Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N.V., et al. vs.

Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc.

Republic of the Philippines

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 143133 June 5, 2002

BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING AND SHIPPING N.V. and JARDINE DAVIES TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE CO., INC., respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Proof of the delivery of goods in good order to a common carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes prima
facie fault or negligence on the part of the carrier. If no adequate explanation is given as to how the loss, the destruction or the
deterioration of the goods happened, the carrier shall be held liable therefor.

Statement of the Case

1
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the July 15, 1998 Decision and the May 2, 2000
2 3
Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 53571. The decretal portion of the Decision reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing disquisition, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Defendants-appellees are ORDERED to jointly and severally pay plaintis-appellants the following:

'1) FOUR Hundred Fifty One Thousand Twenty-Seven Pesos and 32/100 (P451,027.32) as actual damages, representing the
value of the damaged cargo, plus interest at the legal rate from the time of ling of the complaint on July 25, 1991, until fully
paid;

'2) Attorney's fees amounting to 20% of the claim; and

4
'3) Costs of suit.'"

The assailed Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

The CA reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City (Branch 134), which had disposed as follows:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, dismissing the complaint, as well as defendant's
counterclaim."5

The Facts

The factual antecedents of the case are summarized by the Court of Appeals in this wise:

"On June 13, 1990, CMC Trading A.G. shipped on board the M/V 'Anangel Sky' at Hamburg, Germany 242 coils of various Prime
Cold Rolled Steel sheets for transportation to Manila consigned to the Philippine Steel Trading Corporation. On July 28, 1990, M/V
Anangel Sky arrived at the port of Manila and, within the subsequent days, discharged the subject cargo. Four (4) coils were found
to be in bad order B.O. Tally sheet No. 154974. Finding the four (4) coils in their damaged state to be unt for the intended
purpose, the consignee Philippine Steel Trading Corporation declared the same as total loss.

"Despite receipt of a formal demand, defendants-appellees refused to submit to the consignee's claim. Consequently, plainti-
appellant paid the consignee ve hundred six thousand eighty six & 50/100 pesos (P506,086.50), and was subrogated to the
latter's rights and causes of action against defendants-appellees. Subsequently, plainti-appellant instituted this complaint for
recovery of the amount paid by them, to the consignee as insured.
 "Impugning the propriety of the suit against them, defendants-appellees imputed that the damage and/or loss was due to pre-
shipment damage, to the inherent nature, vice or defect of the goods, or to perils, danger and accidents of the sea, or to
insuciency of packing thereof, or to the act or omission of the shipper of the goods or their representatives. In addition thereto,
defendants-appellees argued that their liability, if there be any, should not exceed the limitations of liability provided for in the
bill of lading and other pertinent laws. Finally, defendants-appellees averred that, in any event, they exercised due diligence and
6
foresight required by law to prevent any damage/loss to said shipment."

Ruling of the Trial Court

The RTC dismissed the Complaint because respondent had failed to prove its claims with the quantum of proof required by law.7

It likewise debunked petitioners' counterclaim, because respondent's suit was not manifestly frivolous or primarily intended to harass
them.8

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In reversing the trial court, the CA ruled that petitioners were liable for the loss or the damage of the goods shipped, because they had
failed to overcome the presumption of negligence imposed on common carriers.

The CA further held as inadequately proven petitioners' claim that the loss or the deterioration of the goods was due to pre-shipment
9
damage. It likewise opined that the notation "metal envelopes rust stained and slightly dented" placed on the Bill of Lading had not
been the proximate cause of the damage to the four (4) coils.10

As to the extent of petitioners' liability, the CA held that the package limitation under COGSA was not applicable, because the words
"L/C No. 90/02447" indicated that a higher valuation of the cargo had been declared by the shipper. The CA, however, armed the
award of attorney's fees.

