Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Aboitiz International Forwarders, Inc. v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Haryet Supe
    151 views1 page
    Aboitiz Int'l Forwarders Inc. was engaged to transport glass machine parts from Philadelphia, USA to Manila, Philippines. The parts were loaded onto one ship but were discharged from a different ship and upon inspection, parts were found missing. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp., who insured the shipment owner I.S. Parts International, paid for the loss and sued Aboitiz. Aboitiz claimed it was not at fault and that Accord Container and Accord Shipping were negligent, but provided no facts to support these claims. The court ruled in favor of Philippine Charter Insurance Corp., finding Aboitiz did not prove it exercised extraordinary care over the shipment or that others were at fault.

    Original Description:

    case digests

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Aboitiz Int'l Forwarders Inc. was engaged to transport glass machine parts from Philadelphia, USA to Manila, Philippines. The parts were loaded onto one ship but were discharged from a different ship and upon inspection, parts were found missing. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp., who insured the shipment owner I.S. Parts International, paid for the loss and sued Aboitiz. Aboitiz claimed it was not at fault and that Accord Container and Accord Shipping were negligent, but provided no facts to support these claims. The court ruled in favor of Philippine Charter Insurance Corp., finding Aboitiz did not prove it exercised extraordinary care over the shipment or that others were at fault.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    151 views1 page

    Aboitiz International Forwarders, Inc. v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Haryet Supe
    Aboitiz Int'l Forwarders Inc. was engaged to transport glass machine parts from Philadelphia, USA to Manila, Philippines. The parts were loaded onto one ship but were discharged from a different ship and upon inspection, parts were found missing. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp., who insured the shipment owner I.S. Parts International, paid for the loss and sued Aboitiz. Aboitiz claimed it was not at fault and that Accord Container and Accord Shipping were negligent, but provided no facts to support these claims. The court ruled in favor of Philippine Charter Insurance Corp., finding Aboitiz did not prove it exercised extraordinary care over the shipment or that others were at fault.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Aboitiz Intl Forwarders Inc. v. CA and Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. (PCIC) G.R. No. !

    ""#" $a% "& "''( Calle)o& *r.& +. FACTS: I.S. Parts International, Inc. of New Jersey, USA, engaged the services of A oiti! as forwarder"consolidator to deliver fro# Philadel$hia, USA, % o& containing 'lass (a)ing (achine Parts for *old"+$en"Close +$erating ,in)ages to Union 'lass Container Cor$. .consignee/ in (anila. A oiti! loaded said cargo at the $ort of Philadel$hia, USA, on oard the vessel 0Cool Fort1ne2. The vessel (S 031eensway 4ridge2 arrived at the $ort of (anila and s1 se51ently discharged the container where the cargo was $laced6 1$on stri$$ing of the container, however, the cargo was not a#ong its contents and"or was fo1nd shorthanded .Note: It was not e&$lained why it was (S 031eensway 4ridge2 which delivered the goods to the consignee when said goods were loaded on 0Cool Fort1ne2. Perha$s, there was transshi$#ent./ A oiti! allegedly #isdelivered or #isa$$ro$riated the cargo there y failing to deliver the sa#e to the consignee in violation of their o ligations to forward and deliver the sa#e to the consignee. As a res1lt of the loss, PCIC $aid its ass1red I.S. Parts the s1# of P789,:;9.<; after $ro$er assess#ent and there y eco#e s1 rogated to the consignee=s rights of recovery. A oiti! clai#ed that it had a #eritorio1s defense eca1se it e&ercised and o served e&traordinary diligence in its vigilance over the goods consigned to Union 'lass. It was allegedly d1e to the fa1lt and negligence of Accord Container ,ines .Phili$$ines/, Inc. and Accord Shi$$ing PT> ,td. that the said goods were lost. As s1ch, they #1st e the ones held lia le to PCIC. ISSU>: ?+N A oiti! failed to show a #eritorio1s defense *>,@: Aes. The contention of A oiti! that it acted and o served e&traordinary diligence in its vigilance over the shi$#ent ins1red y PCIC, witho1t any fact1al asis for s1ch allegation, is #erely a concl1sion. Neither did A oiti! offer any fact1al asis for its clai# that the loss of the cargo was ca1sed y the negligence of its coBdefendants, Accord Container and Accord Shi$$ing.

    You might also like