Case Digest: Maritime Agencies vs. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 709, G.R. No. 77638

 

Maritime Agencies vs. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 709, G.R. No. 77638, July 12, 1990

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Transcontinental Fertilizer Company of London chartered from Hongkong Island Shipping Company of Hongkong the motor vessel named "Hongkong Island" for the shipment of 8,073.35 MT (gross) bagged urea from Novorossisk, Odessa, USSR to the Philippines. Part of the shipment will be discharged in Cebu and another in Manila. The goods were insured by the consignee with the Union Insurance Society of Canton, Ltd. against all risks.

Maritime Agencies & Services, Inc. was appointed as the charterer's agent and Macondray Company, Inc. as the owner's agent.

On October 31, 1979, the consignee filed a formal claim against Maritime, copy furnished Macondray, for the amount of P87,163.54, representing C & F value of the 1,383 shortlanded bags. On January 12, 1980, the consignee filed another formal claim, this time against Viva Customs Brokerage, for the amount of P36,030.23, representing the value of 574 bags of net unrecovered spillage.

These claims having been rejected, the consignee then went to Union, which on demand paid the total indemnity pursuant to the insurance contract. As subrogee of the consignee, Union then filed a complaint for reimbursement of this amount, with legal interest and attorney's fees, against Hongkong Island Company, Ltd., Maritime Agencies & Services, Inc. and/or Viva Customs Brokerage.  On April 20, 1981, the complaint was amended to drop Viva and implead Macondray Company, Inc. as a new defendant.

After trial, the trial court rendered judgment holding the defendants liable. On appeal, CA modified RTC’s decision. Maritime and Union filed separate motions for reconsideration which were both denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not Maritime Agencies, as the charterer's agent, was liable for the cargo loss.

RULING

Maritime Agencies, as the charterer's agent, was not liable for the cargo loss.

Under the law, a voyage charter being a private carriage, the parties may freely contract respecting liability for damage to the goods and other matters. The basic principle is that "the responsibility for cargo loss falls on the one who agreed to perform the duty involved" by the terms of most voyage charters. It is a well-settled principle that the agent shall be liable for the act or omission of the principal only if the latter is undisclosed.

In this case, the charterer did not represent itself as a carrier and indeed assumed responsibility only for the unloading of the cargo, i.e, after the goods were already outside the custody of the vessel. In supervising the unloading of the cargo and issuing daily report for the discharge of the cargo, Maritime acted in representation of the charterer and not of the vessel. It thus cannot be considered a ship agent. As a mere charterer's agent, it cannot be held solidarily liable with Transcontinental for the losses/damages to the cargo outside the custody of the vessel. Notably, Transcontinental was disclosed as the charterer's principal and there is no question that Maritime acted within the scope of its authority. The liability imposable upon it cannot be borne by Maritime which, as a mere agent, is not answerable for injury caused by its principal.