11
Hence, this Petition.

Issues

In their Memorandum, petitioners raise the following issues for the Court's consideration:

"Whether or not plainti by presenting only one witness who has never seen the subject shipment and whose testimony is purely
hearsay is sucient to pave the way for the applicability of Article 1735 of the Civil Code;

II

"Whether or not the consignee/plainti led the required notice of loss within the time required by law;

III

"Whether or not a notation in the bill of lading at the time of loading is sucient to show pre-shipment damage and to exempt
herein defendants from liability;

IV

"Whether or not the "PACKAGE LIMITATION" of liability under Section 4 (5) of COGSA is applicable to the case at bar."12

In sum, the issues boil down to three:

1. Whether petitioners have overcome the presumption of negligence of a common carrier

2. Whether the notice of loss was timely led

3. Whether the package limitation of liability is applicable

This Court's Ruling

The Petition is partly meritorious.

First Issue:

Proof of Negligence
Petitioners contend that the presumption of fault imposed on common carriers should not be applied on the basis of the lone testimony
oered by private respondent. The contention is untenable.

Well-settled is the rule that common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence and vigilance with respect to the safety of the goods and the passengers they transport.13 Thus, common carriers
are required to render service with the greatest skill and foresight and "to use all reason[a]ble means to ascertain the nature and
characteristics of the goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such methods as
their nature requires."14 The extraordinary responsibility lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of
and received for transportation by the carrier until they are delivered, actually or constructively, to the consignee or to the person who
has a right to receive them.15

This strict requirement is justied by the fact that, without a hand or a voice in the preparation of such contract, the riding public
enters into a contract of transportation with common carriers.16 Even if it wants to, it cannot submit its own stipulations for their
approval.17 Hence, it merely adheres to the agreement prepared by them.

Owing to this high degree of diligence required of them, common carriers, as a general rule, are presumed to have been at fault or
negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or destroyed.18 That is, unless they prove that they exercised
19
extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods. In order to avoid responsibility for any loss or damage, therefore, they have the
burden of proving that they observed such diligence.20

21
However, the presumption of fault or negligence will not arise if the loss is due to any of the following causes: (1) ood, storm,
earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity; (2) an act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; (3) an
act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; (4) the character of the goods or defects in the packing or the container; or (5) an
22
order or act of competent public authority. This is a closed list. If the cause of destruction, loss or deterioration is other than the
enumerated circumstances, then the carrier is liable therefor.23

Corollary to the foregoing, mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier and of their arrival in bad order at
their destination constitutes a prima facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no adequate explanation is given as to how
the deterioration, the loss or the destruction of the goods happened, the transporter shall be held responsible.24

That petitioners failed to rebut the prima facie presumption of negligence is revealed in the case at bar by a review of the records and
more so by the evidence adduced by respondent.25

First, as stated in the Bill of Lading, petitioners received the subject shipment in good order and condition in Hamburg, Germany.26

27
Second, prior to the unloading of the cargo, an Inspection Report prepared and signed by representatives of both parties showed the
steel bands broken, the metal envelopes rust-stained and heavily buckled, and the contents thereof exposed and rusty.

28
Third, Bad Order Tally Sheet No. 154979 issued by Jardine Davies Transport Services, Inc., stated that the four coils were in bad order
and condition. Normally, a request for a bad order survey is made in case there is an apparent or a presumed loss or damage.29

30
Fourth, the Certicate of Analysis stated that, based on the sample submitted and tested, the steel sheets found in bad order were wet
with fresh water.

31
Fifth, petitioners -- in a letter addressed to the Philippine Steel Coating Corporation and dated October 12, 1990 -- admitted that they
were aware of the condition of the four coils found in bad order and condition.

These facts were conrmed by Ruperto Esmerio, head checker of BM Santos Checkers Agency. Pertinent portions of his testimony are
reproduce hereunder:

"Q. Mr. Esmerio, you mentioned that you are a Head Checker. Will you inform the Honorable Court with what company you are
connected?

