Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SECOND DIVISION
thereafter instituted a suit for collection docketed
as Civil Case No. C-15532, against petitioner
before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City,
Branch 126.
[G.R. No. 122494. October 8, 1998]
At the pre-trial conference, both parties
manifested that they have no testimonial
evidence to offer and agreed instead to file their
EVERETT STEAMSHIP respective memoranda.
CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and On July 16, 1993, the trial court rendered
HERNANDEZ TRADING CO. judgment[2] in favor of private respondent,
INC., respondents. ordering petitioner to pay: (a) Y1,552,500.00; (b)
Y20,000.00 or its peso equivalent representing
the actual value of the lost cargo and the material
DECISION
and packaging cost; (c) 10% of the total amount
MARTINEZ, J.: as an award for and as contingent attorneys fees;
and (d) to pay the cost of the suit. The trial court
Petitioner Everett Steamship Corporation, ruled:
through this petition for review, seeks the
Considering defendants categorical
reversal of the decision[1] of the Court of
admission of loss and its failure to
Appeals, dated June 14, 1995, in CA-G.R. No.
overcome the presumption of
428093, which affirmed the decision of the
negligence and fault, the Court
Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City, Branch
conclusively finds defendant liable to
126, in Civil Case No. C-15532, finding
the plaintiff. The next point of inquiry
petitioner liable to private respondent Hernandez
the Court wants to resolve is the
Trading Co., Inc. for the value of the lost cargo.
extent of the liability of the
Private respondent imported three crates of defendant. As stated earlier, plaintiff
bus spare parts marked as MARCO C/No. contends that defendant should be
12, MARCO C/No. 13 and MARCO C/No. 14, held liable for the whole value for the
from its supplier, Maruman Trading Company, loss of the goods in the amount of
Ltd. (Maruman Trading), a foreign corporation Y1,552,500.00 because the terms
based in Inazawa, Aichi, Japan. The crates were appearing at the back of the bill of
shipped from Nagoya, Japan to Manila on board lading was so written in fine prints
ADELFAEVERETTE, a vessel owned by and that the same was not signed by
petitioners principal, Everett Orient Lines. The plaintiff or shipper thus, they are not
said crates were covered by Bill of Lading No. bound by the clause stated in
NGO53MN. paragraph 18 of the bill of lading. On
the other hand, defendant merely
Upon arrival at the port of Manila, it was admitted that it lost the shipment but
discovered that the crate marked MARCO C/No. shall be liable only up to the amount
14 was missing. This was confirmed and of Y100,000.00.
admitted by petitioner in its letter of January 13,
1992 addressed to private respondent, which The Court subscribes to the provisions
thereafter made a formal claim upon petitioner of Article 1750 of the New Civil Code
for the value of the lost cargo amounting to One -
Million Five Hundred Fifty Two Thousand Five
Art. 1750. A contract fixing
Hundred (Y1,552,500.00) Yen, the amount
the sum that may be
shown in an Invoice No. MTM-941, dated
recovered by the owner or
November 14, 1991. However, petitioner offered
shipper for the loss,
to pay only One Hundred Thousand
destruction or deterioration of
(Y100,000.00) Yen, the maximum amount
the goods is valid, if it is
stipulated under Clause 18 of the covering bill of
reasonable and just under the
lading which limits the liability of petitioner.
circumstances, and has been
fairly and freely agreed upon.
It is required, however, that the xxxxxxxxx
contract must be reasonable and just
Never having entered into a contract
under the circumstances and has been
with the appellant, appellee should
fairly and freely agreed upon. The
therefore not be bound by any of the
requirements provided in Art. 1750 of
terms and conditions in the bill of
the New Civil Code must be complied
lading.
with before a common carrier can
claim a limitation of its pecuniary Hence, it follows that the appellee
liability in case of loss, destruction or may recover the full value of the
deterioration of the goods it has shipment lost, the basis of which is not
undertaken to transport. the breach of contract as appellee was
never a privy to the any contract with
In the case at bar, the Court is of the
the appellant, but is based on Article
view that the requirements of said
1735 of the New Civil Code, there
article have not been met. The fact
being no evidence to prove
that those conditions are printed at the
satisfactorily that the appellant has
back of the bill of lading in letters so
overcome the presumption of
small that they are hard to read would
negligence provided for in the law.
