CONTAINERIZATION SYSTEM FOR CARGO

G.R. No. L-73490

UNITED STATES LINES, INC., petitioner ,

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS. respondent.

PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated September 27, 1985, which affirmed
the decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs dated April 5, 1984, imposing an administrative fine of P
10,000.00 against petitioner's vessel, MV "American Venture," for violation of Sec. 1005 of the Tariff and Customs
Code as amended, in relation to Sec. 2521 of the same Code. .

On October 15, 1976, the vessel "American Venture" arrived in Manila from Hongkong. Among the shipments on
board were cargoes consigned by the same shipper and from the same loading port consisting of two (2) containers
which were described in the respective bills of lading BL No. 38 and BL No. 39 as follows: .

"Shipper's Load and Count" .

1 Container (Part) Cont. 2020984 Seal 601-04725 38 cases 100% Cotton brushed denim broken twill.

1 Container Cont. 2101730 Seal 601-04707 40 Cases 100% Cotton Sulphur Dyed denim .

Total: One Container Only "Shipper's Load and Count" .

The aforestated information as furnished by the Shipper, was copied or entered into the vessel's Inward Foreign
Manifest. Upon opening of the containers by the Bureau of

Customs, it was discovered that a) Container No. USLU-2020984 contained 34 cases of cotton denim instead of 38
cases and b) Container No. USLU-2101730 contained 44 cases of cotton denim instead of 40 cases. The total
number of cases in the two containers was the same, however, to wit, 78 cases. Having been informed of the
differences herein petitioner had the Manifest amended with the consent of the customs authorities on November 3,
1976 to reflect the actual quantity of the cases in each of the containers. Subsequently, the Collector of Customs
instituted proceedings against herein petitioner for alleged violation of Sec. 1005 in relation to Sec. 2521 of the Tariff
and Customs Code. Not finding the explanation of the herein petitioner satisfactory, the Collector of Customs found
petitioner guilty of violating said provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code and ordered it to pay a fine of P
10,000.00. Appeal was made by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Customs, who affirmed the said decision in
toto. Upon a petition to review the decision of the Commissioner of Customs, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)
affirmed the assailed decision. .

In its petition for review before the Court of Tax Appeals, petitioner assails the Commissioner of Customs, in
disregarding Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 8-75 particularly in not applying Sec. 1124 thereof and in not
treating each container as the unit of cargo. Acting on these issues, the Court of Tax Appeals ruled that Customs
Administrative Order No. 8-75 is irrelevant and contrary to Sec. 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code, We quote the
tax tribunal: .

Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 8-75 simply defines the term "Shipper's Load and Count" without any
further provisions or explicit explanation as to the scope of its applicability. While the concept may be relevant in
determining responsibility in case of injury or damage to the cargo arising from loading, handling or movement of the
cargo, the same cannot positively, or even impliedly, be viewed as an exception to the provisions of Sections 1005
and 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code imposing a mandatory duty on vessels from foreign ports to have on
board true and accurate manifests of their cargoes. Besides, Customs Administrative Order No. 8-75 is merely an
administrative order and the same cannot certainly modify or amend a law or statute like the Tariff and Customs
Code, and defeat the purpose of its enactment. (p. 39, Rollo) .

Petitioner now seeks before Us the determination of the following issues: .

1. Whether or not CAO No. 8-75 is irrelevant and contrary to Sec. 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code. .

2. Whether or not a carrier of containerized cargo should be held liable for a fine under Sec. 2521 in relation
to Sec. 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code upon a clerical error imputable to the Shipper alone, and not
discoverable by the carrier until after examination by Customs of the importation. .

3. Whether or not appellant had violated Sec. 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code notwithstanding that the
total content of the two-container shipment in question (78 bales is exactly the same quantity (78 bales of
the merchandise described in the bills of lading and the Inward Foreign Manifest. .

Sec. 1124 of Customs Administrative Order No. 8-75 reads as follows: .

Shipper's 'Load and Count' a container packed with cargo by one shipper where the quantity, description and
conditions of the cargo is the sole responsibility of the shipper. (emphasis supplied); .

and quoted hereunder are the relevant provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code: .

SEC. 1005. Every vessel from a foreign port must have on board a complete manifest of all her cargo. .

xxx xxx xxx

Each manifest shall include the port of departure and the port of delivery with the marks, numbers, quantity and
description of the packages and the names of the consignee thereof. .

xxx xxx xxx

A cargo manifest shall in no case be changed or altered after entry of the vessel except by means of an
amendment by the master, consignee or agent thereof, under oath, and attached to the original manifest:
Provided, however, that after the invoice and/or entry covering an importation have been received and
recorded in the office of the Appraiser, no amendment of the Manifest shall be allowed, except when it is
obvious that a clerical error or any other discrepancy has been committed in the preparation of the manifest
without any fraudulent intent, discovery of which could not have been made until after examination of the
importation has been completed. (Emphasis supplied)

SEC. 2521. Failure to Supply Requisite Manifests. - If any vessel or aircraft enters or departs from a port of entry
without submitting the proper manifests to the customs authorities, or shall enter or depart conveying unmanifested
cargo other than as stated in the next preceding section hereof, such vessel or aircraft shall be fined in a sum not
less than ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not exceeding thirty thousand P30,000.00 pesos. .

The same fine shall be imposed upon any arriving or departing vessel or aircraft if the master or pilot in command
shall fail to deliver or mail to the Commission on Audit a true copy of the manifest of the incoming or outgoing cargo,
as required by law..

It is petitioner's contention that Sec. 24 of Customs Administrative Order No. 8-75 was promulgated in line with the
government policy of encouraging containerization which results in the laudable decongestion of ports of entry. Such
arrangement has been sanctioned worldwide by international ports to cope up with the ever-increasing volume of
cargoes of the shipping industry. Hence, the containerization system was devised to facilitate the expeditious and
economical loading, carriage and unloading of cargoes. Under this system, the shipper loads his cargoes in a
specially designed container, seals the container and delivers it to the carrier for transportation. The carrier does not
participate in the counting of the merchandise for loading into the container, the actual loading thereof nor the
sealing of the container. Having no actual knowledge of the kind, quantity or condition of the contents of the
container, the carrier issues the corresponding bill of lading based on the declaration of the shipper. The bill of
lading describes the cargo as a container simply and it states the contents of the container either as advised by the
shipper or prefaced by the phrase "said to contain." Clearly then, the matter quantity, description and conditions of
the cargo is the sole responsibility of the shipper. .

The case at bar involves a situation intended precisely to be covered by Sec. 24 of CAO No. 8-75. An examination
of said Customs Administrative Order in relacion to Sec. 1005 and Sec. 2521 shows that containerized cargoes on
"Shipper's Load and Count" shipping arrangement are not required to be checked and inventoried by the carrier at
the port of loading or before said Carrier enters the port of unloading in the Philippines since it is the shipper who
has the sole responsibility for the quantity, description and condition of the cargoes shipped in container vans, each
container van considered as a unit of transport. .

Petitioner's vessel, the "American Venture" faithfully complied with the requirements of Sec. 1005 of the Tariff and
Customs Code. Said vessel submitted a complete manifest of all her cargoes. However there was a slight error thru
no fraudulent intent or negligence of the vessel. Said vessel relied on the information in the bill of lading submitted
by the shipper in making the Manifest. There was no way for the vessel to discover until after the opening of the
containers and the inventory of their contents, that the first container contained 34 cases and the second container
contained 44 cases. Furthermore, noteworthy is the fact that Container No. 2020984 is described expressly in both
the bill of lading and the vessel's manifest as a "Part" of the goods contained in the second Container No. 2101730,
an important indication that the contents of Container No. 2020984 and Container No. 2101730 are parts of the
same importation coming from one and the same shipper and destined to the same consignee and that in the
examination of contents for Customs purposes, the number of cases should be the total in the 2 containers, to wit 78
cases. .

Considering therefore, that the total number of cases of cotton denims as declared by the shipper in the manifest is
78 as borne on two containers, and considering the undisputed fact that the same total number of 78 cases of cotton
denims were found by the Bureau of Customs on board petitioner's vessel, it is clear that the vessel's Manifest
reflects a complete and substantially accurate statement of the cargoes contained therein in accordance with the
requirement of Sec. 1005 in relation to Sec. 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Accordingly, therefore, the
imposition by respondent-appellee of a fine of P10,000.00 upon petitioner-appellant's vessel allegedly for the failure
of the latter to have on board a complete manifest of all her cargoes is patently baseless, unfair, inconsiderate, and
illegal. Besides the clerical error cannot be attributed to the shipper. Finally, there was no financial loss for the
government. .

WHEREFORE, finding the instant petition meritorious, the assailed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals imposing a
fine of P 10,000.00 on petitioner's vessel, MV "American Venture" for alleged violation of Sec. 1005 in relation to
Sec. 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. .