A. BM Santos Checkers Agency, sir.

Q. How is BM Santos checkers Agency related or connected with defendant Jardine Davies Transport Services?

A. It is the company who contracts the checkers, sir.

Q. You mentioned that you are a Head Checker, will you inform this Honorable Court your duties and responsibilities?

A. I am the representative of BM Santos on board the vessel, sir, to supervise the discharge of cargoes.

x x x x x x x x x
 Q. On or about August 1, 1990, were you still connected or employed with BM Santos as a Head Checker?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, on or about that date, do you recall having attended the discharging and inspection of cold steel sheets in coil on board
the MV/AN ANGEL SKY?

A. Yes, sir, I was there.

x x x x x x x x x

Q. Based on your inspection since you were also present at that time, will you inform this Honorable Court the condition or the
appearance of the bad order cargoes that were unloaded from the MV/ANANGEL SKY?

ATTY. MACAMAY:

Objection, Your Honor, I think the document itself reects the condition of the cold steel sheets and the best evidence is the
document itself, Your Honor that shows the condition of the steel sheets.

COURT:

Let the witness answer.

A. The scrap of the cargoes is broken already and the rope is loosen and the cargoes are dent on the sides."32

All these conclusively prove the fact of shipment in good order and condition and the consequent damage to the four coils while in the
possession of petitioner,33 who notably failed to explain why.34

Further, petitioners failed to prove that they observed the extraordinary diligence and precaution which the law requires a common
carrier to know and to follow to avoid damage to or destruction of the goods entrusted to it for safe carriage and delivery.35

True, the words "metal envelopes rust stained and slightly dented" were noted on the Bill of Lading; however, there is no showing that
petitioners exercised due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.36 Having been in the service for several years, the master of the
vessel should have known at the outset that metal envelopes in the said state would eventually deteriorate when not properly stored
37
while in transit. Equipped with the proper knowledge of the nature of steel sheets in coils and of the proper way of transporting
them, the master of the vessel and his crew should have undertaken precautionary measures to avoid possible deterioration of the
38
cargo. But none of these measures was taken. Having failed to discharge the burden of proving that they have exercised the
extraordinary diligence required by law, petitioners cannot escape liability for the damage to the four coils.39

In their attempt to escape liability, petitioners further contend that they are exempted from liability under Article 1734(4) of the Civil
Code. They cite the notation "metal envelopes rust stained and slightly dented" printed on the Bill of Lading as evidence that the
character of the goods or defect in the packing or the containers was the proximate cause of the damage. We are not convinced.

From the evidence on record, it cannot be reasonably concluded that the damage to the four coils was due to the condition noted on the
Bill of Lading.40 The aforecited exception refers to cases when goods are lost or damaged while in transit as a result of the natural
decay of perishable goods or the fermentation or evaporation of substances liable therefor, the necessary and natural wear of goods in
41
transport, defects in packages in which they are shipped, or the natural propensities of animals. None of these is present in the
instant case.

Further, even if the fact of improper packing was known to the carrier or its crew or was apparent upon ordinary observation, it is not
42
relieved of liability for loss or injury resulting therefrom, once it accepts the goods notwithstanding such condition. Thus,
43
petitioners have not successfully proven the application of any of the aforecited exceptions in the present case.

Second Issue:

Notice of Loss

44
Petitioners claim that pursuant to Section 3, paragraph 6 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), respondent should have led
its Notice of Loss within three days from delivery. They assert that the cargo was discharged on July 31, 1990, but that respondent led
45
its Notice of Claim only on September 18, 1990.

