Myline Cordial

Maersk Line vs. Court of Appeals and Efren V. Castillo, doing business under the name and style of Ethegal Laboratories
G.R. No. 94761, May 17, 1993
222 SCRA 108

FACTS:
Parties
Carrier – Maersk Line
Consignee – Efren Castillo,  the proprietor of Ethegal Laboratories
Shipper – Eli Lilly. Inc.

Consignee imported from Eli Lilly. Inc. Puerto Rico 600,000 empty gelatin capsules for the manufacture of his pharmaceutical products. The capsules were placed in six (6) drums of 100,000 capsules each valued at US $1,668.71. The capsules were shipped on board MV Anders Maerskline for shipment to the Philippines via Oakland, California. For unknown reasons, said cargo of capsules were misshipped and diverted to Richmond, Virginia, USA and then transported back Oakland, Califorinia. It finally arrived after two months from the intended date of arrival. Consignee refused to receive the goods due to its failure to arrive on time.

Consignee filed an action for rescission of contract with damages against the carrier and the shipper due to gross negligence and undue delay in the delivery of the goods.

Carrier’s allegation: The shipment was transported in accordance with the provisions of the covering bill of lading and that its liability under the law on transportation of good attaches only in case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods as provided for in Article 1734 of Civil Code

Shipper’s allegation (Answer with compulsory and cross-claim): The delay in the arrival of the subject merchandise was due solely to the gross negligence of petitioner Maersk Line. The complaint against Eli Lilly, Inc. was dismissed.

Trial court’s decision: Carrier liable.

CA’s decision: affirmed with modification the lower court’s decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the carrier is liable for the delay in the delivery of the shipment.

RULING:
Yes. While it is true that common carriers are not obligated by law to carry and to deliver merchandise, and persons are not vested with the right to prompt delivery, unless such common carriers previously assume the obligation to deliver at a given date or time, delivery of shipment or cargo should at least be made within a reasonable time. A delay in delivery of gelatin capsules for use in pharmaceutical products for a period of two months and sevens days is considered beyond the realm of reasonableness. Moreover, failure of the carrier to explain cause of delay in the delivery of the shipment makes it liable for breach of contract of carriage through gross negligence amounting to bad faith, entitling consignee’s recovery of moral damages. The unexplained misshipment of the goods by the common carrier constitutes gross carelessness or negligence amounting to wanton misconduct which justifies an award of exemplary damages to the aggrieved party. Moreover,  attorney’s fees are generally not recoverable, but in this case since carrier acted with gross negligence amounting to bad faith consignee is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.