Case Digest: Sea-land Service, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, A.P. MOLLER/MAERSK LINE and MAERSK-TABACALERA SHIPPING AGENCY (FILIPINAS), INC.

[G.R. No. 126212. March 2, 2000]

FACTS AND RULING:

Florex was suing in its complaint under the provisions of the bill of lading issued to it by the principal carrier (AMML) and not the bill of lading issued by petitioner as containership operator. Florex, therefore had a proper cause of action against AMML.

The Co-operation in the Pacific contract entered into by the parties provide, nevertheless, that the principal carrier, in case of suits, can seek damages and/or indemnity from petitioner as Containership Operator for whatever final judgment may be adjudged against it under the Complaint of Florex(clause 16.3 of the Agreement).

However, the court held that it is only through arbitration that the liability of the containership operator may be determined pursuant to the provision in the Agreement. The third party complaint by AMML thus cannot proceed without first going through arbitration. 

It was right for the Court to grant the petition and dismiss the third party complaint by AMML.

Categories: A.P. MOLLER/MAERSK LINE and MAERSK-TABACALERA SHIPPING AGENCY (FILIPINAS), case digest, G.R. No. 126212. Arbitration, INC., SEA-LAND SERVICE, SPECIAL CRIMINAL LAW, vs. COURT OF APPEALS