NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. CA, 283 SCRA 45, December 12, 1997. A TRANSPORTATION CASE. BY C Y.

NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. CA 283 SCRA 45, December 12, 1997

Panganiban, J.

FACTS:

1. On July 17, 1974, plaintiff National Steel Corporation (NSC) as Charterer and defendant Vlasons Shipping, Inc. (VSI) as Owner, entered into a Contract
of Voyage Charter Hire whereby NSC hired VSI's vessel, the MV 'VLASONS I' to make one (1) voyage to load steel products at Iligan City and discharge them
at North Harbor, Manila.

2. When the vessel's three (3) hatches containing the shipment were opened by plaintiff's agents, nearly all the skids of tinplates and hot rolled sheets
were allegedly found to be wet and rusty. The cargo was discharged and unloaded by stevedores hired by the plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff filed with the defendant its claim for damages suffered due to the downgrading of the damaged tinplates in the amount of P941,145.18 but defendant
VSI refused and failed to pay. Hence, this suit.

Issue:

Whether VSI contracted with NSC as a common carrier or as a private carrier.

The resolution of this preliminary question determines the law, standard of diligence and burden of proof applicable to the present case.
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier. It has been held that the true test of a common carrier is the carriage of passengers or goods,
provided it has space, for all who opt to avail themselves of its transportation service for a fee. A carrier which does not qualify under the above test
is deemed a private carrier. Generally, private carriage is undertaken by special agreement and the carrier does not hold himself out to carry goods for
the general public. The most typical, although not the only form of private carriage, is the charter party, a maritime contract by which the charterer,
a party other than the shipowner, obtains the use and service of all or some part of a ship for a period of time or a voyage or voyages.
##11
In the instant case, it is undisputed that VSI did not offer its services to the general public. It carried passengers or goods only for those it chose
under a special contract of charter party. MV Vlasons I was not a common but a private carrier. It is a private carrier that renders tramping service and,
as such, does not transport cargo or shipment for the general public. Its services are available only to specific persons who enter into a special contract
of charter party with its owner. Consequently, the rights and obligations of VSI and NSC, including their respective liability for damage to the cargo,
are determined primarily by stipulations in their contract of private carriage or charter party.
Unlike in a contract involving a common carrier, private carriage does not involve the general public. Hence, the stringent provisions of the Civil Code
on common carriers protecting the general public cannot justifiably be applied to a ship transporting commercial goods as a private carrier.
It is clear from the parties' Contract of Voyage Charter Hire, dated July 17, 1974, that VSI "shall not be responsible for losses except on proven willful
negligence of the officers of the vessel." The NANYOZAI Charter Party, which was incorporated in the parties' contract of transportation, further provided
that the shipowner shall not be liable for loss of or damage to the cargo arising or resulting from unseaworthiness, unless the same was caused by its
lack of d diligence to make the vessel seaworthy or to ensure that the same e was "properly manned, equipped and supplied."
In view of the above, NSC must prove that the damage to its shipment was caused by VSI's willful negligence or failure to exercise due diligence in making
MV Vlasons I seaworthy and fit for holding, carrying and safekeeping the cargo. Ineluctably, the burden of proof was placed on NSC by the parties' agreement.
The CA decision, affirming the RTC decision in favor of defendant and dismissing the complaint is AFFIRMED.