SO ORDERED.
 SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 93464. October 7, 1991.]

REYMA BROKERAGE, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, and THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Ponciano H. Gupit for Petitioner.

Fajardo Law Offices for Private Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. COMMERCIAL LAW; TRANSPORTATION; BILL OF LADING; PROVISION "IT IS A RECEIPT . . . FOR THE NUMBER
OF PACKAGES SHOWN ABOVE" ; CONSTRUED. — Evidently, the carrier, by signifying in the bill of lading that "it is a
receipt . . . for the number of packages shown above," had explicitly admitted that the containerized shipments had
actually the number of packages declared by the shipper in the bill of lading. And this conclusion is bolstered by the
stipulation printed in the bill of lading, "unless expressly acknowledged and agreed to." Therefore, the phrase "said to
contain" also appearing in the bill of lading must give way to this reality. Hence, this express acknowledgment of the
carrier makes the case at bar an exception to the doctrine enunciated in United States Lines v. Commissioner of Customs
(151 SCRA 189). The rule enunciated by United States Lines applies to a situation where the carrier of the containerized
cargo simply admits the information furnished by the shipper with regard to the goods it shipped as reflected in the bill of
lading ("said to contain") but not where the carrier of the containerized cargo makes an explicit admission as to the weight,
measurement marks, numbers, quality contents, and value, and more so, inscribed these admissions as stipulations in the
bill of lading itself, or made them an addendum thereto, to which the carrier affixed its express acknowledgment as what
happened in this case.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE RECEIPT BY THE CARRIER OF THE GOODS DESCRIBED
THEREIN. — The dictum that the bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as
therein described governs. We have already held that: . . .[a] bill of lading operates both as a receipt and as a contract. It
is a receipt for the goods shipped and a contract to transport and deliver the same as therein stipulated. As a receipt, it
recites the date and place of shipment, describes the goods as to quantity, weight, dimensions, identification marks and
condition, quality, and value. As a contract it names the contracting parties, which include the consignee, fixes the route,
destination, and freight rates or charges, and stipulates the rights and obligations assumed by the parties.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CARRIER HAS THE BURDEN TO REBUT THEREOF. — As the petitioner prima facie received all the
shipments in the sealed containers, it has the burden to rebut the conclusion that it received the same without shortage. It
has been authoritatively said that: . . . prima facie evidence is of course, like all evidence susceptible to rebuttal; but
unrebutted it remains sufficient, as a matter of law to establish the ultimate proposition it purports to prove. It goes without
saying that such evidence can only be overcome by contrary proof and not by mere surmises and speculations.

4. ID.; ID.; CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT; DEFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION CANNOT BE RAISED AFTER ITS
WAIVER OR ABANDONMENT. — The petitioner raises the issue of prescription citing sec. 3(6), paragraph 4 of the
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act which provides: . . . 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: . . . This defense had been waived and/or abandoned by the petitioner. Other than the allegation of
prescription in the answer, the petitioner never pursued this matter either in the later proceedings of the trial court or in the
Court of Appeals. The petitioner can not now be allowed to raise this issue to this Court after such waiver or
abandonment.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT APPLICABLE TO BROKER AND INSURER. — Granting arguendo that petitioner can still put up
prescription as its defense, nonetheless it will not prosper considering that the petitioner is not a carrier or a vessel or a
charterer or the legal holder of the bill of lading. The petitioner is the broker. And the private respondent is the insurer.
 DECISION

SARMIENTO, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 14550, 1
promulgated on November 29, 1988, which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital
Judicial Region, Branch 31, Manila. 2

The challenged decision of the trial court disposes as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows:chanrob1es
virtual 1aw library

a. To pay the sum of P88,650.22 plus legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the Complaint until the same is
fully paid;

b. To pay a sum equivalent to 25% of the entire amount as attorney’s fees; and

c. To pay the costs of this suit.

