G.R No. 201822. August 12, 2015." MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC.,” petitioner, 1s. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, respondent. Remedial Law’; Civil Procedure: Appeals; Petition for Review’ on Certiorari; It is evident that the resolution of the instant case requires the scrutiny of factual issues which are, however, outside the scope of the present petition filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court —At the outset, it is evident that the resolution of the instant case requires the scrutiny of factual issues which are, however, outside the scope of the present petition filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court However, the Court held in Asian Terminals, Ine.v. Philam Insurance Co., Inc, 702 SCRA $8 (2013). that: But while it is not our duty to review, examine and evaluate or weigh all over again the probative value of the evidence presented, the Court may nonetheless resolve questions of fact when the case falls under any of the following exceptions: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee, (D when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (S) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. The Court finds that the instant case falls under the aforementioned second, fourth, fifth, and seventh exceptions. Hence, it shall proceed to delve into factual matters essential to the proper determination of the merits of this case * SECOND DIVISION. ** Now knownas Asian Terminals, Ine409 166, AUGUST 12, 2015 ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.1s. American Home Assurance Corporation Mercantile Law; Common Carriers; Warehouse Receipts Act; Arrastre Operators; An arrastre operator should adhere to the same degree of of the Civil Code —The relationshipsbetweenvanranrastreroperatorvandia Same; Same; Same; Same; In case of claim for loss filed by a consignee or the insurer as subrogee, itis the arrastre operator that carries the burden of proving compliance with the obligation to deliver the good’ to the appropriate party.—tmeaserof claimyforossflediby-arconsigneerorthe tas the anaste operator that eames the burden of me; Same; Same; Same; As held in International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co. Inc., 320 SCRA 244 (1990), the signature of the consignee t representative on the gate pass 1s evidence of receipt of the shipment in good order and condition—As held in International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co. Inc, 3200 SCRA 244 (1999), the signature of the consignee’s representative on the gate pass is evidence of receipt of the shipment in good order and condition. Also, that MPSI delivered the subject shipment to MSC’s representative in good and complete condition and with lock and410 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.1s. American Home Assurance Corporation seals intact is established by the testimonies of MPSI's employees who were ditectly involved in the processing of the subject shipment. Mr. Poneiano De Leon testified that as MPSI's delivery checker, he personally examined the subject container vans and issued the conesponding gate passes that were, in tum, countersigned by the consignee’s representative MPSI's other witness, Chief Claims Officer Sergio Ieasiano (Icasiano) testified that the broker, as the consignee’s representative, neither registered. any complaints nor requested for an inspection, Remedial Law; Evidence: Hearsay Evidence Rule; It 1s a baste rule that evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay, if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the Inowledge of another person who is not on the witness stand—The person who prepared the said report was not presented in court to testify on the same. Thus, the said survey report has no probative value for being hearsay. “tis a basic rule that evidence, whether oral or documentary is hearsay, if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of another person who is not on the witness stan” Moreover, “an unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accortied probative value. It is precluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right and opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as a witness to provide the other party to the litigation the opportunity to question its contents. Being mere hearsay evidence, failue to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect and of no probative value.” Mercantile Law; Common Carriers; Shipper’ Load and Count; Marina Port Services, Inc. (MPS1) cannot just the same be held liable for the massing bags of flour since the consigned goods were shipped under “Shipper $ Load and Count” arrangement. This means that the shipper was solely responsible for the loading of the container, while the carrier was oblivious to the contents of the shipment. Protection against pilferage of the shipment was the consignee lookout —MPSI cannot just the same be held liable for the missing bags of flour since the consigned goods were shipped. under “Shipper’s Load and Count” anangement. “This means that the shipper was solely responsible for the loading of the container, while the camer was oblivious to the contents of the shipment Protection against pilferage of the ship-VOL. 766, AUGUST 12, 2015 4u ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation ment was the consignee’s lookout. The arraste operator was, like any ordinary depositary, duty-bound to take good care of the goods received from the vessel and to tum the same over to the patty entitled to their possession, subject to such qualifications