Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Transportation Digest - Transportation of Goods A.M.+D.G. Transportation - Atty. Abaño
Transportation Digest - Transportation of Goods A.M.+D.G. Transportation - Atty. Abaño
Atty. Abao
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION
contrast to the claim of the crew of the ship that the waves were 20
feet high.
Delsan contends the following
1. Delsan theorized that when the American Home paid
Caltex the value of its lost cargo, the act of American
Home is equivalent to a tacit recognition that the illfated vessel was seaworthy; otherwise, American Home
was not legally liable to Caltex due to the latters breach
of implied warranty under the marine insurance policy
that the vessel was seaworthy.
2. Delsan avers that although chief officer had merely a 2 nd
officers license, he was qualified to act as the vessels
chief officer. In fact, all the crew and officers of MTT
Maysun were exonerated in the administrative
investigation.
ISSUES
1. W/N the payment made by American Home to Caltex for the
insured value of the lost cargo amounted to an admission
that the vessel was seaworthy, thus precluding any action
for recovery against the petitioner. NO
2. W/N the non-presentation of the marine insurance policy
bars the complaint for recovery of sum of money for lack of
cause of action. NO
RULING
First Issue:
The payment made by American Home for the insured value of the
lost cargo operates as waiver of its right to enforce the term of the
implied warranty against Caltex under the marine insurance policy.
However, the same cannot be validly interpreted as an automatic
admission of the vessels seaworthiness by American Home as to
foreclose recourse against Delsan for any liability under its
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION
From the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,
common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in
the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each
case. In the event of loss, destruction or deterioration of the
insured goods, common carriers shall be responsible unless the
same is brought about, among others, by flood, storm, earthquake,
lightning or other natural disaster or calamity. In all other cases, if
the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless
they prove they observed extraordinary diligence.
In order to escape liability for the loss of its cargo of industrial fuel
oil belonging to Caltex, Delsan attributes the sinking of MT Maysun
to fortuitous event or force majeure. Although the testimony of the
captain and chief mate that there were strong winds and waves 20
feet high was effectively rebutted and belied by the weather report
of PAGASA. Thus, as the CA correctly ruled, Delsans vessel, MT
Maysun, sank with its entire cargo for the reason that it was not
seaworthy. There was no squall or bad weather or extremely poor
sea condition in the vicinity where the said vessel sank.
Additionally, the exoneration of MT Maysuns officers and crew
merely concern their respective administrative liabilities. It does
not in any way operate to absolve Delsan the common carrier from
its civil liability arising from its failure to observe extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods it was transporting and for
the negligent acts or omissions of its employees, the determination
of which properly belongs to the courts. In the case at bar, Delsan
is liable for the insured value of the lost cargo of industrial fuel oil
belonging to Caltex for its failure to rebut the presumption of fault
Second Issue:
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION
to sell the cylinder liners in Singapore and pay the balance from the
proceeds of said sale.
Respondent filed an action for sum of money and damages before
the RTC. Prior to the filing of a responsive pleading, respondent filed
an amended complaint with preliminary attachment. The
amendments also pertained to the issuance by petitioner of the
postdated checks and the amounts of damages claimed.
The RTC granted respondent's prayer for the issuance of a
preliminary attachment. Petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion
to Discharge Writ of Attachment attaching thereto a counter-bond
which the RTC allowed.
Petitioner afterwards filed its Answer alleging therein that time was
of the essence in the delivery of the cylinder liners and that the
delivery on 20 April 1990 of said items was late as respondent
committed to deliver said items "within two (2) months after receipt
of firm order."
Respondent filed a Second Amended Complaint with Preliminary
Attachment which dealt solely with the number of postdated checks
issued by petitioner as full payment for the first cylinder liner it
ordered from respondent. (In the first amended complaint, only
nine postdated checks were involved, in its second amended
complaint, there were ten postdated checks).
Petitioner filed a Motion alleging therein that the cylinder liners run
the risk of obsolescence and deterioration to the prejudice of the
parties to this case. Thus, petitioner prayed that it be allowed to
sell the cylinder liners at the best possible price and to place the
proceeds of said sale in escrow. This motion was granted.
The RTC dismissed the complaint which ordered the plaintiff to pay
P50,000.00 to the defendant. It held respondent bound to the
quotation it submitted to petitioner particularly with respect to the
terms of payment and delivery of the cylinder liners. It also
declared that respondent had agreed to the cancellation of the
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION
On Nov. 12, 1976, Castillo ordered from Eli Lilly, Inc. of Puerto Rico
600,000 empty gelatin capsules for the manufacture of his
pharmaceutical products. The capsules were placed in 6 drums of
100,000 capsules each valued at US$1,668.71. Shipper Eli Liily,Inc.
advised Castillo through a Memorandum of Shipment that the
products were already shipped on board MV Anders Maesrkline
and date of arrival to be April 3, 1977.
