Maersk Line vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 108, G.R. No. 94761, May 17,
1993
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
Efren Castillo, proprietor of Ethegal Laboratories, ordered
600,000 empty gelatin capsules from Eli Lilly, Inc. for his pharmaceutical
products in the Philippines. The capsules were placed in 6 drums of 100,000
capsules each valued at $1,668.71. Eli Lilly informed Castillo that the
capsules were already shipped on board MV "Anders Maesrkline" and
expected to arrive in the Philippines on April 3, 1977. However, the capsules
were diverted to Richmond, VA, and then back to Oakland, CA, resulting in the
goods arriving in the Philippines on June 10, 1977. Castillo refused to take
delivery and filed an action for rescission of contract with damages against
Maersk and Eli Lilly, alleging gross negligence and undue delay.
After
trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of respondent Castillo. On appeal,
respondent court affirmed the lower court's decision with modifications.
ISSUE
Whether or not the common carrier is liable for damages.
RULING
Yes, the common carrier is liable for damages.
Under settled 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, SC held that the petitioner is liable for damages
due to the delay in the delivery of goods, based on the rule that contracts of
adhesion are void. The lower court ruled that the exemption against liability
for delay is against public policy and therefore void. The private respondent's
action is anchored on Article 1170 of the NCC, not Admiralty law. The delay of
two 2 months and seven 7 days was beyond reasonableness. The shipment was
described as gelatin capsules for pharmaceutical products and was mishipped to
Richmond, Virginia due to the petitioner's negligence. The petitioner's
insistence that it cannot be held liable for the delay is found to be
unfounded.
No comments:
Post a Comment