Summa Insurance Corp V Ca

SUMMA INSURANCE CORP V CA
GR 84680, February 05, 1996

What is the extent of the liability?
FACTS:
The S/S "Galleon Sapphire", a vessel owned by the National HELD:
Galleon Shipping Corporation (NGSC), arrived at Pier 3, South
Harbor, Manila, carrying a shipment consigned to the order of SINCE PETITIONER FAILED TO CONVINCE THE COURT
Caterpillar Far East Ltd. with Semirara Coal Corporation THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT
(Semirara) as "notify party". The shipment, including a bundle CONTRACT HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH, THE ARRASTRE
of PC 8 U blades, was covered by marine insurance issued by OPERATOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTUAL INVOICE
petitioner and Bill of Lading. The shipment was discharged VALUE OF THE LOST SHIPMENT.
from the vessel to the custody of private respondent, formerly
known as E. Razon, Inc., the exclusive arrastre operator at the In the performance of its job, an arrastre operator is bound by
South Harbor. Accordingly, three good-order cargo receipts the management contract it had executed with the Bureau of
were issued by NGSC, duly signed by the ship's checker and a Customs. However, a management contract, which is a sort of
representative of private respondent. a stipulation pour autrui within the meaning of Article 1311 of
the Civil Code, is also binding on a consignee because it is
The forwarder, Sterling International Brokerage Corporation, incorporated in the gate pass and delivery receipt which must
withdrew the shipment from the pier and loaded it on the barge be presented by the consignee before delivery can be effected
"Semirara 8104". The barge arrived at its port of destination, to it. The insurer, as successor-in-interest of the consignee, is
Semirara Island. When Semirara inspected the shipment at its likewise bound by the management contract. Indeed, upon
warehouse, it discovered that the bundle of PC8U blades was taking delivery of the cargo, a consignee (and necessarily its
missing. successor-in-interest) tacitly accepts the provisions of the
management contract, including those which are intended to
limit the liability of one of the contracting parties, the arrastre
Private respondent issued a short-landed certificate-stating operator.
that the bundle of PC8U blades was already missing when it
received the shipment from the NGSC vessel. Semirara then Section 1, Article VI of the Management Contract between
filed with petitioner, private respondent and NGSC its claim for private respondent and the Bureau of Customs provides:
P280,969.68, the alleged value of the lost bundle.
1. Responsibility and Liability for Losses and Damages -
Petitioner paid Semirara the invoice value of the lost shipment. The CONTRACTOR shall, at its own expense handle
Semirara thereafter executed a release of claim and all merchandise in the piers and other designated
subrogation receipt. Consequently, petitioner filed its claims places and at its own expense perform all work
with NGSC and private respondent but it was unsuccessful. undertaken by it hereunder diligently and in a skillful
workmanlike and efficient manner; that the
Petitioner then filed a complaint against NGSC and private CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible as an
respondent for collection of a sum of money, damages and independent CONTRACTOR, and hereby agrees to
attorney's fees. accept liability and to promptly pay to the steamship
company, consignee, consignor or other interested
party or parties for the loss, damage, or non-delivery
ISSUE 1: of cargoes to the extent of the actual invoice value of
Whether or not the private respondent is legally liable for the each package which in no case shall be more than
loss of the shipment in question. – YES. Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500. 00) for
each package unless the value of the importation is
HELD: otherwise specified or manifested or communicated in
writing together with the invoice value and supported
ARRASTRE OPERATOR IS LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF by a certified packing list to the CONTRACTOR by
THE SHIPMENT SINCE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT the interested party or parties before the discharge of
THE SHIPMENT WAS LOST WHILE IN ITS CUSTODY. the goods, as well as all damage that may be suffered
on account of loss, damage, or destruction of any
Petitioner was subrogated to the rights of the consignee. The merchandise while in custody or under the control of
relationship therefore between the consignee and the arrastre the CONTRACTOR in any pier, shed, warehouse,
operator must be examined. This relationship is much akin to facility or other designated place under the
that existing between the consignee or owner of shipped goods supervision of the BUREAU, x x x
and the common carrier, or that between a depositor and a
warehouseman. In this case, no evidence was offered by petitioner proving the
amount of arrastre fees paid to private respondent so as to put
In the performance of its obligations, an arrastre operator the latter on notice of the value of the cargo. While petitioner
should observe the same degree of diligence as that required alleged that prior to the loss of the package, its value had been
of a common carrier and a warehouseman as enunciated relayed to private respondent through the documents the latter
under Article 1733 of the Civil Code and Section 3(b) of the had processed, petitioner does not categorically state that
Warehouse Receipts Law, respectively. Being the custodian of among the submitted documents were the pro forma invoice
the goods discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operators duty value and the certified packing list. Neither does petitioner
is to take good care of the goods and to turn them over to the pretend that these two documents were prerequisites to the
party entitled to their possession. In this case, it has been issuance of a permit to deliver or were attachments thereto.
established that the shipment was lost while in the custody of Even the permit to deliver, upon which petitioner anchors its
private respondent. Therefore, private respondent is liable for arguments, may not be considered by the Court because it
the loss. was not identified and formally offered in evidence. All told,
petitioner failed to convince the Court that the requirement of
ISSUE 2:
the management contract had been complied with to entitle it
to recover the actual invoice value of the lost shipment.

Summa Insurance Corp V Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summa Insurance Corp V Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summa Insurance Corp V Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUMMA INSURANCE CORP V CA

GR 84680, February 05, 1996

You might also like