not warrant the presumption that the
plaintiff or its supplier was aware of Petitioner now comes to us arguing that the
these conditions such that he had Court of Appeals erred (1) in ruling that the
fairly and freely agreed to these consent of the consignee to the terms and
conditions. It can not be said that the conditions of the bill of lading is necessary to
plaintiff had actually entered into a make such stipulations binding upon it; (2) in
contract with the defendant, holding that the carriers limited package liability
embodying the conditions as printed at as stipulated in the bill of lading does not apply
the back of the bill of lading that was in the instant case; and (3) in allowing private
issued by the defendant to plaintiff. respondent to fully recover the full alleged value
of its lost cargo.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals deleted
the award of attorneys fees but affirmed the trial We shall first resolve the validity of the
courts findings with the additional observation limited liability clause in the bill of lading.
that private respondent can not be bound by the
terms and conditions of the bill of lading A stipulation in the bill of lading limiting
because it was not privy to the contract of the common carriers liability for loss or
carriage. It said: destruction of a cargo to a certain sum, unless
the shipper or owner declares a greater value, is
As to the amount of liability, no sanctioned by law, particularly Articles 1749 and
evidence appears on record to show 1750 of the Civil Code which provide:
that the appellee (Hernandez Trading
Co.) consented to the terms of the Bill ART. 1749. A stipulation that the
of Lading. The shipper named in the common carriers liability is limited to
Bill of Lading is Maruman Trading the value of the goods appearing in the
Co., Ltd. whom the appellant (Everett bill of lading, unless the shipper or
Steamship Corp.) contracted with for owner declares a greater value, is
the transportation of the lost goods. binding.
Even assuming arguendo that the ART. 1750. A contract fixing the sum
shipper Maruman Trading Co., Ltd. that may be recovered by the owner or
accepted the terms of the bill of lading shipper for the loss, destruction, or
when it delivered the cargo to the deterioration of the goods is valid, if it
appellant, still it does not necessarily is reasonable and just under the
follow that appellee Hernandez circumstances, and has been freely
Trading Company as consignee is and fairly agreed upon.
bound thereby considering that the Such limited-liability clause has also been
latter was never privy to the shipping consistently upheld by this Court in a number of
contract.
cases.[3] Thus, in Sea Land Service, Inc. vs freight is paid as required. (Emphasis
Intermediate Appellate Court[4], we ruled: supplied)
The above stipulations are, to our mind,
It seems clear that even if said section 4 (5) of
reasonable and just. In the bill of lading, the
the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act did not exist,
carrier made it clear that its liability would only
the validity and binding effect of the liability
be up to One Hundred Thousand (Y100,000.00)
limitation clause in the bill of lading here are
Yen. However, the shipper, Maruman
nevertheless fully sustainable on the basis alone
Trading, had the option to declare a higher
of the cited Civil Code Provisions. That said
valuation if the value of its cargo was higher
stipulation is just and reasonable is arguable
than the limited liability of the
from the fact that it echoes Art. 1750 itself in
carrier. Considering that the shipper did not
providing a limit to liability only if a greater
declare a higher valuation, it had itself to
value is not declared for the shipment in the bill
blame for not complying with the stipulations.
of lading. To hold otherwise would amount to
questioning the justness and fairness of the law The trial courts ratiocination that private
itself, and this the private respondent does not respondent could not have fairly and freely
pretend to do. But over and above that agreed to the limited liability clause in the bill of
consideration, the just and reasonable character lading because the said conditions were printed
of such stipulation is implicit in it giving the in small letters does not make the bill of lading
shipper or owner the option of avoiding accrual invalid.
of liability limitation by the simple and surely
far from onerous expedient of declaring the We ruled in PAL, Inc. vs. Court of
nature and value of the shipment in the bill of Appeals[5] that the jurisprudence on the matter
lading.. reveals the consistent holding of the court that
contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se and
that it has on numerous occasions upheld the
Pursuant to the afore-quoted provisions of
binding effect thereof. Also, in Philippine
law, it is required that the stipulation limiting the
American General Insurance Co., Inc. vs.
common carriers liability for loss must be
Sweet Lines , Inc.[6] this Court , speaking
reasonable and just under the circumstances, and
through the learned Justice Florenz D. Regalado,
has been freely and fairly agreed upon.
held:
The bill of lading subject of the present
x x x Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals,
controversy specifically provides, among others:
et.al., instructs us that contracts of
18. All claims for which the carrier adhesion wherein one party imposes a
may be liable shall be adjusted and ready-made form of contract on the
settled on the basis of the shippers net other x x x are contracts not entirely
invoice cost plus freight and insurance prohibited. The one who adheres to
premiums, if paid, and in no event the contract is in reality free to reject it
shall the carrier be liable for any loss entirely; if he adheres he gives his
of possible profits or any consent. In the present case, not even
consequential loss. an allegation of ignorance of a party
excuses non-compliance with the
The carrier shall not be liable for any contractual stipulations since the
loss of or any damage to or in any responsibility for ensuring full
connection with, goods in an amount comprehension of the provisions of a
exceeding One Hundred Thousand contract of carriage devolves not on
Yen in Japanese Currency the carrier but on the owner, shipper,
(Y100,000.00) or its equivalent in any or consignee as the case may
other currency per package or be. (Emphasis supplied)
customary freight unit (whichever is
least) unless the value of the goods It was further explained in Ong Yiu vs
higher than this amount is declared in Court of Appeals[7] that stipulations in contracts
writing by the shipper before receipt of adhesion are valid and binding.
