Case Summary (G.R. No. 125524)
Facts of the Case
On April 4, 1989, the petitioner shipped the fruits valued at US$20,223.46 to the consignee, Pakistan Bank, with Great Prospect Company (GPC) noted as the notify party. Upon arrival in Hong Kong, the shipment was delivered by Wallem directly to GPC without requiring the presentation of the Bills of Lading or bank guarantee, as mandated in the shipping contract. GPC subsequently did not pay Pakistan Bank, leading to a refusal to pay the petitioner, who had already received payment in advance from Consolidated Banking Corporation (SolidBank).
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
On September 25, 1991, the petitioner filed a collection suit against the respondents, asserting that the failure to surrender the Bills of Lading constituted a breach of contract. The respondents countered that the delivery was made at the petitioner’s request due to the perishable nature of the goods, providing a telex as evidence of this instruction to release the goods without the required documents.
Trial Court Decision
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioner on May 14, 1993, ordering the respondents to pay the petitioner jointly and severally for the goods’ value, along with attorney’s fees and costs. The court emphasized that the release of goods without the presentation of the Bills of Lading breached the agreement.
Court of Appeals Review
The Court of Appeals, however, viewed the case differently, setting aside the trial court’s ruling on March 13, 1996. It held that the historical practice between the parties allowed for delivery without the Bills of Lading. The appellate court noted that the telex had effectively superseded the requirements of the Bills of Lading, asserting that GPC, identified as the real importer/buyer, was the appropriate recipient of the shipment as per the agreement.
Petitioner’s Contentions on Appeal
The petitioner challenged the appellate court’s decision, categorizing the delivery to GPC as a misdelivery since the shipment did not reach the consignee noted in the Bill of Lading. He argued that the delivery should have required the presentation of the Bill of Lading or bank guarantee and contended that an instruction to deliver to the "respective consignees" meant Pakistan Bank.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming the Court of Appeals’ findings. It clarified that, under Article 1736 of the Civil Code, common carriers bear extraordinary liability until actual or constructive delivery to the rightful consignee or authorized recipient. The court fo
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 125524)
Case Overview
- The case revolves around the shipment of perishable goods—3,500 boxes of watermelons and 1,611 boxes of fresh mangoes—by petitioner Benito Macam, operating as Ben-Mac Enterprises.
- The goods were shipped on 4 April 1989 via the vessel Nen Jiang, owned by China Ocean Shipping Co., with Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. as the local agent.
- The shipments were covered by two Bills of Lading, which stipulated that one must be surrendered duly endorsed in exchange for the goods or a delivery order.
- Upon arrival at Hong Kong, the goods were delivered directly to Great Prospect Company (GPC) instead of the consignee, National Bank of Pakistan (PAKISTAN BANK), without the surrender of the required Bills of Lading.
Key Facts of the Case
- The total value of the shipment was US$20,223.46, which was prepaid by SOLIDBANK to the petitioner based on submitted bills of lading and commercial invoices.
- Respondent Wallem released the goods to GPC based on a telex instruction from the petitioner, which was claimed to permit the delivery without the bills of lading due to the perishable nature of the goods.
- Petitioner later sought collection from respondents for the shipment's value after SOLIDBANK, having prepaid him, demanded payment from Wallem for the undelivered goods.
Procedural History
- The petitioner filed a complaint on 25 September 1991 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering respondents to pay the value of the goods, legal interest, and attorn