THIRD DIVISION
|
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, - versus - DAEHAN FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE CO., LTD., Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 171194
Present: CARPIO, J.,*
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February
4, 2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) September 14, 2005
Decision[1]
and December 20, 2005 Resolution[2]
in CA-G.R. CV No. 83647. The assailed Decision reversed and set aside the
Regional Trial Court (RTC)[3]
August 4, 2004 Decision[4]
in Civil Case No. 01-101309, while the assailed resolution denied petitioner
Asian Terminals, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration.
The case stemmed from the following facts:
On July 8, 2000,
Doosan Corporation (Doosan) shipped twenty-six (26) boxes of printed aluminum
sheets on board the vessel Heung-A Dragon
owned by Dongnama Shipping Co., Ltd. (Dongnama).[5]
The shipment was covered by Bill of Lading No. DNALHMBUMN010010[6]
and consigned to Access International, with address at No. 9 Parada St., San
Juan, Metro Manila. Doosan insured the subject shipment with respondent Daehan
Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. under an “all-risk” marine cargo insurance
policy,[7]
payable to its settling agent in the
On July 12, 2000, the vessel arrived in
On
On
Dongnama and Uni-ship
filed a Motion to Dismiss[16]
on the grounds that Daehan lacked legal capacity to sue and that the complaint
stated no cause of action. The trial court, however, denied the motion in an
Order dated
Thereafter, Dongnama and
Uni-ship filed their Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-Claim Ad Cautelam denying any liability for
the damages/losses sustained by the shipment, pointing out that it was on a
“Full Container Load,” “Said to Contain,” and “Shipper’s Load and Count” bases,
under which they had no means of verifying the contents of the containers. They
also alleged that the container van was properly discharged from the vessel
with seals intact and no exceptions noted. Moreover, they claimed that the
losses occurred while the subject shipment was in the custody, possession or
control of the shipper, its trucker, the arrastre operator, or their
representatives, or due to the consignee’s own negligence. They further
questioned the absence of notice of loss within the three (3)-day period
provided under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Finally, they averred that their
liability, if there be any, should only be limited to US$500.00 per package or
customary freight unit. [18]
For its part, petitioner denied
liability, claiming that it exercised due diligence in handling and storing the
subject container van. It, likewise,
assailed the timeliness of the complaint, having been filed beyond the fifteen
(15)-day period under its Contract for Cargo Handling Services with the Philippine
Ports Authority (PPA). If at all,
petitioner added, its liability should only be limited to P5,000.00.[19]
In her Answer, V. Reyes
Lazo questioned respondent’s capacity to sue in Philippine courts. She accused
respondent of engaging in a fishing expedition since the latter could not
determine with clarity the party at fault.[20]
On December 2, 2002, in
their Joint Motion to Dismiss,[21]
respondent, on one hand, and Dongnama and Uni-ship, on the other, prayed that
the complaint be dismissed against the latter, alleging that they could not be
held liable based on the EIR. The motion
was granted on December 9, 2002.[22]
Consequently, the case proceeded as against petitioner and V. Reyes Lazo.
As no amicable settlement
was reached during the pretrial, trial on the merits ensued.
On
On appeal, the CA
reversed and set aside the RTC decision. The dispositive portion of the CA
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the present appeal is hereby GRANTED. The appealed Decision dated P2,295,374.20 with interest at the legal rate (6% per
annum) from the date of the filing of the complaint and P229,537.42 by
way of attorney’s fees.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[26]
Applying the principle of substantial compliance, the CA
recognized the validity of respondent’s complaint after the submission, albeit late, of the board resolution,
indicating the authority of the signatory to represent the corporation.[27]
Pursuant to the Management Contract
between petitioner and the PPA, the former may not disclaim responsibility for
the shortage of the subject cargoes while the container van remained in its
custody for seven (7) days, despite the withdrawal of the subject shipment by
the broker’s representative without any complaint. Applying E. Razon, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[28]
the CA refused to impose the P5,000.00 limitation, considering that
petitioner was aware of the value of the subject goods shown in the pertinent
shipping documents.[29]
The CA added that petitioner could not disclaim any liability, having refused
or ignored Access International’s request for a joint survey at the time when
the goods were still in the possession and custody of the former.[30]
Lastly, V. Reyes Lazo was also made liable jointly and severally with petitioner
in negligently withdrawing the container van from the premises of the pier,
notwithstanding Access International’s request for a joint survey.[31]
Aggrieved, petitioner comes before us in this petition for
review on certiorari, raising the
following issues:
1. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER ATI IS LIABLE FOR
THE LOSS TO THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE
CONSIGNEE’S BROKER/REPRESENTATIVE IN THE EQUIPMENT INTERCHANGE RECEIPT THAT THE
SHIPMENT WAS RECEIVED IN GOOD ORDER AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
2.
WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF PETITIONER ATI’S LIABILITY, IF ANY?[32]
Simply put, we are tasked to
determine the propriety of making petitioner, as arrastre operator, liable for
the loss of the subject shipment, and if so, the extent of its liability.
Petitioner denies liability for the
loss of the subject shipment, considering that the consignee’s representative
signified receipt of the goods in good order without exception. This being the
case, respondent, as subrogee, is bound by such acknowledgment. As to the extent of its liability, if there
be any, petitioner insists that it be limited to P5,000.00 per package,
as provided for in its Management Contract with the PPA.[33]
We do not agree with petitioner.
Respondent, as insurer, was subrogated
to the rights of the consignee, pursuant to the subrogation receipt executed by
the latter in favor of the former. The
relationship, therefore, between the consignee and the arrastre operator must
be examined. This relationship is akin
to that existing between the consignee and/or the owner of the shipped goods
and the common carrier, or that between a depositor and a warehouseman.[34] In
the performance of its obligations, an arrastre operator should observe the
same degree of diligence as that required of a common carrier and a
warehouseman. Being the custodian of the
goods discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operator’s duty is to take good
care of the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their
possession.[35]
The loss of 14 out of 26 boxes of printed aluminum sheets is undisputed. It is, likewise,
settled that Dongnama (the shipping company) and Uni-ship were absolved from
liability because respondent realized that they had no liability based on the
EIR issued by Dongnama. This resulted in the withdrawal of the complaint
against them. What remained was the complaint against petitioner as the
arrastre operator and V. Reyes Lazo as the customs broker. Records show that the
subject shipment was discharged from the vessel and placed under the custody of
petitioner for a period of seven (7) days.
Thereafter, the same was withdrawn from the container yard by the
customs broker, then delivered to the consignee. It was after such delivery that the loss of
14 boxes was discovered. Hence, the complaint
against both the arrastre operator and the customs broker.
In a claim for loss filed by the consignee
(or the insurer), the burden of proof to show compliance with the obligation to
deliver the goods to the appropriate party devolves upon the arrastre operator.
Since the safekeeping of the goods is its responsibility, it must prove that
the losses were not due to its negligence or to that of its employees.[36] To prove the exercise of diligence in handling
the subject cargoes, petitioner must do more than merely show the possibility
that some other party could be responsible for the loss or the damage. It must prove that it exercised due care in
the handling thereof.[37] Petitioner failed to do this. Instead, it insists
that it be exonerated from liability, because the customs broker’s
representative received the subject shipment in good order and condition
without exception. The appellate court’s
conclusion on this matter is instructive:
ATI may not disclaim responsibility for the
shortage/pilferage of fourteen (14) boxes of printed aluminum sheet while the
container van remained in its custody for seven (7) days (at the Container
Yard) simply because the alleged representative of the customs broker had
withdrawn the shipment from its premises and signed the EIR without any
complaint. The signature of the person/broker representative merely signifies
that said person thereby frees the ATI from any liability for loss or damage to
the cargo so withdrawn while the same was in the custody of such representative
to whom the cargo was released. It does not foreclose any remedy or right of
the consignee to prove that any loss or damage to the subject shipment occurred
while the same was under the custody, control and possession of the arrastre
operator.[38]
Clearly,
petitioner cannot be excused from culpability simply because another person
could be responsible for the loss. This is especially true in the instant case
because, while the subject shipment was in petitioner’s custody, Access
International requested[39]
that a joint survey be conducted at the place of storage. And as correctly
observed by the CA:
There
is no dispute that it was the customs broker who in behalf of the consignee
took delivery of the subject shipment from the arrastre operator. However, the
trial court apparently disregarded documentary evidence showing that the
consignee made a written request on both the appellees ATI and V. Reyes Lazo
for a joint survey of the container van on
Moreover, it was shown in the Survey
Report prepared by Access International’s surveyor that petitioner was remiss
in its obligations to handle the goods with due care and to ensure that they
reach the proper party in good order as to quality and quantity. Specifically,
the Survey Report states:
DELIVERY
On
Prior to withdrawal from the said port, the Broker’s
representative noticed that the padlock secured to the doors of the Van
Container was forcibly pulled-out resulting to its breakage. He then immediately informed the Arrastre
Contractors (ATI) and requested that Van Container be opened and inventory of
its contents be made as he suspected the contents might have been pilfered.
