Myline Cordial

Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, F.E. Zuellig & Co., Inc and E.Razon, Inc. 
G.R. No. 80256, October 2, 1992
214 SCRA 433

FACTS:

Ali Trading Company imported 108 cases of copper tubings which were insured by petitioner. The copper tubings which were placed in three containers, arrived in Manila on board and vessel S/S “Oriental Ambassador” on November 4, 1978, and turned over to the Manila arrastre operator upon discharge at the waterfront. The carrying vessel is represented in the Philippines by its agent, F. E. Zuellig and Co., Inc. One of the containers was stripped of its content at the pier zone but the other two were left unstripped. The two unstripped containers (together with the 19 cases removed from the stripped third container) were delivered to, and received by, the customs broker for the consignee without any exception or notation of bad order of shortlanding. Upon inspection of the two unstripped containers by the importer at the consignee’s warehouse, the shipment was allegedly found to have sustained loses by way of theft and pilferage for which the insurer, compensated the importer in the amount of P31,014.00.

Parties
Importer-Consignee – Ali Trading Company
Petitioner Insurer – Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp.
Respondent Arrastre Operator – E. Razon, Inc.
Respondent Carrier Representative – F. E. Zuellig and Co., Inc.

ISSUE:

Is the rule on prima facie liability of carrier applicable? What is the carrier’s duty when the shipment is placed in a container?

RULING:

No. The circumstances show that the respondents were not liable. When a shipment is placed in a container and is not inspected nor inventoried by the carrier, the carrier’s duty is only to transport and deliver the containers in the same condition as when the carrier received and accepted the containers for transport. Moreover, petitioner failed to establish that the loss occurred prior acceptance of the shipment. Inspection should have been done at the pierside, the pier warehouse, or at any time and place while the vans were under the care and custody of the carrier or of the arrastre operator. The two other vans and the contents of the owner previously stripped were accepted without exception as to any supposed bad order or condition by petitioner’s own broker. The shipment was accepted by petitioner in good order.
NOTES:

SHIPMENT IN CONTAINER ;”containerized” – The goods under this arrangement are stuffed, packed, and loaded by the shipper at a place of his choice, usually his own warehouse, in the absence of the carrier. The container is sealed by the shipper and thereafter picked up by the carrier. Consequently, the recital of the bill of lading for goods thus transported ordinarily would declare “Said to Contain”, “Shipper’s Load and Count”, “Full Container Load”, and the amount or quantity of goods in the container in a particular package is only prima facie evidence of the amount or quantity which may be overthrown by parol evidence. A shipment under this arrangement is not inspected or inventoried by the carrier whose duty is only to transport and deliver the containers in the same condition as when the carrier received and accepted the containers for transport.

Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, F.E. Zuellig & Co., Inc and E.Razon, Inc G.R. No. 80256 October 2, 1992