SO ORDERED. 3

The facts of the case found by the court a quo and adopted by the respondent court, are, in brief:chanrob1es virtual 1aw
library

On October 2, 1979, the vessel ‘MS Malmros Monsoon’ received onboard at Fremantle, Brisbane Queensland, Australia
from shipper Craig Mostyn & Co., Pty. Ltd. (of Brisbane, Queensland) a shipment of 2,680 cartons of hard frozen
boneless beef contained in five (5) containers complete and in good order and condition for transport to Manila in favor of
the eventual consignee RFM Corp. under Bill of Lading No. 53149, dated October 2, 1979. On October 13, 1979, the MS
‘Malmros Monsoon’ arrived at Pier 3 of the Port of Manila and discharged the shipment into the possession and custody of
the defendant, the arrastre operator in the case at bar (Exh.’A’). From Pier 3, the shipment was transferred to the Reefer
Van Area of Pier 13 and on October 22, 1979, the defendant arrastre contractor loaded the containers in two (2) trucks
and delivered them to Grech Food Industries Cold Storage in Pasig, Rizal arriving there at 1:00 o’clock A.M., the following
morning, October 23, 1979. Four (4) personnel of defendant, a driver and a helper in each truck made the delivery. On
October 23, 1979 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning, the containers were stripped and the representative of the defendant and
consignee counted the contents of five (5) containers and after an inventory of Container No. BROU-430656[1], it was
discovered that 203 cartons were found short out of the loaded 2,680 cartons of hard frozen boneless beef which
according to the consignee was totally attributable to the defendant as it occurred while the said container in question was
in the custody and responsibility of the defendant. Consignee filed claim for the recovery of the missing 203 cartons but
the same was denied and consequently, consignee filed the claim with the plaintiff under its Marine Cargo Insurance
Policy. The consignee was paid by plaintiff the amount of P88,658.22 (Exhs.’F’ and ‘G’). The payment of consignee’s
claim by the plaintiff had subrogated the latter to file this instant claim for the recovery of the said amount (Exh.’H’). 4

As earlier indicated, the lower courts ruled against the herein petitioner despite its pleas, specifically the
following:cralawnad

I. That, in the light of US Lines case (G.R. NO. 73490, June 18, 1987), a "said-to-contain" bill of lading for sealed
containers is "receipt" only of the containers but not of their contents which the carrier was not in a position to verify.

II. That, since there is no evidence of tampering of seals, presumptions cannot take the place of proof in a due-process
system where the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff (private respondent), and [where] the rule is that plaintiff must rely on
the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.

III. That, if, as claimed by private respondent, the "tampering" was ingeniously done and the tampered seal cannot be
determined unless "separated" from the container, then plaintiff (private respondent) virtually admits that the containers
could have been tampered from the very start (i.e., before petitioner took possession of them) but nobody noticed the
tampering.

IV. That, in the light of the foregoing, it was not procedurally and equitably sound of private respondent to sue petitioner
alone without joining the carrier and the arrastre contractor as alternative defendants; petitioner should not be singled out
as defendant.

V. That, this case is barred by prescription, as previously alleged in petitioner’s Answer in the lower court; as a mere
subrogee, private respondent cannot have more rights than the consignee itself who could not have brought this action
beyond the one-year prescriptive period (one year from October 22, 1979) fixed by the carriage of goods by sea act. 5

The issue presented is whether or not the respondent court committed a reversible error in declaring the petitioner liable
for the short delivery of 203 cartons from the containerized shipments.

The petition is without merit.

The petitioner insists that the ruling of United States Lines Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs 6 which held that:chanrob1es
virtual 1aw library

It is petitioner’s contention that Sec. 24 of Customs Administrative Order No. 8-75 ** was promulgated in line with the
government policy of encouraging containerization which results in the laudable decongestion of ports of entry. Such
arrangement has been sanctioned worldwide by international ports to cope [up] with the ever-increasing volume of
cargoes of the shipping industry. Hence, the containerization system was devised to facilitate the expeditious and
economical loading, carriage and unloading of cargoes. Under this system, the shipper loads his cargoes in a specially
designed container, seals the container and delivers it to the carrier for transportation. The carrier does not participate in
the counting of the merchandise for loading into the container, the actual loading thereof nor the sealing of the container.
Having no actual knowledge of the kind, quantity or condition of the contents of the container, the carrier issues the
corresponding bill of lading based on the declaration of the shipper. The bill of lading describes the cargo as a container
simply and it states the contents of the container either as advised by the shipper or prefaced by the phrase "said to
contain." Clearly then, the matter quantity, description and conditions of the cargo is the sole responsibility of the
shipper.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

is controlling in the case at bar because the transactions are identical, in that, in the present case, the cargoes in question
are containerized. And the bill of lading, has, among others, the following entries: 7

SHIPPED ON BOARD FIVE SHIPPER PACKED CONTAINERS SAID TO CONTAIN 2680 CARTONS HARD FROZEN
BONELESS 72938 kgs = 160800 lbs nett

