GR 146018; (June, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146018; June 25, 2003
EDGAR COKALIONG SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner, a common carrier, received cargo from shippers Nestor Angelia and Zosimo Mercado for transport from Cebu to Surigao del Sur, issuing Bills of Lading Nos. 58 and 59 declaring values of ₱6,500 and ₱14,000, respectively. The vessel caught fire and sank, resulting in the total loss of the cargo. Feliciana Legaspi, the actual owner of the goods, had insured them with respondent UCPB General Insurance under an “all risks” open policy for ₱50,000 and ₱100,000. Respondent paid Legaspi a total of ₱148,500 and was subrogated to her rights.
Respondent, as subrogee, filed a complaint against petitioner for damages based on tort, claiming the amount it paid. Petitioner argued its liability was limited to the values declared in the bills of lading (₱6,500 and ₱14,000), which it claimed to have already paid to the named shippers/consignees. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed, condemning petitioner to pay respondent the full ₱148,500.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner-carrier’s liability for the lost cargo is limited to the values declared in the bills of lading, or if it is liable for the higher amounts paid by the insurer to the actual owner.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, modifying the CA decision. The liability of a common carrier for lost goods may be validly limited by stipulation in the bill of lading to the value declared by the shipper, provided the shipper is given the option to declare a higher value upon paying a higher freight. This principle protects carriers from excessive liability absent a higher valuation. Here, the bills of lading contained such a stipulation, and the shippers declared specific values.
Consequently, petitioner’s liability to the owner of the goods, Feliciana Legaspi (and by subrogation, to respondent), is limited to the declared values of ₱6,500 and ₱14,000. The insurer’s liability under its policy is separate and determined by the insurance contract and premiums paid; it does not alter the carrier’s contractual liability limit. Respondent’s payment of ₱148,500 to Legaspi represented its independent contractual obligation as an insurer, not the actual liability of the carrier. Therefore, petitioner is liable only for the total of ₱20,500. The claim of prior payment by petitioner to the named shippers was not sufficiently proven to extinguish this obligation to the actual owner.