Case Digest: Philippine First Insurance v. Wallem First Shipping, 582 SCRA 457, G.R. No. 165647

 

Philippine First Insurance v. Wallem First Shipping, 582 SCRA 457, G.R. No. 165647, March 26, 2009

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

In October 1995, Anhui Chemicals Import & Export Corporation loaded on board M/S Offshore Master a shipment consisting of 10,000 bags of sodium sulphate anhydrous 99 PCT Min. (shipment), complete and in good order for transportation to and delivery at the port of Manila for consignee, L.G. Atkimson Import-Export, Inc. (consignee), covered by a Clean Bill of Lading. The Owner and/or Charterer of M/V Offshore Master is unknown while the shipper of the shipment is Shanghai Fareast Ship Business Company. Both are foreign firms doing business in the Philippines, thru its local ship agent, respondent Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. (Wallem).

The shipment arrived at the port of Manila and was subsequently discharged. It was disclosed that during the discharge of shipment, 2,426 poly bags (bags) were in bad order and condition, having sustained various degrees of spillages and loss.

Asia Star Freight Services, Inc. undertook the delivery of the subject shipment from the pier to the consignee’s warehouse in Quezon City, where final inspection was conducted jointly by the consignee’s representative and the cargo surveyor. Upon inspection, it was discovered that 63,065.00 kilograms of the shipment had sustained unrecovered spillages, while 58,235.00 kilograms had been exposed and contaminated, resulting in losses due to depreciation and downgrading.

In April 1996, the consignee filed a formal claim with Wallem for the value of the damaged shipment, to no avail. Thus, consignee filed a formal claim with petitioner Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc., insurer of goods, for the damage and losses sustained by the shipment and the latter signed a subrogation receipt. In the exercise of its right of subrogation, petitioner sent a demand letter to Wallem for the recovery of the amount paid by petitioner to the consignee. However, despite receipt of the letter, Wallem did not settle nor even send a response to petitioner’s claim.

Consequently, petitioner instituted an action before the RTC for damages against respondents. RTC held the shipping company and the arrastre operator solidarily liable since both the arrastre operator and the carrier are charged with and obligated to deliver the goods in good order condition to the consignee. In an appeal, CA reversed and set aside the RTC’s decision holding that there is no solidary liability between the carrier and the arrastre operator because it was clearly established by the court a quo that the damage and losses of the shipment were attributed to the mishandling by the arrastre operator in the discharge of the shipment. Hence this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the common carrier’s duties extend to the obligation to safely discharge the cargo from the vessel; Whether or not the carrier should be held liable for the cost of the damaged shipment.

RULING                                   

Yes.

Section 3(2) of the COGSA states that among the carriers’ responsibilities are to properly and carefully load, care for and discharge the goods carried. The bill of lading covering the subject shipment likewise stipulates that the carrier’s liability for loss or damage to the goods ceases after its discharge from the vessel. Article 619 of the Code of Commerce holds a ship captain liable for the cargo from the time it is turned over to him until its delivery at the port of unloading.

In this case, the bad order torn bags, was due to stevedores[‘] utilizing steel hooks/spikes in piling the cargo to [the] pallet board at the vessel’s cargo holds and at the pier designated area before and after discharged that cause the bags to torn while under the supervision of Wallem. It is undisputed that the damage or losses were incurred during the discharge of the shipment while under the supervision of the carrier. Consequently, the carrier is liable for the damage or losses caused to the shipment.

Case Digest: SULPICIO LINES, INC. vs. FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION, G.R. No. 140349

SULPICIO LINES, INC. vs. FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION, G.R. No. 140349, June 29, 2005

Subject: Transportation Law

 

FACTS

In February 1992, Taiyo Yuden Philippines, Inc. (owner of the goods) and Delbros, Inc. (shipper) entered into a contract to transport a shipment of goods consisting of three (3) wooden crates containing one hundred thirty-six (136) cartons of inductors and LC compound on board the V Singapore V20 from Cebu City to Singapore in favor of the consignee, Taiyo Yuden Singapore Pte, Ltd.