of the goods by the carrier and
While it may be true that petitioner
inserted in the Bill of Lading and extra
had not signed the plane ticket x x, he
is nevertheless bound by the a signatory to the bill of lading is bound by the
provisions thereof. Such provisions stipulations thereof.
have been held to be a part of the
Again, in Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs.
contract of carriage, and valid and
Intermediate Appellate Court (supra), we held
binding upon the passenger regardless
that even if the consignee was not a signatory to
of the latters lack of knowledge or
the contract of carriage between the shipper and
assent to the regulation.It is what is
the carrier, the consignee can still be bound by
known as a contract of adhesion, in
the contract. Speaking through Mr. Chief Justice
regards which it has been said that
Narvasa, we ruled:
contracts of adhesion wherein one
party imposes a ready-made form of To begin with, there is no question of
contract on the other, as the plane the right, in principle, of
ticket in the case at bar, are contracts a consignee in a bill of lading to
not entirely prohibited. The one who recover from the carrier or shipper for
adheres to the contract is in reality loss of, or damage to goods being
free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, transported under said bill, although
he gives his consent. x x x , a contract that document may have been- as in
limiting liability upon an agreed practice it oftentimes is-drawn up
valuation does not offend against the only by the consignor and the
policy of the law forbidding one from carrier without the intervention of
contracting against his own negligence. the consignee. x x x.
(Emphasis supplied)
x x x the right of a party in the same
Greater vigilance, however, is required of situation as respondent here, to
the courts when dealing with contracts of recover for loss of a shipment
adhesion in that the said contracts must be consigned to him under a bill of
carefully scrutinized in order to shield the lading drawn up only by and
unwary (or weaker party) from deceptive between the shipper and the carrier,
schemes contained in ready-made springs from either a relation of
covenants,[8] such as the bill of lading in agency that may exist between him
question. The stringent requirement which the and the shipper or consignor, or his
courts are enjoined to observe is in recognition status as stranger in whose favor
of Article 24 of the Civil Code which mandates some stipulation is made in said
that (i)n all contractual, property or other contract, and who becomes a party
relations, when one of the parties is at a thereto when he demands
disadvantage on account of his moral fulfillment of that stipulation, in this
dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental case the delivery of the goods or
weakness, tender age or other handicap, the cargo shipped. In neither capacity
courts must be vigilant for his protection. can he assert personally, in bar to
any provision of the bill of lading,
The shipper, Maruman Trading, we assume,
has been extensively engaged in the trading the alleged circumstance that fair
business. It can not be said to be ignorant of the and free agreement to such
provision was vitiated by its being in
business transactions it entered into involving
the shipment of its goods to its customers. The such fine print as to be hardly
readable. Parenthetically, it may be
shipper could not have known, or should know
observed that in one comparatively
the stipulations in the bill of lading and there it
recent case (Phoenix Assurance
should have declared a higher valuation of the
Company vs. Macondray & Co., Inc.,
goods shipped. Moreover, Maruman Trading has
64 SCRA 15) where this Court found
not been heard to complain that it has been
that a similar package limitation
deceived or rushed into agreeing to ship the
cargo in petitioners vessel. In fact, it was not clause was printed in the smallest
type on the back of the bill of lading,
even impleaded in this case.
it nonetheless ruled that the
The next issue to be resolved is whether or consignee was bound thereby on the
not private respondent, as consignee, who is not strength of authority holding that
such provisions on liability
limitation are as much a part of a of the carrier under the limited liability clause
bill of lading as though physically in stands. The commercial Invoice No. MTM-941
it and as though placed therein by does not in itself sufficiently and convincingly
agreement of the parties. show that petitioner has knowledge of the value
of the cargo as contended by private
There can, therefore, be no doubt or
respondent. No other evidence was proffered by
equivocation about the validity and
private respondent to support is contention. Thus,
enforceability of freely-agreed-upon
we are convinced that petitioner should be liable
stipulations in a contract of carriage or
for the full value of the lost cargo.
bill of lading limiting the liability of
the carrier to an agreed In fine, the liability of petitioner for the
valuation unless the shipper declares loss of the cargo is limited to One Hundred
a higher value and inserts it into Thousand (Y100,000.00) Yen, pursuant to
said contract or bill.This proposition, Clause 18 of the bill of lading.
