You are on page 1of 2

TOPIC: DUTIES OF COMMON CARRIER Denying that it committed breach of

contract, petitioner alleged in its that answer


MAERSKLINE petitioner, that the subject shipment was transported in
vs. accordance with the provisions of the
COURT OF APPEALS AND EFREN V. covering bill of lading and that its liability
CASTILLO, doing business under the under the law on transportation of good
name and style of Ethegal Laboratories, attaches only in case of loss, destruction or
respondents. deterioration of the goods as provided for in
G.R. No. 94761 May 17, 1993 Article 1734 of Civil Code (Rollo, p. 16).
Facts: Defendant Eli Lilly, Inc., on the other hand,
filed its answer with compulsory and cross-
Petitioner Maersk Line is engaged in the
claim. In its cross-claim, it alleged that the
transportation of goods by sea, doing
delay in the arrival of the subject
business in the Philippines through its
merchandise was due solely to the gross
general agent Compania General de Tabacos
negligence of petitioner Maersk Line.
de Filipinas.
The trial court rendered a decision in favor of
Private respondent Efren Castillo, on the
Castillo hold that there was a breach in the
other hand, is the proprietor of Ethegal
performance of their obligation by the
Laboratories, a firm engaged in the
defendant Maersk Line consisting of their
manutacture of pharmaceutical products.
negligence to ship the 6 drums of empty
On November 12, 1976, private respondent Gelatin Capsules which under their own
ordered from Eli Lilly. Inc. of Puerto Rico memorandum shipment would arrive in the
through its (Eli Lilly, Inc.'s) agent in the Philippines on April 3, 1977 which under Art.
Philippines, Elanco Products, 600,000 empty 1170 of the New Civil Code, they stood liable
gelatin capsules for the manufacture of his for damages.
pharmaceutical products. The capsules were
On appeal, respondent court rendered its
placed in six (6) drums of 100,000 capsules
decision dated August 1, 1990 affirming with
each valued at US $1,668.71.
modifications the lower court's decision.
Through a Memorandum of Shipment, the
shipper Eli Lilly, Inc. of Puerto Rico advised
Issue: WON Maersk Line is liable for damages
private respondent as consignee that the
resulting from delay in the delivery of
600,000 empty gelatin capsules in six (6)
the shipment in the absence in the bill
drums of 100,000 capsules each, were
of lading of a stipulation on the period
already shipped on board MV "Anders
of delivery.
Maerskline" under Voyage No. 7703 for
shipment to the Philippines via Oakland, Ruling:
California. In said Memorandum, shipper Eli Petitioner maintains that it cannot be held
Lilly, Inc. specified the date of arrival to be for damages for the alleged delay in the
April 3, 1977. delivery of the 600,000 empty gelatin
For reasons unknown, said cargo of capsules capsules since it acted in good faith and
were mishipped and diverted to Richmond, there was no special contract under which
Virginia, USA and then transported back the carrier undertook to deliver the shipment
Oakland, Califorilia. The goods finally arrived on or before a specific date.
in the Philippines on June 10, 1977 or after
two (2) months from the date specified in the The bill of lading covering the subject
memorandum. As a consequence, private shipment among others, reads:
respondent as consignee refused to take 6. GENERAL
delivery of the goods on account of its failure
to arrive on time. (1) The Carrier does not
undertake that the goods shall arive at
Private respondent alleging gross negligence
the port of discharge or the place of
and undue delay in the delivery of the goods,
delivery at any particular time or to
filed an action before the court a quo for
meet any particular market or use and
rescission of contract with damages against
save as is provided in clause 4 the
petitioner and Eli Lilly, Inc. as defendants.
Carrier shall in no circumstances be absence of a special contract, a carrier is not
liable for any direct, indirect or an insurer against delay in transportation of
consequential loss or damage caused goods. When a common carrier
by delay. If the Carrier should undertakes to convey goods, the law
nevertheless be held legally liable for implies a contract that they shall be
any such direct or indirect or delivered at destination within a
consequential loss or damage caused reasonable time, in the absence, of any
by delay, such liability shall in no agreement as to the time of delivery.
event exceed the freight paid for the But where a carrier has made an express
transport covered by this Bill of contract to transport and deliver properly
Lading. within a specified time, it is bound to fulfill its
contract and is liable for any delay, no
It is not disputed that the aforequoted matter from what cause it may have arisen.
provision at the back of the bill of lading, in This result logically follows from the well-
fine print, is a contract of adhesion. settled rule that where the law creates a
Generally, contracts of adhesion are duty or charge, and the default in himself,
considered void since almost all the and has no remedy over, then his own
provisions of these types of contracts are contract creates a duty or charge upon
prepared and drafted only by one party, himself, he is bound to make it good
usually the carrier . The only participation notwithstanding any accident or delay by
left of the other party in such a contract is inevitable necessity because he might have
the affixing of his signature thereto, hence provided against it by contract. Whether or
the term "Adhesion". not there has been such an undertaking on
the part of the carrier is to be determined
Nonetheless, settled is the rule that bills of from the circumstances surrounding the case
lading are contracts not entirely prohibited. and by application of the ordinary rules for
One who adheres to the contract is in reality the interpretation of contracts.
free to reject it in its entirety; if he adheres,
he gives his consent (Magellan An examination of the subject bill of
Manufacturing Marketing Corporation v. lading shows that the subject shipment was
Court of Appeals, et al., 201 SCRA 102 estimated to arrive in Manila on April 3,
[1991]). 1977. While there was no special contract
entered into by the parties indicating the
However, the aforequoted ruling applies only date of arrival of the subject shipment,
if such contracts will not create an absurd petitioner nevertheless, was very well aware
situation as in the case at bar. The of the specific date when the goods were
questioned provision in the subject bill of expected to arrive as indicated in the bill of
lading has the effect of practically leaving lading itself. In this regard, there arises no
the date of arrival of the subject shipment on need to execute another contract for the
the sole determination and will of the carrier. purpose as it would be a mere superfluity.

While it is true that common carriers In the case before us, we find that
are not obligated by law to carry and to a delay in the delivery of the goods
deliver merchandise, and persons are spanning a period of two (2) months
not vested with the right to prompt and seven (7) days falls was beyond the
delivery, unless such common carriers realm of reasonableness. Described as
previously assume the obligation to gelatin capsules for use in pharmaceutical
deliver at a given date or time, delivery products, subject shipment was delivered to,
of shipment or cargo should at least be and left in, the possession and custody of
made within a reasonable time. petitioner-carrier for transport to Manila via
Oakland, California. But through petitioner's
In Saludo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals (207 SCRA negligence was mishipped to Richmond,
498 [1992]) this Court held: Virginia.

The oft-repeated rule regarding a Petitioner's insitence that it cannot be


carrier's liability for delay is that in the held liable for the delay finds no merit.

You might also like