THIRD DIVISION
|
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES,
INC., Petitioner, - versus - N.V. THE NETHERLANDS
INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 146472 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: July 27, 2006 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
Assailed via Petition for Review are the Decision dated
On July 4, 1985, Sunglobe International Corporation shipped five cases
containing a total of 5,000 pieces of pre-sensitized printing plates from
Yokohama, Japan on board the vessel M/S Eastern Venus, owned and operated by herein
petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. The
shipment, covered by Bill of Lading No. YMA-14,[3] was
bound for
The shipment was insured for P398,118 by respondent N.V. Netherlands
Insurance Company under Marine Risk Insurance Note No. 21.01940.01−P.[4]
The shipment arrived in
As Cases Nos. 3 and 5 were found to be in bad order, Bad Order Cargo
Receipt No. 10226 dated
On
Before Cases Nos. 3 and 5 were formally turned over from the vessel to
Metro Port or on July 23, 1985, a surveyor engaged by petitioner, R & R
Industrial Surveyors, Co., Inc. (R & R Surveyors), inspected the cargoes
covering said cases, following which it issued on even date two documents
denominated as “BAD ORDER CARGO INSPECTED ON BOARD PRIOR TO
DISCHARGE/AFTER LEAVING SHIP’S TACKLE” which were signed by its representative and
that of Metro Port. In the first document covering Case No. 3, R
& R Surveyors found its wooden case to be “broken on sides,” albeit the
packages inside were “ok,” while in the second document covering Case No. 5, it
found its wooden case to be “badly broken,” but the packages inside were “ok.”
After the entire shipment was withdrawn from the pier and delivered to
the consignee’s warehouse[9] on
P41,065.88 sustained by Case No. 4.[10] The letter read:
x x x x
Please be informed that as per survey report of Audemus
Adjustment Corporation, two (2) wooden cases out of the subject shipment
arrived in bad order condition. [H]owever, from damaged case No. 4,
Fourteen (14) packages were torn on sides, contents partly exposed. The
entire 15 packages each containing 30 pieces printing plates are not usable for
the purpose intended, hence we are declaring our claim for total loss.
Per commercial invoice, packing
list, certificate of weight and measurement, marine risk note, B.O. turnover
Nos. 58744 and 58755 [sic][11] and
Bad Order Survey No. 31166 and B/L No. YMA-14:
_____________________________________________________
14 cartons each of 30 pieces
= 420 pcs. “ALMAX”
Nega, AAN 621x915x.30mm @
US$3.62 = US$ 1,520.40
@ exchange rate P18.68= P28,401.07
Add: Proportionate share on:
Customs duty P89,007.00
Compensating tax
44,679.00
Import fee
250.00
Insurance Premium 4,522.98
Brokerage
3,078.73
Doc. Stamp
487.50
P142,025.21
$1,520.40 x P142,025 =
$17,050.00
12,664.81
Our Claim - - - - - - - - - - - P41,065.88
x x x x (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
Petitioner denied the consignee’s claim by letter of
Meanwhile, respondent issued a check in favor of the consignee in the
amount of P35,501.38 representing “full and final settlement of the
marine cargo claim” covered by the Marine Risk Insurance Note.[13] The consignee thus issued to respondent a
Letter of Subrogation ceding its right to the refund of P35,501.38.[14] Respondent failed to get petitioner to settle
the said amount, however, hence, it filed on
Resolving in the negative the issues of 1) whether Case No. 4 sustained damage while
under the custody and control of petitioner, and 2) whether petitioner is liable for the payment
of the amount of P31,501.38 claimed by respondent,[16] the
trial court, by Judgment dated October 15, 1993,[17] dismissed
respondent’s complaint.
On
appeal by respondent, the appellate court, by the assailed Decision of
In this case, there is no proof adduced to show that the carrier had indeed exercised the foresight required by law. Instead, defendant Eastern sought to escape liability on the defense that the damages attending the shipment occurred, or were discovered, when the same were already discharged from the vessel and were already in the custody of the consignee.
A review of the evidence presented shows, however, that contrary to the defendant’s[-herein petitioner’s] claim, the two (2) cases of pre-sensitized plates were damaged while they were under the responsibility of the carrier, and were reported in bad order at the time they were discharged.
Upon leaving the vessel’s tackle, prior to discharging the consignee’s property, two cases containing the imported plates were reported to be in bad order by R and R Industrial Surveyors Inc., the cargo surveyors employed by defendant Eastern. (Exhibits “9” and “10”) One of the cases were reported as “broken at one side” while the other was “badly broken.” It must be remarked that the cargo inside the broken cases consisted of pre-sensitized plates used for printing purposes. They are light sensitive, such that any unwanted exposure to light will render them unsuitable for further use. The slightest damage to their cases would necessarily result in their damage.