However, his request was denied averring that
stripping of “FCL Van Containers” are not allowed inside the Customs Zone. As all efforts exerted proved futile, he
instead bought new padlock and secured same to the Van. He then informed the
Consignee about the incident upon delivery of the Container at the Consignee’s
designated warehouse, who immediately requested for survey.[41]
Considering that both petitioner and
V. Reyes Lazo were negligent in the performance of their duties in the
handling, storage and delivery of the subject shipment to the consignee,
resulting in the loss of 14 boxes of printed aluminum sheets, both shall be
solidarily liable for such loss.
As to the extent of petitioner’s
liability, we cannot sustain its contention that it be limited to P5,000.00
per package. Petitioner’s responsibility
and liability for losses and damages are set forth in Section 7.01 of the
Management Contract drawn between the PPA and the Marina Port Services, Inc.,
petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, to wit:
CLAIMS AND LIABILITY FOR LOSSES AND DAMAGES
Section
7.01. Responsibility and Liability for Losses and Damages; Exceptions. – The
CONTRACTOR shall, at its own expense, handle all merchandise in all work
undertaken by it, hereunder, diligently and in a skillful, workman-like and
efficient manner. The CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible as an independent
contractor, and hereby agrees to accept liability and to pay to the shipping
company, consignees, consignors or other
interested party or parties for the loss, damage or non-delivery of cargoes in
its custody and control to the extent of the actual invoice value of each
package which in no case shall be more than FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00)
each, unless the value of the cargo shipment is otherwise specified or
manifested or communicated in writing together with the declared Bill of Lading
value and supported by a certified packing list to the CONTRACTOR by the
interested party or parties before the discharge or loading unto vessel of the
goods. This amount of Five Thousand
Pesos (P5,000.00) per package may be reviewed and adjusted by the
AUTHORITY from time to time. The
CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible for the condition or the contents of any
package received, nor for the weight nor for any loss, injury or damage to the
said cargo before or while the goods are being received or remains in the
piers, sheds, warehouses or facility, if the loss, injury or damage is caused
by force majeure or other causes beyond the CONTRACTOR’S control or capacity to
prevent or remedy; PROVIDED that a formal claim together with the
necessary copies of Bill of Lading,
Invoice, Certified Packing List and Computation arrived at covering the loss,
injury or damage or non-delivery of such goods shall have been filed with the
CONTRACTOR within fifteen (15) days from day of issuance by the CONTRACTOR of a
certificate of non-delivery; PROVIDED, however, that if said CONTRACTOR fails
to issue such certification within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a written
request by the shipper/consignee or his duly authorized representative or any
interested party, said certification shall be deemed to have been issued, and
thereafter, the fifteen (15) day period within which to file the claim
commences; PROVIDED, finally, that the request for certification of loss shall
be made within thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of the package to the
consignee.
x x x x
The CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible
for any and all injury or damage that may arise on account of the negligence or
carelessness of the CONTRACTOR, its agent or employees in the performance of
the undertaking under the Contract. Further, the CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to
hold free the AUTHORITY, at all times, from any claim that may be instituted by
its employee by reason of the provisions of the Labor Code, as amended.[42]
As clearly stated above, such
limitation does not apply if the value of the cargo shipment is communicated to
the arrastre operator before the discharge of the cargoes.
