G.R. No. 156330 November 19, 2014
NEDLLOYD LIJNEN B.V. ROTTERDAM and THE EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., Petitioners, vs. GLOW LAKS ENTERPRISES, LTD., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam (Nedlloyd) is a foreign corporation engaged in the business of carrying goods by sea, doing business in the Philippines through its local ship agent, co-petitioner East Asiatic Co., Ltd. (East Asiatic). Respondent Glow Laks Enterprises, Ltd., is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Hong Kong and is not licensed to do, and is not doing, business in the Philippines.
On or about September 14, 1987, respondent loaded 343 cartons of garments, in good order, on board M/S Scandutch at the Port of Manila for pre-carriage to Hong Kong. The goods, covered by Bills of Lading, arrived in good condition in Hong Kong and were transferred to M/S Amethyst for final carriage to Colon, Free Zone, Panama. Both vessels are owned by Nedlloyd. The goods, valued at US$53,640.00, were to be released to the consignee, Pierre Kasem International, S.A., upon presentation of the original bills of lading. Upon arrival at the Port of Colon on October 23, 1987, petitioners notified the consignee and turned over custody of the shipments to the National Ports Authority of Panama in accordance with Panamanian laws and customs. However, unauthorized persons forged the bills of lading, and based on these falsified documents, the ports authority released the goods.
Respondent filed a formal claim with Nedlloyd for recovery of the invoice value of the shipment. Upon denial, respondent filed a complaint for recovery of the amount before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. Petitioners disclaimed liability, asserting they discharged their obligation by delivering the goods to the port authority as required by Panamanian law and that their extraordinary responsibility as a common carrier ceased upon such turnover. The RTC dismissed the complaint and granted petitioners’ counterclaims for litigation expenses. The RTC ruled that Panamanian law was duly proven and that under said law, carriers must discharge goods into the custody of the Panama Ports Authority, and the subsequent release to unauthorized persons based on forged documents did not constitute misdelivery due to the carrier’s fault.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. It held that the Panamanian laws were not proven in the manner provided by Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court and thus could not be given full faith and credit. Applying the doctrine of processual presumption, it presumed the foreign law to be the same as Philippine law. Under the Philippine Civil Code, the extraordinary responsibility of common carriers lasts until actual or constructive delivery to the consignee. The appellate court found no proof that the consignee was informed of the arrival, and thus the carrier’s responsibility remained. It ordered petitioners to pay respondent the value of the misdelivered goods and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioners, as common carriers, are liable for the value of the goods misdelivered by the Panamanian port authority to unauthorized persons based on forged bills of lading, considering the claim that their liability ceased upon delivery to the port authority under Panamanian law.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Resolution of the Court of Appeals. It held petitioners liable for the value of the misdelivered goods.
The Court ruled that foreign laws must be alleged and proved like any other fact. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. This requires the copy to be attested by the officer having legal custody of the record and accompanied by a certificate from a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent, authenticated by the seal of his office.
The Court found that petitioners failed to prove the Panamanian laws (Law 42 and its Implementing Order No. 7) in accordance with these rules. While a photocopy of the Gaceta Official of the Republica de Panama No. 17.596 was presented, it was not accompanied by the required attestation and certification. The deposition of a maritime law practitioner from Panama before the Philippine Consulate was not the certificate contemplated by law; it was merely an expert opinion and not proof from the legal custodian of the statute.
Due to this failure of proof, the doctrine of processual presumption applied, presuming the foreign law to be the same as Philippine law. Under the Philippine Civil Code, the extraordinary responsibility of common carriers for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of and received by the carrier until they are delivered, actually or constructively, to the consignee or person who has a right to receive them. Delivery to the port authority of Panama was not delivery to the consignee. The carrier’s obligation to notify the consignee of the arrival of the goods and its responsibility as depositary until the consignee takes delivery remained. Petitioners failed to rebut the prima facie presumption of negligence established against common carriers for the loss of goods. Therefore, they were liable for the value of the misdelivered goods.