Apart from this, the arrastre operator Metroport Services, Inc. reported that two cases of the subject shipment “were discharged in bad order from the vessel and loss or damage arising therefrom is the vessel’s responsibility.” (Exhibit “F”)[19] (Underscoring supplied)
Accordingly,
the appellate court disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal from the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court is hereby GRANTED. The defendant-appellee Eastern Shipping Lines is hereby ORDERED to pay the plaintiff N.V. The Netherlands Insurance Company; (a) the sum of P35,501.38 with legal interest at the rate of 6% per year counted from the date of entry of the Court’s judgment; and (b) the sum equivalent of 25% of the principal award abovesaid as attorney’s fees.[20] (Underscoring supplied)
By
Resolution of
I
THE TRIAL
COURT’S DECISION HAS SOUND FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS INCORRECTLY APPLIED THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE TO THE PRESENT CASE.[22]
While
in a petition for review before this Court, only questions of law may be raised,
there are instances when factual findings of the Court of Appeals may be
reviewed. Thus in Insular Life Assurance
Company, Ltd v. Court of Appeals, this Court stressed:
It is a settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court’s power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the C[ourt of] A[ppeals] are conclusive and binding on the Court. However, the Court had recognized several exceptions to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. x x x[23] (Emphasis supplied; italics in the original.)
Petitioner
draws attention to the consignee’s demand letter to it which was earlier
quoted, it pointing out that the documents therein mentioned referred to Cases
Nos. 3 and 5, not to Case No. 4[24] the
damage to which is the subject of the present claim.
Further,
petitioner points out that the survey conducted by the consignee’s designated
surveyor Audemus Adjustment Corporation, which found the contents of Case No. 4
to be damaged, was done only on
In its Comment,[26] respondent
alleges that the reports of petitioner’s surveyor, R & R Surveyors, show
that the damage was found while the shipment was “on board prior to
discharge/after leaving ship’s tackle,”[27]
To
enlighten this Court whether the fault lies on petitioner, a consideration of the
cargo receipts issued by petitioner, the turnover of survey of bad cargoes
issued by arrastre operator
|
Case Number |
Issued by Eastern Shipping Lines |
Issued by |
Issued by R & R Surveyors |
|
Case
No. 1 |
Good Order Cargo Receipt
No. 152795 dated |
|
|
|
Case
No. 2 |
Good Order Cargo Receipt
No. 152795 dated |
|
|
|
Case
No. 3 |
Bad Order Cargo Receipt No. 10226 dated |
Turnover of Survey of Bad Cargoes Receipt No. 58744 dated |
Bad Order Cargo Inspected on Board Prior to
Discharge/ After Leaving Ship’s Tackle dated |
|
Case No. 4 |
Good Order Cargo Receipt
No. 152999 dated |
|
|
|
Case No. 5 |
Bad Order Cargo Receipt No. 10227 dated |
Turnover of Survey of Bad Cargoes Receipt No. 58745 dated |
Bad Order Cargo Inspected on Board Prior to
Discharge/ After Leaving Ship’s Tackle dated |
From
the above tabulation, Case No. 4 was found by petitioner to be in good order.
Respondent
would want this Court to believe, however, that all the Cases, including Case
No. 4, were inspected on board prior to discharge/ after leaving the ship’s
tackle. In support of respondent’s
position, it cites Exhibits “9” and
“10”[29]
issued by R & R Surveyors whose services, it bears repeating, were engaged
by petitioner. From the above
tabulation, however, it appears that Exhs. “9” and “10” refer to the inspection
made by the said surveyor firm on Case Nos. 3 and 5. Obviously, there was no need to re-examine or
resurvey Cases Nos. 1, 2 and 4, they
appearing to have been unqualifiedly accepted by arrastre operator
If
Case No. 4 was also inspected and found to be in bad order, would not R & R
Surveyors have made a written memorandum thereof? And if R & R Surveyors failed to put in
writing any such findings, would not the representative of
Respondent
demurs to the applicability to the case at bar of this Court’s ruling in Summa
Insurance Corporation v. CA[30]
and in Hartford Fire Insurance
Co. v. E. Razon, Inc.[31]
cited by petitioner.
In
Summa Insurance, the shipment was discharged
from the ship to the custody of the arrastre operator
Relying
more on the good order cargo receipts issued by the ship owner than on the
short-landed certificate issued by the arrastre operator, the trial court,
still in Summa Insurance, held:
As between the aforementioned
two documentary exhibits, the Court is more inclined to give credence to the
cargo receipts. Said cargo receipts were signed by a checker of defendant
NGSC and a representative of
On
the other hand, the
The trial court’s above-quoted findings
were cited with approval by this Court.
