When Human Negligence, Not ‘Acts of God,’ Cause Shipping Disasters

G.R. No. 106999, June 20, 1996

Imagine your business depends on timely shipments of goods. What happens when a fire breaks out on the ship, and you’re hit with unexpected salvage and freight charges? This case, Philippine Home Assurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., clarifies when a shipping company is liable for damages and expenses incurred due to incidents at sea. It emphasizes that carriers can’t simply claim ‘acts of God’ to escape responsibility when human negligence is involved.

Legal Context: Common Carriers and Due Diligence

Common carriers, like Eastern Shipping Lines, are businesses that transport goods or passengers for a fee. Philippine law imposes a high standard of care on these carriers. They are bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods they transport. This means they must take exceptional precautions to prevent loss, destruction, or deterioration of the cargo.

Article 1733 of the Civil Code states:

“Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.”

However, common carriers are not absolute insurers. They are not liable for losses caused by events that are considered ‘fortuitous events,’ or acts of God. But, to claim this exemption, the carrier must prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence and that the damage was solely due to the fortuitous event.

For example, if a ship is damaged by a sudden, unexpected typhoon despite all reasonable precautions taken by the crew, the carrier might be excused from liability. But if the damage is due to a fire caused by improperly stored hazardous materials, the carrier is likely to be held responsible.

Case Breakdown: The Burning of the SS Eastern Explorer

Here’s what happened in this case:

• Eastern Shipping Lines (ESLI) was transporting various goods from Japan to the Philippines.
• A fire broke out on the SS Eastern Explorer due to an exploding acetylene cylinder stored near the engine room.
• The ship was severely damaged, and the voyage was abandoned.
• The cargo was salvaged and delivered to the consignees, but ESLI charged them additional freight and salvage costs.
• Philippine Home Assurance Corporation (PHAC), the insurer of the goods, paid these charges under protest and then sued ESLI to recover the money.

The trial court initially ruled in favor of ESLI, stating that the fire was a ‘natural disaster’ and that ESLI had exercised due diligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. However, the Supreme Court reversed these rulings. The Supreme Court found that the fire was not a natural disaster but resulted from ESLI’s negligence. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The acetylene cylinder should not have been stored near the engine room.
• Storing the cylinder in the accommodation area exposed passengers to unnecessary risk.
• The fact that the cylinder was certified safe before loading doesn’t excuse negligence in its handling onboard.

The Supreme Court quoted:

“In our jurisprudence, 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.”

The Court also ruled that the expenses incurred in saving the cargo did not qualify as ‘general average’ because ESLI failed to comply with the required formalities under the Code of Commerce. General average refers to losses that are deliberately incurred to save the vessel and cargo from a common peril. For example, throwing cargo overboard to lighten a sinking ship is a general average act. The Court then stated:

“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 consignee.”

Therefore, ESLI was ordered to refund the amounts paid by PHAC.

Practical Implications: What This Means for Shippers and Carriers

This case serves as a reminder that common carriers cannot avoid liability by simply claiming ‘acts of God.’ They must demonstrate that they exercised extraordinary diligence and that the damage was truly beyond their control. Shippers need to be aware of their rights and should not automatically assume liability for additional charges when cargo is damaged or delayed.

Key Lessons:

• Extraordinary Diligence: Carriers must prove they took all reasonable precautions to prevent damage.
• Burden of Proof: The carrier bears the burden of proving that the damage was due to a fortuitous event and not their negligence.
• Proper Storage: Hazardous materials must be stored safely and securely.
• Documentation: Carriers must comply with all legal formalities for claiming general average.

For example, consider a shipment of electronics damaged by water due to a leaky roof in the carrier’s warehouse. The carrier cannot claim ‘act of God’ if they failed to maintain the warehouse properly. They would likely be held liable for the damage.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What is a common carrier?

A: A common carrier is a person or company that transports goods or passengers for a fee. Examples include shipping lines, airlines, and trucking companies.

Q: What is extraordinary diligence?

A: Extraordinary diligence is a high standard of care that requires carriers to take exceptional precautions to prevent loss or damage to cargo.

Q: What is a fortuitous event or ‘act of God’?

A: A fortuitous event is an event that is unforeseen, unavoidable, and independent of human will. Examples include natural disasters like earthquakes and typhoons.

Q: What is ‘general average’?

A: General average refers to losses that are deliberately incurred to save the vessel and cargo from a common peril. The expenses are shared proportionally by all parties with an interest in the voyage.

Q: How do I prove negligence on the part of a carrier?

A: You can prove negligence by presenting evidence that the carrier failed to exercise extraordinary diligence, such as improper storage, inadequate maintenance, or violation of safety regulations.

Q: What should I do if my cargo is damaged during shipment?

A: Document the damage, notify the carrier immediately, and consult with a lawyer to understand your rights and options.

Q: Am I always responsible for salvage charges?

A: Not necessarily. If the salvage operation was necessitated by the carrier’s negligence, you may not be liable for the charges.

Q: What is a marine protest?

A: A marine protest is a formal declaration made by the master of a vessel regarding an incident that occurred during a voyage. It is used to protect the carrier from liability.

ASG Law specializes in shipping and transportation law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.