Maersk Lines v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 108, G.R. 94761, May 17, 1993.
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
Petitioner
Maersk Line is engaged in the transportation of goods by sea, doing business in
the Philippines through its general agent Compania General de Tabacos de
Filipinas. Private respondent Efren Castillo, on the other hand, is the
proprietor of Ethegal Laboratories, a firm engaged in the manufacturer of
pharmaceutical products.
Through a
Memorandum of Shipment, the shipper Eli Lilly, Inc. of Puerto Rico advised
private respondent as consignee that the 600,000 empty gelatin capsules in six
(6) drums of 100,000 capsules each, were shipped on board MV "Anders
Maerskline" for shipment to the
Philippines via Oakland, California. In said Memorandum, shipper Eli Lilly,
Inc. specified the date of arrival to be April 3, 1977.
For reasons
unknown, said cargo of capsules were mishipped and diverted to Richmond,
Virginia, USA and then transported back Oakland, Califorilia. The goods finally
arrived in the Philippines on June 10, 1977 or after two (2) months from the
date specified in the memorandum. As a consequence, private respondent as
consignee refused to take delivery of the goods on account of its failure to
arrive on time.
Private
respondent alleging gross negligence and undue delay in the delivery of the
goods, filed an action before RTC for rescission of contract with damages
against petitioner and Eli Lilly, Inc. as defendants.
Denying that it
committed breach of contract, petitioner alleged in its that answer that the
subject shipment was transported in accordance with the provisions of the
covering bill of lading and that its liability under the law on transportation
of good attaches only in case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the
goods as provided for in Article 1734 of Civil Code.
Defendant Eli
Lilly, Inc. filed its answer with compulsory and crossclaim alleging that the
delay in the arrival of the subject merchandise was due solely to the gross
negligence of petitioner Maersk Line. The issues having been joined, private
respondent moved for the dismissal of the complaint against Eli Lilly, Inc. on
the ground that the evidence on record shows that the delay in the delivery of
the shipment was attributable solely to petitioner. Responding to this, RTC
dismissed the complaint against Eli Lilly, Inc.
After trial RTC
rendered judgment in favor of respondent Castillo. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision
of RTC with modification as to the awarding of corresponding damages and
attorney’s fees. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether or not Castillo
is entitled to damages resulting from delay in the delivery of the shipment in
the absence in the bill of lading of a stipulation on the period of delivery.
RULING
Yes, Castillo
is entitled to damages despite absence in the bill of lading of a stipulation
on the period of delivery.
Under the law
and existing jurisprudence, common carriers are not obligated by law to carry
and to deliver merchandise, and persons are not vested with the right to prompt
delivery, unless such common carriers previously assume the obligation to
deliver at a given date or time, delivery of shipment or cargo should at least
be made within a reasonable time.
In this case, a
delay in the delivery of the goods spanning a period of two (2) months and
seven (7) days falls was beyond the realm of reasonableness for it was through
petitioner's negligence that the cargo was mishipped to Richmond, Virginia.
Hence, petitioner's insistence that it cannot be held liable for the delay
finds no merit. While there was no special contract (aside from the bill of
lading which is a contract of adhesion) entered into by the parties indicating
the date of arrival of the subject shipment, petitioner nevertheless, was very
well aware of the specific date when the goods were expected to arrive as
indicated in the bill of lading itself. SC held that there is no need to
execute another contract for the purpose as it would be a mere superfluity.
No comments:
Post a Comment