Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

G.R. No.

166250 July 26, 2010


UNSWORTH TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION,
Respondents.
Facts: On August 31, 1992, the shipper Sylvex Purchasing Corporation delivered to UTI a
shipment of 27 drums of various raw materials for pharmaceutical manufacturing, consisting of:
"1) 3 drums (of) extracts, flavoring liquid, flammable liquid x x x banana flavoring; 2) 2 drums
(of) flammable liquids x x x turpentine oil; 2 pallets. STC: 40 bags dried yeast; and 3) 20 drums
(of) Vitabs: Vitamin B Complex Extract." UTI issued Bill of Lading No. C320/C15991-2,
covering the aforesaid shipment. The subject shipment was insured with private respondent
Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation in favor of Unilab against all risks in the amount of
P1,779,664.77 under and by virtue of Marine Risk Note Number MC RM UL 0627 92 and Open
Cargo Policy No. HO-022-RIU. On the same day that the bill of lading was issued, the shipment
was loaded in a sealed 1x40 container van, with no. APLU-982012, boarded on APLs vessel
M/V "Pres. Jackson," Voyage 42, and transshipped to APLs M/V "Pres. Taft" for delivery to
petitioner in favor of the consignee United Laboratories, Inc. (Unilab).
On September 30, 1992, the shipment arrived at the port of Manila. On October 6, 1992,
petitioner received the said shipment in its warehouse after it stamped the Permit to Deliver
Imported Goods procured by the Champs Customs Brokerage. Three days thereafter, or on
October 9, 1992, Oceanica Cargo Marine Surveyors Corporation (OCMSC) conducted a
stripping survey of the shipment located in petitioners warehouse. Consequently, Unilabs
quality control representative rejected one paper bag containing dried yeast and one steel drum
containing Vitamin B Complex as unfit for the intended purpose. On November 7, 1992, Unilab
filed a formal claim for the damage against private respondent and UTI. On November 20, 1992,
UTI denied liability on the basis of the gate pass issued by Jardine that the goods were in
complete and good condition; while private respondent paid the claimed amount on March 23,
1993. By virtue of the Loss and Subrogation Receipt issued by Unilab in favor of private
respondent, the latter filed a complaint for Damages against APL, UTI and petitioner with the
RTC of Makati.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner is a common carrier.
Held: Admittedly, petitioner is a freight forwarder. The term "freight forwarder" refers to a firm
holding itself out to the general public (other than as a pipeline, rail, motor, or water carrier) to
provide transportation of property for compensation and, in the ordinary course of its business,
(1) to assemble and consolidate, or to provide for assembling and consolidating, shipments, and
to perform or provide for break-bulk and distribution operations of the shipments; (2) to assume
responsibility for the transportation of goods from the place of receipt to the place of destination;
and (3) to use for any part of the transportation a carrier subject to the federal law pertaining to
common carriers.
A freight forwarders liability is limited to damages arising from its own negligence, including

negligence in choosing the carrier; however, where the forwarder contracts to deliver goods to
their destination instead of merely arranging for their transportation, it becomes liable as a
common carrier for loss or damage to goods. A freight forwarder assumes the responsibility of a
carrier, which actually executes the transport, even though the forwarder does not carry the
merchandise itself.
Undoubtedly, UTI is liable as a common carrier. Common carriers, as a general rule, are
presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost
or destroyed. That is, unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence in
transporting the goods. In order to avoid responsibility for any loss or damage, therefore, they
have the burden of proving that they observed such diligence. Mere proof of delivery of the
goods in good order to a common carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their destination
constitutes a prima facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no adequate
explanation is given as to how the deterioration, loss, or destruction of the goods happened, the
transporter shall be held responsible.
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC and Development Insurance & Surety Corp.
G.R. No. L-69044 May 29, 1987
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. The Nisshin Fire and Marine Insurance Co., and Dowa Fire
& Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.
G.R. No. 71478 May 29, 1987 Melencio-Herrera, J.
FACTS:
(G.R. No. L-69044): a vessel operated by petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., loaded at
Kobe, Japan for transportation to Manila, 5000 pieces of calorized lance pipes in 28 packages
consigned to Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and 7 cases of spare parts consigned to Central
Textile Mills, Inc.; both sets of goods were insuredmwith Development Insurance and Surety
Corp. (G.R. No. 71478): the same vessel took on board 128 cartons of garment fabrics and
accessories, in 2 containers, consigned to Mariveles Apparel Corporation, and two cases of
surveying instruments consigned to Aman Enterprises and General Merchandise the vessel
caught fire and sank, resulting in the total loss of ship and cargo
ISSUES: 1. which law should govern the Civil Code provisions on Common carriers or the
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act?; 2. who has the burden of proof to show negligence of the
carrier? 3. what is the extent of the carriers liability?
HELD: 1. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs the liability of
the common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration. As the cargoes were
transported from Japan to the Philippines, the liability of Petitioner Carrier is governed primarily
by the Civil Code. However, in all matters not regulated by said Code, the rights and obligations
of common carrier shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws. Thus, the
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, a special law, is suppletory to the provisions of the
Civil Code. 2. Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that all cases than those mention in
Article 1734, the common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to have acted

negligently, unless it proves that it has observed the extraordinary diligence required by law. The
burden is upon Eastern Shipping Lines to prove that it has exercised the extraordinary diligence
required by law.
Note: fire not considered a natural disaster or calamity within the contemplation of Art. 1734
for it arises almost invariably from some act of man or by human means; it does not fall within
the category of an act of God unless caused by lightning or by other natural disaster or calamity
having failed to discharge the burden of proving that it had exercised the extraordinary diligence
required by law, Eastern Shipping Lines cannot escape liability for the loss of the cargo As it
was at fault, it cannot seek the protective mantle of Sec. 4(2) of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
which provides:
Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from
x x x (b) Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier. there was actual fault
of the carrier shown by lack of diligence in that when the smoke was noticed, the fire was
already big; that the fire must have started 24 hours before the same was noticed; and that after
the cargoes were stored in the hatches, no regular inspection was made as to their condition
during the voyage. 3. See Art. 1749.
G.R. No. 69044: no stipulation in the Bills of Lading limiting the carriers liability for the loss or
destruction of the goods; no declaration of a higher value of the goods; Hence, Eastern Shipping
Lines liability should not exceed US $500 per package (as provided in 4(5) of the COGSA), or
its peso equivalent, at the time of payment of the value of the goods lost, but in no case more
than the amount of damage actually sustained

S-ar putea să vă placă și