mitsui vs ca

8/8/2015 G.R.No.119571

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_119571_1998.html 1/3

TodayisSaturday,August08,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.119571March11,1998

MITSUIO.S.K.LINESLTD.,representedbyMAGSAYSAYAGENCIES,INC.,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALSandLAVINELOUNGEWEARMFG.CORP.,respondents.

MENDOZA,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the January 25, 1995 decision of the Court of Appeals1 and itsresolutionofMarch22,1995denyingpetitioner'smotionforreconsideration.TheappellatecourtupheldordersofBranch 68 (Pasig) of theRegional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, denying petitioner'smotion todismissintheoriginalactionfiledagainstpetitionerbyprivaterespondent.

Thefactsarenotindispute.2

PetitionerMitsuiO.S.K.LinesLtd.isaforeigncorporationrepresentedinthePhilippinesbyitsagent,MagsaysayAgencies.ItenteredintoacontractofcarriagethroughMeisterTransport,Inc.,aninternationalfreightforwarder,with private respondent Lavine Loungewear Manufacturing Corporation to transport goods of the latter fromManilatoLeHavre,France.PetitionerundertooktodeliverthegoodstoFrance28daysfrominitialloading.OnJuly24,1991,petitioner'svesselloadedprivaterespondent'scontainervanforcarriageatthesaidportoforigin.

However, inKaoshiung,Taiwanthegoodswerenot transshippedimmediately,withtheresult that theshipmentarrived in LeHavre only onNovember 14, 1991. The consignee allegedly paid only half the value of the saidgoodsonthegroundthattheydidnotarrive inFranceuntil the"offseason" inthatcountry.Theremaininghalfwas allegedly charged to the account of private respondent which in turn demanded payment from petitionerthroughitsagent.

As petitioner denied private respondent's claim, the latter filed a case in theRegional Trial Court on April 14,1992. In the original complaint, private respondent impleaded as defendants Meister Transport, Inc. andMagsaysayAgencies,Inc.,thelatterasagentofpetitionerMitsuiO.S.K.LinesLtd.OnMay20,1993,itamendedits complaint by impleading petitioner as defendant in lieu of its agent. The parties to the case thus becameprivaterespondentasplaintiff,ononeside,andMeisterTransportInc.andpetitionerMitsuiO.S.K.LinesLtd.asrepresentedbyMagsaysayAgencies,Inc.,asdefendantsontheother.

PetitionerfiledamotiontodismissallegingthattheclaimagainstithadprescribedundertheCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct.

The Regional Trial Court, as aforesaid, denied petitioner's motion as well as its subsequent motion forreconsideration. On petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's orders. Hence thispetitioncontainingoneassignmentoferror:

THERESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTEDASERIOUSERROROFLAWINRULINGTHATPRIVATERESPONDENT'SAMENDEDCOMPLAINT IS (sic)NOTPRESCRIBEDPURSUANTTOSECTION3(6)OFTHECARRIAGEOFGOODSBYSEAACT.

The issue raisedby the instantpetition iswhetherprivate respondent'saction is for "lossordamage" togoodsshipped,withinthemeaningof3(6)oftheCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct(COGSA).

Section3provides:

8/8/2015 G.R.No.119571


(6) Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given inwritingtothecarrierorhisagentattheportofdischargeoratthetimeoftheremovalofthegoodsinto the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, suchremovalshallbeprimafacieevidenceofthedeliverybythecarrierofthegoodsasdescribedinthebilloflading.Ifthelossordamageisnotapparent,thenoticemustbegivenwithinthreedaysofthedelivery.

Saidnoticeoflossordamagemaybeendorseduponthereceiptforthegoodsgivenbythepersontakingdeliverythereof.

Thenoticeinwritingneednotbegivenifthestateofthegoodshasatthetimeoftheirreceiptbeenthesubjectofjointsurveyorinspection.

Inanyeventthecarrierandtheshipshallbedischargedfromallliabilityinrespectoflossordamageunlesssuitisbroughtwithinoneyearafterdeliveryofthegoodsorthedatewhenthegoodsshouldhavebeendelivered:Provided, that, ifanoticeof lossordamage,eitherapparentorconcealed, isnotgivenasprovidedforinthissection,thatfactshallnotaffectorprejudicetherightoftheshippertobringsuitwithinoneyearafterthedeliveryofthegoodsorthedatewhenthegoodsshouldhavebeendelivered.

Inthecaseofanyactualorapprehendedlossordamage,thecarrierandthereceivershallgiveallreasonablefacilitiestoeachotherforinspectingandtallyingthegoods.

