ASG Law

Tag: Arrastre Operator

  • Who Pays When Cargo Vanishes? Defining Responsibility in Shipping Losses

    In cases of lost or damaged shipments, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of liability for arrastre operators like the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI). The Court affirmed that while administrative orders may limit liability, this limit does not apply when the cargo’s actual value has been properly declared and made known to the operator. This ruling underscores the importance of transparency in declaring shipment values to ensure adequate compensation for losses.

    From Port to Pockets: When Does an Arrastre Operator Shoulder the Loss?

    This case revolves around a lost shipment of silver nitrate, essential for Republic Asahi Glass Corporation (RAGC). FGU Insurance Corporation, after compensating RAGC for the loss, sought reimbursement from ICTSI, the arrastre operator responsible for the cargo’s handling at the port. ICTSI argued its liability should be capped at P3,500 per package, as per Philippine Ports Authority Administrative Order No. 10-81 (PPA AO 10-81). The core legal question is whether this limitation applies, or if ICTSI is liable for the full value of the lost goods, given that the shipment’s value was known.

    The Supreme Court underscored that arrastre operators are typically bound by management contracts like PPA AO 10-81, which indeed sets a default liability limit. The key exception arises when the cargo’s value is explicitly declared to the arrastre operator. Section 6.01 of PPA AO 10-81 specifies this: liability is capped “unless the value of the cargo importation is otherwise specified or manifested or communicated in writing together with the declared bill of lading value and supported by a certified packing list to the CONTRACTOR.” This provision aims to protect consignees when arrastre operators are aware of the shipment’s true worth.

    In this instance, RAGC’s customs broker, Desma Cargo Handlers, Inc., presented documents detailing the shipment’s value to ICTSI. These included Hapag-Lloyd’s Bill of Lading, Degussa’s Commercial Invoice, and Packing List, all indicating a value of DM94.960,00 (CFR Manila). The NBI investigation confirmed that ICTSI’s representatives were shown the Bill of Lading. These circumstances led the Court to conclude that ICTSI knew the shipment’s actual value.

    Building on this knowledge, the Court determined that ICTSI’s liability should extend to the full value of the lost shipment. The court reasoned that by failing to charge arrastre fees commensurate with the declared value, ICTSI could not then claim the benefit of the liability limitation. This underscores the principle that knowledge of a shipment’s value creates a responsibility that cannot be evaded. The court referenced Villaruel v. Manila Port Service, affirming that value declarations aren’t confined to bills of lading but encompass other legally required clearance documents. Therefore, the Court found that the P3,500.00 per package limitation was inapplicable.

    Another major argument from ICTSI was that the marine insurance policy, Marine Open Policy No. MOP-12763, was no longer active when the goods were loaded onto the vessel, based on a cancellation endorsement. However, the Court clarified the relationship between a marine open policy and a marine risk note. While the policy is the overarching agreement, the risk note acknowledges coverage for a specific shipment and premium. Because FGU had issued Marine Risk Note No. 9798 prior to the purported cancellation, and RAGC had paid the corresponding premium, the Court found that the shipment remained insured.

    ICTSI also contended that the insurance policy wasn’t presented as evidence, citing cases like Home Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. The Court recognized that presenting the policy is usually required to determine coverage extent, and affirmed in Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Regis Brokerage Corp. However, an exception applies when the loss undisputedly occurred while the goods were under the defendant’s custody, as in Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. Since ICTSI admitted to the policy’s existence and the loss happened in their care, presenting the physical document was deemed non-fatal. This ruling balances the evidentiary requirement with the practical realities of cargo handling disputes.