536 CARTONS - CONTAINER NO: BROU 430915 (4)

536 CARTONS - CONTAINER NO: ITLU 780480 (2)

536 CARTONS - CONTAINER NO: BROU 430773 (7)

536 CARTONS - CONTAINER NO: ITLU 780254 (3)

536 CARTONS - CONTAINER NO: BROU 4306561

Moreover, we must note also that the bill of lading itself contains the printed stipulations:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x x x

Weight, measurement marks and numbers (except loading marks for which the carrier is only responsible if stamped or
otherwise shown clearly in letters at least 50 mm high) quality contents and value shown above are furnished by the
Merchant and have not been checked and are to be considered unknown, unless expressly acknowledged and agreed to.
8

And in the bottom portion of the bill of lading there appears the statement:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

This bill of lading is a receipt only for the number of packages shown above. 9
which was duly signed by the carrier.

Evidently, the carrier, by signifying in the bill of lading that "it is a receipt . . . for the number of packages shown above,"
had explicitly admitted that the containerized shipments had actually the number of packages declared by the shipper in
the bill of lading. And this conclusion is bolstered by the stipulation printed in the bill of lading, "unless expressly
acknowledged and agreed to." Therefore, the phrase "said to contain" also appearing in the bill of lading must give way to
this reality.

Hence, this express acknowledgment of the carrier makes the case at bar an exception to the doctrine enunciated in
United States Lines. The rule enunciated by United States Lines applies to a situation where the carrier of the
containerized cargo simply admits the information furnished by the shipper with regard to the goods it shipped as reflected
in the bill of lading ("said to contain") but not where the carrier of the containerized cargo makes an explicit admission as
to the weight, measurement marks, numbers, quality contents, and value, and more so, inscribed these admissions as
stipulations in the bill of lading itself, or made them an addendum thereto, to which the carrier affixed its express
acknowledgment as what happened in this case. In its stead, the dictum that the bill of lading shall be prima facie
evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described 10 governs. We have already held that:chanrobles
virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

. . . [a] bill of lading operates both as a receipt and as a contract. It is a receipt for the goods shipped and a contract to
transport and deliver the same as therein stipulated. As a receipt, it recites the date and place of shipment, describes the
goods as to quantity, weight, dimensions, identification marks and condition, quality, and value. As a contract it names the
contracting parties, which include the consignee, fixes the route, destination, and freight rates or charges, and stipulates
the rights and obligations assumed by the parties. 11

In addition, the petitioner contends that it can not possibly be held liable for the shortage of the containerized goods
because before the same came into its custody the same had already passed through different hands. And passing the
buck, so to speak, it surmises that the shortfall occurred either in Brisbane, or on board the carrier, or at the piers (Piers 3
and 13), or at the consignee’s warehouse in Pasig. But wherever, the shortage could not be blamed on the petitioner.

The petitioner contradicts itself for contrary to these posturings, it included allegations in its answer that all the
containerized shipments arrived in Manila with the seals intact, 12 and that the petitioner received the said sealed
containers of the shipments, particularly container No. BROU-4306561 which sustained the loss of 203 cartons from the
arrastre operator, also with the seals intact. 13 It can therefore be concluded that the petitioner received all the shipments
as itemized in the bill of lading. For the rule is well-established that the facts alleged in a party’s pleading are deemed
admissions of that party and binding upon it. 14

As the petitioner prima facie received all the shipments in the sealed containers, it has the burden to rebut the conclusion
that it received the same without shortage. It has been authoritatively said that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . prima facie evidence is of course, like all evidence susceptible to rebuttal; but unrebutted it remains sufficient, as a
matter of law to establish the ultimate proposition it purports to prove. It goes without saying that such evidence can only
be overcome by contrary proof and not by mere surmises and speculations. 15

We have gone over the records and we find that the petitioner had not overthrown this presumption by contrary evidence.
Therefore, the respondent court did not commit any reversible error in agreeing with the trial court that the loss of the 203
cartons is attributable to the petitioner.

