Case Digest: Philippine Charter vs. Chemoil, G.R. No. 136888

 

Philippine Charter vs. Chemoil, 463 SCRA 202, G.R. No. 136888, June 29, 2005

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of non-life insurance. Respondent Chemoil Lighterage Corporation is also a domestic corporation engaged in the transport of goods.

Samkyung Chemical Company, Ltd., based in South Korea, shipped 62.06 metric tons of the liquid chemical DIOCTYL PHTHALATE (DOP) on board MT “TACHIBANA  and another 436.70 metric tons of DOP to the Philippines.

The consignee was Plastic Group Phils., Inc. in Manila. PGP insured the cargo with Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation against all risks.

The ocean tanker MT “TACHIBANA” unloaded the cargo to the tanker barge, which shall transport the same to Del Pan Bridge in Pasig River and haul it by land to PGP’s storage tanks in Calamba, Laguna. Upon inspection by PGP, the samples taken from the shipment showed discoloration demonstrating that it was damaged. PGP then sent a letter where it formally made an insurance claim for the loss it sustained. Petitioner paid PGP the full and final payment for the loss and issued a Subrogation Receipt. Meanwhile, PGP paid the respondent the full payment for the latter’s services.

An action for damages was instituted by the petitioner-insurer against the respondent carrier before the RTC, Br.16, City of Manila. The RTC decided in favor of the plaintiff. The counterclaims are DISMISSED. On appeal, CA reversed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not the damage to the cargo was due to the fault or negligence of the respondent. 

RULING

No, the damage was not due to the fault or negligence of the respondent. 

Under the law, within twenty-four hours following the receipt of the merchandise a claim may be made against the carrier on account of damage or average found upon opening the packages. After the periods mentioned have elapsed, or after the transportation charges have been paid, no claim whatsoever shall be admitted against the carrier with regard to the condition in which the goods transported were delivered.

In this case, PGP failed to file any notice, claim or protest within the period required by Article 366 of the Code of Commerce, which is a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of action against the carrier and the transportation charges have been paid by PGP which estopped petitioners to claim whatsoever against the carrier.