PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE
CORPORATION vs. UNKNOWN OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V "NATIONAL HONOR,"
NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER
SERVICES, INC., G.R. No. 161833, July 08, 2005.
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
On November 5, 1995, J.
Trading Co. Ltd. of Seoul, Korea, loaded a shipment of four units of parts and
accessories in the port of Pusan, Korea, on board the vessel M/V "National
Honor," represented in the Philippines by its agent, National Shipping
Corporation of the Philippines (NSCP). The shipment was for delivery to Manila,
Philippines. Freight forwarder, Samhwa Inter-Trans Co., Ltd., issued Bill of
Lading No. SH9410306 in the name of the shipper consigned to the order of
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company with arrival notice in Manila to ultimate
consignee Blue Mono International Company, Incorporated (BMICI), Binondo,
Manila.
The shipment was contained in
two wooden crates, complete and in good order condition. here were no markings
on the outer portion of the crates except the name of the consignee.
The M/V "National
Honor" arrived at the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT) on
November 14, 1995. The International Container Terminal Services, Incorporated
(ICTSI) was furnished with a copy of the crate cargo list and bill of lading,
and it knew the contents of the crate. The following day, the vessel started
discharging its cargoes using its winch crane. The crane was operated by
Olegario Balsa, a winchman from the ICTSI, the exclusive arrastre operator of
MICT.
As the crate was being hoisted
from the vessel’s hatch, the mid-portion of the wooden flooring suddenly
snapped in the air, about five feet high from the vessel’s twin deck, sending
all its contents crashing down hard, resulting in extensive damage to the
shipment.
BMICI’s customs broker, JRM
Incorporated, took delivery of the cargo in such damaged condition. Upon
receipt of the damaged shipment, BMICI found that the same could no longer be
used for the intended purpose.
BMICI subsequently filed
separate claims against the NSCP, the ICTSI, and its insurer, the PCIC. When
the other companies denied liability, PCIC paid the claim and was issued a
Subrogation Receipt. As subrogee, PCIC then filed with the RTC of Manila, a
Complaint for Damages against the "Unknown owner of the vessel M/V
National Honor," NSCP and ICTSI, as defendants. PCIC alleged that the loss
was due to the fault and negligence of the defendants
RTC rendered judgment for PCIC
and ordered the complaint dismissed. CA affirmed in toto the decision of RTC.
Petitioner asserts that the
mere proof of receipt of the shipment by the common carrier (to the carrier) in
good order, and their arrival at the place of destination in bad order makes
out a prima facie case against it; in such case, it is liable for the loss or
damage to the cargo absent satisfactory explanation given by the carrier as to
the exercise of extraordinary diligence.
ISSUE
Whether or not the damage
sustained by the shipment was due to its defective packing and not to the fault
and negligence of the common carrier.
RULING
Yes, the damage sustained was
due to defective packaging and not the fault of the respondents.
Under the law, common carriers
are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods
and for the safety of passengers transported by them, according to all the
circumstance of each case. In the event of loss, destruction or deterioration
of the insured goods, common carriers shall be responsible unless the same is
brought about, among others, by flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other
natural disaster or calamity. In all other cases, if the goods are lost,
destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault
or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence.
In this case, SC held that
appellant’s allegation that since the cargo arrived safely from the port of
Pusan, Korea without defect, the fault should be attributed to the arrastre
operator who mishandled the cargo, is without merit. The cargo fell while it
was being carried only at about five (5) feet high above the ground. It would
not have so easily collapsed had the cargo been properly packed. Not only did
the shipper fail to properly pack the cargo, it also failed to indicate an
arrow in the middle portion of the cargo where additional slings should be
attached. At any rate, the issue of negligence is factual in nature and in this
regard, it is settled that factual finding of the lower courts are entitled to
great weight and respect on appeal, and, in fact, accorded finality when
supported by substantial evidence.
Petitioner failed to adduce
any evidence to counter that of respondent ICTSI. In addition, under Bill of
Lading issued by the respondent NSCP and accepted by the petitioner, the latter
represented and warranted that the goods were properly packed, and disclosed in
writing the "condition, nature, quality or characteristic that may cause
damage, injury or detriment to the goods." Absent any signs on the
shipment requiring the placement of a sling cable in the mid-portion of the
crate, the respondent ICTSI was not obliged to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment