This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In Unsworth Transport International (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[75] the Court held that the insertion of an invoice number does not in itself sufficiently and convincingly show that petitioner had knowledge of the value of the cargo. However, the same interpretation does not squarely apply if the carrier had been advised of the value of the goods as evidenced by the invoice and payment of corresponding freight charges. It would be unfair for ESLI to invoke the limitation under COGSA when the shipper in fact paid the freight charges based on the value of the goods. In Adams Express Company v. Croninger,[76] it was said: "Neither is it conformable to plain principles of justice that a shipper may understate the value of his property for the purpose of reducing the rate, and then recover a larger value in case of loss. Nor does a limitation based upon an agreed value for the purpose of adjusting the rate conflict with any sound principle of public policy." Conversely, but for the same reason, it is unjust for ESLI to invoke the limitation when it is informed that the shipper paid the freight charges corresponding to the value of the goods. | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| PROTOP is solidarily liable with HEUNG-A for the lost/damaged shipment in view of the bill of lading the former issued to NOVARTIS. "A bill of lading is a written acknowledgement of the receipt of goods and an agreement to transport and to deliver them at a specified place to a person named or on his or her order. It operates both as a receipt and as a contract. It is a receipt for the goods shipped and a contract to transport and deliver the same as therein stipulated."[43] PROTOP breached its contract with NOVARTIS when it failed to deliver the goods in the same quantity, quality and description as stated in Bill of Lading No. PROTAS 200387. | |||||