G.R. No. 171194 February 4, 2010
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, vs. DAEHAN FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD., Respondent.

FACTS

On July 8, 2000, Doosan Corporation shipped 26 boxes of printed aluminum sheets on board the vessel Heung-A Dragon, consigned to Access International. The shipment was insured under an “all-risk” marine cargo policy by respondent Daehan Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. The vessel arrived in Manila on July 12, 2000, and the container van was discharged and unloaded in apparent good condition, with no exceptions noted in the Equipment Interchange Receipt (EIR) issued by petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), the arrastre operator. The van was stored in ATI’s Container Yard. On July 18, 2000, Access International requested a joint survey of the shipment at the storage area, but no inspection was conducted. On July 19, 2000, the customs broker, Victoria Reyes Lazo, withdrew the shipment from ATI’s custody and delivered it to Access International’s warehouse. An inspection at the warehouse revealed that 14 boxes were missing. Access International filed a claim, and after failing to collect, was indemnified by respondent Daehan, which then obtained a subrogation receipt. Respondent filed a complaint against the shipping company, the local agent, ATI, and the customs broker. The complaint was later dismissed against the shipping company and its agent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint against ATI and the broker, citing insufficiency of evidence and a defect in the complaint’s signing authority. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding ATI and the broker jointly and severally liable.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner ATI is liable for the loss of the shipment notwithstanding the acknowledgment by the consignee’s broker/representative in the EIR that the shipment was received in good order and without exception.
2. What is the extent of petitioner ATI’s liability, if any?

RULING

1. Yes, petitioner ATI is liable for the loss. The relationship between the consignee and the arrastre operator is akin to that between a depositor and a warehouseman, requiring the arrastre operator to observe the same degree of diligence as a common carrier and warehouseman. As the custodian of the goods, ATI’s duty was to take good care of them and turn them over to the entitled party. The burden of proof to show compliance with this obligation and that the loss was not due to its negligence rests upon ATI. The Court found that ATI failed to prove it exercised due care. The acknowledgment of receipt in good order in the EIR by the broker’s representative does not absolve ATI, especially since Access International had requested a joint survey while the goods were still in ATI’s custody, a request which ATI refused or ignored. The loss occurred while the container van was in ATI’s custody for seven days.
2. Petitioner ATI’s liability is not limited to ₱5,000.00 per package as stipulated in its Management Contract with the Philippine Ports Authority. Following the precedent in E. Razon, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, such limitation of liability is not applicable because ATI, through the shipping documents in its possession, was aware of the value of the goods. The Court of Appeals decision ordering ATI and V. Reyes Lazo to pay, jointly and severally, the amount of ₱2,295,374.20 with interest and attorney’s fees was affirmed.