Philippine First Insurance v. Wallem First Shipping, 582 SCRA 457, G.R. No. 165647, March 26, 2009
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
In October
1995, Anhui Chemicals Import & Export Corporation loaded on board M/S
Offshore Master a shipment consisting of 10,000 bags of sodium sulphate
anhydrous 99 PCT Min. (shipment), complete and in good order for transportation
to and delivery at the port of Manila for consignee, L.G. Atkimson
Import-Export, Inc. (consignee), covered by a Clean Bill of Lading. The Owner
and/or Charterer of M/V Offshore Master is unknown while the shipper of the
shipment is Shanghai Fareast Ship Business Company. Both are foreign firms
doing business in the Philippines, thru its local ship agent, respondent Wallem
Philippines Shipping, Inc. (Wallem).
The
shipment arrived at the port of Manila and was subsequently discharged. It was
disclosed that during the discharge of shipment, 2,426 poly bags (bags) were in
bad order and condition, having sustained various degrees of spillages and loss.
Asia Star
Freight Services, Inc. undertook the delivery of the subject shipment from the
pier to the consignee’s warehouse in Quezon City, where final inspection was
conducted jointly by the consignee’s representative and the cargo surveyor.
Upon inspection, it was discovered that 63,065.00 kilograms of the shipment had
sustained unrecovered spillages, while 58,235.00 kilograms had been exposed and
contaminated, resulting in losses due to depreciation and downgrading.
In April
1996, the consignee filed a formal claim with Wallem for the value of the
damaged shipment, to no avail. Thus, consignee filed a formal claim with
petitioner Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc., insurer of goods, for the
damage and losses sustained by the shipment and the latter signed a subrogation
receipt. In the exercise of its right of subrogation, petitioner sent a demand
letter to Wallem for the recovery of the amount paid by petitioner to the
consignee. However, despite receipt of the letter, Wallem did not settle nor
even send a response to petitioner’s claim.
Consequently,
petitioner instituted an action before the RTC for damages against respondents.
RTC held the shipping company and the arrastre operator solidarily liable since
both the arrastre operator and the carrier are charged with and obligated to
deliver the goods in good order condition to the consignee. In an appeal, CA
reversed and set aside the RTC’s decision holding that there is no solidary
liability between the carrier and the arrastre operator because it was clearly
established by the court a quo that the damage and losses of the shipment were
attributed to the mishandling by the arrastre operator in the discharge of the
shipment. Hence this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or
not the common carrier’s duties extend to the obligation to safely discharge
the cargo from the vessel; Whether or not the carrier should be held liable for
the cost of the damaged shipment.
RULING
Yes.
Section
3(2) of the COGSA states that among the carriers’ responsibilities are to
properly and carefully load, care for and discharge the goods carried. The bill
of lading covering the subject shipment likewise stipulates that the carrier’s
liability for loss or damage to the goods ceases after its discharge from the
vessel. Article 619 of the Code of Commerce holds a ship captain liable for the
cargo from the time it is turned over to him until its delivery at the port of
unloading.
In this
case, the bad order torn bags, was due to stevedores[‘] utilizing steel
hooks/spikes in piling the cargo to [the] pallet board at the vessel’s cargo
holds and at the pier designated area before and after discharged that cause
the bags to torn while under the supervision of Wallem. It is undisputed that the
damage or losses were incurred during the discharge of the shipment while under
the supervision of the carrier. Consequently, the carrier is liable for the
damage or losses caused to the shipment.
No comments:
Post a Comment