We are not persuaded. First, the above-cited provision of COGSA provides that the notice of claim need not be given if the state of the
goods, at the time of their receipt, has been the subject of a joint inspection or survey. As stated earlier, prior to unloading the cargo,
46 47
an Inspection Report as to the condition of the goods was prepared and signed by representatives of both parties.
Second, as stated in the same provision, a failure to le a notice of claim within three days will not bar recovery if it is nonetheless led
within one year.48 This one-year prescriptive period also applies to the shipper, the consignee, the insurer of the goods or any legal
holder of the bill of lading.49

In Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc, v. Court of Appeals,50 we ruled that a claim is not barred by prescription as long as the one-year period has
not lapsed. Thus, in the words of the ponente, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.:

"Inasmuch as the neither the Civil Code nor the Code of Commerce states a specic prescriptive period on the matter, the Carriage
of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA)--which provides for a one-year period of limitation on claims for loss of, or damage to, cargoes
sustained during transit--may be applied suppletorily to the case at bar."

In the present case, the cargo was discharged on July 31, 1990, while the Complaint51 was led by respondent on July 25, 1991, within
the one-year prescriptive period.

Third Issue:

Package Limitation

Assuming arguendo they are liable for respondent's claims, petitioners contend that their liability should be limited to US$500 per
package as provided in the Bill of Lading and by Section 4(5)52 of COGSA.53

On the other hand, respondent argues that Section 4(5) of COGSA is inapplicable, because the value of the subject shipment was
declared by petitioners beforehand, as evidenced by the reference to and the insertion of the Letter of Credit or "L/C No. 90/02447" in
54
the said Bill of Lading.

A bill of lading serves two functions. First, it is a receipt for the goods shipped.53Second, it is a contract by which three parties --
56
namely, the shipper, the carrier, and the consignee -- undertake specic responsibilities and assume stipulated obligations. In a
nutshell, the acceptance of the bill of lading by the shipper and the consignee, with full knowledge of its contents, gives rise to the
57
presumption that it constituted a perfected and binding contract.

Further, a stipulation in the bill of lading limiting to a certain sum the common carrier's liability for loss or destruction of a cargo --
58 59
unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value -- is sanctioned by law. There are, however, two conditions to be satised:
60
(1) the contract is reasonable and just under the circumstances, and (2) it has been fairly and freely agreed upon by the parties. The
rationale for this rule is to bind the shippers by their agreement to the value (maximum valuation) of their goods. 61

62
It is to be noted, however, that the Civil Code does not limit the liability of the common carrier to a xed amount per package. In all
matters not regulated by the Civil Code, the right and the obligations of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce
and special laws.63 Thus, the COGSA, which is suppletory to the provisions of the Civil Code, supplements the latter by establishing a
64
statutory provision limiting the carrier's liability in the absence of a shipper's declaration of a higher value in the bill of lading. The
provisions on limited liability are as much a part of the bill of lading as though physically in it and as though placed there by
65
agreement of the parties.

66
In the case before us, there was no stipulation in the Bill of Lading limiting the carrier's liability. Neither did the shipper declare a
higher valuation of the goods to be shipped. This fact notwithstanding, the insertion of the words "L/C No. 90/02447 cannot be the
basis for petitioners' liability.

First, a notation in the Bill of Lading which indicated the amount of the Letter of Credit obtained by the shipper for the importation of
67
steel sheets did not eect a declaration of the value of the goods as required by the bill. That notation was made only for the
convenience of the shipper and the bank processing the Letter of Credit. 68

69
Second, in Keng Hua Paper Products v. Court of Appeals, we held that a bill of lading was separate from the Other Letter of Credit
arrangements. We ruled thus:

"(T)he contract of carriage, as stipulated in the bill of lading in the present case, must be treated independently of the contract of
sale between the seller and the buyer, and the contract of issuance of a letter of credit between the amount of goods described in
the commercial invoice in the contract of sale and the amount allowed in the letter of credit will not aect the validity and
enforceability of the contract of carriage as embodied in the bill of lading. As the bank cannot be expected to look beyond the
documents presented to it by the seller pursuant to the letter of credit, neither can the carrier be expected to go beyond the
representations of the shipper in the bill of lading and to verify their accuracy vis--vis the commercial invoice and the letter of
credit. Thus, the discrepancy between the amount of goods indicated in the invoice and the amount in the bill of lading cannot
negate petitioner's obligation to private respondent arising from the contract of transportation."70

