Case Digest (G.R. No. 190271)
Facts:
Transimex Co. v. Mafre Asian Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016, the Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.
The dispute arose from an international shipment of prilled urea fertilizer loaded aboard M/V Meryem Ana on 21 May 1996 at Odessa, Ukraine, consisting of 21,857 metric tons covered by two bills of lading and consigned to Fertiphil Corporation for delivery to Poro Point, La Union, and Tabaco, Albay. Fertiphil insured the cargo under Marine Risk Notes issued by Mafre Asian Insurance Corp. (respondent). The vessel discharged 14,339.507 MT at Poro Point and the remainder at Tabaco, where the consignee’s weighing showed only 7,350.35 MT — a 349.65 MT shortage for which Fertiphil claimed P1,617,527.37 from respondent; respondent paid and was subrogated to Fertiphil’s rights.
Respondent sued petitioner Transimex Co. (the local ship agent) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, Branch 147 (Civil Case No. 97-1300), to recover the amount by subrogation. At trial respondent offered a Report of Survey, an Adjustment Report by Adjustment Standards Corporation, and testimony (including that the vessel encountered bad weather and that seawater entered Hatch No. 1 causing wetting/melting) to establish shortage and causation. Petitioner denied loss (offered survey certificates and a marine surveyor’s testimony claiming an overage of 3.340 MT) and asserted defenses typical of common carriers — extraordinary diligence and fortuitous event (storm/peril of the sea).
The RTC (Decision dated 16 February 1999) found a shortage and, applying the Civil Code provisions on common carriers, held the presumption of fault unrebutted and ordered Transimex to pay P1,617,527.37 plus attorney’s fees and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 64482 (Decision dated 27 August 2009) affirmed the RTC, rejecting Transimex’s arguments that (a) it was not a common carrier and (b) the loss was excused by a fortuitous event or storm, noting petitioner failed to prove (i) the weather amounted to a “storm” under Article 1734(1) and (ii) that the storm was the proximate and only cause and that extraordinary diligence was exercised. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration as filed out of time (Resolution dated 10 November 2009).
Transimex filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) with this Court on 3 December 2009, seeking reversal of the CA Decision and Resolution; respondent filed a Comment and the parties filed further pleadings. Transimex advanced, alternatively, that liability should be governed by the Carria...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution have become final and executory.
- Whether the contract/transaction is governed primarily by the Civil Code provisions on common carriers or by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA).
- Whether petitioner is liable for the cargo shortage, or whether it is exempt because the loss was caused ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)