In a contract for the international transport of goods by sea, the common carrier’s liability for cargo loss is capped at US$500 per package, unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays additional charges. The Supreme Court has affirmed this principle, highlighting the importance of clear declarations of value in maritime bills of lading and upholding stipulations that limit the carrier’s liability when no such declaration is made. This provides certainty for carriers while allowing shippers to protect themselves through proper valuation and insurance.

nn

Capsized Cargo: When Does a Shipping Line’s Liability End at $500 per Package?

nn

This case explores the ramifications of cargo loss at sea and the enforceability of limited liability clauses in shipping contracts. In 1993, L.T. Garments Manufacturing Corp. shipped warp yarn to Fukuyama Manufacturing Corporation via Neptune Orient Lines. During the voyage, the container carrying the goods fell overboard. Fukuyama, having insured the shipment with Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC), received compensation for the loss. PCIC, as subrogee, then sought reimbursement from Neptune Orient Lines and its agent, Overseas Agency Services, Inc. The core legal question revolves around whether the shipping line’s liability should be limited to US$500 per package, as stipulated in the bill of lading, or if circumstances exist that would negate this limitation.

nn

The trial court initially ruled in favor of PCIC, ordering the respondents to pay the peso equivalent of the lost cargo. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision but later modified it, limiting the respondents’ liability to US$500 per package, citing the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). PCIC then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the vessel committed a ‘quasi deviation’ by intentionally throwing the container overboard, thereby nullifying the liability limitation. This deviation, PCIC contended, constituted a breach of contract, stripping the respondents of their right to invoke the US$500 per package limitation. The Supreme Court disagreed with PCIC’s claim of ‘quasi deviation’, noting that the evidence and initial pleadings indicated the cargo was lost due to severe weather conditions and not intentional discarding. Therefore, PCIC could not introduce new facts on appeal to alter the established narrative.

nn

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court addressed the applicability of Philippine law and the COGSA to the case. Citing Articles 1753 and 1766 of the Civil Code, the Court confirmed that Philippine law governs the liability of common carriers for goods transported to the Philippines. COGSA, as a special law, applies suppletorily. Art. 1749 of the Civil Code allows for stipulations limiting the common carrier’s liability to the value of the goods as declared in the bill of lading, while Art. 1750 validates contracts fixing the recoverable sum for loss or damage if the agreement is reasonable and just.

nn

The bill of lading in this case explicitly stated that the carrier’s liability would not exceed US$500 per package unless the shipper declared the nature and value of the goods before shipment and paid additional charges. Sec. 4, paragraph (5) of the COGSA reinforces this, stating that liability is limited to $500 per package unless the shipper declares a higher value in the bill of lading. Because the shipper failed to declare the actual value of the yarn on the bill of lading, the limitation of liability clause was deemed valid and enforceable. The Court cited the case of Everett Steamship Corporation v. Court of Appeals, which upheld similar limited-liability clauses, emphasizing that shippers have the option to avoid the liability limitation by declaring the value of their shipment.

nn

The Supreme Court found no error in the Court of Appeals’ decision, affirming that the respondents’ liability was subject to the US$500 per package limitation. In essence, the decision underscores the importance of adhering to contractual agreements and the necessity for shippers to properly declare the value of their goods to ensure adequate protection against potential losses during maritime transport. The risk lies with the shipper to declare or insure adequately, lest they bear much of the risk of loss.

nn

FAQs

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

What was the central issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a shipping company’s liability for lost cargo should be limited to US$500 per package, as per the bill of lading, when the shipper did not declare a higher value.
What is COGSA?	COGSA stands for the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. It is a United States law that governs the rights and responsibilities of carriers and shippers in international maritime transport, and is applied suppletorily in the Philippines.
What does ‘quasi deviation’ mean in this context?	‘Quasi deviation’ refers to an intentional act by the carrier that significantly alters the terms of the carriage contract, potentially negating limitations on liability. However, there was no such event in this case.
Why was the shipper’s declaration of value important?	The shipper’s declaration of value is crucial because it informs the carrier of the potential liability and allows for appropriate risk management and insurance coverage. Failure to declare a higher value limits the carrier’s liability as per the bill of lading.
What happens if the shipper declares a higher value?	If the shipper declares a higher value, the carrier may charge additional fees, but the carrier’s liability would then extend to the declared value, providing greater protection for the shipper.
How does the Civil Code relate to this case?	The Civil Code of the Philippines provides the general framework for contracts and obligations, including those of common carriers. Articles 1749 and 1750 specifically allow for stipulations limiting liability under certain conditions.
What was the role of the insurance company in this case?	The insurance company, PCIC, acted as the subrogee of the shipper, Fukuyama. After paying Fukuyama for the lost cargo, PCIC stepped into Fukuyama’s shoes to pursue a claim against the shipping company.
What practical lesson can shippers take away from this case?	Shippers should always declare the accurate value of their goods in the bill of lading and pay any required additional charges to ensure full protection against potential losses during transport.

nn

This case reinforces the significance of clearly defining liability in maritime shipping contracts. Shippers are encouraged to fully understand the implications of limited liability clauses and take proactive steps to protect their interests by accurately declaring the value of their goods.

n

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

n

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation v. Neptune Orient Lines, G.R. No. 145044, June 12, 2008