Sept 22, 1961: Go Pun purchased from Valderrama and Sons at Negro Occidental lumber worth P21,258.14. The lumber wer insured with Fieldman's Insurance for P29000- 14000 in the name of Go Pun under a Marine Cargo Policy and 15000 under Graciano Aguillon under another policy. One of the policies was secured in Agullion's name, because those were the lumber that Aguillon purchased from Go Pun. But it as Go Pun who paid the premium. And at the time of loss, Aguillon has not paid the purchase price.

Sept 23 1961: the lumber were loaded on the barge despite the presence of tropical depression in the loading area. When the ship and its tugboat reached the mouth of the river, the patron decided to go back the loading dock, however it hit a sunken object on its way causing water to rish into the vessel. to lighten the load, pieces of lumber we jettisoned into the sea, the lumber left on the barge were damaged by seawater.

Go Pun demanded Fieldman to pay, but despite Fieldman's adjuster's reports, it still refused to pay. Hence Go Pun sued Fieldman and the Shipping company


1. Whether or not the shipping company is negligent
2. Whether or not the shipping company is solidarily liable with the insurance company


1. Yes. The uncontradicted evidence shoes that the vessel of the shipping company put to sea despite rough seas and increment weather. Defendant shipping company cannot exempt itself from liability on claim of loss due to Act of God. To be exempt from liability for loss because of an act of god, the common carrier must be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by which the loss or damage must have been occasioned. Although the immediate ir proximate cause of a loss in any given instance may have been an act of god, yet if the carrier unnecessarily exposed the property to such accident by any culpable act or omission of his own, he is not excused.

2. Yes. They are alternatively but primarily liable. The liability of the common carrier and the insurer of the goods lost or damaged while in transit is solidary, not joint, although it arises from the occurence of the same accident. The carrier is liable by reason of the fault and negligence of its skipper; the liability of the insurer springs from the fact of loss of pr damage to the goods.