It is undisputed that Access
International, upon arrival of the shipment, declared the same for taxation
purposes, as well as for the assessment of arrastre charges and other
fees. For the purpose, the invoice,
packing list and other shipping documents were presented to the Bureau of
Customs as well as to petitioner for the proper assessment of the arrastre
charges and other fees. Such
manifestation satisfies the condition of declaration of the actual invoices of
the value of the goods before their arrival, to overcome the limitation on the
liability of the arrastre operator.[43] Then,
the arrastre operator, by reason of the payment to it of a commensurate charge
based on the higher declared value of the merchandise, could and should take
extraordinary care of the special or valuable cargo.[44]
What would, indeed, be unfair and arbitrary is to hold the arrastre operator
liable for the full value of the merchandise after the consignee has paid the
arrastre charges only on a basis much lower than the true value of the goods.[45]
What
is essential is knowledge beforehand of the extent of the risk to be undertaken
by the arrastre operator, as determined by the value of the property committed
to its care. This defines its responsibility for loss of or damage to such
cargo and ascertains the compensation commensurate to such risk assumed. Having
been duly informed of the actual invoice value of the merchandise under its
custody and having received payment of arrastre charges based thereon, petitioner
cannot therefore insist on a limitation of its liability under the contract to
less than the value of each lost cargo.[46]
The
stipulation requiring the consignee to inform the arrastre operator and to give
advance notice of the actual invoice value of the goods to be put in its
custody is adopted for the purpose of determining its liability, that it may obtain
compensation commensurate to the risk it assumes, not for the purpose of
determining the degree of care or diligence it must exercise as a depositary or
warehouseman.[47]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition is hereby DENIED for lack
of merit. The Court of Appeals September 14, 2005
Decision and
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza per Special Order No. 818 dated January 18, 2010.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Lucenito N. Tagle, concurring; rollo, pp. 25-47.
[2]
[3] Branch 21,
[4] Penned by Judge Amor A. Reyes; records, Vol. II, pp. 531-536.
[5] Rollo, p. 25.
[6] Exh. “C,” records, Vol. I, p. 319.
[7] Policy No. 24010-A00058-0110; Exh. “E,” records, Vol. I, p. 321.
[8] Rollo, p. 26.
[9] Exh. “M,” records, Vol. I, pp. 337-338.
[10] Rollo, p. 26.
[11] Records, Vol. I, pp. 323-330.
[12] Exhs. “H” and “I,” id. at 331-332.
[13] Exh. “L,” records, Vol. I, p. 336.
[14] Exh. “A,” records, Vol. I, p. 317.
[15] Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-4.
[16]
[17]
[18] Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[19] Records, Vol. I, pp. 43-46.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Records, Vol. II, pp. 531-536.
[24]
[25]
[26] Rollo, pp. 46-47.
[27]
[28] 244 Phil. 375 (1988).
[29] Rollo, pp. 41-44.
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34] Summa Insurance Corporation v. CA, 323 Phil. 214 , 222 (1996); see Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Metro Port Service, Inc., G.R. No. 83613, February 21, 1990, 182 SCRA 455.
[35] Summa Insurance Corporation v. CA, supra note 34, at 222-223.
[36] International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co., Inc., 377 Phil. 1082, 1091 (1999).
[37] Calvo v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., 429 Phil. 244, 254 (2002).
[38] Rollo, p. 41.
[39] Embodied in a letter dated July 18, 2000; records, Vol. I, p. 337.
[40] Rollo, p. 45.
[41] Records, Vol. I, p. 328.
[42] Records, Vol. II, pp. 410-411.
[43] E. Razon, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 28, at 380.
[44] Summa Insurance Corporation v. CA, supra note 34, at 226.
[45]
[46] E. Razon, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 28, at 380.
[47]