Delbros, Inc. engaged the services of the vessel M/V Philippine Princess, owned and operated by petitioner Sulpicio Lines, Inc. (carrier) to ship the goods from Cebu City to Manila. During unloading, one crate containing forty-two (42) cartons dropped from the cargo hatch to the pier apron. The owner of the goods examined the dropped cargo, and upon an alleged finding that the contents of the crate were no longer usable for their intended purpose, they were rejected as a total loss and returned to Cebu City.

The owner of the goods filed a claim with herein petitioner-carrier for the recovery of the value of the rejected cargo which was refused by the latter. The owner sought payment from respondent First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation (insurer). As subrogee, respondent-insurer then filed claims for reimbursement from Delbros, Inc. and petitioner-carrier Sulpicio Lines, Inc. which were subsequently denied. Hence they filed a suit for damages in the RTC.

Petitioner-carrier filed its Answer to Delbros, Inc.’s cross-claim asserting that it observed extraordinary diligence in the handling, storage and general care of the shipment and that subsequent inspection of the shipment by the Manila Adjusters and Surveyors Company showed that the contents of the third crate that had fallen were found to be in apparent sound condition, except that "2 cello bags each of 50 pieces ferri inductors No. LC FL 112270K-60 (c) were unaccounted for and missing as per packaging list."

ISSUE

Whether or not, based on the evidence presented during the trial, the owner of the goods, respondent-insurer’s predecessor-in-interest, did incur damages, and if so, whether or not petitioner-carrier is liable for the same.

RULING

Yes, petitioner-carrier is liable.

Under the law, a common carrier is bound to transport its cargo and its passengers safely "as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard to all circumstances." The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires the common carrier to know and to follow the required precaution for avoiding the damage to, or destruction of, the goods entrusted to it for safe carriage and delivery. It requires common carriers to render service with the greatest skill and foresight and "to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such methods as their nature requires."

In this case, petitioner-carrier miserably failed to adduce any shred of evidence of the required extraordinary diligence to overcome the presumption that it was negligent in transporting the cargo. Petitioner-carrier contention’s that its liability, if any, is only to the extent of the cargo damage or loss and should not include the lack of fitness of the shipment for transport to Singapore due to the damaged packing is erroneous. SC affirms CA’s findings that there was damage suffered by the goods which consisted in the destruction of one wooden crate and the tearing of two (2) cardboard boxes therein which rendered them unfit to be sent to Singapore. The falling of the crate was negligence on the part of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. for which it cannot exculpate itself from liability because it failed to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence.

 

Case Digest: Mitsui Lines v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 366, G.R. No. 119571

 

Mitsui Lines v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 366, G.R. No. 119571, March 11, 1998

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Petitioner Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. is a foreign corporation represented in the Philippines by its agent, Magsaysay Agencies. It entered into a contract of carriage through Meister Transport, Inc., an international freight forwarder, with private respondent Lavine Loungewear Manufacturing Corporation to transport goods of the latter from Manila to Le Havre, France. Petitioner undertook to deliver the goods to France 28 days from initial loading. On July 24, 1991, petitioner's vessel loaded private respondent's container van for carriage at the said port of origin.

However, in Kaoshiung, Taiwan the goods were not transshipped immediately, with the result that the shipment arrived in Le Havre only on November 14, 1991. The consignee allegedly paid only half the value of the said goods on the ground that they did not arrive in France until the "off season" in that country. The remaining half was allegedly charged to the account of private respondent which in turn demanded payment from petitioner through its agent.

