Sanchez Brokerage v. Court of Appeals, 447 SCRA 427, G.R. 147079, December 21, 2004.
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
On
July 8, 1992, Wyeth-Pharma GMBH shipped on board an aircraft of KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines at Dusseldorf, Germany oral contraceptives consisting of 86,800
Blisters Femenal tablets, 14,000 Blisters Nordiol tablets and 42,000 Blisters
Trinordiol tablets for delivery to Manila in favor of the consignee,
Wyeth-Suaco Laboratories, Inc. Wyeth-Suaco insured the shipment against all
risks with FGU Insurance.
Upon
arrival of the shipment on July 11, 1992 at the Ninoy Aquino International
Airport (NAIA), it was discharged "without exception" and delivered
to the warehouse of the Philippine Skylanders, Inc. (PSI) located also at the
NAIA for safekeeping.
In
order to secure the release of the cargoes from the PSI and the Bureau of
Customs, Wyeth-Suaco engaged the services of Sanchez Brokerage which had been
its licensed broker since 1984. Representative of Sanchez Brokerage, M. Sison,
acknowledged that he received the cargoes consisting of pieces in good
condition.
On
July 31, 1992, Ronnie Likas, a representative of Wyeth-Suaco, acknowledged the
delivery of the cargoes by affixing his signature on the delivery receipt. Upon
inspection, however, he, together with Ruben Alonzo of Elite Surveyors,
discovered that 44 cartons containing Femenal and Nordiol tablets were in bad
order.
FGU Insurance Corporation (FGU) then
brought an action for reimbursement against petitioner A.F. Sanchez Brokerage
Inc. (Sanchez Brokerage) to collect the amount paid by the former to
Wyeth-Suaco Laboratories Inc. (Wyeth-Suaco) as insurance payment for the goods
delivered in bad condition.
A.F. Brokerage refused to admit
liability for the damaged goods which it delivered from Philippines Skylanders,
Inc. (PSI) to Wyeth-Suaco as it maintained that the damage was due to improper
and insufficient export packaging, discovered when the sealed containers were
opened outside the PSI warehouse.
The Regional Trial Court of Makati
dismissed the said complaint; however, the decision was subsequently reversed
and set aside by the Court of Appeals, finding that Sanchez Brokerage is liable
for the carriage of cargo as a ―common carrier by definition of the New Civil
Code.
ISSUE
Whether or not Sanzhez Brokerage
Inc. is a common carrier and is liable for the delivery of the damaged goods.
RULING
Yes, A.F. Sanchez Brokerage Inc. is
a common carrier and expected to exercise extraordinary diligence.
Under the law, common carriers are
persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of
carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both by land, water or air for
compensation, offering their services to the public. It does not distinguish
between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of goods and one
who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity.
In this case, Anacleto
F. Sanchez, Jr., the Manager and Principal Broker of Sanchez Brokerage, himself
testified that the services the firm offers include the delivery of goods to
the warehouse of the consignee or importer. The contention, therefore, of
petitioner that it is not a common carrier but a customs broker whose principal
function is to prepare the correct customs declaration and proper shipping
documents as required by law is bereft of merit. It suffices that petitioner undertakes
to deliver the goods for pecuniary consideration. In this light, petitioner as
a common carrier is mandated to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods it transports according to all the circumstances of
each case. In the event that the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, it
is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it
proves that it observed extraordinary diligence.
It was established that Sanchez
Brokerage received the cargoes from the PSI warehouse in good order and
condition and that upon delivery by petitioner some of the cargoes were found
to be in bad order as noted in the Delivery Receipt and as indicated in the
Survey and Destruction Report. If the claim of Sanchez Brokerage that some of
the cartons were already damaged upon delivery to it were true, then it should
naturally have received the cargo under protest or with reservation duly noted
on the receipt issued by PSI but it made no such protest or reservation.
Therefore, A.F. Sanchez Brokerage Inc., being a common carrier, was found
negligent and is held liable of the damaged goods.
No comments:
Post a Comment