In a contract of carriage, common carriers bear the responsibility to exercise extraordinary diligence in safeguarding the goods entrusted to them. This standard holds them accountable for losses unless such losses are caused by specific, enumerated exceptions. Annie Tan v. Great Harvest Enterprises, Inc. emphasizes this duty, clarifying that carriers are liable for cargo lost due to theft if they fail to demonstrate such extraordinary diligence. This includes taking measures such as vetting employees, providing security for goods, and obtaining insurance coverage.

The Case of the Missing Soya Beans: Who Bears the Risk?

This case arose from a contract between Great Harvest Enterprises, Inc. and Annie Tan, a common carrier, for the transport of soya beans. The beans were stolen during transit, leading to a dispute over liability. The central legal question was whether Tan, as the common carrier, was responsible for the loss, considering her duties and the circumstances surrounding the theft. This decision hinged on whether the carrier exercised the required extraordinary diligence and whether the loss fell under any exceptions to liability.

The facts of the case reveal that Great Harvest hired Tan to transport 430 bags of soya beans from Tacoma Integrated Port Services, Inc. to Selecta Feeds. However, the shipment was rejected at Selecta Feeds, and Great Harvest instructed Tan’s employee to deliver the soya beans to its warehouse in Malabon. The truck and its shipment never reached the warehouse. This initiated a series of investigations and legal actions to determine liability for the lost goods.

The lower courts found that Tan had entered into a verbal contract of hauling with Great Harvest, making her responsible for the driver’s failure to deliver the soya beans. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the cargo loss was due to Tan’s failure to exercise extraordinary diligence as a common carrier. Tan argued that the theft constituted a fortuitous event, relieving her of liability; however, this argument was rejected by the courts. The Supreme Court was tasked to resolve whether Annie Tan should be held liable for the value of the stolen soya beans, anchoring its decision on the principles governing common carriers under the Civil Code.

Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as entities engaged in the business of transporting goods or passengers for compensation, offering their services to the public. The degree of diligence required of common carriers is outlined in Articles 1733, 1755, and 1756:

ARTICLE 1733. 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.

This extraordinary diligence reflects the public policy of ensuring allocative efficiency and minimizing the inherent power imbalance between carriers and their clients. This is because customers surrender total control of their goods to common carriers, fully trusting that the latter will safely and timely deliver them to their destination. In light of this inherently inequitable dynamics the law is constrained to intervene and impose sanctions on common carriers for the parties to achieve allocative efficiency.

Furthermore, as stated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code, a common carrier is fully responsible for the goods entrusted to him or her, unless there is enough evidence to show that the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods falls under any of the enumerated exceptions:

ARTICLE 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:

1. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
2. Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
3. Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
4. The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
5. Order or act of competent public authority.

The Supreme Court emphasized that Tan, as a common carrier, was obligated to exercise extraordinary diligence over the soya beans. Her responsibility began from the moment she received the goods and would only cease upon delivery to the consignee or another authorized recipient. Since none of the exceptions under Article 1734 applied, Tan remained liable for the loss.

Tan’s defense rested on the argument that her contract of carriage was limited to delivering the soya beans to Selecta Feeds. She claimed that once Selecta Feeds rejected the delivery, her obligation ceased, and she directed her driver to return the shipment to the loading point. However, Great Harvest refuted this, asserting that their standing agreement was to deliver the shipment to Great Harvest’s nearest warehouse in case of rejection. The trial court sided with Great Harvest, finding their witness’s testimony more credible, and the Court of Appeals upheld this assessment. This agreement was crucial in determining that Tan’s responsibility extended beyond the initial delivery point.

The Court distinguished this case from De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, where the common carrier was absolved of liability because the goods were stolen by robbers who used “grave or irresistible threat, violence[,] or force” to hijack the goods. In the case at hand, the loss of the soya beans was not attended by such force or threat. Instead, it resulted from Tan’s failure to exercise extraordinary diligence. The Supreme Court noted that Tan failed to vet her driver, provide security for the cargo, or take out insurance on the shipment’s value, thus falling short of the required standard of care.

The Court stated:

Besides, as the records would show, appellant did not observe extra-ordinary (sic) diligence in the conduct of her business as a common carrier. In breach of their agreement, appellant did not provide security while the goods were in transit and she also did not pay for the insurance coverage of said goods. These measures could have prevented the hijacking (sic) or could have ensured the payment of the damages sustained by the appellee.

Given these findings, the Supreme Court denied Tan’s petition. The decision affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, holding Tan liable for the value of the stolen soya beans. The ruling underscored the importance of common carriers fulfilling their duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in protecting the goods entrusted to them.

The economic rationale behind this requirement lies in the inherent nature of the business. Common carriers operate as a public service, where they assume responsibility for the safe transport of goods. By holding them to a high standard of care, the law ensures that they internalize the costs associated with potential losses. The law imposes sanctions on common carriers to ensure fairness and efficiency in the allocation of risk and responsibility between parties involved in the contract of carriage.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a common carrier, Annie Tan, should be held liable for the value of soya beans stolen during transit due to a failure to exercise extraordinary diligence.
What does extraordinary diligence mean for common carriers?	Extraordinary diligence requires common carriers to take exceptional precautions in safeguarding goods, including vetting employees, providing security, and obtaining insurance coverage. This is to prevent losses and ensure compensation if losses occur.
Why are common carriers held to such a high standard of care?	Common carriers are held to a high standard of care due to the nature of their business, which involves a public service. The law aims to ensure fairness and efficiency in allocating risk between carriers and their clients.
What are the exceptions to a common carrier’s liability for lost goods?	A common carrier is not liable if the loss is due to natural disasters, acts of war, actions of the shipper, the nature of the goods, or orders from public authorities. The carrier must prove that the loss was due to one of these causes.
How did the Court distinguish this case from De Guzman v. Court of Appeals?	In De Guzman, the loss was due to armed robbery with grave threat, which was considered a fortuitous event. In this case, the loss was due to the carrier’s failure to take necessary precautions, making it a case of negligence rather than a fortuitous event.
What evidence supported the finding that Tan was liable?	The testimony of Great Harvest’s witness, Cynthia Chua, and the evidence that Tan did not provide security or insurance for the goods supported the finding of liability. This indicated a lack of extraordinary diligence.
What was the outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court denied Annie Tan’s petition and held her liable for the value of the stolen soya beans, along with interest and attorney’s fees.
What is the significance of this ruling for businesses that hire common carriers?	This ruling emphasizes the importance of common carriers exercising extraordinary diligence and fulfilling their duty to protect entrusted goods. Businesses should ensure their carriers are adequately insured and take proper security measures.

This case serves as a reminder of the high standard of care required of common carriers under Philippine law. It highlights the importance of taking proactive measures to protect goods during transit and underscores the potential liability for failing to do so. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the necessity of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods, ensuring that carriers are held accountable for losses that could have been prevented.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Annie Tan v. Great Harvest Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 220400, March 20, 2019