Case Digest (G.R. No. 169202)
Facts:
In Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam and The East Asiatic Co., Ltd. v. Glow Laks Enterprises, Ltd. (G.R. No. 156330, November 19, 2014), petitioner Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam (represented locally by East Asiatic Co., Ltd.) entered into a contract of carriage to transport 343 cartons of garments from the Port of Manila to Colon Free Zone, Panama, under Bills of Lading Nos. MHONX-2 and MHONX-3. The goods, valued at US$53,640.00, were discharged in apparent good order into the custody of the Panama National Ports Authority on October 23, 1987. Unbeknownst to petitioners, unauthorized individuals presented forged bills of lading and obtained delivery of the cargo. On July 16, 1988, respondent Glow Laks Enterprises, Ltd., a Hong Kong corporation not licensed in the Philippines, made formal demand for the invoice value of the lost shipment but received no payment. Thereafter, it instituted Civil Case No. 88-45595 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 52), seeking reCase Digest (G.R. No. 169202)
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of Business
- Petitioner Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam (Nedlloyd) – foreign corporation engaged in sea carriage of goods, represented in the Philippines by East Asiatic Co., Ltd.
- Respondent Glow Laks Enterprises, Ltd. – foreign corporation organized under Hong Kong laws, not licensed or doing business in the Philippines.
- Shipment and Misdelivery Incident
- On 14 September 1987, respondent loaded 343 cartons of garments at the Port of Manila under Bills of Lading Nos. MHONX-2 and MHONX-3 bound for Hong Kong, then transshipped to M/S Amethyst for Colon, Panama.
- Upon arrival at Colon on 23 October 1987, the goods were lawfully discharged to the Panama Ports Authority; unauthorized persons forged the bills of lading and effected release.
- Procedural History
- Respondent’s formal claim of US$53,640 filed 16 July 1988 was denied; it then filed Civil Case No. 88-45595 in RTC Manila, Branch 52.
- RTC Decision (29 April 1994) dismissed respondent’s complaint, granted petitioners’ counterclaim for P120,000.
- CA Resolution (11 December 2002) in CA-G.R. CV No. 48277 reversed the RTC, held foreign law not proven, applied Philippine law, and ordered petitioners to pay US$53,640 plus attorney’s fees and costs.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition.
Issues:
- Whether Panamanian laws were judicially admitted and thus need not be formally proved.
- Whether petitioners sufficiently proved Panamanian Law 42 and its Implementing Order No. 7 in compliance with Sections 24–25, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- Whether, under Philippine law, common carriers remain liable for misdelivery despite delivery to port authorities.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)