Loadmaster v. Glodel

7/30/2019 Loadmaster v. Glodel

1/14

SECOND DIVISION

LOADMASTERS CUSTOMSSERVICES, INC.,

Petitioner,

- versus -

GLODEL BROKERAGE

CORPORATION and

R&B INSURANCE

CORPORATION,Respondents.

G.R. No. 179446

Present:

CARPIO,J., Chairperson,

NACHURA,

PERALTA,

ABAD, and

MENDOZA,JJ.

Promulgated:

January 10, 2011

X -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules

of Court assailing the August 24, 2007 Decision[1]

of the Court of Appeals (CA) in

CA-G.R. CV No. 82822, entitled R&B Insurance Corporation v. Glodel

Brokerage Corporation and Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc., which held

petitioner Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. (Loadmasters) liable to respondent

Glodel Brokerage Corporation (Glodel) in the amount of P1,896,789.62

representing the insurance indemnity which R&B Insurance Corporation (R&B

Insurance) paid to the insured-consignee, Columbia Wire and Cable

Corporation (Columbia).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn1


2/14

THE FACTS:

On August 28, 2001, R&B Insurance issued Marine Policy No. MN-

00105/2001 in favor of Columbia to insure the shipment of 132 bundles of electric

copper cathodes against All Risks. On August 28, 2001, the cargoes were shipped

on board the vessel Richard Rey from Isabela, Leyte, to Pier

10, North Harbor, Manila. 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 Columbias 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 Balagtas,

Bulacan, while the other six (6) truckloads were destined for Lawang

Bato, Valenzuela City. The cargoes in six truckloads for Lawang Bato were duly

delivered in Columbias warehouses there. Of the six (6) trucks en route to

Balagtas, Bulacan, however, only five (5) reached the destination. One (1) truck,

loaded with 11 bundles or 232 pieces of copper cathodes, failed to deliver its

cargo.

Later on, the said truck, an Isuzu with Plate No. NSD-117, was recovered

but without the copper cathodes. Because of this incident, Columbia filed with

R&B Insurance a claim for insurance indemnity in the amountof P1,903,335.39. After the requisite investigation and adjustment, R&B Insurance

paid Columbia the amount of P1,896,789.62 as insurance indemnity.

R&B Insurance, thereafter, filed a complaint for damages against both

Loadmasters and Glodel before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Manila


3/14

(RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 02-103040. 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.[2]

On November 19, 2003, the RTC rendered a decision[3]

holding Glodel liable

for damages for the loss of the subject cargo and dismissing Loadmasters

counterclaim for damages and attorneys fees against R&B Insurance. The

dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the plaintiff havingestablished by preponderance of evidence its claims against defendantGlodel Brokerage Corporation, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the

latter:

1. To pay plaintiff R&B Insurance Corporation the sumof P1,896,789.62 as actual and compensatory damages,with interest from the date of complaint until fully paid;

2. To pay plaintiff R&B Insurance Corporation the amountequivalent to 10% of the principal amount recovered as andfor attorneys fees plus P1,500.00 per appearance in Court;

3. To pay plaintiff R&B Insurance Corporation the sumof P22,427.18 as litigation expenses.

WHEREAS, the defendant Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc.scounterclaim for damages and attorneys fees against plaintiff are herebydismissed.

With costs against defendant Glodel Brokerage Corporation.

SO ORDERED.[4]

Both R&B Insurance and Glodel appealed the RTC decision to the CA.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn2


4/14

On August 24, 2007, the CA rendered the assailed decision which reads in

part:

Considering that appellee is an agent of appellant Glodel, whateverliability the latter owes to appellant R&B Insurance Corporation asinsurance indemnity must likewise be the amount it shall be paid byappellee Loadmasters.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the appeal is PARTLYGRANTED in that the appellee Loadmasters is likewise held liable toappellant Glodel in the amount ofP1,896,789.62 representing theinsurance indemnity appellant Glodel has been held liable to appellantR&B Insurance Corporation.

Appellant Glodels appeal to absolve it from any liability is hereinDISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.[5]

Hence, Loadmasters filed the present petition for review on certiorari before

this Court presenting the following

ISSUES

1. Can Petitioner Loadmasters be held liable to

Respondent Glodel in spite of the fact that the latter

respondent Glodel did not file a cross-claim against it

(Loadmasters)?

