Case Digest (G.R. No. 146472)
Facts:
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. N.V. The Netherlands Insurance Company, G.R. No. 146472, July 27, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from a maritime shipment: on July 4, 1985 Sunglobe International Corporation shipped five wooden cases containing 5,000 pre-sensitized printing plates from Yokohama, Japan to Manila under Bill of Lading No. YMA-14; the cargo was insured for P398,118 by N.V. The Netherlands Insurance Company. The vessel M/S Eastern Venus, owned and operated by petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., arrived in Manila July 20 and the cargo was discharged to arrastre operator Metro Port Services, Inc. between July 21–22, 1985.
During discharge, petitioner issued cargo receipts: two Good Order Cargo Receipts covered Cases Nos. 1 and 2; Good Order Cargo Receipt No. 152999 covered Case No. 4; Bad Order Cargo Receipts covered Cases Nos. 3 and 5. On July 23, 1985 Metro Port prepared Turnover Survey receipts for Cases 3 and 5. Petitioner’s hired surveyor, R & R Industrial Surveyors, inspected on July 23 and issued two documents titled “Bad Order Cargo Inspected on Board Prior to Discharge/After Leaving Ship’s Tackle” describing Cases 3 and 5 as having broken wooden cases but packages “ok.”
The entire shipment was delivered to the consignee’s warehouse July 26, 1985. There the consignee engaged Audemus Adjustment Corporation; by letter dated August 30, 1985 the consignee claimed a “total loss” for Case No. 4 (14 packages torn, contents exposed) and demanded P41,065.88 from petitioner. Petitioner denied the claim on September 30, 1985, citing its discharge records showing Case No. 4 as in good order. The insurer, respondent, paid the consignee P35,501.38 as full settlement and received a Letter of Subrogation; failing to obtain reimbursement, respondent filed suit on July 11, 1986 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati (Civil Case No. 14309).
The RTC rendered judgment on October 15, 1993 dismissing respondent’s complaint, finding (1) Case No. 4 had not sustained damage while under petitioner’s custody and (2) petitioner was not liable for the claimed amount. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed on September 7, 2000, holding the damage occurred ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May this Court reexamine the Court of Appeals’ factual findings in this case?
- Did Case No. 4 sustain damage while under the custody and control of petitioner such that petitioner is liable to respondent?
- Was the statutory presumption of carrier negligence properly applied to h...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)