Asian Terminals Inc v. Allied Guarantee Insurance Co., Inc, GR No.

182208, 14 Oct 2015

Whatistheliabilityofarrastreoperatorsincaseoflossordamageofthegoods?

InAsianTerminals,Inc.v.AlliedGuaranteeInsuranceCo.,Inc.(G.R.No.182208,14October2015),a

shipment72,322lbs.ofkraftlinearboardwereoffloadedbythearrastre,MarinaPortServices,Inc.

(Marina),thepredecessorofpetitionerAsianTerminals,Inc.(ATI).Saidgoodswereshippedonboardthe

vesselM/VNicole,whichwasoperatedbyTransoceanMarine,Inc.(Transocean),representedinthe

PhilippinesbyPhilippineTransmarineCarrier,Inc.(PhilippineTransmarine).

Afteroffloading,atotalof158rollsofthegoodsweredamagedduringshipping.Anadditional54rollswere

foundtohavebeendamagedwhileinthecustodyofMarinaandSanMiguelsbroker,DynamicBrokerageCo.

Inc.(Dynamic).Theinsurer,AlliedGuaranteeInsurance,Co.,Inc.(Allied)paidtheconsigneethevalueof

thedamagedgoods.AlliedsuedTransocean,PhilippineTransmarine,Dynamic,andMarinafordamages.

ThetrialcourtheldTransoceanliableforthe158rollsofdamagedgoodsforfailuretoobservethenecessary

precautionsandextraordinarydiligenceasacommoncarriertopreventsuchdamage.MarinaandDynamic

werealsoheldliablefortheadditional54rollsofthegoodsthatweredamagedwhileintheirrespective

possessions.ThisrulingwasaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals.

ATI,assuccessorofMarina,elevatedtheforegoingmattertotheSupremeCourt,andinsistedthatitisnot

liableforthedamaged54rolls.ATIclaimsthattheappellatecourtfailedtoappreciatetheTurnOverSurvey

ofBadOrderCargoesandtheRequestsforBadOrderSurveywhich,inessence,showedthatthegoodswere

receivedbyDynamicingoodorderandconditionwithoutexceptionandthatonly158rollsweredamaged.

InrulingagainstATI,theSupremeCourtreiteratedthehornbookdoctrinethat,intheperformanceofits

obligations,anarrastreoperatorshouldobservethesamedegreeofdiligenceasthatrequiredofacommon

carrierandawarehouseman.Accordingly,anarrastreoperatormustprovethatthelosseswerenotduetoits

negligenceorofitsemployees,andmustprovethatitexercisedduecareinhandlingthegoods.Thisburden,

however,wasnotestablishedbyATIanditwasfoundthattheadditionaldamageofthe54rollsoccurred:(1)

whilethegoodswereinitscustodyofATI;(2)whentheywereintransitionfromATItoDynamic;and(3)

duringDynamicscustody.
Finally,theSupremeCourtdisregardedATIsheavyrelianceontheTurnOverSurveyofBadOrderCargoes

andtheRequestsforBadOrderSurvey.TheSupremeCourtsaidthat,Thesignaturebyacustomsbrokers

representativeofreceiptingoodorderdoesnotprecludeaconsigneeand/orsubrogeefromproving

additionallossordamagetothegoodswhilethesamewasunderthecustody,control,andpossessionofthe

arrastreoperator.