As
in the case of Summa Insurance, petitioner-vessel
owner issued Good Order Cargo Receipt No. 152999[33]
dated
The
signature of the representative of
As
posited by petitioner,
In
Hartford Fire Insurance,[36]
this Court, in determining the issue of where the damage to the contents
of three drums of brake fluid occurred, took into account the information
appearing in the Request for Bad Order Survey which did not reflect any such
damage.
x x x x
Of crucial significance is the condition of the cargo as described in defendant[-arrastre operator]’s Request for Bad Order Survey prepared before the release of the goods to the consignee’s broker as follows:
“3 drums brake fluid, in apparent good order, contents complete except each dented at rims.”
The said Certificate was signed not only by defendant’s inspector but also by the consignee’s representative. It shows that while the rims of the drums were dented the contents thereof were complete. If, as the marine survey showed, “it was evident that the contents had leaked as shown by stain marks on various parts of the containers,” then, those stain marks should have been evident as well when defendant’s Bad Order Certificate was prepared. The consignee’s representative would surely have noticed it and would have caused a notation to that effect to have been made in the Bad Order Certificate. The fact that the Certificate was silent on that point but that instead it specifically indicated that the contents, as detected upon survey at the consignee’s warehouse, must have occurred after the cargo had left defendant’s custody. x x x[37] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
As
in Hartford Fire Insurance, in the present case, the
The
form Report dated
xxx 2. The two (2) cases covered by our B.O. Examination Report(s) No. (s) 31166 was/were discharged in bad order from the vessel and loss or damage arising therefrom is the vessel’s responsibility,
cannot be given weight since above-cited
B.O. Examination Report No. 31166 refers to Turnover of Survey of Bad Cargoes Receipt
Nos. 58744 and 58745 covering Cases Nos. 3 and 5, respectively, as the above tabulation
clearly shows.
Nor
can the Report of Audemus Adjustment Corporation[40] be
given weight, since it conducted the inspection only on
In
fine, Case No. 4 was not in a damaged state when petitioner discharged it to
arrastre operator
WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions
in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] CA rollo, pp. 166-170. Penned by Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico with the concurrence of Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Bienvenido L. Reyes.
[2] Rollo, pp. 35-36. In CA rollo, p. 184, a resolution of another case (CA-GR SP No. 57085) was inadvertently attached.
[3] Exh. “I,” RTC records, p. 147.
[4] Exh. “A,” id. at 137.
[5] In the Complaint, RTC records, p. 2,
respondent (plaintiff therein) alleged that the shipment’s arrival in
[6] Exh. “7,” RTC records, p. 237.
[7] Exh. “8,” ibid.
[8] Receipt No. 58744, Exh. “3” and submarkings, RTC records, p. 234; Receipt No. 58745, Exh. “4” and submarkings, RTC records, p. 235.
[9] Delivery Receipt No. 2598 dated
[10] Demand Letter dated
[11] Should be 58745.
[12] Exh. “L”, RTC records, p. 151.
[13] Exh. “C,” id. at 141.
[14] Exh. “D,” id. at 142.
[15]
[16] Judgment, id. at 283-284.
[17] RTC records, pp. 281-289.
[18] Vide note 1.
[19] CA rollo, p. 168.
[20] CA rollo, p. 170.
[21] Vide note 2.
[22] Rollo, p. 13.
[23] G.R. No. 126850,
[24] Rollo, p. 19.
[25] Ibid.
[26]
[27]
[28] Only one receipt was issued for cases 1 and 2.
[29] Respondent’s Memorandum, rollo, p. 222.
[30] 323 Phil. 214 (1996).
[31] G. R. No. L-43748,
[32] 323 Phil. 214, 220-221(1996).
[33] Exhibit No. “6,” RTC records, p. 236.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Petition, rollo, p. 21.
[36] Supra
note 31.
[37] 88 SCRA 759, 763.
[38] Exh. “E,” RTC records, p. 143.
[39] Exh. “F,” id. at 144.
[40] Exh. “B,” id. at 138-140.
[41] TSN,
Q [Atty. Namit] : When this shipment was inspected, aside from you, who were present?
A: The representative from Audemus Adjuster and our technicians from Liwayway Publishing, Inc.
Q: No more?
A: Yes, Sir.
x x x x
Q: Did you also inform Eastern Shipping Lines?
A: No, Sir.
Q: So, the inspection was made without any representative from Eastern Shipping Lines?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And as a matter of fact, you did not even notify that an inspection shall be conducted on the shipment?
A: No, Sir.