Republic of
the
Supreme Court
|
INSURANCE
COMPANY OF
Petitioner, - versus - ASIAN TERMINALs, INC.,
Respondent. |
G.R. No. 180784 Present: CARPIO, * J., PERALTA,
Acting Chairperson, ABAD, PEREZ, ** and
MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: February 15, 2012 |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of
The trial court dismissed petitioners
complaint for actual damages on the ground of prescription under the Carriage
of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA).
The
facts are as follows:
On November 9, 2002,
Macro-Lite Korea Corporation shipped to
San Miguel Corporation, through M/V "DIMI P" vessel, one hundred
eighty-five (185) packages (231,000 sheets) of electrolytic tin free steel,
complete and in good order condition and covered by Bill of Lading No.
POBUPOHMAN20638.[2] The shipment had a declared value of
US$169,850.35[3] and was insured with petitioner
Insurance Company of
The carrying vessel arrived at the port of Manila on November 19, 2002,
and when the shipment was discharged therefrom, it was noted that seven (7)
packages thereof were damaged and in bad order.[5] The shipment was then turned over to the custody of respondent Asian
Terminals, Inc. (ATI) on
On November 22, 23 and 29, 2002, the
subject shipment was withdrawn by Marzan from the custody of respondent. On
November 29, 2002, prior to the last withdrawal of the shipment, a joint
inspection of the said cargo was conducted per the Request for Bad Order Survey[6] dated November 29, 2002, and the examination report, which was written
on the same request, showed that an additional five (5) packages were found to
be damaged and in bad order.
On
Petitioner engaged the services of
an independent adjuster/surveyor, BA McLarens Phils., Inc., to conduct an
investigation and evaluation on the claim and to prepare the necessary report.[8] BA McLarens Phils., Inc.
submitted to petitioner an Survey Report[9] dated P431,592.14.
The petitioner, as insurer of the
said cargo, paid the consignee the amount of P431,592.14 for the damage caused to
the shipment, as evidenced by the Subrogation Receipt dated
The trial court found, thus:
The Court finds
that the subject shipment indeed suffered additional damages. The Request for
Bad Order Survey No. 56422 shows that prior to the turn over of the shipment
from the custody of ATI to the
consignee, aside from the seven (7) packages which were already damaged upon
arrival at the port of Manila, five (5) more packages were found with
"dent, cut and crumple" while in the custody of ATI. This document
was issued by ATI and was jointly executed by the representatives of ATI,
consignee and customs, and the Shed Supervisor. Thus, ATI is now estopped from
claiming that there was no additional damage suffered by the shipment. It is,
therefore, only logical to conclude that the damage was caused solely by the
negligence of defendant ATI. This evidence of the plaintiff was refuted by the
defendant by merely alleging that "the damage to the 5 Tin Plates is only
in its external packaging. However, the fact remains that the consignee has
rejected the same as total loss for not being suitable for their intended
purpose. In addition, the photographs presented by the plaintiff show that the
shipment also suffered severe dents and some packages were even critically
crumpled.[11]
As to the extent of liability, ATI
invoked the Contract for Cargo Handling Services executed between the
Philippine Ports Authority and Marina Ports Services, Inc. (now Asian
Terminals, Inc.). Under the said contract, ATI's liability for damage to
cargoes in its custody is limited to P5,000.00 for each package, 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 lading unto vessel of the goods.
The trial court found that there was
compliance by the shipper and consignee with the above requirement. The Bill of
Lading, together with the corresponding invoice and packing list, was shown to ATI
prior to the discharge of the goods from the vessel. Since the shipment was released from the
custody of ATI, the trial court found that the same was declared for tax
purposes as well as for the assessment of arrastre charges and other fees. For
the purpose, the presentation of the invoice, packing list and other shipping
documents to ATI for the proper assessment of the arrastre charges and other
fees satisfied the condition of declaration of the actual invoices of the value
of the goods to overcome the limitation of liability of the arrastre operator.[12]
Further, the trial court found that
there was a valid subrogation between the petitioner and the assured/consignee
San Miguel Corporation. The respondent admitted the existence of Global Marine
Policy No. MOPA-06310 with San Miguel Corporation and Marine Risk Note No.
3445,[13] which showed that the cargo was indeed insured with petitioner. The
trial court held that petitioners claim is compensable because the Subrogation
Receipt,16 which was admitted as to its existence by respondent, was
sufficient to establish not only the relationship of the insurer and the
assured, but also the amount paid to settle the insurance claim.[14]
However, the trial court dismissed
the complaint on the ground that the petitioners claim was already barred by
the statute of limitations. It held that
COGSA, embodied in Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 65, applies to this case, since
the goods were shipped from a foreign port to the
The trial court held:
In the case at bar, the
records show that the shipment was delivered to the consignee on 22, 23 and 29
of November 2002. The plaintiff took almost a year to approve and pay the claim
of its assured, San Miguel, despite the fact that it had initially received the
latter's claim as well as the inspection report and survey report of McLarens
as early as January 2003. The assured/consignee had only until November of 2003
within which to file a suit against the defendant. However, the instant case was
filed only on
WHEREFORE, the complaint and counterclaim are hereby DISMISSED.[16]
Petitioners motion for
reconsideration was denied by the trial court in the Order[17] dated
Petitioner filed this petition under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court directly before this Court, alleging that it is
raising a pure question of law:
THE TRIAL COURT
COMMITTED A PURE AND SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN APPLYING THE ONE-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE
PERIOD FOR FILING A SUIT UNDER THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (COGSA) TO AN
ARRASTRE OPERATOR.[18]
Petitioner states that while it is in full accord with the trial court
in finding respondent liable for the damaged shipment, it submits that the
trial courts dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription under
the COGSA is legally erroneous. It contends
that the one-year limitation period for bringing a suit in court under the
COGSA is not applicable to this case, because the prescriptive period applies
only to the carrier and the ship. It argues that respondent, which is engaged
in warehousing, arrastre and stevedoring business, is not a carrier as defined
by the COGSA, because it is not engaged in the business of transportation of
goods by sea in international trade as a common carrier. Petitioner asserts
that since the complaint was filed against respondent arrastre operator only,
without impleading the carrier, the prescriptive period under the COGSA is not
applicable to this case.
Moreover, petitioner contends that the term carriage of goods in the
COGSA covers the period from the time the goods are loaded to the vessel to the
time they are discharged therefrom. It points out that it sued respondent only
for the additional five (5) packages of the subject shipment that were found
damaged while in respondents custody, long after the shipment was discharged
from the vessel. The said damage was confirmed by the trial court and proved by
the Request for Bad Order Survey No. 56422.[19]
Petitioner prays that the decision of the trial court be reversed and
set aside and a new judgment be promulgated granting its prayer for actual
damages.
The main issues are: (1) whether or not the one-year prescriptive period
for filing a suit under the COGSA applies to this action for damages against
respondent arrastre operator; and (2) whether or not petitioner is entitled to
recover actual damages in the amount of P431,592.14 from respondent.
To reiterate, petitioner came straight to this Court to appeal from the
decision of the trial court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on the ground
that it is raising only a question of law.
Microsoft Corporation v.
Maxicorp, Inc.[20] explains the difference between questions of
law and questions of fact, thus:
The distinction between questions of law and
questions of fact is settled. A question of law exists when the doubt or
difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A
question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts. Though this delineation seems simple,
determining the true nature and extent of the distinction is sometimes
problematic. For example, it is incorrect to presume that all cases where the facts are not in
dispute automatically involve purely questions of law.
There is a question of law if
the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the
probative value of the evidence. The resolution of the issue must rest solely
on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is
clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question
posed is one of fact. If the query
requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or
relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the
issue in that query is factual. x x x[21]
In this case, although petitioner alleged that
it is merely raising a question of law, that is, whether or not the
prescriptive period under the COGSA applies to an action for damages against
respondent arrastre operator, yet petitioner prays for the reversal of the decision
of the trial court and that it be granted the relief sought, which is the award
of actual damages in the amount of P431,592.14.
For a question to be one of law, it must not involve an examination of the
probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[22] However, to resolve the issue of whether or
not petitioner is entitled to recover actual damages
from respondent requires the Court to evaluate the evidence on record; hence,
petitioner is also raising a question of fact.
Under Section 1, Rule
45, providing for appeals by certiorari before
the Supreme Court, it is clearly enunciated that only questions of law may be
set forth.[23]
The Court may resolve questions of fact only when the
case falls under the following exceptions:
(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 fact 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 those of
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; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[24]
In this
case, the fourth exception cited above applies, as the trial court rendered
judgment based on a misapprehension of facts.
