G.R. No. 13972 - G. Martini, Ltd. vs. Macondray and Co., Inc.

In September 1916, G. Martini, Ltd. arranged with Macondray & Co. (inc.) for the shipment of two hundred and nineteen cases or packages of chemical products from Manila to Kobe, Japan.
The shipment was made under an agency arrangement with the Eastern and Australian Steamship Company.
The goods were embarked at Manila on the steamship Eastern and were carried to Kobe on the open deck.

The shipment documentation included a shipping order and a form intended to become the mate’s receipt.
A letter of guarantee (Exhibit D-C), signed on September 16, 1916, was executed by the plaintiff in order to secure the early negotiation of bills of lading and expressly allowed the carrier the option to stow the cargo on deck or under deck.
The bills of lading issued contained a clear, conspicuous rubber-stamped notation stating “on deck at shipper’s risk.”
The mate’s receipt, received two days later by the plaintiff, also bore the notation “on deck at shipper’s risk” handwritten with pencil.

Upon discovering the “on deck” notice on the bills of lading, G. Martini, Ltd.’s manager, Martini, immediately called the attention of S. Codina, an employee responsible for shipments, and simultaneously drafted a letter protesting the notation.
Correspondence ensued as the plaintiff’s representatives sent letters insisting that the cargo was never to be carried on deck and emphasizing that they had expected it to be stowed in the ship’s hold.
A telephone conversation occurred between Macondray & Co. and the plaintiff’s agent, where Macondray & Co. advised that the cargo could not be stowed under the hatches due to lack of space and that it was to be carried on deck.
Despite initial protest, further communications revealed that the plaintiff, after the discovery, did not take effective steps to stop the shipment or to secure its safe discharge, thereby manifesting acquiescence.

Upon arrival at Kobe, it was found that the chemical cargo had suffered damage from the effects of both fresh and salt water.
G. Martini, Ltd. instituted an action seeking recovery of damages amounting to P34,997.56 (with interest and costs) on the ground of damage occasioned during carriage.
The trial court originally rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which was later appealed by the defendant.

Whether the explicit notations on the bills of lading and the mate’s receipt (“on deck at shipper’s risk”) served as sufficient notice to the shipper regarding the way the cargo would be stowed.
Whether the letter of guarantee and subsequent communications between the parties amounted to a valid manifestation of consent by the shipper for the cargo to be carried on deck.

Whether the carrier (Macondray & Co.) should be held liable for the water damage suffered by the cargo solely due to its carriage on deck.
Whether the exemption clause in paragraph 19 of the bills of lading, which absolves the carrier “for any loss or damage from any cause whatever” when goods are carried on deck, can exclude liability in this case.

Whether there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the carrier in failing to protect the cargo from the perils of the sea or the weather, despite its stowage on deck.
Whether the plaintiff could alternatively claim that proper maritime care would have prevented the damage if the cargo had been properly covered or stowed, even on deck.