Case Summary (G.R. No. 187701)
Factual Background
Novartis Consumer Health Philippines, Inc. imported laminated film packaging material from Jinsuk Trading Co. Ltd. which engaged Protop Shipping Corporation as freight forwarder and issued Bill of Lading No. PROTAS 200387 on a freight-prepaid, shippers load and count basis, naming Sagawa Express Philippines, Inc. as local delivery contact. Dongnama provided the container which was carried in a slot on M/V Heung-A Bangkok V-019 owned and operated by Heung-A Shipping Corporation; Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. acted as HEUNG-A’s ship agent in the Philippines. Novartis insured the shipment under an All Risk Marine Open Insurance Policy with Philam Insurance Company, Inc. The vessel arrived at Manila South Harbor on December 27, 2000; the container was discharged into the custody of Asian Terminals, Inc. and withdrawn from ATI’s yard on January 4, 2001, by Stephanie Customs Brokerage Corporation for delivery to Novartis, which inspected the cargo at its premises on January 5, 2001 and found widespread wetting, damaged cartons, and signs of seawater intrusion.
Survey and Laboratory Findings
Independent adjusters from Manila Adjusters and Surveyors Company conducted a survey and on January 17, 2001 reported indentations, corrosion, sagging and minute holes in the sea van, with water beading internally and pallets collapsed from wetting; the survey found seventeen pallets wet or water damaged and two pallets unaccounted for. Samples submitted to Precision Analytical Services, Inc. yielded Laboratory Report No. 042-07 dated January 16, 2001, which identified salt water as the cause of wetting of the cartons and packaging materials.
Insurance, Subrogation and Pleadings
Having paid the adjusted insured amount of P1,904,613.20 to Novartis, Philam claimed subrogation to Novartis’s rights and filed suit on June 4, 2001 against Protop, Sagawa, ATI, and Stephanie; PLHIAM sent a separate demand to Wallem on October 12, 2001 and impleaded it as defendant; Heung-A was added by a second amended complaint admitted December 14, 2001. Defendants generally denied liability, Protop defaulted, and Sagawa, ATI and Stephanie asserted defenses including the shippers load and count clause, alleged lack of timely notice, and denied roles that would impose carrier-level duties.
Trial Court Proceedings and Decision
The RTC rendered judgment on February 26, 2007, finding the damage occurred in transit on board HEUNG-A’s vessel and holding Heung-A, Protop, and Wallem solidarily liable for P1,904,613.20 plus interest of twelve percent per annum from December 26, 2001, attorneys’ fees of P350,000, and costs; the court exonerated Sagawa, ATI and Stephanie and granted their counterclaims for attorneys’ fees in the amount of P100,000 each. The RTC reasoned HEUNG-A had the obligation as carrier to ensure the container’s seaworthiness and failed to show the requisite extraordinary diligence; it also relied on Protop’s bill of lading commitments and treated Wallem as HEUNG-A’s agent in the Philippines.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On appeal, the Court of Appeals in its January 30, 2009 Decision affirmed the RTC’s finding of liability but modified the quantum by applying the package limitation under the COGSA, holding that because no value was declared in the bill of lading the liability of Protop, HEUNG-A and Wallem was limited to US$500 per package and thus reduced their solidary liability to US$8,500.00; the CA rejected application of Article 366 of the Code of Commerce to this foreign carriage, found that HEUNG-A entered into an implied contract of carriage by transporting goods in the provided container, and concluded the slot charter did not relieve HEUNG-A of carrier obligations; the CA deleted the attorneys’ fees awards in favor of Sagawa, ATI and Stephanie.
Consolidation and Questions Presented
The matters were consolidated on petition to the Supreme Court as G.R. Nos. 187701 and 187812. Philam contended the CA erred in permitting HEUNG-A and Wallem to invoke the COGSA package limitation because of HEUNG-A’s fundamental breaches and because the bill of lading failed to reflect a shipper’s declaration of value. Heung-A and Wallem argued that Article 366 of the Code of Commerce governed, that the COGSA clause in the bill of lading excluded the Code of Commerce, and that PHILAM’s failure to give timely notice under Article 366 barred recovery; they further contested the CA’s factual finding that damage occurred while the cargo was in HEUNG-A’s possession.
Issues Framed by the Court
The Supreme Court distilled the principal issues to: (1) whether the damage to the shipment occurred while the goods were in the possession and custody of Heung-A, and if so whether HEUNG-A’s liability was limited to US$500 per package under COGSA; and (2) whether Novartis or its subrogee Philam failed to file a timely claim against HEUNG-A and/or Wallem such as to bar recovery.
Standard of Review and Scope of Review
The Court observed that the determination whether the shipment was damaged while in HEUNG-A’s custody posed a factual question resolved by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, and that factual findings supported by substantial evidence are not ordinarily revisited on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court; the Court reviewed the limited exceptions permitting reassessment of facts and found none present in this record.
