Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
795 Phil. 97
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
SERENO, C.J.:
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 1/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
xxxx
THE CA RULING
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 4/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
xxxx
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 5/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
ISSUES
OUR RULING
This Court finds that the CA Decision has become final because of
the failure of petitioner to timely file a motion for reconsideration.
Furthermore, contrary to the argument raised by the latter, there
is insufficient evidence to establish that the loss or damage to the
cargo was caused by a storm or a peril of the sea.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 7/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 8/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
In any event, this Court has decided to review the merits of this
case in the interest of justice. After a judicious evaluation of the
arguments interposed by the parties, we find no reason to
reverse the CA Decision and Resolution.
Besides, petitioner itself later conceded in its Reply that the Civil
Code provisions on common carriers are primarily applicable to the
present dispute, while COGSA only applies in a suppletory
manner.[53]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 10/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
How the sea water found its way inside Hatch No. 1
was clearly explained by another witness for the
respondent by the name of Fabian Bon who stated in
his Adjustment as follows:
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 12/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
threshold of severity.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 13/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Legislature in 1936.[62]
Code, there are two other reasons why this Court cannot absolve
petitioner from liability for loss or damage to the cargo under the
Civil Code. First, there is no proof that the bad weather
encountered by M/V Meryem Ana was the proximate and only
cause of damage to the shipment. Second, petitioner failed to
establish that it had exercised the diligence required from
common carriers to prevent loss or damage to the cargo.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Commonwealth Act No. 65, Public Act No. 521 (1936).
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 16/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
record.
[7] The appeal before the Court of Appeals case was docketed as
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] The case was filed with the RTC of Makati, Branch 147, and
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 17/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 18/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[36] Id.
[40] Id.
(1988).
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 19/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 20/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
among others, Gerber & Co. v. S.S. Sabine Howaldt, 437 F2d 580
(1971); Nichimen Co. v. MV Farland, 333 F Supp 691 (1971);
New Rotterdam Ins. Co. v. The Loppersum, 215 F Supp 563
(1963); Freedman & Slater, Inc. v. M. V. Tofevo, 222 F Supp 964
(1963); R. T. Jones Lumber Co. v. Roen S.S. Co., 270 F2d 456
(1959); Pakistan, Ministry of Food & Agriculture v. The Ionian
Trader, 173 F Supp 29 (1959); Petition of Moore-McCormack
Lines, Inc., 164 F Supp 198 (1958); Palmer Distributing Corp. v.
S.S. American Counselor, 158 F Supp 264 (1957); State S.S. Co.
v. United States, 259 F 2d 458 (1957); Dielhelm & Co. v. The
Flying Trader, 141 F Supp 271 (1956); Establissements Edouard
Materne v The Leerdam, 143 F Supp 367 (1956); R. T. Jones
Lumber Co. v. Roen S.S. Co., 213 F2d 370 (1954); Continex,
Inc. v. The Flying Independent, 106 F Supp 319 (1952); Artemis
Maritime Co. v. Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co., 189 F2d 488
(1951); Middle East Agency, Inc. v. John B. Waterman, 86 F
Supp 487 (1949); The Norte, 69 F Supp 881 (1947); The
Vizcava, 63 F Supp 898 (1945); S.S. Corp. v. D/S A/S Hassel, 137
F2d 326 (1943); The Schickshinny, 45 F Supp 813 (1942).
[60] A similar approach has been taken by this Court with respect
[62] Public Act No. 521 or the "Carriage of Goods by Sea Act" was
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 21/22
6/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[66] Id.
[68] Id.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62362 22/22