Mitsui Lines v. Court of
Appeals, 287 SCRA 366, G.R. No. 119571, March 11, 1998
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
Petitioner Mitsui O.S.K. Lines
Ltd. is a foreign corporation represented in the Philippines by its agent,
Magsaysay Agencies. It entered into a contract of carriage through Meister
Transport, Inc., an international freight forwarder, with private respondent
Lavine Loungewear Manufacturing Corporation to transport goods of the latter
from Manila to Le Havre, France. Petitioner undertook to deliver the goods to
France 28 days from initial loading. On July 24, 1991, petitioner's vessel
loaded private respondent's container van for carriage at the said port of
origin.
However, in Kaoshiung, Taiwan the
goods were not transshipped immediately, with the result that the shipment
arrived in Le Havre only on November 14, 1991. The consignee allegedly paid
only half the value of the said goods on the ground that they did not arrive in
France until the "off season" in that country. The remaining half was
allegedly charged to the account of private respondent which in turn demanded
payment from petitioner through its agent.
As petitioner denied private
respondent's claim, the latter filed a case in the Regional Trial Court on
April 14, 1992. In the original complaint, private respondent impleaded as
defendants Meister Transport, Inc. and Magsaysay Agencies, Inc., the latter as
agent of petitioner Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. On the other hand, petitioner
filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the claim against it had prescribed
under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.
RTC denied petitioner's motion as well as its subsequent motion for reconsideration. Also, CA affirmed the decision of RTC. Hence this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not the private respondent's action is for "loss or damage" to goods shipped, within the meaning of Section 3 (6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA).
RULING
No, the action is not for “loss
or damage” to goods shipped, within the meaning of Section 3(6) of COGSA.
As defined in the Civil Code and
as applied to Section 3(6), paragraph 4 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act,
"loss" contemplates merely a situation where no delivery at all was
made by the shipper of the goods because the same had perished, gone out of
commerce, or disappeared in such a way that their existence is unknown, or they
cannot be recovered.
In this case, there is neither
deterioration nor disappearance nor destruction of goods caused by the
carrier's breach of contract. Whatever reduction there may have been in the
value of the goods is not due to their deterioration or disappearance because
they had been damaged in transit. The suit is not for "loss or
damage" to goods contemplated in Section 3(6), the question of
prescription of action is governed not by the COGSA but by Article 1144 of the
Civil Code which provides for a prescriptive period of ten years.
No comments:
Post a Comment