Case Summary (G.R. No. 171194)
Case Background
This case centers around the loss of cargo wherein Doosan Corporation shipped twenty-six boxes of printed aluminum sheets aboard the vessel Heung-A Dragon, consigned to Access International. Doosan insured the shipment with the respondent Daehan Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. Upon arrival in Manila, the cargo was discharged in apparent good condition. However, after a subsequent inspection by Access International, it was found that fourteen boxes were missing, leading them to seek a claim from both the petitioner and the customs broker, Victoria Reyes Lazo.
Procedural History
Following the failure of Access International to collect its claim, Daehan paid the amount on behalf of Access International and subsequently filed a case against several parties, including the petitioner and V. Reyes Lazo. Petitioner and Uni-ship raised motions to dismiss, which were denied by the trial court. The case eventually proceeded solely against the petitioner and the customs broker following a joint motion to dismiss the other parties.
Regional Trial Court Decision
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint for lack of sufficient evidence, stating that the complaint was flawed because it was not signed by a representative with proper authority. The RTC also held that Daehan failed to establish fault or negligence on the part of the petitioner or V. Reyes Lazo since the damage occurred after the cargo was in Access International's possession.
Court of Appeals Decision
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC, affirming the validity of Daehan's complaint despite the initially flawed representation. The appellate court ruled that the petitioner could not escape liability for the shortage of the cargo since it had custody of the goods for an extended period and ignored a request for a joint survey at the time of delivery. Furthermore, it dismissed the limitation of liability claim made by the petitioner.
Liability of the Arrastre Operator
The primary issue was whether the petitioner, as the arrastre operator, could be held liable for the loss of the cargo. The appellate court determined that an arrastre operator has the same obligations of diligence as a common carrier. Since the petitioner did not prove that it exercised due care and diligence and had accepted the shipment in good order but failed to account for the missing boxes during its custody, it was held liable.
Conclusion on Liability and Damages
The petitioner claimed its liability was limited to P5,000 per package based on
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 171194)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by Asian Terminals, Inc. (petitioner) against Daehan Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (respondent).
- The petition challenges the decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 14, 2005, and December 20, 2005, which reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision dated August 4, 2004.
- The RTC had dismissed the civil case regarding a missing shipment, which prompted the appeal by respondent Daehan Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.
Factual Background
- On July 8, 2000, Doosan Corporation shipped 26 boxes of printed aluminum sheets via the vessel Heung-A Dragon owned by Dongnama Shipping Co., Ltd. The shipment was consigned to Access International and insured by Daehan Fire and Marine Insurance under an "all-risk" policy.
- The shipment arrived in Manila on July 12, 2000, and was discharged in good condition, with no exceptions noted in the Equipment Interchange Receipt (EIR) issued by petitioner.
- Access International requested a joint survey of the shipment on July 18, 2000, but no inspection was conducted. The shipment was released to Access International's warehouse on July 19, 2000, where it was discovered that 14 out of the 26 boxes were missing.
- Access International filed a claim against petitioner and the customs broker, V. Reyes Lazo, for the missing shipment valued at $34,993.28, later seeking indemnification from Daehan for $45,742.81. Respondent paid the claim and was subrogated to the rights of Access International.
Procedural History
- Daehan filed a case before the RTC against Dongnama, Uni-ship, petitioner, and V. Reyes Lazo, alleging negligence leading to th