Supreme Court’s Factual Determination and Carrier Liability
Relying on the uncontroverted survey and laboratory reports showing salt-water intrusion and the extensive and uniform wetting of all packages, the Court concluded that the damages were reasonably attributable to seawater ingress during transit and that this occurred while the container was in HEUNG-A’s possession and control as carrier. The Court held that HEUNG-A, despite a slot charter with Dongnama, remained a common carrier bound to exercise extraordinary diligence and failed to rebut the presumption of fault attendant to deterioration of goods under common-carrier doctrine and Article 1742 of the Civil Code.
Charter Party Analysis and Effect of Slot Charter
The Court analyzed charter-party law, drawing on Planters Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and related authorities, distinguishing between contracts of affreightment and bareboat demise charters, and concluded the HEUNG-A/DONGNAMA slot charter was an affreightment under which HEUNG-A retained carriage responsibility and thus the obligation of extraordinary diligence remained with HEUNG-A.
Freight Forwarder and Bill of Lading Liability
The Court held Protop Shipping Corporation solidarily liable by virtue of the bill of lading it issued, observing that a bill of lading operates as a receipt and as a contract to transport and deliver goods and that Protop breached its contract by failing to deliver the goods in the same quantity, quality and description as stated.
Application of COGSA and Limitation of Liability
The Court affirmed the CA’s application of Section 4(5) of the COGSA limiting carrier liability to US$500 per package when the shipper fails to declare the nature and value of the goods in the bill of lading, and it applied Article 1753 of the Civil Code and Article 372 of the Code of Commerce in concluding that the law of the country to which the goods were to be transported and related special laws such as COGSA governed the measure of liability for carriage from a foreign port to a Philippine port; accordingly the joint liability of HEUNG-A, Wallem and Protop was reduced to US$500 per package for seventeen affected pallets amounting to US$8,500.00.
Shippers Load and Count and Shortage Determination
The Court affirmed that liability extended to only the seventeen pallets found wet and not to the two pallets unaccounted for, because the bill of lading expressly provided a shippers load and count arrangement whereby the shipper assumed sole responsibility for the contents and the carrier was not required to check or inventory the container at loading.
Notice and Prescription under COGSA
Citing Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., the Court applied Section 3(6) of the COGSA, holding that the three-day notice requirement for apparent loss or damage did not deprive the courts of jurisdiction nor bar suit if the statutory one-year suit period from delivery was observed, and found that Philam, as subrogee of Novartis, filed claims against Protop, Wallem and HEUNG-A within one year of delivery and therefore was not time-barred despite Novartis’s noncompliance with the three-day notice clause.
Interest, Awards and Final Disposition
The Supreme
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 187701)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. brought the action as subrogee of Novartis Consumer Health Philippines, Inc. to recover insurance proceeds it paid for a sea-damaged shipment.
- PROTOP SHIPPING CORPORATION, HEUNG-A SHIPPING CORPORATION, and WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC. were sued as allegedly liable carriers or forwarders for the damaged cargo.
- SAGAWA EXPRESS PHILIPPINES, INC., ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., and STEPHANIE CUSTOMS BROKERAGE CORPORATION were impleaded and later exonerated from liability.
- The complaint sought indemnification for goods insured under an All Risk Marine Open Insurance Policy and invoked subrogation rights after PHILAM paid P1,904,613.20 to the insured.
- The case proceeded to trial in the Regional Trial Court, was appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the resulting petitions were consolidated and brought to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
Key Factual Allegations
- PROTOP issued Bill of Lading No. PROTAS 200387 for nineteen pallets of laminated packaging material shipped from South Korea to the Philippines on a shipper's load and count basis.
- The goods were carried in Sea Van Container No. DNAU 420280-9 and were discharged at Manila South Harbor before delivery to the consignee.
- On receipt at Novartis premises, the consignee's inspection revealed wet, damaged, and disarranged cartons, water droplets on van walls, rusty and dented panels, and a wet floor.
- A survey by Manila Adjusters and Surveyors Company found sea van corrosion, indentations, minute holes, widespread wetting, and that 17 pallets were water-damaged while 2 pallets were unaccounted for.
- Laboratory analysis by Precision Analytical Services, Inc. confirmed that salt water caused the wetting of cartons and packaging materials.
- PHILAM paid the insurance claim and demanded reimbursement from the alleged carriers and forwarders, which demands were ignored, prompting litigation.
Procedural History
- The RTC rendered judgment finding HEUNG-A, PROTOP, and WALLEM solidarily liable for the damaged cargo and awarded P1,904,613.20 with 12% interest from December 26, 2001, plus attorneys' fees and costs.
- The RTC exonerated SAGAWA, ATI, and STEPHANIE and granted their counterclaims for attorneys' fees.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed liability of PROTOP, HEUNG-A, and WALLEM but limited their liability to US$8,500 pursuant to COGSA and deleted the attorneys' fees awarded to SAGAWA, ATI, and STEPHANIE.
- The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions and affirmed the CA decision with modification to the interest award, reducing the interest to six percent per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
Issues
- Whether the shipment sustained damage while in the possession and custody of HEUNG-A and whether HEUNG-A's liability could be limited under COGSA to US$500 per package.
- Whether Novartis or its subrogee PHILAM failed to file a timely claim against HEUNG-A and/or WALLEM under Article 366 of the Code of Commerce