    The court upheld the CA decision but corrected a clerical error, reducing the awarded sum to P1,835,068.88, aligning with the amount FGU actually paid RAGC. This correction demonstrates the Court’s meticulousness in ensuring accuracy even in affirmed rulings. Overall, this case offers clarity on the responsibilities of arrastre operators and the crucial role of transparent value declarations in safeguarding cargo shipments. Also, regarding the 12% interest rate imposed, the court cited Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Inc. v. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc which pointed out in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals that, “when the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, regardless of whether the obligation involves a loan or forbearance of money, 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.” This rate remains unchanged from the finality of judgement until the full satisfaction thereof.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the arrastre operator’s liability for a lost shipment should be limited to P3,500 per package, as per PPA AO 10-81, or extend to the full declared value of the shipment.
    What is an arrastre operator? An arrastre operator is a contractor that handles cargo at ports, responsible for receiving, storing, and delivering goods. ICTSI acted as the arrastre operator in this case.
    What is PPA AO 10-81? PPA AO 10-81 is an administrative order by the Philippine Ports Authority that governs the responsibilities and liabilities of arrastre operators. It typically sets a limit to the operator’s liability for loss or damage of cargo.
    When does the liability limit under PPA AO 10-81 not apply? The liability limit does not apply if the value of the cargo is declared and made known in writing to the arrastre operator before the discharge of the goods. This ensures that the operator is aware of the potential liability.
    What documents can serve as evidence of the declared value of the shipment? Documents such as the Bill of Lading, Commercial Invoice, and Packing List can serve as evidence. It should include information on the declared value of the cargo.
    Was the marine insurance policy crucial to the decision? Although normally it would be, its presentation as evidence was deemed not fatal since the loss occurred while the cargo was under ICTSI’s custody, which ICTSI admitted. This fits an exception to the general rule.
    Why was the initially awarded sum reduced? The awarded sum was reduced from P1,875,068.88 to P1,835,068.88 to correct a clerical error. This aligns with the amount that FGU Insurance Corporation actually paid to RAGC.
    What interest rate applies to the judgment? A 12% interest rate per annum applies from the finality of the judgment until its full satisfaction. The interim period is considered equivalent to a forbearance of credit, justifying the higher rate.

    This Supreme Court decision provides important guidance for parties involved in cargo handling and insurance. Clear declaration of cargo values is paramount to ensure that arrastre operators can be held fully accountable for losses when they are aware of the actual value of the goods entrusted to them. The ruling also clarifies exceptions regarding the presentation of insurance policies, focusing on the circumstances surrounding the loss.

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

    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: International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. FGU Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 161539, June 27, 2008

  • Shipping Liability: Proving Cargo Damage Claims in the Philippines

    Burden of Proof: Establishing Liability for Damaged Goods in Philippine Shipping Law

    TLDR: This case clarifies that the burden of proving cargo damage lies with the claimant. Shipping companies are not automatically liable; evidence must demonstrate the goods were damaged while under their care. Proper documentation and timely inspection are crucial for successful claims.

    G.R. NO. 146472, July 27, 2006

    Introduction

    Imagine importing goods, only to find them damaged upon arrival. Who’s responsible? The shipper, the carrier, or the arrastre operator? This question is at the heart of many disputes in international trade, and understanding the legal burden of proof is crucial. Philippine law, as illustrated in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. N.V. The Netherlands Insurance Company, provides a framework for determining liability in such situations.

    In this case, pre-sensitized printing plates were shipped from Japan to the Philippines via Eastern Shipping Lines. Upon arrival, some cases were damaged. The consignee, Liwayway Publishing, Inc., claimed damages, which were initially denied by Eastern Shipping Lines. N.V. The Netherlands Insurance Company, as the insurer, paid the consignee and sought reimbursement from Eastern Shipping Lines. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Eastern Shipping Lines, emphasizing the importance of proving when and where the damage occurred.

    Legal Context

    The legal framework governing shipping liability in the Philippines is primarily based on the Civil Code and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). These laws outline the responsibilities of carriers and the process for claiming damages.

    Article 1734 of the Civil Code states, “Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
    (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
    (2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
    (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
    (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
    (5) Order or act of competent public authority.”

    This provision establishes a presumption of negligence against the carrier. However, this presumption can be overcome by proving that the loss or damage was due to one of the enumerated causes. The burden of proof then shifts to the claimant to show the carrier’s negligence.

    In cases involving arrastre operators (those handling cargo at ports), liability is generally determined by the contract between the shipping company and the arrastre operator. The arrastre operator is responsible for the goods from the time they are unloaded from the vessel until they are delivered to the consignee.

