Scribd
Upload
101 views1 page

3 - Provident v. CA, GR No. 118030 (1-15-2004)

The vessel MV "Eduardo II" transported a shipment of fertilizer from Sangi, Toledo City to Cagayan de Oro City, then to Davao City upon instruction. During unloading in Davao City, three bags fell overboard and 281 bags were considered unrecovered spillages, causing P68,196.16 in damages to the consignee Atlas Fertilizer Corporation. The insurer Provident Insurance Corporation paid the damages and sued the carrier as subrogee. The issue was whether the bill of lading's requirement to file a notice of claim within 24 hours for damaged goods was binding. The court ruled the 24-hour notice requirement was valid and enforceable as agreed by the

Uploaded by

Juvial Guevarra Boston
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
101 views1 page

3 - Provident v. CA, GR No. 118030 (1-15-2004)

The vessel MV "Eduardo II" transported a shipment of fertilizer from Sangi, Toledo City to Cagayan de Oro City, then to Davao City upon instruction. During unloading in Davao City, three bags fell overboard and 281 bags were considered unrecovered spillages, causing P68,196.16 in damages to the consignee Atlas Fertilizer Corporation. The insurer Provident Insurance Corporation paid the damages and sued the carrier as subrogee. The issue was whether the bill of lading's requirement to file a notice of claim within 24 hours for damaged goods was binding. The court ruled the 24-hour notice requirement was valid and enforceable as agreed by the

Uploaded by

Juvial Guevarra Boston
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/ 1

Provident v.

CA,
GR No. 118030, January 15, 2004

FACTS:
On or about June 5, 1989, the vessel MV "Eduardo II" took and received on board at Sangi,
Toledo City a shipment of 32,000 plastic woven bags of various fertilizer in good order and
condition for transportation to Cagayan de Oro City. The subject shipment was consigned to
Atlas Fertilizer Corporation, and covered by Bill of Lading No. 01 and Marine Insurance Policy
No. CMI-211/89-CB.

Upon its arrival at General Santos City on June 7, 1989, the vessel MV "Eduardo II" was
instructed by the consignee's representative to proceed to Davao City and deliver the shipment
to its Davao Branch in Tabigao.

On June 10, 1989, the MV "Eduardo II" arrived in Davao City where the subject shipment was
unloaded. In the process of unloading the shipment, three bags of fertilizer fell overboard and
281 bags were considered to be unrecovered spillages. Because of the mishandling of the
cargo, it was determined that the consignee incurred actual damages in the amount of
P68,196.16.

As the claims were not paid, petitioner Provident Insurance Corporation indemnified the
consignee Atlas Fertilizer Corporation for its damages. Thereafter, the petitioner, as subrogee of
the consignee, filed on June 3, 1991, a complaint against the respondent carrier seeking
reimbursement for the value of the losses/damages to the cargo.

ISSUE: Whether or not stipulations in the bill of lading prescribing the requirement to file a
notice of claim in case of damaged goods is binding upon the consignee

RULING:
Yes, there can be no question about the validity and enforceability of Stipulation No. 7 in the bill
of lading. The twenty-four-hour requirement under the said stipulation is, by agreement of the
contracting parties, a sine qua non for the accrual of the right of action to recover damages
against the carrier.

Carriers and depositaries sometimes require the presentation of claims within a short time after
delivery as a condition precedent to their liability for losses. Such a requirement is not an empty
formalism. It has a definite purpose, i.e., to afford the carrier or depositary a reasonable
opportunity and facilities to check the validity of the claims while the facts are still fresh in the
minds of the persons who took part in the transaction and the document are still available.

You might also like