Case Digest: Summa Insurance vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 175, G.R. No. 84860

 

Summa Insurance vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 175, G.R. No. 84860, February 06, 1996

Subject: Transportation Law

 

FACTS

The S/S "Galleon Sapphire", a vessel owned by the National Galleon Shipping Corporation (NGSC), arrived at Pier 3, South Harbor, Manila, carrying a shipment consigned to the order of Caterpillar Far East Ltd. with Semirara Coal Corporation (Semirara) as "notify party". The shipment, including a bundle of PC 8 U blades. The shipment was discharged to the custody of private respondent, formerly known as E. Razon, Inc., the exclusive arrastre operator at the South Harbor. Accordingly, three good-order cargo receipts were issued by NGSC, duly signed by the ship's checker and a representative of private respondent.

The forwarder, Sterling International Brokerage Corporation, withdrew the shipment from the pier and loaded it on the barge "Semirara 8104". However, when Semirara inspected the shipment at its warehouse, the bundle of PC8U blades was missing.

Semirara then filed with petitioner, private respondent and NGSC its claim for the value of the lost bundle. Petitioner paid Semirara the invoice value of the lost shipment. Semirara thereafter executed a release of claim and subrogation receipt. Consequently, petitioner filed its claims with NGSC and private respondent but it was unsuccessful.

The petitioner then filed a complaint with the RTC of Manila against NGSC and private respondent for collection of a sum of money, damages and attorney's fees.

The trial court rendered a decision absolving NGSC from any liability but finding private respondent liable to petitioner. On appeal, the CA modified the decision of the trial court and reduced private respondent's liability. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not an arrastre operator is legally liable for the loss of a shipment in its custody.

RULING

Yes, the arrastre operator is legally liable for the loss of a shipment in its custody.

Under Article 1733 of the Civil Code and Section 3(8) of the Warehouse Receipts Law, being the custodian of the goods discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to take good care of the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their possession.

In this case, the relationship therefore between the consignee and the arrastre operator s much akin to that existing between the consignee or owner of shipped goods and the common carrier, or that between a depositor and a warehouseman. In the performance of its obligations, an arrastre operator should observe the same degree of diligence as that required of a common carrier and a warehouseman as enunciated from the above provision. It has been established that the shipment was lost while in the custody of private respondent. We find private respondent liable for the loss.