    Case Breakdown

    The story begins with Sunglobe International Corporation shipping printing plates to Liwayway Publishing, Inc. on the M/S Eastern Venus, owned by Eastern Shipping Lines. The shipment was insured by N.V. The Netherlands Insurance Company. Upon arrival in Manila, some cases were found to be in bad order. Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

    • July 4, 1985: Shipment departs Yokohama, Japan.
    • July 20, 1985: Shipment arrives in Manila.
    • July 21-22, 1985: Unloading to Metro Port Services, Inc. (arrastre operator). Cases 3 and 5 are noted as being in bad order.
    • July 23, 1985: R & R Industrial Surveyors, engaged by Eastern Shipping Lines, inspects Cases 3 and 5, confirming damage.
    • July 26, 1985: Consignee receives the shipment and engages Audemus Adjustment Corporation to inspect. They claim damages to Case No. 4.
    • August 30, 1985: Consignee demands payment for damages.
    • September 30, 1985: Eastern Shipping Lines denies the claim.
    • Insurance Payout and Subrogation: N.V. The Netherlands Insurance Company pays the consignee and, through subrogation, files a claim against Eastern Shipping Lines.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the insurance company’s complaint, finding no proof that Case No. 4 was damaged while under Eastern Shipping Lines’ custody. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, but the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the RTC.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the Good Order Cargo Receipt issued by Eastern Shipping Lines for Case No. 4. This receipt, signed by both the shipping company and the arrastre operator, indicated that the case was received in good condition. The Court stated:

    “Metro Port’s representative would certainly have refused to sign Good Order Cargo Receipt No. 152999 if Case No. 4 and/or its contents were indeed damaged.”

    Furthermore, the Court noted that the consignee’s surveyor inspected the goods only after they were delivered to the consignee’s warehouse, without any representative from the shipping company present. The Court also highlighted that the demand letter from the consignee referenced documents related to Cases 3 and 5, not Case 4.

    The Supreme Court concluded:

    “In fine, Case No. 4 was not in a damaged state when petitioner discharged it to arrastre operator Metro Port. Petitioner cannot thus be held liable for any damages on Case No. 4 that may have been discovered after its delivery to the consignee.”

    Practical Implications

    This case serves as a reminder that the burden of proof in shipping damage claims rests with the claimant. Shipping companies are not automatically liable for any damage discovered after the goods have left their custody. Proper documentation and timely inspection are essential for both shippers and consignees.

    Key Lessons:

    • Thorough Inspection: Consignees should inspect goods immediately upon arrival and note any damages on the receiving documents.
    • Proper Documentation: Maintain detailed records of the shipment, including bills of lading, cargo receipts, and inspection reports.
    • Timely Notification: Notify the shipping company of any damages as soon as possible.
    • Joint Surveys: Ensure that surveys are conducted jointly with representatives from all parties involved (shipping company, arrastre operator, and consignee).

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is a Good Order Cargo Receipt?

    A: A Good Order Cargo Receipt is a document issued by the shipping company and signed by the arrastre operator, acknowledging that the goods were received in good condition. It is crucial evidence in determining liability for damage.

    Q: What is an arrastre operator?

    A: An arrastre operator is a company that handles cargo at ports, responsible for the goods from the time they are unloaded from the vessel until they are delivered to the consignee.

    Q: Who has the burden of proof in a shipping damage claim?

    A: The claimant (usually the consignee or the insurer) has the burden of proving that the goods were damaged while under the custody of the shipping company.

    Q: What should I do if I discover damaged goods upon arrival?

    A: Immediately notify the shipping company and the arrastre operator, document the damage with photos and videos, and request a joint survey.

    Q: Can I claim damages even if I signed a Good Order Cargo Receipt?

    A: It is more difficult, but not impossible. You would need to present compelling evidence that the damage occurred before you received the goods and that the damage was not readily apparent at the time of receipt.

    Q: What is subrogation in insurance?

    A: Subrogation is the legal process where an insurer, after paying a claim, acquires the rights of the insured to recover the loss from a third party who caused the damage.

