G.R. No. 181833 - International Freeport Traders, Inc. vs. Danzas Intercontinental, Inc.

Petitioner: International Freeport Traders, Inc. (IFTI)
Respondent: Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. (Danzas)
Nature of the case: Liability of the consignee for electric charges, demurrage, and storage fees based on a service lease contract with a cargo handler.
Shipment details: Toblerone chocolates and assorted confectioneries ordered from Jacobs Suchard Tobler Ltd. of Switzerland, with delivery terms "F.O.B. Ex-Works."
Involvement of multiple parties: Jacobs, Danmar Lines, and Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL) in the shipping process.

Shipment initiated in March 1997, with Jacobs engaging Danmar for delivery.
Danmar contracted OOCL for shipping; OOCL issued a non-negotiable master bill of lading.
Goods arrived in Manila on May 14, 1997; Danzas informed IFTI of the arrival.
IFTI prepared the import permit and advised Danzas to pick it up on May 20, 1997, but Danzas collected it on May 26, 1997.
Danzas required original bills of lading and a bank guarantee from IFTI for the release of goods.

IFTI claimed that letters of credit covered the shipment, while Danzas insisted on a bank guarantee.
IFTI eventually applied for a bank guarantee, which was secured on May 23, 1997, but Danzas only collected it on June 6, 1997.
IFTI requested the release of goods pending payment of charges, promising to pay within five days.
Danzas released the goods on June 13, 1997, and later billed IFTI for P181,809.45 for handling the shipment.

Danzas filed a complaint against IFTI for non-payment.
IFTI countered that it had no liability, asserting it was not privy to Danzas' hiring.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of Danzas, ordering IFTI to pay the claimed amount.
IFTI appealed, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint.

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, finding that a perfected contract of lease of service existed between IFTI and Danzas.
The court noted that IFTI's actions indicated acceptance of Danzas' services, including the provision of a bank guarantee.

The court identified multiple contracts among IFTI, Jacobs, Danmar, and OOCL.
Danzas acted as an agent for Danmar, responsible for the final delivery of goods to IFTI.
IFTI's compliance with Danzas' requirements indicated acceptance of the service contract.

The court outlined the essential elements of a contract: consent, object, and cause.
It concluded that the parties entered into a contract of lease of service for the clearing and delivery of goods.