as may have validly been imposed in the contract between the parties. The anastre operator was not required to verify the contents of the container received! and to compare them with thase declared by the shipper because, as eatlier stated, the cargo was at the shipper’s load and count. The anastre operator was expected to deliver to the consignee only the container received from the canvier.” PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals ‘The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Poblador, Bautista and Reyes for petitioner Leafio, Leafio and Leafio III Law’ Office for respondent. DELCASTILLO, J. ‘This Petition for Review on Certiorari! filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Coust assails the December 29, 2011 Decision” and May 8, 2012 Resolution’ of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. $8321, which granted the appeal filed therein by respondent American Home Assurance Corporation (AHAC) and reversed and set aside the October 17, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 271 dismissing AHAC’s Complaint? for Damages against petitioner Marina Port Services, Inc. (MPS1) 1 Rollo, pp. 23-185, inclusive of Amnexes “Ato “U.” 2 CA Rollo, pp. 86-95; penned by Associate Justice Manvel M. Bamios and concued in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enniquez, Jr and Apolinario D. Bruselas, & 3 ia, atpp. 2 4 Revorcs, pp. 257-279; penned by Assisting Judge Paz Esperanza M. Cortes ‘3 ld, atpp. 12.& 12. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation Factual Antecedents On September 21, 1989, CountercorpEeTadingePTENELtS) wheatificuriwithisealsiintact onboard the vessel M/V Uni Fortune ‘The shipment was insured against all nisks by AHAC and consigned ‘Uponvattivalfatithe!ManilalSouthHatbot on September 25, 1969, the shipment was discharged in good and complete order condition with safety wire seals wile On October 10, 1989, z 8 g £ 8 os x g zg 5 a 3 z 9 g 3 a g = a 8 g r 2 a 4 e = a 2 FA 4 a a a = 5 a g i : i x 4 z B é x 8 a, 2 g § e 38 g = a 5 a, z g 8 8 41 VOL. 766, AUGUST 12, 2015 41 ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.vs. American Home Assurance Corporationz & § = e i g a ‘Trial then ensued, On Ootober 17, 2006, the Hence, the dispositive portion of the 3 a 9g 8 3 8 6 la. 7 ld, atyp. 2-17 8 Id, atpp. 257-279. 414 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED? Ruling of the Court of Appeals Aggtieved, AHAC appealed to the CA.In its Decision!” dated December 29, 2011, the CANSHESSe¢ that 9 a, atp.279. 10 CA Rolo, pp. 86-95, 11 Article 1265. Whenever the thing is lost in the possession of the debtor it shall be presumed that the loss was due to his fault, unless there is proof to the contrary, and without prejudice to the provitions of Article 1165. This presumption does not apply in case of earthquake, flood, storm or other natural calamity. 12 Article 1981, When the thing deposited is delivered closed and sealed, the depositary must retum it in the same condition, and he shall be liable for damages should the seal or lock be broken through his faut. Fault on the part of the depositary is presumed, unless there is proof to the contrary. ‘As regal the value of the thing deposited, the statement of the depositor shall be accepted, when the forcible opening is imputable to the depositary. should there be no proof to the contiary. However the cowts may pass upon the credibility of the depositor with respect to the value claimed by him. ‘When the seal or lock is broken, with or without the depositary’s fault he shall Jeep the secret of the deposit, VOL. 766, AUGUST 12, 2015 415 ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation ‘Thus, twas held lable to AHAC for the value of the missing bags ofiftour, viz: We conclude that x x x MPSI was negligent in the handling and safekeeping of the subject shipment. It did not create and implement a more defined, concrete and effective measure to detect, curb and prevent the loss or pilferage of cargoes in its custody. This is manifested by the fact that [MPSI] never took any action to address such complaint even after it received the formal claim of loss in the fist five (5) vans. As a consequence, more bags of flour were eventually lost or pilfered in the remainingcontainer vans that were still in [MPSI 8] custody at that time. Case law tells us that negligence is that conduct which creates undue risk of harm to another, the failue to observe that degree of cate, precaution and vigilance which the cireumstance(s] justly demand, whereby that other person suffers injwy Clearly, [MPSI] breached its arrastre obligations to the consignee for it failed to deliver said bags in good and complete condition. In view of MPSI's failure to exercise that degree of diligence, precaution and care the law (requires) of arrastre operators in the performance of their duties to the consignee, [MPSI] is legally bound to reimburse [AHAC] for the value of the missing bags of flour that it paid to MSC pursuant to the insurance policy In view of the same, the said court disposed of the appeal in this wise: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Tlial Court of Pasig City, Branch 271 dated 17 October 2006 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellee Marina Port Services, Inc. is ORDERED to pay appellant, American Home Assurance Corporation, the sum of Two Huncied Fifty-Seven Thousand and Eighty- ‘Thee Pesos (Php257,083.00) with 13 CA Rollo, pp. 93-94 416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation interest thereon at six percent (6%) (per annum] from the filing of this