SUMMA INSURANCE CORPORATION vs.

It has been established that the shipment was lost

while in the custody of private respondent.
COURT OF APPEALS and METRO PORT
An arrastre operator is bound by the management
SERVICE, INC. contract it had executed with the Bureau of Customs.
G.R. No. 84680. February 5, 1996
However, a management contract, which is a sort of a
PANGANIBAN, J.:
stipulation pour autrui is also binding on a consignee The
insurer, as successor-in-interest of the consignee, is likewise
Facts:
bound by the management contract. Indeed, upon taking
delivery of the cargo, a consignee (and necessarily its
On November 22, 1981, the S/S Galleon Sapphire, a
successor-in- interest) tacitly accepts the provisions of the
vessel owned by the National Galleon Shipping Corporation
management contract, including those which are intended to
(NGSC), arrived at Pier 3, South Harbor, Manila, carrying a
limit the liability of one of the contracting parties, the
shipment consigned to the order of Caterpillar Far East Ltd.
arrastre operator.
with Semirara Coal Corporation as notify party. The shipment,
including a bundle of PC 8 U blades, was covered by marine However, a consignee who does not avail of the
insurance issued by petitioner and Bill of Lading No. SF/MLA services of the arrastre operator is not bound by the
1014. The shipment was discharged from the vessel to the management contract. Such an exception to the rule does not
custody of private respondent, formerly known as E. Razon, obtain here as the consignee did in fact accept delivery of the
Inc., the exclusive arrastre operator at the South Harbor. cargo from the arrastre operator.
Accordingly, three good-order cargo receipts were issued by
NGSC, duly signed by the ships checker and a representative of The Management Contract between private
private respondent. respondent and the Bureau of Customs provides: that the
contractor shall be solely responsible as an independent
The forwarder, Sterling International Brokerage contractor, and hereby agrees to accept liability and to
Corporation, withdrew the shipment from the pier and loaded promptly pay to the steamship company, consignee, consignor
it on the barge Semirara 8104. The barge arrived at its port of or other interested party or parties for the loss, damage, or
destination, Semirara Island. When Semirara inspected the non-delivery of cargoes to the extent of the actual invoice
shipment at its warehouse, it discovered that the bundle of value of each package which in no case shall be more than
PC8U blades was missing. Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00) for each
package unless the value of the importation is otherwise
Private respondent issued a shortlanded certificate
specified or manifested or communicated in writing together
stating that the bundle of PC8U blades was already missing
with the invoice value and supported by a certified packing list
when it received the shipment from the NGSC vessel. Semirara
to the contractor by the interested party or parties before the
then filed with petitioner, private respondent and NGSC its
discharge of the goods, as well as all damage that may be
claim for P280,969.68, the alleged value of the lost bundle.
suffered on account of loss, damage, or destruction of any
Petitioner paid Semirara the invoice value of the lost merchandise while in custody or under the control of the
shipment. Semirara thereafter executed a release of claim and CONTRACTOR in any pier, shed, warehouse, facility or other
subrogation receipt. Consequently, petitioner filed its claims designated place under the supervision of the bureau.
with NGSC and private respondent but it was unsuccessful.
The limitation of appellees liability under said
Petitioner then filed a complaint with the Regional provision, is not absolute or unqualified, for if the value of the
Trial Court against NGSC and private respondent. The trial merchandise is specified or manifested by the consignee, and
court rendered a decision absolving NGSC from any liability but the corresponding arrastre charges are paid on the basis of the
finding private respondent liable to petitioner. On appeal, the declared value, the limitation does not apply. Consequently,
Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court and the questioned provision is neither unfair nor abitrary, as
reduced private respondents liability. contended, because the consignee has it in his hands to hold,
if he so wishes, the arrastre operator responsible for the full
value of his merchandise by merely specifying it in any of the
Issue: various documents required of him, in clearing the
merchandise from the customs. For then, the appellee arrastre
Whether or not the private respondent is legally liable for the operator, by reasons of the payment to it of a commensurate
loss of the shipment in question? If so, what is the extent of its charge based on the higher declared value of the merchandise,
liability? could and should take extraordinary care of the special or
valuable cargo.
Ruling:
In this case, no evidence was offered by petitioner
Private respondent is liable. Petitioner was
proving the amount of arrastre fees paid to private respondent
subrogated to the rights of the consignee. The relationship
so as to put the latter on notice of the value of the cargo. While
therefore between the consignee and the arrastre operator
petitioner alleged that prior to the loss of the package, its value
must be examined. This relationship is much akin to that
had been relayed to private respondent through the
existing between the consignee or owner of shipped goods and
documents the latter had processed, petitioner does not
the common carrier, or that between a depositor and a
categorically state that among the submitted documents were
warehouseman. An arrastre operator should observe the
the pro forma invoice value and the certified packing list.
same degree of diligence as that required of a common
Neither does petitioner pretend that these two documents
carrier and a warehouseman as enunciated under Article
were prerequisites to the issuance of a permit to deliver or
1733 of the Civil Code and Section 3(b) of the Warehouse
were attachments thereto.
Receipts Law, respectively. Being the custodian of the goods
discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operators duty is to take
good care of the goods and to turn them over to the party
entitled to their possession.