InAngv.AmericanSteamshipAgencies,Inc., thequestionwaswhetheranaction for thevalueofgoodswhichhadbeendeliveredtoapartyotherthantheconsigneeisfor"lossordamage"withinthemeaningof3(6)oftheCOGSA.Itwasheldthattherewasnolossbecausethegoodshadsimplybeenmisdelivered."Loss"referstothedeteriorationordisappearanceofgoods.3

AsdefinedintheCivilCodeandasappliedtoSection3(6),paragraph4oftheCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct,"loss"contemplatesmerelyasituationwherenodeliveryatallwasmadebytheshipperofthegoodsbecause thesamehadperished,goneoutofcommerce,ordisappeared insuchawaythattheirexistenceisunknownortheycannotberecovered.4

Conformablywith thisconceptofwhatconstitutes "loss"or "damage," thisCourtheld inanothercase5 that thedeteriorationofgoodsdue todelay in their transportationconstitutes "loss"or "damage"within themeaningof3(6),sothatassuitwasnotbroughtwithinoneyeartheactionwasbarred:

Whateverdamageorinjuryissufferedbythegoodswhileintransitwouldresultinlossordamagetoeither theshipperor theconsignee.As longas it isclaimed, therefore,as it isdonehere, that thelosses or damages suffered by the shipper or consignee were due to the arrival of the goods indamagedordeterioratedcondition,theactionisstillbasicallyonefordamagetothegoods,andmustbe filedwithin theperiodofoneyear fromdeliveryor receipt,under theabovequotedprovisionoftheCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct.6

ButtheCourtallowedthat

Therewouldbesomemeritinappellant'sinsistencethatthedamagessufferedbyhimasaresultofthedelayintheshipmentofhiscargoarenotcoveredbytheprescriptiveprovisionoftheCarriageofGoodsbySeaActabovereferredto,ifsuchdamagesweredue,nottothedeteriorationanddecayof the goodswhile in transit, but to other causes independent of the condition of the cargo uponarrival,likeadropintheirmarketvalue....7

Therationalebehind limitingthesaiddefinitionstosuchparameters isnothardto findor fathom.AsthisCourtheldinAng:

Saidoneyearperiodoflimitationisdesignedtomeettheexigenciesofmaritimehazards.Inacasewhere the goods shipped were neither lost nor damaged in transit but were, on the contrary,delivered in port to someonewho claimed to beentitled thereto, the situation is different, and thespecialneedfortheshortperiodof limitationincasesof lossordamagecausedbymaritimeperilsdoesnotobtain.8

In the case at bar, there is neither deterioration nor disappearance nor destruction of goods caused by thecarrier'sbreachofcontract.Whateverreductiontheremayhavebeeninthevalueofthegoodsisnotduetotheirdeteriorationordisappearancebecausetheyhadbeendamagedintransit.

Petitionercontends:

Althoughweagreethatthereareplacesinthesection(ArticleIII)inwhichthephraseneedhaveno

8/8/2015 G.R.No.119571


broadermeaningthanlossorphysicaldamagetothegoods,wedisagreewiththeconclusionthatitmustsobelimitedwhereveritisused.Wetakeitthatthephrasehasauniformmeaning,notmerelyin Section 3, but throughout the Act and there are a number of places in which the restrictedinterpretation suggested would be inappropriate. For example Section 4(2) [Article IV(2) (sic)exemptsexempts(sic) thecarrier, theship (sic), from liability "lossordamage" (sic) resulting fromcertaincoursesbeyondtheircontrol.9

Indeed,whatisinissueinthispetitionisnottheliabilityofpetitionerforitshandlingofgoodsasprovidedby3(6)of theCOGSA,but its liabilityunder its contractof carriagewithprivate respondentascoveredbylawsofmoregeneralapplication.

Precisely, thequestionbeforethetrialcourt isnot theparticularsenseof"damages"as it referstothephysicallossordamageofashipper'sgoodsasspecificallycoveredby3(6)ofCOGSAbutpetitioner'spotentialliabilityforthedamagesithascausedinthegeneralsenseand,assuch,thematterisgovernedbytheCivilCode,theCodeofCommerceandCOGSA,forthebreachofitscontractofcarriagewithprivaterespondent.

Weconcludebyholding thatas thesuitbelow isnot for "lossordamage" togoodscontemplated in3(6), thequestionofprescriptionofactionisgovernednotbytheCOGSAbutbyArt.1144oftheCivilCodewhichprovidesforaprescriptiveperiodoftenyears.

WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

Regalado,Melo,PunoandMartinez,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1PerJusticeEmeterioC.CuiandconcurredinbyJusticesConsueloYaresSantiagoandConchitaCarpioMorales.

2Rollo,pp.2024,106and117.

319SCRA123(1967).AccordAngv.AmericanSteamshipAgencies,Inc.,19SCRA631(1967

4Id.at127.

5TanLiaov.AmericanPresidentLines,Ltd.,98Phil.203(1956).

6Id.at208.

7Id.at210.

8Supranote3at129.

9Rollo,p.37,citingGANADA&KINDRED,MARINECARGODELAYS2122(1990)(emphasisadded).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

mitsui vs ca

Documents