Case Digest (G.R. No. 78447)
Facts:
Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N.V. and Jardine Davies Transport Services, Inc., G.R. No. 143133, June 05, 2002, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the carrier/ship interests; Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc. is the plaintiff-insurer and subrogee of the consignee.
On June 13, 1990, CMC Trading A.G. shipped 242 coils of prime cold‑rolled steel sheets aboard the MN Anangel Sky at Hamburg, Germany, consigned to Philippine Steel Trading Corporation for delivery in Manila. The vessel arrived in Manila on July 28, 1990, and the cargo was discharged in the ensuing days. Four coils were recorded as in bad order on Bad Order Tally Sheet No. 154974; the consignee declared those four coils a total loss.
After a formal demand was refused by petitioners, plaintiff (as insurer) paid the consignee P506,086.50 and was subrogated to the consignee’s rights. It filed suit on July 25, 1991, to recover the amount paid. Petitioners defended that the damage was due to pre‑shipment condition, the nature/defect of the goods or packing, perils of the sea, or acts of the shipper; they also invoked contracts limiting liability.
At the Regional Trial Court (Makati, Branch 134), the complaint and defendants’ counterclaim were both dismissed. The Court of Appeals, in CA‑GR CV No. 53571 (Decision July 15, 1998; Resolution denying reconsideration May 2, 2000), reversed the RTC, finding petitioners liable, awarding P451,027.32 as actual damages plus legal interest from filing, attorneys’ fees of 20% of the claim, and costs of suit. The CA held petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of negligence and reasoned the package limitation under COGSA did not apply because the bill of lading referenced L/C No. 90/02447 indicating a declared higher...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the testimony of a single witness who did not personally see the subject shipment, and was otherwise hearsay, suffices to invoke the presumption of negligence under Article 1735 of the Civil Code.
- Whether the plaintiff’s notice of loss was filed within the time required by law (COGSA Sec. 3(6)).
- Whether the notation on the bill of lading ("metal envelopes rust stained and slightly dented") establishes pre‑shipment damage and exempts the carriers from liability.
- Whether the package‑limitation of liability under Section 4(5) of COGSA (US$500 per package) applies, or whether the reference to L/C No. 90/02447 constitu...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)