Can the arrastre operator be held liable for pilferage sustained by a container van under its custody?
NO. And this is the story.
Sometime in the early part of August 1980, one forty-footer container van its seal intact (containing bags of whey powder) was discharged from the M/V
ORIENTAL NIGHT into the custody of MIPTI, an arrastre operator in the Port of Manila.
Later on, the Bureau of Customs had to break its seal in the course of inspecting the subject container van. Moreover, the seal was replaced with a padlock /key which were turned-over to the Customs Broker of the Consignee.
Then, the van was withdrawn and delivered by the Customs Broker to the Consignee’s Warehouse. And upon opening of the van, some bags were missing and torn.
A claim was made by the Consignee against MIPTI. However, MIPTI refused to pay the former.
In the trial court, MIPTI was ordered to pay the value of the lost and damaged cargo/es of the consignee as the van was found to have been inspected/opened and padlocked while under its custody.
Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the trial court was affirmed.
But the Supreme Court ruled in the following tenor:
“We however, find merit in the petitioner’s argument that the
Court of Appeals misappreciated the breaking of the seal of
the container and the subsequent padlocking thereof. The
Court of Appeals, like the trial court, assumed that because
the container seal was broken while the container was in the
custody of the petitioner, the pilferage of the contents of the
van took place in the petitioner’s yard. The petitioner pointed
out , however, that the breakage of the container seal and
opening of the van for customs inspection of the cargo is a
“normal procedure” of the Bureau of Customs, x x x.
The breaking of seals of containers brought to the customs
are routinary and normal procedures undertaken by the
Bureau of Customs not only to determine the actual tax due on
such goods contained therein but also for public interest. This
is not only a duty but an obligation of the Bureau of Customs
as provided for under the Tariff and Customs Code, x x x.
x x x. It is significant that the consignee’s representative who
padlocked the van and kept the key after the cargo had been
inspected by the customs agents, did not bother to re-open
and inspect its contents to assure that the cargo was intact
before removing the van from the petitioner’s container yard.
When the container was transferred to _________ by the
petitioner , receipt and gate pass were issued showing that the
container was “in good order condition”. Only when the
consignee received the container from its broker, were the
losses and damages to the cargo discovered. It may be
presumed, therefore, that the pilferage of part of the cargo
occurred after the container had been removed from the
petitioner’s yard and while this was in the possession of the
consignee’s broker, whose representative held the key to the
van. x x x.”
I wish to point out that the arrastre operator may have been held liable for the value of the lost and damaged cargo/es had the customs broker/consignee re-opened the van and inspected its contents before withdrawing it from the CY of the arrastre operator.
Next story please. And stay safe.
For questions or comments, email the writer at atty.joeytbanday@gmail.com.
PREVIOUS COLUMN: Is the Injury Sustained By A Seafarer During A Basketball Game While On Off-Duty Compensable?
