Westwind Shipping Corporation v UCPB General Insurance

Co.,INC and Asian Terminal INC

FACTS:

The cargoes of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) which were insured by

UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. (UCPB) were loaded and received
by Westwind Corporation (Westwind) to be transported from Japan to
Philippines.

The shipment arrived at Manila and was discharged in the custody of

arrastre operator, Asian Trerminals, Inc. (ATI). During the unloading
six containers were damaged from the forklift used by Ocean Terminal
Services,Inc. (OTSI) as stevedoring.

Thereafter, Orient Freight International, Inc. (OFII), the customs

broker of SMC withdrew from ATI the containers and delivered the
same to SMC'S warehouse. It was discovered upon discharge the
another nine containers were damaged.

SMC filed a claim against UCPB, Westwind, ATI and OFII. UCPB was
subrogated of the rights of SMC.

ISSUE:

1. Whether Westwind or ATI is liable for the six damaged containers.

1. Whether OFII is a common carrier, thus liable for the nine damaged
containers.

HELD:

1.
Westwind not ATI is liable for the six damaged containers at the time
of its unloading as the common carrier, not the arrastre operator, is
responsible during the unloading of the cargoes from the vessel and it
is not relieved from liability and is still bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence from the moment the cargoes are received for transportation
until received by consignee in order to see to it that the cargoes in
possession remain in good order and condition.

The court ruled in a decided case that the fact that a consignee is
required to furnish person to assist in unloading a shipment may not
relieve the carrier of its duty as to such unloading. It is also a well
settled doctrine in maritime law that cargoes while being unloaded
remain under the custody of the carrier.

2.

OFII is a common carrier as the court ruled in a decided case that as

the transportation of goods is integral part of a customs broker, the
customs broker is also a common carrier. Thus bound to observe extra
ordinary diligence and is presumed at fault or have acted negligently
for the damage caused. The delivery of the shipment to the consignee
is part of OFII'S job as a cargo forwarder and the civil code avoids to
distinguish a common carrier doing this business as principal or
ancilliary only.

Thus OFII is liable for the nine damaged containers for failure to
exercise extra ordinary diligence as required for a common carrier.