Keller & Co. v. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff, Ed. A. Keller & Co., Ltd., filed an action against defendant Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co., Ltd., for failure to deliver six cases of goods, claiming P3,155.39. The Insular Collector of Customs was later joined as a defendant. The bill of lading stipulated that cargo delivery to the customs house wharf and into the custody of the United States Customs House constituted a full discharge of the carrier's obligation. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co., Ltd., to pay P2,205.39 with interest and costs. The complaint against the Insular Collector of Customs was dismissed without costs. The Petition: The defendant steamship company appealed, assigning errors principally relating to facts, evidence admissibility, and the rejection of a criminal case record as evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant steamship company sufficiently proved delivery of the four cases of merchandise to the customs authorities at the port of Manila. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendant's offer in evidence of the original record in criminal case No. 12920 (The United States vs. Tan Tiap Co et al.). Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendant's offer in evidence of the record in criminal case No. 12910 (The United States vs. Tan Tiap Co).
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, holding that the defendant steamship company failed to prove delivery of the four cases of merchandise to the Philippine Customs authorities and that the criminal case records were inadmissible in the civil action. The Court ordered the addition of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal sum and accrued interest from the date of the judgment to the final judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of delivery to customs authorities: The Court held that the burden of proof rested upon the defendant steamship company to establish actual delivery of the four cases of merchandise to the customs authorities at the port of Manila or to the plaintiff. The bill of lading explicitly stated that delivery into the custody of the United States Customs House would constitute a full discharge of the carrier's obligation. However, the defendant failed to provide sufficient proof of such delivery. The only direct proof pertained to two cases which the plaintiff admitted receiving. While the defendant attempted to show by circumstances that the goods were landed and subsequently stolen from the pier after delivery to customs, the trial court found this proof insufficient. The Court noted that the defendant failed to establish that the goods were indeed delivered to the authorities or that they were stolen after such delivery. Furthermore, evidence presented by the plaintiff, such as short landings by other vessels and overlanding of packages destined for other ports, cast doubt on the defendant's narrative. The Court concluded that the defendant did not sustain its defense by a fair preponderance of the evidence. On the admissibility of the statement of Carlos Lopena: The Court addressed the defendant's contention that the loss was due to theft by customs employees conspiring with a plaintiff employee, purportedly proven by a statement made by a customs employee, Carlos Lopena, to a police officer. While the plaintiff's counsel did not object to the specific question eliciting this statement, the Court noted that objections to similar questions had been made previously and thereafter. Citing established rules on evidence, the Court stated that while an objection must be made at the proper time, a continuing objection to a class of evidence, if understood by the court, should be sufficient. More importantly, the Court questioned the relevance of Lopena's statement, as the conditions for admitting evidence from a former trial were not met. The statement was hearsay, and admitting it would be contrary to the first principles of justice. On the rejection of the criminal case record (The United States vs. Tan Tiap Co): The Court affirmed the trial court's rejection of the record in criminal case No. 12910. The established legal principle is that a judgment of conviction in a criminal proceeding cannot be admitted as evidence in a civil action because the parties and the issues are not the same. The Court reiterated the axiom that no man shall be affected by proceedings to which he is a stranger, citing the case of Jones vs. White. The principle of mutuality or mutual estoppel is absent. The plaintiff in the civil case was not a party to the criminal case and had no right to control its proceedings or appeal its judgment. The issues in the two cases were different, and the alleged theft of the cargo in the civil case was not directly involved in the criminal case. The Court emphasized that the theft of goods in one instance does not prove theft in another instance.
Main Doctrine
A carrier bears the burden of proving actual delivery of goods to customs authorities or the consignee as per the bill of lading. A criminal conviction cannot be admitted in a civil action as parties and issues are not the same.