complaint on 24 September 1990 until the decision becomes final and executory, ancl thereafter, at the rate of twelve (12) pervent [per annum] until fully paid, and additionally, to pay the x x x sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000 00) as attomey’s fees SO ORDERED. MPSI moved for reconsideration but the CA denied the same in its Resolution! dated May 8, 2012. Hence, the present recourse. IssueThe core issue to be resolved in this case is wietheraNiPSInis Our Ruling ‘There is merit in the Petition. Albeit involving factual questions, the Court shall proceed to resolve this case since it falls under sev- eral exceptions to the rule that only questions of law are proper in a petition for review on certiorari. At the outset, it is evident that the resolution of the instant case requires the scrutiny of factual issues which are, however, outside the scope of the present petition filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, the Court held in Asian Terminals, Ine. v. Philam Insurance Co., Inc.® that 14 1a, atp.94 15 id, atpp. D112 16 GR Nos. 181163, 181962, & 181319, July 24, 2013, 702 SCRA 88, VOL. 766, AUGUST 12, 2015 47 ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation But while it is not our duty to review, examine and evaluate or weigh all over again the probative value of the evidence presented, the Cout may nonetheless resolve questions of fact when the case falls under any of the following exceptions (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of fects; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in ‘making its findings the Cowt of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contiary to the acimissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to thoseof the tial cout; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based: (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent: and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record!” The Court finds that the instant case falls under the aforementioned second, fourth, fifth, and seventh exceptions. Hence, it shall proceed to delve into factual matters essential to the proper determination of the merits of this case Several well-entrenched legal prin- ciples govern the relationship of an arrastre operator and a consignee. 17 14, at pp. 102-103, citing Insurance Company of North America v. Arian Terminals, Inc, G-R No. 180784, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 26, 236.237 418 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Marina Port Services, Ino.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation ‘The selationship between an anrastre operator and a consignee is similar to that between a warehouseman and a depositor, or to that between a common cattier 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 tum 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 bur- 18 Avian Terminals, Inc. v. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation, GR. No. 185964, June 16, 2014, 726 SCRA 415, 427 19 1a, atpp. 427-428,20 Act No.2137 February 5, 1912) Section 3. Form of Receipts; What Terms May Be inserted —A warehoweman may insert in a receipt issued by him, any other tems and conditions: Provided, That such terms and conditions shall not: (©) Inany wise impair his obligation to exeweise that degree of care in the safe- ‘eeping of the good entrusted to him which a reasonably careful man would exercise sn regard to similar goods of his own. 21 Aiticle 1733. Common camtiew, from the natue of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods anc for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the eixcumstances of each cate. 22 Asian Terminals, In. v. First Lepanto-Thisho Insurance Corporation, supra at p28, 23 Civil Code, Art. 1303. Subrogation transfers to the petsons subrogated the credit with all the rights thereto appertaining, either against the debtor or against third peison, be they guarantors or possessors of mortgages, subject to stipulation in a conventional subrogation. VOL. 766, AUGUST 12, 2015 419 ‘Marina Port Services, Ino.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation den 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 acknowledgment that Issuance of [the] Gate Pass constitutes delivery to and receipt by consignee of the goods as described above in good omer and condition, unless an accompanying B.O. 24 Asian Terminals, nc. v. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation, supra note 1B atp. 428. 3 26 a 27 Civil Code, Aut. 1265. 28 Civil Code, Aut. 1981. 29a 30 Recor, pp. 188-197 31 Id; matked as Exhibits 4A to 13-8. 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation certificate duly issued and noted on the face of [the] Gate Pass appears °° As held in International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co., Inc..