We first resolve the issue on
whether or not the one-year prescriptive period for filing a suit under the
COGSA applies to respondent arrastre operator.
The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
(COGSA), Public Act No. 521 of the 74th US Congress, was accepted to
be made applicable to all contracts for the carriage of goods by sea to and
from Philippine ports in foreign trade by virtue of CA No. 65.
Section 1 of CA No. 65 states:
Section 1.
That the provisions of Public Act Numbered Five hundred and twenty-one of the
Seventy-fourth Congress of the United States, approved on April sixteenth,
nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be accepted, as it is hereby accepted to be made applicable to all contracts for the
carriage of goods by sea to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade: Provided,
That nothing in the Act shall be construed as repealing any existing provision
of the Code of Commerce which is now in force, or as limiting its application.
Section 1, Title I of CA No. 65 defines the relevant
terms in Carriage of Goods by Sea, thus:
Section
1. When used in this Act -
(a) The term "carrier" includes
the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with a
shipper.
(b) The term "contract of
carriage" applies only to contracts of carriage covered by a bill of
lading or any similar document of title, insofar as such document relates to
the carriage of goods by sea, including any bill of lading or any similar
document as aforesaid issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the
moment at which such bill of lading or similar document of title regulates the
relations between a carrier and a holder of the same.
(c) The term "goods" includes
goods, wares, merchandise, and articles of every kind whatsoever, except live animals
and cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck
and is so carried.
(d) The term "ship" means any
vessel used for the carriage of goods by sea.
(e) The
term "carriage of goods"
covers the period from the time when the
goods are loaded to the time when they are discharged from the ship.[25]
It is noted that
the term carriage of goods covers the period from the time when the goods are
loaded to the time when they are discharged from the ship; thus, it can be
inferred that the period of time when the goods have been discharged from the
ship and given to the custody of the arrastre operator is not covered by the
COGSA.
The prescriptive
period for filing an action for the loss or damage of the goods under the COGSA
is found in paragraph (6), Section 3, thus:
6)
Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage
be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of discharge before
or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person
entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, such removal shall
be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as
described in the bill of lading. If the loss or damage is not apparent, the
notice must be given within three days of the delivery.
Said
notice of loss or damage maybe endorsed upon the receipt for the goods given by
the person taking delivery thereof.
The
notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the time
of their receipt been the subject of joint survey or inspection.
In any event the carrier and the ship shall be
discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is
brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods
should have been delivered: Provided, That if a notice of
loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided for in
this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper
to bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when
the goods should have been delivered.[26]
From the provision above, the carrier and the ship
may put up the defense of prescription if the action for damages is not brought
within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods
should have been delivered. It has been
held that not only the shipper, but also the consignee or legal holder of the
bill may invoke the prescriptive period.[27] However, the COGSA does not mention that an
arrastre operator may invoke the prescriptive period of one year; hence, it
does not cover the arrastre operator.
Respondent arrastre operators responsibility and liability for losses
and damages are set forth in Section 7.01 of the Contract for Cargo Handling
Services executed between the Philippine Ports Authority and Marina Ports Services, Inc. (now Asian
Terminals, Inc.), thus:
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.[28]
Based on the Contract above,
the consignee has a period of thirty
(30) days from the date of delivery of the package to the consignee within
which to request a certificate of loss from the arrastre operator. From the
date of the request for a certificate of loss, the arrastre operator has a
period of fifteen (15) days within which to issue a certificate of
non-delivery/loss either actually or constructively. Moreover, from the date of
issuance of a certificate of non-delivery/loss, the consignee has fifteen (15)
days within which to file a formal claim covering the loss, injury, damage or non-delivery of such goods with all accompanying
documentation against the arrastre operator.