2. Under the set of facts established and undisputed in the case,

can petitioner Loadmasters be legally considered as an Agent ofrespondent Glodel?

[6]

To totally exculpate itself from responsibility for the lost goods,

Loadmasters argues that it cannot be considered an agent of Glodel because it

never represented the latter in its dealings with the consignee. At any rate, it further
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn5


5/14

contends that Glodel has no recourse against it for its (Glodels) failure to file a

cross-claim pursuant to Section 2, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Glodel, in its Comment,[7]

counters that Loadmasters is liable to it under its

cross-claim because the latter was grossly negligent in the transportation of thesubject cargo. With respect to Loadmasters claim that it is already estopped from

filing a cross-claim, Glodel insists that it can still do so even for the first time on

appeal because there is no rule that provides otherwise. Finally, Glodel argues that

its relationship with Loadmasters is that of Charter wherein the transporter

(Loadmasters) is only hired for the specific job of delivering the

merchandise. Thus, the diligence required in this case is merely ordinary diligence

or that of a good father of the family, not the extraordinary diligence required of

common carriers.

R&B Insurance, for its part, claims that Glodel is deemed to have interposed

a cross-claim against Loadmasters because it was not prevented from presenting

evidence to prove its position even without amending its Answer. As to the

relationship between Loadmasters and Glodel, it contends that a contract of agency

existed between the two corporations.[8]

Subrogation is the substitution of one person in the place of another withreference to a lawful claim or right, so that he who is substituted succeeds to the

rights of the other in relation to a debt or claim, including its remedies or

securities.[9]

Doubtless, R&B Insurance is subrogated to the rights of the insured to

the extent of the amount it paid the consignee under the marine insurance, as

provided under Article 2207 of the Civil Code, which reads:

ART. 2207. If the plaintiffs property has been insured, and he hasreceived indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or lossarising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurancecompany shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against thewrong-doer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amountpaid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, theaggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the personcausing the loss or injury.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn7


6/14

As subrogee of the rights and interest of the consignee, R&B Insurance has

the right to seek reimbursement from either Loadmasters or Glodel or both for

breach of contract and/or tort.

The issue now is who, between Glodel and Loadmasters, is liable to payR&B Insurance for the amount of the indemnity it paid Columbia.

At the outset, it is well to resolve the issue of whether Loadmasters and

Glodel are common carriers to determine their liability for the loss of the subject

cargo. Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, common carriers are persons,

corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or

transporting passenger or goods, or both by land, water or air for compensation,

offering their services to the public.

Based on the aforecited definition, Loadmasters is a common carrier because

it is engaged in the business of transporting goods by land, through its trucking

service. It is acommon carrieras distinguished from aprivate carrierwherein

the carriage is generally undertaken by special agreement and it does not hold itself

out to carry goods for the general public.[10]

The distinction is significant in the

sense that the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract of private carriageare governed principally by their stipulations, not by the law on common

carriers.[11]

In the present case, there is no indication that the undertaking in the contract

between Loadmasters and Glodel was private in character. There is no showing

that Loadmasters solely and exclusively rendered services to Glodel.

In fact, Loadmasters admittedthat it is a common carrier.

[12]

In the same vein, Glodel is also considered a common carrier within the

context of Article 1732. In its Memorandum,[13]

it states that it is a corporation

duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and

is engaged in the business of customs brokering. It cannot be considered

otherwise because as held by this Court in Schmitz Transport & Brokerage
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn10


7/14

Corporation v. Transport Venture, Inc.,[14]

a customs broker is also regarded as a

common carrier, the transportation of goods being an integral part of its business.

Loadmasters and Glodel, being both common carriers, are mandated from

the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, to observe the

extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them

according to all the circumstances of such case, as required by Article 1733 of the

Civil Code. When the Court speaks of extraordinary diligence, itis that extreme

measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and

circumspection observe for securing and preserving their own property or

rights.[15]

This exacting standard imposed on common carriers in a contract of

carriage of goods is intended to tilt the scales in favor of the shipper who is at the

mercy of the common carrier once the goods have been lodged forshipment.

[16]Thus, in case of loss of the goods, the common carrier is presumed to

have been at fault or to have acted negligently.[17]

This presumption of fault or

negligence, however, may be rebutted by proof that the common carrier has

observed extraordinary diligence over the goods.