As petitioner denied private respondent's claim, the latter filed a case in the Regional Trial Court on April 14, 1992. In the original complaint, private respondent impleaded as defendants Meister Transport, Inc. and Magsaysay Agencies, Inc., the latter as agent of petitioner Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. On the other hand, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the claim against it had prescribed under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

RTC denied petitioner's motion as well as its subsequent motion for reconsideration. Also, CA affirmed the decision of RTC. Hence this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the private respondent's action is for "loss or damage" to goods shipped, within the meaning of Section 3 (6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA).

RULING

No, the action is not for “loss or damage” to goods shipped, within the meaning of Section 3(6) of COGSA.

As defined in the Civil Code and as applied to Section 3(6), paragraph 4 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, "loss" contemplates merely a situation where no delivery at all was made by the shipper of the goods because the same had perished, gone out of commerce, or disappeared in such a way that their existence is unknown, or they cannot be recovered.

In this case, there is neither deterioration nor disappearance nor destruction of goods caused by the carrier's breach of contract. Whatever reduction there may have been in the value of the goods is not due to their deterioration or disappearance because they had been damaged in transit. The suit is not for "loss or damage" to goods contemplated in Section 3(6), the question of prescription of action is governed not by the COGSA but by Article 1144 of the Civil Code which provides for a prescriptive period of ten years.

Case Digest: Negros Navigation v. CA, G.R. No. 110398

 

Negros Navigation v. CA, G.R. No. 110398, November 7, 1997

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

In April of 1980, private respondent Ramon Miranda purchased from the Negros Navigation Co., Inc. four special cabin tickets (#74411, 74412, 74413 and 74414) for his wife, daughter, son and niece who were going to Bacolod City to attend a family reunion. The tickets were for Voyage No. 457-A of the M/V Don Juan, leaving Manila at 1:00 p.m. on April 22, 1980.

The ship sailed from the port of Manila on schedule.

Unfortunately, Don Juan collided off the Tablas Strait in Mindoro, with the M/T Tacloban City, an oil tanker owned by the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) and the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation (PNOC/STC). As a result, the M/V Don Juan sank. Several of her passengers perished in the sea tragedy. The bodies of some of the victims were found and brought to shore, but the four members of private respondents' families were never found.

Private respondents filed a complaint in RTC of Manila against Negros Navigation, PNOC, and PNOC/STC, seeking damages for the death of Ardita de la Victoria Miranda, 48, Rosario V. Miranda, 19, Ramon V. Miranda, Jr., 16, and Elfreda de la Victoria, 26.

RTC ruled in favor of private respondent and ordered the defendants (petitioner) to pay jointly and severally the damages. On appeal, CA affirmed RTC’s decision with some modification. Hence this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the crew members of petitioner are grossly negligent in the performance of their duties; and is Mecenas vs IAC is binding in this case.

RULING

Yes, the crew members of petitioner are grossly negligent in the performance of their duties and the decision promulgated by the court in Mecenas vs IAC is binding in this case.

Under the law, a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

In this case, applying the principle of stare decisis, decision on the Mecenas case was applicale. Negros Navigation was found equally negligent in tolerating the playing of mahjong by the ship captain and other crew members while on board the ship and failing to keep the M/V Don Juan seaworthy so much so that the ship sank within 10 to 15 minutes of its impact with the M/T Tacloban City. In addition, the ship was overloaded evidenced by the Certificate of Inspection issued by the Philippine Coast Guard Commander at Iloilo City stated that the total number of persons allowed on the ship was 864 but there were 1,004 on board the vessel when it sank. Taking these circumstances together, and the fact that the M/V Don Juan, as the faster and better-equipped vessel, could have avoided a collision with the PNOC tanker, this Court held that even if the Tacloban City had been at fault for failing to observe an internationally recognized rule of navigation, the Don Juan was guilty of contributory negligence.

Case Digest: Trans‐Asia Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 118126

Trans‐Asia Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 118126, March 4, 1996

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Private respondent, Atty. Renato Arroyo, a public attorney, bought a ticket from Trans-Asia Shipping, a corporation engaged in inter-island shipping, for the voyage of M/V Asia Thailand vessel to Cagayan de Oro City from Cebu City on November 12, 1991.

