Transimex V Mafre Insurance - Case Digest

G.R. No.
190271 : September 14, 2016

TRANSIMEX CO., Petitioner, v. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE
CORP., Respondent.

SERENO, C.J.:

FACTS:

On 21 May 1996, M/V Meryem Ana received a shipment consisting of 21,857
metric tons of Prilled Urea Fertilizer from Helm Duengemittel GMBH at
Odessa, Ukraine. The shipment was covered by two separate bills of lading
and consigned to Fertiphil for delivery to two ports, one in Poro Point, San
Fernando, La Union; and the other in Tabaco, Albay. Fertiphil insured the
cargo against all risks under a marine risk note issued by respondent Mafre
Asian Insurance Corporation.

On 20 June 1996, M/V Meryem Ana arrived at Poro Point, La Union, and
discharged 14,339.507 metric tons of fertilizer under the first bill of lading.
The ship sailed on to Tabaco, Albay, to unload the remainder of the cargo.
The fertilizer unloaded at Albay appeared to have a gross weight of 7,700
metric tons. The present controversy involves only this second delivery.

When the cargo was subsequently weighed, it was discovered that only
7,350.35 metric tons of fertilizer had been delivered. Because of the alleged
shortage of 349.65 metric tons, Fertiphil filed a claim with respondent for
P1,617,527.37,15 which was found compensable.

After paying the claim of Fertiphil, respondent demanded reimbursement
from petitioner on the basis of the right of subrogation. The claim was
denied, prompting respondent to file a complaint with the RTC for recovery
of sum of money.

The RTC ruled in favor of respondent and ordered petitioner to pay the claim
of P1,617,527.37. The RTC found that there was indeed a shortage in the
cargo delivered, for which the common carrier must be held responsible
under Article 1734 of the Civil Code. On appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of
the RTC and denied petitioner's appeal. Petitioner claims that the loss was
due to a fortuitous event as during its voyage, the vessel encountered bad
weather.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is liable for the loss or damage sustained
by the cargo because of bad weather?

HELD: Court of Appeals’ decision is sustained.

COMMERCIAL LAW: peril of the sea

Petitioner asserts that it is exempt from loss or damage sustained as a result
of a peril of the sea. However, petitioner failed to prove the existence of a
storm or a peril of the sea within the context of Article 1734 of the Civil Code
or of COGSA. Not all instances of bad weather may be categorized as storms
or perils of the sea within the meaning of the provisions of the Civil Code
and COGSA on common carriers. To be considered absolutory causes under
either statute, bad weather conditions must reach a certain threshold of
severity.

Although the term “peril of the sea” has not been definitively defined in
Philippine jurisprudence, courts in the United States of America generally
limit the application of the phrase to weather that is "so unusual, unexpected
and catastrophic as to be beyond reasonable expectation." Accordingly,
strong winds and waves are not automatically deemed perils of the sea, if
these conditions are not unusual for that particular sea area at that specific
time, or if they could have been reasonably anticipated or foreseen. While
cases decided by U.S. courts are not binding precedents in this jurisdiction,
the Court considers these pronouncements persuasive60 in light of the fact
that COGSA was originally an American statute that was merely adopted by
the Philippine Legislature in 1936.

In this case, M/V Meryem Ana faced winds of only up to 40 knots while at
sea. This wind force clearly fell short of the 48 to 55 knots required for
"storms" under Article 1734(1) of the Civil Code based on the threshold
established by PAGASA. Petitioner also failed to prove that the inclement
weather encountered by the vessel was unusual, unexpected, or
catastrophic. In particular, the strong winds and waves, which allegedly
assaulted the ship, were not shown to be worse than what should have been
expected in that particular location during that time of the year.
Consequently, these weather conditions cannot be considered as "perils of
the sea" that would absolve the carrier from liability.

Even assuming that the inclement weather encountered by the vessel
amounted to a "storm" under Article 1734(1) of the Civil Code, still
petitioner cannot be absolved from liability as there is no proof that the bad
weather encountered by M/V Meryem Ana was the proximate and only cause
of damage to the shipment. Further, petitioner failed to establish that it had
exercised the diligence required from common carriers to prevent loss or
damage to the cargo. Petitioner limited itself to the defense of denial. No
other evidence was presented to demonstrate either the proximate and
exclusive cause of the loss or the extraordinary diligence of the carrier.

REMEDIAL LAW: motion for reconsideration

The decision of the CA has become final because of the failure of petitioner
to timely file a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration of the CA’s decision dated August 7, 2009 was filed out of
time, as based on the reply letter dated October 13, 2009 of the Chief,
Administrative Unit, Office of the Postmaster, Makati City, copy of said
decision was received by petitioner's counsel on September 4, 2009, not
September 14, 2009 as alleged in the motion for reconsideration.
Consequently, the subject decision dated August 27, 2009 had become final
and executory considering that the motion for reconsideration was filed only
on September 29, 2009, beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period which
lasted until September 19, 2009.

The Certification issued by the Office of the Postmaster of Makati, which
states that the decision was received by petitioner’s counsel on 4 September
2009, is entitled to full faith and credence. In the absence of contradictory
evidence, the presumption is that the postmaster has regularly performed
his duty. In this case, there is no reason to doubt his statement as to the
date petitioner received the decision of the CA.

Petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.

Transimex V Mafre Insurance - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transimex V Mafre Insurance - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transimex V Mafre Insurance - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the nature of the cargo shipment involved in the case?

What was the carrier's defense against liability for the shortage in cargo delivery?

G.R. No.

190271 : September 14, 2016

You might also like