Asian Terminals v. Daehan Fire
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Doosan Corporation shipped twenty-six (26) boxes of printed aluminum sheets insured by respondent Daehan Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Daehan). The shipment arrived in Manila and was discharged in apparent good condition, with no exceptions noted in the Equipment Interchange Receipt (EIR) issued by petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), the arrastre operator. Access International, the consignee, requested a joint survey while the shipment was in ATI's custody, but no inspection was conducted. The shipment was subsequently released by ATI to Access International's warehouse. Upon inspection, Access International discovered that fourteen (14) boxes were missing. Access International filed a claim, which was paid by Daehan after Access International executed a Subrogation Receipt in favor of Daehan. Daehan then filed a case against Dongnama Shipping Co., Ltd., Uni-ship, Inc., ATI, and Victoria Reyes Lazo (customs broker). Procedural History: The shipping companies (Dongnama and Uni-ship) were absolved from liability. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint against ATI and V. Reyes Lazo, finding the complaint fatally flawed due to an unauthorized signatory and holding that Daehan failed to prove negligence on the part of ATI or V. Reyes Lazo. The RTC also opined that the loss occurred while the cargoes were in Access International's possession. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, holding ATI and V. Reyes Lazo jointly and severally liable. The CA found that ATI could not disclaim responsibility for the shortage while the container van was in its custody, especially since it ignored the request for a joint survey. The CA also refused to impose the ₱5,000.00 limitation on ATI's liability. The Petition: ATI filed a petition for review on certiorari, questioning its liability for the loss despite the EIR acknowledging good order and condition, and the extent of its liability.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner ATI is liable for the loss to the subject shipment notwithstanding the acknowledgment by the consignee’s broker/representative in the Equipment Interchange Receipt that the shipment was received in good order and without exception. What is the extent of petitioner ATI’s liability, if any?
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 14, 2005, and Resolution dated December 20, 2005, in CA-G.R. CV No. 83647, are affirmed, holding Asian Terminals, Inc. and V. Reyes Lazo jointly and severally liable for the loss.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of ATI's liability despite the EIR: The Court held that the acknowledgment of receipt in good order and condition in the Equipment Interchange Receipt (EIR) does not foreclose the consignee's right to prove that the loss or damage occurred while the shipment was under the custody of the arrastre operator. The signature on the EIR merely signifies that the representative released the cargo from the arrastre operator's liability from that point forward, not that the cargo was free from any damage or loss incurred while in the arrastre operator's possession. Furthermore, ATI could not disclaim responsibility for the shortage because it ignored Access International's request for a joint survey while the shipment was still in its custody. This refusal to conduct a survey, coupled with the subsequent loss, indicated negligence on the part of ATI. The fact that the padlock was broken prior to delivery and ATI denied the request to open and inventory the contents further supported the finding of negligence. On the extent of ATI's liability: The Court affirmed the CA's refusal to impose the ₱5,000.00 limitation of liability. The Management Contract between ATI and the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) stipulated that the limitation would not apply if the value of the cargo shipment was communicated in writing to the contractor before discharge. In this case, Access International declared the shipment for taxation and arrastre charges, presenting the invoice, packing list, and other shipping documents to the Bureau of Customs and ATI. This constituted sufficient communication of the actual invoice value, overcoming the limitation. The Court reasoned that it would be unfair to hold the arrastre operator liable for a lesser amount when they received commensurate charges based on the true value of the goods, enabling them to take extraordinary care of valuable cargo. The knowledge of the actual invoice value allows the arrastre operator to assess the risk and receive compensation accordingly.
Main Doctrine
An arrastre operator, as custodian of goods, must exercise the same degree of diligence as a common carrier or warehouseman. It bears the burden of proving that losses were not due to its negligence. The limitation of liability clause in a contract does not apply if the value of the cargo was communicated to the arrastre operator prior to discharge, as this knowledge allows for commensurate compensation for the risk assumed.