8/9/2019 9. Sounthern Lines, Inc. v. CA
1/2
9. Southern Lines v. CA
In 1948, the City of Iloilo bought for rice from the National
ice an! Corn Cor"oration#NAIC$ in %anila. NAIC shi""e! 1,&'(
sac)s of rice consigne! to the City of Iloilo
on boar! the SS *+eneral right* belonging to the Southern Lines,
Inc. -ach sac) of rice
eighe! &/ )ilos an! the entire shi"ment as in!icate! in the
bill of la!ing ha! a totaleight of 1'9,4/0 )ilos.
he City of Iloilo receive! the shi"ment an! "ai! the amount of
2(3,11/./0. oever, itas note! that the foot of the bill of la!ing
that the City of Iloilo receive! the above
mentione! merchan!ise a""arently in same con!ition as hen
shi""e!, save as note!
belo5 actually receive! 1,(8/ sac)s ith a gross eight of
11(,131 )ilos u"on actual
eighing. otal shortage ascertaine! 13,319 )ilos.* he shortage as
e6uivalent to 41sac)s of rice ith a net eight of 13,319 )ilos, the
"ro"ortionate value of hich as
2(,48(.3/.
In 19/1, the City of Iloilo file! a com"laint in the Court of
7irst Instance of Iloilo against NAIC an! the Southern Lines,
Inc. for the recovery of the amount of 2(,48(.3/
re"resenting the value of the shortage of the shi"ment of rice.
After trial, the loer courtabsolve! NAIC from the com"laint, but
sentence! the Southern Lines, Inc. to "ay the
amount of 24,931.41 hich is the !ifference beteen the sum of
2(,48(.3/ an!
21,//4.94 re"resenting the latters counterclaim for han!ling an!
freight.
he Southern Lines, Inc. a""eale! to the Court of A""eals hich
affirme! the u!gment
of the trial court. ence, this "etition for revie.
Issue5 :N the !efen!ant;carrier, the herein "etitioner, is
liable for the loss or shortage
of the rice shi""e!.
el!5 ur.8(9.$ 7urthermore, accor!ing to the Court of A""eals,
*a""ellant #"etitioner$ itself
fran)ly a!mitte! that the strings that tie! the bags of rice ere
bro)en? some bags ere
ith holes an! "lenty of rice ere s"ille! insi!e the hull of the
boat, an! that the "ersonnel of the boat collecte! no less
than '( sac)s of rice hich they ha! !istribute!
among themselves.* his fin!ing, hich is bin!ing u"on this Court,
shos that the
shortage resulte! from the negligence of "etitioner.
Invo)ing the "rovisions of Article 3(( of the Co!e of Commerce
an! those of the bill of
la!ing, "etitioner further conten!s that res"on!ent is "reclu!e!
from filing an action for
!amages on account of its failure to "resent a claim ithin '4
hours from recei"t of the
