Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 106 views

    Sea Land V Iac

    Uploaded by

    Elaizza Concepcion
    Sea-Land, a shipping company, received a shipment from California consigned to Paulino Cue in the Philippines. The bill of lading did not declare the shipment's value. The cargo was stolen while awaiting transshipment. Cue claimed the shipment's value from Sea-Land, who offered their maximum liability of $4,000 under the bill of lading. Cue sued and won more in a local court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the consignee is bound by liability limitations in the bill of lading, even if the value is undeclared. The Court found the limitation valid under the Civil Code and Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, as it allows the shipper to avoid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sea Land V Iac

    Uploaded by

    Elaizza Concepcion
    106 views1 page
    Sea-Land, a shipping company, received a shipment from California consigned to Paulino Cue in the Philippines. The bill of lading did not declare the shipment's value. The cargo was stolen while awaiting transshipment. Cue claimed the shipment's value from Sea-Land, who offered their maximum liability of $4,000 under the bill of lading. Cue sued and won more in a local court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the consignee is bound by liability limitations in the bill of lading, even if the value is undeclared. The Court found the limitation valid under the Civil Code and Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, as it allows the shipper to avoid

    Original Title

    SEA LAND V IAC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sea-Land, a shipping company, received a shipment from California consigned to Paulino Cue in the Philippines. The bill of lading did not declare the shipment's value. The cargo was stolen while awaiting transshipment. Cue claimed the shipment's value from Sea-Land, who offered their maximum liability of $4,000 under the bill of lading. Cue sued and won more in a local court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the consignee is bound by liability limitations in the bill of lading, even if the value is undeclared. The Court found the limitation valid under the Civil Code and Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, as it allows the shipper to avoid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    106 views1 page

    Sea Land V Iac

    Uploaded by

    Elaizza Concepcion
    Sea-Land, a shipping company, received a shipment from California consigned to Paulino Cue in the Philippines. The bill of lading did not declare the shipment's value. The cargo was stolen while awaiting transshipment. Cue claimed the shipment's value from Sea-Land, who offered their maximum liability of $4,000 under the bill of lading. Cue sued and won more in a local court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the consignee is bound by liability limitations in the bill of lading, even if the value is undeclared. The Court found the limitation valid under the Civil Code and Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, as it allows the shipper to avoid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    SEA LAND v.

    IAC
    1 153 SCRA 552, August 31, 1987

    accrual of liability limitation by the simple expedient of


    declaring the value of the shipment in the bill of lading.

    The stipulation in the bill of lading limiting the liability of Sea-


    Land for loss or damages to the shipment covered by said rule
    to US$500 per package unless the shipper declares the value
    of the shipment and pays additional charges is valid and
    FACTS:
    binding on Cue.
    Sea-Land, a foreign shipping and forwarding company licensed
    to do business in the Philippines, received from Sea-borne
    Trading Company in California, a shipment consigned to Sen
    Hiap Hing, the business name used by Paulino Cue. The
    shipper not having declared the value of the shipment, no
    value was indicated in the bill of lading.

    The shipment was discharged in Manila, and while awaiting


    transshipment to Cebu, the cargo was stolen by pilferers and
    has never been recovered.

    On March 10, 1981, Paulino Cue, the consignee, made formal


    claim upon Sea-Land for the value of the lost shipment
    allegedly amounting to P179,643.48. 5 Sea-Land offered to
    settle for US$4,000.00, or its then Philippine peso equivalent of
    P30,600.00 asserting that said amount represented its
    maximum liability for the loss of the shipment under the
    package limitation clause in the covering bill of lading. 

    Cue rejected the offer and thereafter brought suit for damages
    against Sea-Land in the then Court of First Instance of Cebu.
    Said Court, after trial, rendered judgment in favor of Cue,
    sentencing Sea-Land to pay him P186,048.00 representing the
    Philippine currency value of the lost cargo, P55,814.00 for
    unrealized profit with one (1%) percent monthly interest from
    the filing of the complaint until fully paid, P25,000.00 for
    attorney's fees and P2,000.00 as litigation expenses.

    ISSUE 1:
    Whether or not the consignee of seaborne freight is bound by
    stipulations in the covering bill of lading limiting to a fixed
    amount the liability of the carrier for loss or damage to the
    cargo where its value is not declared in the bill - YES

    HELD:
    There is no question of the right of a consignee in a bill of
    lading to recover from the carrier or shipper for loss of, or
    damage to, goods being transported under said bill, although
    that document may have been drawn up only by the consignor
    and the carrier without the intervention of the consignee.

    Since the liability of a common carrier for loss of or damage to


    goods transported by it under a contract of carriage is
    governed by the laws of the country of destination and the
    goods in question were shipped from the United States to the
    Philippines, the liability of Sea-Land has Cue is governed
    primarily by the Civil Code, and as ordained by the said Code,
    supplementary, in all matters not cluttered thereby, by the
    Code of Commerce and special laws. One of these
    supplementary special laws is the Carriage of goods by Sea
    Act (COGSA), made applicable to all contracts for the carriage
    by sea to and from the Philippines Ports in Foreign Trade by
    Comm. Act. 65.

    Even if Section 4(5) of COGSA did not list the validity and
    binding effect of the liability limitation clause in the bill of lading
    here are fully substantial on the basis alone of Article 1749 and
    1750 of the Civil Code. The justices of such stipulation are
    implicit in it giving the owner or shipper the option of avoiding

    You might also like