In the light of the foregoing, petitioners' liability should be computed based on US$500 per package and not on the per metric ton price
declared in the Letter of Credit.71In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court,72 we explained the meaning of packages:
 "When what would ordinarily be considered packages are shipped in a container supplied by the carrier and the number of such
units is disclosed in the shipping documents, each of those units and not the container constitutes the 'package' referred to in the
liability limitation provision of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act."

Considering, therefore, the ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines and the fact that the Bill of Lading clearly disclosed the contents of the
containers, the number of units, as well as the nature of the steel sheets, the four damaged coils should be considered as the shipping
unit subject to the US$500 limitation.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is partly granted and the assailed Decision MODIFIED. Petitioners' liability is reduced to US$2,000 plus
interest at the legal rate of six percent from the time of the ling of the Complaint on July 25, 1991 until the nality of this Decision,
and 12 percent thereafter until fully paid. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.

Footnote

1
Rollo, pp. 48-55.

2
Ibid., p. 57.

3 Written by Justice Jainal D. Rasul (Division chairman); concurred in by Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Rodrigo V. Cosico

(members).

4 CA Decision, pp. 7-8; rollo, pp. 54-55.

5 RTC Decision, p. 4; rollo, p. 108; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Paul T. Arcangel.

6
CA Decision, pp. 1-3; rollo, pp. 48-50.

7
RTC Decision, p. 3; rollo, p. 107.

8
Ibid., pp. 4 & 108.

9
CA Decision; p. 5; rollo, p. 52.

10 Ibid., pp. 6 & 53.

11 The case was deemed submitted for decision on March 29, 2001, upon the Court's receipt of respondent's Memorandum signed

by Atty. Baltazar Y. Repol. Petitioners' Memorandum, led on February 9, 2001, was signed by Atty. Lancelot S. Limqueco.

12
Pages 5-6; rollo, pp. 172-173.

13
Art. 1733, Civil Code.

14
Compania Maritima v. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 685, 692, August 29, 1988, per Fernan, CJ.

15 Art. 1736, Civil Code.

16Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 642, June 30, 1997.

17 Ibid.

18Philippine American General Insurance Co, Inc. v. MGG Marine Services, Inc. GR No. 135645, March 8, 2002.

19 Art. 1735 Civil Code. "In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost,

destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that
they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733."

20Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., 272 SCRA 527, May 16, 1997.

21Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. MGG Marine Services, Inc., supra.

22 Art. 1734, Civil Code.

23
23
Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., supra.

24
Compania Maritima v. Court of Appeals, supra; Mirasol v. Robert Dollar Co., 53 Phil. 129, March 27, 1929; Ynchausti Steamship Co. v.
Dexter and Unson, 41 Phil. 289, December 14, 1920.

25Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., supra.

26See Exhibit "A"; records, p. 31.

27See Exhibit "F"; ibid., p. 39.

28See Annex "C", id., p. 61.

29
International Container Services, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co., Inc., 320 SCRA 244, December 8, 1999.

30
Exhibit "I"; records, p. 47.

31
See Exhibit "L"; ibid., p. 51.

32
TSN, December 13, 1993, pp. 4-10.

33Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., supra.

34 Ibid.

35Compania Maritima v. Court of Appeals, supra.

36 Article 1742, Civil Code. "Even if the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods should be caused by the character of the

goods, or the faulty nature of the packing or of the containers, common carriers exercised due diligence to forestall or lessen the
loss."

37Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., supra.

38 Ibid.

39Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra.

40Compania Maritima v. Court of Appeals, supra.

41 Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. V, 1992 ed., p. 301, citing 9 Am. Jur., pp. 862-863.