moreover, rests upon an almost
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court
uniform weight of authority.
of Appeals dated June 14, 1995 in C.A.-G.R. CV
(Underscoring supplied)
No. 42803 is hereby REVERSED and SET
When private respondent formally claimed ASIDE.
reimbursement for the missing goods from
petitioner and subsequently filed a case against SO ORDERED.
the latter based on the very same bill of lading, Regalado, (Acting Chief Justice), Melo,
it (private respondent) accepted the provisions of Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
the contract and thereby made itself a party
thereto, or at least has come to court to enforce
it.[9] Thus, private respondent cannot now reject
or disregard the carriers limited liability
stipulation in the bill of lading. In other words,
private respondent is bound by the whole
stipulations in the bill of lading and must respect
the same.
Private respondent, however, insists that
the carrier should be liable for the full value of
the lost cargo in the amount of Y1,552,500.00,
considering that the shipper, Maruman Trading,
had "fully declared the shipment x x x, the
contents of each crate, the dimensions, weight
and value of the contents,"[10] as shown in the
commercial Invoice No. MTM-941.
This claim was denied by petitioner,
contending that it did not know of the contents,
quantity and value of "the shipment which
consisted of three pre-packed crates described in
Bill of Lading No. NGO-53MN merely as 3
CASES SPARE PARTS.[11]
The bill of lading in question confirms
petitioners contention. To defeat the carriers
limited liability, the aforecited Clause 18 of the
bill of lading requires that the shipper should
have declared in writing a higher valuation of
its goods before receipt thereof by the carrier
and insert the said declaration in the bill of
lading, with the extra freight paid. These
requirements in the bill of lading were never
complied with by the shipper, hence, the liability
the vessel Hanjin Busan 0238W. The bill of lading
covering the shipment, i.e., Bill of Lading No.
HJSCPUSI14168303,[2] which was prepared by the
SECOND DIVISION
carrier Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (Hanjin), named
respondent Shin Yang Brokerage Corp. (Shin Yang)
MOF COMPANY, G.R. No. 172822 as the consignee and indicated that payment was on a
INC., Freight Collect basis, i.e., that the consignee/receiver
Petitioner, of the goods would be the one to pay for the freight
Present: and other charges in the total amount of P57,646.00.[3]
DECISION Thus, on March 19, 2003, MOF filed a case for sum
of money before
DEL CASTILLO, J.: the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City (MeTC
Pasay) which was docketed as Civil Case No. 206-03
and raffled to Branch 48. MOF alleged that Shin
The necessity of proving lies with the person
Yang, a regular client, caused the importation and
who sues.
shipment of the goods and assured it that ocean freight
and other charges would be paid upon arrival of the
The refusal of the consignee named in
goods in Manila. Yet, after Hanjin's compliance, Shin
the bill of lading to pay the freightage on the claim
Yang unjustly breached its obligation to pay. MOF
that it is not privy to the contract of affreightment
argued that Shin Yang, as the named consignee in the
propelled the shipper to sue for collection of money,
bill of lading, entered itself as a party to the contract
stressing that its sole evidence, the bill of lading,
and bound itself to the Freight Collect
suffices to prove that the consignee is bound to
arrangement. MOF thus prayed for the payment
pay. Petitioner now comes to us by way of Petition for
of P57,646.00 representing ocean freight,
Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 praying for the
documentation fee and terminal handling charges as
reversal of the Court of Appeals' (CA) judgment that
well as damages and attorneys fees.
dismissed its action for sum of money for
insufficiency of evidence.
Claiming that it is merely a consolidator/forwarder
and that Bill of Lading No. HJSCPUSI14168303 was
not endorsed to it by the ultimate consignee, Shin
Factual Antecedents
Yang denied any involvement in shipping the goods
or in promising to shoulder the freightage. It asserted
On October 25, 2001, Halla Trading Co., a
that it never authorized Halla Trading Co. to ship the
company based in Korea, shipped
articles or to have its name included in the bill of
to Manila secondhand cars and other articles on board
lading. Shin Yang also alleged that MOF failed to SO ORDERED.[6]
present supporting documents to prove that it was
Shin Yang that caused the importation or the one that
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
assured payment of the shipping charges upon arrival
of the goods in Manila.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City,
Branch 108 affirmed in toto the Decision of the
Ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court
MeTC. It held that:
On June 16, 2004, the MeTC of Pasay City, Branch MOF and Shin Yang entered into
48 rendered its Decision[4] in favor of MOF. It ruled a contract of affreightment which
that Shin Yang cannot disclaim being a party to the Blacks Law Dictionary defined as
contract of affreightment because: a contract with the ship owner to
hire his ship or part of it, for the
x x x it would appear that carriage of goods and generally
defendant has business take the form either of a charter
transactions with plaintiff. This is party or a bill of lading.
