Bill of Lading | RCM| PSULaw

1. Heacock H.E. Heacock Co. vs. Macondray

a. Three kinds of stipulations have often been made in a bill of lading. The first is one
exempting the carrier from any and all liability for loss or damage occasioned by its own
negligence. The second is one providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to
an agreed valuation. And the third is one limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed
valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight.
According to an almost uniform weight of authority, the first and second kinds of
stipulations are invalid as being contrary to public policy, but the third is valid and
enforceable.
b. If a common carrier gives to a shipper the choice of two rates and if the shipper makes
such a choice, understandingly and freely, and names his valuation, he cannot thereafter
recover more than the value which he thus places upon his property. A limitation of
liability based upon an agreed value does not conflict with any sound principle of public
policy; and it is not conformable to plain principles of justice that a shipper may
understate value in order to reduce the rate and then recover a larger value in case of
loss.
2. Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals
a. While it may be true that the passenger had not signed the plane ticket, he is
nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. "Such provisions have been held to be a
part of the contract of carriage, and valid and binding upon the passenger regardless of
the latter's lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation". It is what is known as a
contract of "adhesion", in regards which it has been said that contracts of adhesion
wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other, as the plane
ticket in the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to
the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent. A
contract limiting liability upon an agreed valuation does not offend against the policy of
the law forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence.
3. Sea Land Services, Inc. vs. IAC
a. Since the liability of a common carrier for loss of or damage to goods transported by it
under a contract of carriage so governed by the laws of the country of destination and
the goods in question were shipped from the United States to the Philippines, the
liability of common carrier to the consignee is governed primarily by the Civil Code.
Applying the Civil Code provisions (Article 1749 and 1750) the stipulation in the bill of
lading limiting the liability of the common carrier for loss or damages to the shipment
covered by said rule unless the shipper declares the value of the shipment and pays
additional charges is valid and binding on the consignee.
4. Citadel Lines, Inc. vs. CA
a. Basic is the rule that a stipulation limiting the liability of the carrier to the value of the
goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless the shipper or owner declares a greater
value, is binding. Furthermore, a contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the
owner or shipper for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods is valid, if it is
 reasonable and just under the circumstances, and has been fairly and freely agreed
upon.
b. In this case, the award based on the alleged market value of the goods is erroneous. It is
provided in a clause in the BOL that its liability is limited to US$2.00/kilo. The consignee
also admits in the memorandum that the value of the goods does not appear in the bill
of lading. Hence, the stipulation on the carrier’s limited liability applies.