Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Southern Lines Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Josiah Balgos
    Southern Lines vs. Court of Appeals The City of Iloilo ordered rice from NARIC which was shipped via Southern Lines. Upon delivery, 41 sacks of rice were found to be missing. The City sued NARIC and Southern Lines. The lower court found NARIC not liable but found Southern Lines liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Southern Lines appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Southern Lines was liable for negligence as the rice bags were broken and spilled, and personnel collected rice; and (2) the City filed the action in a reasonable time as it was for a refund of excess payment, not damages, and the bill of lading did not limit the time for such an action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Southern Lines Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Josiah Balgos
    33 views2 pages
    Southern Lines vs. Court of Appeals The City of Iloilo ordered rice from NARIC which was shipped via Southern Lines. Upon delivery, 41 sacks of rice were found to be missing. The City sued NARIC and Southern Lines. The lower court found NARIC not liable but found Southern Lines liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Southern Lines appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Southern Lines was liable for negligence as the rice bags were broken and spilled, and personnel collected rice; and (2) the City filed the action in a reasonable time as it was for a refund of excess payment, not damages, and the bill of lading did not limit the time for such an action.

    Original Title

    Southern Lines vs CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Southern Lines vs. Court of Appeals The City of Iloilo ordered rice from NARIC which was shipped via Southern Lines. Upon delivery, 41 sacks of rice were found to be missing. The City sued NARIC and Southern Lines. The lower court found NARIC not liable but found Southern Lines liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Southern Lines appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Southern Lines was liable for negligence as the rice bags were broken and spilled, and personnel collected rice; and (2) the City filed the action in a reasonable time as it was for a refund of excess payment, not damages, and the bill of lading did not limit the time for such an action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views2 pages

    Southern Lines Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Josiah Balgos
    Southern Lines vs. Court of Appeals The City of Iloilo ordered rice from NARIC which was shipped via Southern Lines. Upon delivery, 41 sacks of rice were found to be missing. The City sued NARIC and Southern Lines. The lower court found NARIC not liable but found Southern Lines liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Southern Lines appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Southern Lines was liable for negligence as the rice bags were broken and spilled, and personnel collected rice; and (2) the City filed the action in a reasonable time as it was for a refund of excess payment, not damages, and the bill of lading did not limit the time for such an action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Southern Lines vs.

    Court of Appeals
    Facts:

    The City of Iloilo requisitioned for rice from the National Rice and Corn Corporation
    (NARIC) in Manila. NARIC, pursuant to the order, shipped 1,726 sacks of rice consigned
    to the City of Iloilo on board the SS “General Wright” belonging to the Southern Lines,
    Inc.

    The City of Iloilo received the shipment and paid the total charged amount. However, it
    was discovered in the bill of lading that there was shortage equivalent to 41 sacks of rice.
    The City of Iloilo filed a complaint against NARIC and the Southern Lines, Inc. for the
    recovery of the amount representing the value of the shortage of the shipment of rice. The
    lower court absolved NARIC, but held Southern Lines, Inc. liable to pay the shortage. CA
    affirmed the trial court’s decision, hence, this petition.

    Issues:

    (1) W/N Southern Lines is liable for the loss or shortage of the rice shipped;

    (2) W/N the action was filed on time.

    Ruling:

    (1) YES. Under the provisions of Article 361, the defendant-carrier in order to free itself
    from liability was only obliged to prove that the damages suffered by the goods were “by
    virtue of the nature or defect of the articles.” Under the provisions of Article 362, the
    plaintiff, in order to hold the defendant liable, was obliged to prove that the damages to the
    goods by virtue of their nature, occurred on account of its negligence or because the
    defendant did not take the precaution adopted by careful persons.
    The contention is untenable, for, if the fact of improper packing is known to the carrier or
    his servants, or apparent upon ordinary observation, but it accepts the goods
    notwithstanding such condition, it is not relieved of liability for loss or injury resulting
    therefrom. Petitioner itself frankly admitted that the strings that tied the bags of rice were
    broken; some bags were with holes and plenty of rice were spilled inside the hull of the
    boat, and that the personnel of the boat collected no less than 26 sacks of rice which they
    had distributed among themselves. This finding, which is binding upon this Court, shows
    that the shortage resulted from the negligence of petitioner.

    (2) YES. Respondent filed the present action, within a reasonable time after the short
    delivery in the shipment of the rice was made. It should be recalled that the present action
    is one for the refund of the amount paid in excess, and not for damages or the recovery of
    the shortage; for admittedly the respondent had paid the entire value of the 1726 sacks of
    rice, subject to subsequent adjustment, as to shortages or losses. The bill of lading does not
    at all limit the time for filing an action for the refund of money paid in excess.

    You might also like