Case Digest (G.R. No. 88092)
Facts:
Citadel Lines, Inc., petitioner, v. Court of Appeals and Manila Wine Merchants, Inc., respondent, G.R. No. 88092, April 25, 1990, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Citadel Lines, Inc. (the CARRIER) was the general agent of the vessel "Cardigan Bay/Strait Enterprise"; Manila Wine Merchants, Inc. (the CONSIGNEE) was the importer of a shipment of Dunhill cigarettes from England; E. Razon, Inc. (the ARRASTRE) acted as the pier operator/arrastre. The shipment was loaded about March 17, 1979, under Bill of Lading No. 70621374 and Bill of Lading No. 70608680, arrived Pier 13, Port of Manila on April 18, 1979 in container van No. BENU 204850-9, and was received by E. Razon, Inc. under Cargo Receipt No. 71923 (April 18, 1979).
On April 30, 1979 the container was stripped and the cigarettes were palletized and, for lack of space, placed into two containers: two pallets remaining in container No. BENU 204850-9 and four pallets in container No. BENU 201009-9; both containers were padlocked and sealed by representatives of the CARRIER. On May 1, 1979 the CARRIER’s head-checker discovered that container BENU 201009-9 bore a different padlock and a tampered seal; Pier Superintendent Jose G. Sibucao verified that 90 cases were missing. Investigations showed the cargo had not been formally turned over to the ARRASTRE but remained inside the padlocked container sealed by the CARRIER’s representatives.
The CONSIGNEE filed a claim against the CARRIER (May 21, 1979) demanding P315,000 for the missing goods; the CARRIER admitted the loss (May 23, 1979) but blamed the ARRASTRE as the loss occurred at Pier 13. The CONSIGNEE then presented a claim to the ARRASTRE (June 4, 1979), which was denied.
The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, in Civil Case No. 126415 rendered judgment on August 30, 1985 exempting the ARRASTRE from liability (finding no formal turnover) and holding the CARRIER liable for P312,480.00 as market value plus P30,000.00 attorney’s fees and costs. The Court of Appeals ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the loss occur while the goods were in the custody of E. Razon, Inc. (the arrastre), or while still in the custody of Citadel Lines, Inc. (the carrier)?
- Is the stipulation in the bill of lading limiting the carrier’s liability to $2.00 per kilo binding on the consignee, ther...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)