Title
Tagawa vs. Aldanese
Case
G.R. No. 18636
Decision Date
Sep 28, 1922
Customs delivered goods without bills of lading based on indemnity bonds; plaintiff proved damages from dishonored drafts, holding Collector and Guarantee Company liable beyond bond limits.

Case Digest (A.C. No. 6281)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties Involved:
    • Plaintiff and Appellee: M. Tagawa (later substituted by Nanyo Shioji Kaisha)
    • Defendants and Appellants: Vicente Aldanese (Insular Collector of Customs) and Union Guarantee Company, Ltd.
  • Transaction Details:
    • Jap Hoo and Co. ordered 2,500 crates of potatoes and 174 crates of onions from M. Tagawa and Co.
    • Tagawa instructed his Kobe office in Japan to purchase the merchandise from Otogosha and Yoshida.
    • The goods were shipped with bills of lading stating delivery “unto order, notify Jap Hoo Co.”
    • The bills of lading were indorsed in blank and attached to drafts payable to Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., with the condition “D. P.” (bills of lading not to be delivered until drafts were paid).
    • The drafts were dishonored upon acceptance by Jap Hoo and Co.
  • Customs Delivery:
    • The Collector of Customs delivered the goods to Jap Hoo and Co. without requiring the surrender of the bills of lading, based on indemnity bonds executed by Jap Hoo and Co. and the Union Guarantee Company, Ltd.
    • The bonds guaranteed the production of the bills of lading within four months or payment of P17,950 to the Collector of Customs in case of default.
  • Legal Action:
    • M. Tagawa filed an action against the Collector of Customs to recover P16,700, with legal interest and costs.
    • The Union Guarantee Company was later joined as a party defendant.
    • Witnesses and documents were presented at trial, and the defendants waived their right to present evidence.
    • The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding the Collector of Customs and the Union Guarantee Company liable.

Issues:

  • Whether the Collector of Customs acted lawfully in delivering goods without the bills of lading.
  • Whether the indemnity bonds executed by the Union Guarantee Company were valid and enforceable.
  • Whether the plaintiff (M. Tagawa/Nanyo Shioji Kaisha) suffered actual damages due to the wrongful delivery of goods.
  • Whether the Union Guarantee Company’s liability should be limited to the total amount of the indemnity bonds (P17,950) or should include interest and costs beyond that amount.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.