    ASG Law specializes in shipping and insurance law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Lost Cargo Claims in the Philippines: Understanding the 15-Day Rule for Arrastre Operators

    Don’t Miss the Deadline: The 15-Day Rule for Cargo Loss Claims Against Arrastre Operators in the Philippines

    n

    TLDR: If your cargo is lost or damaged while under the care of an arrastre operator in the Philippines, you must file a formal claim within 15 days from when you discover the problem. Missing this deadline, as illustrated in the ICSTI vs. Prudential case, can invalidate your claim, even if the loss occurred due to negligence. This rule is crucial for businesses involved in import and export to ensure they can recover losses from cargo mishaps.

    nn

    International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 134514, December 8, 1999

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine importing a container of goods, only to find upon delivery that a significant portion is missing. Frustration and financial loss quickly set in. Who is responsible? Can you recover your losses? Philippine law provides a framework for such situations, particularly when arrastre operators – those handling cargo at ports – are involved. The Supreme Court case of International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co., Inc. (ICSTI vs. Prudential) highlights a critical aspect of these claims: the strict 15-day period for filing loss or damage claims against arrastre operators.

    nn

    This case revolves around a shipment of canned foodstuff that arrived in Manila but was found short of 161 cartons upon delivery to the consignee, Duel Food Enterprises. Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Co., Inc., as the insurer who compensated Duel Food for the loss, stepped in as subrogee to claim against International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI), the arrastre operator. The central legal question was whether Prudential’s claim was valid, considering the consignee’s alleged failure to file a formal claim within the 15-day period stipulated in the arrastre contract.

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: Arrastre Operations, Warehouseman Liability, and the 15-Day Claim Rule

    n

    In the Philippines, arrastre operations are a crucial part of the shipping and logistics industry. Arrastre operators are essentially contractors hired by port authorities to handle the loading, unloading, and storage of cargo within port areas. Their role is vital in ensuring the smooth flow of goods through the country’s ports.

    nn

    Philippine jurisprudence has established that the legal relationship between an arrastre operator and a consignee (the recipient of the goods) is similar to that of a warehouseman and a depositor. This analogy is significant because it defines the standard of care expected from arrastre operators. Like warehousemen, they are obligated to exercise due diligence in safeguarding the goods entrusted to their custody and delivering them to the rightful owner. This duty is grounded in Article 1734 of the Civil Code, which outlines the responsibility of depositaries.

    nn

    However, this responsibility is not without limitations. Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Administrative Order No. 10-81, and similar contractual stipulations often found in arrastre agreements, impose a critical condition: a 15-day period for filing claims for loss, damage, or misdelivery. This administrative order and contractual clauses are designed to provide arrastre operators with a reasonable timeframe to investigate claims while the facts are still fresh and evidence readily available.

    nn

    The liability clause in the Arrastre and Wharfage Bill/Receipt in this case stated:

    n

    “This provision shall only apply upon filing of a formal claim within 15 days from the date of issuance of the Bad Order Certificate or certificate of loss, damage or non-delivery by ICTSI.”

    nn

    While the clause mentions a “Bad Order Certificate,” the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the 15-day period liberally, counting it from the date the consignee *discovers* the loss, damage, or misdelivery, not necessarily from the date of discharge from the vessel. This liberal interpretation aims to promote fairness and equity, acknowledging that consignees may not immediately discover discrepancies upon initial receipt of container vans.

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: The Canned Goods, the Missing Cartons, and the Fatal Delay

    n

    The story of ICSTI vs. Prudential unfolds with a shipment of canned food from San Francisco destined for Duel Food Enterprises in Manila. Prudential insured this shipment against all risks. Upon arrival in Manila on May 30, 1990, ICTSI took custody of the cargo as the arrastre operator. Two days later, on June 1, 1990, Duel Food’s customs broker withdrew the shipment and delivered it to the consignee’s warehouse.

    nn

    Upon inspection at their warehouse, Duel Food discovered that 161 cartons of canned goods were missing, valued at P85,984.40. Duel Food sought indemnification from both ICTSI and the brokerage, but both denied liability. Consequently, Duel Food turned to their insurer, Prudential, who paid a compromised sum of P66,730.12.

