Case Digest (G.R. No. 182864)
Facts:
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp., & Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015, the Supreme Court First Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner was Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. (ESLI); respondents were BPI/MS Insurance Corporation (BPI/MS) and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company, Ltd.; the consignee was Calamba Steel Center, Inc. and the arrastre/stevedoring operator that figured in the lower courts was Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI).
On 2 February 2004 and 12 May 2004 shipper Sumitomo Corporation shipped two consignments of steel coils aboard ESLI vessels (M/V Eastern Venus V22-S and V25-S) destined for Manila. The shipments were covered by bills of lading and insured under marine cargo policies issued by the respondents. Upon arrival at the Port of Manila some coils were found partly dented and crumpled; Calamba Steel rejected the damaged portions and filed claims. Turn Over Surveys of Bad Order Cargoes, Requests for Bad Order Survey, invoices and other documents were generated and forwarded to insurer-respondents, who paid the insured loss and were subrogated to Calamba Steel’s rights.
On 29 December 2004, BPI/MS and Mitsui sued ESLI and ATI in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City for actual damages of US$17,560.48, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. In the pre-trial order the parties admitted existence and due execution of the bills of lading, invoices and the marine policies (with some documents admitted as to one shipment), and agreed to submit evidence by affidavits and documents. Trial court testimony and surveyor affidavits (submitted by both sides) produced Turn Over Surveys and Requests for Bad Order Survey indicating some coils were damaged prior to turnover; other affidavits alleged rough handling during discharge by ATI stevedores and joint negligence by ESLI and ATI.
On 17 September 2006, the RTC held both ESLI and ATI jointly and severally liable and awarded US$17,560.48 plus 6% interest from filing, attorneys’ fees (20% of amount claimed) and costs. Both ESLI and ATI appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated 31 January 2008 the CA modified the RTC judgment: it denied ESLI’s appeal but granted ATI’s, absolving ATI from liability and deleting the award of attorneys’ fees; the remainder of the RTC judgment was affirmed. ESLI filed a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did ESLI’s failure to implead ATI as a respondent render ATI’s absolution final and preclude ESLI from shifting liability to ATI?
- Was ESLI liable for the damage to the two shipments?
- Does the package limitation under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) (US$500 per package) apply to ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)