FIRST DIVISION[G.R. No. 75118. August 31, 1987.]SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.,petitioner, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATECOURT and PAULINO CUE, doing business under the name and style ofCOURT and PAULINO CUE, doing business under the name and style of"SEN HIAP HING,"SEN HIAP HING,"respondents.D E C I S I O ND E C I S I O NNARVASANARVASA, J p:The main issue here is whether or not the consignee of seaborne freight is boundby stipulations in the covering bill of lading limiting to a 7xed amount the liability of thecarrier for loss or damage to the cargo where its value is not declared in the bill.The factual antecedents, for the most part, are not in dispute.On or about January 8, 1981, Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Sea-Land for brevity), aforeign shipping and forwarding company licensed to do business in the Philippines,received from Seaborne Trading Company in Oakland, California a shipment consignedto Sen Hiap Hing, the business name used by Paulino Cue in the wholesale and retailtrade which he operated out of an establishment located on Borromeo and PlaridelStreets, Cebu City.The shipper not having declared the value of the shipment, no value wasindicated in the bill of lading. The bill described the shipment only as "8 CTNS on 2SKIDS-FILES." 1Based on volume measurements Sea-land charged the shipper the totalamount of US$209.28 2for freightage and other charges. The shipment was loaded onboard the MS Patriot, a vessel owned and operated by Sea-Land, for discharge at thePort of Cebu.The shipment arrived in Manila on February 12, 1981, and there discharged inContainer No. 310996 into the custody of the arrastre contractor and the customs andport authorities. 3Sometime between February 13 and 16, 1981, after the shipment hadbeen transferred, along with other cargoes to Container No. 40158 near Warehouse 3at Pier 3 in South Harbor, Manila, awaiting trans-shipment to Cebu, it was stolen bypilferers and has never been recovered. 4On March 10, 1981, Paulino Cue, the consignee, made formal claim upon Sea-Land for the value of the lost shipment allegedly amounting to P179,643.48. 5Sea-Landoffered to settle for US$4,000.00, or its then Philippine peso equivalent of P30,600.00.asserting that said amount represented its maximum liability for the loss of theshipment under the package limitation clause in the covering bill of lading. 6Cuerejected the offer and thereafter brought suit for damages against Sea-Land in the thenCourt of First Instance of Cebu, Branch X. 7Said Court, after trial, rendered judgment infavor of Cue, sentencing Sea-Land to pay him P186,048.00 representing the Philippinecurrency value of the lost cargo, P55,814.00 for unrealized pro7t with one (1%) percentmonthly interest from the 7ling of the complaint until fully paid, P25,000.00 forattorney's fees and P2,000.00 as litigation expenses.