UNSWORTH TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC., Petitioner vs COURT OF APPEALS and PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, Respondents G.R. No. 166250 July 26, 2010 FACTS:
Shipper Sylvex Purchasing Corporation delivered to Unsworth Trans Int’l (UTI) a shipment of 27 drums of various raw materials for pharmaceuticalcmanufacturing. A bill of lading was issued. The shipment was loaded on American President Lines (APL) for delivery. M/V Pres Jackson then transshipped(transferred) to M/V Pres Taft. Consignee is Unilab. UTI received the shipment (upon arrival in the Port of Manila) and placed it in its warehouse. UTI stamped the Permit to Deliver Imported Goods procured by Champs (customs broker). Three days after, Oceanica Cargo Marine Surveyors Corp. (OCMSC) conducted a stripping survey of the shipment, the results showed that 1 steel drum which contained Vitamin B Complex had a hole on the side with approx. spilling of 1%. Nonetheless, the arrastre Jardine Davies Transport Services (Jardine) issued Gate Pass which noted that the shipment was complete and in good or der. Upon arrival at Unilab’s warehouse, J.G. Bernas Adjusters and Surveyors (J.G. Bernas) surveyed the shipment. The report stated that 1 bag had a tearon the side, the contents partly spilled, 1 drum was punctured and retaped on the bottom side whose content was lacking and that there were 5 drums lacking. The final inspection yielded the same results. Afterwhich, Unilab’s quality control representative rejected one paper bag containing dried yeast and one
steeldrum of Vit. B Complex for being unfit for the intended purpose. Unilab filed a formal claim for damages against Private Respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp. (PISC) and UTI. UTI denied liability on the basis of the gate pass issued by Jardine that the goods were in complete and in good condition. PISC paid the claimed amount by virtue of the Loss and Subrogation Rece ipt, PISC filed against UTI a complaint for Damages. RTC ruled in favor of PISC and against APL and CA affirmed the same. ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is liable as a common carrier. HELD:
YES Petitioner is a freight forwarder. The term freight forwarder" refers to a firm holding itself out to the general public (other than as a pipeline, rail, motor, or wat er carrier) to provide transportation of property for compensation and, in the ordinary course of its business, (1) to assemble and consolidate, or to provide for assembling and consolidating, shipments, and to perform or provide for break-bulk and distribution operations of the shipments; (2) to assume responsibility for the transportation of goods from the place of receipt to the place of destination; and (3) to use for any part of the t ransportation a carrier subject to the federal law pertaining to common carriers. A freight forwarders liability is limited to damages arising from its own negligence, including negligence in choosing the carrier; however, where the forwarder contracts to deliver goods to their destination instead
of merely arranging for their transportation, it becomes liable as a common carrier for loss or damage to goods. A freight forwarder assumes the responsibility of a carrier, which actually executes the transport, even though the forwarder does not carry the merchandise itself. It is undisputed that UTI issued a bill of lading in favor of Unilab. Pursuant thereto, petitioner undertook to transport, ship, and deliver the 27 drums of raw materials for pharmaceutical manufacturing to the consignee. A bill of lading is a written acknowledgement of the receipt of goods and an agreement to transport and to deliver them at a specified place to a person named or on his or her order. It operates both as a receipt and as a contract. It is a receipt for the goods shipped and a contract to transport and deliver the same as therein stipulated. As a rec eipt, it recites the date and place of shipment, describes the goods as to quantity, weight, dimensions, identification marks, condition, quality, and value. As a contract, it names the contracting parties, which include the consignee; fixes the route, destination, and freight rate or charges; and stipulates the rights and obligations assumed by the parties. Undoubtedly, UTI is liable as a common carrier. Common carriers, as a general rule, are presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or destroyed. That is, unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods. In order to avoid responsibility for any loss or damage, therefore, they have the burden of proving that they observed such diligence.