*° the signature of the consignee’s representative on the gate pass is evidence of receipt of the shipment in good order and condition * Also, that MPSI delivered the subject shipment to MSC’s representative in good and complete condition and with lock and seals intact is established by the testimonies of MPSI's employees who were directly involved in the processing of the subject shipment Mr. Ponciano De Leon testified that as MPSI’s delivery checker, he personally examined the subject container vans and issued the corresponding gate passes that were, in tum, countersigned by the consignee’s representative. MPSI’s other witness, Chief Claims Officer Sergio Icasiano (Icasiano), testified that the broker, as the consignee’s representative, neither registered any complaints nor requested for an inspection, to wit: REDIRECT EXAMINATION: Atty LaureateQ [Alter receist ty the trcker of the container van containing the carga do you requite the trocertoissue you azepatt or cettfication as tothe azpeatance ofthe container van? A [Wle only rely onthe gate pass, (Q[AInd you dan't place there ‘the padloccis sill ntact or the witings stl intact?” A([]tis stated in the gate pass, you Honor 32M 33 377 Phil. 1082; 320 SCRA 244 (1999), 34 Id, at. 1091; p.250. VOL. 766, AUGUST 12, 2015 421 ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation Q [Aina the findings (ae comter-signed] by the remesentative of the broker also cn. the same date? A([i]es, your honor * RECROSS EXAMINATION: Any, Laino 4 DB)ut did you not say that in the gate pass it is stated there as to the extemal appeatance ofthe container van? a [There was no indication of any inspection of the container van xxx meaning the container vans were all in good condition, si q{¥Jausaid a [while] agothat you dd not receive any complaint for troken seas is it na? alles sir q(B]ut the complaint that you received indicates that there were losses. [We didnot receive any complaint fram the broker, sit (the tecker will camplain they have tofile arequest forinspection of the cagoso that they will now if there [ae] shontages 2c aves sir [Clout 4 [Alndif the troker would notice or detect [Scmething] pecuiay the way the door of the container van appeass whether close(d] cr no, they have to request for an snspectionl7] alv]s yorhna:[OX in the absence of the padlock or wirings, the trcker will request for an snspectionl7] a[¥]es you honar{] they can require forthe examination of the cago 35 TSN, November 6, 1992, pp. 17-18. 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Marina Port Services, Ino.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation (Bhut there was norequest a all by the troker? a [Thee wasnne you Honas* Verily, the testimonies of the aforementioned employees of MPSI confirm that the container vans, together with their padlocks and witings, were in order at the time the gate passes were issued up to the time the said container vans were tumed over to ACS AHAC justifies the failure of ACS to immediately protest the alleged loss or pilferage upon initial pickup of the first batch of container vans. According to it, ACS could not have discovered the loss at that moment since the stripping of container vans in the pier area is not allowed. The Court cannot, however, accept such excuse. For one, AHAC’s claim that stripping of the container vans is not allowed in the pier area is a mere allegation without proof. It is settled that “[mJere allegations do not suffice; they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof.”*” For another, even assuming that stripping of the container vans is indeed not allowed at the pier area, it is hard to believe that MSC or its representative ACS has no precautionary measures to protect itself from any eventuality of loss or pilferage. To recall, ACS’s representative signed the gate passes without any qualifications. This is despite the fact that such signature serves as an acknowledgment of ACS's receipt of the goods in good order and condition. If MSC was keen enough in protecting its interest, it (through ACS) should have at least qualified the receipt of the goods as subject to inspection, and thereafter arrange for such an inspection in an area where the same is allowed to be done. However, no such action or other similar measure was showm to have been undertaken by MSC. What is clear is that ACS accepted the container vans on its behalf without any qualification. As aptly observed by the RTC.36 Id. atpp. 18-18. 37 Aoanan, Srv: Aoanan, Jr, 550 Phil. 126, 738; 522 SCRA 631, 643 (2007). VOL. 766, AUGUST 12, 2015 423 ‘Marina Port Services, Ino.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation During [the] period of tumover of goods fiom the amraste to [ACS]. there had been no protest on anything on the part of consignee’s representative x x x. Otherwise, the complaint would have been shown [on] the gate passes. In fact, each gate pass showed the date of delivery, the location of delivery, the truck number of the truck used in the delivery, the actual quantity of goods delivered, the numbers of the safety wires and padlocks of the vans and the signatures of the receiver More importantly, the gate passes bared the fact that the shipments were tumed over by [MPSI] to [ACS] on the same dates of customs inspections and tumovers * ‘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 [then] that the case at bar presents no occasion for the necessity of discussing the diligence required of an [atrastre operator] or of the theory of [its] prima facie liability x x, for from all indications, the shipment did not suffer loss or damage while it was under the care x x x of the anrastre operator xxx Even in the light of Article 1981,no presumption of fault on the part of MPSI arises since it was not suffic- iently shown that the container vans were reopened or that their locks and seals were broken for the second time. Indeed, Article 1981 of the Civil Code also mandates a presumption of fault on the part of the arrastre operator as follows: 38 Records, p.27639 Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 80256, October?, 1992, 214SCRA 433, 436. 49 Id, atpp. 436-437 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Marina Port Services, Ino.