GR L 12308; (August, 1918) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12308; August 28, 1918
ED. A. KELLER & CO. (LTD.), plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELLERMAN & BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP CO. (LTD.) and THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, defendants. ELLERMAN & BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP CO. (LTD.), appellant.
FACTS:
The plaintiff, Ed. A. Keller & Co., Ltd., filed an action against the defendant, Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co., Ltd., for its failure to deliver six cases of goods shipped from New York to Manila. The plaintiff admitted receiving only two cases. The defendant steamship company, as a common carrier, defended itself by alleging that it had fully complied with its contract under the bill of lading, which stipulated that delivery into the custody of the Philippine Customs authorities at the wharf constituted a complete discharge of its obligation. The defendant claimed the missing four cases were stolen from the customs pier after such delivery. The Insular Collector of Customs was later joined as a co-defendant. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the steamship company and absolved the Collector of Customs. The steamship company appealed.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant steamship company successfully discharged its burden of proving that it delivered the four missing cases of merchandise to the custody of the Philippine Customs authorities at the port of Manila, as required by the bill of lading.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the burden of proof rested on the carrier to establish actual delivery of the goods to the customs authorities or to the consignee. The defendant failed to present direct proof that the four specific cases were landed and delivered to customs. The circumstantial evidence it presented, including an alleged confession by a customs employee involved in a different theft case and the record of a criminal case (United States vs. Tan Tiap Co.), was properly rejected by the trial court. The employee’s statement was inadmissible hearsay, and the criminal record was inadmissible as the plaintiff was not a party to that case and the issues were not the same. Consequently, the defendant did not overcome its burden of proof. The Court also upheld the dismissal of the case against the Insular Collector of Customs, as no negligence or liability on his part was established.