At around 5:30 in the evening of November 12, 1991, Aroyo boarded the M/V Asia Thailand vessel. At that instance, plaintiff noticed that some repair works were being undertaken on the engine of the vessel. The vessel departed at around 11:00 in the evening with only one (1) engine running.

After an hour of slow voyage, the vessel stopped near Kawit Island and dropped its anchor thereat. After half an hour of stillness, some passengers demanded that they should be allowed to return to Cebu City for they were no longer willing to continue their voyage to, Cagayan de Oro City. The captain acceded to their request and thus the vessel headed back to Cebu City.

At Cebu City, Aroyo together with the other passengers who requested to be brought back to Cebu City, were allowed to disembark. Thereafter, the vessel proceeded to Cagayan de Oro City. The next day, Aroyo boarded the M/V Asia Japan for its voyage to Cagayan de Oro City, likewise a vessel of petitioner.

On account of this failure of Trans-Asia to transport him to the place of destination on November 12, 1991, Aroyo filed before the trial court a complaint for damages against petitioner.

Private respondent asserted that his complaint was "an action for damages arising from bad faith, breach of contract and from tort," with the former arising from the petitioner's "failure to carry [him] to his place of destination as contracted," while the latter from the "conduct of the [petitioner] resulting [in] the infliction of emotional distress" to the private respondent.

After trial, RTC ruled that it did not appear from the evidence that plaintiff was left in the Port of Cebu because of the fault, negligence, malice or wanton attitude of defendant's employees, the complaint is DISMISSED. Defendant's counterclaim is likewise dismissed it not appearing also that filing of the case by plaintiff was motivated by malice or bad faith.

Unsatisfied, the private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. CA reversed RTC’s decision by applying Article 1755 in relation to Articles 2201, 2208, 2217, and 2232 of the Civil Code and, accordingly, awarded compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner exercised extraordinary diligence required of common carrier.

RULING

No, petitioner did not.

Under the law, a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

In this case, SC fully agree with CA that in allowing its unseaworthy M/V Asia Thailand to leave the port of origin and undertake the contracted voyage, with full awareness that it was exposed to perils of the sea, it deliberately disregarded its solemn duty to exercise extraordinary diligence and obviously acted with bad faith and in a wanton and reckless manner. Petitioner’s contention that the safety or the vessel and passengers was never at stake because the sea was "calm" in the vicinity where it stopped as faithfully recorded in the vessel's logbook and the private respondent was merely "over-reacting" to the situation obtaining then is unacceptable.

Petitioner's defense cannot exculpate it nor mitigate its liability. On the contrary, such a claim demonstrates beyond cavil the petitioner's lack of genuine concern for the safety of its passengers. It was, perhaps, only providential then the sea happened to be calm. Even so, the petitioner should not expect its passengers to act in the manner it desired. The passengers were not stoics; becoming alarmed, anxious, or frightened at the stoppage of a vessel at sea in an unfamiliar zone as nighttime is not the sole prerogative of the faint-hearted. More so in the light of the many tragedies at sea resulting in the loss of lives of hopeless passengers and damage to property simply because common carriers failed in their duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of their obligations.

Case Digest: Lorenzo Shipping v. BJ Marthel, 443 SCRA 163, G.R. No. 145483

Lorenzo Shipping v. BJ Marthel, 443 SCRA 163, G.R. No. 145483, November 19, 2004

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

Petitioner Lorenzo Shipping Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in coastwise shipping. It used to own the cargo vessel M/V Dadiangas Express. The respondent BJ Marthel International, Inc. is a business entity engaged in trading, marketing, and selling of various industrial commodities. It is also an importer and distributor of different brands of engines and spare parts.

In 1989, petitioner asked respondent for a quotation for various machine parts.

