Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48264)
Facts:
Switzerland General Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Hon. Pedro A. Ramirez, Oyama Lines, Citadel Lines and Mabuhay Brokerage Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-48264, February 21, 1980, the Supreme Court Second Division, Antonio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Switzerland General Insurance Company, Ltd. (a foreign insurer represented in the Philippines by F. E. Zuellig, Inc.) insured a shipment of 60,000 bags of urea nitrogen consigned to Borden International Phils., Inc. The goods were shipped from Niihama, Japan, on board the S/S "St. Lourdes" and insured for P9,319,105.00. Upon discharge shipside into lighters owned by Mabuhay Brokerage Company, Inc., the cargo later appeared to have suffered damage amounting to P38,698.94. Petitioner paid this amount to the consignee and was subrogated to the consignee’s rights.
On December 24, 1975 petitioner filed an admiralty action (Civil Case No. 100704) in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila against defendant Oyama Shipping Co., Ltd. (Oyama Lines), alleged owner/operator or charterer of the S/S "St. Lourdes", and against Citadel Lines, Inc. (the local Philippine representative/agent of Oyama) and Mabuhay Brokerage Co., Inc. as alternative defendants to determine liability among them. Citadel answered, asserting it was a mere civil agent of Oyama (not a ship agent) and that the principal’s insolvency (declared by the Tokyo District Court on August 21, 1975) discharged its liability; it also filed counterclaims and cross-claims blaming Mabuhay Brokerage. Oyama likewise denied liability, urged insolvency as a defense and urged prescription and limitations on liability; it also blamed the shipper and Mabuhay Brokerage.
Following trial, the CFI rendered judgment (dated February 23, 1978) in favor of petitioner against Oyama Lines for P38,698.94 with interest and attorney’s fees, but absolved Citadel Lines, Inc. and Mabuhay Brokerage Co., Inc. from liability and dismissed Citadel’s counter- and cross-claims. The CFI found the carrier (Oyama) liable because it failed to prove any statutory exemption (e.g., bad packing), and rejected the prescription defense for lack of proof that claimant failed to make the requisite 24-hour claim. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration as to Citadel and Mabuhay was denied on April 21, 1979, whereupon petitioner brought the present petition for review in the Supreme Court seeking to hold Citadel liable as ship agent.
The Supreme Court ac...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the CFI’s finding that Citadel Lines, Inc. was a “mere agent” (and therefore not liable) a factual finding binding on the Supreme Court?
- Can Citadel Lines, Inc., as the local representative of the vessel in the port of Manila, be held primarily and solidarily liable with the shipowner for loss or damage to cargo that occurred while the goods were in custody of the vessel?
- Does the insolvency of the shipowner (Oyama Shipping Co., Ltd.) absolve the ship agent (Cita...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)