G.R. No. 203865 March 13, 2019
UNITRANS INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS, INC., Petitioner vs. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, UNKNOWN CHARTERER OF THE VESSEL M/S “DORIS WULLF”, AND TMS SHIP AGENCIES, Respondents

FACTS

Insurance Company of North America (ICNA) filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against several parties, including petitioner Unitrans International Forwarders, Inc. The claim arose from the damaged condition of two musical instruments shipped from Australia to Manila. The shipment was insured by ICNA, which paid the consignee, San Miguel Foundation for the Performing Arts, for the total loss. ICNA, as subrogee, sought to recover the amount paid. The complaint alleged the instruments were damaged during transit while under the care of the defendants.
Unitrans denied liability, claiming it acted merely as a customs broker and delivery agent for the consignee, San Miguel, and as a receiving agent for a foreign freight forwarder. It argued it was not a common carrier or the ship agent for the vessel that transported the goods. Respondent TMS Ship Agencies, the local agent for the vessel M/S Doris Wullf, also denied liability, asserting the shipment was discharged from its vessel in good order.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Unitrans is liable to respondent ICNA for the value of the damaged cargo.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ rulings holding Unitrans liable. The legal logic centers on the nature of Unitrans’ role and the applicable presumption of fault. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found, based on Unitrans’ own witness testimony, that Unitrans acted as a non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) and as the delivery agent obligated to transport the shipment to the consignee in good order. As a common carrier, it is governed by the Civil Code provisions imposing extraordinary responsibility for the goods it transports. The law presumes the carrier to be at fault if the goods are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated, unless it proves that the loss was due to certain exclusive causes like act of God or the inherent nature of the goods.
The Court ruled that Unitrans failed to overcome this presumption of fault. It did not present sufficient evidence to prove that the damage was attributable to any of the exempting causes. Its arguments regarding the limited scope of its agency were unavailing given the judicial admission of its witness establishing its role and duty in the delivery chain. Consequently, as the entity that failed to deliver the cargo in good condition and could not prove an exempting cause, Unitrans was solely liable. The Court found no error in exonerating TMS, as the evidence showed it never handled the cargo. The Petition was denied, and the monetary award was affirmed with modification on the applicable interest rate.