Everett Steamship Corporation vs CA

Facts:
 Petitioner Everett Steamship Corporation(Everett) seeks the reversal of the
decision of the CA which affirmed the decision of the RTC, finding the petitioner
liable to private respondent Hernandez Trading Co., Inc(HTC). for the value of
the lost cargo.
 HTC imported three crates of bus spare parts from its supplier, Maruman
Trading, in Japan. The crates were shipped from Japan to Manila on board a
vessel owned by Everett.
 Upon arrival to manila, it was discovered that one of the crates were missing.
 HTC claimed that Everett pay around 1.5M yen, the amount shown in the invoice
for the missing crate. However, Everett offered to pay only 100,000 yen, the
maximum amount stipulated under Clause 18 of the covering Bill of lading which
limits heir liability.
 HTC rejected the offer and instituted a suit for collection against Everett.
 The RTC ruled in favor of HTC ordering Everett to pay the 1.5M yen and 20,000
yen or its peso equivalent representing the actual value of the lost cargo and
material and packaging cost, 10% of the amount as attorney’s fees, and the cost
of the suit.
 CA affirmed but deleted the award of attorney’s fees.

Issue: W/N HTC as consignee, who is not a signatory to the bill of lading is bound by
the stipulations thereof.

Held:

Yes, HTC is still bound by the bill of lading despite not being a signatory.

In the case of Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs IAC, we held that even if the consignee was
not a signatory to the contract of carriage between the shipper and the carrier, the
consignee can still be bound by the contract of carriage between the shipper and the
carrier.

When private respondent formally claimed reimbursement for the missing goods from
petitioner and subsequently filed a case against the latter based on the very same bill of
lading, it (private respondent) accepted the provisions of the contract and thereby made
itself a party thereto, or at least has come to court to enforce it.[9] Thus, private
respondent cannot now reject or disregard the carriers limited liability stipulation in the
bill of lading. In other words, private respondent is bound by the whole stipulations in the
bill of lading and must respect the same.