Scribd
Upload
621 views2 pages

Marina Port Services V American

MPSI transported a shipment of flour from a vessel to its container yard, where it was stored under security. The Bureau of Customs opened and inspected the containers before sealing them again. MPSI then stored the containers and delivered five to ACS for transport to MSC. Upon receipt, MSC discovered shortages. The court found MPSI was not liable because it proved it delivered the shipment in good condition, with seals intact, as shown through signed gate passes from MSC acknowledging receipt in good order. There was no evidence the containers were reopened or seals broken while under MPSI's care.

Uploaded by

Pat Espinoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
621 views2 pages

Marina Port Services V American

MPSI transported a shipment of flour from a vessel to its container yard, where it was stored under security. The Bureau of Customs opened and inspected the containers before sealing them again. MPSI then stored the containers and delivered five to ACS for transport to MSC. Upon receipt, MSC discovered shortages. The court found MPSI was not liable because it proved it delivered the shipment in good condition, with seals intact, as shown through signed gate passes from MSC acknowledging receipt in good order. There was no evidence the containers were reopened or seals broken while under MPSI's care.

Uploaded by

Pat Espinoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MARINA

PORT SERVICES, INC. vs. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION


G.R. No. 201822. August 12, 2015

FACTS: Countercorp Trading PTE., Ltd. shipped from Singapore to the Philippines 10
container vans of soft wheat flour with seals intact on board the vessel M/V Uni Fortune.
The shipment was insured against all risks by AHAC and consigned to MSC Distributor
(MSC). Upon arrival at the Manila South Harbor, the shipment was discharged in good and
complete order condition and with safety seals in place to the custody of the arrastre
operator, Marina Port Services, Inc. (MPSI). After unloading and prior to hauling, agents of
the Bureau of Customs officially broke the seals, opened the container vans, and examined
the shipment for tax evaluation in the presence of MSC's broker and checker. Thereafter, the
customs inspector closed the container vans and refastened them with safety wire seals
while MSC's broker padlocked the same. MPSI then placed the said container vans in a back-
to-back arrangement at the delivery area of the harbor's container yard where they were
watched over by the security guards of MPSI and of the Philippine Ports Authority. AD's
Customs Services (ACS), took out five container vans for delivery to MSC. At the compound's
exit, MPSI issued to ACS the corresponding gate passes for the vans indicating its turn-over
of the subject shipment to MSC. However, upon receipt of the container vans at its
warehouse, MSC discovered substantial shortages in the number of bags of flour delivered.
Thereafter, it filed a formal claim for loss with MPSI.

ISSUE: Whether MPSI is liable for the loss of the bags of flour.

HELD: No. MPSI is not liable for the loss of the bags of flour. The relationship between an
arrastre operator and a consignee is similar to that between a warehouseman and a
depositor, or to that between a common carrier and the consignee and/or the owner of the
shipped goods. Thus, an arrastre operator should adhere to the same degree of diligence as
that legally expected of a warehouseman or a common carrier as set forth in Section 3 [b] of
the Warehouse Receipts [Act] and Article 1733 of the Civil Code. As custodian of the
shipment discharged from the vessel, the arrastre operator must take good care of the same
and turn it over to the party entitled to its possession. In case of claim for loss filed by a
consignee or the insurer as subrogee, it is the arrastre operator that carries the burden of
proving compliance with the obligation to deliver the goods to the appropriate party. It
must show that the losses were not due to its negligence or that of its employees. It must
establish that it observed the required diligence in handling the shipment. Otherwise, it
shall be presumed that the loss was due to its fault. In the same manner, an arrastre
operator shall be liable for damages if the seal and lock of the goods deposited and
delivered to it as closed and sealed, be broken through its fault. Such fault on the part of the
arrastre operator is likewise presumed unless there is proof to the contrary. MPSI was able
to prove delivery of the shipment to MSC in good and complete condition and with locks
and seals intact. It is significant to note that MPSI, in order to prove that it properly
delivered the subject shipment consigned to MSC, presented 10 gate passes marked as
Exhibits 4 to 13. Each of these gate passes bore the duly identified signature of MSC's
representative, which serves, among others, as an acknowledgement. The signature of the
consignee's representative on the gate pass is evidence of receipt of the shipment in good
order and condition. Verily, the testimonies of the aforementioned employees of MPSI
confirm that the container vans, together with their padlocks and wirings, were in order at
the time the gate passes were issued up to the time the said container vans were turned
over to ACS. There being no exception as to bad order, the subject shipment, therefore,
appears to have been accepted by MSC, through ACS, in good order. It logically follows that
the case at bar presents no occasion for the necessity of discussing the diligence required of
an [arrastre operator) or of the theory of [its] prima facie liability . . ., for from all
indications, the shipment did not suffer loss or damage while it was under the care . . . of the
arrastre operator . . . ." Lastly, Even in the light of Article 1981, no presumption of fault on
the part of MPSI arises since it was not sufficiently shown that the container vans were re-
opened or that their locks and seals were broken for the second time.

You might also like