[ G.R. No.

223377, June 10, 2020 ]

2100 CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PHILAM INSURANCE

COMPANY [NOW AIG PHILIPPINES INSURANCE INC.], RESPONDENT.

DECEMBER 1, 2020

FACTS:

 On 2001, Ablestik placed two (2) cardboard boxed, containing 63 jars of

Ablebond Adhesive for consignee (TSPIC).

 The good were insured with respondent, Philam Insurance Company (Philam)

against all risks per Marine Cargo Certificate 0801012154.

 The goods arrived and was stored at the Paircargo Warehouse located in NAIA

Complex, Paranaque City

 TSPIC then informed the petitioner, 2100 Custom Brokers, Inc. (CBI) that the

shipment arrived and forwarded to the latter the packing list from Ablestick and

the Shipment Handling Instrucions from Ablestick stating that “SHIPMENTS

CONTAINING DRY ICE ARE PERISHABLE AND MUST DELIVER TO OUR

CUSTOMER WITHIN 72 HOURS. DO NOT DELAY.”

freight charges must be paid to JAL before it could release the original copy of

the said bill required to process the discharge of shipment from the custody of

the Bureau of Customs (BOC). TSPIC informed the respondent that they will

advance the necessary funds for the freight charges to which they failed since the

banks were already closed at that time and there were no available signatories

left to sign the checks.

 After (5) days after the date of arrival of the shipment in Manila, the petitioner

delivered the cargo to TSPIC which upon receipt of goods found that the dry ice

stuffed inside the boxed have melted due to the delay in the delivery.

 TSPIC filed a claim against petitioner but the latter refused to pay. The latter then

contented that it was the fault of TSPIC for not having given pre-alerts as to the

expected arrival and TSPIC’s failure to pay the freight charges on time.

 TSPIC then filed a claim for the recovery of the value of the damaged goods

against respondent, which then filed a claim of reimbursement to petitioner.

 However, such a claim was denied and thus the respondent filed a civil case

against petitioner in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City (MeTC)

 The MeTC ruled against the petitioner demanding the latter to pay damages and

other charges.

 The case was elevated to the RTC which affirmed the decision of the MeTC
  The case was elevated to the CA, which denied petition of petitioner and

affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE

I. Whether petitioner is a common carrier engaged in the transportation of

goods?

II. Whether a Marine Cargo Certificate may include goods transported by air?

III. Whether the insurance policy must be presented to establish the liability of

the common carrier to Philam?

IV. Whether petitioner is negligent in handling the shipment of TSPIC, thus

making it liable for damages?

RULING

I. YES

 The contention of the petitioner as one not being a common carrier is

untenable. A careful study of the scope of the practice of customs brokers

reveals that the acts enumerated above clearly pertain to acts incidental and
 necessary for the transportation of goods to the consignee.  The participation

of a customs broker, through the acts listed above, are essential to an entity

engaged in the business of transporting goods. A customs broker has been

regarded as a common carrier because transportation of goods is an integral

part of its business. We have already settled in a number of cases that a

customs broker is a common carrier because it undertakes to deliver goods

for a pecuniary consideration.

 Likewise, the fact that the petitioner is a common carrier is buttressed by the

testimony of its own witness, Ildefonso Magnawa (Magnawa), the Night

Operations Manager of the herein petitioner

II. YES

 A Marine Cargo Certificate may include goods transported by air. The

argument of the petitioner that the name "Marine Cargo Certificate" implies

goods transported by sea, and not through air such as the shipment of TSPIC

is mistaken. Simply because the word "marine" was used in Marine Cargo

Certificate does not mean that TSPIC availed the wrong insurance policy for

its cargo transported through airplane.

covers over the land transportation perils of property shipped by airplanes.

(De Leon H., 2006)

III. YES

 The original copy of the insurance policy is the best proof of its contents. The

contract of insurance must be presented in evidence to indicate the extent of

its coverage. At most, Marine Cargo Certificate No. 080101215475 and the

subrogation receipt may be used to establish the relationship between the

insurer and the consignee and the amount paid to settle the claim. The

subrogation receipt, by itself, is not sufficient to prove a claim holding an

insurer liable for damage sustained by an insured item. These documents are

not sufficient to prove that the damage to the cargo is compensable under the

insurance policy chargeable against the respondent.

 As an actionable document, the insurance policy must be presented in order

to determine whether the damage sustained by the cargo of TSPIC is caused

by a peril or risk covered by the policy. In the absence of proof of the

contents of the policy confirming that the damage to the cargo is covered by
 the insurance policy chargeable against petitioner, the respondent cannot

hold the petitioner responsible for the damage to the cargo. The respondent’s

failure to present the original copy, which was presumably in its possession,

or even a copy of it, for unknown reasons, is fatal to its claim against the

petitioner.

IV. NO.

 It is clear that there is no need to rely on the presumption of the law that a

common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or have acted negligently

in case of damaged goods. This is because the delay in the release of the

goods was through no fault of the petitioner. 

 The damage was caused by the late payment of the funds needed for the

release of the goods from the custody of BOC which was originally TSPIC's

responsibility. It must be noted that while waiting for the freight charges to

be settled, the petitioner did not have custody over the shipment.

 It is clear that the only handling instruction the petitioner received was to

"PLS. PUT INTO (sic) COOL ROOM UPON ARRIVAL," which was stated in
 the Airway Bill. The petitioner could not have undertaken precautionary

measures nor implement handling instructions because it did not have

possession of the cargo until 2:00 a.m. of March 6, 2001 - when the goods

were released by the BOC.

 It would be physically impossible and unreasonable for the petitioner to

implement any control or handling instructions over goods not in its

custody.  Thus, petition is GRANTED, and the case filed against petition is

hereby DISMISSED.