Petitioner clarified that it sued respondent only for the additional
five (5) packages of the subject shipment that were found damaged while in
respondents custody, which fact of damage was sustained by the trial court and
proved by the Request for Bad Order Survey No. 56422.[29]
Petitioner pointed out the importance of the Request for Bad Order
Survey by citing New Zealand Insurance Company Limited v. Navarro.[30] In the said case, the Court ruled that the request for, and the result of, the bad order examination, which
were filed and done within fifteen days from the haulage of the goods from the
vessel, served the purpose of a
claim, which is to afford the carrier or depositary reasonable opportunity and
facilities to check the validity of the claims while facts are still fresh in
the minds of the persons who took part in the transaction and documents are
still available. Hence, even if the consignee
therein filed a formal claim beyond the stipulated period of 15 days, the
arrastre operator was not relieved of liability as the purpose of a formal
claim had already been satisfied by the consignees timely request for the bad
order examination of the goods shipped and the result of the said bad order
examination.
To
elaborate, New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Navarro held:
We took special note of the above
pronouncement six (6) years later in Firemans Fund Insurance Co. v. Manila Port
Service Co., et al. There, fifteen (15) cases of nylon merchandise had
been discharged from the carrying vessel and received by defendant Manila Port
Service Co., the arrastre operator, on
However, the trial court has overlooked
the significance of the request for, and the result of, the bad order
examination, which were filed and done within fifteen days from the haulage of
the goods from the vessel. Said request and result, in effect, served the
purpose of a claim, which is
to
afford the carrier or depositary reasonable opportunity and facilities to check
the validity of the claims while facts are still fresh in the minds of the
persons who took part in the transaction and documents are still available.
(Consunji vs. Manila Port Service, L-15551, 29 November 1960)
Indeed,
the examination undertaken by the defendant's own inspector not only gave the
defendant an opportunity to check the goods but is itself a verification of its
own liability x x x.
In other words, what the Court
considered as the crucial factor in declaring the defendant arrastre operator
liable for the loss occasioned, in the Fireman's Fund case, was the fact
that defendant, by virtue of the consignee's request for a bad order
examination, had been able formally to verify the existence and extent of its
liability within fifteen (15) days from the date of discharge of the shipment
from the carrying vessel -- i.e., within
the same period stipulated under the Management Contract for the consignee to
file a formal claim. That a
formal claim had been filed by the consignee beyond the stipulated period of
fifteen (15) days neither relieved defendant of liability nor excused payment
thereof, the purpose of a formal claim, as contemplated in Consunji, having
already been fully served and satisfied by the consignee's timely request for,
and the eventual result of, the bad order examination of the nylon merchandise
shipped.
Relating
the doctrine of Fireman's Fund to the
case at bar, the record shows that delivery to the warehouse of consignee
Monterey Farms Corporation of the 5,974 bags of soybean meal, had been
completed by respondent Razon (arrastre operator) on P5,746.61,
representing the value of 111 bags of soybean meal. We note further that such verification and ascertainment of
liability on the part of respondent Razon, had been accomplished "within
thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of last package to the consignee,
broker or importer" as well as "within fifteen (15) days from the
date of issuance by the Contractor [respondent Razon] of a certificate of loss,
damage or injury or certificate of non-delivery" the periods
prescribed under Article VI, Section 1 of the Management Contract here
involved, within which a request for certificate of loss and a formal claim,
respectively, must be filed by the consignee or his agent. Evidently,
therefore, the rule laid down by the Court in Fireman's Fund finds appropriate application in the case at bar.[31]
In this case, the
records show that the goods were deposited with the arrastre operator on
Thus, as early as
The next factual issue
is whether or not petitioner is entitled to actual damages in the amount of P431,592.14. The payment of the said amount by
petitioner to the assured/consignee was based on the Evaluation Report[36]
of BA McLarens Phils., Inc., thus:
x x x x
CIRCUMSTANCES
OF LOSS
As
reported, the shipment consisting of 185 packages (344.982 MT) Electrolytic Tin
Free Steel, JISG 3315SPTFS, MRT-4CA, Matte Finish arrived Manila via Ocean Vessel, M/V DIMI P V-075 on
November 9, 2002 and subsequently docked alongside Pier No. 9, South Harbor,
Manila. The cargo of Electrolyic Tin Free Steel was discharged ex-vessel
complete with seven (7) skids noted in bad order condition by the
vessel[s] representative. These skids were identified as nos. 2HD804211,
2HD804460, SHD804251, SHD803784, 2HD803763, 2HD803765 and 2HD803783 and
covered with Bad Order Tally Receipts No. 3709, 3707, 3703 and 3704.