    nn

    As subrogee, Prudential filed a complaint against ICTSI to recover the paid amount. ICTSI countered that they exercised due diligence, the loss wasn’t their fault, and crucially, that Duel Food failed to file a formal claim within the stipulated 15-day period according to PPA Administrative Order No. 10-81. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed Prudential’s complaint, agreeing with ICTSI that the consignee’s non-compliance with the 15-day claim period barred recovery.

    nn

    However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, finding ICTSI negligent and ruling that the 15-day period never commenced because ICTSI did not issue a certificate of loss. The CA ordered ICTSI to pay Prudential. This led ICTSI to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

    nn

    The Supreme Court sided with ICTSI and reinstated the RTC’s dismissal. The Court addressed two key issues:

    n

      n

    1. Proof of Negligence: While the CA found ICTSI negligent, the Supreme Court disagreed. ICTSI presented evidence, including gate passes signed by the consignee’s representative acknowledging receipt of the container vans in good order. The Court emphasized the “shipper’s load and count” nature of the shipment, meaning ICTSI was only obligated to deliver the container as received, without verifying its contents.

      2. n

    2. Period to File a Claim: The Supreme Court firmly upheld the 15-day rule. It clarified that while the liability clause mentioned a “certificate of loss,” the operative period begins when the consignee *discovers* the loss. In this case, the loss was discovered on June 4, 1990. However, Prudential’s claim was only filed on October 2, 1990 – four months later, far exceeding the 15-day limit.

      3. n

    nn

    The Supreme Court quoted its earlier rulings, emphasizing the rationale behind the 15-day rule:

    n

    “The said requirement is not an empty formality. It gives the arrastre contractor a reasonable opportunity to check the validity of the claim, while the facts are still fresh in the minds of the persons who took part in the transaction, and while the pertinent documents are still available.”

    n

    Because Prudential, standing in the shoes of the consignee, failed to file a claim within 15 days of discovering the loss, their claim was deemed invalid. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint.

    nn

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Protecting Your Business from Cargo Loss and Claim Denials

    n

    The ICSTI vs. Prudential case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when dealing with cargo losses in the Philippines. For businesses involved in importing and exporting, understanding and complying with the 15-day claim rule is crucial to protect their financial interests.

    nn

    Here are key practical takeaways:

    n

      n

    • Prompt Inspection is Essential: Upon receipt of cargo, especially containerized shipments, conduct a thorough inspection immediately. Do not rely solely on external appearances. Open and verify contents as soon as possible, preferably at the point of delivery or shortly thereafter.

      • n

    • Document Everything: Maintain meticulous records of all shipping documents, including bills of lading, gate passes, and inspection reports. Document the condition of the cargo upon receipt, noting any discrepancies or damages.

      • n

    • Act Quickly Upon Discovery of Loss: If you discover any loss or damage, immediately notify the arrastre operator and file a provisional claim within 15 days of discovery. Do not wait for a formal survey report to file a claim. A provisional claim preserves your right to recover even if the full extent of the loss is still being assessed.

      • n

    • Understand

  • Arraste Operator Liability: Understanding the Limits of Responsibility for Lost Cargo

    Understanding the Limits of an Arraste Operator’s Liability for Lost Cargo

    G.R. No. 84680, February 05, 1996

    Imagine importing crucial equipment for your business, only to find a key component missing upon arrival. Who is responsible, and how much can you recover? This Supreme Court case clarifies the liability of arrastre operators – those handling cargo at ports – for lost or damaged goods. It delves into the contractual limits of their responsibility and what steps consignees must take to protect their interests.

    Legal Context: Arrastre Operators, Consignees, and the Management Contract

    An arrastre operator is essentially a warehouseman and a common carrier rolled into one, tasked with safely handling goods from ship to shore and delivering them to the rightful owner. This relationship is governed by a management contract between the operator and the Bureau of Customs. The consignee, or the party receiving the goods, is also bound by certain provisions of this contract, particularly those limiting liability.

    Article 1733 of the Civil Code emphasizes the diligence required of common carriers, while Section 3(b) of the Warehouse Receipts Law outlines the responsibilities of warehousemen. An arrastre operator must exercise the same level of care as both.

