Asian Terminals, Inc. v Allied Guarantee Insurance, Co. Inc. (2015)

Asian Terminals, Inc. v Allied Guarantee Insurance, Co., Inc. GR No. 182208, October 14, 2015  

FACTS: Marina, the predecessor of Asian Terminals Inc., is an arrastre operator based on Manila. On February 5, 1989, a shipment of kraft linear board was loaded and received from the ports of Lake Charles, LA, and Mobile, Al, USA for transport and delivery to San Miguel. Upon offloading, it was assessed that a total of 158 rolls were damaged during shipping. Further, upon the goods' withdrawal from arrastre and their delivery to the customs broker, Dynamic and eventually to the consignee San Miguel, another 54 rolls were found to have been damaged, for a total of 212 rolls of damaged shipment worth P755,666.84.  

Allied Insurance was the insurer of the shipment. Thus, it paid San Miguel P755,666.84 and was subrogated in the latter's right. Allied filed a Complaint against Transocean, Philippine Transmarine, Dynamic and Marina seeking to be indemnified for the P755,666.84 it lost paying San Miguel.  

ISSUES: Whether or not petitioner has been proven liable for the additional 54 rolls of damaged goods to respondent  

RULING: Yes. Marina, the arrastre operator, from the above evidence, was not able to overcome the presumption  of negligence. The Bad Order Cargo Receipts, the Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes as  well as the Request for Bad Order Survey did not establish that the additional 54 rolls were in good  condition while in the custody of the arrastre. Said documents proved only that indeed the 158 rolls  were already damaged when they were discharged to the arrastre operator and when it was  subsequently withdrawn from the arrastre operator by [the] customs broker. Further, the Turn Over  Inspector and the Bad Order Inspector who conducted the inspections and who signed the Turn  Over Survey of Bad [Order] Cargoes and the Request for Bad Order Survey, respectively, were not  presented by Marina as witnesses to verify the correctness of the document and to testify that only  158 rolls was reported and no others sustained damage while the shipment was in its possession.   

On the other hand, defendant Dynamic (which) in its capacity as broker, withdrew the 357 rolls of kraft linear board from the custody of defendant Marina and delivered the same to the consignee, San Miguel Corporation's warehouse in Tabacalera at United Nations, Manila, is considered a common carrier.   

It is noteworthy to mention that "in general, the nature of the work of an arrastre operator covers the handling of cargoes at piers and wharves,"   

"To carry out its duties, the arrastre is required to provide cargo handling equipment which includes, among others, trailer, chassis for containers."   

Hence, the "legal relationship betw.een the consignee and the arrastre operator is akin to that of a depositor and the warehouseman. The relationship between the consignee and the common carrier is similar to that of the consignee and the arrastre operator. Since it is the duty of the arrastre to take good care of the goods that are in its custody and to deliver them in good condition to the consignee, such responsibility also develops upon the carrier. Both the arrastre and the carrier are, therefore, charged with and obligated to deliver the goods in good condition to the consignee."   

Since the relationship of an arrastre operator and a consignee is akin to that between a warehouseman and a depositor, then, in instances when the consignee claims any loss, the burden of proof is on the arrastre operator to show that it complied with the obligation to deliver the goods and that the losses were not due to its negligence or that of its employees.    

the broker, Dynamic, cannot alone be held liable for the additional 54 rolls of damaged goods since such damage occurred during the following instances:  (1) while the goods were in the custody of the arrastre ATI;  (2) when they were in transition from ATI's custody to that of Dynamic (i.e., during loading to Dynamic's trucks); and  (3) during Dynamic's custody.   

While the trial court could not determine with pinpoint accuracy who among the two caused which particular damage and in what proportion or quantity, it was clear that both ATI and Dynamic failed to discharge the burden of proving that damage on the 54 rolls did not occur during their custody. As for petitioner ATI, in particular, what worked against it was the testimony, as cited above, that its employees' use of the wrong lifting equipment while loading the goods onto Dynamic's trucks had a role in causing the damage. Such is a finding of fact made by the trial court which this Court, without a justifiable ground, will not disturb,   

The arrastre operator's principal work is that of handling cargo, so that its drivers/operators or employees should observe the standards and measures necessary to prevent losses and damage to shipments under its custody.   

In the performance of its obligations, an arrastre operator should observe the same degree of diligence as that required of a common carrier and a warehouseman.   

Being the custodian of the goods discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to take good care of the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their possession. With such a responsibility, the arrastre operator must prove that the losses were not due to its negligence or to that of its employees. And to prove the exercise of diligence in handling the subject cargoes, petitioner must do more than merely show the possibility that some other party could be responsible for the loss or the damage. It must prove that it exercised due care in the handling thereof.     

a mere sign-off from the customs broker's representative that he had received the subject shipment "in good order and condition without exception" would not absolve the arrastre from liability, simply because the representative's signature merely signifies that said person thereby frees the arrastre from any liability for loss or damage to the cargo so withdrawn while the same was in the custody of such representative to whom the cargo was released, but it does not foreclose the remedy or right of the consignee (or its subrogee) to prove that any loss or damage to the subject shipment occurred while the same was under the custody, control and possession of the arrastre operator.    

As it is now established that there was negligence in both petitioner ATI's and Dynamic's performance of their duties in the handling, storage and delivery of the subject shipment to San Miguel, resulting in the loss of 54 rolls of kraft linear board, both shall be solidarily liable for such loss.