This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-02-27 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Though it is true that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods transported by them are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated, and that the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in order to overcome the presumption,[21] the plaintiff must still, before the burden is shifted to the defendant, prove that the subject shipment suffered actual shortage. This can only be done if the weight of the shipment at the port of origin and its subsequent weight at the port of arrival have been proven by a preponderance of evidence, and it can be seen that the former weight is considerably greater than the latter weight, taking into consideration the exceptions provided in Article 1734[22] of the Civil Code. | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A common carrier is presumed to have been negligent if it fails to prove that it exercised extraordinary vigilance over the goods it transported.[8] When the goods shipped are either lost or arrived in damaged condition, a presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that diligence, and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold it liable.[9] | |||||