G.R. No. 223377, June 10, 2020
2100 CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY [NOW AIG PHILIPPINES INSURANCE INC.], RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On February 27, 2001, Ablestik Laboratories shipped two boxes containing 63 jars of Ablebond Adhesive, a perishable item requiring storage at -40°F and re-icing if transit exceeded 72 hours, from Los Angeles to Manila via Japan Airlines, consigned to TSPIC. The goods were insured by respondent Philam Insurance Company. The shipment arrived at NAIA on March 1, 2001, and was stored at the Paircargo warehouse. TSPIC notified petitioner 2100 Customs Brokers, Inc. (2100 CBI), the customs broker, of the arrival on March 2, 2001, forwarding documents including handling instructions emphasizing the perishable nature and 72-hour delivery window. As freight charges were collect and TSPIC’s funds were insufficient, 2100 CBI advanced payment only on March 5, 2001, after bank closures over the weekend. The goods were delivered to TSPIC on March 6, 2001. Upon receipt, TSPIC found the dry ice had melted, damaging the goods. TSPIC filed a claim against 2100 CBI, which was refused. Philam paid TSPIC’s insurance claim and, through subrogation, sought reimbursement from 2100 CBI. Upon denial, Philam filed a complaint for damages. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of Philam, holding 2100 CBI liable as a common carrier that failed to exercise extraordinary diligence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the MeTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the lower courts’ decisions holding petitioner 2100 CBI liable for damages for failing to exercise extraordinary diligence as a common carrier over the perishable shipment.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that 2100 CBI, as a customs broker, is considered a common carrier because the transportation of goods is an integral part of its business, obligating it to observe extraordinary diligence. The Court found that 2100 CBI failed to exercise such diligence. It received the shipment documents on March 2, 2001, which clearly indicated the goods were perishable, required storage at -40°F or colder, and needed re-icing if transit exceeded 72 hours. Despite knowing the goods had been in transit for over 72 hours and could not be immediately released due to unpaid freight charges, 2100 CBI took no precautionary measures, such as re-icing or ensuring proper storage, to prevent deterioration while the goods were in the custody of the Paircargo warehouse. Its acceptance of the goods in “good order and condition” and the subsequent damage established a presumption of negligence it failed to rebut. The Court also upheld the validity of Philam’s subrogation rights, finding the insurance coverage and payment to TSPIC sufficiently proven. Consequently, 2100 CBI was ordered to pay Philam actual damages of P391,917.69, attorney’s fees of P10,000.00, and costs of suit.