Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
182208
could release it from liability for the damaged shipment. The reports were
apparently made prior to the shipment's turnover from petitioner to
Dynamic and they purportedly show that no additional loss or damage
happened while the shipment was in petitioner's custody as the reports only
mention the 158 rolls that were damaged during shipping or prior to
petitioners possession hence not liable to the additional 54 damaged rolls.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner shall be held liable for the losses
sustained by respondent.
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The petitioner wanted the Court to reexamine the
decisions and evidences presented before the RTC and CA who have the
same ruling which is not allowed by law, except upon the existence of
exceptions allowed. However, none of those exists in this case.
There is no misapprehension of facts nor the evidences presented by
the petitioner such as the Tum Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes and the
Requests for Bad Order Survey. The trial court correctly gave little credence
to the said reports since between the arrastre operator and the consignee
exist a relationship similar to that of a warehouseman and a depositor. The
relationship between the consignee and the common carrier is similar to
that of the consignee and the arrastre operator. Both the arrastre and the
carrier are, therefore, charged with and responsible to deliver the goods in
good condition to the consignee.
The RTC correctly held that the broker, Dynamic, cannot alone be held
liable for the additional 54 rolls of damaged goods since such damage
happened (a) while the goods were in the custody of the arrastre petitioner;
(b) when they were in transition from petitioner's custody to that of
Dynamic; and (c) during Dynamic's custody. While the RTC could not
conclude with pinpoint accuracy who among the ATI and Dynamic caused
which particular damage and in what proportion or quantity, it was
unblemished that both ATI and Dynamic failed to discharge the burden of
proving that damage on the 54 rolls did not occur during their custody. It
was proven that during petitioners custody and while it will transfer the
goods to the broker, there was a use of wrong lifting equipment thereby
deliberating the cause of such damage. It is a finding of fact of the lower
court which the SC will not disturb.
In its operations, the arrastre operator must observe the same degree
of diligence of that required of a common carrier and a warehouseman. And
it must prove more than a fact that other parties might be liable for the
losses but it must prove that it itself exercised due care in handling thereof,
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.