    Key Provision: Section 1, Article VI of the Management Contract states that the arrastre operator is liable for loss, damage, or non-delivery of cargo, but this liability is limited to a specific amount (typically P3,500.00 per package) unless the value of the importation is declared in writing before the discharge of the goods.

    Example: A small business imports textiles. If the shipment is damaged due to the arrastre operator’s negligence, the business can only recover up to P3,500 per package unless they declared the true value beforehand. This highlights the importance of proper documentation and communication.

    Case Breakdown: Summa Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals and Metro Port Service, Inc.

    This case revolves around a missing bundle of PC8U blades, part of a shipment consigned to Caterpillar Far East Ltd. but destined for Semirara Coal Corporation. The shipment arrived in Manila and was discharged into the custody of Metro Port Service, Inc., the arrastre operator. Upon arrival at Semirara Island, the blades were missing.

    Summa Insurance Corporation, as the insurer who paid Semirara’s claim for the loss, sought to recover the full invoice value from Metro Port Service. The lower court initially ruled in favor of Summa Insurance, but the Court of Appeals significantly reduced Metro Port’s liability.

    • Initial Claim: Semirara filed a claim for P280,969.68, the alleged value of the missing bundle.
    • Insurance Payment: Summa Insurance paid Semirara and was subrogated to Semirara’s rights.
    • Lower Court Ruling: The trial court found Metro Port liable for the full amount.
    • Appeals Court Decision: The Court of Appeals limited Metro Port’s liability to P3,500.00, based on the management contract.

    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing the importance of declaring the value of goods in advance. The Court stated:

    “Upon taking delivery of the cargo, a consignee (and necessarily its successor-in- interest) tacitly accepts the provisions of the management contract, including those which are intended to limit the liability of one of the contracting parties, the arrastre operator.”

    The Court further elaborated on the purpose of advance notice:

    “[T]he advance notice of the actual invoice of the goods entrusted to the arrastre operator is ‘for the purpose of determining its liability, that it may obtain compensation commensurable to the risk it assumes, (and) not for the purpose of determining the degree of care or diligence it must exercise as a depository or warehouseman’.”

    Practical Implications: Protecting Your Shipments and Limiting Your Risk

    This case underscores the importance of understanding the fine print in shipping and handling contracts. Consignees must be proactive in protecting their interests.

    Key Lessons:

    • Declare Value: Always declare the full value of your goods in writing to the arrastre operator before discharge.
    • Review Contracts: Carefully review the management contract between the arrastre operator and the Bureau of Customs.
    • Proper Documentation: Ensure you have all necessary documents, including the pro forma invoice and certified packing list.

    Hypothetical: A company imports high-value electronics. To avoid the liability limitations, they provide the arrastre operator with a written declaration of the goods’ value, supported by the invoice and packing list, before the cargo is unloaded. This ensures they can recover the full value in case of loss or damage.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is an arrastre operator?

    A: An arrastre operator is a company contracted to handle cargo at ports, responsible for receiving, storing, and delivering goods.

    Q: Why is it important to declare the value of my shipment?

    A: Declaring the value puts the arrastre operator on notice of the potential liability and allows them to take appropriate precautions. It also allows you to recover the full value in case of loss or damage.

    Q: What documents should I provide to declare the value?

    A: Typically, a pro forma invoice and a certified packing list are required.

    Q: What happens if I don’t declare the value?

    A: Your recovery will be limited to the amount specified in the management contract, typically a few thousand pesos per package.

    Q: Is the arrastre operator always liable for lost or damaged goods?

    A: Yes, but their liability is often limited by the management contract unless the value is properly declared.

    Q: What should I do if my shipment is lost or damaged?

    A: Immediately file a claim with the arrastre operator and the insurance company, providing all relevant documentation.

    Q: Can I negotiate the terms of the management contract?

    A: As a consignee, you are generally bound by the existing management contract between the arrastre operator and the Bureau of Customs, but understanding its terms is crucial.

    ASG Law specializes in maritime law and cargo claims. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.