Case Digest: ICTS vs. Prudential Guarantee, 320 SCRA 244, G.R. No. 134514

 

ICTS vs. Prudential Guarantee, 320 SCRA 244, G.R. No. 134514, December 8, 1999

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Mother vessel Tao He loaded and received on board in San Francisco, California, a shipment of five lots of canned foodstuff complete and in good order and condition for transport to Manila in favor of Duel Food Enterprises (consignee) under “shipper’s load and count”.

The shipment arrived at the port of Manila and discharged by the vessel MS Wei He in favor of ICTSI for safekeeping. The brokerage withdrew the shipment and delivered the same to the consignee. An inspection there revealed that 161 cartoons were missing valued at P85,984.40. Consignee learned of such shortage on June 4, 1990. It filed claim for loss on October 2, 1990. Claim for indemnification of the loss having been denied by ICTSI and the brokerage, consignee sought payment from Prudential (insurer) under the marine cargo policy.

The appellate court found ICTSI negligent in its duty to exercise due diligence over the shipment. It also ruled that the filing of a claim depended on the issuance of a certificate of loss by ICTSI based on the liability clause printed on the back of the arrastre and wharfage receipt. Since ICTSI did not issue such a certificate despite being informed of the shortage, the 15-day period given to the consignee for filing a formal claim never began. Prudential, therefore can hold the ICTSI liable for the shortage.

ISSUE/S

1) Whether or not ICTSI negligent in its duty to exercise due diligence over the shipment. 

2) Whether or not the consignee fail to file a formal claim within the period stated on the dorsal side of the arrastre and wharfage receipt. 

RULING

1)  No. The consigned goods were shipped under “shipper’s load and count”. This means that the shipper was solely responsible for the loading of the container, while the carrier was oblivious to the contents of the shipment. Protection against pilferage of the shipment was the consignee’s lookout. The arrastre operator was not required to verify the contents of the container received and to compare them with those declared by the shipper because as earlier stated, the cargo was at the shipper’s load and count. In this case, the arrastre operator was expected to deliver to the consignee only the container received from the carrier. The legal relationship between the arrastre and consignee is akin to that between a warehouseman and a depositor. As to both the nature of the functions and the place of their performance, arrastre operator’s services are clearly not maritime in character.

2)  Yes. In order to hold the arrastre operator liable for lost or damaged goods, the claimant should file with the operator a claim for the value of said goods “within the 15-day period from the date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel.” The filing within the period is in the nature of a prescriptive period for bringing an action and is a condition precedent to holding the arrastre operator liable. In an endeavor to promote fairness, equity and justness, however, a long line of cases has held that the 15-day period for filing claims should be counted from the date the consignee learns of the loss, damage or misdelivery of goods.

In this case, by the time the claim for the loss was filed on October 2, 1990, four months had already elapsed from the date of delivery. In any event, within 15 days from the time the loss was discovered, the consignee could have filed a provisional claim, which would have constituted substantial compliance with the rule. Its failure to do so relieved the arrastre operator of any liability for the non-delivery of the goods. The rationale between the time limit is that, without it, a consignee could too easily concoct or fabricate claims and deprive the arrastre operator of the best opportunity to prove immediately their veracity.