GR 177116; (February, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177116; February 27, 2013
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, vs. SIMON ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Simon Enterprises, Inc., as consignee, received two shipments of U.S. Soybean Meal in Bulk at the Port of Manila. The first shipment, via M/V “Sea Dream,” manifested a shortage of 18.556 metric tons. The second shipment, via M/V “Tern,” manifested a shortage of 199.863 metric tons. The shipments were discharged from the vessels to the receiving barges of petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), the arrastre operator. Respondent filed an action for damages against the carrier, its agent, and ATI. The claim against the carrier of the first shipment was settled. The carrier of the second vessel and its agent denied liability, citing various defenses including that the bill of lading was based on “shipper’s weight” and that responsibility ceased upon discharge from the ship’s tackle.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint against all defendants. It found that the respondent failed to prove the actual quantity loaded on the vessel and that the alleged loss occurred while the cargo was in the possession of ATI. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding ATI solely liable for the shortage. The CA ruled that ATI, as a common carrier, failed to overcome the presumption of negligence under Article 1735 of the Civil Code. ATI filed this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner ATI liable for the alleged shortage in the shipment.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that respondent failed to discharge its burden of proving that a shortage occurred for which ATI could be held liable. The foundational fact for any claim of loss is the actual quantity of goods received by the carrier at the point of origin. The Bill of Lading for the second shipment contained the notation “SHIPPERS WEIGHT, QUANTITY AND QUALITY UNKNOWN,” meaning the carrier did not acknowledge the weight declared by the shipper. Respondent relied solely on this shipper-declared weight without presenting independent evidence, such as a loading survey report, to prove the actual quantity loaded onto the vessel. Consequently, respondent failed to establish the baseline quantity from which a shortage could be calculated.
Furthermore, the presumption of common carrier liability under Article 1735 does not apply if the fact of receipt of the goods by the carrier in the quantity claimed is not established. Since respondent did not prove the actual quantity received by the carrier for shipment, it failed to prove that a loss occurred during ATI’s period of custody. The draft survey reports presented by ATI, which indicated no shortage upon discharge, were deemed credible. Therefore, no actionable shortage was proven, and ATI cannot be held liable.