Petitioner issued a two separate Purchase Orders. Instead of paying the 25% down payment for the first cylinder liner, petitioner issued in favor of respondent ten postdated checks to be drawn against the former's account with Allied Banking Corporation. The checks were supposed to represent the full payment of the first cylinder liner while the liner was subject to term of payment to be "25% upon delivery, balance payable in 5 bi-monthly equal installments." Both purchase orders did not state the date of the cylinder liner's delivery.

In January 1990, respondent deposited petitioner's check that was postdated 18 January 1990, however, the same was dishonored by the drawee bank due to insufficiency of funds. Petitioner claimed that it replaced said check with a good one, the proceeds of which were applied to its other obligation to respondent. For its part, respondent insisted that it returned said postdated check to petitioner.

Respondent thereafter placed the order for the two (02) cylinder liners with its principal in Japan, Daiei Sangyo Co. Ltd., and delivered the two (02) cylinder liners at petitioner's warehouse in North Harbor, Manila. The sales invoices evidencing the delivery of the cylinder liners both contain the notation "subject to verification" under which the signature of Eric Go, petitioner's warehouseman, appeared.

Respondent thereafter sent a Statement of Account to petitioner. While the other items listed in said statement of account were fully paid by petitioner, the two-cylinder liners delivered to petitioner on 20 April 1990 remained unsettled. Consequently, respondent sent a demand letter to petitioner requiring the latter to pay the value of the cylinder liners subjects of this case. Instead of heeding the demand of respondent for the full payment of the value of the cylinder liners, petitioner sent the former a letter dated 12 March 1991 offering to pay only P150,000 for the cylinder liners. In said letter, petitioner claimed that as the cylinder liners were delivered late and due to the scrapping of the M/V Dadiangas Express, it (petitioner) would have to sell the cylinder liners in Singapore and pay the balance from the proceeds of said sale.

Due to the failure of the parties to settle the matter, respondent filed an action for sum of money and damages before RTC of Makati City.

Petitioner alleged that time was of the essence in the delivery of the cylinder liners and that the delivery on 20 April 1990 of said items was late as respondent committed to deliver said items "within two (2) months after receipt of firm order" from petitioner.

RTC dismissed the action upon findings that respondent bound to the quotation it submitted to petitioner particularly with respect to the terms of payment and delivery of the cylinder liners. It also declared that respondent had agreed to the cancellation of the contract of sale when it returned the postdated checks issued by petitioner.

Aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal with the CA which reversed and set aside RTC’s decision. The appellate court brushed aside petitioner's claim that time was of the essence in the contract of sale between the parties herein considering the fact that a significant period of time had lapsed between respondent's offer and the issuance by petitioner of its purchase orders. There was no evidence of the alleged cancellation of orders by petitioner and that the delivery of the cylinder liners on 20 April 1990 was reasonable under the circumstances.

Petitioner insists that although its purchase orders did not specify the dates when the cylinder liners were supposed to be delivered, nevertheless, respondent should abide by the term of delivery appearing on the quotation it submitted to petitioner. Petitioner theorizes that the quotation embodied the offer from respondent while the purchase order represented its (petitioner's) acceptance of the proposed terms of the contract of sale. Thus, petitioner is of the view that these two documents "cannot be taken separately as if there were two distinct contracts."

Hence this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not there was late delivery of the subjects of the contract of sale to justify petitioner to disregard the terms of the contract considering that time was of the essence thereof.

RULING

No, there was late delivery.

Under the law, the power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.

In this case, there is no showing that petitioner notified respondent of its intention to rescind the contract of sale between them. Quite the contrary, respondent's act of proceeding with the opening of an irrevocable letter of credit on 23 February 1990 belies petitioner's claim that it notified respondent of the cancellation of the contract of sale. Truly, no prudent businessman would pursue such action knowing that the contract of sale, for which the letter of credit was opened, was already rescinded by the other party.

Case Digest: PCIC vs. UNKNOWN OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V "NATIONAL HONOR," NSCP and ICSI, G.R. No. 161833

PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. UNKNOWN OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V "NATIONAL HONOR," NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER SERVICES, INC., G.R. No. 161833, July 08, 2005.

