G.R. No. L-11776 - Gonzales vs. Go Tiong

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11776)

Procedural History and Relief Sought

Plaintiff Gonzales sued Go Tiong and Luzon Surety Co. for P8,600 (value of 860 sacks of palay at P10 per sack), plus interest, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of First Instance (presided by Judge Magno S. Gatmaitan) rendered judgment against Go Tiong and Luzon Surety Co., jointly and severally, for certain amounts (including P4,920 with legal interest, an additional P3,680 against Go Tiong, attorney’s fees of P1,000, and costs). The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals; the case was subsequently indorsed to the Supreme Court under Section 17(6) of Republic Act No. 296 on the ground that the issues were purely questions of law.

Factual Background

Prior to being licensed as a bonded warehouseman, Go Tiong had received palay from Gonzales on several occasions (totaling 368 sacks) and issued ordinary receipts. After licensing, Gonzales delivered additional palay totaling 492 sacks, bringing the aggregate to 860 sacks valued at P8,600. The receipts given by Go Tiong were ordinary receipts and not the “quedans” or warehouse receipts prescribed by the Warehouse Receipts Act (Act No. 2137). The warehouse carried other depositors’ palay as well; at the time of the fire there were 5,847 sacks in the warehouse, exceeding the 5,000-sack limit authorized by the license. The warehouse burned down a few days after Gonzales’s demand for return or payment; depositors filed claims with the Bureau of Commerce and some claims were apparently paid out of insurance proceeds. Gonzales renewed his claim with the Bureau but ultimately prosecuted his court action. At one point Gonzales and Go Tiong entered into an unconsummated agreement of amicable settlement; Go Tiong did not fully settle Gonzales’s accounts, prompting Gonzales to continue the lawsuit.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Appellants presented multiple assignments of error, central among them: (1) whether Gonzales’s claim is governed by the Civil Code rather than the Bonded Warehouse Act because only ordinary receipts were issued and because the deposits were gratuitous; (2) whether Go Tiong is exempt from liability because the loss was due to a fortuitous event (fire) and not his fault; (3) whether the attempted amicable settlement constituted a material alteration of the surety bond that discharged the surety; (4) whether the surety is liable under its bond given alleged liquidation of claims by the Bureau of Commerce; and (5) related contentions that the transactions were gratuitous deposits or sales rather than deposit subject to bonded-warehouse regulation.

Statutory Framework and Contractual Instruments

The controlling statutory instruments are the General Bonded Warehouse Act (Act No. 3893, as amended by Republic Act No. 247) and the Warehouse Receipts Act (Act No. 2137). The Luzon Surety issued a guaranty bond conditioned on the faithful performance by the warehouseman of his obligations to deliver deposited commodities on demand or to pay their market value if unable to return them. The Bonded Warehouse Act defines “receipt” broadly as any receipt issued by a warehouseman for commodities delivered to him, and Section 7 (as cited in the record) permits depositors injured by breach of a warehouseman’s obligations secured by bond to sue on that bond. The Warehouse Receipts Act allows warehouse receipts to be issued by any warehouseman but does not, on its face, make the issuance of its prescribed form of receipt an indispensable prerequisite to invoking bonded-warehouse remedies.

Court’s Ruling on Which Law Governs the Transaction

The Supreme Court held that deposits made with a licensed bonded warehouseman are governed by the Bonded Warehouse Act irrespective of the precise form of receipt issued. The Court reasoned that the Bonded Warehouse Act is a special law regulating the business of receiving commodities for storage and defining rights and obligations of bonded warehousemen and depositors; consequently, deposits with a bonded warehouseman fall under that Act’s coverage even if the warehouseman issues ordinary receipts instead of the specific “quedan” form prescribed by the Warehouse Receipts Act. The Court treated the requirement to issue warehouse receipts as directory rather than absolutely mandatory for the purpose of invoking liability under the bond, relying on the statutory definitions (e.g., “receipt” as any receipt issued by a warehouseman) and Section 7’s authorization for depositors to sue on the bond when injured by a breach of the warehouseman’s obligations.

Treatment of the Receipts and Effect on Surety Liability

The Court rejected the argument that the failure to issue formal warehouse receipts (quedans) precluded a claim on the surety bond. The rationale was that the surety’s undertaking incorporated the warehouseman’s statutory obligations; therefore, the surety was bound for breaches of the statutory duties, including the duty to issue prescribed receipts. The Court cited authority (Andreson v. Krueger, as discussed in the record) holding that a surety who guaranteed performance under the statute cannot invoke the warehouseman’s failure to issue the required receipt as a defense to an action on the bond. Consequently, the mere fact that Gonzales held ordinary receipts rather than quedans did not defeat liability under the bond.

Presumption of Negligence in Bailment and Burden of Proof

Confronted with appellants’ contention that the fire was a fortuitous event and that Go Tiong was not at fault, the Court applied the principle that, in bailment cases where goods are lost, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the bailee when there is default in delivery or accounting. The Court observed that facts about care of the bailed property are peculiarly within the bailee’s knowledge and power to prove; hence, requiring the bailee to rebut a presumption of negligence is appropriate. The record did not disclose clear proof that the loss was wholly fortuitous and occurred without any fault of Go Tiong. Moreover, the fact that Go Tiong accepted deposits in excess of the authorized limit increased the risk of loss and undermined his defense of nonliability.

