officer of the same, and the customs inspector who was stationed on board thereof during the discharge of its cargo, and other witnesses, demonstrate this fact beyond a reasonable doubt. That the potatoes, when discharged from the vessel into the lorcha, were in good condition, is demonstrated with equal conclusiveness. This is shown not only by the testimony of the witnesses above mentioned, but by all the circumstances of the case. In addition to the potatoes discharged into the lorcha, there had been discharged into numerous cascos several thousand crates of potatoes from the same ship and from the same hold at the same time. It has been shown by uncontradicted proof that all of the potatoes, except those found in the lorcha, were in good condition at the time of their discharge. Only those in the lorcha, after two days of exposure to the heat of the sun, in tightly closed compartments, without ventilation, were found to be rotted beyond use or value. From the evidence we are satisfied that the potatoes in question when discharged from the ship into the lorcha were in good condition. That such was the case is demonstrated from the evidence beyond cavil or question. The only witness who seriously questions that fact is the witness Villanueva, who was an employee of the plaintiff on board the vessel at the time the potatoes were discharged into the lorcha, and was shortly afterwards discharged the plaintiff. He testified that when so discharged they were so badly rotted as to be without value. Yet we find that this same witness, when he made a written report to the plaintiff, his employer, as to the condition of the potatoes when discharged, therein stated concerning the condition of those potatoes that out of the 1,085 crates so discharged into the lorcha only 54 crates were in bad condition and a few were damp. The condition of the potatoes thus described by the written report which he at the time made to his employer describes a condition usual with potatoes at that time of the year and about the same as that of the potatoes discharged into the cascos.

It has been shown by the evidence that the worthless and rotted potatoes of this cargo constituted about 5 per cent of the whole. This seems from the evidence to be the usual loss sustained in the transportation of potatoes at that season of the year. Gross negligence of the defendant in the handling and care of these potatoes being conclusively demonstrated by the proofs, he should pay to the plaintiff the value of those lost by such negligence. The value of the potatoes proved upon the trial was P3.75 a crate, amounting in all to P4,068.75. Deducting 5 per cent of this sum for the general loss on the whole cargo, there remains a balance of P3,865.31.

The judgment is reversed and a judgment is hereby given against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P3,865.31, with costs of this appeal. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5346 January 3, 1911 - W. W. ROBINSON v. MARCELINO R. VILLAFUERTE

    018 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-5893 January 3, 1911 - RUPERTO SALVA v. ADRIANA SALVADOR

    018 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-5542 January 4, 1911 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACLOBAN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    018 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-6071 January 4, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA BLANCO

    018 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-6188 January 4, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS CASTAÑARES

    018 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 6246 January 4, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE VILLANUEVA

    018 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-4860 January 7, 1911 - AGAPITO HINLO v. SATURNINA DE LEON, ET AL.

    018 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. L-5140 January 7, 1911 - DIONISIA VELASQUEZ v. FRANCISCO BIALA

    018 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-5740 January 7, 1911 - IGNACIO ARROYO v. CARMEN YULO, ET AL.

    018 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. L-5778 January 7, 1911 - BAER SENIOR and CO’S. SUCCESSORS v. FRANCISCO MENDOZA

    018 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-6089 January 7, 1911 - ROMAN AYLES v. NEMESIO REYES

    018 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-6147 January 7, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

    018 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-6313 January 9, 1911 - MACARIO ARNEDO v. JULIO LLORENTE, ET AL.

    018 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-5005 January 11, 1911 - CELSO DAYRIT v. JUAN DE LOS SANTOS

    018 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-6058 January 11, 1911 - DOMINGO FLORENTINO v. JOSE CORTES

    018 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. L-5797 January 13, 1911 - MARCELO DE LA CRUZ v. NICOLAS NIÑO, ET AL.

    018 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-5801 January 13, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISAAC WILLIAMS

    018 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. L-6195 January 17, 1911 - N.T. HASHIM and CO. v. ROCHA and CO.

    018 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 6230 January 18, 1911 - A. R. HAGER v. ALBERT J. BRYAN

    021 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. L-5531 January 19, 1911 - CORDOBA y CONDE v. CASTLE BROTHERS, ET AL.

    018 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-6052 January 23, 1911 - C. W. MEAD v. CHARLES SMITH, ET AL.

    018 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-6176 January 27, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN GORME

    018 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-4916 January 28, 1911 - LAO-SIMBIENG v. MARIA PALENCIA

    018 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-5402 January 28, 1911 - CAYETANO DE LA CRUZ v. EL SEMINARIO DE LA ARCHDIOCESES DE MANILA, ET AL.

    018 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-5861 January 28, 1911 - ESTEBAN FABROS v. JUAN VILLA AGUSTIN, ET AL.

    018 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. L-6252 January 28, 1911 - GEORGE O. DIETRICH v. O.K. FREEMAN, ET AL.

    018 Phil 341

  • G.R. No. L-6228 January 30, 1911 - ORTIGA BROTHERS AND CO. v. FRANCISCO ENAGE, ET AL.

    018 Phil 345