!"#$%&'"(#()'$ +#, -#%. /)0.%(% 1 2((34 5'")#$$. !#$ 1 6789 shipper cannot impute liability to the carrier. In this case, respondents did not allege nor prove that they complied with this condition precedent, hence, the case will not prosper.
There are six issued raised in the case, but the most important one is this: Whether or not the suit will prosper HELD & RATIO:
FACTS: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ISSUE:
In 1994, Smithkline Beecham (“Smithkline”) delivered to Burlington Air Express (“Burlington”), an agent of petitioner Federal Express (“FedEx”), a shipment of 109 cartons of veterinary biologicals for delivery to consignee Smithkline and French Overseas Company in Makati City. The shipment was covered by Burlington in an Airway Bill, with words REFRIGERATE WHEN NOT IN TRANSIT and PERISHABLE. Burlington insured the cargoes with American Home Assurance (“AHAC”). FedEx transported the cargoes to Manila. There were two shipments, and both were immediately stored at Cargohaus Inc.’s (“Cargohaus”) warehouse. Dario Dioned (“Dioneda”) facilitated the release of the subject cargoes, but he found out that they were stored only in a room with two air conditioning units running, instead in a refrigerator. Dioneda did not proceed with the release of the cargoes, but subjected the some samples thereof to examination, where it was discovered that its enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) reading was below the positive reference. As a result, Smithkline abandoned the shipment, declared a total loss, and filed a claim with AHAC, through its Philippine representative, Philam Insurance Co., Inc. (“PhilAm”). Respondents AHAC and PhilAm filed an action against FedEx imputing negligence in handling the cargo. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents. The CA reversed it and ruled that the shipping receipts were a prima facie evidence that the goods had been delivered in good condition. The CA also ignored the Warsaw Convention in coming up with its decision (specifically Art. 26, quoted below). FedEx, on the other hand, claims that respondents had no capacity to sue.
NO, the court said that the suit WILL NOT PROSPER for prescription has already set in. According to the Airway Bill issued by Burlington: o “No action shall be maintained in the case of damage to or partial loss of the shipment unless a written notice xxx is presented by shipper or consignee xxx within 14 days from the date the goods are placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery, or in the case of total loss, unless presented within 120 days from the date of issue of the Airway Bill.” Furthermore, Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention states that: o “1. Receipt by the person entitled to delivery of luggage or goods without complaint is prima facie evidence that the same have been delivered in good condition and in accordance with the document of carriage. 2. In the case of damage, the person entitled to delivery o must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within three days from the date of receipt in the case of luggage and seven days from the date of receipt in the case of goods. In the case of delay the complaint must be made at the latest within fourteen days from the date on which the luggage or goods have been placed at his disposal. o 3. Every complaint must be made in writing upon the document of carriage or by separate notice in writing dispatched within the times aforesaid. o 4. Failing complaint within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on his part.” The filing of a claim with the carrier within the time limitation constitutes a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of action against a carrier for loss of or damage to the goods. The shipper or consignee must allege and prove the fulfillment of the condition. Otherwise, no right of action against the carrier can accrue. This condition precedent has the following fundamental reasons: •
•
•
+): ;)"#$<# =)>."# ?#$('% @'0A.
