GR 132284; (February, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132284 February 28, 2006
TELENGTAN BROTHERS & SONS, INC., Petitioner, vs. UNITED STATES LINES, INC. and the COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Telengtan Brothers & Sons, Inc., a domestic corporation, was the consignee of goods shipped via container vans by respondent United States Lines, Inc., a foreign shipping corporation. The shipments arrived in Manila from U.S. ports between 1979 and 1980. Under the applicable Far East Conference Tariff No. 12, consignees were granted a 10-day free period to take delivery of containerized cargo, after which demurrage charges would accrue. Petitioner failed to withdraw its goods within this period.
Respondent U.S. Lines filed a complaint for collection of demurrage charges amounting to ₱94,000.00. Petitioner denied liability, arguing it never signed any contract agreeing to pay demurrage and that no proper demand was made. By way of counterclaim, petitioner alleged that respondent unlawfully stripped the goods from the container vans and stored them in warehouses, refusing delivery unless petitioner paid ₱123,738.04, and sought damages.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner is liable to pay demurrage charges to respondent despite the absence of a signed agreement specifically stipulating such liability.
RULING
Yes, petitioner is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts, holding that the bill of lading, which governed the contract of carriage, incorporated the applicable tariff rules by reference. The Far East Conference Tariff No. 12, which provided for demurrage charges, was made applicable to the shipments. Petitioner, as consignee, was bound by these stipulations in the bill of lading upon accepting the goods.
The Court emphasized that demurrage is a charge for the detention of the carrier’s equipment beyond the free time allowed, intended to compensate the carrier and deter delays. Petitioner’s receipt of the bills of lading and its prior payments of demurrage for other shipments established its knowledge and implied acquiescence to the charges, estopping it from denying liability. The Court found no merit in the counterclaim, as respondent’s act of stripping and storing the goods was done with Bureau of Customs authorization to prevent further accrual of demurrage, a necessary expense chargeable to the consignee under the bill of lading for its failure to take timely delivery. The award of exemplary damages was, however, deleted for lack of basis.