Professional Documents
Culture Documents
23
for any loss or damage, therefore, they have the burden of proving
that they observed such diligence.
Same; Same; Same; Exceptions; The exceptions to the
presumption of fault or negligence is a closed listif the cause of
destruction, loss or deterioration is other than the enumerated
circumstances, then the carrier is liable therefor.However, the
presumption of fault or negligence will not arise if the loss is due to
any of the following causes: (1) flood, storm, earthquake, lightning,
or other natural disaster or calamity; (2) an act of
______________
*
THIRD DIVISION.
24
24
25
26
long as the one-year period has not lapsed. Thus, in the words of the
ponente, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.: Inasmuch as the
neither the Civil Code nor the Code of Commerce states a specific
27
27
28
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Proof of the delivery of goods in good order to a common
carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their destination
constitutes prima facie fault or negligence on the part of
the carrier. If no adequate explanation is given as to how
the loss, the destruction or the deterioration of the goods
happened, the carrier shall be held liable therefor.
Statement of the Case
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of1 the
Rules of Court, assailing the
July 15, 1998 Decision3 and
2
the May 2, 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-GR CV No. 53571. The decretal portion of the
Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing disquisition, the
decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Defendants-appellees are ORDERED to jointly and severally pay
plaintiffs-appellants the following:
1) FOUR Hundred Fifty One Thousand Twenty-Seven Pesos
and 32/100 (P451,027.32) as actual damages, representing
the value of the damaged cargo, plus interest at the legal
rate from the time of filing of the complaint on July 25,
1991, until fully paid;
2) Attorneys fees amounting to 20% of the claim; and
3) Costs of suit.
Ibid., p. 57.
29
The Facts
The factual antecedents of the case are summarized by the
Court of Appeals in this wise:
On June 13, 1990, CMC Trading A.G. shipped on board the M/V
Anangel Sky at Hamburg, Germany 242 coils of various Prime
Cold Rolled Steel sheets for transportation to Manila consigned to
the Philippine Steel Trading Corporation. On July 28, 1990, M/V
Anangel Sky arrived at the port of Manila and, within the
subsequent days, discharged the subject cargo. Four (4) coils were
found to be in bad order B.O. Tally sheet No. 154974. Finding the
four (4) coils in their damaged state to be unfit for the intended
purpose, the consignee Philippine Steel Trading Corporation
declared the same as total loss.
Despite receipt of a formal demand, defendants-appellees
refused to submit to the consignees claim. Consequently, plaintiffappellant paid the consignee five hundred six thousand eighty six &
50/100 pesos (P506,086.50), and was subrogated to the latters
rights and causes of action against defendants-appellees.
Subsequently, plaintiff-appellant instituted this complaint for
recovery of the amount paid by them, to the consignee as insured.
Impugning the propriety of the suit against them, defendantsappellees imputed that the damage and/or loss was due to preshipment damage, to the inherent nature, vice or defect of the
goods, or to perils, danger and accidents of the sea, or to
insufficiency of packing thereof, or to the act or omission of the
shipper of the goods or their representatives. In addition thereto,
defendants-appellees argued that their liability, if there be any,
should not exceed the limitations of liability provided for in the bill
of lading and other pertinent laws. Finally, defendants-appellees
averred that, in any event, they exercised due diligence and
foresight required by law to prevent any damage/loss to said
6
shipment.
______________
5
Paul T. Arcangel.
6
30
10
11
The case was deemed submitted for decision on March 29, 2001,
31
Issues
In their Memorandum, petitioners raise the following
issues for the Courts consideration:
I
Whether or not plaintiff by presenting only one witness who has
never seen the subject shipment and whose testimony is purely
hearsay is sufficient to pave the way for the applicability of Article
1735 of the Civil Code;
II
Whether or not the consignee/plaintiff filed the required notice
of loss within the time required by law;
III
Whether or not a notation in the bill of lading at the time of
loading is sufficient to show pre-shipment damage and to exempt
herein defendants from liability;
IV
Whether or not the PACKAGE LIMITATION of liability under
12
Section 4 (5) of COGSA is applicable to the case at bar.
the
32
Ibid.
Philippine American General Insurance Co, Inc. v. MGG Marine
Services, Inc., G.R. No. 135645, March 8, 2002, 378 SCRA 650.
19
Art. 1735 Civil Code. In all cases other than those mentioned in
33
supra.
24
Dollar Co., 53 Phil. 129, March 27, 1929; Ynchausti Steamship Co. v.
supra.
26
34
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
xxx
xxx
______________
27
28
29
31
35
xxx
xxx
supra.
34
Ibid.
35
36
supra.
38
Ibid.
39
40
41
37
Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 48, March 14, 1996; 9
Am. Jur. p. 869.
43
12, 1997.
44
Act No. 521 of the 74th Congress of the United States, approved on April
16, 1936, be accepted, as it is hereby accepted to be made applicable to all
contracts for the carriage of goods by sea to and from Philippine ports in
foreign trade: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as
repealing any existing provision of the Code of Commerce which is now
in force or as limiting its application. Approved on April 22, 1936.
45
46
47
Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage
be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of discharge or at the
time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to
delivery thereof under the contract
38
38
48
1997, p. 333.
49
315 SCRA 339, September 28, 1999, per Davide, Jr., CJ.
39
39
Records, p. 1.
52
(5) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for
any loss or damage to or in connection with the transportation of goods in an
amount exceeding $500 per package lawful money of the United States, or in
case of goods not shipped in packages, per customary freight unit, or the
equivalent of that sum in other currency, unless the nature and value of such
goods have been declared by the shipper before the shipment and inserted in
bill of lading. This declaration if embodied in the bill of lading shall be prima
facie evidence, but shall not be conclusive on the carrier.
By agreement between the carrier, master or agent of the carrier, and the
shipper another maximum amount than that mentioned in this paragraph may
be fixed; Provided, That such maximum shall not be less than the figure above
named. In no event shall the carrier be liable for more than the amount of
damage actually sustained.
Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible in any event for loss or
damage to or in connection with the transportation of the goods if the nature or
value thereof has been knowingly and fraudulently misstated by the shipper in
the bill of lading.
53
54
40
40
Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA
Saludo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 498, March 23, 1992.
58
59
October 8, 1998.
60
61
p. 702.
62
63
41
______________
64
65
66
67
Hernandez & Penasales, Philippine Admiralty and Maritime Law, 1st ed.,
Ibid.
69
Supra.
42
42
amount of goods indicated in the invoice and the amount in the bill
of lading cannot negate petitioners obligation to private respondent
70
arising from the contract of transportation.
71
72
150 SCRA 463, May 29, 1967, citing Mitsui & Co., Ltd. v. American
43