On this score, the respondent court found that:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

x x x

. . . The fact remains that on October 13, 1979, the vessel MS ‘Malmros Monsoon" arrived at Pier 3 of the Port of Manila
and the shipment was discharged into possession and custody of the arrastre operator with the seals of the containers
intact on same date (Exh.’H’). It was only on October 22, 1979 when defendant withdrew the containers to be delivered to
the Grech Food Industries Cold Storage arriving at 1:00 o’clock in the morning of the following day October 23, 1979 that
the contents of Container No. BROU 306561 was counted and there it was discovered that the shipment was short of 203
cartons (Exhs.’A’, ‘D’ and ‘E’). In other words, the containers were delivered to the consignee’s warehouse at Grech Food
Industries Cold Storage in Pasig, Rizal after more than nine (9) hours which is highly suspicious as the trip from the piers
to Pasig, takes only one (1) hours and there were (sic) no heavy traffic along the route. This will militate against the stand
of the defendant that the loss of the 203 cartons of hard frozen boneless beef meat occurred while it was outside its
custody as the contrary had been proven by plaintiff. 16

x x x

There being no showing that the respondent court overlooked certain facts of substance and value, which if taken into
account would affect the result of this case necessitating its reversal, 17 we must deny the petition for review.

Belatedly, the petitioner raises the issue of prescription citing sec. 2(6), paragraph 4 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . 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: . . .

This defense had been waived and/or abandoned by the petitioner. Other than the allegation of prescription in the answer,
the petitioner never pursued this matter either in the later proceedings of the trial court or in the Court of Appeals. The
petitioner can not now be allowed to raise this issue to this Court after such waiver or abandonment.

Granting arguendo that petitioner can still put up prescription as its defense, nonetheless it will not prosper considering
that the petitioner is not a carrier or a vessel or a charterer or the legal holder of the bill of lading. The petitioner is the
broker. And the private respondent is the insurer. The prescriptive period of this cause of action is ten years. In the
present case, ten years have not yet lapsed from the delivery of the shipment. 18

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against the petitioner.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.
 Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, F.E. Zuellig & Co., Inc and
E.Razon, Inc.
G.R. No. 80256, October 2, 1992
214 SCRA 433
FACTS:
Ali Trading Company imported 108 cases of copper tubings which were insured by petitioner. The
copper tubings which were placed in three containers, arrived in Manila on board and vessel S/S
“Oriental Ambassador” on November 4, 1978, and turned over to the Manila arrastre operator upon
discharge at the waterfront. The carrying vessel is represented in the Philippines by its agent, F. E.
Zuellig and Co., Inc. One of the containers was stripped of its content at the pier zone but the other
two were left unstripped. The two unstripped containers (together with the 19 cases removed from the
stripped third container) were delivered to, and received by, the customs broker for the consignee
without any exception or notation of bad order of shortlanding. Upon inspection of the two unstripped
containers by the importer at the consignee’s warehouse, the shipment was allegedly found to have
sustained loses by way of theft and pilferage for which the insurer, compensated the importer in the
amount of P31,014.00.

Parties
Importer-Consignee – Ali Trading Company
Petitioner Insurer – Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp.
Respondent Arrastre Operator – E. Razon, Inc.
Respondent Carrier Representative – F. E. Zuellig and Co., Inc.
ISSUE:
Is the rule on prima facie liability of carrier applicable? What is the carrier’s duty when the shipment is
placed in a container?

RULING:
No. The circumstances show that the respondents were not liable. When a shipment is placed in a
container and is not inspected nor inventoried by the carrier, the carrier’s duty is only to transport and
deliver the containers in the same condition as when the carrier received and accepted the containers
for transport. Moreover, petitioner failed to establish that the loss occurred prior acceptance of the
shipment. Inspection should have been done at the pierside, the pier warehouse, or at any time and
place while the vans were under the care and custody of the carrier or of the arrastre operator. The
two other vans and the contents of the owner previously stripped were accepted without exception as
to any supposed bad order or condition by petitioner’s own broker. The shipment was accepted by
petitioner in good order.
NOTES:
SHIPMENT IN CONTAINER ;”containerized” – The goods under this arrangement are stuffed, packed,
and loaded by the shipper at a place of his choice, usually his own warehouse, in the absence of the
carrier. The container is sealed by the shipper and thereafter picked up by the carrier. Consequently,
the recital of the bill of lading for goods thus transported ordinarily would declare “Said to Contain”,
“Shipper’s Load and Count”, “Full Container Load”, and the amount or quantity of goods in the
container in a particular package is only prima facie evidence of the amount or quantity which may be
overthrown by parol evidence. A shipment under this arrangement is not inspected or inventoried by
the carrier whose duty is only to transport and deliver the containers in the same condition as when
the carrier received and accepted the containers for transport.
Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, F.E. Zuellig & Co., Inc and
E.Razon, Inc G.R. No. 80256 October 2, 1992