Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
petitioner
v.
Court of Appeals and Vlasons Shipping, Inc.,
respondents
Facts:
1. The petitioner, National Steel Corporation (NSC), and the private respondent,
Vlasons Shipping, Inc., entered into a Contract of Voyage Charter for Hire.
2. The contract provided that the petitioner would load its steel products to the vessel
of the respondent in Iligan City, in order for the latter to make one voyage, and
deliver the said products to the stevedores of the petitioner in North Harbor, Manila.
The contract provided that the handling of said steel products would be under a
F.I.O.S.T., wherein the handling, loading and stowing of said cargo would fall under
the responsibility of the petitioner, and that the respondent would be free from risk
from any damages that may occur as a result of such mishandlings.
3. Upon arrival of said delivery the steel products were discovered to be in a wet and
rustic state whereby, upon the conduct of a survey initiated by the petitioner, it was
established that such was a result of seawater exposure sustained while on board
the vessel.
4. As a result, the petitioner filed a claim for damages against the private respondent.
Contending the following violations of the Contract of Voyage Charter for Hire:
a) The damages to the steel products were a result of the neglect and default
of the master and crew in the management of the vessel;
b) The absence of due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy;
c) The other parts of the vessel in which the cargo was carried was not fit and
safe;
Issues:
2) The respondent is NOT liable for the damages sustained pursuant to the agreed
upon stipulation of the contract, that absent any negligence on the part of the
respondent, no liability may arise from the damages sustained on the goods. The
burden of proof to establish negligence lies on the petitioner considering the
vessel in question is a private carrier in accordance with the Code of
Commerce as opposed to a common carrier, the petitioner has failed to meet
the same, and the factual findings of the lower courts indicating that such damages
was sustained during the unloading process must be respected.