Case Summary (G.R. No. 223377)
Timeline and Shipping Details
- February 27, 2001: Ablestik Laboratories shipped adhesive products via JAL Flight No. JL 5261 with Airway Bill No. 131-66081842.
- March 1, 2001: Expected arrival of goods at Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), Manila.
- March 1, 2001 (1:30 a.m.): Shipment arrived at NAIA and was stored at Paircargo warehouse under Bureau of Customs (BOC) control.
- March 2, 2001 (2:47 p.m.): TSPIC notified 2100 Customs Brokers of the shipment’s arrival and forwarded packing lists and handling instructions specifying dry ice shipment requirements.
- March 5, 2001: Freight charges amounting to P14,672.00 were paid by 2100 Customs Brokers on behalf of TSPIC after an initial delay due to bank closure and insufficient funds.
- March 6, 2001 (2:00 a.m.): Shipment released by BOC to 2100 CBI.
- March 6, 2001 (approx. 3:44 a.m.): Delivery to TSPIC made. Upon receipt, TSPIC discovered dry ice had melted, indicating damage.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution
- Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (petition for review on certiorari)
- Republic Act No. 9280 (Customs Brokers Act of 2004)
- Republic Act No. 10607 (Marine Insurance)
- Civil Code, Article 1735 (liability of common carriers)
- Rules of Court, Rule 8, Section 7 and Rule 130, Section 3 (documentary evidence)
Nature of the Dispute and Claims
TSPIC filed claims against 2100 CBI for damages due to the allegedly negligent handling of the shipment causing the dry ice to melt. Philam Insurance, having paid TSPIC’s insurance claim, filed for subrogation to recover from 2100 CBI. The principal issues included:
- Whether 2100 CBI qualifies as a common carrier liable for the shipment while in its custody;
- Whether the Marine Cargo Certificate covers air shipments such as this one;
- Whether Philam was obligated to present the original insurance policy to establish its claim; and
- Whether 2100 CBI was negligent, thus liable for damages.
Findings on the Nature of 2100 Customs Brokers, Inc.
The Court held that 2100 CBI is a common carrier despite 2100 CBI’s claim that it solely acts as customs broker without transport or delivery function. The Court emphasized that the practice of customs brokers necessarily involves acts essential for transporting goods to the consignee, including release from customs and delivery. Testimony confirmed that the shipment was in the custody of 2100 CBI only upon release from BOC and during delivery to the consignee.
Scope of Marine Cargo Certificate Coverage
Contrary to petitioner’s argument that a "Marine Cargo Certificate" applies only to sea transport, the Court ruled that marine insurance (including inland marine insurance) under Republic Act No. 10607 covers goods transported by air as well. Therefore, the shipment aboard JAL flights was within the scope of marine insurance.
Requirement to Present the Insurance Policy
The Court noted the absence of the original or even a copy of the Open Policy No. 9595292, which is the insurance contract governing coverage, despite repeated requests and the respondent having custody of the documents. Under the Rules of Court, the original document is the best evidence of its contents and must be presented to establish liability. The Marine Cargo Certificate and subrogation receipt alone are insufficient proof to hold 2100 CBI liable or establish the extent of coverage. Without the policy document, neither the insurer’s claim for subrogation nor the liability of 2100 CBI under the insurance can be adjudicated with certainty.
Examination of Negligence and Delay
The crucial factual question involved the timing and custody of the goods. Evidence showed that the delay in releasing the shipment was due to TSPIC’s failure to promptly remit freight charges, which were to be paid on a "freight collect" basis. The goods remained in the custody of BOC (and the Paircargo warehouse) until payment was made and customs release was granted. 2100 CBI only took custody of the goods at 2:00 a.m. on March 6, 2001, two hours before delivery to TSPIC.
2100 CBI did not receive the original airway bill nor the handling instructions during the critical transit period when delays and temperature control issues occurred. The only handling instruction known to 2100 CBI was to place the cargo in a cool room upon arrival, which it could not implement because it lacked custody before BOC release. The Court found no evidence of negligence by 2100 CBI in handling or storing the shipment after release.
Ruling
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 223377)
Background and Nature of the Case
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated October 12, 2015, and Resolution dated March 7, 2016.
- Originates from a dispute involving damage to perishable goods shipment and insurance claim payment.
- Shipment involved: 63 jars of Ablebond Adhesive placed in two cardboard boxes, shipped from Los Angeles, California to Manila, Philippines via Japan Airlines.
- Shipment insured under Marine Cargo Certificate No. 0801012154 and Open Policy No. 9595292 issued by Philam Insurance.
- After arrival at NAIA, goods stored at Paircargo warehouse; subsequent delay in release due to unpaid freight charges amounting to ₱14,672.00.
- Damage to shipment caused by melting of dry ice due to delayed delivery beyond specified 72-hour window.
- Claim for damages filed against 2100 Customs Brokers, Inc. (2100 CBI) who denied liability, arguing they exercised due diligence and were not negligent.
- Philam Insurance paid claim to consignee (TSPIC) and sought reimbursement from 2100 CBI, which was denied, leading to litigation.
Facts and Procedural History
- Shipment arrived at NAIA on March 1, 2001; TSPIC notified 2100 CBI on March 2, 2001 of arrival.
- Freight charges were “freight collect,” payable before cargo release.
- Payment of freight charges delayed until March 5, 2001 due to weekend bank closures and insufficient funds.
- Cargo delivered on March 6, 2001 at 2:00 a.m.; damage discovered upon delivery.
- Claim for damage refused by 2100 CBI; Philam Insurance paid TSPIC and filed suit against 2100 CBI for reimbursement.
- MeTC ruled 2100 CBI liable, awarding actual damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
- RTC affirmed MeTC decision.
- Court of Appeals affirmed RTC ruling denying 2100 CBI’s petition.
- 2100 CBI filed Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether 2100 CBI is a common carrier engaged in the transportation of goods.
- Whether a Marine Cargo Certificate may include goods transported by air.
- Whether the insurance policy must be presented to establish the liability of the common carrier to Philam.
- Whether 2100 CBI was negligent in handling the shipment of TSPIC, making it liable for damages.
Definition and Role of 2100 Customs Brokers, Inc. as a Common Carrier
- 2100 CBI contended it was not a common carrier but merely a customs broker.
- Supreme Court emphasized that customs brokers render essential services incident to transportation, including preparing documents, clearing customs, and delivering goods.
- The Court held that 2100 CBI, undertaking delivery of goods for pecuniary consideration and physically transferring the shipment after customs release, is a common carrier.
- Testimony confirmed 2100 CBI had custody of the goods only after BOC release during delivery phase to consignee.
- Even minimal possession during delivery entitles characterization as common carrier.