However, for unknown reasons, said cargoes of capsules were
diverted to Richmond, VA and then transported back to Oakland,
CA and with the goods finally arriving in the PI on June 10, 1977.
Consignee Castillo refused to take delivery of the goods on account
of its failure to arrive on time, and filed an action for rescission of
contract with damages against Maersk and Eli Lilly alleging gross
negligence and undue delay.
Maersk contends that it is liable only in case of loss, destruction or
deterioration of goods under Art 1734 NCC while Eli Lilly in its cross
claim argued that the delay was due solely to the negligence of
Maersk Line. Trial Court dismissed the complaint against Eli Lilly
and the latter withdrew cross claim but TC still held Maersk liable
and CA affirmed with modifications.
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION
The complaint was filed originally against Eli Lilly, Inc. as shippersupplier and petitioner as carrier. Petitioner Maersk Line being an
original party defendant upon whom the delayed shipment is
imputed cannot claim that the dismissal of the complaint against Eli
Liily inured to its benefit.
Petitioner contends as well that it cannot be held liable because
there was no special contract under which the carrier undertook to
deliver the shipment on or before a specific date and that the Bill of
Lading provides that The Carrier does not undertake that the
Goods shall arrive at port of discharge or the place of delivery at
any particular time. However, although the SC stated that a bill
of lading being a contract of adhesion will not be voided on that
basis alone, it did declare that the questioned provision to be void
because it has the effect of practically leaving the date of arrival of
the subject shipment on the sole determination and will of the
carrier. It is established that without any stipulated date, the
delivery of shipment or cargo should be made within a reasonable
time. In the case at hand, the SC declared that a delay in the
delivery of the goods spanning a period of 2 months and 7 days
falls way beyond the realm of reasonableness.
ISSUES
1. W/N a cause of action exists against Maersk Line given that
there was a dismissal of the complaint against Eli Lilly? Yes,
but not under the cross claim rather because Maersk
was an original party.
2. W/N Castillo is entitled to damages resulting from delay in
the delivery of the shipment in the absence in the bill of
lading of a stipulation on the delivery of goods? Yes.
RULING
common carriers. Since the D/B Lucio had no engine of its own, it
could not maneuver by itself and had to be towed by a tugboat for
it to move from one place to another.
The D/B Lucio was towed by the M/T ANCO all the way from
Mandaue City to San Jose, Antique. The vessels arrived at San Jose,
Antique, at about one oclock in the afternoon of 30 September
1979. The tugboat M/T ANCO left the barge immediately after
reaching San Jose, Antique.
When the barge and tugboat arrived at San Jose, Antique, in the
afternoon of 30 September 1979, the clouds over the area were
dark and the waves were already big.
The arrastre workers
unloading the cargoes of SMC on board the D/B Lucio began to
complain about their difficulty in unloading the cargoes. SMCs
District Sales Supervisor, Fernando Macabuag, requested ANCOs
representative to transfer the barge to a safer place because the
vessel might not be able to withstand the big waves.
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION
In this case, the calamity which caused the loss of the cargoes was
not unforeseen nor was it unavoidable. In fact, the other vessels in
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION
Under Article 1734, Fire is not one of those enumerated under the
above provision which exempts a carrier from liability for loss or
destruction of the cargo.
Since the peril of fire is not
comprehended within the exceptions in Article 1734, then the
common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently, unless it proves that it has observed the
extraordinary diligence required by law.
The natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause
of the loss, and that the carrier has exercised due diligence to
prevent or minimize the loss before, during or after the
occurrence of the disaster.
Said crates were shipped from Japan to Manila on noard the vessel
owned by Everette Orient Lines. Upon arrival in Manila, it was
discovered that Marco 14 was missing.
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION
ISSUE
1. Is Everett liable for the full amount or the amount that
That said stipulation is just and reasonable is arguable from the fact
that it echoes Art. 1750 itself in providing a limit to liability only if a
greater value is not declared for the shipment in the bill of lading.
To hold otherwise would amount to questioning the justness and
fairness of the law itself, and this the private respondent does not
pretend to do. But over and above that consideration, the just and
reasonable character of such stipulation is implicit in it giving the
shipper or owner the option of avoiding accrual of liability limitation
by the simple and surely far from onerous expedient of declaring
the nature and value of the shipment in the bill of lading
The clause of the contract goes:
The carrier shall not be liable for any loss of or any
damage to or in any connection with, goods in an amount
exceeding One Hundred Thousand Yen in Japanese
Currency (Y100,000.00) or its equivalent in any other
currency per package or customary freight unit (whichever
is least) unless the value of the goods higher than this
amount is declared in writing by the shipper before receipt
of the goods by the carrier and inserted in the Bill of Lading
and extra freight is paid as required. (Emphasis supplied)
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION
A.M.+D.G.
TRANSPORTATION