With respect to the time frame of this extraordinary responsibility, the Civil

Code provides that the exercise of extraordinary diligence lasts from the time the

goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by, the carrier

for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the

carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.[18]

Premises considered, the Court is of the view 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 byGlodel 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:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn14


8/14

ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damagedone. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractualrelation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the

provisions of this Chapter.

Pertinent is the ruling enunciated in the case ofMindanao Terminal and

Brokerage Service, Inc. v. Phoenix Assurance Company of New York,/McGee &

Co., Inc.[19]

where this Court held that a tort may arise despite the absence of a

contractual relationship,to wit:

We agree with the Court of Appeals that the complaint filedby Phoenix and McGee against Mindanao Terminal, from which the

present case has arisen, states a cause of action. The present action isbased on quasi-delict, arising from the negligent and careless loading andstowing of the cargoes belonging to Del Monte Produce. Even assumingthat both Phoenix and McGee have only been subrogated in the rights ofDel Monte Produce, who is not a party to the contract of service betweenMindanao Terminal and Del Monte, still the insurance carriers may have acause of action in light of the Courts consistent ruling that the act thatbreaks the contract may be also a tort. In fine, a liability for tort may ariseeven under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. Inthe present case, Phoenix and McGee are not suing for damages for injuriesarising from the breach of the contract of service but from the alleged

negligent manner by which Mindanao Terminal handled the cargoesbelonging to Del Monte Produce. Despite the absence of contractualrelationship between Del Monte Produce and Mindanao Terminal, theallegation of negligence on the part of the defendant should be sufficient toestablish a cause of action arising from quasi-delict. [Emphases supplied]

In connection therewith, Article 2180 provides:

ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandablenot only for ones own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for

whom one is responsible.

x x x x

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by theiremployees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assignedtasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn19


9/14

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 oftheir assigned task of delivering the goods safely to the warehouse.

Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to another,

there instantly arises a presumptionjuris tantum that the employer failed to

exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection (culpa in eligiendo) or

supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its employees.[20]

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.[21]

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 withLoadmasters. Its defense offorce majeure is unavailing.

At this juncture, the Court clarifies that there exists no principal-agent

relationship between Glodel and Loadmasters, as erroneously found by the

CA. Article 1868 of the Civil Code provides: By the contract of agency a person

binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on

behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. The elements of a

contract of agency are: (1) consent, express or implied, of the parties to establish

the relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a

third person; (3) the agent acts as a representative and not for himself; (4) the agent

acts within the scope of his authority.[22]

Accordingly, there can be no contract of agency between the

parties. Loadmasters never represented Glodel. Neither was it ever authorized to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn20


10/14

make such representation. It is a settled rule that the basis for agency is

representation, that is, the agent acts for and on behalf of the principal on matters

within the scope of his authority and said acts have the same legal effect as if they

were personally executed by the principal. On the part of the principal, there must

be an actual intention to appoint or an intention naturally inferable from his wordsor actions, while on the part of the agent, there must be an intention to accept the

appointment and act on it.[23]

Such mutual intent is not obtaining in this case.

What then is the extent of the respective liabilities of Loadmasters and

Glodel? 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 nodefense 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. As stated in the case ofFar Eastern Shipping v. Court

of Appeals,[24]

X x x. Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent andeach is an efficient cause without which the injury would not havehappened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes andrecovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons althoughunder the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them wasmore culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured person wasnot the same. No actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merelybecause it does not exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoeris responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were thesole cause of the injury.

There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors whose liability issolidary since both of them are liable for the total damage. Where theconcurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two or morepersons, although acting independently, are in combination the direct andproximate cause of a single injury to a third person, it is impossible to

determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury and either ofthem is responsible for the whole injury. Where their concurring negligenceresulted in injury or damage to a third party, they become joint tortfeasorsand are solidarily liable for the resulting damage under Article 2194 of theCivil Code. [Emphasis supplied]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn23


11/14

The Court now resolves the issue of whether Glodel can collect fromLoadmasters, it having failed to file a cross-claim against the latter.