Thereafter, the same were stored inside the warehouse of Pier No. 9,
On
November 22, 23 and 29, 2002, the subject cargo was withdrawn from the Pier by
the consignee authorized broker, R. V. Marzan Brokerage Corp. and the same was
delivered to the consignees final warehouse located at Silangan, Canlubang,
Laguna complete with twelve (12) skids in bad order condition.
VISUAL
INSPECTION
We
conducted an ocular inspection on the reported damaged Electrolytic Tin Free
Steel, Matte Finish at the consignees warehouse located at Brgy. Silangan, Canlubang,
Laguna and noted that out of the
reported twelve (12) damaged skids, nine (9) of them were rejected and three
(3) skids were accepted by the consignees representative as complete and
without exceptions.
x x x x
EVALUATION OF
INDEMNITY
We evaluated the loss/damage sustained
by the subject shipments and arrived as follows:
PRODUCT NOS. PRODUCTS NAMED NO. OF SHEETS NET WT. PER PACKING LIST
2HD803763 Electrolytic Tin
Free 1,200
1,908
Steel JISG3315
2HD803783 -do- 1,200 1,908
2HD803784 -do-
1,200 1,908
2HD804460 -do- 1,400 1,698
2HD803765 -do- 1,200
1,908
2HD804522 -do- 1,200 1,987
2HD804461 -do- 1,400 1,698
2HD804540 -do- 1,200 1,987
2HD804549 -do- 1,200 1,987
9 SKIDS
TOTAL 11,200
16,989 kgs.
P9,878,547.58 P478,959.88
------------------ =
42.7643 x 11,200
231,000
Less: Deductible 0.50% based on sum insured 49,392.74
Total P429,567.14
Add:
Surveyors Fee 2,025.00
Sub-Total
P431,592.14
Note: Above evaluation is Assureds tentative
liability as the salvage proceeds on the damaged stocks has yet to be
determined.
RECOVERY
ASPECT
Prospect
of recovery would be feasible against the shipping company
and the Arrastre operator considering
the copies of Bad Order Tally Receipts
and Bad Order Certificate issued by
the subject parties.[37]
To clarify, based on
the Evaluation Report, seven (7) skids
were damaged upon arrival of the vessel per the Bad Order Cargo Receipts[38]
issued by the shipping company, and an additional
five (5) skids were damaged in the custody of the arrastre operator per the
Bad Order Certificate/Examination Report[39]
issued by the arrastre contractor. The
Evaluation Report states that out of the reported twelve damaged skids, only nine
were rejected, and three were
accepted as good order by the consignees representative. Out of the nine skids that were rejected,
five skids were damaged upon arrival of
the vessel as shown by the product numbers in the Evaluation Report, which
product numbers matched those in the Bad Order Cargo Receipts[40]
issued by the shipping company. It can
then be safely inferred that the four
remaining rejected skids were damaged in the custody of the arrastre operator,
as the Bad Order Certificate/Examination Report did not indicate the product
numbers thereof.
Hence, it should be
pointed out that the Evaluation Report shows that the claim for actual damages in the amount of P431,592.14 covers five (5)[41] out of the
seven (7) skids that were found to be damaged upon arrival of the vessel and covered by Bad Order Cargo Receipt Nos. 3704,
3706, 3707 and 3709,[42]
which claim should have been filed with the shipping company. Petitioner must have realized that the claim
for the said five (5) skids was already barred under COGSA; hence, petitioner
filed the claim for actual damages only against respondent arrastre operator.
As regards the four (4)
skids that were damaged in the custody of the arrastre operator, petitioner is
still entitled to recover from respondent. The Court has ruled that the Request
for Bad Order Survey and the examination report on the said request satisfied
the purpose of a formal claim, as respondent was made aware of and was able to
verify that five (5) skids were damaged or in bad order while in its custody
before the last withdrawal of the shipment on November 29, 2002. Hence, even if the formal claim was filed
beyond the 15-day period stipulated in the Contract, respondent was not
prejudiced thereby, since it already knew of the number of skids damaged in its
possession per the examination report on the request for bad order survey.
Remand of the case to
the trial court for the determination of the liability of respondent to
petitioner is not necessary as the Court can resolve the same based on the
records before it.[43] The Court notes that petitioner, who filed
this action for damages for the five (5)
skids that were damaged while in the custody of respondent, was not
forthright in its claim, as it knew that the damages it sought in the amount of
P431,592.14, which was based on the Evaluation Report
of its adjuster/surveyor, BA McLarens Phils., Inc., covered nine (9) skids. Based on the same
Evaluation Report, only four of the nine
skids were damaged in the custody of respondent. Petitioner should have
been straightforward about its exact claim, which is borne out by the evidence
on record, as petitioner can be granted only the amount of damages that is due
to it.
