Macam V CA
Uploaded by
quasideliksMacam V CA
Uploaded by
quasideliksCASE TITLE:Benito Macam vs.
Court of Appeals
KEYWORD: Bill of Lading Delivery of goods to holder of BOL or to the person who has a right
to receive them.
DOCTRINE: TRANSPORTATION; COMMON CARRIERS; DURATION OF EXTRAORDINARY RESPONSIBILITY
-Article 1736 of the Civil Code provides -Art. 1736. The extraordinary responsibility of the
common carriers lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of
and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or
constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them,
without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738.
FACTS: Petitioner is doing business as exporter of fresh fruits. In one transaction, respondent
Wallem (carrier) delivered the shipment (3,500 boxes of watermelon covered by Bill of Lading No.
HKG 99012, and 1,611 boxes of fresh mangoes covered by Bill of Lading No.HKG 99013.)directly to
Great Prospect Company (GPC) - the notify party, and not to Pakistan Bank, which is the
consignee bank and without the required bill of lading having been surrendered. Subsequently,
GPC failed to pay Pakistan Bank such that the latter, still in possession of the original bills of
lading, refused to pay petitioner through, Solidbank. Since Solidbank already prepaid petitioner the
value of the shipment, it demanded payment from respondent Wallem but was refused.
Petitioner was thus constrained to return the amount involved to Solidbank, then demanded
payment from Wallem in writing, but to no avail.
Wallem submitted in evidence a telex dated 5 April 1989 as basis for delivering the cargoes to
GPC without the bills of lading and bank guarantee. The telex instructed delivery of various
shipments to the respective consignees without need of presenting the bill of lading and bank
guarantee per the respective shippers request since for prepaid shiptofrt charges already fully
paid. Macam, however, argued that, assuming there was such an instruction, the consignee
referred to was Pakistan Bank and not GPC.
ISSUE: Whether the respondents liable to the petitioner for releasing the goods to GPC without
the bills of lading or bank guarantee?
PETITIONERS CONTENTION: Petitioner sought collection of the value of the shipment of
P546,033.42 from respondents before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, based on delivery of the
shipment to GPC without presentation of the bills of lading and bank guarantee.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION: Respondents contended that the shipment was delivered to GPC
without presentation of the bills of lading and bank guarantee per request of petitioner himself
because the shipment consisted of perishable goods. Respondents explained that it is a standard
maritime practice, when immediate delivery is of the essence, for the shipper to request or
instruct the carrier to deliver the goods to the buyer upon arrival at the port of destination
without requiring presentation of the bill of lading as that usually takes time. As proof thereof,
respondents apprised the trial court that for the duration of their two-year business relationship
with petitioner concerning similar shipments to GPC deliveries were effected without presentation
of the bills of lading.
RULING:
TRIAL COURT: Ordered respondents to pay, jointly and severally, the value of the shipment plus
attorneys fees in favour of petitioner Macam.
COURT OF APPEALS: Ruling otherwise, the CA set aside the decision of the trial court and
dismissed the complaint together with the counterclaims. It alleged that as established by
previous similar transactions between the parties, shipped cargoes were sometimes actually
delivered not to the consignee but to notify party GPC without need of the bills of lading or
bank guarantee. Moreover, the bills of lading were viewed by respondent court to have been
properly superseded by the telex instruction to effect the delivery to GPC.
SUPREME COURT ruling in favour of the Respondents, since the subject shipment consisted of
perishable goods and Solidbank pre-paid the full amount of the value thereof, it is not hard to
believe the claim of respondent Wallem that petitioner indeed requested the release of the
goods to GPC without presentation of the bills of lading and bank guarantee. Respondent Court
analyzed the telex of petitioner in its entirety and correctly arrived at the conclusion that the
Consignee referred to was not Pakistan Bank but GPC. Petitioner also failed to substantiate his
claim that he returned to Solidbank the full amount of the value of the cargoes. In view of
petitioners utter failure to establish the liability of respondents over the cargoes, no reversible
error was committed by respondent court in ruling against him. The petition was denied. The
Court emphasizes that the extraordinary responsibility of the common carriers lasts until actual or
constructive delivery of the cargoes to the consignee or to the person who has a right to receive
them. Pakistan Bank was indicated in the bills of lading as consignee whereas Great Prospect
Company (GPC) was the notify party. However, in the export invoices GPC was clearly named as
buyer/importer. Petitioner also referred to GPC as such in his demand letter to respondent
Wallem and in his complaint before the trial court. This premise draws the Court to conclude
that the delivery of the cargoes to GPC as buyer/importer which, conformably with Art. 1736 had,
other than the consignee, the right to receive them was proper.