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation Article 1981. When the thing deposited is delivered closed and sealed, the depositary must retum it in the same condition, and he shall be liable for damages should the seal or lock be broken through his fault Fault on the part of the depositary is presumed, unless there is proof to the contrary. As regards the value of the thing deposited, the statement of the depositor shall be accepted, when the forcible opening is imputable to the depositary, should there be no proof to the contrary. However, the courts may pass upon the credibility of the depositor with respect to the value claimed by him, When the seal or lock is broken, with or without the depositary’s fault, he shall keep the secret of the deposit, However, no such presumption arises in this case considering that it was not sufficiently shown that the container vans were reopened or that their locks and seals were broken for the second time. As may be recalled, the container vans were opened by a customs official for examination of the subject shipment and were thereafter resealed with safety wires. While this fact is not disputed by both parties, AHAC alleges that the container vans were reopened and this gave way to the alleged pilferage. The Court notes, however, that AHAC based such allegation solely on the survey report of the Manila Adjuster & Surveyors Company (MASCO). As observed by the RTC AHAC xx x claim[s] that there were two instances when the seals were broken. [Firsf], when the customs officer examined the shipment and had it resealed with safety wires. [Second], when the surveyor and consignee’s broker visually inspected the shipment and allegedly found the safety wites of the customs officer to have been detached and missing which they then replaced. This second instance is only upon their say so as there is noVOL. 766, AUGUST 12, 2015 205 ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation x x x documentary or testimonial proof on the matter [other] than the [MASCO] survey report However, the person who prepared the said report was not presented in cout to testify on the same. Thus, the said survey report has no probative value for being hearsay “It is a basic rule that evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay, if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of another person who is not on the witness stand.“ Moreover, “an unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accorded probative value. It is precluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right and opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the statements or waitings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as a witness to provide the other party to the litigation the opportunity to question its contents. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect and of no probative value." ‘There being no other competent evidence that the container vans were reopened or that their locks and seals were broken for the second time, MPSI cannot be held liable for damages due to the alleged loss of the bags of flour pursuant to Article 1981 of the Civil Code. At any rate, the goods were shipped under “Shipper’s Load and Count” arrangement. Thus, protection against pilferage of the subject shipment was the consignee’s lookout. 41 Reconds, p.274. 42 Dela Lana v, Biong, GR No. 182356, December 4, 2013, 711 SCRA 522, 535, 43. Fluang v. Phutippine Hoteliers, Inc, G-R No. 180440, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 162, 203-20426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Marina Port Services, Inc.vs. American Home Assurance Corporation At any rate, MPSI cannot just the same be held liable for the missing bags of flour since the consigned goods were shipped under “Shipper’s Load and Count” arrangement. “This means that the shipper was solely responsible for the loading of the container, while the carrier was oblivious to the contents of the shipment. Protection against pilferage of the shipment was the consignee’s lookout. The arrastre operator was, like any ordinary depositary, duty-bound to take good care of the goods received from the vessel and to tum the same over to the party entitled to their possession, subject to such qualifications as may have validly been imposed in the contract between the parties. The arrastre operator was not required to verify the contents of the container received and to compare them with those declared by the shipper because, as eatlier stated, the cargo was at the shipper’s load and count. The arrastre operator was expected to deliver to the consignee only the container received from the carrier."*# All told, the Court holds that MPSI is not liable for the loss of the bags of flour WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 29, 2011 and Resolution dated May 8, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CV No, 88321 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated October 17, 2006 of the Regional Trial Cout, Branch 271, Pasig City in Civil Case No. 90-54517 is REINSTATED and the Complaint in the said case is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ. concur Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside. 44 International Container Terminal Services, Ine. (ICTS) v. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co., Ine, supra note 33 at pp. 1093-1094: pp. 259-253. VOL. 766, AUGUST 12, 2015 a7 ‘Marina Port Services, Ino.vs. American Home Assurance CorporationThe legal relationship between an arrastre operator and a consignee is akin to that between a warehouseman and a depositor. ( Unknown Owner of the Vessel MV China Joy vs. Asian Terminals, Ine, 752 SCRA 642 (2015) —~000—— © Copyight 2023 Central Book Supqy, nc. Al rights reserved,