Friday, December 3, 2021

[CASE DIGEST] Mirasol v. Robert Dollar Company (G.R. No. L-29721)

March 27, 1929

FACTS:

Two cases of books were shipped in good order from New York to Manila onboard the steamship President Garfield owned by The Robert Dollar Company.  All freight charges were paid.

When the goods arrived in Manila in 1927, they were in bad condition resulting in the total loss of one case and partial loss of the other one. Mirasol, the owner and consignee, claimed for damages from the owner of the steamship, Robert Dollar Company.

Robert Dollar Company alleged that the damage was caused by sea water.

Mirasol filed for damages with legal interest from the filing of the complaint and costs.

In its defense, Robert Dollar Company said that the words "perils of the sea" appearing in the bill of lading apply to "all kinds of marine casualties, such as shipwreck, foundering, stranding," and among other things, it is said: "Tempest, rocks, shoals, icebergs and other obstacles are within the expression," and "where the peril is the proximate cause of the loss, the shipowner is excused."

The lower court ruled in favor of Mirasol.

ISSUE:

Whether Robert Dollar Company can be held liable considering the limited liability clause of the bill of lading. – YES.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that Robert Dollar Company is liable because it failed to prove its allegation that the loss was due to perils of the sea or force majeure, or that it was not due to its negligence.

The defendant having admitted that the boxes were damaged while in transit and in its possession, the burden of proof then shifted, and it devolved upon the defendant to both allege and prove that the damage was caused by reason of some fact which exempted it from liability.

Shippers who are forced to ship goods on an ocean liner or any other ship have some legal rights, and when goods are delivered on board ship in good order and condition, and the shipowner delivers them to the shipper in bad order and condition, it then devolves upon the shipowner to both allege and prove that the goods were damaged by the reason of some fact which legally exempts him from liability; otherwise, the shipper would be left without any redress, no matter what may have caused the damage.