1. Eastern Shipping Lines transported steel goods for Sumitomo Corporation that were damaged upon arrival in Manila. BPI/MS Insurance and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, as cargo insurers, paid Calamba Steel for the damages and sued Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals for recovery.
2. The RTC found both Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals liable for the damages. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals absolved Asian Terminals but affirmed Eastern Shipping Lines' liability.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the liability of both Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals, finding that bills of lading served as evidence of the carriage contract and that common carriers are responsible for goods from receipt until delivery under the
1. Eastern Shipping Lines transported steel goods for Sumitomo Corporation that were damaged upon arrival in Manila. BPI/MS Insurance and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, as cargo insurers, paid Calamba Steel for the damages and sued Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals for recovery.
2. The RTC found both Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals liable for the damages. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals absolved Asian Terminals but affirmed Eastern Shipping Lines' liability.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the liability of both Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals, finding that bills of lading served as evidence of the carriage contract and that common carriers are responsible for goods from receipt until delivery under the
1. Eastern Shipping Lines transported steel goods for Sumitomo Corporation that were damaged upon arrival in Manila. BPI/MS Insurance and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, as cargo insurers, paid Calamba Steel for the damages and sued Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals for recovery.
2. The RTC found both Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals liable for the damages. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals absolved Asian Terminals but affirmed Eastern Shipping Lines' liability.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the liability of both Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals, finding that bills of lading served as evidence of the carriage contract and that common carriers are responsible for goods from receipt until delivery under the
1. Eastern Shipping Lines transported steel goods for Sumitomo Corporation that were damaged upon arrival in Manila. BPI/MS Insurance and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, as cargo insurers, paid Calamba Steel for the damages and sued Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals for recovery.
2. The RTC found both Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals liable for the damages. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals absolved Asian Terminals but affirmed Eastern Shipping Lines' liability.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the liability of both Eastern Shipping Lines and Asian Terminals, finding that bills of lading served as evidence of the carriage contract and that common carriers are responsible for goods from receipt until delivery under the
A complaint was filed by BPI/MS Insurance Corporation and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company Limited (Mitsui) before the RTC of Makati City against Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. and Asian Terminals, Inc. . to recover actual damages amounting to US$17,560.48 with legal interest, attorney's fees and costs of suit on December 29, 2004.
BPI/MS and Mitsui claimed that on February 2, 2004 at Yokohama, Japan, Sumitomo Corporation shipped on board Eastern Shipping Line’s vessel M/V “Eastern Venus 22” 22 coils of various Steel Sheet weighing 159,534 kilograms in good order and condition for transportation and delivery at the port of Manila, Philippines in favor of consignee Calamba Steel Center, Inc. in Saimsim, Calamba, Laguna. The shipment was supported by a Bill of Lading Nos. ESLIYMA001 and was insured with the respondents BPI/MS and Mitsui against all risks. Upon arrival, the shipment was turned over to Asian Terminals for safekeeping. It was then discovered that part of the shipment was damaged and was in bad condition causing Calamba Steel to reject the damaged shipment. Kashima, Japan, Sumitomo Corporation again shipped on board Eastern Shipping Line’s vessel M/V “Eastern Venus 25” 50 coils in various Steel Sheet in good order and condition in favor of the same consignee Calamba Steel as evidenced by a Bill of Lading with Nos. ESLIKSMA002 and insured by the respondents against all risks. The second shipment arrived at the port of Manila partly damaged and in bad order. Further damage was sustained during the discharge from vessel to shore until its turnover to Asian Terminals’ custody. Due to its condition, Calamba Steel once again rejected the damaged shipment. The damages were imputed by Calamba Steel to Eastern Shipping Line’s, as the carrier, and Asian Terminals’ as the arrastre operator responsible for the discharge of the coils which led him to file a complaint. When the complainees refused to pay, Calamba Steel filed an insurance claim for the total amount of the cargo against BPI/MS and Mitsui as cargo insurers. Therefore, BPI/MS and Mitsui became subrogated in place of and with all the rights and defenses accorded by law in favor of Calamba Steel. Asian Terminals, Inc., denied the allegations and insisted that the coils in two shipments were already damaged upon receipt from the vessels. Asian Terminals stated that it exercised due diligence in the handling of the shipments. In June 2005, the RTC ruled that both the ESLI and ATI liable for the damages sustained by the two shipments. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals absolved ATI from liability but affirmed the liability of ESLI.
Issue: 1. Was Eastern Shipping Lines liable for the damaged goods? 2. Was Asian Terminals, Inc. also liable for the damaged goods? 3. Were the bill of ladings considered evidences of the liability? 4. Was the amount stated in the invoices binding? Ruling:
1. Yes. Eastern Shipping Lines is liable as the carrier of goods mentioned.
2. Yes. Asian Terminals is liable since it was also responsible for the handling of the goods.
3. Yes. The bill of ladings are documents of title which are evidences of the contract of carriage.
4. Yes. The declared amount would be binding despite being declared at a greater or lesser cost than the actual goods.
Ratio and Applicable Law(s) :
1. Under Article 1734 of the Civil Code, common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them. 2. Subject to Article 1734 of the Civil Code, common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. 3. According to Article 1507 of the Civil Code, a document of title in which it is stated that the goods referred to therein will be delivered to the bearer, or to the order of any person named in such document is a negotiable document of title. 4. Article 1749 states that “A stipulation that the common carrier’s liability is limited to the value of the goods appearing in the bill of lading, unless shipper or owner declares a greater value, is binding.” Reflections:
The case gave me an opportunity to apply the different provisions of the Civil Code and my knowledge of the different documents of title. It encouraged me to examine thoroughly the cases of the petitioner and the respondents. The case emphasized two points; first is the superiority of the Civil Code provisions in contrast to the Carriage of Goods Act by Sea Act, second is the importance of the documents of title, hence the bill of ladings in this case. The focus of the case was not necessarily the documents of the title but it serves as evidence of the contract of carriage and is therefore binding. Overall, dissecting it became easier for me since I have a basic understanding of the varying concepts applied from previous discussions and I learned a lot from working on the case.
-Ronella Athea Arguelles
The assigned case which was a review of certiorari, focused on who shoulders the liability of the damaged goods through using evidence such as the title of documents to determine the party liable. There was no mention of negotiability of the documents but only its existence and validity all throughout the trials. It was hard to incorporate laws that we have discussed since the main issue is not within the scope of our lesson but it correlates to the Oblicon that have tackled contracts. Using the correlation of the documents being a contract to the Oblicon laws have allowed me to discuss and see the matter more in the focus of the documents rather than the liability.
