This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-19 |
PEREZ, 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.[34] 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.[35] To overcome the presumption of negligence, the common carrier must establish by adequate proof that it exercised extraordinary diligence over the goods.[36] It must do more than merely show that some other party could be responsible for the damage.[37] | |||||
|
2013-11-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Regional Container Lines (RCL) of Singapore v. The Netherlands Insurance Co. (Philippines), Inc.[14] and Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Philam Insurance Co., Inc.,[15] the Court echoed the doctrine that cargoes, while being unloaded, generally remain under the custody of the carrier. | |||||