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

On November 5, 1995, J. Trading Co. Ltd. of Seoul, Korea, loaded a shipment of four units of parts and accessories in the port of Pusan, Korea, on board the vessel M/V "National Honor," represented in the Philippines by its agent, National Shipping Corporation of the Philippines (NSCP). The shipment was for delivery to Manila, Philippines. Freight forwarder, Samhwa Inter-Trans Co., Ltd., issued Bill of Lading No. SH9410306 in the name of the shipper consigned to the order of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company with arrival notice in Manila to ultimate consignee Blue Mono International Company, Incorporated (BMICI), Binondo, Manila.

The shipment was contained in two wooden crates, complete and in good order condition. here were no markings on the outer portion of the crates except the name of the consignee.

The M/V "National Honor" arrived at the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT) on November 14, 1995. The International Container Terminal Services, Incorporated (ICTSI) was furnished with a copy of the crate cargo list and bill of lading, and it knew the contents of the crate. The following day, the vessel started discharging its cargoes using its winch crane. The crane was operated by Olegario Balsa, a winchman from the ICTSI, the exclusive arrastre operator of MICT.

As the crate was being hoisted from the vessel’s hatch, the mid-portion of the wooden flooring suddenly snapped in the air, about five feet high from the vessel’s twin deck, sending all its contents crashing down hard, resulting in extensive damage to the shipment.

BMICI’s customs broker, JRM Incorporated, took delivery of the cargo in such damaged condition. Upon receipt of the damaged shipment, BMICI found that the same could no longer be used for the intended purpose.

BMICI subsequently filed separate claims against the NSCP, the ICTSI, and its insurer, the PCIC. When the other companies denied liability, PCIC paid the claim and was issued a Subrogation Receipt. As subrogee, PCIC then filed with the RTC of Manila, a Complaint for Damages against the "Unknown owner of the vessel M/V National Honor," NSCP and ICTSI, as defendants. PCIC alleged that the loss was due to the fault and negligence of the defendants

RTC rendered judgment for PCIC and ordered the complaint dismissed. CA affirmed in toto the decision of RTC.

Petitioner asserts that the mere proof of receipt of the shipment by the common carrier (to the carrier) in good order, and their arrival at the place of destination in bad order makes out a prima facie case against it; in such case, it is liable for the loss or damage to the cargo absent satisfactory explanation given by the carrier as to the exercise of extraordinary diligence.

ISSUE

Whether or not the damage sustained by the shipment was due to its defective packing and not to the fault and negligence of the common carrier.

RULING

Yes, the damage sustained was due to defective packaging and not the fault of the respondents.

Under the law, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstance of each case. In the event of loss, destruction or deterioration of the insured goods, common carriers shall be responsible unless the same is brought about, among others, by flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity. In all other cases, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence.

In this case, SC held that appellant’s allegation that since the cargo arrived safely from the port of Pusan, Korea without defect, the fault should be attributed to the arrastre operator who mishandled the cargo, is without merit. The cargo fell while it was being carried only at about five (5) feet high above the ground. It would not have so easily collapsed had the cargo been properly packed. Not only did the shipper fail to properly pack the cargo, it also failed to indicate an arrow in the middle portion of the cargo where additional slings should be attached. At any rate, the issue of negligence is factual in nature and in this regard, it is settled that factual finding of the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal, and, in fact, accorded finality when supported by substantial evidence.

Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to counter that of respondent ICTSI. In addition, under Bill of Lading issued by the respondent NSCP and accepted by the petitioner, the latter represented and warranted that the goods were properly packed, and disclosed in writing the "condition, nature, quality or characteristic that may cause damage, injury or detriment to the goods." Absent any signs on the shipment requiring the placement of a sling cable in the mid-portion of the crate, the respondent ICTSI was not obliged to do so.