This document is a summary of a court case between A.F. Sanchez Brokerage Inc. and FGU Insurance Corporation. FGU brought action against Sanchez to collect payment for goods delivered in damaged condition. Sanchez argued it was not liable as a customs broker, but the court found Sanchez was a common carrier based on legal definition. As a common carrier, Sanchez is presumed at fault for damaged goods unless it can prove extraordinary diligence was observed. The court ruled Sanchez liable as the goods were received in good condition but delivered damaged, and it did not protest the packaging.
This document is a summary of a court case between A.F. Sanchez Brokerage Inc. and FGU Insurance Corporation. FGU brought action against Sanchez to collect payment for goods delivered in damaged condition. Sanchez argued it was not liable as a customs broker, but the court found Sanchez was a common carrier based on legal definition. As a common carrier, Sanchez is presumed at fault for damaged goods unless it can prove extraordinary diligence was observed. The court ruled Sanchez liable as the goods were received in good condition but delivered damaged, and it did not protest the packaging.
This document is a summary of a court case between A.F. Sanchez Brokerage Inc. and FGU Insurance Corporation. FGU brought action against Sanchez to collect payment for goods delivered in damaged condition. Sanchez argued it was not liable as a customs broker, but the court found Sanchez was a common carrier based on legal definition. As a common carrier, Sanchez is presumed at fault for damaged goods unless it can prove extraordinary diligence was observed. The court ruled Sanchez liable as the goods were received in good condition but delivered damaged, and it did not protest the packaging.
A.F.
SANCHEZ
BROKERAGE
INC.,
petitioners,
vs.
THE
HON.
COURT
OF
APPEALS
and
FGU
INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
respondents.
FACTS:
Respondent
FGU
Insurance
Corporation
(FGU)
brought
an
action
for
reimbursement
against
petitioner
to
collect
the
amount
paid
by
the
former
to
Wyeth-Suaco
Laboratories
Inc.
as
insurance
payment
for
the
goods
delivered
in
bad
condition.
Petitioner
refused
to
admit
liability
for
the
damaged
goods
which
it
delivered
from
Philippines
Skylanders,
Inc.
(PSI)
to
Wyeth-Suaco
as
it
maintained
that
the
damage
was
due
to
improper
and
insufficient
export
packaging,
discovered
when
the
sealed
containers
were
opened
outside
the
PSI
warehouse.
The
Regional
Trial
Court
of
Makati
dismissed
the
said
complaint;
however,
the
decision
was
subsequently
reversed
and
set
aside
by
the
Court
of
Appeals,
finding
that
petitioner
is
liable
for
the
carriage
of
cargo
as
a
common
carrier
within
the
context
of
Art.
1732
NCC.
ISSUE:
Whether
FGU
Insurance
is
liable
for
the
delivery
of
the
damaged
good
HELD:
As
defined
under
Article
1732
of
the
Civil
Code,
common
carriers
are
persons,
corporations,
firms
or
associations
engaged
in
the
business
of
carrying
or
transporting
passengers
or
goods
or
both
by
land,
water
or
air
for
compensation,
offering
their
services
to
the
public.
It
does
not
distinguish
between
one
whose
principal
business
activity
is
the
carrying
of
goods
and
one
who
does
such
carrying
only
as
an
ancillary
activity.
The
contention
therefore
of
petitioner
that
it
is
not
a
common
carrier
but
a
customs
broker
whose
principal
function
is
to
prepare
the
correct
customs
declaration
and
proper
shipping
documents
as
required
by
law
is
bereft
of
merit.
It
suffices
that
petitioner
undertakes
to
deliver
goods
for
pecuniary
consideration.
If
the
claim
of
petitioner
that
some
of
the
cartons
were
already
damaged
upon
delivery
to
it
were
true,
then
it
should
naturally
have
received
the
cargo
under
protest
or
with
reservations
duly
noted
on
the
receipt
issued
by
PSI.
But
it
made
no
such
protest
or
reservation.
Petitioner,
as
a
common
carrier
is
mandated
to
observe,
under
Article
1733
of
the
Civil
Code,
extraordinary
diligence
in
the
vigilance
over
the
goods
it
transports
according
to
all
the
circumstances
of
each
case.
In
the
event
that
the
goods
are
lost,
destroyed
or
deteriorated,
it
is
presumed
to
have
been
at
fault
or
to
have
acted
negligently,
unless
it
proves
that
it
observed
extraordinary
diligence.
It
was
established
that
petitioner
received
the
cargoes
from
the
PSI
warehouse
in
good
order
and
condition
and
that
upon
delivery
by
petitioner
some
of
the
cargoes
were
found
to
be
in
bad
order
as
noted
in
the
Delivery
Receipt
and
as
indicated
in
the
Survey
and
Destruction
Report.
While
paragraph
no.
4
of
Article
1734
of
the
Civil
Code
exempts
a
common
carrier
from
liability
if
the
loss
or
damage
is
due
to
the
character
of
the
goods
or
defects
in
the
packaging
or
in
the
containers,
the
rule
is
that
if
the
improper
packaging
is
known
to
the
carrier
or
his
employees
or
is
apparent
upon
ordinary
observation,
but
he
nevertheless
accepts
the
same
without
protest
or
exception
notwithstanding
such
condition,
he
is
not
relieved
of
liability
for
the
resulting
damage.