Based on the Evaluation
Report[44]
of BA McLarens Phils., Inc., dated
PRODUCT NOS.
PRODUCTS NAMED NO. OF
SHEETS NET WT. PER
PACKING LIST
2HD804522 Electrolytic Tin Free
1,200 1,987
Steel JISG3315
2HD804461 -do- 1,400 1,698
2HD804540 -do- 1,200 1,987
2HD804549 -do- 1,200 1,987
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
SKIDS
TOTAL
5,000
P9,878,547.58 (Insured value)[45] P213,821.50
------------------ =
42.7643 x 5,000
231,000
(Total number of sheets)
Less: Deductible 0.50% based on sum insured[46] 49,392.74
Total P164,428.76
In view of the
foregoing, petitioner is entitled to actual damages in the amount of P164,428.76 for the four (4) skids damaged while in
the custody of respondent.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 138, dated October
17, 2006, in Civil Case No. 05-809, and
its Order dated December 4, 2007, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Asian Terminals, Inc. is ORDERED to pay petitioner Insurance
Company of P164,428.76). Twelve
percent (12%) interest per annum shall be imposed on the amount of actual
damages from the date the award becomes final and executory until its full
satisfaction.
Costs against
petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ROBERTO
A. ABAD JOSE
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
JOSE
CATRAL
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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 Courts Division.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
Third Division, Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Acting
Chairpersons 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
*
Designated as an additional member in lieu of
Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1185
dated
** Designated
as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perla-Bernabe,
per Special Order No. 1192 dated
[2] Annex D, records, p. 108.
[3] Annex B, id. at 106.
[4] Annex A of Complaint, id. at 68.
[5] Bad Order Cargo Receipts, Annexes G to G-2, id. at 111-113.
[6] Request
for Bad Order Survey No. 56422, Annex 1, id.
at 153.
[7] Annexes C and J, id. at 107 and 118, respectively.
[8] Affidavit of Mr. Armel Santos, id. at 62, 64.
[9] Records, p. 125.
[10]
[11] Rollo, p. 30.
[12] RTC Decision, rollo, p. 31, citing E.
Razon, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L-50242,
[13] Annex B, records, p. 106.
[14] RTC Decision, rollo, p. 31, citing Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127897, November 15, 2001, 369 SCRA 24.
[15] COGSA, Section 3 (6) paragraph 4: In
any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in
respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery
of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered: Provided,
that, if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given
as provided for in this section, that fact shall not affect or prejudice the
right of the shipper to bring suit with one year after the delivery of the
goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. (Emphasis
supplied)
[16] Rollo, p. 32.
[17]
[18]
[19] Annex F, records, p. 16.
[20] G.R. No. 140946,
[21]
[22]
[23] Tayco v. Heirs of Concepcion Tayco-Flores, G.R. No. 168692, December 13, 2010, 637 SCRA 742, 747, citing Fangonil-Herrera v. Fangonil, G.R. No. 169356, August 28, 2007, 531 SCRA 486, 503.
[24]
[25] Emphasis supplied.
[26] Emphasis supplied.
[27] Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping, N.V. v. Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 143133, June 5, 2002, 383 SCRA 23.
[28] Records,
pp. 168-169. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
[29] Annex F, id. at 16.
[30] G.R. No. 48686,
[31]
[32] Annex 1, records, p. 153.
[33] See New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Navarro, supra note 30.
[34]
[35]
[36] Records, pp. 129-133.
[37]
[38] Annexes G,G-1,G-2, records, pp. 111-113.
[39] Annex 1, id. at 153.
[40] Annexes G,G-1,G-2, id. at 111-113.
[41] Packages Nos. 2HD804460, SHD803784, 2HD803763, 2HD803765 and 2HD803783.
[42] Annexes G,G-1,G-2, records, pp. 111-113.
[43] See Caltex Phils., Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
74730,
[44] Records, pp. 129-133.
[45] Marine Risk Note No. 3445, Annex B, id. at 106.
[46]