TRANSIMEX CO. Vs MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP

TRANSIMEX CO.
vs MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE presumption of fault and/or negligence on the part

CORP of the carrier remained unrebutted.
G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016 RULING OF CA: The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC
and denied petitioner's appeal. After evaluating the
PARTIES: Transimex Co, ship agent of the common
evidence presented during trial, the appellate court
carrier – Petitioner (SC case) Respondent (Original
found no reason to disturb the trial court's
Case) Mafre Asian Insurance Corp, insurer of
conclusion that there was indeed a shortage in the
Fertiphil– Respondent (SC case) Petitioner (Original
shipment. The CA also rejected the assertion that
Case) Fertiphil- the consignee of a shipment of
petitioner was not a common carrier. Because the
Prilled Urea Fertilizer transported by M/V Meryem
latter offered services to the public for the transport
Ana.
of goods in exchange for compensation, it was
FACTS: considered a common carrier in accordance with
Article 1732 of the Civil Code.
On 21 May 1996,M/V Meryem Ana received a
shipment consisting of 21,857 metric tons of Prilled ISSUES:
Urea Fertilizer from Helm Duengemittel GMBH at
1. Whether the transaction is governed by the
Odessa, Ukraine. The shipment was covered by two
provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers or
separate bills of lading and consigned to Fertiphil for
by the provisions of COGSA; and
delivery to two ports - one in Poro Point, San
Fernando, La Union; and the other in Tabaco, Albay. 2. Whether petitioner is liable for the loss or damage
Fertiphil insured the cargo against all risks under sustained by the cargo because of bad weather.
Marine Risk Note Nos. MN-MAR-HO-0001341 and
RULING:
MN-MAR-HO-0001347 issued by respondent. M/V
Meryem Ana arrived at Poro Point, La Union, and 1. The Court upholds the ruling of the CA with
discharged 14,339.507 metric tons of fertilizer under respect to the applicable law. As expressly provided
the first bill of lading. The ship sailed on to Tabaco, in Article 1753 of the Civil Code, "[t]he law of the
Albay, to unload the remainder of the cargo. The country to which the goods are to be transported
fertilizer unloaded at Albay appeared to have a gross shall govern the liability of the common carrier for
weight of 7,700 metric tons. The present controversy their loss, destruction or deterioration." Since the
involves only this second delivery. As soon as the cargo in this case was transported from Odessa,
vessel docked at the Tabaco port, the fertilizer was Ukraine, to Tabaco, Albay, the liability of petitioner
bagged and stored inside a warehouse. When the for the alleged shortage must be determined in
cargo was subsequently weighed, it was discovered accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code on
that only 7,350.35 metric tons of fertilizer had been common carriers. The Code takes precedence as the
delivered. The present controversy involves on the primary law over the rights and obligations of
second delivery because of the alleged shortage of common carriers with the Code of Commerce and
349.65 metric tons. Fertiphil filed a claim with COGSA applying suppletorily. 2. Petitioner is liable
respondent for P1,617,527.37. After payment, for the shortage incurred by the shipment. It must
respondent MAFRE Asian Insurance demanded be emphasized that not all instances of bad weather
reimbursement from petitioner on the basis of the may be categorized as "storms" or "perils of the sea"
right of subrogation. The claim was denied, within the meaning of the provisions of the Civil
prompting respondent to file a Complaint with the Code and COGSA on common carriers. To be
RTC and ordered petitioner to pay the claim considered absolutory causes under either statute,
ofP1,617,527.37 was affirmed by the CA and denied bad weather conditions must reach a certain
petitioner’s appeal. Hence, this Petition for Review threshold of severity. Petitioner failed to prove the
on Certiorari. existence of a storm or a peril of the sea within the
context of Article 1734(1) of the Civil Code or Section
CAUSE OF ACTION: Recovery of sum of money filed
4(2)(c) of COGSA. Furthermore, there was no
by Mafre Insurance Co. against Transimex Co
sufficient proof that the damage to the shipment
because when it demanded reimbursement from
was solely and proximately caused by bad weather.
petitioner on the basis of the right of subrogation,
the latter denied the claim. RULING OF RTC: The RTC
ruled in favor of respondent and ordered petitioner
to pay the claim of P1,617,527.37. In its Decision, the
trial court 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. The RTC also refused to give credence to
petitioner's claim of overage and noted that the

TRANSIMEX CO. Vs MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRANSIMEX CO. Vs MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 CO. Vs MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRANSIMEX CO.

vs MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE presumption of fault and/or negligence on the part

You might also like