This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-04 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Respondent, as insurer, was subrogated to the rights of the consignee, pursuant to the subrogation receipt executed by the latter in favor of the former. The relationship, therefore, between the consignee and the arrastre operator must be examined. This relationship is akin to that existing between the consignee and/or the owner of the shipped goods and the common carrier, or that between a depositor and a warehouseman.[34] In the performance of its obligations, an arrastre operator should observe the same degree of diligence as that required of a common carrier and a warehouseman. Being the custodian of the goods discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to take good care of the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their possession.[35] | |||||
|
2009-03-26 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the functions of an arrastre operator involve the handling of cargo deposited on the wharf or between the establishment of the consignee or shipper and the ship's tackle.[32] Being the custodian of the goods discharged from a vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to take good care of the goods and to turn them over to the party entitled to their possession.[33] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Actori incumbit onus probandi.[68] Upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts.[69] Plaintiff must therefore establish her case by a preponderance of evidence.[70] She has the burden of presenting evidence required to obtain a favorable judgment,[71] and she, having the burden of proof, will be defeated if no evidence were given on either side.[72] | |||||