G.R. No.
156330 November 19, 2014
NEDLLOYD LIJNEN B.V. ROTTERDAM and THE EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., Petitioners, vs. GLOW LAKS
ENTERPRISES, LTD., Respondent.
PEREZ, J.:
Facts: Petitioner Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam (Nedlloyd) is a foreign corporation engaged in the
business of carrying goods by sea, whose vessels regularly call at the port of Manila. It is doing business
in the Philippines thru its local ship agent, co-petitioner East Asiatic Co., Ltd. (East Asiatic).
Respondent Glow Laks Enterprises, Ltd., is likewise a foreign corporation organized and existing under
the laws of Hong Kong. It is not licensed to do, and it is not doing business in, the Philippines.
Respondent loaded on board M/S Scandutch at the Port of Manila a total 343 cartoons of garments,
complete and in good order for pre-carriage to the Port of Hong Kong. Said goods were covered by Bills
of Lading and arrived in good condition in Hong Kong and were transferred to M/S Amethyst for final
carriage to Colon, Free Zone, Panama. Both vessels, M/S Scandutch and M/S Amethyst, are owned by
Nedlloyd represented in the Philippines by its agent, East Asiatic. The goods which were valued at
US$53,640.00 was agreed to be released to the consignee, Pierre Kasem, International, S.A., upon
presentation of the original copies of the covering bills of lading. Upon arrival of the vessel at the Port of
Colon on 23 October 1987, petitioners purportedly notified the consignee of the arrival of the
shipments, and its custody was turned over to the National Ports Authority in accordance with the laws,
customs regulations and practice of trade in Panama. By an unfortunate turn of events, however,
unauthorized persons managed to forge the covering bills of lading and on the basis of the falsified
documents, the ports authority released the goods.
Respondent filed a formal claim with Nedlloyd for the recovery of the amount of US$53,640.00
representing the invoice value of the shipment but to no avail. Claiming that petitioners are liable for the
misdelivery of the goods, respondent initiated a civil case before the RTC of Manila, seeking the recovery
of the amount of the goods and interests thereof from the date of first demand.
In disclaiming liability for the misdelivery of the shipments, petitioners asserted in their Answer that
they were never remiss in their obligation as a common carrier and the goods were discharged in good
order and condition into the custody of the National Ports Authority of Panama in accordance with the
Panamanian law. They averred that they cannot be faulted for the release of the goods to unauthorized
persons, their extraordinary responsibility as a common carrier having ceased at the time the possession
of the goods were turned over to the possession of the port authorities.
RTC rendered a Decision ordering the dismissal of the complaint but granted petitioners’ counterclaims.
RTC ruled that Panama law was duly proven during the trial and pursuant to the said statute, carriers of
goods destined to any Panama port of entry have to discharge their loads into the custody of Panama
Ports Authority to make effective government collection of port dues, customs duties and taxes. The
subsequent withdrawal effected by unauthorized persons on the strength of falsified bills of lading does
not constitute misdelivery arising from the fault of the common carrier.
Court of Appeals reversed the findings of the RTC and held that foreign laws were not proven in the
manner provided by Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, and therefore, it cannot be given
full faith and credit. For failure to prove the foreign law and custom, it is presumed that foreign laws are
the same as our local or domestic or internal law under the doctrine of processual presumption.
Issue: Whether the Panamanian laws, particularly Law 42 and its Implementing Order No. 7, were duly
proven in accordance with Rules of Evidence?
Held: No. the Panamanian laws, particularly Law 42 and its Implementing Order No. 7, were not duly
proven in accordance with Rules of Evidence and as such, it cannot govern the rights and obligations of
the parties in the case at bar. While a photocopy of the Gaceta Official of the Republica de Panama No.
17.596, the Spanish text of Law 42 which is the foreign statute relied upon by the court a quo to relieve
the common carrier from liability, was presented as evidence during the trial of the case below, the
same however was not accompanied by the required attestation and certification.
It is well settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved. To
prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and
25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.
SEC. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of
Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if
the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office
in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice- consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested
for the purpose of the evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy
of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official
seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of
such court.
