Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. vs. Glodel Brokerage Corporation

Common carriers whose concurrent negligence results in cargo loss are solidarily liable to the subrogated insurer, but a co-defendant cannot recover against another co-defendant absent a properly pleaded cross-claim.

R&B Insurance issued a marine policy to Columbia Wire and Cable Corporation for a shipment of copper cathodes. Columbia engaged Glodel Brokerage Corporation to facilitate the release and delivery of the cargoes, and Glodel subsequently hired Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. to provide the delivery trucks. While en route to the destination, one of Loadmasters' trucks was lost and recovered without its cargo. R&B Insurance paid Columbia the insurance indemnity and, as subrogee, sought reimbursement from both Glodel and Loadmasters.

• The Insurance and the Shipment: R&B Insurance issued Marine Policy No. MN-00105/2001 in favor of Columbia to insure 132 bundles of electric copper cathodes against all risks. The cargoes were shipped from Isabela, Leyte, to Manila on August 28, 2001.
• The Chain of Custody: Columbia engaged Glodel for the release, withdrawal, and delivery of the cargoes. Glodel, in turn, engaged Loadmasters for the use of its delivery trucks to transport the goods to Columbia’s warehouses in Bulacan and Valenzuela City.
• The Loss: The goods were loaded onto 12 Loadmasters trucks driven by its employees. Six trucks successfully delivered to Valenzuela. Of the six destined for Bulacan, only five arrived. The missing truck, loaded with 11 bundles of copper cathodes, was later recovered empty.
• Subrogation: Columbia filed an insurance claim with R&B Insurance, which paid ₱1,896,789.62 as indemnity. R&B Insurance, as subrogee, filed a complaint for damages against both Glodel and Loadmasters to recover the amount paid.

• Absence of Agency: Loadmasters argued it cannot be considered an agent of Glodel because it never represented the latter in its dealings with the consignee.
• Failure to Plead Cross-Claim: Loadmasters contended that Glodel has no recourse against it because Glodel failed to file a cross-claim pursuant to Section 2, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

• Gross Negligence: Glodel countered that Loadmasters is liable under a cross-claim due to gross negligence in transporting the cargo.
• Cross-Claim on Appeal: Glodel insisted it could interpose a cross-claim for the first time on appeal, claiming no rule prohibits doing so.
• Charter Relationship: Glodel argued its relationship with Loadmasters was one of charter, requiring only ordinary diligence, not the extraordinary diligence of a common carrier.
• Implied Cross-Claim: R&B Insurance claimed Glodel is deemed to have interposed a cross-claim against Loadmasters because it was not prevented from presenting evidence, and that an agency relationship existed between the two corporations.

• Cross-Claim: Whether Glodel can hold Loadmasters liable despite failing to file a cross-claim against it in the trial court.
• Agency: Whether Loadmasters can be legally considered an agent of Glodel.
• Solidary Liability: Whether Glodel and Loadmasters are solidarily liable to R&B Insurance as concurrent tortfeasors.

• Cross-Claim: Glodel's cross-claim was denied because a compulsory cross-claim not set up in the pleadings is barred and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Equity cannot override statutory rules of procedure.
• Agency: No principal-agent relationship existed between Glodel and Loadmasters. The basis of agency is representation, which was absent; Loadmasters never represented Glodel, nor was it authorized to do so. Mutual intent to establish an agency was lacking.
• Solidary Liability: Both Loadmasters and Glodel are common carriers mandated to observe extraordinary diligence. Loadmasters is liable for quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2180, having failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in supervising its employees who caused the loss. Glodel is liable for failing to ensure Loadmasters' compliance with the undertaking. Their concurrent negligence makes them solidarily liable to R&B Insurance under Article 2194.

• Solidary Liability of Concurrent Tortfeasors — Where the concurrent negligent acts of two or more persons are the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is impossible to determine the proportion of each's contribution, they are joint tortfeasors and solidarily liable for the resulting damage under Article 2194. Applied to hold both the customs broker and the trucking company solidarily liable to the insurer.
• Presumption of Employer Negligence — When an employee's negligence causes damage, a presumption juris tantum arises that the employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. Loadmasters failed to rebut this presumption.
• Barred Compulsory Cross-Claims — Under Section 2, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, a compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim not set up is barred. It cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, and equity cannot override this procedural rule.

• "In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. In the present case, Phoenix and McGee are not suing for damages for injuries arising from the breach of the contract of service but from the alleged negligent manner by which Mindanao Terminal handled the cargoes belonging to Del Monte Produce. Despite the absence of contractual relationship between Del Monte Produce and Mindanao Terminal, the allegation of negligence on the part of the defendant should be sufficient to establish a cause of action arising from quasi-delict."
• "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."

• Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. v. Phoenix Assurance Company of New York — Followed. Established that a tort may arise despite the absence of a contractual relationship, allowing an insurer to sue a service provider for quasi-delict even without privity of contract.
• Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v. Transport Venture, Inc. — Followed. Held that a customs broker is regarded as a common carrier because the transportation of goods is an integral part of its business.
• Far Eastern Shipping v. Court of Appeals — Followed. Enunciated the principle that where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have happened, each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result.

• Article 2207, Civil Code — Subrogates the insurer to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer upon payment of the indemnity.
• Article 1732, Civil Code — Defines common carriers as persons, corporations, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods for compensation, offering services to the public.
• Article 1733, Civil Code — Requires common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported.
• Article 1736, Civil Code — Prescribes the period of extraordinary responsibility of a common carrier from the time goods are unconditionally placed in its possession until delivered to the consignee.
• Article 2176, Civil Code — Governs quasi-delicts, establishing liability for damage caused by act or omission, absent a pre-existing contractual relation.
• Article 2180, Civil Code — Imposes liability on employers for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
• Article 2194, Civil Code — Imposes solidary liability on two or more persons liable for a quasi-delict.
• Article 1868, Civil Code — Defines the contract of agency, requiring the agent to render service in representation of the principal.
• Section 2, Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Mandates that compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims not set up are barred.

Antonio T. Carpio, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Diosdado M. Peralta, Roberto A. Abad