This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-01-25 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The bill of lading was merely a receipt issued by ALS to evidence the fact that the goods had been received for transportation. It was not signed by MCCII, as in fact it was simply signed by the supercargo of ALS.[28] This is consistent with the fact that MCCII did not contract directly with ALS. While it is true that a bill of lading may serve as the contract of carriage between the parties,[29] it cannot prevail over the express provision of the voyage charter that MCCII and petitioner executed:[I]n cases where a Bill of Lading has been issued by a carrier covering goods shipped aboard a vessel under a charter party, and the charterer is also the holder of the bill of lading, "the bill of lading operates as the receipt for the goods, and as document of title passing the property of the goods, but not as varying the contract between the charterer and the shipowner." The Bill of Lading becomes, therefore, only a receipt and not the contract of carriage in a charter of the entire vessel, for the contract is the Charter Party, and is the law between the parties who are bound by its terms and condition provided that these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy. [30] Finally, petitioner asserts that MCCII should be held liable for its own loss since the voyage charter stipulated that cargo insurance was for the charterer's account.[31] This deserves scant consideration. This simply meant that the charterer would take care of having the goods insured. It could not exculpate the carrier from liability for the breach of its contract of carriage. The law, in fact, prohibits it and condemns it as unjust and contrary to public policy.[32] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The appellate court was correct in strictly following the Agreement by deducting the amount received by respondent from the latter's total claim. Besides, "questions raised on appeal must be within the issues framed by the parties and, consequently, issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal."[58] Any assertion of equity must finally be struck down "when dilatory schemes exist."[59] | |||||