GR 146472; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146472 ; July 27, 2006
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. N.V. THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines transported a shipment of printing plates from Japan to Manila for consignee Liwayway Publishing, Inc., insured by respondent N.V. Netherlands Insurance Company. Upon discharge, arrastre operator Metro Port Services, Inc. issued Good Order Receipts for Cases Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and Bad Order Receipts for Cases Nos. 3 and 5. A surveyor engaged by the carrier also inspected Cases Nos. 3 and 5 on board prior to discharge, finding their wooden cases broken but the packages inside “ok.” After the consignee withdrew the entire shipment, a subsequent survey it commissioned revealed damage to Case No. 4, which had been previously received in good order. The consignee claimed for total loss, which respondent insurer paid and was subrogated to.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner-carrier is liable for the damage to Case No. 4 discovered after its delivery to the consignee.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. The legal logic hinges on the proper application of presumptions of liability under Articles 1733 to 1735 of the Civil Code. The law presumes the carrier is at fault for loss or damage unless it proves it exercised extraordinary diligence. However, this presumption only applies if the damage is proven to have occurred while the goods were in the carrier’s custody. Here, the damage to Case No. 4 was not discovered until after delivery. The Bad Order Receipts and surveys pertained only to Cases Nos. 3 and 5. For Case No. 4, the arrastre operator’s Good Order Receipt constitutes prima facie evidence of delivery in good condition, shifting the burden to the claimant to prove the damage occurred during the carrier’s period of responsibility. Respondent failed to overcome this evidence. The consignee’s post-delivery inspection was conducted without notifying the carrier, violating the requirement for a valid survey under maritime law. Consequently, there was no competent proof that the damage to Case No. 4 happened while under the carrier’s custody. Absent such proof, the presumption of carrier liability does not arise.