evident from defendants letters
dated 09 May 2002 and 13 May The bill of lading contain[s] the
2002 (Exhibits 1 and 2, information embodied in the
defendants Position Paper) where contract.
it requested for the release of
refund of container deposits x x Article 652 of the Code of
x. [In] the mind of the Court, by Commerce provides that the
analogy, a written contract need charter party must be in writing;
not be necessary; a mutual however, Article 653 says: If the
understanding [would cargo should be received without
suffice]. Further, plaintiff would charter party having been signed,
have not included the name of the the contract shall be understood as
defendant in the bill of lading, had executed in accordance with what
there been no prior agreement to appears in the bill of lading, the
that effect. sole evidence of title with regard
to the cargo for determining the
In sum, plaintiff has rights and obligations of the ship
sufficiently proved its cause of agent, of the captain and of the
action against the defendant and charterer. Thus, the Supreme
the latter is obliged to honor its Court opined in the Market
agreement with plaintiff despite Developers, Inc. (MADE) vs.
the absence of a written contract.[5] Honorable Intermediate Appellate
Court and Gaudioso Uy, G.R. No.
74978, September 8, 1989, this
The dispositive portion of the MeTC Decision reads:
kind of contract may be oral. In
another case, Compania Maritima
WHEREFORE, premises
vs. Insurance Company of North
considered, judgment is hereby
America, 12 SCRA 213 the
rendered in favor of plaintiff and
contract of affreightment by
against the defendant, ordering the
telephone was recognized where
latter to pay plaintiff as follows:
the oral agreement was later
confirmed by a formal booking.
1. P57,646.00 plus legal interest
from the date of demand until
xxxx
fully paid,
2. P10,000.00 as and for attorneys
Defendant is liable to pay the sum
fees and
of P57,646.00, with interest until
3. the cost of suit.
fully paid, attorneys fees vs. Hooven Comalco Industries,
of P10,000.00 [and] cost of suit. Inc. 349 SCRA 363).
Considering all the foregoing, this While it is true that a bill of lading
Court affirms in toto the decision serves two (2) functions: first, it is
of the Court a quo. a receipt for the goods shipped;
second, it is a contract by which
SO ORDERED.[7] three parties, namely, the shipper,
the carrier and the consignee who
undertake specific responsibilities
and assume stipulated obligations
(Belgian Overseas Chartering and
Ruling of the Court of Appeals Shipping N.V. vs. Phil. First
Insurance Co., Inc., 383 SCRA
Seeing the matter in a different light, the CA 23), x x x if the same is not
dismissed MOFs complaint and refused to award any accepted, it is as if one party does
form of damages or attorneys fees. It opined that not accept the contract. Said the
Supreme Court:
MOF failed to substantiate its claim that Shin Yang
had a hand in the importation of the articles to A bill of
the Philippines or that it gave its consent to be a lading
consignee of the subject goods. In its March 22, delivered and
2006 Decision,[8] the CA said: accepted
constitutes the
This Court is persuaded [that contract of
except] for the Bill of Lading, carriage[,]
respondent has not presented any even though
other evidence to bolster its claim not signed,
that petitioner has entered [into] because the
an agreement of affreightment acceptance of
with respondent, be it verbal or a paper
written. It is noted that the Bill of containing the
Lading was prepared by Hanjin terms of a
Shipping, not the proposed
petitioner. Hanjin is the principal contract
while respondent is the formers generally
agent. (p. 43, rollo) constitutes an
acceptance of
The conclusion of the court a quo, the contract
which was upheld by and of all its
the RTC Pasay City, Branch 108 terms and
xxx is purely speculative and conditions of
conjectural. A court cannot rely which the
on speculations, conjectures or acceptor has
guesswork, but must depend upon actual or
competent proof and on the basis constructive
of the best evidence obtainable notice (Keng
under the Hua Paper
circumstances. Litigation cannot Products Co.,
be properly resolved by Inc. vs. CA,
suppositions, deductions or even 286 SCRA
presumptions, with no basis in 257).
evidence, for the truth must have
to be determined by the hard rules In the present case, petitioner did
of admissibility and proof (Lagon not only [refuse to] accept the bill
of lading, but it likewise
disown[ed] the shipment x x judgments because their conclusions are
x. [Neither did it] authorize Halla well-supported by the evidence on record.
