[G.R. No. 136888.
June 29, 2005]
PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CHEMOIL
LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION, respondent.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
FACTS:
Philippine
Charter Insurance Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in the business
of non-life insurance. Respondent Chemoil Lighterage Corporation is also a
domestic corporation engaged in the transport of goods. On 24 January 1991,
Samkyung Chemical Company, Ltd., based in South Korea, shipped 62.06 metric
tons of the liquid chemical DIOCTYL PHTHALATE (DOP) on board MT “TACHIBANA”
which was valued at US$90,201.57 and another 436.70 metric tons of DOP valued
at US$634,724.89 to the Philippines. The consignee was Plastic Group Phils.,
Inc. in Manila. PGP insured the cargo with Philippine Charter Insurance
Corporation against all risks. The insurance was under Marine Policies No.
MRN-30721[5] dated 06 February 1991. Marine Endorsement No. 2786[7] dated 11
May 1991 was attached and formed part of MRN-30721, amending the latter’s
insured value to P24,667,422.03, and reduced the premium accordingly. The ocean
tanker MT “TACHIBANA” unloaded the cargo to the tanker barge, which shall
transport the same to Del Pan Bridge in Pasig River and haul it by land to
PGP’s storage tanks in Calamba, Laguna. Upon inspection by PGP, the samples
taken from the shipment showed discoloration demonstrating that it was damaged.
PGP then sent a letter where it formally made an insurance claim for the loss
it sustained.
Petitioner
requested the GIT Insurance Adjusters, Inc. (GIT), to conduct a Quantity and
Condition Survey of the shipment which issued a report stating that DOP samples
taken were discolored. Inspection of cargo tanks showed manhole covers of
ballast tanks’ ceilings loosely secured and that the rubber gaskets of the
manhole covers of the ballast tanks re-acted to the chemical causing shrinkage
thus, loosening the covers and cargo ingress. Petitioner paid PGP the full and
final payment for the loss and issued a Subrogation Receipt. Meanwhile, PGP
paid the respondent the as full payment for the latter’s services.
On 15 July 1991,
an action for damages was instituted by the petitioner-insurer against
respondent-carrier before the RTC, Br.16, City of Manila. Respondent filed an
answer which admitted that it undertook to transport the shipment, but alleged
that before the DOP was loaded into its barge, the representative of PGP,
Adjustment Standard Corporation, inspected it and found the same clean, dry,
and fit for loading, thus accepted the cargo without any protest or notice. As
carrier, no fault and negligence can be attributed against respondent as it
exercised extraordinary diligence in handling the cargo. After due hearing, the
trial court rendered a Decision in favor of plaintiff. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals promulgated its Decision reversing the trial court. A petition for
review on certiorari was filed by the petitioner with this Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not
the Notice of Claim was filed within the required period.
RULING:
Article 366 of
the Code of Commerce has profound application in the case at bar, which
provides that; “Within twenty-four hours following the receipt of the
merchandise a claim may be made against the carrier on account of damage or
average found upon opening the packages, provided that the indications of the
damage or average giving rise to the claim cannot be ascertained from the
exterior of said packages, in which case said claim shall only be admitted at
the time of the receipt of the packages.” After the periods mentioned have
elapsed, or after the transportation charges have been paid, no claim
whatsoever shall be admitted against the carrier with regard to the condition
in which the goods transported were delivered.
As to the issue,
the petitioner contends that the notice of contamination was given by PGP
employee, to Ms. Abastillas, at the time of the delivery of the cargo, and
therefore, within the required period. The respondent, however, claims that the
supposed notice given by PGP over the telephone was denied by Ms. Abastillas.
The Court of Appeals declared: that a telephone call made to defendant-company
could constitute substantial compliance with the requirement of notice.
However, it must be pointed out that compliance with the period for filing
notice is an essential part of the requirement, i.e.. immediately if the damage
is apparent, or otherwise within twenty-four hours from receipt of the goods,
the clear import being that prompt examination of the goods must be made to
ascertain damage if this is not immediately apparent. We have examined the
evidence, and We are unable to find any proof of compliance with the required
period, which is fatal to the accrual of the right of action against the
carrier.
Nothing in the
trial court’s decision stated that the notice of claim was relayed or filed
with the respondent-carrier immediately or within a period of twenty-four hours
from the time the goods were received. The Court of Appeals made the same
finding. Having examined the entire records of the case, we cannot find a shred
of evidence that will precisely and ultimately point to the conclusion that the
notice of claim was timely relayed or filed.
The requirement
that a notice of claim should be filed within the period stated by Article 366
of the Code of Commerce is not an empty or worthless proviso.
The object
sought to be attained by the requirement of the submission of claims in
pursuance of this article is to compel the consignee of goods entrusted to a
carrier to make prompt demand for settlement of alleged damages suffered by the
goods while in transport, so that the carrier will be enabled to verify all
such claims at the time of delivery or within twenty-four hours thereafter, and
if necessary fix responsibility and secure evidence as to the nature and extent
of the alleged damages to the goods while the matter is still fresh in the
minds of the parties.
The filing of a
claim with the carrier within the time limitation therefore actually
constitutes a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of action against a
carrier for loss of, or damage to, the goods. The shipper or consignee must
allege and prove the fulfillment of the condition. If it fails to do so, no
right of action against the carrier can accrue in favor of the former. The
aforementioned requirement is a reasonable condition precedent; it does not
constitute a limitation of action.
We do not
believe so. As discussed at length above, there is no evidence to confirm that
the notice of claim was filed within the period provided for under Article 366
of the Code of Commerce. Petitioner’s contention proceeds from a false
presupposition that the notice of claim was timely filed.
No comments:
Post a Comment