Belgian Overseas vs.
Philippine First, 383 SCRA 23, G.R. No. 143133, June 05, 2002
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
CMC Trading A.G. shipped on board the MN ‘Anangel Sky’ at
Hamburg, Germany 242 coils of various Prime Cold Rolled Steel sheets for
transportation to Manila consigned to the Philippine Steel Trading
Corporation. On July 28, 1990, MN Anangel Sky arrived at the port of
Manila and, within the subsequent days, discharged the subject cargo.
Four (4) coils were found to be in bad order B.O. Tally sheet No. 154974.
Finding the four (4) coils in their damaged state to be unfit for the intended
purpose, the consignee Philippine Steel Trading Corporation declared the same
as total loss.
Philippine First Insurance refused to submit to the
consignee’s claim. Consequently, Belgian Overseas paid the consignee and
was subrogated to the latter’s rights and causes of action against the defendants-appellees.
Subsequently, the plaintiff-appellant instituted this complaint for recovery of
the amount paid by them, to the consignee as insured.
Impugning the propriety of the suit against them,
defendants-appellees imputed that the damage and/or loss was due to
pre-shipment damage, to the inherent nature, vice or defect of the goods, or to
perils, danger, and accidents of the sea, or to insufficiency of packing
thereof, or to the act or omission of the shipper of the goods or their
representatives. In addition, thereto, defendants-appellees argued that
their liability, if there be any, should not exceed the limitations of
liability provided for in the bill of lading and other pertinent
laws.
Finally, defendants-appellees averred that, in any event,
they exercised due diligence and foresight required by law to prevent any
damage/loss to said shipment.”
ISSUE
Whether or not a notation in the bill of lading at the time
of loading is sufficient to show pre-shipment damage and to exempt herein
defendants from liability.
RULING
No, a notation in the bill of lading at the time of loading
is insufficient
Under
the law, mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier
and of their arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes a prima
facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no adequate
explanation is given as to how the deterioration, the loss or the destruction
of the goods happened, the transporter shall be held responsible.
In
this case, petitioners failed to rebut the prima facie presumption of
negligence. True, the words "metal envelopes rust stained and slightly
dented" were noted on the Bill of Lading; however, there is no showing
that petitioners exercised due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.
Having failed to discharge the burden of proving that they have exercised the
extraordinary diligence required by law, petitioners cannot escape liability
for the damage to the four coils
No comments:
Post a Comment