Undoubtedly, Glodel has a definite cause of action against Loadmasters for

breach of contract of service as the latter is primarily liable for the loss of the

subject cargo. In this case, however, it cannot succeed in seeking judicial sanction

against Loadmasters because the records disclose that it did not properly interpose

a cross-claim against the latter. Glodel did not even pray that Loadmasters be

liable for any and all claims that it may be adjudged liable in favor of R&B

Insurance. Under the Rules, a compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set

up shall be barred.[25]

Thus, a cross-claim cannot be set up for the first time on

appeal.

For the consequence, Glodel has no one to blame but itself. The Court

cannot come to its aid on equitable grounds. Equity, which has been aptly

described as a justice outside legality, is applied only in the absence of, and never

against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure.[26]The Court cannot be a

lawyer and take the cudgels for a party who has been at fault or negligent.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The August

24, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED to read as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered declaring petitioner

Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. and respondent Glodel Brokerage

Corporation jointly and severally liable to respondent R&B Insurance

Corporation for the insurance indemnity it paid to consignee

Columbia Wire & Cable Corporation and ordering both parties to pay,

jointly and severally, R&B Insurance Corporation a] the amountof P1,896,789.62 representing the insurance indemnity; b] the amount

equivalent to ten (10%) percent thereof for attorneys fees; and c] the

amount of P22,427.18 for litigation expenses.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftn25


12/14

The cross-claim belatedly prayed for by respondent Glodel

Brokerage Corporation against petitioner Loadmasters Customs

Services, Inc. is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE

CATRAL MENDOZA Associat

e Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate JusticeChairperson

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate Justice Associate Justice


13/14

ROBERTO A. ABADAssociate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the

Courts Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division

Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision hadbeen reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the

opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief

Justice


14/14

[1]

Rollo, pp. 33-48. Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxasand Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, concurring.[2]Petition for review on certiorari, p. 4; id. at 26.[3]Id.[4]

Id. at 26-27.[5]

Annex A, Petition, id. at 47.[6]

Id. at 28.[7]

Id. at 96.[8]

Id. at 71-74.[9]

Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Chubb and Sons, Inc., G.R. No. 147724, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 266, 275,

citing Blacks Law Dictionary (6th

ed. 1990).[10]

National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 345, 361 (1997).[11]

Lea Mer Industries, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.,508 Phil. 656, 663 (2005), citingNational Steel

Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 345, 362 (1997).[12]Pre-Trial Order dated September 5, 2002, records, p. 136.[13]

Dated June 19, 2009, rollo, p. 178.[14]

496 Phil. 437, 450 (2005), citing Calvo v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., 429 Phil. 244 (2002).[15]

National Trucking and Forwarding Corporation v. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, 491 Phil. 151, 156 (2005),

citing Blacks Law Dictionary (5th

ed. 1979) 411.[16]

Id.[17]

Civil Code, Art. 1735.[18]

Civil Code, Art. 1736.[19]

G.R. No. 162467, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 429, 434, citingAir France v. Carrascoso, 124 Phil.722, 739

(1966); Singson v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 132 Phil. 597, 600 (1968);Mr. & Mrs. Fabre, Jr. v. Court of

Appeals, 328 Phil. 775, 785 (1996);PSBA v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84698, February 4, 1992, 205 SCRA 729,

734.

[20]Tan v. Jam Transit, Inc., G.R. No. 183198, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 659, 675, citingDelsan Transport

Lines, Inc. v. C & A Construction, Inc., 459 Phil. 156 (2003).[21]

Id., citing Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad, 445 Phil. 31 (2003);Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. Court of

Appeals, 435 Phil. 129 (2002).[22]

Eurotech Industrial Technologies, Inc. v. Cuizon, G.R. No. 167552, April 23, 2007, 521 SCRA 584, 593,

citing Yu Eng Cho v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.,385 Phil. 453, 465 (2000).[23]

Yun KwanByung v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation,G.R. No. 163553, December 11, 2009, 608

SCRA 107, 130-131, citingBurdador v. Luz, 347 Phi. 654, 662 (1997);Eurotech Industrial Technologies, Inc. v.

Cuizon, G.R. No. 167552, April 23, 2007, 521 SCRA 584, 593; Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 389

Phil. 184, 196 (2000).[24]

357 Phil 703, 751-752 (1998).[25]

Section 2, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[26]

Causapin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107432, July 4, 1994, 233 SCRA 615, 625.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/179446.htm#_ftnref1

Documents

Loadmaster v. Glodel