Trading Company or anyone to
ship or export the same on its
behalf. MOF further argues that the CA erred in labeling the
findings of the lower courts as purely speculative and
It is settled that a contract is conjectural. According to MOF, the bill of lading,
upheld as long as there is proof of which expressly stated Shin Yang as the consignee, is
consent, subject matter and cause the best evidence of the latters actual participation in
(Sta. Clara Homeowners
the transportation of the goods. Such document,
Association vs. Gaston, 374
SCRA 396). In the case at bar, validly entered, stands as the law among the shipper,
there is not even any iota of carrier and the consignee, who are all bound by the
evidence to show that petitioner terms stated therein. Besides, a carriers valid claim
had given its consent. after it fulfilled its obligation cannot just be rejected by
the named consignee upon a simple denial that it ever
He who
consented to be a party in a contract of affreightment,
alleges a fact
has the burden or that it ever participated in the preparation of the bill
of proving it of lading. As against Shin Yangs bare denials, the bill
and a mere of lading is the sufficient preponderance of evidence
allegation is required to prove MOFs claim. MOF maintains that
not evidence Shin Yang was the one that supplied all the details in
(Luxuria
the bill of lading and acquiesced to be named
Homes Inc. vs.
CA, 302 consignee of the shipment on a Freight Collect basis.
SCRA 315).
Lastly, MOF claims that even if Shin Yang
The 40-footer van contains goods never gave its consent, it cannot avoid its obligation to
of substantial value. It is highly pay, because it never objected to being named as the
improbable for petitioner not to
consignee in the bill of lading and that it only
pay the charges, which is very
protested when the shipment arrived in the Philippines,
minimal compared with the value
of the goods, in order that it could presumably due to a botched transaction between it
work on the release thereof. and Halla Trading Co. Furthermore, Shin Yangs
letters asking for the refund of container deposits
For failure to substantiate its claim highlight the fact that it was aware of the shipment
by preponderance of evidence, and that it undertook preparations for the intended
respondent has not established its
release of the shipment.
case against petitioner.[9]
Respondents Arguments
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it
was denied in a Resolution[10] dated May 25, Echoing the CA decision, Shin Yang insists that MOF
2006. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. has no evidence to prove that it consented to take part
in the contract of affreightment. Shin Yang argues that
Petitioners Arguments MOF miserably failed to present any evidence to
prove that it was the one that made preparations for
In assailing the CAs Decision, MOF argues that the the subject shipment, or that it is an actual shipping
factual findings of both the MeTC and RTC are practice that forwarders/consolidators as consignees
entitled to great weight and respect and should have are the ones that provide carriers details and
bound the CA. It stresses that the appellate court has information on the bills of lading.
no justifiable reason to disturb the lower courts
Shin Yang contends that a bill of lading is demands fulfillment of the stipulation of the bill of
essentially a contract between the shipper and the lading which was drawn up in its favor.[12]
carrier and ordinarily, the shipper is the one liable for
the freight charges. A consignee, on the other hand, is In Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v.
initially a stranger to the bill of lading and can be Court of Appeals,[13] we held that once the bill of
liable only when the bill of lading specifies that the lading is received by the consignee who does not
charges are to be paid by the consignee. This liability object to any terms or stipulations contained therein, it
arises from either a) the contract of agency between constitutes as an acceptance of the contract and of all
the shipper/consignor and the consignee; or b) the of its terms and conditions, of which the acceptor has
consignees availment of the stipulation pour actual or constructive notice.
autrui drawn up by and between the shipper/
consignor and carrier upon the consignees demand In Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines,
[14]
that the goods be delivered to it. Shin Yang contends Inc., the consignee sued the carrier for damages but
that the fact that its name was mentioned as the nevertheless claimed that he was never a party to the
consignee of the cargoes did not make it automatically contract of transportation and was a complete stranger
liable for the freightage because it never benefited thereto. In debunking Mendozas contention, we held
from the shipment. It never claimed or accepted the that:
goods, it was not the shippers agent, it was not aware
of its designation as consignee and the original bill of x x x First, he insists that the
articles of the Code of Commerce
lading was never endorsed to it.
should be applied; that he invokes
the provisions of said Code
Issue governing the obligations of a
common carrier to make prompt
The issue for resolution is whether a consignee, who delivery of goods given to it under
is not a signatory to the bill of lading, is bound by the a contract of transportation. Later,
stipulations thereof. Corollarily, whether respondent as already said, he says that he
was never a party to the contract
who was not an agent of the shipper and who did not
of transportation and was a
make any demand for the fulfillment of the complete stranger to it, and that he
stipulations of the bill of lading drawn in its favor is is now suing on a tort or a
liable to pay the corresponding freight and handling violation of his rights as a stranger
charges. (culpa aquiliana). If he does not
invoke the contract of carriage
Our Ruling entered into with the defendant
company, then he would hardly
have any leg to stand on. His right
Since the CA and the trial courts arrived at different
to prompt delivery of the can of
conclusions, we are constrained to depart from the film at the Pili Air Port stems and
general rule that only errors of law may be raised in a is derived from the contract of
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of carriage under which contract, the
the Rules of Court and will review the evidence PAL undertook to carry the can of
presented.[11] film safely and to deliver it to him
promptly. Take away or ignore
that contract and the obligation to
The bill of lading is oftentimes drawn up by the
carry and to deliver and right to
shipper/consignor and the carrier without the prompt delivery disappear.
