Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING v. PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE CO.

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 182864 2015-01-12	EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. BPI PEREZ, J.
Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes a prima facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no adequate explanation is given as to how the deterioration, loss, or destruction of the goods happened, the transporter shall be held responsible.[61] From the foregoing, the fault is attributable to ESLI. While no longer an issue, it may be nonetheless state that ATI was correctly absolved of liability for the damage.
	GR No. 187701 2014-07-23	PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY v. HEUNG-A SHIPPING CORPORATION REYES, J.
Clearly then, despite its contract of affreightment with DONGNAMA, HEUNG-A remained responsible as the carrier, hence, answerable for the damages incurred by the goods received for transportation. "[C]ommon carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence and vigilance with respect to the safety of the goods and the passengers they transport. Thus, common carriers are required to render service with the greatest skill and foresight and 'to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristics of the goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such methods as their nature requires.'"[41]
	GR No. 193986 2014-01-15	EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. BPI VILLARAMA, JR., J.
[33] Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N.V. v. Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc., 432 Phil. 567, 579 (2002).
	GR No. 181163 2013-07-24	ASIAN TERMINALS v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO. VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Citing Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N.V. v. Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc.,[21] the appellate court also held that Philam's action for damages had not prescribed notwithstanding the absence of a notice of claim.
	GR No. 180784 2012-02-15	INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. ASIAN TERMINALS PERALTA, J.
From the provision above, the carrier and the ship may put up the defense of prescription if the action for damages is not brought within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. It has been held that not only the shipper, but also the consignee or legal holder of the bill may invoke the prescriptive period.[27] However, the COGSA does not mention that an arrastre operator may invoke the prescriptive period of one year; hence, it does not cover the arrastre operator.
	GR No. 166250 2010-07-26	UNSWORTH TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL v. CA NACHURA, J.
Undoubtedly, UTI is liable as a common carrier. 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 diligence.[27] Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes a prima facie case of fault or negligence against the carrier. If no adequate explanation is given as to how the deterioration, loss, or destruction of the goods happened, the transporter shall be held responsible.[28]
	GR No. 161849 2010-07-09	WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING v. S.R. FARMS PERALTA, J.
Under the same provision, however, a failure to file a notice of claim within three days will not bar recovery if a suit is nonetheless filed within one year from delivery of the goods or from the date when the goods should have been delivered.[18]