[297] EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. CA 9.

Metroport averred that although subject shipment was discharged unto

its custody, portion of the same was already in bad order.
GR No. 97412 | July 12, 1994 | Damages
FACTS: 10. Allied Brokerage alleged that plaintiff has no cause of action against it,
1. This is an action against defendants shipping company, arrastre operator not having negligent or at fault for the shipment was already in damage
and broker-forwarder for damages sustained by a shipment while in and bad order condition when received by it, but nonetheless, it still
defendants' custody, filed by the insurer-subrogee who paid the exercised extra ordinary care and diligence in the handling/delivery of the
consignee the value of such losses/damages. cargo to consignee in the same condition shipment was received by it.

2. On December 4, 1981, two fiber drums of riboflavin were shipped from

Yokohama, Japan for delivery vessel "SS EASTERN COMET" owned by ISSUES:
defendant Eastern Shipping Lines under Bill of Lading 1. Whether or not a claim for damage sustained on a shipment of goods
No. YMA-8. The shipment was insured under plaintiff's Marine Insurance can be a solidary, or joint and several, liability of the common carrier, the
Policy for P36,382,466.38. arrastre operator and the customs broker (YES).
2. Whether the payment of legal interest on an award for loss or damage is
3. Upon arrival of the shipment in Manila on December 12, 1981, it was to be computed from the time the complaint is filed or from the date the
discharged unto the custody of defendant Metro Port Service, Inc. The decision appealed from is rendered; and
latter excepted to one drum, said to be in bad order, which damage was 3. Whether the applicable rate of interest, referred to above, is twelve
unknown to plaintiff. percent (12%) or six percent (6%).

4. On January 7, 1982 defendant Allied Brokerage Corporation received the

shipment from defendant Metro Port Service, Inc., one drum opened and RATIO:
without seal. A claim for damage sustained on a shipment of goods can be solidary
or joint and several
5. On January 8 and 14, 1982, defendant Allied Brokerage Corporation When the goods shipped either are lost or arrive in damaged condition, a
made deliveries of the shipment to the consignee's warehouse. The latter presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that diligence,
excepted to one drum which contained spillages, while the rest of the and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold it liable.
contents was adulterated/fake. There are, of course, exceptional cases when such presumption of fault is
not observed but these cases, enumerated in Article 17341 of the Civil Code,
are exclusive, not one of which can be applied to this case. Since it is the
6. Plaintiff contended that due to the losses/damage sustained by said
duty of the ARRASTRE to take good care of the goods that are in its custody
drum, the consignee suffered losses totaling P19,032.95, due to the fault
and to deliver them in good condition to the consignee, such responsibility
and negligence of defendants. Claims were presented against
also devolves upon the CARRIER. Both the ARRASTRE and the CARRIER
defendants who failed and refused to pay the same.
are therefore charged with the obligation to deliver the goods in goods
condition to the consignee.
7. As a consequence of the losses sustained, plaintiff was compelled to pay
the consignee P19,032.95 under the aforestated marine insurance The court does not imply that the arrastre operator and the customs broker
policy, so that it became subrogated to all the rights of action of said are themselves always and necessarily liable solidarily with the carrier, or
consignee against defendants  vice-versa, nor that attendant facts in a given case may not vary the rule. The
instant petition has been brought solely by Eastern Shipping Lines which,
8. As for defendant Eastern Shipping, it alleged that the shipment was being the carrier and not having been able to rebut the presumption of fault,
discharged in good order from the vessel unto the custody of Metro Port is, in any event, to be held liable in this particular case. A factual finding of
Service so that any damage/losses incurred after the shipment was both the court a quo and the appellate court is that "there is sufficient
incurred after the shipment was turned over to the latter, is no longer its evidence that the shipment sustained damage while in the successive
liability. possession of appellants" (the herein petitioner among them). Accordingly,
the liability imposed on Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the sole petitioner in this
case, is inevitable regardless of whether there are others solidarily liable with Disposition: WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED. The appealed
it. decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the legal interest to be
paid is SIX PERCENT(6%) on the amount due computed from the decision,
Rule: dated 03 February 1988, of the court a quo. A TWELVE PERCENT (12%)
I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi- interest, in lieu of SIX PERCENT (6%), shall be imposed on such amount
contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held upon finality of this decision until the payment thereof.
liable for damages. The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the
Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable damages.

II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual

and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual
thereof, is imposed, as follows:

1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of

a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest
due should be that which may have been stipulated in
writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest
from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation,
the rate of interest shall be 12%  per annum to be computed from
default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject
to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.

2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of

money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded
may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6%  per
annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated
claims or damages except when or until the demand can be
established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the
demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall
begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or
extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot
be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the
interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the
court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be
deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for
the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount
finally adjudged.

3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money

becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the
case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be
12%  per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim
period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of
credit.