This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-08-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| 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, Inc. v. Philam Insurance Co., Inc.[16] 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: | |||||
|
2015-03-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "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. 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."[28] | |||||
|
2015-01-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Common carriers, from the nature of their business and on public policy considerations, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. Subject to certain exceptions enumerated under Article 1734[51] of the Civil Code, common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.[52] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Verily, it is settled in maritime law jurisprudence that cargoes while being unloaded generally remain under the custody of the carrier.[30] As herein before found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA based on the evidence presented, the goods were damaged even before they were turned over to ATI. Such damage was even compounded by the negligent acts of petitioner and ATI which both mishandled the goods during the discharging operations. Thus, it bears stressing unto petitioner that common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. Subject to certain exceptions enumerated under Article 1734[31] of the Civil Code, common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.[32] Owing to this high degree of diligence required of them, common carriers, as a general rule, are presumed to have been at fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or destroyed. That is, unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods. In order to avoid responsibility for any loss or damage, therefore, they have the burden of proving that they observed such high level of diligence.[33] In this case, petitioner failed to hurdle such burden. | |||||
|
2013-11-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Regional Container Lines (RCL) of Singapore v. The Netherlands Insurance Co. (Philippines), Inc.[14] and Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Philam Insurance Co., Inc.,[15] the Court echoed the doctrine that cargoes, while being unloaded, generally remain under the custody of the carrier. | |||||