Mitsui vs CA
FACTS:
 Petitioner Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. is a foreign corporation represented in
the Philippines by its agent, Magsaysay Agencies.
 It entered into a contract of carriage through Meister Transport, Inc., an
international freight forwarder, with private respondent Lavine
Loungewear Manufacturing Corporation to transport goods of the latter
from Manila to Le Havre, France. Petitioner undertook to deliver the
goods to France 28 days from initial loading. On
 July 24, 1991, petitioner's vessel loaded private respondent's container van
for carriage at the said port of origin.
 However, in Kaoshiung, Taiwan the goods were not transshipped
immediately, with the result that the shipment arrived in Le Havre only on
November 14, 1991.
 The consignee allegedly paid only half the value of the said goods on the
ground that they did not arrive in France until the "off season" in that
country.
 The remaining half was allegedly charged to the account of private
respondent which in turn demanded payment from petitioner through its
agent.
ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent's action is for "loss or damage" to
goods shipped, within the meaning of the
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). – NO.
HELD:
 The suit is not for "loss or damage" to goods contemplated in §3(6), the
question of prescription of action is governed not by the COGSA but by
Art. 1144 of the Civil Code which provides for a prescriptive period of ten
years.
 As defined in the Civil Code and as applied to Section 3(6), paragraph 4 of
the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, "loss" contemplates merely a situation
where no delivery at all was made by the shipper of the goods because the
same had perished, gone out of commerce, or disappeared in such a way
that their existence is unknown or they cannot be recovered.
 There would be some merit in appellant's insistence that the damages
suffered by him as a result of the delay in the shipment of his cargo are not
covered by the prescriptive provision of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
above referred to, if such damages were due, not to the deterioration and
decay of the goods while in transit, but to other causes independent of the
condition of the cargo upon arrival, like a drop in their market value.
Mayer Steel Pipes v. CA
Insurer: Resp South Sea and Charter Insurance Corp
Insured: Pet HK Govt Supplies Dept and Mayer Steel Corp
 Hong Kong Govt Supplies Dept and Mayer Steel Corp (more active in this
case); Mayer who manufacture and supply various steel pipes shipped the
pipes to HK Govt Supplies Dept (shipper not relevant)
 Prior to shipping, Pets insured the shipment through Resp South Sea
Surety and Resp Charter Insurance.
 Upon arrival of the shipment to HK, it was discovered that a substantial
portion was damaged. Because of that Pets claimed for indemnity to theirs
insurers (Resp)
 Although the Resps paid, it didnt pay the cost of repair the Pets had to
incur on the basis that based on the surveyor’s report, it showed that the
damage is a factory defect and thus not included in the insurance policy.
RTC: In favor of the Petitioners
The damage to the goods is NOT due to manufacturing defects and even so, the
contract executed b/w the parties is an “all risk” policy which insure against all
causes of conceivable loss or damage.
Resp insurance companies are liable to pay the amount for the repair
CA: Affirmed (wait for it…)
It affirmed the RTC ruling in saying that the damage is not due to factory defect
and it was covered by the “all risk” insurance
BUT IT SET ASIDE THE DECISION and DISMISSED the complaint on the
ground of prescription
It held that the action is barred under Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea
Act since it was filed more than 2 years from the time the goods were unloaded
from the vessel.
Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act provides that "the carrier and the
ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is
brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods
should have been delivered."
It ruled that this provision applies not only to the carrier but also to the insurer,
citing Filipino Merchants v Alejandro.
ISSUE:
WON the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is applicable and thus the
prescription has already lapsed
HELD: NO
Under this provision, only the carrier's liability is extinguished if no suit is brought
within one year.
But the liability of the insurer is not extinguished because the insurer's liability is
based not on the contract of carriage but on the contract of insurance.
The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act governs the relationship between the carrier on
the one hand and the shipper, the consignee and/or the insurer on the other hand.
It does not, affect the relationship between the shipper and the insurer as it is
governed by the Insurance Code.
Filipino Merchants v Alejadro is NOT applicable!
In this case it was the shipper who filed a complaint against insurer for indemnity;
ths insurer in turn filed a 3rd party complaint against the carrier for reimbursement
of the amount paid to the shipper.
The SC said that the insurer was already barred from filing a claim against carrier
bec Carriage of Goods by Sea Act provides for 1 year prescription period
In Filipino case, IT WAS THE INSURER WHO FILED THE CLAIM.
In the present case, IT WAS THE SHIPPER WHO FILED THE CLAIM
AGAINST THE INSURER.
When the court said in Filipino Merchants that Section 3(6) of the Carriage of
Goods by Sea Act applies to the insurer, it meant that the insurer, like the shipper,
may no longer file a claim against the carrier beyond the one-year period provided
in the law.
But it does not mean that the shipper may no longer file a claim against the insurer
because the basis of the insurer's liability is the insurance contract.
SEC. 3, CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT
RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITIES
Section 3. (1) The carrier shall be bound, before and at the beginning of the
voyage, to exercise due diligence to —
(a) Make the ship seaworthy;
(b) Properly man, equip, and supply the ship;
(c) Make the holds, refrigerating and cooling chambers, and all
other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for
their reception carriage and preservation.
(2) The carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep,
care for, and discharge the goods carried.
(3) After receiving the goods into his charge the carrier, or the master or
agent of the carrier, shall, on demand of the shipper, issue to the shipper a
bill of lading showing among other things —
(a) The leading marks necessary for identification of the goods as
the same are furnished in writing by the shipper before the
loading of such goods starts, provided such marks are stamped or
otherwise shown clearly upon the goods if uncovered, or on the
cases or coverings in which such goods are contained, in such a
manner as should ordinarily remain legible until the end of the
voyage.
(b) Either the number of packages or pieces, or the quantity or
weight, as the case may be, as furnished in writing by the shipper.
(c) The apparent order and condition of the goods: Provided, That
no carrier, master, or agent of the carrier, shall be bound to state
or show in the bill of lading any marks, number, quantity, or
weight which he has reasonable ground for suspecting not
accurately to represent the goods actually received, or which he
has had no reasonable means of checking.
(4) Such a bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the
carrier of the goods as therein described in accordance with paragraphs (3)
(a), (b), and (c) of this section: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be
construed as repealing or limiting the application of any part of the Act, as
amended, entitled "An Act relating to bills of lading in interstate and
foreign commerce," approved August 29, 1916 (U. S. C. title 49, secs. 81-
124), commonly known as the "Pomerene Bills of Lading Act."
(5) The shipper shall be deemed to have guaranteed to the carrier the
accuracy at the time of shipment of the marks, number, quantity, and
weight, as furnished by him; and the shipper shall indemnify the carrier
against all loss damages, and expenses arising or resulting from
inaccuracies in such particulars. The right of the carrier to such indemnity
shall in no way limit his responsibility and liability under the contract of
carriage or to any person other than the shipper.
(6) Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or
damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of
discharge before or at the time of the removal of the goods into the
custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of
carriage, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the
carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading. If the loss or damage
is not apparent, the notice must be given within three days of the delivery.
Said notice of loss or damage maybe endorsed upon the receipt for the
goods given by the person taking delivery thereof.
 The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the
time of their receipt been the subject of joint survey or inspection.

