Klepper is the shipper as well as the consignee. o He shipped a lift van containing household and personal effects aboard SS President Cleveland (owned by American President Lines [APL]) from Japan bound for Manila. o While the lift van was being unloaded, it fell and the contents were spilled and scattered. - Klepper sued APL for the damage sustained as well as the sentimental value of the goods. - APL’s defense is as follows: It does not deny that the damage is due to negligence. o o It also does not deny that it is liable as a common carrier. However, it contends that its liability is limited due on two grounds: o The bill of lading (NOTE: The bill was unsigned and only received by Keppler when he arrived in Manila.) states tha t hatt “In case of loss or damage to or in connection with goods exceeding in actual value $500… the value of the goods shall be demmed dem med to be $500 per package…” (Important) Also Section 4(5) of the Carriage of Goods of the Sea Act says that the carrier shall not be liable for more than $500 per package unless the value of the goods had been declared by the shipper and inserted in the bill of lading. - TC and CA ruled for Klepper. o It said that Klepper is not bound by the bill of lading since it was never signed by him nor his agent. In fact, he only received in when he arrived in Manila from Japan. SC HELD: Reversed. The liability of APL is limited to $500.
1. Klepper is bound by the bill of lading. - The bill of lading, on its face says: “In accepting this bill of lading ladi ng the shipper, consignee, and owner of the goods agree to be beound by all it stipulations…” - This says two things: o The shipper/consignee who accepts the bill of lading becomes bound by all stipulations contained. o The fact that Klepper shipped his goods on board the ship of APL and paid the corresponding freight thereon shows that he impliedly accepted the bill of lading. And so, it may be said to be binding upon Klepper as if it had been actually signed by him. More so here where Klepper is both the shipper and the consignee of the goods in question. 2. The contention that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act should control this case is of no moment. - Civil Code 1753: The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier in case of loss destruction, or deterioration.
This means the law of the Philippines, or our New Civil Code. Civil Code 1766: “In all matters not regulated by this code, the rights and obligations of common carriers shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and Special Laws” Here, we have provisions that govern said right and obligations (Articles o 1736, 1737, 1738). The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is, therefore, merely suppletory. o o