intervention of the consignee. However, the latter can Common carriers are not
be bound by the stipulations of the bill of lading when obligated by law to carry and to
a) there is a relation of agency between the shipper or deliver merchandise, and persons
consignor and the consignee or b) when the consignee are not vested with the right to
prompt delivery, unless such
common carriers previously Argentina Court of Appeals on
assume the obligation. Said rights commercial matters, cited by
and obligations are created by a Tolentino in Vol. II of his book
specific contract entered into by entitled 'Commentaries and
the parties. In the present case, Jurisprudence on the Commercial
the findings of the trial court Laws of the Philippines' p. 209,
which as already stated, are says that the right of the shipper
accepted by the parties and to countermand the shipment
which we must accept are to the terminates when the consignee
effect that the LVN Pictures Inc. or legitimate holder of the bill of
and Jose Mendoza on one side, lading appears with such bill of
and the defendant company on lading before the carrier and
the other, entered into a makes himself a party to the
contract of transportation (p. 29, contract. Prior to that time he is
Rec. on Appeal). One a stranger to the contract.
interpretation of said finding is
that the LVN Pictures Inc. Still another view of
through previous agreement this phase of the case is that
with Mendoza acted as the contemplated in Art. 1257,
latter's agent. When he paragraph 2, of the old Civil
negotiated with the LVN Code (now Art. 1311, second
Pictures Inc. to rent the film paragraph) which reads thus:
'Himala ng Birhen' and show it
during the Naga town fiesta, he Sho
most probably authorized and uld the
enjoined the Picture Company contract
to ship the film for him on the contain any
PAL on September 17th. stipulation in
Another interpretation is that favor of a
even if the LVN Pictures Inc. as third person,
consignor of its own initiative, he may
and acting independently demand its
of Mendoza for the time being, fulfillment
made Mendoza a provided he
consignee. [Mendoza made has given
himself a party to the contract notice of his
of transportaion when he acceptance to
appeared at the Pili Air Port the person
armed with the copy of the Air bound before
Way Bill (Exh. 1) demanding the
the delivery of the shipment to stipulation
him.] The very citation made by has been
appellant in his memorandum revoked.'
supports this view. Speaking of
the possibility of a conflict Here, the contract of
between the order of the shipper carriage between the LVN
on the one hand and the order of Pictures Inc. and the defendant
the consignee on the other, as carrier contains the stipulations
when the shipper orders the of delivery to Mendoza as
shipping company to return or consignee. His demand for the
retain the goods shipped while the delivery of the can of film to
consignee demands their delivery, him at the Pili Air Port may be
Malagarriga in his book Codigo regarded as a notice of his
de Comercio Comentado, Vol. 1, acceptance of the stipulation of
p. 400, citing a decision of the the delivery in his favor
contained in the contract of all the details indicated in the bill of lading and that
carriage and delivery. In this Shin Yang consented to shoulder the shipment
case he also made himself a
costs. There is also nothing in the records which
party to the contract, or at least
has come to court to enforce it. would indicate that Shin Yang was an agent of Halla
His cause of action must Trading Co. or that it exercised any act that would
necessarily be founded on its bind it as a named consignee. Thus, the CA correctly
breach.[15] (Emphasis Ours) dismissed the suit for failure of petitioner to establish
its cause against respondent.
In sum, a consignee, although not a signatory to the
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
contract of carriage between the shipper and the
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
carrier, becomes a party to the contract by reason of
dated March 22, 2006 dismissing petitioners
either a) the relationship of agency between the
complaint and the Resolution dated May 25,
consignee and the shipper/ consignor; b) the
2006 denying the motion for reconsideration
unequivocal acceptance of the bill of lading delivered
are AFFIRMED.
to the consignee, with full knowledge of its contents
or c) availment of the stipulation pour autrui, i.e.,
when the consignee, a third person, demands before SO ORDERED.