In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability
in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after
delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been
delivered: Provided, That if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or
concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that fact shall not
affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to bring suit within one year
after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have
been delivered

In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage the carrier and the
receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each other for inspecting and
tallying the goods.

(7) After the goods are loaded the bill of lading to be issued by the carrier,
master, or agent of the carrier to the shipper shall, if the shipper so
demands, be a "shipped" bill of lading Provided, That if the shipper shall
have previously taken up any document of title to such goods, he shall
surrender the same as against the issue of the "shipped" bill of lading, but
at the option of the carrier such document of title may be noted at the port
of shipment by the carrier, master, or agent with name or name the names
of the ship or ships upon which the goods have been shipped and the date
or dates of shipment, and when so noted the same shall for the purpose of
this section be deemed to constitute a "shipped" bill of lading.

(8) Any clause, covenant, or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving

the carrier or the ship from liability for loss or damage to or in connection
with the goods, arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the duties and
obligations provided in this section, or lessening such liability otherwise
than as provided in this Act, shall be null and void and of no effect. A
benefit of insurance in favor of the carrier, or similar clause, shall be
deemed to be a clause relieving the carrier from liability.

Art. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the
court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when
there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.
WARSAW CONVENTION
 The Warsaw convention was created in 1929 with 152 member state all
over the world.
 It specified the conditions under which airline could be liable for the death
or injury to passengers, loss or damage to baggage and delay; sets limits to
the amount of compensation that could be claimed; and excluded resort to
national laws.
 Later on, the Warsaw convention was amended by the Montreal
convention in 1999.
 It preserved most of the aspects of the Warsaw convention but emphasis
on consumer rights.
 The Montreal convention is applicable to all international flights carrying
passenger, cargo or baggage.
 At the beginning paragraph of article. 17 of the Montreal convention
regulates the liability of the airlines in case of bodily injury or death of the
passengers; “The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or
bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which
caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course
of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking."
 First it needs to be certain that the flight is operating between member
states, then the passenger who wants to claim compensation for the
damages, must try under the Montreal convention.
 To be clear, when convention is applicable, passenger cannot go for any
action for damages under the domestic law.
 To achieve compensation, two things must be proven. First of all the
damage that happened on-board of the aircraft or embarking or
disembarking was an accident.
 Secondly, the plaintiff suffered bodily injury or death. However, the word
bodily injury and accident are inexplicit and have been interpreted in
different ways by the courts.