42Southern Lines v. Court of Appeals, 4 SCRA 258, January 31, 1962; Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 48, March 14, 1996;

9 Am. Jur. P. 869.

43Vlasons Shipping, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 45, December 12, 1997.

44 Commonwealth Act No. 65. "Section 1. That the provisions of Public Act No. 521 of the 74th Congress of the United States,

approved on April 16, 1936, be accepted, as it is hereby accepted to be made applicable to all contracts for the carriage of goods by
sea to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as repealing any existing
provision of the Code of Commerce which is now in force or as limiting its application." Approved on April 22, 1936.

45 Exhibit "K"; records, p. 50.

46 Exhibit "F"; ibid., p. 39.

47
3(6) COGSA provides:

"Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent
at the port of discharge or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof
under the contract of carriage, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as
described in the bill of lading. If the loss or damage is not apparent, the notice must be given within three days of delivery.

"Said notice of loss or damage may be endorsed upon the receipt for the goods given by the person taking delivery thereof.

"The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the time of their receipt been the subject of joint
survey or inspection.
 "In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought
within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered; Provided, That, if a notice
of loss or damage, either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that fact shall not aect or
prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods
should have been delivered.

"In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage, the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to
each other for inspecting and tallying the goods."

48 Vitug, Pandect of Commercial Law and Jurisprudence, 3rd ed., 1997, p. 333.

49 Ibid., citing Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alejandro, 145 SCRA 42, October 14, 1986.

50 315 SCRA 339, September 28, 1999, per Davide Jr., CJ.

51 Records, p. 1.

52 This section provides:

"(5) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with
the transportation of goods in an amount exceeding $500 per package lawful money of the United States, or in case of goods
not shipped in packages, per customary freight unit, or the equivalent of that sum in other currency, unless the nature and
value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before the shipment and inserted in bill of lading. This declaration if
embodied in the bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence, but shall not be conclusive on the carrier.

"By agreement between the carrier, master or agent of the carrier, and the shipper another maximum amount than that
mentioned in this paragraph may be xed; Provided, That such maximum shall not be less than the gure above named. In
no event shall the carrier be liable for more than the amount of damage actually sustained.

"Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible in any event for loss or damage to or in connection with the
transportation of the goods if the nature or value thereof has been knowingly and fraudulently misstated by the shipper in
the bill of lading."

53 Petitioners' Memorandum, p. 14; rollo, p. 181.

54 Respondent's Memorandum, p. 14; rollo, p. 203.

55Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 257, February 12, 1998.

56Magellan Mftg. Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 102, August 22, 1991.

57Saludo Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 498, March 23, 1992.

58 Art. 1749, Civil Code.

59
Everett Steamship Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 496, October 8, 1998.

60
Art. 1750, Civil Code.

61
Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 rev. ed., p. 702.

62
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra.

63 Art. 1766, Civil Code.

64Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra.

65Phoenix Assurance Company v. Macondray, 64 SCRA 15, May 13, 1975.

66 Exhibit "A"; records, p. 31.

67 Hernandez & Penasales, Philippine Admiralty and Maritime Law, 1st ed., 1987, p. 291, citing McCarthy v. Barber Steamship Lines, 45

Phil. 488, December 10, 1923.

68
Ibid.

69
Supra.

70
 70 Ibid., pp. 269-270, per Panganiban, J.

71 Assailed Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 54.

72 150 SCRA 463, May 29, 1967, citing Mitsui & Co., Ltd. v. American Export Lines, 636 F 2nd 807 (1981).

Short Title
Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N.V., et al. vs. Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc.
G.R. Number
G.R. No. 143133
Date of Promulgation
June 05, 2002

Share:

(https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://source.gosupra.com/docs/decision/7772)

(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?via=supraapp&url=http://source.gosupra.com/docs/decision/7772)

(https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://source.gosupra.com/docs/decision/7772)

0Comments Sortby Oldest

Addacomment...

FacebookCommentsPlugin