the carrier the fulfillment of the stipulation made by
the consignor/shipper in the consignees favor,
specifically the delivery of the goods/cargoes
shipped.[16]
extraordinary diligence required in the operation in its resolution dated October 4, 1990, 5
hence this petition
of the transportation company and the with the central issue herein being whether
supervision of the employees, even as they add respondent court erred in reversing the decision
that they are not absolute insurers of the safety
where a certain Miss Abenoja alighted from the bus. Moreover, contrary to
of the trial court and in finding petitioners
the assertion of the appellees, the victim did indicate his intention to board
negligent and liable for the damages claimed.
the bus as can be seen from the testimony of the said witness when he
declared that Pedrito Cudiamat was no longer walking and made a sign to
It is an established principle that the factual
board the bus when the latter was still at a distance from him. It was at the
findings of the Court of Appeals as a rule are
instance when Pedrito Cudiamat was closing his umbrella at the platform
final and may not be reviewed by this Court on
of the bus when the latter made a sudden jerk movement (as) the driver
appeal. However, this is subject to settled
commenced to accelerate the bus.
exceptions, one of which is when the findings of
the appellate court are contrary to those of the
trial court, in which case a reexamination of the
facts and evidence may be undertaken. 6
Evidently, the incident took place due to the gross negligence of the
appellee-driver in prematurely stepping on the accelerator and in not
waiting for the passenger to first secure his seat especially so when we take
In the case at bar, the trial court and the Court of Appeal have discordant into account that the platform of the bus was at the time slippery and wet
positions as to who between the petitioners an the victim is guilty of because of a drizzle. The defendants-appellees utterly failed to observe
negligence. Perforce, we have had to conduct an evaluation of the evidence their duty and obligation as common carrier to the end that they should
in this case for the prope calibration of their conflicting factual findings observe extra-ordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the
and legal conclusions. safety of the passengers transported by them according to the
circumstances of each case (Article 1733, New Civil Code). 8
The lower court, in declaring that the victim was negligent, made the
following findings:
This Court is satisfied that Pedrito Cudiamat was negligent in trying to supported by the testimony of petitioners' own witnesses. One of them,
Virginia Abalos, testified on cross-examination as follows:
board a moving vehicle, especially with one of his hands holding an
umbrella. And, without having given the driver or the conductor any
indication that he wishes to board the bus. But defendants can also be
found wanting of the necessary diligence. In this connection, it is safe to
assume that when the deceased Cudiamat attempted to board defendants'
bus, the vehicle's door was open instead of being closed. This should be so,
for it is hard to believe that one would even attempt to board a vehicle (i)n Q It is not a fact Madam witness, that at bunkhouse 54, that is before the
motion if the door of said vehicle is closed. Here lies the defendant's lack place of the incident, there is a crossing?
Q What happened when you delivered this passenger at this particular passengers resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking of their
Q How far away was this certain person, Pedrito Cudiamat, when you saw motion" at the point where the victim had boarded and was on its platform.
him lying down — from the bus how far was he? 13
Q On what direction of the bus was he found about three meters from the It is not negligence per se, or as a matter of law, for one attempt to board a
bus, was it at the front or at the back? train or streetcar which is moving slowly. 14
An ordinarily
prudent person would have made the attempt
board the moving conveyance under the same or
similar circumstances. The fact that passengers
A At the back, sir. 10 (Emphasis supplied.) board and alight from slowly moving vehicle is a
matter of common experience both the driver
and conductor in this case could not have been
unaware of such an ordinary practice.
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and reasons of public
policy, are bound to observe extraordina diligence for the safety of the
passengers transported by the according to all the circumstances of each
The contention of petitioners that the driver and the conductor had no
case. 16
knowledge that the victim would ride on the bus, since the latter had A common carrier is bound to carry the
supposedly not manifested his intention to board the same, does not merit passengers safely as far as human care and
consideration. When the bus is not in motion there is no necessity for a foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence
person who wants to ride the same to signal his intention to board. A public very cautious persons, with a due regard for all
utility bus, once it stops, is in effect making a continuous offer to bus riders. the circumstances. 17
Hence, it becomes the duty of the driver and the conductor, every time the
bus stops, to do no act that would have the effect of increasing the peril to a
passenger while he was attempting to board the same. The premature
acceleration of the bus in this case was a breach of such duty. 11 It has also been repeatedly held that in an action based on a contract of
carriage, the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence
on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible to pay the damages
COURT:
sought by the passenger. By contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the
express obligation to transport the passenger to his destination safely and
Q Why did you ask somebody to call the family
observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances,
of Mr. Cudiamat?
and any injury that might be suffered by the passenger is right away
attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier. This is an exception to
A Because Mr. Cudiamat met an accident, so I
the general rule that negligence must be proved, and it is therefore
ask somebody to call for the family of Mr.
incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary
Cudiamat.
diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code. 18
SO ORDERED.