5. TRANSPORTATION OVERLAND b. Time to Deliver / Delay in Delivery i.

Maersk Line vs Court of Appeals

MAERSK LINES vs. CA FACTS Petitioner Maersk Line is engaged in the transportation of goods by sea, doing business in the Philippines through its general agent Compania de Tabacos de Filipinas , while private respondent Efren Castillo is the proprietor of Ethegal Laboratories, a firm engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. On Nov. 12, 1976, Castillo ordered from Eli Lilly, Inc. of Puerto Rico 600,000 empty gelatin capsules for the manufacture of his pharmaceutical products. The capsules were placed in 6 drums of 100,000 capsules each valued at US$1,668.71. Shipper Eli Liily,Inc. advised Castillo through a Memorandum of Shipment that the products were already shipped on board MV Anders Maesrkline and date of arrival to be April 3, 1977. However, for unknown reasons, said cargoes of capsules were diverted to Richmond, VA and then transported back to Oakland, CA and with the goods finally arriving in the PI on June 10, 1977. Consignee Castillo refused to take delivery of the goods on account of its failure to arrive on time, and filed an action for rescission of contract with damages against Maersk and Eli Lilly alleging gross negligence and undue delay. Maersk contends that it is liable only in case of loss, destruction or deterioration of goods under Art 1734 NCC while Eli Lilly in its cross claim argued that the delay was due solely to the negligence of Maersk Line. Trial Court dismissed the complaint against Eli Lilly and the latter withdrew cross claim but TC still held Maersk liable and CA affirmed with modifications.

ISSUES 1. 2. W/N a cause of action exists against Maersk Line given that there was a dismissal of the complaint against Eli Lilly? Yes, but not under the cross claim rather because Maersk was an original party. W/N Castillo is entitled to damages resulting from delay in the delivery of the shipment in the absence in the bill of lading of a stipulation on the delivery of goods? Yes.

RULING The complaint was filed originally against Eli Lilly, Inc. as shipper-supplier and petitioner as carrier. Petitioner Maersk Line being an original party defendant upon whom the delayed shipment is imputed cannot claim that the dismissal of the complaint against Eli Liily inured to its benefit. Petitioner contends as well that it cannot be held liable because there was no special contract under which the carrier undertook to deliver the shipment on or before a specific date and that the Bill of Lading provides that The Carrier does not undertake that the Goods shall arrive at port of discharge or the place of delivery at any particular time. However, although the SC stated that a bill of lading being a contract of adhesion will not be voided on that basis alone, it did declare that the questioned provision to be void because it has the effect of practically leaving the date of arrival of the subject shipment on the sole determination and will of the carrier. It is established that without any stipulated date, the delivery of shipment or cargo should be made within a reasonable time. In the case at hand, the SC declared that a delay in the delivery of the goods spanning a period of 2 months and 7 days falls way beyond the realm of reasonableness.

ii. Philamgen vs Court of Appeals iii. Transasia Shipping vs CA