Malayan vs. Manila
Port, 85 SCRA 320
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
In a suit
for recovery of money arising out of short delivery and pilferage of goods —
which came into the Philippines under four importations — while in the
possession of the Manila Port Service, judgment was rendered by the City Court
of Manila against defendants. The latter appealed. Thereafter, in the Court of
First Instance of Manila, judgment was rendered against the defendants.
Defendants
appealed on points of law.
Firstly, on December
31, 1961, the arrival of the "Pioneer Ming" from the United States
with a shipment of electrical surface raceways and fittings resulted in the
pilferage of one carton and the non-delivery of six cartons, forming the basis
of the first cause of action.
Secondly, on November
29, 1961, the Brunette Shoe Factory imported upper leather, but upon discharge
into the custody of Manila Port Service, the delivered leather fell short of
111-¾ square feet, leading to the second cause of action.
The third cause of
action, arising on November 27, 1961, involves Dupro (Philippines), Inc.'s
importation of 18 cases of auto parts on the "Pioneer Ming," with one
case being pilfered upon discharge into the Manila Port Service's custody.
Lastly, the fourth
cause of action relates to the arrival on September 15, 1962, of a shipment of
15 cases of black umbrella cloth imported by Chua Luan and Co., Inc. from Japan
via the SS "Narra."
Despite being
discharged into the custody of the Manila Port Service, two cases of the
shipment were pilfered, resulting in a loss to the consignee.
ISSUE
Whether or not the
Manila Port Service is liable.
RULING
Yes, the Manila Port
Service is liable.
Firstly, Paragraph 7 of the
Stipulation of Facts reads: "VII. That the goods were discharged complete
into the custody of the defendant." Defendants in their brief categorically
state that the opinion of the lower court "that the shipments in question
were discharged into the custody of the defendant Manila Port Service complete
with respect to quantity, is not disputed."
Secondly, Article 1265 of the Civil
Code provides that whenever "the thing is lost in the possession of the
debtor, it shall be presumed that the loss was due to his fault, unless there
is proof to the contrary." As early as 1907, this Court held that under
Article 1183 of the Spanish Civil Code (Article 1265 of the new Code),
"the burden of explanation of the loss rested upon the depositary and
under article 1769 [of the Spanish Civil Code — now Article 1981 of the new
Civil Code], the fault is presumed to be his."
In this case, it is now futile for
defendants to pass on liability to the carriers which are not parties to this
action. Although defendants argue the fact that the shipments were received by
defendant Manila Port Service complete, this does not mean that the goods were
received in "good order". This is immaterial because plaintiff's
claim is for short delivery and pilferage. Furthermore, drawing parallels
between the legal relationships of consignee-arrastre operator and
consignee-common carrier, the arrastre operator is obligated to care for the
goods. It would
seem quite elementary that since the care to be used in the safekeeping of the
goods rests peculiarly within the knowledge of the Manila Port Service, it is
incumbent upon said defendant to prove that the losses were not due to its
negligence or that of its employees. Because there is no proof that the losses
occurred either without defendants' fault or by reason of caso fortuito,
defendants are liable.
No comments:
Post a Comment