Effect of Exceeding Aut

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-11776)

Procedural History

Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Judge Magno S. Gatmaitan presiding; dispositive portion of the trial court judgment condemned Go Tiong and Luzon Surety Co., jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff specified sums with legal interest and attorney’s fees and costs.
The specific dispositive portion as reproduced in the record: "In view whereof, judgment is rendered condemning defendant Go Tiong and Luzon Surety Co., jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P4,920 with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid; judgment is also rendered against Go Tiong to pay the sum of P3,680 unto plaintiff, also with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid. Go Tiong is also condemned to pay the sum of P1,000 as attorney's fees, plus costs."
The appeal was initially taken to the Court of Appeals, which indorsed the case to the Supreme Court under Section 17 (6) of Republic Act No. 296 on the ground that the issues raised were purely questions of law.
The Supreme Court opinion delivered by Justice Montemayor; concurrence by Paras, C.J., Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Endencia, Reyes, J. B. L., and Felix, JJ.; Bengzon, J., concurs in the result.

Statement of Facts

Go Tiong owned a rice mill and warehouse located at Mabini, Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
On February 4, 1953, Go Tiong obtained a license to engage in the business of a bonded warehouseman (Exhibit N).
To secure performance of his obligations as bonded warehouseman, Luzon Surety Co. executed Guaranty Bond No. 294 in the sum of 118,334 (Exhibit O), conditioned on the fulfillment by Go Tiong of his duty to deliver deposited palay on demand or to pay market value if unable to return same; bond was executed on January 26, 1953.
Go Tiong insured the warehouse and palay with the Alliance Surety and Insurance Company.
Prior to issuance of the license, Go Tiong had received palay from plaintiff Ramon Gonzales on several occasions totaling 368 sacks, for which he issued receipts (Exhibits A, B, C, D).
After licensing, Go Tiong received additional deliveries from plaintiff totaling 492 sacks, for which corresponding receipts were issued.
Grand total of plaintiff’s deliveries was 860 sacks of palay, valued at P8,600 at P10 per sack.
On or about March 15, 1953, plaintiff demanded from Go Tiong the value of his deposits in the amount of P8,600; plaintiff was told to return after two days and again later told to come back; a few days thereafter the warehouse burned to the ground.
Before the fire, the warehouse contained 5,847 sacks of palay, in excess of the 5,000 sack limit authorized under Go Tiong’s license.
Receipts issued by Go Tiong to plaintiff were ordinary receipts and not the "warehouse receipts" as defined by the Warehouse Receipts Act (Act No. 2137).
After the fire, depositors, including plaintiff, filed claims with the Bureau of Commerce; it appears that with proceeds of insurance the Bureau paid off some claims.
Plaintiff’s counsel later withdrew his claim with the Bureau of Commerce — according to Go Tiong because the Bureau denied the claim; according to the trial court decision because nothing came from plaintiff’s efforts to have his claim paid.
Plaintiff later renewed his claim with the Bureau of Commerce (Exhibit S).

Pleadings, Claims, and Relief Sought

Plaintiff Ramon Gonzales filed suit against Go Tiong and Luzon Surety Co. for:
- P8,600, the value of his palay (860 sacks at P10 per sack), with legal interest;
- Damages in the sum of P5,000;
- P1,500 as attorney's fees.
While the case was pending, Gonzales and Go Tiong entered into a contract of amicable settlement providing that upon settlement of all accounts due to Gonzales, he would dismiss all actions pending against Go Tiong; settlement was not consummated because Go Tiong failed to settle accounts, and Gonzales thereafter continued his court action.

Documentary Evidence and Exhibits

Exhibit N: License to engage in bonded warehouse business, issued February 4, 1953.
Exhibit O: Guaranty Bond No. 294 (sum 118,334), executed January 26, 1953, by Luzon Surety Co. to secure Go Tiong’s performance.
Exhibits A, B, C, D: Ordinary receipts issued by Go Tiong for plaintiff’s 368 sacks of palay received prior to licensing.
Corresponding receipts for the 492 sacks received after licensing (not individually enumerated in the source beyond reference).
Exhibit S: Plaintiff’s renewed claim with the Bureau of Commerce following withdrawal and the court action.

Assignments of Error and Issues Presented (as argued by appellants)

Go Tiong’s assignments of error (two specified):
- I. Trial court erred in finding plaintiff’s claim is covered by the Bonded Warehouse Law, Act 3893, as amended, and not by the Civil Code.
- II. Trial court erred in not exempting defendant-appellant Go Tiong for the loss of the palay deposited, pursuant to the provisions of the New Civil Code.
Luzon Surety Co.’s assignments of error (seven specified):
- I. Trial court erred in not declaring that the amicable settlement between plaintiff and Go Tiong constituted a material alteration of appellant’s surety bond which extinguished and discharged its liability.
- II. Trial court erred in holding that the receipts, though not in the form of "quedans" or warehouse receipts, are chargeable against the surety bond filed under the General Bonded Warehouse Act (Act No. 3893 as amended by Republic Act No. 247) as a result of a loss.
- III. Trial court erred in not holding that plaintiff renounced and abandoned his rights under the Bonded Warehouse Act by withdrawal of his claim from the Bureau of Commerce and execution of the "amicable settlement".
- IV. Trial court erred in not holding that the palay delivered to Go Tiong constitutes gratuitous deposit which was extinguished upon the loss and destruction of the subject-matter.
- V. Trial court erred in not declaring that the transaction between Go Tiong and plaintiff was more of a sale rather
...continue reading