Reyma Brokerage, Inc. v. Philippine Home Assurance Corporation
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 2, 1979, a shipment of 2,680 cartons of hard frozen boneless beef was loaded onto the vessel 'MS Malmros Monsoon' in Australia, consigned to RFM Corp. in Manila, under a Bill of Lading No. 53149. The vessel arrived in Manila on October 13, 1979, and the shipment was discharged into the custody of the defendant arrastre operator, Reyma Brokerage, Inc. On October 22, 1979, the defendant arrastre contractor loaded the containers onto trucks for delivery to Grech Food Industries Cold Storage, arriving on October 23, 1979. Upon stripping the containers, it was discovered that 203 cartons were missing from Container No. BROU-4306561. The consignee filed a claim for the missing cartons, which was denied. The consignee was paid by its Marine Cargo Insurance Policyholder, Philippine Home Assurance Corporation (plaintiff), which then subrogated the plaintiff to file a claim against the defendant arrastre operator. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay P88,650.22 plus legal interest and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The Petition: Reyma Brokerage, Inc. assails the decision, arguing that a "said-to-contain" bill of lading only acknowledges receipt of the containers, not their contents, citing US Lines. It also argued that there was no evidence of tampering, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and that it should not be singled out as the sole defendant without joining the carrier and other arrastre contractors. Petitioner also raised the issue of prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court committed a reversible error in declaring the petitioner liable for the short delivery of 203 cartons from the containerized shipments; and whether the petitioner, as an arrastre operator, can be held liable for the shortage of goods in containerized shipments, particularly when the bill of lading contains "said to contain" clauses and printed stipulations regarding contents being unknown unless expressly acknowledged. Whether the petitioner's argument regarding "said to contain" clauses and lack of evidence of tampering absolves them of liability. Whether the defense of prescription is applicable and was properly raised by the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding the petitioner liable for the short delivery of 203 cartons. The Court found that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of liability arising from its receipt of the shipments.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability for short delivery of containerized shipments and the effect of "said to contain" clauses: The Court distinguished the present case from United States Lines Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs. While the bill of lading contained "said to contain" entries, it also had printed stipulations explicitly stating that "Weight, measurement marks and numbers... quality contents and value shown above are furnished by the Merchant and have not been checked and are to be considered unknown, unless expressly acknowledged and agreed to." The Court found that the carrier, by signifying in the bill of lading that it was a receipt for the number of packages and by including these printed stipulations, had made an explicit admission regarding the contents, which made the case an exception to the US Lines doctrine. The dictum that the bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described governed. The petitioner, as the arrastre operator, received the shipments with seals intact and had the burden to rebut the presumption that it received them without shortage. The Court found that the petitioner failed to overthrow this presumption by contrary evidence, as its claims were based on surmises and speculations. The fact that the containers were delivered to the consignee's warehouse after an unusually long transit time, despite a short travel distance, further militated against the petitioner's stand that the loss occurred outside its custody. The Court also found no merit in the petitioner's contention that it should not have been singled out as the sole defendant, as the case proceeded based on the evidence presented and the established liabilities of the parties involved in the chain of custody. On the petitioner's argument regarding "said to contain" and lack of evidence of tampering: The Court clarified that the bill of lading, in this instance, contained more than just a "said to contain" notation; it included explicit stipulations that were considered an acknowledgment of the contents. The petitioner's assertion that there was no evidence of tampering was countered by the fact that the shortage was discovered only upon stripping the containers at the consignee's cold storage, implying that any tampering might have been done ingeniously. The Court reiterated that the petitioner's own pleadings alleged that the containers arrived in Manila with seals intact and that the petitioner received them with seals intact, which meant the petitioner received all the shipments as itemized in the bill of lading, thus creating a prima facie presumption of receipt without shortage. On the issue of prescription: The Court held that the defense of prescription was waived and/or abandoned by the petitioner, as it was not pursued in the lower court or the Court of Appeals. Even arguendo, if it could still be raised, it would not prosper because the petitioner is a broker, not a carrier or vessel, and the prescriptive period for its cause of action is ten years, which had not lapsed.
Main Doctrine
A bill of lading containing explicit stipulations acknowledging the contents, weight, and measurement of containerized goods, beyond a mere "said to contain" notation, serves as prima facie evidence of the carrier's receipt of the goods as described, shifting the burden to the carrier or arrastre operator to rebut this presumption.